HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/11/23 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
NOVEMBER 23, 2015
6:30pm CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 14, 2015
2. 6:35 p.m. Friends of the Arts (FOTA) Annual Update
3. 7:05 p.m. Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
4. 7:50 p.m. Assessment Policy Discussion – Continued
5. 8:35 p.m. Highway 169 – W. 16th Street Access Closure (West Side)
6. 8:50 p.m. 4900 Excelsior Project Update
7. 9:05 p.m. 2016 City Council Workshop
9:35 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
9:40 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
8. October 2015 Monthly Financial Report
9. Updated Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at
952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 23, 2015
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 14, 2015
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for
the regularly scheduled Study Session on December 14, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next
study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for
the regularly scheduled Study Session on December 14, 2015.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 14, 2015
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 14, 2015
Special City Council Meeting, December 14, 2015 – 6:25 p.m.
2a. Second Reading 4900 Excelsior Blvd. (Bally’s Site) PUD
Study Session, December 14, 2015 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Highway 7 / Louisiana Property Purchase and Billboard Relocation – Engineering &
Community Development (15 minutes)
Staff wishes to provide an update on the City’s and EDA’s property acquisitions from Clear
Channel in connection with the Highway 7 & Louisiana Interchange Project as well as the
relocation of the billboards.
3. SWLRT Station Architecture - Community Development (30 minutes)
SWLRT Project Office Staff will present information about the proposed architecture at our
LRT stations.
4. Planning for 2016 City Council Workshop – Administrative Services (30 minutes)
This will be a continued discussion on the Council workshop scheduled for Jan 7th and 8th.
5. Participation in a 2016 initiative Sponsored by Government Alliance on Race and Equity and
LMC – Administrative Services (15 minutes)
Discussion centered on whether the City should participate along with other cities and
counties in this yearlong initiative focusing on advancing racial equity in the participating
jurisdictions.
Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
End of Meeting: 8:10 p.m.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 23, 2015
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Friends of the Arts (FOTA) Annual Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is needed at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the activities and programs being provided by FOTA in
keeping with the Council’s expectations?
SUMMARY: The City has been working with Friends of the Arts in a partnership since 2006.
FOTA supports and advocates for the arts on three levels: individual engagement, support of
professional artist and arts organizations, and community based programming. These three
levels of engagement are served by: Arts for Life Scholarship, Arts & Culture grant, and the Our
Town biennial community initiative. FOTA also serves as the fiscal home of six community
based arts organizations: St. Louis Park Community Band, Maggie’s Farm Theater, The Park
Theater, Bookmark in the Park, Gift of Music, and the Middle School Theater program. FOTA
will also continue to work on the three year strategic plan that was developed in 2013.
FOTA and the City of St. Louis Park partnered this past spring in sponsoring a study on “The
Economic Impact of the Arts” specifically to our city. The study found that in 2013 arts and
culture related initiatives generated over $1.5 million in total economic impact, supported at least
40 full time jobs, and generated over $36,000 in local government revenue.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City contributes $20,000 annually to
FOTA. This money is used for operational purposes and is leveraged to bring in funding from
others. After a year of transition in 2014, FOTA is on track to bring in a total of $51,000 in
revenue in 2015. FOTA is currently working on its budget and planning for 2016 and would like
the City to consider an increase in funding.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts,
culture and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where
appropriate.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: FOTA Annual Report
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Senior Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Friends of the Arts (FOTA) Annual Update
Summary of where FOTA is and what is next: 2015-2016
As a unique, community-focused, nonprofit arts organization, SLP Friends of the Arts (FOTA)
has developed and grown in an organic way that now encompasses multiple arts programs and
opportunities:
• Serving as fiscal agent and administrator for community based arts groups who do
not have the capacity to become non-profits, allowing them to raise money from
grants and donations under FOTA’s tax id, and engage community members
• Providing funding for community members to experience the arts
• Managing grants for artists and organizations to bring arts to the park
• Planning, programming, and funding biennial community arts programming to
bring our diverse residents together to celebrate the arts
• Serving as the go-to resource for the arts in St Louis Park
All of these programs are strong and growing.
Economic Impact measured for St. Louis Park
FOTA and the City of St. Louis Park partnered this past spring in sponsoring a study on “The
Economic Impact of the Arts” specifically to our city. It traces how many times a dollar is spent
and re-spent within the local economy, and then quantifies the impact of each round of spending.
As the City Council heard from the FOTA presentation in October, arts and culture not only
enhance our quality of life, in 2013 they generated over $1.5 million in total economic impact,
supported at least 40 full time jobs, and generated over $36,000 in local government revenue.
The Board and Staff
FOTA Board of Directors is comprised of 15 volunteer community members. Five serve on the
executive committee to provide leadership of the organization. FOTA’s is proud of the diversity
in backgrounds, gender and ages of the board members. The organization has been successful in
recruiting young people and is currently in the process of recruiting a new high school student
representative. After the short lived experience of a part time executive director in 2014 and the
resulting struggle to stay on top of operations solely with volunteers, FOTA has built a stronger
committee structure this past year that involves both board and non-board community members.
There are now active committees in Communications, Fundraising, and Our Town program
planning. FOTA’s also holds twice yearly meetings with the fiscal agency organizations. In the
past year, the board brought longtime volunteer, Susan Schneck, back to the organization as a
part-time Interim Executive Director, two days per week, to help the organization create new,
viable funding and staffing plans. She is currently the only staff. Several of the board members
act as liaisons with other local and state organizations, furthering the relationship building
objectives.
Strategic Plan
In 2013 FOTA worked hard in the community and with arts planning specialists to create a three
year strategic plan. The three goals of that plan are: Catalyze a new level of arts engagement in
St. Louis Park, Strengthen the connection and collaboration among artists, arts organizations, and
the community, and identify and strengthen the arts in St. Louis Park.
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Friends of the Arts (FOTA) Annual Update
FOTA is committed to attaining those goals and their objectives in the next two years by
establishing a sustainable model for funding and staffing. The data from the Economic Impact
study will be used to increase their development and fundraising needed to support the strong
programs already in place and to create new opportunities.
Our Town
One of the most visible things that Friends of the Arts sponsors is the “Our Town” project which
occurs every other year. Past “Our Town” projects include Faces and Places, Verses and Voices,
Beats and Streets and in 2014 it was Arts and Nature. FOTA is currently planning OUR TOWN
2016 that will be a Summer of Singing! In partnership with Parks & Rec, FOTA will organize
and fund “Tunesdays” of singalongs at the Wolfe Park Amphitheater. These singalongs will be
free of charge and led by professional musicians from a variety of musical styles and cultures
(folk, family, ethnic, oldies, gospel, etc.). Bringing people together to sing. Singing to bring
people together. Stay tuned for details!
Based on last year’s very successful juried art exhibit, FOTA is also working on plans for a
visual art exhibit in fall 2016. They hope this would be an annual event. Conversation with Parks
& Recreation has started to potentially have this, and other related arts events, in the new outdoor
hockey / covered facility.
Arts for Life
FOTA has a very successful “Arts for Life” scholarship program. This unique program allows
any resident of St. Louis Park to enrich their lives through a creative activity even if they lack the
financial means. FOTA has awarded just over $25,000 in grants to 126 individual recipients
since 2008. The majority of this funding goes to music lessons for students that need private
lessons or instruments to keep up in school band and orchestra programs. The rest is distributed
over different age groups and activities. In 2015 to date, $2,050 total has been awarded in
average scholarships of $200 to 9 individuals. One more round of giving will occur this year,
with a December 5 deadline.
Recipients of the scholarship this year include two adults (photo class and calligraphy), two high
school students (music lessons and summer music camp) and six youth (music lessons, summer
art class, summer music camp, summer theater camp). The Community Foundation granted
FOTA $2,500 for youth specific Arts for Life scholarships in 2015 and again, in 2016. The
American Legion and private donors also contribute to this fund that allows FOTA to award an
average of $4,000 per year.
FOTA benefited from the services of a summer college intern this past year who was
instrumental in gathering and summarizing all of the data from the seven years of this program.
She created a report that helps us record data and fundraise for this program.
Arts & Culture Grants
The City of St. Louis Park, in cooperation with FOTA, provides Arts and Culture Grants to
artists and arts organizations to do art projects, productions, and programs around the City. Each
year the City budgets $16,000 for these grants. Recipients are chosen by a committee made up of
FOTA board members, City staff, Community Foundation representatives and two community
members. Applications are currently under review for 2016. FOTA increased its marketing
efforts of this program in 2015 and saw a significant increase in the number of applications from
three last year to 17 this year. We are excited to learn the outcome of the review panel.
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Friends of the Arts (FOTA) Annual Update
Fiscal Agencies
Friends of the Arts serves as fiscal agent for six arts organizations with a standard agreement for
each; Maggie’s Farm Theater, Community Band, Middle School Theater, Park Theater
Company, Gift of Music, and Bookmark in the Park. This relationship allows these organizations
to be eligible for regional arts grants, corporate foundation grants and donations in general,
further broadening the economic impact of the arts in our community.
The growth of this branch of FOTA is very exciting but also requires additional time,
management and resources of our staff and board.
Fundraising
FOTA is focused on developing well balanced, reliable income streams in 2016 that will carry in
to future years. One MRAC grant is currently under review that, if approved, will provide
$10,000 in additional funding for staffing in 2016. Two Community Foundation grants were
received for scholarships and Our Town 2016. Funding was received from the American Legion,
Rotary, and a number of local businesses this year. Discover St Louis Park partnered with FOTA
in funding last year’s Our Town program and we are currently working with them on a regular
funding model. Researching foundations, corporate, corporate foundations, and developing
relationships for development is a top priority at this time. FOTA has a strong relationship with a
number of individuals and businesses for regular funding but that pool needs to increase
significantly. With that in mind, they are re-launching their donor program for individuals and
businesses in the community and increasing their speaking engagements. They are also creating a
grant planning model and matrix.
The primary challenge, as with most arts organizations, is finding funds for the operating budget
and grant writing that will, in turn, fund programs.
Marketing/ Communications
Marketing and Communications is approximately 30% of the dedicated time of staff. FOTA’s
Communications Committee assists and provides tremendous leadership in brand strategy,
communications planning and implementation.
Press: FOTA’s submit press releases to and receive press coverage from local media;
particularly Sun Sailor, SLP Mag and Star Tribune. They have been working closely with the St.
Louis Park Magazine who has provided wonderful coverage of FOTA, the arts and the theater in
St. Louis Park. Park TV routinely publicizes our events, records and broadcasts.
Newsletter: FOTA’s monthly artTalk e-newsletter is distributed to over 2,300 community
members and has a 25% average open rate. The newsletter links to our website and other
organizations in the community. The newsletter now connects directly to the local happenings
calendar on the website. FOTA’s is promoting this calendar as a great way to find things to do
right here, “comfortably close”, in St Louis Park. It is beginning to show positive results.
FOTA’s use Constant Contact software for the newsletter as well as weekly e-blasts regarding
current events.
Parks & Rec Brochure: FOTA’s includes information in the regularly published Park & Rec
guide.
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Title: Friends of the Arts (FOTA) Annual Update
Digital communication: FOTA’s Facebook page has increased 10% in followers this year, with
a total of 665 currently. We have increased engagement and visibility thru this great tool, as well.
An up-to-date website is maintained that is easy to use and full of relevant community arts
related information. On average, approximately 300 emails are received and that many are sent
out each month.
Finance
Board Treasurer, Brian Ortale, is new to the FOTA board in 2015. He worked with a local
accounting firm to prepare and file our 2014 tax returns. He has been instrumental in updating
our financial procedures and making sure all records are accurate and up to date. Detailed and
comprehensive financial reports are presented and reviewed by our board monthly.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 23, 2015
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The Council is asked to review the
information provided in this report and discuss any potential policy direction for staff.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council want additional information on any of
these items? Does City Council want to provide direction to staff on any of these items?
SUMMARY: Over time Council asked to discuss a variety of topics related to the zoning code.
The topics included 1) Small Business Support Tools, 2) Parking Lot Lighting, 3) Bee-Friendly
Landscaping, and 4) Tree Preservation on Single Family Lots. Staff assembled some initial
research on each of these topics for your information to help provide context to the City
Council’s discussion.
Staff is asking the City Council to provide direction on which areas to explore further and if any
additional information is needed.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Bee Friendly Resolution 15-045
Map of Bee-Safe Parks
Article “In the Shade of a Tree: Analyzing the Tree-related
Legal Problem”
Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist
Ryan Kelley, Planner
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor/Deputy CD Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Council asked to discuss a variety of topics related to the zoning code,
including 1) Small Business Support Tools, 2) Parking Lot Lighting, 3) Bee-Friendly
Landscaping, and 4) Tree Preservation on Single Family Lots. Staff has assembled some initial
research on each of these topics for your information to help provide context to the City
Council’s discussion.
SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORT TOOLS:
Background:
Staff was asked to investigate how the city could use its zoning code to facilitate and support
small business developments. To that end staff has been researching tools other communities
use to stimulate and support small business along their main streets. Staff has found that many
communities struggle with the same questions and are trying a few different strategies to support
their small businesses. Currently, St. Louis Park utilizes several tools to support its small
businesses, from zoning regulations to small business assistance programs. This report details
what other communities are doing and further explains what St. Louis Park does to assist small
business development and retention.
What Other Cities Have Done
Zoning: Dozens of communities nationwide have recognized that their local economies can
absorb only so much new retail and development without causing numerous existing businesses
to close. Several cities in the Twin Cities such as St. Paul, Minneapolis, Hopkins, and Richfield
have enacted some zoning rules to make it easier for small businesses to start, grow and expand.
Hopkins (Downtown Mainstreet) and Minneapolis (commercial nodes like Linden Hills) have
created overlay districts which provide building guidelines including height limits, size limits
and design guidelines to ensure new developments are compatible with the existing
neighborhood commercial character. Along Grand Avenue, St. Paul has a Community Business
Converted Zoning District expressly to allow existing residential structures in commercial areas
to be converted to commercial as long as the visual character of the building form remains
unchanged. This district in St. Paul promotes the reuse of structures in the existing landscape
instead of relying on redevelopment for commercial uses. St. Paul also has a Community
Business District for the cluster of commercial establishments along Grand Avenue. This district
discourages large development by limiting building size and height, while allowing some
flexibility in parking, thus making it easier for a small business to go into the area.
One of the principal limiting factors for developments and small businesses is parking. Parking
is one of the most expensive elements to a development and can increase costs that are passed on
to future tenants making rents cost prohibitive for most small businesses. Another limiting factor
is that often a new business wants to take a vacant storefront and open a shop but cannot because
it needs more parking on site. Decreasing parking requirements for small businesses has been a
common approach for most of the cities researched. After spending a lot of time researching this
issue, the City of Richfield relaxed their parking standards on corridors with older sites for small
users to make it easier for businesses to come into these sites. It is currently considering
removing all parking requirements along certain corridors. Hopkins, Minneapolis, Anoka, and
Red Wing have done away with requiring on-site parking along their “main streets,” or
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
commercial areas. Instead these cities provide district parking in ramps or allow parking to be
met on-street as is the case in Minneapolis.
