HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020/03/23 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
MARCH 23, 2020
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – **Written Reports only**
Written reports
1. Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information
2. Human Rights Commission 2020 Annual Work Plan
3. 2020 Market Value Overview
4. February 2020 monthly financial report
5. Proposed property acquisitions - 5647 and 5707 Minnetonka Boulevard
6. Notice of eviction: update
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: March 23, 2020
Written report: 1
Executive summary
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information
Recommended action: Recommendations from the crime/drug free workgroup outlining possible
amendments to the current crime/drug free rental ordinance were presented at the March 9,
2020 study session. Staff is providing additional data requested by the council. Discussion on the
ordinance is being deferred to a future meeting.
Policy consideration: Does the city council accept the recommendations made by the crime/drug
free rental ordinance workgroup for consideration in making possible amendments to the current
ordinance.
Summary: The crime/drug-free rental housing ordinance took effect in 2008 in response to
concerns related to rental properties experiencing disorderly or criminal activity. Discussions
were held by council on the impacts of the ordinance in May and December 2018. At the
December 17, 2018 study session, council approved a resolution suspending sending notices of
violations of city code Section 8-331 to the owner or property manager of a rental property in
order to allow time for further study of the ordinance.
Council also convened a group of key stakeholders to review information and data, gain input
and provide recommendations to the city council on possible changes to the ordinance. The
council appointed members to a workgroup which included representatives from rental
property owner/managers, renters, community members and a legal aid attorney. The first
workgroup meeting was held April 14, 2019. Over the following nine months the workgroup
held nine meetings at which they conducted an in-depth review and analysis of the ordinance.
The workgroup reviewed statistical data related to the police’s administration of the ordinance,
identified areas of consensus and concern regarding the ordinance, reviewed relevant
Tenant/landlord law, reviewed crime-free ordinances from other cities, and reviewed and
considered the comments from the community engagement process.
Following many months of evaluating the impact of the ordinance, the workgroup drafted two
recommendations which were presented at the March 9, 2020 study session and the discussion
between the council and the workgroup was scheduled for tonight’s study session. Due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, discussion on the recommendations are postponed to a future meeting.
Additional data requested by the council at the March 9 meeting is attached/linked for review.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion w/ links; Comparison of crime free ordinances; Statistical
data on effectiveness of ordinance (PPT May 2019); Rental calls for service PPT
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, housing sup.; Marney Olson, assistant housing sup.
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director; Mike Harcey, police chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information
Discussion
Background:
Crime/drug-free rental ordinance workgroup
In early 2019, the city council appointed individuals to serve on a crime/drug-free rental
ordinance workgroup. The applicants chosen provided a balanced representation of rental
owners/property managers, renters and community members. A housing advocate
representing legal aid was also appointed to the workgroup. The workgroup was tasked with
reviewing the current ordinance and providing a recommendation to the council on possible
areas of modifications to the ordinance. The workgroup thoroughly evaluated every
component of the crime/drug-free ordinance.
Areas of concern and consensus identified by the workgroup and consideration of the comments
provided by the community are reflected in the recommendations being proposed. The
workgroup discussed three possible actions: 1) keep the ordinance but address due process
issues; 2) modify the ordinance; or 3) repeal the ordinance. Following significant discussion, the
workgroup did not reach a unanimous decision on any one recommendation to the council. The
workgroup identified two options that reflected the views of most of the workgroup members.
The majority of workgroup members supported presenting both Option A and Option B to the
council. The options being recommended by the workgroup are as follows:
Option A, amend existing ordinance
1. Require rental licensing.
2. Require training every three years with updates on new/modified information provided
through the quarterly SPARC (St. Louis Park Area Rental Coalition) newsletters or in
meetings, or when there is a change in management/ownership.
3. Enhance training to include information related to domestic violence, mental illness,
tenant resources and mediation services.
4. Require crime-free addendum for all leases.
5. Modify definitions to clarify who and where incidents apply to.
6. Remove the compulsory lease terminations components of the ordinance.
7. When an incident is documented by the police department, put in place an internal
review process to ensure the incident warrants a notice.
8. Any notice of an incident must be sent to both the landlord and tenant.
9. Consider options for the notice of incidents to come from a representative of the city
other than the police department.
10. Detailed records of all incidents are maintained by the city and reviewed with the
landlords upon renewal of rental license.
11. If it is determined that incidents are not being addressed at the property, require an
action plan be prepared and approved by the city prior to license renewal, and if
necessary, utilize the authority provided in the provisional license ordinance to ensure
that criminal, drug and safety issues are resolved.
Option B, repeal existing ordinances
1. Require rental licensing.
2. Require training every three years with updates on new/modified information provided
through the quarterly SPARC (St. Louis Park Area Rental Coalition) newsletters or in
meetings, or when there is a change in management/ownership.
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information
3. Enhance training to include information related to domestic violence, mental illness,
tenant resources and mediation service.
4. Repeal sections 8-331 and 8-332 requiring crime-free, drug-free lease addendum, notices
of violations and termination of tenancy for violation of the ordinance in their entirety.
5. Revise Provisional License Ordinance 8-333 to:
o Allow the city to downgrade a rental license to provisional status upon
determination of ongoing public safety concerns, without regard to the number of
reported incidents
o Allow landlords and involved tenants to appeal this decision before the provisional
license takes effect.
The majority of workgroup members support Option B, repealing the ordinance and revising
the provisional license. Two workgroup members support Option A and one workgroup
member supports keeping the current ordinance with the compulsory lease termination but
addressing due process issues. In general, the community members, housing advocates and
tenants on the workgroup support repealing the ordinance and the property owners/managers
support modifications to the ordinance.
Council request for additional data: At the March 9, 2020 meeting, staff received requests
from council for additional data. Data was not available to respond to all the requests but data
that was available has been linked below or attached to this report.
Minnesota state statute 504B.171.
Crime-free, drug-free rental housing ordinance workgroup web page.
Meeting date Meeting date
Study session – July 24, 2006 City council – Oct. 18, 2010
Study session – Jan. 8, 2007 City council – Dec. 5., 2011
Study session – May 29, 2007 Study session – May 14, 2018
City council – June 18, 2007 Study session – Dec. 10, 2018
Study session – July 14, 2008 City council – Dec. 17, 2018
City council – Oct. 20, 2008 Study session – Jan. 14, 2019
City council – Nov. 3, 2008 Study session – Jan. 28, 2019
City council – Dec. 1, 2008 Study session – March 25, 2019
City council – March 1, 2010 Study session – Dec. 9, 2019
City council – June 7, 2010 Study session – March 9, 2020
City council – Oct. 4, 2010
How many properties have been issued a provisional license?
Only one property was issued a provisional license for 2011 and 2012.
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information
What results have other communities with crime/drug free ordinances experienced?
Staff was not able to obtain data from other communities, but a table is attached that includes
a survey of local communities with and without crime/drug free ordinances along with the key
the components of their ordinance.
Statistical data related to the administration of the city’s crime/drug free ordinance.
Attached is a ppt that was presented to the council at a previous at the December 2018 cc
meeting. The second ppt provides new data in respond to council’s request.
Next Steps: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, discussion on this topic is deferred until a future
date.
Other Communities - Crime Free Ordinance Summary
September 2019
City
CFMH Lease
Addendum
Required
CFMH
Training
Required
Who Documents
Violations
Who Verifies
Violation
Notice of
Lease
Termination
Requirement
Appeal
Process
for
Landlord
Appeal
Process
for
Tenant Penalty for Landlord
Brooklyn Park Yes Yes
Police
Department City Manager No Yes No Yes
•All owners must attend training
•Crime free addendum required
•If a there is an incident of disorderly use, the owner will receive a notice and directed to take steps to remedy
•A 2nd notice sent to the owner if another incident occurs in a 12-month period; owner must submit written report of actions taken, and proposed to
be taken
•A 3rd notice is sent if another incident occurs within 12 months and another written plan is required to remedy the situation and the owner must
attend a CF training. After 3rd notice the city manager may deny, revoke, suspend or not renew the license for the premises. Hearing before city
hearing officer is offered.