Another common element among the business districts in these cities is that the small community
businesses are occupying older buildings rather than new construction. The cost per square foot
is considerably less than in new construction. In some cases, the older buildings are obsolete
compared to new construction. For example, these older buildings may have limited ceiling
heights, limited accessible entrances and bathrooms, or lack other features that are expected in
new buildings by code, customers, and potential commercial tenants. Rents in these older
buildings are often lower as the structures have depreciated. These unique buildings are often
the only space small business can afford. To assist commercial property owners improve
building appearances, many cities nationwide provide façade improvement grants or loans.
Small Business Programs: Another way all of the above cities have strengthened their small
businesses has been through the creation of small business assistance programs. These programs
have been used to complement and support zoning tools.
St. Paul and Minneapolis have extensive small business technical assistance as well as
grant/loans to support business development. One of Minneapolis’s newer programs is
“Business Made Simple” which is intended to reduce barriers business owners face with doing
business in the city. With this effort the City has simplified City rules or eliminated them all
together, and reformed regulations so that they are clearer and easier to follow. St. Paul’s
Commercial Vacant Building Program utilizes loan funds to bring vacant commercial buildings
into reuse. Funds can be used for acquisition, rehab, construction, etc.
Richfield created a small business liaison, similar to St. Louis Park, to assist small businesses in
navigating city processes, programs and permits. Hopkins has recently partnered with the
Neighborhood Development Center (NDC) out of St. Paul to work in-depth with a few of their
local small businesses. NDC will provide hands on training for selected businesses including
helping them write a business growth plan, write up marketing programs, and show them how to
operate more efficiently to help them transition into a successful business. Hopkins also has the
Open to Business Program, but the new NDC program is a much more hands-on training
program. Hopkins is also researching a financial program to provide rent subsidies to help new
businesses survive their initial months/years and help them succeed and be competitive in the
market. Nationwide this type of program has been used to help a business get established during
its first year, which can be the most challenging time period for a new business. Typically they
are available to new businesses going into vacant spaces.
St. Louis Park’s existing Small Business Tools: St. Louis Park has several zoning regulations
that help limit the size of new buildings, provide flexibility as to where some businesses can
locate and provide some parking reductions. These along with the city’s small business
assistance programs are designed to encourage and assist small businesses and offer the support
they need to grow. Below are some examples of zoning tools and small business programs.
Zoning:
• C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District. St. Louis Park’s C1-Neighborhood Commercial
District provides for low-intensity, service-oriented commercial uses for surrounding
residential neighborhoods. Limits are placed on type, size and intensity of commercial
uses. For example:
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
o Buildings are limited to three stories and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.2 which
restricts larger developments.
o Uses exceeding a certain intensity (based on hours of operation, projected traffic
generation, impervious surface coverage, etc.) are only allowed with a conditional
use permit.
o A majority of C1 district properties are located along the south side of Excelsior
Blvd. There are also several nodes of C1 commercial nodes located along
Minnetonka Blvd and other higher traffic roadways in the city that are spaced a
half mile apart so surrounding neighborhoods have businesses within walking
distance to commercial.
• Business Park Zoning District. St. Louis Park created the Business Park (BP) zoning
district in 2014 and later rezoned certain industrial areas near the future light rail stations.
The BP district allows more flexibility of uses and for growth and expansion of
businesses that don’t neatly fit into retail, office or industrial areas. The district’s purpose
is to encourage and support the evolution and expansion of individual businesses to
improve the climate for business growth. The thought was that this district would be
ideal for incubator small businesses to start and grow. Some of the existing businesses
zoned BP who have prospered in St. Louis Park include Steel Toe, Six Speed and
HardCoat. The BP district has been used primarily in industrial areas and it has allowed
existing industrial property owner new markets to which they can lease.
• Parking Reductions. St. Louis Park utilizes the following off-street parking reductions:
o Transit Reduction. Parking may be reduced by ten percent if the site is near a
transit stop with regular service.
o On-street Parking. On-street parking directly adjacent to a parcel is allowed to
count toward required parking.
o Shared Parking. Parking may be shared by more than one use when it can be
shown that the peak demands for parking are complementary and the agreements
are permanent and recorded against the property.
o Continuation of Non-conforming Uses. The City allows new businesses that are
similar or less intense than the previous use, to occupy a space even if the
property does not meet today’s parking requirements (i.e. one retail shop can be
replaced with another retail shop, but not with a medical office that would
demand more parking).
o Off-site parking. With City approval and permanent agreements, businesses may
provide required parking off-site, if the lot is within a certain distance or shuttle
service is provided.
o Public parking lots. The City currently owns and maintains several small parking
lots in areas where small businesses are operating and do not have adequate off-
street parking.
Small Business Programs: In an effort to promote and encourage small businesses St. Louis Park
administers several business assistance programs and also provides points of contact to outside
resources specializing in small business development and financing. The following local
programs were designed to support and cultivate existing and new businesses.
• Open to Business Program. This program helps new and early stage businesses access
the technical assistance they need to grow and prosper. MCCD’s business advisor will
meet on-on-one with a business helping them achieve their entrepreneurial goals.
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
• Small Business Liaison. The Small Business Liaison works with small businesses and
helps them navigate city processes, walks them through city regulation and permits, helps
search for properties and provides information on where to obtain additional resources.
• Regulatory Solutions Program. The city also provides a small business consultant that
will assist businesses in obtaining city licenses and permits, and complete applications.
• Business Retention and Expansion Program. A business retention and expansion
(BR&E) visitation program was recently launched in an effort to build relationships,
retain jobs and tax revenues within the community, foster the growth and development of
local firms and enhance St. Louis Park’s reputation as a strategic place in which to do
business.
• Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE). PACE is a financing program that was
recently established by the City. It can be used for energy efficient or renewable energy
upgrades to commercial buildings. St. Louis Park is continually working to improve its
relationships with small businesses and is utilizing its small business assisting programs
to serve as a partner for businesses and make it easier for entrepreneurs and their
businesses to succeed.
Zoning Amendments being considered:
• Form Based Code. The city has drafted a new, Form-Based Zoning District which is
intended to promote transit oriented development in the SWLRT station areas.
o One of the proposed requirements would permit retail and service uses less than
8,000 square feet in two different use categories. Those greater than 8,000 square
feet would be more limited in where they would be permitted. The intent is to
permit more small businesses in more areas of the station area and limit larger
retail/developments.
o In addition, another aspect that could be considered is to reduce and streamline
the approval process and timelines for redevelopment. This would likely entail
fewer discretionary actions and more administrative approvals of developments or
permits. A reduced approval time line can decrease both time and costs which
can be critical for establishing small businesses.
• Sign Code. To give new businesses a reprieve as they get established staff has been
exploring amending the sign code to allow new businesses to have temporary signs for an
extra month or so which will allow them to put up the “coming soon” or “now open”
signs. [Note: A recent Supreme Court case may be a barrier to carving out special rules
or exceptions for signs based on the content of the sign message.]
PARKING LOT LIGHTING: The city regulates the use of lighting to balance the need to
promote safety and security in a variety of settings such as parking lots, streets, sidewalks and
residences, with the need to minimize the potential nuisance impacts to motorists, pedestrians,
and adjacent land uses. Balance is achieved by regulating factors such as the maximum
illumination allowed, the type of light fixture used, how high the fixture is above the ground, and
hours of operation.
Are existing regulations up to date? In 2012, the city hired the firm Hoisington Koegler Group,
Inc. to review our lighting ordinance, research current standards, examine existing lighting
applications in the city, and recommend changes. The study was the result of an application
submitted by Benilde/St. Margaret’s high school to upgrade the athletic fields, which included
lighting. While the ordinance discussion focused on athletic field lighting, the entire ordinance
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Title: Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
was reviewed and updated. Terms were clearly defined, light measuring techniques were
clarified, light standards were established to reduce glare and spill, and new standards were
written for athletic fields.
Summary of existing regulations: The following is a summary of the existing regulations
pertaining to outdoor lighting.
Illumination levels:
The ordinance establishes maximum light levels for different situations.
• Maximum of 0.5 footcandles measured at the property line adjacent to residential uses.
• Maximum of 1.0 footcandles measured at the property line adjacent to all other uses.
• Maximum of 1.5 footcandles for athletic field lighting when adjacent to residential.
• Minimum average of 0.4 to 1.0 footcandles in parking lots.
The 2012 ordinance amendment resulted in only one change to the light level regulations. It
increased the maximum level from 0.5 footcandles to 1.5 measured at the property line for
athletic fields adjacent to residential. This increase was necessitated because of the lighting
requirements for athletic events balanced against the limited time in which the fields are used.
Luminaire design: When lighting horizontal surfaces such as parking lots, the luminaire is
required to be aimed straight down. It also must meet full cutoff criteria, meaning the light
source is recessed into a box or similar fixture so that it is not visible from above or the side.
The light source, however, will be visible from below the fixture. In many cases, it may be
visible to adjacent properties, especially when the fixture is mounted to a pole, and/or is on top
of a parking ramp. In these cases, concealing the light source can be difficult, and additional
shields mounted to the luminaire may be required to improve the situation. Our current code
gives the city the discretion to require shields for situations such as this.
Prohibited lighting: The only prohibitions listed in the ordinance for type of lights or how they
are managed are flickering and flashing lights.
Maximum pole heights: Light poles in parking lots are allowed up to 45 feet, 25 feet when
located on the top floor of a parking ramp. Recreational fields may have light poles up to 80
feet.
Recreational Lighting: The recreational lighting section of the ordinance was completely re-
written in 2012.
The lights are now required to be directionally shielded and to control glare. Due to the nature
and need for lighting at recreational events, the maximum illumination adjacent to residential is
allowed to be higher. It is increased from 0.5 footcandles to 1.5 foot candles at the property line.
The hours of operation, however, are limited to 7 am to 11 pm. The lights are also required to be
shut off within one hour of the conclusion of the event, so if the event ends at 8 pm, the lights
must be off by 9 pm. Additionally, a visual impact plan is required prior to approval of the light
plan. The plan is used to identify and minimize potential nuisances, and verify that the proposed
plan meets code.
Additional considerations not included in SLP ordinance: The following is a list of items not
addressed by our code.
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 7
Title: Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
Hours of operation: With the exception of recreational lighting, the current ordinance does not
address hours of operation, except to say that the city may limit hours of operation if it believes it
necessary to reduce the impact of light on the surrounding neighborhood. It does not include
criteria to govern how the city makes the determination.
After reviewing recently updated ordinances from other cities around the nation, staff found
essentially three options for regulating the hours for lights used for parking lots, building
aesthetic, landscaping, and signs:
1. No regulations limiting hours.
2. All lights must be shut off within ½ - 2 hours of the business closing.
3. All lights and 75% of the parking lot lights must be shut off within ½ - 2 hours of the
business closing. 25% of the parking lot lights are left on for security and safety
purposes.
Categorical exemptions: An exemption for illumination of the federal and state flag.
Special Uses: Regulations for specific uses such as under canopy lighting used at fuel station,
hotels, and similar uses.
Non-conforming lighting: The code does not identify criteria to be used by the city to determine
when non-conforming lighting must be brought into compliance with current code.
Enforcement. From time-to-time, the city will receive complaints about lighting. The
complaints are relatively few compared to others, and the current code has been sufficient to
address the concerns. The exception being, however, that the city typically cannot satisfy a
concern expressed about the presence of lights, and how they change the night time views from
their property. Lights are necessary to maintain safety and security on the streets and on
public/private property, and therefore, will be a part of the night time views.
Complaints are typically the result of a light that was recently installed without consulting the
regulations, or the result of a new development. In the case of a new development, the property
owner will address the nuisance, typically by adding shields to the fixture.
Example of a violation:
• A resident will install a security light that is designed to flood the yard. Light is typically
on at all times, or is on a motion sensor that is triggered by motorists or pedestrians on a
public sidewalk. As a result it turns on several times in an evening. The light is a
violation when it exceeds light levels at the property line, or frequently turns on/off.
• A flood light is used to illuminate a sign. The light is not shielded, and therefore creates
a nuisance to motorists, pedestrians, and/or adjacent properties.
• Parking lot lights are not working, or parking lots are insufficiently lit. Customers,
employees, or residents of a multi-family building do not feel safe.
Examples of when a complaint was determined not to be a violation:
• A light that is left on all night for security reasons does not exceed maximum light levels
allowed at the property line.
• Lights on parking lots or ramps. Complainant doesn’t like the appearance as viewed
from their property.
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 8
Title: Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
• Phase NW of Excelsior & Grand utilizes down cast lights to wash the walls in light. One
complaint was received from a resident in an adjacent condominium building that didn’t
like the view from his residence.
Additional complaints: Are there any specific sites that the Council wishes staff to inspect?
BEE-FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING: The Council expressed an interest in exploring ways that
St. Louis Park can address the decline in pollinator/bee populations. Staff has conducted
preliminary research into potential tools that the City can utilize to support healthy pollinator
environments. This early analysis has included a review of four other city’s “pollinator friendly”
resolutions, a review of bee advocacy groups’ information, and state legislation.
In short, Minnesota Statute preempts local law regarding the regulation of pesticide use.
Preemption laws regarding pesticide became an issue in the 1990s. Most states, including
Minnesota, adopted laws that prohibited local units of government from regulating pesticide use
on land not owned by the local government. There is some movement on overturning, or
revising, preemption laws, but the timeline for this legislative action is unknown.
The extent of regulation that the City of St. Louis Park can employ is to control the use of
neonicotinoid pesticides only on City owned land. The City can also strive to plant “pollinator-
friendly landscaping; vegetation that attracts bees and that has not been treated with
neonicotinoids. One challenge with “pollinator-friendly” vegetation is that research regarding
neonicotinoids and their impacts, and regulation of their use is a current discussion. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working through regulations of neonicotinoids and
their application. There is variation in how these regulations may apply, such as between
agricultural crops and landscaping material, labeling, and whether root stock or foliar treatments
are applied. Some growers may refrain from applying foliar treatments, but may be unable to
guarantee that rootstock is neonicotinoid free. Sourcing landscaping material and ensuring that
there has never been any use of neonicotinoids in the growing of the material is difficult at this
time. With preemption laws in place, there are a couple of other methods in which the City can
support a “pollinator-friendly environment”.
The City recently approved Resolution 15-045 related to “Bee-Safe” Policies and Procedures.
This Resolution states that the City will adhere to Hennepin County’s Integrated Pest
Management Plan, refrain from the use of systemic neonicotinoid pesticides on City property,
and designated eight Bee-Safe areas throughout the City. The City is serving as a model for
others doing business in the City by setting these standards.
Additionally, the City can provide resources on pollinator friendly practices to homeowners and
other property owners, and encourage such practices. The City currently encourages the use of
“native species” for landscaping, and could provide more specific language regarding
“pollinator-friendly” landscaping. Other strategies could include providing brochures, planting
lists, or other materials and programs regarding “pollinator-friendly” landscaping to assist people
in making “pollinator-friendly” choices.
TREE PRESERVATION ON SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS: Council indicated a desire to
discuss expanding the City’s tree preservation requirements to apply to trees on privately-owned,
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 9
Title: Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
existing single family lots. Currently, the City excludes existing privately-owned, existing single
family lots of record. The tree replacement rules only apply to single family land when there is a
proposed subdivision of land for single family lots.