•No adverse license action taken during the pendency of eviction proceedings
•Criminal charges not required
Brooklyn Center Yes No Police
City Manager or
designee No Yes No Yes
•Crime free addendum required
•Criminal background and credit checks required on prospective tenants
•Crime free designation program offered – did not appear to require owners to attend training or complete phases II or III
•Conduct, disorderly activities, nuisances defined
•First incident of disorderly violation, notice is sent to the licensee asking that steps be taken to prevent further violations.
•Second incident within 12 months, notice sent to owner requesting a written report within 5 days on steps to prevent further violations.
•Third incident within 12 months, the city manager shall notify the owner of a hearing that may result in the rental license being denied, revoked,
suspended or not renewed. A hearing before the city council will be held.
•No adverse action is taken against the owner if the disorderly use occurs during the eviction process or within 30 days of owner giving tenant notice to
vacate.
•Disorderly violation based on substantial evidence to support the violation. It is not necessary to have criminal charges to support the determination.
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 5
Other Communities - Crime Free Ordinance Summary
September 2019
City
CFMH Lease
Addendum
Required
CFMH
Training
Required
Who Documents
Violations
Who Verifies
Violation
Notice of
Lease
Termination
Requirement
Appeal
Process for
Landlord
Appeal
Process
for
Tenant Penalty for Landlord
Coon Rapids Yes Yes
Police
Department City Council No Yes No Yes
•Crime free addendum required
•Criminal background and credit checks required on prospective tenants
•Must attend crime free training and conduct phase 2 security assessment (for dwellings with< 4 units, attend refresher training every 3 yrs. and
conduct exterior inspection every 6 months) and attend Owners/Managers association meetings
•For dwellings with >4 units, conduct resident training annually, hold regular resident meetings (<4 units, meet with tenants annually)
•Council may revoke or suspend rental license; hearing offered before city council
•Financial penalties to the owner based on the CF phase completed by the owner; 1st, 2nd and 3rd violations with escalating fines
Crystal No No
Police
Department Housing Official No Yes No Yes
•“Conduct of licensed premises” in the rental license ordinance includes conduct like that listed in the crime free addendum
•1st notice sent to the owner upon violation of an instance of disorderly conduct as describe in the ordinance asking owner to take steps to correct
•2nd notice sent to the owner if another incident occurs in a 12-month period; owner must submit written report of actions taken, and proposed to be
taken
•3rd notice sent to owner if another incident within a 12-month period; the rental license may be revoked, denied, suspended or not renewed; council
makes decision
•No adverse license action if the incident occurred during the pendency of eviction proceedings or within 30 days of notice given by the owner to
tenant to vacate
Golden Valley Yes Yes
Police
Department
Police
department No Yes No Yes
•Crime free training required
•Crime free addendum required
•Determination of disorderly conduct made upon substantial evidence
•If three or more disorderly events in a 36-month period:
•An additional disorderly violation in the following 12 months could result in a revocation, denial, nonrenewal or suspension of rental license
•Within 10 days of receiving warning, owner must submit written plan to prevent further violations
•Within 20 days of city accepting plan, owner must implement the plan. If owner fails to submit or implement plan or there is another violation within
the 12-month period, city could implement revocation, denial, suspension or nonrenewal of the rental license.
•Hearing held before city council
•Revocation can apply to one dwelling unit if there are multiple units in a building at the discretion of the council
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 6
Other Communities - Crime Free Ordinance Summary
September 2019
City
CFMH Lease
Addendum
Required
CFMH
Training
Required
Who Documents
Violations
Who Verifies
Violation
Notice of
Lease
Termination
Requirement
Appeal
Process for
Landlord
Appeal
Process
for
Tenant Penalty for Landlord
Maple Grove Yes Yes
Police
Department
City
Administrator No Yes No Yes
•CF addendum required
•Criminal background checks required
•Training attendance required; refresher required every 6 years
•1st incident of disorderly conduct, owner is notified and requested to remedy the violation
•2nd incident within n12 months requires owner to submit a written plan to remedy the problem; strikes exonerated if the tenant vacates unit
•3rd incident within n12 months requires owner to submit a written plan to remedy the problem; strikes exonerated if the tenant vacates unit
•No adverse rental licensing imposed where the disorderly incident occurred during the pendency of eviction proceedings or within 30 days of the
incident
•License can be revokes, suspended or decline to renew if owner violates ordinance; right to appeal to city council
Minneapolis Yes Yes
Police
Department
Police
Department No Yes No Yes
•Application screening required
•Crime free addendum required
•1st disorderly incident, crime prevention specialists notify owner by mail and requests a written plan to correct violation
•2nd incident, crime specialist notifies owner by mail, owner required to submit written management plan and complete owners’ workshop
•License may be revoked, denied, suspended or not renewed if licensee fails to prove plan or fails to implement plan
•If a 3rd incident occurs the rental license may be revoked, denied, suspended or not renewed
•No adverse license action will occur if the disorderly use occurred during a pendency of eviction proceedings or within 30 days giving tenant notice to
vacate.
New Hope Yes Yes
Police
Department City Manager No Yes No Yes
•Crime free training offered annually, not required
•1st incident of disorderly conduct, notice sent to owner directly owner to remedy behavior
•2nd incident, notice sent to owner requesting owner to submit a written report of all actions taken to remedy the situation
•After 3rd incident, if owner fails to diligently purse correction, the city may revoke, suspend or not renew rental registration
•Hearing before the council after 3rd incident
•If eviction action pending or owner gives notice to tenant within 30 days, permit action against owner postponed
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 7
Other Communities - Crime Free Ordinance Summary
September 2019
City
CFMH Lease
Addendum
Required
CFMH
Training
Required
Who Documents
Violations
Who Verifies
Violation
Notice of
Lease
Termination
Requirement
Appeal
Process for
Landlord
Appeal
Process
for
Tenant Penalty for Landlord
Plymouth No Yes
Police
Department
Compliance
Official No Yes No Yes
•Mandatory CF training required, refresher every three years
•Adopted code of conduct for rental premises
•1st incident of disorderly manner, city notifies the owner and directs them to take appropriate action to prevent further violations
•2nd incident in 12 months, city sends letter to owner requesting a written report of actions taken
•3rd incident of disorderly conduct, license may be denied, revoked, suspended, placed on probation, or not renewed
•No adverse license action if incident took place during pendency of an eviction proceeding or within 30 days of giving tent notice to vacate
•License action is determined by city council and owner is offered to appeal
•Se. 960 of code addresses disorderly conduct at owner occupied homes, similar 3 strikes, subject to nuisance service call fee
Shakopee Yes Yes None None None None None None
•Required to attend CF training
•4 or more units must complete I, II and III phases of the crime free program
•Criminal background checks on prospective tenants required
•CF lease addendum required
•Owner certifies compliance at annual rental license renewal
Edina No No
Police
Department City Manager No Yes No Yes
•Code of conduct noted in the rental license ordinance – no formal crime free program
•1st incident of disorderly conduct, notice given to owner directing steps to correct further violations
•2nd incident, notify owner and require written report of actions taken
•3rd incident within 12-month period, notify owner and require written report of actions taken
•Decision can be made to revoke, suspend deny or not renew license made by city manager – can be appealed to the council
•No adverse action taken if instance of disorderly use occurred during the pendency of eviction proceedings or within 30 days of notice given to tenant
to vacate.