The City has different standards for replacing trees removed from private versus public land.
Trees removed from public land, including public right-of-way, have a much higher replacement
requirement and it applies to all live, disease-free trees. If a boulevard tree is impacted by
development on an existing single family lot, then the tree replacement rules still apply to the
boulevard tree.
The rules for removing trees from private land apply only to “significant trees”. A tree is
considered significant if it alive, disease-free, does not pose a safety hazard, and it has a diameter
of at least five caliper inches for deciduous trees and six caliper inches for conifers measured 4.5
feet above the ground. Exceptions are Aspen, Cottonwood or Silver Maple trees. These are
considered significant only if they are at least 12 caliper inches. Also, Salix (Willow), Boxelder,
Siberian Elm and Black Locust trees are not considered significant trees at any size.
Significant trees on private land (except on existing single family lots) are not to be removed,
and no land may be altered in a manner that results in the destruction of a significant tree, unless
authorized by the City. The City requires tree inventories, grading plans, and tree preservation
plans for most developments.
When significant trees are to be removed from, or will be destroyed by land disturbing activities
on private land, there is an objective formula for replacing the trees. The caliper inches that must
be replaced varies depending upon the size of the significant trees to be removed and the size of
the existing significant trees on the parcel that will be preserved. The greater the caliper inches
of existing trees on the property that will be preserved, fewer caliper inches must be replaced.
If the development does not plant the requisite caliper inches of trees, then a fee is collected.
These fees are dedicated to the City’s Tree Fund, which is used for replanting trees in public
right-of-way and other public land.
Environmental Coordinator Jim Vaughan noted that extending the ordinance to existing single
family lots may save significant trees and reduce amount of tree loss on private property. He
would most likely be responsible for enforcement of such requirements, because he is most
qualified to make judgements regarding what qualifies as a live, healthy, or hazardous tree. He
also noted the following challenges/concerns with the proposition:
• It would be very difficult to enforce. It is difficult to know of and keep track of trees
removed. This would raise concerns about equitable enforcement. Staff may find one
neighbor removed a tree, while did not find another that removed a tree, and penalize one
and not the other. It is also not clear what penalty would be administered and how to
administer if a tree is removed without City knowledge. How would the City document
the size and number of trees on the property that were removed?
• While the City may have an opportunity to review tree removal and preservation plans
with certain permit applications, many single family residential projects do not require
the level of detail and it may be a burden to provide such information on smaller scale
projects.
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 10
Title: Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
• City staff would get involved in often times, ugly, private affairs – City called in to
“settle” tree disputes on private property. To illustrate the complexity of these issues, Jim
Vaughan provided the attached article written by two Minnesota attorneys on the subject
of tree disputes and case law.
• Staff is concerned about potential liability issues that may arise from authorizing tree
removals on private land, especially if there are disputes between the neighbors about
who owns the tree.
• Staff believes it would require more resources to enforce and administer such a program
than it has, and more resources than may be justified.
Another option would be to only apply tree preservation requirements on single family lots
where the demolition of the existing home and construction of a new home takes place, or for
remodeling and expansion projects that kick in the City’s Construction Management Plan
requirements. There are pros and cons to this approach as well that staff will outline at the Study
Session.
NEXT STEPS:
• Several Community Development staff members contributed to the research and will be
at the meeting to respond to questions or provide additional details on each subject.
• Staff can complete additional research if City Council needs more information on any of
these topics.
• If City Council gives specific policy direction on any of these matters, staff will follow
up with additional research, draft potential procedures or policies, or seek input from the
Planning Commission on any potential zoning ordinance amendments.
• Staff can also report back to City Council on any items that need further discussion or
action.
RESOLUTION NO. 15-045
RESOLUTION ENDORSING "BEE-SAFE"
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
WHEREAS, bees and other pollinators are integral to a wide diversity of essential foods
including fruit, nuts, and vegetables; and
WHEREAS bees and other pollinators are threatened due to habitat loss and pesticide
use; and native bees and honey bees are also threatened due to pathogens and parasites; and
WHEREAS pollinators need to eat throughout the growing season, early spring through
fall; and
WHEREAS, recent research suggests that there is a link between pesticides that contain
neonicotinoids and the die-off of plant pollinators, including honeybees, native bees, butterflies,
moths, and other insects; and
WHEREAS, neonicotinoids are synthetic chemical insecticides that are similar m
structure and action to nicotine, a naturally occurring plant compound; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is committed to Hennepin County's Integrated
Pest Management (!PM) program, which considers the use of pesticides as a last resmi, while the
potential for the use of biological controls such as parasitoids and microbes could be a safer
option; and
WHEREAS, the Precautionary Principle states that in environmental matters, the theory
that if the effects of a product or action are unknown, then the product should not be used and the
action should not be taken.
WHEREAS, although Americans' annual expenditures on lawn and garden products
ranks third highest in how we spend our money, most Americans lack knowledge of the toxic
consequences of their purchases; and
WHEREAS, citizens need current, science-based information regarding environmentally
sound garden and pest practices so that they can make informed decisions, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it is in the public interest and consistent with
the City's Vision of Environmental Stewardship for the City to demonstrate its commitment to a
safe and healthy community environment through the implementation of best management
practices in the maintenance of the city parks, open spaces and city property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The City shall undertake its best efforts to become a Bee-Safe City based upon the
Precautionary Principle.
2. The City shall adhere to Hennepin County's Integrated Pest Management (!PM)
program parameters, emphasizing biological controls over pesticides.
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
Page 11
QR3
§¨¦394
§¨¦394
³±100
³±7 ³±100
³±7
³±100³±7
£¤169
£¤169
QR3
QR25
QR5
QR20
QR5
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
A
A
B
B
C
C
D
D
E
E
F
F
G
G
H
H
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
/0 1 20.5
Miles
we
Proposed Bee-Safe Parks
k Bee-Safe Park
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
Page 13
Reprinted by permission of Bench & Bar of Minnesota, Steve Pihlaja and Lorrie Stromme, March 2002
In the Shade of a Tree:
Analyzing the Tree-related
Legal Problem
By Steve Pihlaja and Lorrie Stromme
Trees provide shade, purify air, enhance quality of life, and inspire poetry,
but they also may inspire lawsuits. Whether the tree is yours, your
neigh bor's, or your client's, it's prudent to know what sort of shadow it may
cast.
T he trees of our urban forests provide shelter, purify the air we breathe, increase
property values, conserve energy, and enhance quality of life in our cities. Trees inspire
strong emotional reactions in the people who live, work and recreate under their
branches. Strong emotions coupled with competing interests often result in a trip to the
lawyer's office. Sooner or later one of your clients will have a legal dilemma involving a
tree. The purpose of this article is to provide you with a framework to analyze the
problem.
The primary legal questions involve issues of nuisance, negligence, and trespass. But
the analysis starts by identifying: Whose tree is it?
In general, the location of the tree trunk determines who owns the tree. A tree that
stands solely on your client's property belongs to your client. Disputes arise when trees
straddle a boundary line or when the branches of your client's tree encroach onto the
neighbor's property. Jurisdictions differ on boundary trees. In some states, trees
standing along a boundary line are the common property of the neighbors on either side
of the boundary, and neither neighbor can remove the tree without the consent of the
other. Th is includes the tree that starts out in one yard and grows into the boundary of
the neighbor's yard.
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
Page 14
Reprinted by permission of Bench & Bar of Minnesota, Steve Pihlaja and Lorrie Stromme, March 2002
In Minnesota, the mere presence of a tree trunk on the boundary line does not create a
boundary tree or determine ownership. Instead, the court looks at the intention of the
neighboring property owners. A tree is a boundary tree if it was planted jointly or treated
as common property by agreement, acquiescence, or course of conduct.1 For example,
adjoining owners who split the costs of pruning and maintain ing a boundary tree or
hedge would probably be considered co-owners of the tree or hedge. So, when a
broken limb or a tree disease becomes a problem, the co-owners share responsibility
for fixing the problem.
Nuisance Trees: Encroaching Branches or Roots
Branches that overhang your client's property or tree roots that push up a sidewalk or
clog a sewer are considered a nuisance. "Anything which is injurious to health, or
indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as
to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, is a nuisance."2
The leading Minnesota case on nuisance trees is Holmberg v. Bergin .3 In that case, a
Minneapolis homeowner planted an elm tree within 15 inches of the property line. Over
the course of 26 years, the tree grew to be 30 inches in diameter and 75 feet high. The
trunk grew across the boundary line, pushing the fence out of alignment. The roots
extended into the neighbors' yard and caused the sidewalk to tip toward the house,
resulting in a drainage problem in the neighbors' basement. The Holmberg court found
that the tree was not a co-owned boundary tree but was a nuisance, because the tree
roots obstructed the neighbors' free use and enjoyment of their property. The neighbors
sued for monetary damages and an injunction to prune the roots or remove the tree.
Experts for both sides acknowledged that corrective action to restore the grade would
damage the roots and either kill the tree or make it dangerously unstable. The court
ordered the tree cut down, because the alternative -- severe root pruning -- would have
weakened the tree or caused the tree to die, endangering the neighbor's home if the
tree blew over in a windstorm. The court disallowed money damages, because the
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
Page 15
Reprinted by permission of Bench & Bar of Minnesota, Steve Pihlaja and Lorrie Stromme, March 2002
neighbors had failed to take advantage of earlier opportunities to exercise self-help and
remove the invading roots.
Using Self-Help. Property owners in every state have the right to use self -help to prune
branches or roots of a neighbor's tree that encroach onto their property. Some states
follow the Massachusetts Rule, where self-help is the exclusive remedy for encroaching
branches or roots.4 Self-help is an alternative to going to court.
The rationale is that self-help prevents the wasteful, needless use of the judicial system
and vexatious lawsuits.5 It's a tradeoff: your client fixes her problem at her own
expense, instead of slogging through the expense and uncertainty of the court system.
Minnesota courts do not follow the Massachusetts Rule. In Minnesota , self-help is
encouraged, with discretion, but it is not the exclusive remedy. Equitable remedies to
abate the nuisance are available. "The law is clear that one cannot exercise his right to
plant a tree in such a manner as to invade the rights of adjoining landowners. When one
brings a foreign substance on his land, he must not permit it to injure his neighbor."6
When self -help is not practical or reasonable, your client can go to court for an
injunction or other equitable remedies to have the nuisance abated.
Your client's guidelines for self-help include:
· Prune only up to the boundary line -- at your client's own expense.
· Don't trespass. Get permission to enter onto the neighbor's property to do the
pruning, unless the encroaching branches or roots threaten to cause imminent
harm to your client's property.
· Don't cut down a tree whose trunk is located on the neighbor's property, even if
the branches stray onto your client's property.
· Maintain, don't destroy. Don't jeopardize the health of the tree or cause
foreseeable injury. For example, pruning an oak tree from April through
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
Page 16
Reprinted by permission of Bench & Bar of Minnesota, Steve Pihlaja and Lorrie Stromme, March 2002
September could make the tree vulnerable to oak wilt, a virulent disease. Or
pruning a tree's roots could destabilize the tree and cause it to topple over.
· Advise your client to seek the opinion of a certified arborist, a specialist in the
care of individual trees, about the tree's condition. Look in the Yellow Pages
under "tree service," and look for the arborist's membership in professional
organizations, such as the Minnesota Society of Arboriculture (MSA), the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), or the National Arborist Association
(NAA).
The trend in tree law is toward the California Rule or "self -help nice." Minnesota courts
have not expressly adopted the California Rule, but it appears to be a natural outgrowth
of Holmgren v. Bergin, supra. In appropriate circumstances, a neighbor who is being
injured by a nuisance may protect himself by unilaterally abating the nuisance.
However, the abater must act in a reasonable manner at reasonable time, and must
avoid causing foreseeable injury to the tree. A showing of malice on the part of the
abater evidences a strong indication that the self -help was unreasonable.7
Leaves Happen. Another area of contention is tree debris: leaves, acorns, fallen fruit,
branches, sap. There is not a Minnesota case directly on point. However, other
jurisdictions have recognized that the natural growth of trees includes shade, invading
roots, leaves, and overhanging boughs,8 and that liability is reasonable when there is
"sensible damage,"9 such as a damaged roof, not mere debris from a healthy tree. Your
client, who is sick and tired of sweeping the apple blossoms off his driveway after they
have fallen from his neighbor's tree, probably has no cause of action. Going to court to
have the neighbor ordered to pick up fallen debris is not practical or economical, and is
probably why there is not much precedent on this issue.
Fruit of the Neighbor's Tree. Neighbors may disagree as to who has the right to the
apples or other fruit growing on an encroaching tree branch. The rule of thumb is that if
the tree trunk stands in a neighbor's yard, all of the fruit wherever it is hanging belongs
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
Page 17
Reprinted by permission of Bench & Bar of Minnesota, Steve Pihlaja and Lorrie Stromme, March 2002
to the neighbor.10 Picking the fruit may not be so simple. Ownership of the fruit does not
give the neighbor any right to trespass onto your client's property to retrieve the fruit.
Courts would probably weigh the right to keep trespassers out of your client's yard
against the tree owner's right to harvest the fruit o f her tree. The orchard owner whose
livelihood depends upon the harvest probably has a stronger claim than an urban
gardener.
The law is also unclear on the issue of fallen fruit. As a practical matter, it would not be
worthwhile for a neighbor to sue your client for keeping fallen fruit, because it would
have nominal value. The courts would probably hold the tree owner responsible for
making advance arrangements to harvest the fruit if it had sufficient value to bother with.
Your client is probably safe to keep the fallen fruit if his neighbor says nothing about it.
As with most neighbor disputes, the best counsel you can give is to encourage
communication and neighborliness.
Negligence: Hazard Trees and Limbs
The trend across the country is to hold tree owners legally responsible for damage
caused by unsound or "hazard trees."11 A hazard tree is a tree with a defect plus a
target, such as a sidewalk, a car, or a house in the path of an unstable or decaying tree.
Minnesota cases involving negligence in tree law tend to fall into two categories:
damage caused by trees or damage done to trees. Foreseeability is the common thread
that runs through both types of claims. In both instances, courts will look at what should
have been obvious to the tree owner about the tree's condition.
Damage Your Client's Tree Causes. If a neighbor's tree is unsound and threatens your
client's property, the neighbor may be liable for any damage that occurs. The test is
whether the tree owner knew or should have known that damage was likely. A tree
owner is not expected to be a tree expert, but she is expected to recognize obvious
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
Page 18
Reprinted by permission of Bench & Bar of Minnesota, Steve Pihlaja and Lorrie Stromme, March 2002
symptoms of a problem, such as the unseasonal lack of leaves, a dead limb, visible
decay, or a tree leaning dangerously to one side. If the potential for damage is
foreseeable and if the tree owner fails to take corrective action, the courts will likely hold
the owner legally responsible for damage caused to people or property.
In an unpublished opinion, the Minnesota Court of Appeals found that a landowner was
not liable in a personal injury case where the landowner's tree did not pose an obvious
danger.12 In that case, a tree trimmer was injured when a decaying branch broke.
Liability was not imposed, because the branch appeared to be sturdy and showed no
signs of decay. In another case, a landowner was found to owe no duty to protect a
pedestrian from a low-hanging branch that was clearly visible.13
What's Entropy Got to Do With It? A Georgia case that reaches the same conclusion
about foreseeable d anger is worth quoting. Taking judicial notice of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, the court said,
This law tells us that all in the universe, trees, human beings, plants,
animals, buildings, and all else are headed downward from complexity to
simplicity toward decay, deterioration, decadence, and death. Everything
heads towards decay; for example, a tree decaying, which is an increase
of entropy, or uselessness. We are specifically limiting liability to patent,
visible decay, and not the normal, usual, la tent, micro -nonvisible,
accumulative decay. In other words, there is no duty to consistently and
constantly check all pine trees for non-visible rot, as the manifestation of
decay must be visible, apparent, and patent so that one could be aware
that high w inds might combine with visible rot and cause damage.14
Damage Done To Trees. In a leading Minnesota case on negligent damage to trees
arose when a church hired a road contractor to expand a parking area. The contractor
piled soil over the roots of a grove of oak trees, smothering the trees.15 In finding
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
Page 19
Reprinted by permission of Bench & Bar of Minnesota, Steve Pihlaja and Lorrie Stromme, March 2002
negligence, the court held that the contractor knew or should have known the
consequences of mounding soil over tree roots. This case also set a new standard for
awarding damages in negligence cases.
Damages. In deciding how to compensate a property owner for damaged trees,
Minnesota courts have distinguished between ornamental trees and standing timber or
ill-formed trees. If trees that are ill-formed or serve merely to prevent erosion or curtail
noise are injured, the courts have based damages on diminution in land value, i.e., the
difference in the land value before the injury and afterward. If trees are primarily
ornamental or shade trees, the court has said that the jury may consider replacement
cost, to the extent that the cost is reasonable and practical, as an alternative measure of
damages. "Reasonable and practical" replacement cost has been defined as:
The cost to replace the number, size, and species of trees destroyed to
the extent that: 1) replacement serves to substantially restore the
character and quality of the property appropriate for the owner's
enjoyment and intended use and 2) the cost of replacement is not greatly
disproportionate to the resulting restoration of the owner's enjoyment and
intended use of the property.16
Act of God. A frequently heard excuse is that damage caused by a fallen tree was an
act of God. Not every tree that falls over in a strong wind and causes damage is the
result of an act of God.17 To qualify as an act of God in negligence cases, all of the
following elements are needed: 1) the accident must have happened from a force of
nature that was both unexpected and unforeseeable; 2) that force must have been the
sole cause of the accident; and 3) the accident could not have been prevented by using
reasonable care.18 A bolt of lightning is an act of God, if it is the sole cause of an injury.
However, a person is liable if his own prior negligence combined with the act of God to
cause the injury.
Trespass and Wrongful Tre e Removal
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
Page 20
Reprinted by permission of Bench & Bar of Minnesota, Steve Pihlaja and Lorrie Stromme, March 2002
Trespass to trees is a tort recognized separate from trespass to land and carries a
heavy penalty. Cutting a tree on someone else's land without her permission is a
trespass to the tree.19 The penalty for intentional, wrongful tree removal is treble
damages. In Minnesota, a landowner whose trees were bulldozed and buried on his
land without his permission was awarded both treble damages for the trespass to his
trees and punitive damages for the trespass to his land.20
An example of involuntary or casual trespass to the tree is illustrated in a Minnesota
court case where a driver had a heart attack and drove into a grove of Colorado Spruce
trees.21 Although the tree damage or "trespass" was not malicious, it occurred without
the permission of the t rees' owner and the court awarded him single damages. There
are also penalties for criminal trespass and criminal damage to property.22
Utility Company Pruning. A common urban sight is the row of trees under a power line
cut in a deep v-shape. You may have a client who wants to sue a utility company for its
tree-trimming techniques or its removal of a tree. Your case assessment should weigh
aesthetics against the utility company's duty to meet public demand to prevent power
failures caused by fallen tree limbs during storms.
Utility companies have easements across property in order to provide electricity. Courts
recognize the right of utility companies to trim or remove trees within their easement, as
long as the work is reasonable and necessary to construct, use, operate, or maintain
power lines in the easement area.23 However, the utility company has a duty to remove
power line obstructions in a way that causes the least damage to the property the power
lines cross.
In a recent Minnesota case,24 the Supreme Court confirmed that a property owner has
an interest in the trees on city land in front of her property and standing to sue the utility
company that removed a boulevard tree. However, the Court also found that this right is
subordinate to a utility's right to trim or remove the trees to keep power lines clear. The
Court of Appeals decision that preceded the Supreme Court case should be mandatory
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
Page 21
Reprinted by permission of Bench & Bar of Minnesota, Steve Pihlaja and Lorrie Stromme, March 2002
reading for any "budding" tree lawyer, if only to brush up on clever tree puns, such as:
"stumped by the dismissal," "out on such a limb," "sapping the meaning," "fell on
wooden ears," and "rooted in the common law."
In conclusion, even if you don't think of yourself as a tree-hugger, you'll be acting in your
client's best interests and protecting our urban trees by giving the following advice:
"Work it out with your neighbor, or chat before you chop."
Notes
1 Holmberg v. Bergin, 1 72 N.W.2d 739 (Minn. 1969).
2 Minn. Stat.¤561.01
3 Holmberg v. Bergin, supra.
4 Michalson v. Nutting, 275 Mass. 232, 175 N.E. 490 (1931)
5 Richmond v. General Engineering Enterprises Co., 454 So. 2d 16 (Fla App D3, 1984).
6 Holmberg v. Bergin, 172 N.W.2d at 744.
7 Booska v. Patel, 24 Cal. App. 4th 1787, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 241 (1994).
8 Michalson v. Nutting, supra, 175 N.E. at 490.
9Smith v. Holt, 174 Va. 213, 5 S.E.2d 492 (1939)
10 See, e.g., Skinner v. Wilder, 38 Vt. 115 (1865).
11 "Hazard tree" is a term of art used by arborists and tree scientists.
12 Allison v. Olson and Mauer, filed December 12, 2000, C0 -00-942 (unpublished).
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0012/942.htm
13 Sperr by Sperr v. Ramsey County, 429 N.W.2d 317 (Minn. App. 1988).
14 Cornett v. Agee, 143 Ga. App. 55, 237 S.E.2nd 522, 524 (1977).
15 Rector v. McCrossan, 235 N.W.2d 609 (1975)
16 Guide for Plant Appraisal, 8th Ed. 1992.
17 Swanson v. LaFontaine, 238 Minn. 460, 57 N.W.2d 262 (1953)
18 VandenBroucke v. Lyon County, 301 Minn. 300, 222 N.W.2d 792 (1974).
19 Minn. Stat.¤561.04
20 Muelstedt v. City of Lino Lakes, 473 N.W.2nd 892 (Minn. App. 1991; cf Johnson v.
Jensen, 446 N.W.2d 664 (Minn. 1989).
21 Pluntz v. Farmington Ford-Mercury, Inc., 470 N.W.2d 709 (Minn. App. 1991).
22 See,e.g., Minn.Stat.¤609.605, subd. 1(b)(5) and Minn. Stat.¤609.595.
23 Minn. Stat.¤222.37.
24 Miller-Lagro v. Northern States Power Company (1998) , 582 N.W.2d 550 (Minn.
1998), citing Minn. Stat. ¤561.04.
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
Page 22
Reprinted by permission of Bench & Bar of Minnesota, Steve Pihlaja and Lorrie Stromme, March 2002
Steve Pihlaja is a solo practitioner in Minneapolis, practicing in the areas of criminal defense
and civil litigation. He is a 1979 graduate of William Mitchell College of Law.
Lorrie Stromme is a lawyer, tree care advisor/master gardener, president of the Minnesota
Shade Tree Advisory Committee, and a Hennepin County planner. She is a 1981 graduate of
William Mitchell College of Law.
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Potential Zoning Code Amendments/Enhancements
Page 23
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 23, 2015
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Assessment Policy Discussion – Continued
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires feedback on the information provided in this report
and at the Study Session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council want to change how we fund certain
improvement projects?
SUMMARY: The City’s assessment policy was last updated in 2000, prior to that the policy
was updated more frequently. The following improvements are ones that have historically been
assessed in the City of St. Louis Park:
1. Paving, Curb and Gutter
2. Alley Paving
3. Sidewalks
4. Streetlighting
5. Unimproved Street Maintenance
6. Storm sewer
7. Sanitary Sewer mains and services
8. Watermain and services
9. Fire Sprinkler systems
10. Delinquent charges (nuisances, tree removal, weed removal, curb/ gutter repair and
responding to fire alarms)
11. Municipal Parking Lots
It has been 15 years since the last policy update. In that time, council direction, improvement
costs and infrastructure needs have changed for a number of the areas covered by this policy.
Staff from Assessing, Finance, Operations, and Engineering has been working on reviewing
these improvements and putting together a new policy that is current and in keeping with legal
guidance. Staff anticipates that the City Council discussion for this policy update may take
several study sessions. At each Council study session, staff will cover one or two of the
improvements listed above until all of the items are discussed. The result will be an overall City
Policy that will be brought to the City Council for approval.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The recommended assessment policy for
the various improvements will have funding considerations. Information regarding financial
considerations will be a part of future study session discussion.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
History of Connect the Park! CIP
Prepared by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director
Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Jeff Stevens, Operations Manager
Phillip Elkin, Sr. Engineering Project Manager
Cory Bultema, City Assessor; Steve Heintz, Finance Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion – Continued
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: At the November 9 study session, the City Council asked a number of
questions regarding the financial implications of the proposed changes to the Assessment Policy.
Staff has put together some additional information to assist with this conversation.
The following infrastructure replacement areas are currently funded primarily using assessments.
All of these improvements are property owner petition driven. For Commercial/ Industrial Street
Rehabilitation and Unimproved Alley Construction, the City’s policy is to assess 100% of the
improvement costs. Unimproved Street construction is partially assessed to residential properties
($20/ foot plus driveway aprons) and 100% assessed to Commercial/ Industrial land uses. Since
the work is predominantly petition driven, the majority of this work is not programmed in our
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
The pavement condition of the unimproved streets and the streets where the land use is
predominantly Commercial/ Industrial is deteriorating. The unimproved alleys have similar
challenges. The gravel alleys generate additional work for our Public Works staff in the spring
with drainage and erosion being a primary concern. The pavement condition of the bituminous
alleys is poor and not designed to handle the larger vehicles that use them. Staff recommends
that the City take a proactive approach to maintenance for this infrastructure.
In order to perform reconstruction and rehabilitation on these assets, staff has put together the
following cost estimates for budgeting purposes.
Infrastructure Project Type Total Cost Timeline
(years)
Additional Average
Annual Funding
Unimproved Street Construction $1,422,494 8 $177,811.75
Commercial/ Industrial Street
Rehabilitation $4,000,000 8 $500,000.00
Unimproved Alley Construction $3,302,087 10 $330,208.70
Total per year $1,008,020.45
The timeline (years) is used to determine the additional average annual funding needed to
complete the work that we have identified for each of the infrastructure areas. As noted below,
the use assessments could be one of the tools to help provide this additional funding. It is
anticipated that this average annual funding will be needed ongoing for maintenance of the
infrastructure once constructed.
If the City were to pursue partially or fully funding the reconstruction and rehabilitation of
additional infrastructure to our CIP, there would be a corresponding need for funding.
To finance the proposed work, the City can use one or a combination of the following funding
mechanisms:
• General Tax Levy: the City can increase the general tax levy to provide annual funding.
• General Obligation Bonds- the City can sell bonds based on projects as they are
identified. These bonds and interest are paid off using general tax levy.
• Franchise Fees: A fee placed on the electric and gas bills that are collected monthly with
those bills from each and every property owner in the city. The fee is essentially rent that
the city is allowed to charge the utilities for the use of city right-of-way for their
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion – Continued
facilities. Fees are adjusted every other year to reflect the CIP. There is a cap on the
total fees that can be charged using this mechanism.
• Assessments: State statute provides City’s the ability to assess the cost of public
improvement to benefitting property owners, as long as the assessment does not exceed
the special benefit measured by the increase in market value due to the improvement.
Existing funding
The City collects almost $2.4 million dollars a year in franchise fees. Our Capital Improvement
Plan includes the following annual improvement projects that use franchise fees for funding:
Infrastructure Average Annual Funding
Concrete Repairs (sidewalk, curb and gutter) $130,000
Sealcoat $280,000
Residential Street Rehabilitation $1,900,000
City Building parking lots $50,000
Total Cost $2,360,000
Staff has reviewed the condition and expected depreciation of the infrastructure identified in the
10 year CIP. We have used our asset management software to complete a financial analysis to
determine if the reconstruction and rehabilitation projects could be cut back in order to reallocate
the franchise fees to fund the additional infrastructure areas identified above. What was found is
that in order to maintain our infrastructure in acceptable condition for the foreseeable future an
increase in franchise fees, or another source of funding is needed.
Assessment Policy Discussion
1. Paving, Curb and Gutter
The City has 146 centerline miles of streets under our jurisdiction. These streets are broken
down into two categories, Municipal State Aid (MSA) and local streets. Each category is further
broken into improved and unimproved. According to City policy, for a street to be considered
improved, it is constructed with proper drainage, concrete curb and gutter and meets the State of
Minnesota DOT “standard specifications for highway construction” which includes but is not
limited to, a minimum six- inch granular base and at least two inch asphalt overlay or strength
equivalent. If a street does not meet these minimums, it will be considered unimproved. Using
this test there are 37 miles of MSA streets, 108 miles of improved local streets and 1 mile of
unimproved streets in the City.
The majority of our streets were improved in the mid-1950’s’s to early-1980’s. The life cycle of
an improved street is 20-30 years. At around 25 years, the condition of the street is improved
using rehabilitation techniques such as mill and overlay or reclaim and overlay.
Municipal State Aid Streets
Municipal state aid streets are routes designated by the city council and approved by the
commissioner of transportation for inclusion in the city's state aid system. All routes
included begin and end on another municipal state aid road, county state aid road, or
trunk highway and are eligible for the use of MSA construction funds.
Municipal state aid construction funds are monies apportioned to the city from the state to
be used for the construction of routes designated on the municipal state aid system. All
construction using these funds must be done in accordance with the MnDOT office of
state aid design criteria. The source of these funds is state gas tax dollars.
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion – Continued
Maintenance and rehabilitation activities for improved MSA streets are managed in the
same manner as the City’s Pavement Management Program (PMP).
The current assessment policy does not differentiate between MSA and local streets.
Local Streets
In 2004 the City implemented a Pavement Management Program (PMP). This eight-year
cycle focuses on maintenance and rehabilitation activities for improved local streets in
one area of the City per year. An eight-year cycle was chosen based on preventive
maintenance research which shows that roads, in good condition, should be sealcoated
every 6-10 years. The City was divided into 8 areas of comparable size in terms of
pavement square footage. The areas were also divided along neighborhood boundaries in
order to facilitate future communications and public process.