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 8
Other Communities - Crime Free Ordinance Summary
September 2019
City
CFMH Lease
Addendum
Required
CFMH
Training
Required
Who Documents
Violations
Who Verifies
Violation
Notice of
Lease
Termination
Requirement
Appeal
Process
for
Landlord
Appeal
Process
for
Tenant
Penalty for
Landlord
Hopkins No No
Police
Department Building Official No No No Yes
•Code of conduct noted in the rental license ordinance – no formal crime free program
•1st incident of disorderly conduct, notice given to owner directing steps to correct further violations
•2nd incident, notify owner and require written report of actions taken
•3rd incident within 12-month period, building official shall make recommendation whether to revoke, suspend or not renew rental license to city
council; hearing before city council
•Decision can be made to revoke, suspend deny or not renew license made by city manager – can be appealed to the council
•No adverse action taken if instance of disorderly use occurred during the pendency of eviction proceedings or within 30 days of notice given to tenant
to vacate.
Robbinsdale Yes No
Police
Department Building Official No No No Yes
•CF addendum required
•CF management training required
•Following to “nuisance” violations to the same property within 365 days, both the owner and tenant receive a warning letter
•3rd violation, the owner and tenant will be assessed $250.00 fee.
•4th incident, an additional $250.00 fee assessed, and the property owner must terminate the tenancy.
•Subsequent violations will also be subject to a $250.00 fee
•Violations of the crime free/drug free addendum provisions and/or excessive calls provisions – owner is required to terminate lease
•Administrative fee and lease sanctions applied to owners failing to proceed with termination
•Repeat Nuisance ordinance applies to owners and renters – collect service fees
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 9
Other Communities - Crime Free Ordinance Summary
September 2019
Cities that do not have crime free ordinances
City that do not have
Crime Free
Ordinances
CFMH Lease
Addendum
Required
CFMH
Training
Required
Who Documents
Violations
Who Verifies
Violation
Notice of
Lease
Termination
Requirement
Appeal
Process
for
Landlord
Appeal
Process
for
Tenant
Penalty for
Landlord
St. Paul No No
Police
Department Building Official No No No Yes
Police staff spoke with the Crime Prevention Coordinator for the St. Paul Police Department. She stated that in St. Paul CFMH is a voluntary
choice for landlords and managers. The city utilizes their Department of Safety and Inspections to certify each rental unit for life and safety
issues. She also said they rely on other code enforcement options, but she has not responded to elaborate on that.
Richfield Yes No
Police
Department Building Official No No No Yes
Richfield utilizes a repeat nuisance ordinance that applies to all properties in the city, not just rentals. It relies on documentation from police
officers about violations. If there are two same/similar violations within a year, a warning letter is sent to the resident or property owner. If there
is a third violation within a year, there is a fine of $250 assessed. If the fine is not paid, it will go to collections or a lien can be placed on the
property. I was given materials from their Crime Prevention Specialist, Jill Mecklenberg, explaining this.
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 10
1
Crime-Free/Drug-Free
Rental Housing
May 15, 2019
History/Overview
1971
•Multi-family
licensing
inspections
begin
1991
•Consider 1&2
family rental and
disorderly use
provisions
(Added in 2005)
2001
•Adopt the
International
Property
Maintenance
Code
2005
•Program
One-and
two-family
rentals
included in
license and
inspection
2008
•Council
adopted
Crime/drug -
free provisions
2010
•Provisional
license
alternative
for problem
properties
2018
•Tenant
protection
1
2
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 11
2
Business licensing components for rental housing
•Property maintenance and inspection program
•Crime-free/drug-free training, lease addendums, and
response
•Protection from displacement in NOAH apartments
Why?