We are halfway through the second cycle of the PMP. For the most part, the City uses
the proceeds of franchise fees with Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy to pay for this
program. When there is utility infrastructure that requires replacement, franchise fees are
supplemented by Sewer and Water Utility Funds.
The city's policy with unimproved streets is that we do limited maintenance such as
pothole patching and occasional grading of gravel/ degraded pavement in the areas to
address erosion. All of our unimproved streets have drainage problems and are in poor
condition.
Existing Policy:
Unimproved street construction- The City Assessment Policy for reconstructing an unimproved
street has the abutting property owners responsible for construction costs according to land use.
• Residential properties- The level of cost participation is $13 per front foot for paving and
$7 per front foot for curb and gutter. In addition they are assessed the cost of their
driveway apron reconstruction. Historically, this flat rate was adjusted to reflect actual
construction costs.
Average assessment for an 80 ft wide residential property = $1,600 Street and $1,500 for
driveway apron. Total assessment $3,300.
• Commercial/ Industrial property - The level of cost participation is that property owners
shall be assessed 100% of the cost of the improvement.
Commercial/ Industrial Total Cost Length
(ft)
Assessable
Frontage Level Assessment/ ft
Unimproved Street $1,422,494 5280 10,560 100% $134.71
Assessment for a 300 ft wide Commercial property = $40,411.77
Improved street rehabilitation - The City Assessment Policy for funding street rehabilitation, has
the abutting property owners responsible for a portion of the improvement costs according to
land use.
• Residential property- Street rehabilitation is funded using franchise fees collected from
Center Point Energy and Xcel Energy or MSA funds if the street is an MSA route.
There would be no assessment for a residential property.
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion – Continued
• Commercial/ Industrial property - The level of cost participation is that property owners
shall be assessed 100% of the cost of rehabilitation.
Commercial/ Industrial Total Cost Length
(ft)
Assessable
Frontage Level Assessment
Rate/ ft
Commercial/ Industrial
Street Rehabilitation $670,000 5280 10,560 100% $64.39
Assessment for a 300 ft wide Commercial property = $19,318.18
Discussion:
In order to assess the cost for the reconstruction an unimproved street to property owners, there
must be an increase to the market value of the land as a result of the improvement. This increase
should be equal to or greater than the cost of the assessment.
In general an assessment of 1 to 1.5% of the property market value can be assumed for public
improvements.
Unimproved street reconstruction:
• Residential property- In reviewing our construction cost, staff is recommending changes
to the assessment level and rate. Instead of having an assessment level that is based on a
flat rate per foot, staff recommends that a percentage of the construction cost be assessed
to benefitting property owner. After reviewing costs for construction. Staff recommends
an assessment level of 25% of the project costs be assessed to benefitting property
owners.
In addition, our recommendation is to change our rate from a front foot basis to a per lot
basis. The reason for this change is that many of our lots are similar in size and area.
Residential Total Cost Length
(ft)
Assessable
units Level Assessment/
unit
Unimproved Street $1,422,494 5280 132 units 25% $2,694
This assumes all properties are 80 ft wide.
• Commercial/ Industrial property- It may be difficult to demonstrate an equivalent benefit
for an assessment of rate of 100% of construction cost. It is recommended that the rate
for these land uses be set at 50% of the construction cost.
In regards to the manner of calculating specific property assessment rates, Commercial/
Industrial lot sizes and widths vary widely. Staff recommends that the rate calculation
for assessments be on a front foot basis.
Commercial/ Industrial Total Cost Length
(ft)
Assessable
Frontage Level Assessment
Rate/ ft
Unimproved Street $1,422,494 5280 10,560 50% $63.45
Assessment for a 300 ft wide Commercial property = $19,304.09
The remaining costs are recommended to be funded by the City.
Improved street rehabilitation:
City Franchise fees are the funding source for the PMP. This funding source generates
almost $2.4 million annually. About 66% of the fees collected are paid by Residential
properties. The remaining fees are paid into the fund by Commercial/ Industrial
properties.
These funds are used to pay for street rehabilitation, sealcoat, and sidewalk replacement.
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 6
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion – Continued
• Residential property- Our current policy is to not assess residential property for street
rehabilitation. With 66% of the fees collected to fund street rehabilitation being
generated by residential properties, staff does not recommend changing this policy.
• Commercial/ Industrial property- It may be difficult to demonstrate an equivalent benefit
for an assessment rate of 100% of construction cost. While Commercial/ Industrial land
uses pay in about a third of the total franchise fees collected, the total fees collected from
these land uses is half the amount collected from Residential land uses. As a result it is
recommended that they pay for half the amount of the cost of street rehabilitation.
Similar to unimproved street construction, it is recommended that the rate for these land
uses be set at 50% of the construction cost.
In regards to the manner of calculating specific property assessment rates, Commercial
and industrial lot sizes and widths vary widely. Staff recommends that the rate
calculation for assessments be on a front foot basis.
Commercial/
Industrial
Total
Cost
Length
(ft)
Assessable
Frontage Level Assessment
Rate/ ft
Commercial/
Industrial Street
Rehabilitation
$670,000 5280 10,560 50% $31.72
Assessment for a 300 ft wide Commercial property = $9,517.05
The remaining costs are recommended to be funded by the City.
Staff recommendation:
Residential
(assumes 80 ft lot)
Commercial/ Industrial
(assumes 300 ft lot)
Proposed Policy Average
Assessment
Proposed Policy Average
Assessment
Unimproved
street construction
• 25% of cost
• Per unit basis
$2,694 • 50% of cost
• Front foot basis
$19,304.09
Improved Street
Rehabilitation
No assessment NA • 50% of cost
• Front foot basis
$9,517.05
Financial summary:
A number of assumptions have been made to provide this financial information. These
assumptions are:
• The street segment is 1 mile long.
• All residential properties are 80 feet wide
• All Commercial/ Industrial properties are 300 ft wide.
• There is not a mix of land uses on the street segment.
Unimproved Street Construction
(1 mile of street)
Residential Property Commercial/ Industrial
Property
Total Cost* $1,422,494 $1,422,494
Cost Assessed $355,623.59 $711,247.17
City Funds $1,066,870.76 $711,247.17
* All of the unimproved streets in the City are less than 30 feet wide and would be constructed to
a 7-ton design cross section. As a result, the same cost is used in this table for both land uses.
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 7
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion – Continued
Improved Street Rehabilitation
(1 mile of street)
Residential Property Commercial/ Industrial
Property
Total Cost** $542,858 $670,000
Cost Assessed $0 $335,000
City Funds $542,858 $335,000
**A street that has a predominance of commercial/ industrial land uses adjacent to it is wider
than 30 feet and built to a thicker pavement section (10-ton design) than a one with residential
land uses (7-ton design). The rehabilitation costs in the table reflect this.
2. Alley Paving
There are 21.25 miles of alleys throughout the City. These alleys are broken down into two
categories, improved and unimproved. According to City policy, for an alley to be considered
improved, it is constructed of concrete. 16 miles of alleys have a concrete surface and meet the
minimum standard for an improved alley. 5.2 miles of these alleys are considered unimproved
according to City policy. Of the unimproved alleys, 2.36 miles are asphalt and 2.85 miles are
gravel.
The majority of our alleys were improved before 1980. Our oldest concrete alley was
constructed in 1958. There have been 17 alley improvement projects since 1990. The life
expectancy of a concrete alley is 50-70 years.
Existing Policy:
The City Assessment Policy for funding alley improvements, both initial construction and
replacement, has the abutting property owners responsible for 100% of the improvement costs.
• Residential properties: Abutting property owners are responsible for 100% of the total
cost. This cost is further broken down based on lot characteristics to determine the
property owners that have indirect benefit and the property owners that have direct
benefit. An explanation of this break down:
− Indirect Benefit- All properties that abut the alley will be assessed for 30% of the cost
of the construction of an improved alley.
− Direct Benefit- 70% of the cost of the construction of an improved alley shall be
assessed against abutting properties with direct benefit. A property is directly
benefited if one or more of the following conditions are met:
o it has an existing garage with direct access to the alley,
o an access to the alley could be constructed from an existing garage, or
o if no garage exists, there is sufficient area on the lot to build a garage with access
to the alley.
Assessment for a 80 ft wide Residential property = $5,003.16
Assumes all properties receive a direct benefit.
Residential Total Cost Length
(ft)
Assessable
Frontage Level Assessment
Rate/ ft
Unimproved alley
construction and
Improved Alley
Rehabilitation
$165,105 1320 2640 100% $62.54
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 8
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion – Continued
• Commercial/ Industrial property: The level of cost participation is that property owners
shall be assessed 100% of the cost of the improvement. There is no consideration for
indirect or direct benefit.
Assessment for a 300 ft wide Commercial property = $18,761.86
Discussion:
In residential areas, alleys provide rear access to property where a garage was located, or where
waste could be collected by service vehicles. A benefit of this was the location of these activities
to the rear and less public side of a dwelling.
Staff believes that there is a potential cost savings for the City if the unimproved alleys were
paved in concrete. It is estimated that the maintenance cost for unimproved alleys is $2,800/
annually. Routine maintenance for the unimproved alleys includes regrading of gravel and
pothole patching the bituminous. This cost is over and above the cost for routine maintenance
for the improved alleys on our system. In addition there is also staff time spent responding to
concerns from property owners regarding the condition of their alleys and drainage problems that
have developed over the years.
• Residential property- Staff recommends that the total cost property owners are assessed is
lowered to 50% of the total project cost.
Also, it is recommended that the cost assessed be further broken down based on lot
characteristics to determine the property owners that have indirect benefit and the
property owners that have direct benefit. This is consistent with existing policy and gives
flexibility to address unique situations
Finally, our recommendation is to change the assessment rate from a front foot basis to a
per lot basis. The reason for this change is that the majority of the lots in the City with
alleys are similar in size and area.
Residential Total Cost Length
(ft)
Assessable
units Level Assessment/
unit
Unimproved alley
construction and
Improved Alley
Rehabilitation
$165,105 1320 33 units 50% $2,501.58
This assumes all properties are 80 ft wide and all properties receive a direct benefit.
• Commercial/ Industrial property- It may be difficult to demonstrate an equivalent benefit
for an assessment of rate of 100% of construction cost. It is recommended that total cost
assessed to property owners be lowered to 50% of the total project cost.
Also, it is recommended that the differentiation between direct and indirect benefit be
extended to Commercial/ Industrial properties. This gives flexibility to address unique
situations.
Commercial/ Industrial Total Cost Length
(ft)
Assessable
Frontage Level Assessment
Rate/ ft
Unimproved alley
construction and
Improved Alley
Rehabilitation
$165,105 1320 2640 100% $62.54
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 9
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion – Continued
In regards to the manner of calculating specific property assessment rates, Commercial
and Industrial lot sizes and widths vary widely. Staff recommends that the rate
calculation for assessments be on a front foot basis.
Assessment for a 300 ft wide Commercial property = $9,380.93
Staff recommendation:
Residential
(assumes 80 ft lot)
Commercial/ Industrial
(assumes 300 ft lot)
Proposed Policy Average
Assessment
Proposed Policy Average
Assessment
Unimproved alley
construction and
Improved Alley
Rehabilitation
• 50% of cost
• Per unit basis
• Based on direct/
indirect benefit
$2,501.58 • 50% of cost
• Front foot basis
• Based on direct/
indirect benefit
$9,380.93
Financial summary:
A number of assumptions have been made to provide this financial information. These
assumptions are:
• The alley segment is 0.25 mile long.
• All residential properties are 80 feet wide
• All Commercial Industrial properties are 300 ft wide.
• There is not a mix of land uses on the Alley segment.
• All properties receive a direct benefit.
Unimproved alley construction and
reconstruction
(0.25 mile of alley)
Residential Property Commercial/ Industrial
Property
Total Cost* $165,105 $165,105
Cost Assessed $82,552.19 $82,552.19
City Funds $82,552.19 $82,552.19
* All of the alleys in the City are 10 feet wide and would be constructed out of concrete. As a
result, the same cost is used in this table for both land uses.
Commercial/ Industrial Total Cost Length
(ft)
Assessable
Frontage Level Assessment
Rate/ ft
Unimproved alley
construction and
Improved Alley
Rehabilitation
$165,105 1320 2640 50% $31.27
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 10
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion – Continued
3. Sidewalks
There are 110 miles of existing sidewalks throughout the City. There are 11.2 miles of sidewalk
proposed for construction as a part of the Connect the Park! initiative by 2024. All sidewalk
segments proposed as a part of the Connect the Park! Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) are paid
for using general obligation bonds.
Staff has identified 3 miles of gaps. For purposes of discussion, a “gap” is considered a section
of sidewalk that is missing on a continuous street block. About half of these gaps are directly
adjacent to a sidewalk segment included in the Connect the Park! CIP. Staff is adding the
construction of sidewalk gaps adjacent to the Connect the Park segments as a part of the annual
construction project.
As a result of the community visioning process completed in 2006, in 2008 the City developed
the Active Living, Sidewalks and Trail Plan after an extensive public process. The resulting
system plan and goals were adopted into the Comprehensive Plan in 2009. The pedestrian and
bicycle system plans was adopted and included in the Comprehensive Plan are shown on
Exhibits 1 & 2. The specific 10 year Connect the Park! CIP (Exhibit 3) was then developed to
construct some, but not all of these facilities after additional neighborhood meetings and public
hearings. The 10 year Connect the Park! CIP does not include all of the segments shown on
Exhibits 1 & 2.
Existing Policy:
The City Assessment Policy for funding the construction of new sidewalks is as follows:
• On collector roadways and thoroughfares, the cost of new sidewalk installation shall
be assessed at 50% of the cost and the remaining 50% of cost shall be financed by
general obligation bonds or other appropriate funds of the City.
• On streets which are not collector roadways or thoroughfares, the cost of sidewalks
shall be assessed 100% of the construction costs of sidewalks abutting them.
• Commercial, industrial, and multiple family properties shall be assessed 100% of the
construction costs of sidewalks abutting them.
Discussion:
Staff proposes that if we receive a request to add a segment of sidewalk, trail, or bikeway, we
would first check the segment against the Comprehensive Plan exhibits. If the segment is shown
in the Comprehensive Plan, we would recommend that the City Council add it to the Connect the
Park! CIP. As a part of the recommendation, staff would recommend a year where it would fit in
with budget, workload, and other capital projects.
If the segment is not included in the Comprehensive Plan, staff would take a look at the analysis
diagram from the Active Living Sidewalks and Trail Plan. If it fit into one of the identified goals
and objectives from that plan, we would recommend that the City Council add it to the Connect
the Park! CIP. As a part of the recommendation, staff would recommend a year where it would
fit in with budget, workload, and other capital projects.
If the sidewalk segment is not consistent with either the Comprehensive Plan or the Active
Living Sidewalks and Trail Plan staff recommends that it not be fully funded by the City.
Instead, the recommendation would be to consider it for construction with funding through
special assessments as follows:
• Residential property- Staff recommends the assessments level be 50% of the project
costs for sidewalk construction.
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 11
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion – Continued
• Commercial, industrial, and multiple family properties- No change recommended.