•Establish minimum standards for community livability
Implementation
•Community policing philosophy –partnerships
•Inspections, community development and housing departments
•Property owners / managers
•Tenants
•Identified all licensed rental units in the city and noted in our CAD
system
•All property owners / managers are assigned an officer liaison
•Community outreach staff oversee the program
•CFMH training for property owners / managers
3
4
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 12
3
CFMH phase one: training
•Same class held throughout the state
•Other cities that host class include:
•Brooklyn Park, Woodbury, Coon Rapids, St. Paul, Shakopee, Savage, Anoka,
Plymouth, New Hope, Moorhead, and Brooklyn Center (mncpa.net)
•Phase 2 (Optional): Crime prevention through environmental design survey
•Phase 3 (Optional): Resident safety meeting
St. Louis Park CFMH phase one: training
•Topics include:
•Crime-free ordinance (Outreach
Sergeant)
•Working with the police
(Outreach Officer)
•Suspicious activity (Outreach Officer)
•CPTED (Hopkins PD)
•Drug activity (SW Henn Cty Drug Task Force)
•Inspections (SLP Inspections)
•Housing assistance (SLP Housing)
•Rental agreements/evictions
(Hanbery & Turner, PA)
•Applicant screening (Rental History
Reports)
•Community mediation
(Community Mediation and Restorative Services)
5
6
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information
Page 13
4
Crime-free / drug-free ordinance components
•Do not engage in, facilitate, or permit criminal activity
or drug activity
•Do not commit controlled substance violations
•Do not engage in disorderly use activities
•Any of the above can lead to lease termination
•Note: DOES NOT apply to victims of domestic assault
•Also medicals, crisis, sexual assaults, etc.
Definitions
•Crime-free / drug-free
related criminal activity
•Manufacturing/growing
•Sale or distribution
•Use / possession
•Evidence of intent to sell,
distribute, manufacture, use
•Disorderly use
•Prohibited, unnecessary noise
•Trespassing
•Disorderly conduct
•Alcohol violations
7
8
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 14
5
How the process works
•Officers are called to the location
•Verify the violation (Hear, see, smell)
•Write report
•Determine violation type (drug/criminal OR disorderly use)
•Internal PD review process
•Owner/manager notification (call/letter) –temporarily
suspended
•Owner/manager process
•Other: St. Louis Park Public Housing review
First, second, and third violations
*Note: phone/mail notifications currently suspended
•First violation
•We call the owner/manager, send a letter, and make a note in our database
•Owner/manager notifies tenant
•Second violation
•Same as above… Also send action plan, and work with the manager/owner to
develop action plan follow-up
•Owner/manager notifies tenant and action plan returned to PD (10 days)
•Third violation
•Same as above… Also send action/resolution plan to inspections
•Owner/manager terminates lease. No new rental to same tenant (12 mos.)
9
10
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 15
6
Appeals
•Can be initiated by owner/manager following immediate
and third violations
•Appeal must be requested within 10 days, in writing
•Hearing may be granted with city manager or designee
•Owner/manager and tenant may attend
•Police department representatives can attend for
information/background
•Current ordinance does not include appeal option for
renter
9249788456908047506806546875266185805164482005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 TO
DATE
DISORDERLY USE CALLS FOR SERVICE (NOISE, DISTURBANCE,
NUISANCE)
"Disorderly Use" Calls for Service (Noise, Disturbance, Nuisance)Trend
Source: St.
Louis Park
police calls
for service
data
11
12
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information
Page 16
722021420718416117917619218719519415519115420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018 TO
DATE
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY CALLS FOR SERVICE (ASSAULT, THREAT,
WEAPON, PROST., FIGHT, DRUGS)
"Criminal Activity" Calls for Service (Assault, Threat, Weapon, Prost., Fight, Drugs)Trend
Source: St.
Louis Park
police calls
for service
data
1144119210528749659298568468747218127357076022005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 TO
DATE
ALL CFMH CALLS FOR SERVICE (NOISE, DISTURBANCE, NUISANCE,
ASSAULT, THREATS, FIGHT, PROST., WEAPON, DRUGS)
All CFMH Calls for Service (Noise, Disturbance, Nuisance, Assault, Threats, Fight, Prost., Weapon, Drugs)Trend
Source: St.