City Code requires that all development and redevelopment projects construct sidewalks in the
right of way adjacent to the development. These sidewalks are constructed at the cost of the
property owner. While these costs are not assessed, staff recommends that to address any
ambiguity regarding cost responsibility that we include this situation in the assessment policy.
Staff recommendation:
Residential Commercial/ Industrial/
Multi Family
New sidewalk construction
(segments that are not consistent with either
the Comprehensive Plan or the Active Living
Sidewalks and Trail Plan)
• 50% of cost
• Front foot basis
• 100% of cost
• Front foot basis
New sidewalk construction
(abutting development and redevelopment)
• 100% of cost
• 100% of cost
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 12
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion – Continued
History of Connect the Park!
As part of the “Vision St. Louis Park” initiative that began several years ago, one of the resulting
strategic directions identified by the Community and the City Council was “St. Louis Park is
committed to being a connected and engaged community.” One of the priorities of that directive
was a focus on developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails. As a
result, an extensive public process was engaged through the Active Living, Sidewalks and Trail
Plan which recommended an approach to developing citywide pedestrian and bicycling systems,
addressing trails, sidewalks, key crossings and prioritizing their importance. The plan suggested
a strategy for implementation, how existing areas of concern might be improved, and where new
walks and trails should be installed. In brief, the plan was developed with the following key
elements in mind:
Purpose - "To develop a comprehensive, city-wide system of trails and sidewalks that provides
local and regional connectivity, improves safety and accessibility, and enhances overall
community livability."
Goals and Objectives -
• Develop an interconnected network of pedestrian and bicycle routes throughout the city
and linked to transit systems, providing options to automobile dependence.
establish a citywide grid-system of sidewalks every ¼-mile
establish a citywide grid-system of bicycle facilities every ½-mile
close gaps in neighborhoods’ existing sidewalk networks
• Anticipate increases in the use of mass transit, including the possibility of a much
improved multi-modal system comprising buses, light rail, heavy commuter rail, local
circulators, etc.
• Establish safe crossings of highways, arterial roads and rail corridors using innovative
strategies, improved traffic control systems, grade separations, etc.
• Develop safe links to schools, commercial hubs, employment centers, institutions and
transit facilities.
• Develop recreational pathways that link neighborhoods to parks and natural areas,
providing opportunities to improve the health and well-being of community residents and
workers.
• Make connections to regional and recreational trails to link St. Louis Park to larger
metropolitan open space systems and destinations.
• Provide safe and easily accessible routes for residents and workers in the community,
including children, seniors and the disabled.
• Create a cohesive, well-designed system that includes a coordinated approach for signs
and orientation, standard designs for street crossings and additional "user-friendly"
amenities such as rest areas, information kiosks and upgraded landscaping.
• Incorporate strategies for funding, maintenance and snow removal into the overall plan.
• Develop a Capital Improvement Plan based on priorities, needs and available resources.
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 13
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion – Continued
The goals and objectives of the plan are more graphically illustrated as follows:
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 14
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion – Continued
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 15
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion – Continued
Both the system plan and the set of general criteria for prioritizing the pedestrian and bike
improvements was generated through community input from the Citizen Advisory Committee,
Community Meetings, 205 online survey responses, and meetings with the Planning
Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, and City Council. In addition,
general support for the goals was vetted through the subsequent Plan-By-Neighborhood process,
Community Survey, and Community Recreation Survey. Plan development and prioritization
was also tied directly to public health, safety and well-being. The system plan and goals were
adopted into the Comprehensive Plan in 2009.
The logic behind prioritization and plan implementation was also based on the following
objectives:
• Focus on key destinations: segments that serve multiple community gathering centers in the
community (schools, parks, transit stops, commercial nodes) rated higher.
• Focus on Transportation: routes that provide north-south connections through the
community, into adjacent communities, and to key transit stops rated higher.
• Focus on Bicycling and Walking: the ultimate goal was to provide a quarter-mile “city”
grid of sidewalks and half-mile grid of bike routes. Improvements that fill gaps in the city
pedestrian and bicycle networks, improve safety at certain intersections, and provide
crossings (bridges or tunnels) of major railroad and highway barriers rated higher.
As part of the plan development by the Citizen Advisory Committee, specific sidewalk
locations such as which side of the street were driven and chosen by a variety of factors unique
to each particular area. These factors included access to specific destinations as listed above,
continuation of segments already in place and/or closing of gaps in the system, school bus
routes, and other input of the Committee members.
As previously stated, the system plan and goals were adopted into the Comprehensive Plan in
2009. The pedestrian and bicycle system plans as adopted and included in the Comprehensive
Plan are shown on the next two pages.
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 16
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion – Continued
Exhibit 1
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 17
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion – Continued
Exhibit 2
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 18
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion – Continued
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 23, 2015
Discussion Item: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Highway 169 – W. 16th Street Access Closure (West Side)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action requested. The purpose of this report and discussion
is to update Council on MnDOT’s proposal to close the ramp access to Highway 169 at W. 16th
Street on the west side of Highway 169. This discussion is intended to help prepare the Council
for the December 7 public hearing on this matter.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: MnDOT has scheduled a construction project for Highway 169 between Highway
62 and Highway 55. A summary of the scope of work is attached (Figure 2). The proposed
project would begin in the fall of 2016 with impacts to traffic beginning in 2017 and final
completion in 2018.
The work in the City of St. Louis Park includes, pavement rehabilitation, highway widening
under the Cedar Lake Road Bridge to improve merging onto and off of the highway for the
ramps, and the potential closure of the W. 16th Street to / from southbound Highway 169.
The proposed closure of the W. 16th Street southbound ramp requires Municipal Consent from
the City of St. Louis Park. The Public Hearing for this proposed closure is scheduled for the
December 7 City Council Meeting.
As additional information is available, staff will provide it to the City Council.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The closure of the Highway 169 ramp
access at W. 16th Street is a MnDOT led project and an estimated cost is not available at this
time. Both the ramp closure and the visual barrier wall would be fully paid for by MnDOT.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Figure 1 - 16th Street Graphic
Figure 2 – Highway 169 Project Summary
Letters from City of Minnetonka
Prepared by: Joseph Shamla, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra M. Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Highway 169 – W. 16th Street Access Closure (West Side)
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: In March 2011, MnDOT presented the City Council with various options for
future noise walls and access closures along Highway 169. The locations were based on noise
abatement studies and traffic safety initiatives. The plan that was presented included the
proposed access closure at W. 16th Street (Figure 1). At the January 13, 2014 Study Session staff
provided a brief update on this matter.
MnDOT held an open house for the upcoming Highway 169 Project in Hopkins mid-August
inviting the adjacent communities to attend. A summary of the work is attached (Figure 2). The
proposed project would begin in the fall of 2016 with impacts to traffic beginning in 2017 and
final completion in 2018. The impacts to the City of St. Louis Park include the replacement of
the Nine Mile Creek Bridge which will close Highway 169 in this section of road for one year,
improvements to the highway under the Cedar Lake Road bridge to improve merging onto and
off of the highway at these ramps, and the potential closure of the W. 16th Street to/ from
southbound Highway 169.
MnDOT has reached out to the cities of St. Louis Park and Minnetonka to inform them of the
potential closure of the W. 16th Street exit and has held open houses for each community.
Approximately 40 to 50 residents attended this meeting in St. Louis Park. The feedback received
seemed to be split on whether the access should be closed. Two letters were received from the
City of Minnetonka to St. Louis Park asking that the access remain open (see attached). These
letters reference that there is significant support from Minnetonka residents living in the area to
leave the access open along with other supporting information.
The proposed closure is a part of MnDOT’s long term safety initiative (Toward Zero Deaths) for
Highway 169. The current 16th Street access has substandard merge and acceleration lanes.
Alterations to improve this entrance / exit are not feasible due to the close proximity to the
Highway 394 and Cedar Lake Road ramps. MnDOT is asking for municipal consent from the
City of St. Louis Park since this ramp is located within our City. In the future, if an accident
were to occur in this location or if MnDOT had a larger scale project, they could close this
access without consent from St. Louis Park.
The closure at W. 16th Street includes the installation of a 10 ft. high visual barrier wall along the
west side of Highway 169 from W. 16th Street north to the ramp of Highway 394. (Figure 1).
This would be similar to the closure that occurred at W. 22nd and 23rd Streets along Highway 169
in 2012. Both the ramp closure and the visual barrier wall would be fully paid for by MnDOT. If
the closure does not move forward and the ramp remains open – no visual barrier will be
constructed.
NEXT STEPS: The proposed closure of the W. 16th Street southbound ramp requires Municipal
Consent from the City of St. Louis Park. The Public Hearing is scheduled for December 7 City
Council meeting.
No schedule is available at this time for the construction of the visual barrier or the physical
closure of the exit it were to move forward. As additional information is available, staff will
provide it to the City Council.
!?
Minneapolis
Golf Club
§¨¦394
£¤169 GENERALMILLSBLVD1 6 T H S T W
WAYZATA B L V D
WAYZATA BLVD
W E S T M O R E L A N D LN
16TH S TWNBHWY1 69TOEBI3941 8 T H S T W
RUNNYMEADE LN
F R A N K L I N A V E WFLAG AVE
SW B I 3 9 4 T O S B H W Y 1 6 9 S
S B H W Y 1 6 9 S T O E B I 3 9 4
NB H W Y 1 69 S T O W B I 3 9 4
E
B
I39
4
T
O
S
B
HWY169E B I 3 9 4 T O N B H W Y 1 6 9 S
FORD RDFORD RDINDEPENDENCEAVESHILLSBOROAVESPARKERR
D FAIRWAY LNFLAGAVESINDEPENDENCEAVESFRONTAGERDKILMERAVEJORDANAVESKILMERAVE11551155
1155
1155
16211624
1615
1618
1414 1415141014101423
14151415
1414 1410
14001401 134414011400141314011344
1620
1429
1411
1400
1614
1611
1610
180016121607
1605
16051600
9701
981196119506
14409520
1606 9601
98219721 95129830
1441
9610 1440
14351430 1430
9720
98201435 97109700 1430
1435 1430
1431142414251425142114201421 14141414
1431
1424 1425
1421
1431
1604
9831 97119621
140514041405
1411 1404
1400140414191404
9800
1434
98101434
14311433 14241424142014201420
14101411
1405
93019311
8712
1801
13411330941694261
3
4
0
1800
133194069400943694201326
9321
871594309410
9321
8521
85159331144693119301
1440 1441
1441143514301431
1436
14761436
14511446
1431
1450 1436 14451470 14401430
2032
2026
9411
1841
8512
9401
8527
9310 8600
1820
1831
1830
86151820
8601
860818201821
1811
870018111810
87071805
8701
1800
1640 8721
87271631
2001
1640 1631
1801
1641 8718
872493221630
16301631 9001 8801
20209421 85079431
1840
9400
1830 18301831
86071821
8614
1810 1810 1811
8706
9021 8901
8825
8730
9109 8800
9000
8920 88101608
9011 8911 8809
9101
1621
1610
9020 882288281611 88061600
8816
8910
87338921
88171621 8736
1621
1620
90109117
8900
1601
14601455
1426
1425
1607
1601 1600
912516051604
1415
1415
1411
1416
1456
145094069416
1440
1425 1431
14351421
14211426 1420
1321
13151320 13
2
4
13321321
9116
9400 145694101460 1451
14261435 1311
1304
1311
1304
131513
1
6
1316
1300
83008300
1301
1290
1430 1420 1425
1415
1416
1416 14211420141014111410
140514061410
1401
1437
13
4
5
1406 94051405
9435 94011400
1335
14111406
9425
1401
1325
1308
13051312
13001308
1835
1866186018701832
1838 1856184618761833
1831 1871186118451865
1815
1825
1841 18401830185518511824
1835182518211816
18411820 184018611826181518201810
1810
1800 1845
182118051801 1851
1806981198051800 18059814
1835
1811 166418011647 16801660
1653 167498049800981016551650
9794 1644
9812
1837 18501836165416511654
1635
9818
1631
1341 1340
1634
1640164116429828
133613251325
1629
1624
13311336
1625
13301335 1337 13341328
13301333
1329
1880
1828 1826 18561821
18311850183618301811 1855
1805 1811 18161806 18311841
18251815
1324 13081300
1330
1310
1325
1313
130913051301130013211306
1670982016609806
1645
1648
1630
98241636
1630
1320
1319 1322
132413161318
1317
1312
9920 98089950
0 175 350 525 700Feet
²
Proposed Closure of16th Street Ramp on Highway 169 Southboundand Construction of Visual Barrier
Legend
!?Proposed Ramp Closure
Proposed Visual Barrier
Parcels
City Limits
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 5)
Title: Highway 169 – W. 16th Street Access Closure (West Side)Page 3
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 5)
Title: Highway 169 – W. 16th Street Access Closure (West Side)Page 4
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 5)
Title: Highway 169 – W. 16th Street Access Closure (West Side)Page 5
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 5)
Title: Highway 169 – W. 16th Street Access Closure (West Side)Page 6
£¤169
Ford Rd1 6 t h S t W
Lake
Windsor
Crane
Lake
!"#$394
C i m a rronC irRidgewaterDrFairfield
W a yCedarGrnGreen
b
ri
e
r
R
d WildwoodTrlCountryLnEnclave D
rCoveDrHopkinsXrdLindberghDrCrestridgeDrKingmanLn
C edarB n d
Yor
k
s
hi
r
eAv
e
S
W indsorLakeLn
Hillside Ln W
Oak Knoll
Ter S
Oak Knoll
Ter N
Vernon Dr SCape Cod PlCed
a
r
wo
odRd
g
Ced
a
rPas
s
P a r k R i d ge
Dr W
CedarLakeR d
Wa
y
z
at
aBlv
dThis map is for illustrative purposes only.
62
7
45674
456715
456773
456760
4567101 45673
456716
456761
45675
!"#$394
!"#$494
£¤169
Hwy. 169/16th St. W. Access
City of Minnetonka User Area
City of St. Louis Park User Area
Municipal Boundary ±City of MinnetonkaCity of St. Louis Park^_
16th St. W Access
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 5)
Title: Highway 169 – W. 16th Street Access Closure (West Side)Page 7
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 5)
Title: Highway 169 – W. 16th Street Access Closure (West Side)Page 8
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 5)
Title: Highway 169 – W. 16th Street Access Closure (West Side)Page 9
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 23, 2015
Discussion Item: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 4900 Excelsior Project Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action necessary at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: This report is intended to update the EDA and City Council on
a forthcoming ownership change related to the 4900 Excelsior project.
SUMMARY: Staff was informed this week that Oppidan Investment Company wishes to sell
the 4900 Excelsior project to an entity called Weidner Apartment Homes. Preliminarily, staff
has been told that Oppidan wishes to assign the project to Weidner and has requested that the
EDA consider providing its consent to the assignment of the just-approved Purchase and
Redevelopment Contract. Formal action is asked to occur in the coming weeks prior to
Oppidan’s closing on the Bally property in mid-December. Weidner would assume the 4900
Excelsior project as-approved. Staff has called for a meeting and requested additional
information from Oppidan to more precisely understand the proposed new ownership
arrangement.