Louis Park
police calls
for service
data
13
14
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 17
811441192105287496592985684687472181273570760283168267842987289258995710612106881111411118112840
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 to
date
All CFMH Calls for Service (Noise, Disturbance, Nuisance, Assault, Threats, Fight, Prost., Weapon, Drugs)Number of Rental Units
Source: St. Louis Park
calls for service data
and housing dept. data
Housing Type Comparisons
15
16
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 18
9
Calls for Service Two-Year Snapshot
Calls to Rental Properties (26,325)
21%
Calls to All Other Locations (99,489)
79%
2015 -2017 CALLS FOR SERVICE SNAPSHOT
17
18
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 19
10
Violations by Property Type -2016
Occurrence of Types of
Violations
19
20
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 20
11
Violations by Year (2007-17)
86
179
242
253
176 170
210
153
205 197
113
2007 (AUG-DEC)2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Violations by Year
Total Violations
Violations by Type
1st Violation
86%
2nd Violation
11%
3rd Violations
3%
Total Recorded Violations
(Aug.2007 -Dec.2017)
1st Violation 2nd Violation 3rd Violations
21
22
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 21
12
Five Year Violation Totals
1st Violation 2nd Violation 3rd Violation Immediate
(Crime/Drugs)Total
2013 146 64.60%22 9.73%4 1.77%54 23.89%226
2014 84 58.74%13 9.09%5 3.50%41 28.67%143
2015 147 67.43%34 15.60%3 1.38%34 15.60%218
2016 133 65.84%19 9.41%5 2.48%45 22.28%202
2017 93 73.23%6 4.72%8 6.30%20 15.75%127
2018 (through
10-31-18)41 64.06%6 9.38%1 1.56%16 25.00%64
Five Year Violation Totals
1st Violation 2nd Violation 3rd Violation Immediate
(Crime/Drugs)Total
2013 146 64.60%22 9.73%4 1.77%54 23.89%226
2014 84 58.74%13 9.09%5 3.50%41 28.67%143
2015 147 67.43%34 15.60%3 1.38%34 15.60%218
2016 133 65.84%19 9.41%5 2.48%45 22.28%202
2017 93 73.23%6 4.72%8 6.30%20 15.75%127
2018 (through
10-31-18)41 64.06%6 9.38%1 1.56%16 25.00%64
23
24
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 22
13
Violation Type Snapshot
146
129
83
25
17
615 8
33
46
16
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2015 2016 2017
Violation Type Comparison Snapshot
1st Violation 2nd Violation 3rd Violation Immediate Termination
2017 Summary
•29 rental leases ended as a result of the ordinance
•10,000+ leased rental units in the city
•8 had incurred three documented incidents
•21 resulted in immediate lease termination (criminal
activity, drugs)
25
26
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 23
14
Detailed Breakdowns
2014 Immediate Terminations and 3rd Violations
Assault, 13
Sex Crime, 2
Disturbance, 2
Petty/Misd. Drug, 18
Gross/Felony Drug, 5
Noise, 3
Robbery, 1
Threats to Management, 1
Reckless Discharge
of a Firearm, 1
Total: 46
27
28
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 24
15
2015 Immediate Terminations and 3rd Violations
Total: 34
Assault, 4
Trespass, 1
Robbery, 1
Theft Activity, 1
Disturbance, 1
*Petty/Misd. Drug, 15
Disorderly Conduct, 1
Threats to Management, 1
Prostitution, 1
Gross/Felony Drug, 8
Noise, 3
*1 also charged with Felon in
Possession of a Firearm
2016 Immediate Terminations and 3rd Violations
Total: 50
Assault, 5
Property Damage, 1
Petty/Misd. Drug, 25
Gross/Felony Drug, 11
Noise, 5
Prostitution, 1
Threats Against Management,
2
29
30
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 25
16
2017 Immediate Terminations and 3rd Violations
Total: 28
Assault, 4
Reckless Discharge of
Firearm, 2
*Petty/Misd. Drugs, 11
**Gross/Felony Drugs, 3
Noise, 8
* 1 also charged with Malicious Punishment of a Child under 4
**1 resident overdosed in rental unit before issuing violation
Drug Calls for Service vs. Drug Violations
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
31
32
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information
Page 26
17
Resolution Outcomes
Immediate Violation Resolutions
Immediate Violation Resolutions
2015-2017
Appeal (9)
Mutual (80)
Non-Renewal (10)
Unlawful Detainer (8)
New Management (1)
DOA (1)
33
34
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 27
18
2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate
Total units and average household size
2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate
35
36
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information
Page 28
19
Council request to convene work group
•Convene workgroup to review the ordinance and its impacts
•Include representatives from stakeholders in the community
•Hold listening sessions to provide an opportunity for interested
community members and housing industry representatives to
comment
•Make recommendations to the council on possible modifications
to the ordinance or on its future direction
What resources or data does the workgroup need to
assist in analyzing the impacts of the ordinance?