Weidner partnered with Hunt Associates on the recently-completed Siena Apartments
(formerly Eliot Park Apts) on Cedar Lake Rd. According to Weidner’s web site,
http://www.weidner.com/Apartments/module/properties/# it owns ten other properties in the
Twin Cities including 222 Hennepin in downtown Minneapolis which is anchored by Whole
Foods. The Washington-based company owns more than 43,000 residential units throughout the
US and Canada and as a result is the 27th-largest owner of rental properties in the United States,
according to the National Multifamily Housing Council. It owns properties in Alaska, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Washington as well as four
provinces in Canada.
According to an internet news article, Weider's growth strategy over the last decade has been to
acquire high-quality projects in strong locations, usually in a private sale, before they come to
market. The company apparently reviews 20 to 30 purchase opportunities a week. Weidner then
typically holds those properties for the long-term. According to one company’s press release
announcing a partnership with Weidner, the firm “chose Weidner Apartment Homes for its solid
company performance history and portfolio of well-maintained and managed apartment homes”.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Staff is working with legal counsel and
Ehlers to determine the financial implications of the proposed assignment, if any, and if the
financial terms within the Purchase & Redevelopment Contract need to be revisited.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director, and City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 23, 2015
Discussion Item: 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2016 City Council Workshop
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Manager would like to begin to discuss with the
Council the development of the agenda for the upcoming workshop.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: As we look forward to 2016 and beyond, what would be the
most productive and effective high level topics to be discussed at the upcoming workshop?
SUMMARY: On Thursday, January 7th and Friday, January 8th the City Council is scheduled
to have its annual workshop. Based on past practice the Council has met from approximately 4
pm to 9 pm on Thursday and from approximately 8:30 am to 3 pm on Friday. A location has not
yet been firmed up, but that should not be an issue.
Focus now needs to be given on the specifics of the Workshop agenda. With a new Mayor and
Councilmember the dynamics of Council as a team is changing. For the Council to function as a
high performing team does not happen by the accident, and past Councils have had a strong
tradition of focusing on what it takes to achieve this level of performance. So, as we have done in
the past, staff would strongly encourage that Thursday afternoon/evening be spent on the Council
itself. This would include a discussion on our Governance model and on relational learning/team
building types of activities. Other topics for Thursday night could include a discussion on
unwritten rules, council norms, and the specific role of the Mayor, At Large Councilmembers
and Ward Councilmembers. Staff would propose that Bridget Gothberg serve as the facilitator
for the Thursday evening session given her extensive participation and experience in this area at
previous Workshops.
Assuming the Council is generally comfortable with the approach for Thursday night that then
leaves Friday to discuss. One suggestion staff would make is to have a high level report out on
the progress made on the five goals the Council identified last year at its workshop and a
discussion on adjustments or course corrections that might be necessary. This would still seem
to leave time to focus more deeply on another high level topic to be identified by the Council in
advance. This is what staff would like to focus on with the Council at the Study Session.
One other suggestion. For past workshops the Council identified three councilmembers to work
with staff on developing the details of the workshop once the topic areas were identified. Staff
would suggest this approach be used for the upcoming workshop as well.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Expenses associated with the Workshop
are included in the City’s budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 23, 2015
Written Report: 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: October 2015 Monthly Financial Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Monthly Financial Report provides a summary of General Fund revenues
and departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Actual expenditures should generally run at
about 83% of the annual budget in October. General Fund expenditures are currently at
approximately 78.5% of the adopted budget. Revenues are harder to measure in this same way
due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes and State
aid payments (Police & Fire Aid, DOT/Highway User Tax, PERA Aid, etc.).
A few brief comments on specific variances are noted below.
Revenues:
License and permit revenues have been running well ahead of budget all year and now exceed
the total annual budget by about 9% or $283,000 through October. Intergovernmental revenues
are also exceeding the annual budget by 7.5% or $97,000 because the Police & Fire Aid amounts
received in October were $88,000 more than what was budgeted. The Highway User Tax
revenue received in 2015 is also $40,000 more than what was budgeted.
Expenditures:
Administration is exceeding budget by about 3% in October due to variances in a couple areas,
including legal and additional contractual services work relating primarily to the organizational
culture initiative. Human Resources is showing a variance of about 6% due to Health in the Park
expenditures, however, because this program is offset by revenue, there is no net effect to the
overall budget. Organized Recreation has a variance of approximately 7% due in part to normal
seasonal expenditures, and also because the full Community Education contribution of $187,400
has been paid to the school district. The Rec Center Division is running a seasonal expenditure
variance of about 1%, which is common after the pool season ends.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of October 31, 2015 20152015201320132014201420152015 Balance YTD Budget BudgetAudited BudgetAudited Budget Oct YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes20,657,724$ 21,987,968$ 21,157,724$ 21,176,542$ 22,364,509$ 11,664,860$ 10,699,649$ 52.16% Licenses and Permits2,481,603 3,069,088 2,691,518 3,413,682 3,248,158 3,531,452 (283,294) 108.72% Fines & Forfeits335,150 311,882 320,150 369,545 320,200 200,658 119,542 62.67% Intergovernmental1,300,191 2,031,355 1,282,777 1,423,642 1,292,277 1,389,168 (96,891) 107.50% Charges for Services1,837,976 1,779,259 1,857,718 1,852,274 1,907,292 1,727,592 179,700 90.58% Miscellaneous Revenue1,092,381 1,067,210 1,112,369 1,302,160 1,196,018 1,010,713 185,305 84.51% Transfers In1,816,563 1,805,223 1,837,416 1,827,564 1,851,759 1,530,633 321,127 82.66% Investment Earnings150,000 14,180 150,000 119,831 140,000 - 140,000 0.00% Other Income36,650 10,756 17,950 13,306 17,900 9,950 7,950 55.59% Use of Fund Balance286,325 - 286,325 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues29,708,238$ 32,076,921$ 30,427,622$ 31,498,546$ 32,624,438$ 21,065,025$ 11,559,413$ 64.57%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration877,099$ 890,883$ 939,391$ 980,087$ 979,183$ 840,701$ 138,482$ 85.86% Accounting827,320 819,458 876,216 873,987 912,685 698,181 214,504 76.50% Assessing543,855 543,202 559,749 560,979 602,299 496,813 105,486 82.49% Human Resources678,988 731,634 693,598 788,823 805,929 715,529 90,400 88.78% Community Development1,094,517 1,090,213 1,151,467 1,118,444 1,245,613 1,039,543 206,070 83.46% Facilities Maintenance1,074,920 1,058,127 1,053,715 1,039,699 1,094,836 841,180 253,656 76.83% Information Resources1,770,877 1,597,993 1,456,979 1,406,187 1,468,552 1,100,410 368,142 74.93% Communications & Marketing201,322 170,013 566,801 562,063 635,150 449,050 186,100 70.70% Community Outreach8,185 (22,450) 8,185 6,680 24,677 18,864 5,813 76.44% Engineering303,258 296,383 506,996 223,491 492,838 277,496 215,342 56.31%Total General Government7,380,341$ 7,175,456$ 7,813,097$ 7,560,440$ 8,261,762$ 6,477,766$ 1,783,996$ 78.41% Public Safety: Police7,443,637$ 7,225,579$ 7,571,315$ 7,769,592$ 8,511,557$ 6,758,920$ 1,752,637$ 79.41% Fire Protection3,330,263 3,246,162 3,458,161 3,535,716 3,722,396 3,053,835 668,561 82.04% Inspectional Services1,928,446 1,932,021 2,006,200 1,867,618 2,139,325 1,637,244 502,081 76.53%Total Public Safety12,702,346$ 12,403,762$ 13,035,676$ 13,172,927$ 14,373,278$ 11,449,999$ 2,923,279$ 79.66% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration393,054$ 288,207$ 222,994$ 236,304$ 232,437$ 168,903$ 63,534$ 72.67% Public Works Operations2,698,870 2,720,563 2,625,171 2,571,496 2,763,735 1,936,180 827,555 70.06% Organized Recreation1,280,117 1,256,678 1,290,038 1,277,046 1,304,470 1,182,230 122,240 90.63% Recreation Center1,449,930 1,501,627 1,543,881 1,561,224 1,591,115 1,341,400 249,715 84.31% Park Maintenance1,431,825 1,424,139 1,445,813 1,412,612 1,550,033 1,275,187 274,846 82.27% Westwood520,554 503,309 531,853 508,576 564,055 455,626 108,429 80.78% Environment430,876 434,297 433,750 379,193 472,049 287,111 184,938 60.82% Vehicle Maintenance1,240,325 1,268,559 1,285,489 1,323,358 1,333,520 964,011 369,509 72.29%Total Operations & Recreation9,445,551$ 9,397,379$ 9,378,989$ 9,269,808$ 9,811,414$ 7,610,648$ 2,200,766$ 77.57% Non-Departmental: General -$ 256,627$ 4,000$ 7,562$ -$ 93,507$ (93,507)$ 0.00% Transfers Out- 60,000 - 1,050,000 - - - 0.00% Tax Court Petitions180,000 53,345 195,860 13,834 177,984 - 177,984 0.00%Total Non-Departmental180,000$ 369,972$ 199,860$ 1,071,396$ 177,984$ 93,507$ 84,477$ 52.54%Total General Fund Expenditures29,708,238$ 29,346,569$ 30,427,622$ 31,074,572$ 32,624,438$ 25,631,921$ 6,992,517$ 78.57%Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 8) Title: October 2015 Monthly Financial ReportPage 2
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 23, 2015
Written Report: 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Updated Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the final
draft of the Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance for its review prior to formal consideration in
December.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council find the final draft of the Zero Waste Packaging
Ordinance acceptable? Is Council ready to hold a Public Hearing for the first reading of the Zero
Waste Packaging Ordinance on December 7, 2015?
SUMMARY: During the November 2, 2015 Special Study Session discussion, Council directed
staff to make revisions to clarify the draft Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance. The revisions
included: changes to the legislative purpose; adding some definitions; reviewing on-site
recycling requirements for establishments that don’t have dine-in seating; addressing violation
frequency; and modifying exemptions to remove subjectivity.
The Council also directed staff to schedule a public hearing for the1st reading of the ordinance in
December, 2015. This report outlines the changes that have been made to the draft ordinance
(Attachment 1). Also attached is the final draft ordinance with the changes made (Attachment 2).
NEXT STEPS:
1. 1st Reading of Ordinance/Public Hearing – Council Meeting ....................... Dec. 7, 2015
2. 2nd Reading of Ordinance – Council Meeting .............................................. Dec. 21, 2015
3. Develop List of Recyclable/Compostable Products & Exemptions ...... Jan. to April 2016
4. Develop Schedule of Education & Outreach Activities ..................................... Jan. 2016
5. Conduct Education & Outreach Activities ............................................ Feb. to Dec. 2016
6. Ordinance goes into effect………………………………………………….. Jan. 1, 2017
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The implementation, education and
enforcement of the proposed ordinance will impact the 2016 solid waste budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Final Draft Redline (Attachment 1)
Final Draft (Attachment 2)
Prepared by: Kala Fisher, Solid Waste Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager
Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Title: Updated Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The draft Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance was first presented to Council on
September 8, 2015. The draft ordinance was used as part of an education and outreach campaign
to allow stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the draft ordinance in writing and during a
public listening session on October 12, 2015. Comments from stakeholders were considered by
staff and revisions to the draft ordinance were made. The second version of the draft Zero Waste
Packaging Ordinance was presented to Council on November 2, 2105. Council requested
additional changes including language to further clarify the ordinance intent, definitions,
requirements, violations and enforcement, and exemptions. Staff has updated the draft ordinance
to reflect these changes, as shown in the ordinance redline version (Attachment 1).
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: Unless Council requests additional revisions be made, the
Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance (Attachment 2) is ready for a Public Hearing and 1st reading on
December 7, 2015, with a Public Hearing and 2nd reading on December 21, 2015.
The following changes have been made in response to requests from Council on November 2:
Legislative Purpose 12.201 – This section now opens with the vision statement from the St.
Louis Park 2007 Visioning process that highlights the city’s commitment to being a leader in
environmental stewardship. It also includes language reflecting the vision statement and the
goal to maximize both traditional recycling and organics recycling.
Definitions 12.202 – Three definitions have been added to the ordinance to provide further
clarification on the meaning of the terms distributor, mobile use-food establishment and
violation. The term “generator” has been removed to increase clarity.
Prohibitions and duties 12.203
(b) – Language added to clarify that food establishments must provide customers with an
“on-site” opportunity to recycle.
(b)(1)a. & (b)(2)a. – The language already requires that food establishments have
“verifiable” recycling and/or organics recycling systems in place. This language will allow
staff to request documentation of recycling during the inspection process.
(b)(3) – Language added to clarify that food trucks, defined as “mobile-use food
establishments”, are not exempt from providing an on-site opportunity to recycle. Staff will
be working with Community Development to ensure that the Zero Waste Packaging
Ordinance requirements are referenced in Chapter 36 of the City Code, which regulates
mobile uses such as food trucks.
Violations and Enforcement 12.204 – A timeframe of 14 calendar days has been added for
correction of violations before a subsequent fine is issued.
Exemptions 12.206 – The second and third provisions in the subsection were removed at
Council’s request, removing the economic and competitive subjectivity when considering
exemptions for zero waste packaging for affected products.
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Title: Updated Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance
NEXT STEPS:
1. 1st Reading of Ordinance/Public Hearing – Council Meeting ....................... Dec. 7, 2015
2. 2nd Reading of Ordinance – Council Meeting .............................................. Dec. 21, 2015
3. Develop List of Recyclable/Compostable Products & Exemptions ...... Jan. to April 2016
4. Develop Schedule of Education & Outreach Activities ..................................... Jan. 2016
5. Conduct Education & Outreach Activities ........................................... Feb. to Dec. 2016
6. Ordinance goes into effect………………………………………………… Jan. 1, 2017
D R A F T
ORDINANCE NO. ____ - 15
ORDINANCE TO INCREASE TRADITIONAL RECYCLING
AND ORGANICS RECYCLING OF
FOOD AND BEVERAGE PACKAGING AND TO-GO CONTAINERS
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
CHAPTER 12 – Environment and Public Health
Division VI. ZERO WASTE PACKAGING
12-201. - Legislative purpose.
The city council (council) adopted the strategic direction in March 2007 stating that the city is
committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship and will increase environmental
consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
TAs such, the city council finds that discarded packaging from foods and beverages prepared for
immediate consumption constitutes a portion of the waste stream in St. Louis Park that could be
diverted for reuse, recycling, or organics recycling. Regulation of food and beverage packaging,
therefore, is a necessary part of any effort to encourage a recyclable and compostable waste
stream, thereby reducing the disposal of solid waste and the economic and environmental costs
of waste management for the citizens of St. Louis Park and others working or doing business in
St. Louis Park.
The council also finds that the two (2) main processes used to dispose of discarded nonreusable,
nonreturnable, nonrecyclable and noncompostable food and beverage packaging are land filling
and incineration, both of which should be minimized for environmental reasons.
The council therefore finds that the minimization of nonreusable, nonreturnable, nonrecyclable
and noncompostable food and beverage packaging originating at retail food establishments and
at events providing food and/or beverages within the city of St. Louis Park is necessary and
desirable in order to minimize the city's waste stream and maximize recycling and organics
recycling, so as to reduce the volume of landfilled waste, to minimize toxic by-products of
incineration, and to make our city and neighboring communities more environmentally sound
places to live.
12.202. - Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following terms and phrases shall have the meanings as defined in
this section:
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Updated Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance Page 4
(a) “Distributor” shall mean a business that distributes food and beverages but who conduct
no retail food or beverage transactions.
(b) “Food establishment”, as used in this chapter, shall means a "food establishment" as
defined in by Chapter 3.3.1 Hennepin County Code of Ordinances.
(c) “Mobile use-food establishment”, as used in this chapter, shall mean “mobile use-food”
as defined in Chapter 36-142(g)(5) of the City Code of Ordinances, as a vehicle or cart
used to prepare and serve food and/or beverages in individual portions in a ready-to-
consume state. Mobile use-food does not include the sale of groceries or vegetables and
fruits not prepared for immediate consumption at the vehicle.
(d) “Packaging” shall mean and include food or beverage cans, bottles or containers used to
package food and beverage products for distribution including glasses, cups, plates,
serving trays, and to-go containers. The following exclusions apply: foods pre-packaged
by the manufacturer, producer or distributor; plastic knives, forks and spoons sold or
intended for use as utensils; and plastic films less than ten (10) mils in thickness.
(e) “Violation” shall mean any time a food establishment is found by the city to be non-
compliant with one or more section(s) of this chapter.
(f) “Zero waste packaging” shall mean and include any of the following:
(1) “Reusable and returnable packaging”: Food or beverage containers or packages,
such as, but not limited to, water bottles, growlers, milk containers and bulk
product packaging that are capable of being refilled at a retail location or returned
to the distributor for reuse at least once as a container for the same food or
beverage;
(2) “Recyclable packaging”: Packaging that is separable from solid waste by the
generator or during collection for the purpose of recycling including, but not
limited to, glass bottles, aluminum cans and plastic food and beverage packaging.
Recyclable packaging must be accepted by the local material recovery facilities
receiving and processing the materials and have existing robust recycling markets
as determined by the Public Works Division by rule promulgated pursuant to
section 12.205.
(3) “Compostable packaging”: Packaging that is separable from solid waste by the
generator or during collection for the purpose of composting. Compostable
packaging must be made of unlined paper (unless lining is certified compostable),
certified compostable plastic that meet ASTM D6400 or ASTM D6868 or other
material accepted by the commercial compost or anaerobic digestion facility
receiving and processing the materials.
12.203. - Prohibitions and duties.
(a) No person owning, operating or conducting a food establishment or any person or
organization providing free food or beverage products within the city of St. Louis Park
pursuant to a Hennepin County permit or license, or in a manner which would require a
permit or license, shall do or allow to be done any of the following within the city:
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Updated Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance Page 5
(1) Sell or convey at retail or possess with the intent to sell or convey at retail any food
or beverage intended for immediate consumption contained, at any time at or before
the time or point of sale, in packaging which is not zero waste packaging. The
presence on the premises of the food establishment of packaging which is not zero
waste packaging shall constitute a rebuttable presumption of intent to sell or convey
at retail, or to provide to retail customers packaging which is not zero waste
packaging; provided, however, that this subparagraph shall not apply to
manufacturers, brokers or warehouse operators, who conduct or transact no retail
food or beverage business.
(b) Packaging used to contain food or beverages intended for immediate consumption shall
be considered zero waste packaging only when the food establishment provides
consumers with an on-site opportunity to recycle and/or appropriately manage
compostable packaging and compostable plastics and utilizes a qualified recycling
and/or organics management system.
(1) A qualified recycling system shall have the following elements:
a. A clear and verifiable process for separating recyclable packaging from
discarded solid waste; and
b. Collection and delivery of recyclable packaging to a recycling facility for
processing in the same or at least similar manner as recyclable packaging
collected in a city approved recycling program.
(2) A qualified organics recycling system shall have the following elements:
a. A clear and verifiable process for separating organic materials from discarded
solid waste; and
b. Collection and delivery of organic materials to an organics composting or
anaerobic digestion facility in the same manner or at least similar manner as
organic materials collected in a municipally approved organics management
program.
(3) A food establishment that does not have dine-in seating for consumers, except a
mobile use-food establishment, is exempt from the requirement to provide
consumers with an on-site opportunity to recycle and/or manage compostable
packaging/compostable plastics as defined in Sec 12-203(b).
12.204. – Violations and Enforcement.
(a) When a violation of this chapter has occurred, the food establishment shall be subject to
the penalties set forth below.
(b) A violation of this chapter is a misdemeanor.
(c) Violations of this chapter shall be punishable as an administrative offense pursuant to
City Code Ordinance 2420-12, Section 1-14 Administrative Penalties, as follows:
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Updated Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance Page 6
(1) A warning notice in writing for the first violation;
(2) A fine of $100 for the second violation;
(3) Repeat subsequent violations with 24 months, a fine double the amount of the fine
imposed for the previous violation, up to a maximum of $2,000. For example if
there were four occurrences of a violation that carried a $100 fine: first is $0
(warning); second is $100, third is $200, forth is $400).
(d) At the time a violation occurs, the city will provide the food establishment with a
corrective action timeframe will be given 14 calendar days to take corrective action
prior to before a subsequent fine being is issued.
(e) The administrative offenses provided for in this chapter shall be in addition to any other
legal or equitable remedy available to the city for city code violations.
12.205. - Rules and regulations.
The Public Works Division may, upon notice and hearing, promulgate such rules and regulations
as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter and protect the health of the public,
including the development of list of recyclable and compostable packaging that meets definitions
under section 12.202 and development of exemptions under section 12.206 for packaging for
which there is no reasonable commercially available alternative. In promulgating such rules, the
division shall consider the legislative purposes provided in section 12.201 of this chapter and
shall consult with the operators of affected food establishments, local material recovery facilities
and local commercial composting facilities. The Public Works Division rules and regulations
shall be approved by council annually.
12.206. - Exemptions.
Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, this chapter shall not apply to:
(a) Any packaging which is not zero waste packaging, but for which there is no
commercially available alternative as determined by the Public Works Division by rule
promulgated pursuant to section 12.205. In determining whether there are commercially
available alternatives, the Public Works Division shall will consider the following:
whether there is(1) the availability of zero waste packaging for affected products; (2) the
economic consequences to manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and other vendors of
requiring zero waste packaging when available; and (3) the competitive effects on
manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and other vendors involved in the sale of product
brands or labels available only in packaging that is not zero waste packaging. Every rule
creating an exemption under this paragraph shall will be reviewed annually by the Public
Works Division to determine whether current conditions continue to warrant the
exemption.
12.207. - Severability.
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Updated Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance Page 7
If any part or provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person, entity, or
circumstances shall be adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such judgment shall be confined in its operation to the part, provision or application
which is directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered,
and shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder of this chapter or the application
thereof to other persons, entities, or circumstances.
12.208. - Effective date.
This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2017.
Secs. 12-209--12-250. Reserved.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council _______________
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Updated Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance Page 8
D R A F T
ORDINANCE NO. ____ - 15
ORDINANCE TO INCREASE TRADITIONAL RECYCLING
AND ORGANICS RECYCLING OF
FOOD AND BEVERAGE PACKAGING AND TO-GO CONTAINERS
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
CHAPTER 12 – Environment and Public Health
Division VI. ZERO WASTE PACKAGING
12-201. - Legislative purpose.
The city council (council) adopted the strategic direction in March 2007 stating that the city is
committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship and will increase environmental
consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
As such, the council finds that discarded packaging from foods and beverages prepared for
immediate consumption constitutes a portion of the waste stream in St. Louis Park that could be
diverted for reuse, recycling, or organics recycling. Regulation of food and beverage packaging,
therefore, is a necessary part of any effort to encourage a recyclable and compostable waste
stream, thereby reducing the disposal of solid waste and the economic and environmental costs
of waste management for the citizens of St. Louis Park and others working or doing business in
St. Louis Park.
The council also finds that the two (2) main processes used to dispose of discarded nonreusable,
nonreturnable, nonrecyclable and noncompostable food and beverage packaging are land filling
and incineration, both of which should be minimized for environmental reasons.
The council therefore finds that the minimization of nonreusable, nonreturnable, nonrecyclable
and noncompostable food and beverage packaging originating at retail food establishments and
at events providing food and/or beverages within the city of St. Louis Park is necessary and
desirable in order to minimize the city's waste stream and maximize recycling and organics
recycling, so as to reduce the volume of landfilled waste, to minimize toxic by-products of
incineration, and to make our city and neighboring communities more environmentally sound
places to live.
12.202. - Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following terms and phrases shall have the meanings as defined in
this section:
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Updated Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance Page 9
(a) “Distributor” shall mean a business that distributes food and beverages but who conduct
no retail food or beverage transactions.
(b) “Food establishment”, as used in this chapter, shall mean a "food establishment" as
defined by Chapter 3.3.1 Hennepin County Code of Ordinances.
(c) “Mobile use-food establishment”, as used in this chapter, shall mean “mobile use-food”
as defined in Chapter 36-142(g)(5) of the City Code of Ordinances, as a vehicle or cart
used to prepare and serve food and/or beverages in individual portions in a ready-to-
consume state. Mobile use-food does not include the sale of groceries or vegetables and
fruits not prepared for immediate consumption at the vehicle.
(d) “Packaging” shall mean and include food or beverage cans, bottles or containers used to
package food and beverage products for distribution including glasses, cups, plates,
serving trays, and to-go containers. The following exclusions apply: foods pre-packaged
by the manufacturer, producer or distributor; plastic knives, forks and spoons sold or
intended for use as utensils; and plastic films less than ten (10) mils in thickness.
(e) “Violation” shall mean any time a food establishment is found by the city to be non-
compliant with one or more section(s) of this chapter.
(f) “Zero waste packaging” shall mean and include any of the following:
(1) “Reusable and returnable packaging”: Food or beverage containers or packages,
such as, but not limited to, water bottles, growlers, milk containers and bulk
product packaging that are capable of being refilled at a retail location or returned
to the distributor for reuse at least once as a container for the same food or
beverage;
(2) “Recyclable packaging”: Packaging that is separable from solid waste during
collection for the purpose of recycling including, but not limited to, glass bottles,
aluminum cans and plastic food and beverage packaging. Recyclable packaging
must be accepted by the local material recovery facilities receiving and processing
the materials and have existing robust recycling markets as determined by the
Public Works Division by rule promulgated pursuant to section 12.205.
(3) “Compostable packaging”: Packaging that is separable from solid waste during
collection for the purpose of composting. Compostable packaging must be made of
unlined paper (unless lining is certified compostable), certified compostable plastic
that meet ASTM D6400 or ASTM D6868 or other material accepted by the
commercial compost or anaerobic digestion facility receiving and processing the
materials.
12.203. - Prohibitions and duties.
(a) No person owning, operating or conducting a food establishment or any person or
organization providing free food or beverage products within the city of St. Louis Park
pursuant to a Hennepin County permit or license, or in a manner which would require a
permit or license, shall do or allow to be done any of the following within the city:
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Updated Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance Page 10
(1) Sell or convey at retail or possess with the intent to sell or convey at retail any food
or beverage intended for immediate consumption contained, at any time at or before
the time or point of sale, in packaging which is not zero waste packaging. The
presence on the premises of the food establishment of packaging which is not zero
waste packaging shall constitute a rebuttable presumption of intent to sell or convey
at retail, or to provide to retail customers packaging which is not zero waste
packaging; provided, however, that this subparagraph shall not apply to
manufacturers, brokers or warehouse operators, who conduct or transact no retail
food or beverage business.
(b) Packaging used to contain food or beverages intended for immediate consumption shall
be considered zero waste packaging only when the food establishment provides
consumers with an on-site opportunity to recycle and/or appropriately manage
compostable packaging and compostable plastics and utilizes a qualified recycling
and/or organics management system.
(1) A qualified recycling system shall have the following elements:
a. A clear and verifiable process for separating recyclable packaging from
discarded solid waste; and
b. Collection and delivery of recyclable packaging to a recycling facility for
processing in the same or at least similar manner as recyclable packaging
collected in a city approved recycling program.
(2) A qualified organics recycling system shall have the following elements:
a. A clear and verifiable process for separating organic materials from discarded
solid waste; and
b. Collection and delivery of organic materials to an organics composting or
anaerobic digestion facility in the same manner or at least similar manner as
organic materials collected in a municipally approved organics management
program.
(3) A food establishment that does not have dine-in seating for consumers, except a
mobile use-food establishment, is exempt from the requirement to provide
consumers with an on-site opportunity to recycle and/or manage compostable
packaging/compostable plastics as defined in Sec 12-203(b).
12.204. – Violations and Enforcement.
(a) When a violation of this chapter has occurred, the food establishment shall be subject to
the penalties set forth below.
(b) A violation of this chapter is a misdemeanor.
(c) Violations of this chapter shall be punishable as an administrative offense pursuant to
City Code Ordinance 2420-12, Section 1-14 Administrative Penalties, as follows:
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Updated Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance Page 11
(1) A warning notice in writing for the first violation;
(2) A fine of $100 for the second violation;
(3) Repeat subsequent violations with 24 months, a fine double the amount of the fine
imposed for the previous violation, up to a maximum of $2,000. For example if
there were four occurrences of a violation that carried a $100 fine: first is $0
(warning); second is $100, third is $200, forth is $400).
(d) At the time a violation occurs, the food establishment will be given 14 calendar days to
take corrective action before a subsequent fine is issued.
(e) The administrative offenses provided for in this chapter shall be in addition to any other
legal or equitable remedy available to the city for city code violations.
12.205. - Rules and regulations.
The Public Works Division may, upon notice and hearing, promulgate such rules and regulations
as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter and protect the health of the public,
including the development of list of recyclable and compostable packaging that meets definitions
under section 12.202 and development of exemptions under section 12.206 for packaging for
which there is no reasonable commercially available alternative. In promulgating such rules, the
division shall consider the legislative purposes provided in section 12.201 of this chapter and
shall consult with the operators of affected food establishments, local material recovery facilities
and local commercial composting facilities. The Public Works Division rules and regulations
shall be approved by council annually.
12.206. - Exemptions.
Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, this chapter shall not apply to:
(a) Any packaging which is not zero waste packaging, but for which there is no
commercially available alternative as determined by the Public Works Division by rule
promulgated pursuant to section 12.205. In determining whether there are commercially
available alternatives, the Public Works Division will consider whether there is
availability of zero waste packaging for affected products. Every rule creating an
exemption under this paragraph will be reviewed annually by the Public Works Division
to determine whether current conditions continue to warrant the exemption.
12.207. - Severability.
If any part or provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person, entity, or
circumstances shall be adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such judgment shall be confined in its operation to the part, provision or application
which is directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered,
and shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder of this chapter or the application
thereof to other persons, entities, or circumstances.
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Updated Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance Page 12
12.208. - Effective date.
This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2017.
Secs. 12-209--12-250. Reserved.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council _______________
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Study Session Meeting of November 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Updated Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance Page 13