Would the group be interested in hearing from a panel of
“experts”? If so, who should be included on the panel?
Next Steps…
37
38
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 29
1
Rental Calls for Service
Calls for Service (CFS) 2017-2019
Data from Police Call Records
Rental CFS 2017-19
1
2
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 30
2
Rental CFS 2017-19: DRUGS
Rental CFS 2017-19: ASSAULT
3
4
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 31
3
Rental CFS 2017-19: THREATS
Rental CFS 2017-19: TRESPASS
5
6
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 32
4
Rental CFS 2017-19: DISTURB./NOISE
Rental CFS 2017-19: WEAPONS
7
8
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Crime/drug-free rental housing workgroup recommendations additional information Page 33
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: March 23, 2020
Written report: 2
Executive summary
Title: Human Rights Commission 2020 Annual Work Plan
Recommended action: Council review of the annual work plan, updated mission and vision
statement and past years work with representatives of Human Rights Commission. Discussion
of these will be rescheduled to a later date as needed.
Policy consideration: Is the work of the Human Rights Commission in alignment with council
priorities and expectations?
Summary: The complete Human Rights Commission work plan is attached for review. There is a
total of five initiative with four of them being new initiatives. The new initiatives will be
outlined below:
1. Build new partnerships – in an effort for HRC to be more effective and strategic
partnerships are key to ensuring that the work reaches wider and further.
2. Community engagement to assess what community would like to see from HRC’s work
moving forward.
3. Provide various programing to the community at large, with more intentional focus
around census and elections/voting.
4. Host a series of events around different engagement/equity topics. At each of these
events HRC will discuss its new purpose and mission statement and seek feedback on
the direction people like to see it move in.
The HRC’s updated mission and purpose statement read as follows:
The mission of the Human Rights Commission is to support community and St. Louis Park’s
strategic priority of racial equity and inclusion.
We believe that a just and inclusive community is achievable in St. Louis Park.
Financial or budget considerations: None
Strategic priority consideration:
• St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through
community engagement.
• St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to
create a more just and inclusive community for all.
Supporting documents: Human Rights Commission Annual Work Plan 2020
Prepared by: Darius Gray, community organizer
Reviewed by: Alicia Sojourner, racial equity manager, Nancy Deno, deputy city mgr/HR dir
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Board and Commission
Annual Workplan
Approved: January 21, 2020
Updated:
1
Work Plan Template│ Human Rights Commission
Time
Frame
Initiative Strategic
Priorities
Purpose
(see page 2 for definitions)
Outcome (fill in after
completed)
Whole of
2020
Develop new partnerships ☒New Initiative
☐Continued
Initiative☐Ongoing
Responsibility
☒1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3
☐4 ☒ 5☐N/A
☒Commission Initiated Project
☐Council Initiated Project
☐Report Findings (council requested)☐Formal Recommendation (council
requested)
October –
December
2020
Review and Revise bylaws
Revisit the Human Rights Commission
materials, including website
☒New Initiative
☐Continued
Initiative☐Ongoing
Responsibility
☒1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3☐4 ☐ 5☐N/A
☒Commission Initiated Project
☐Council Initiated Project
☐Report Findings (council requested)☐Formal Recommendation (council
requested)
Whole of
2020
Community engagement to assess what
community wants from HRC.
☒New Initiative
☐Continued
Initiative☐Ongoing
Responsibility
☐1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3☐4 ☒ 5☐N/A
☒Commission Initiated Project
☐Council Initiated Project
☐Report Findings (council requested)☐Formal Recommendation (council
requested)
Whole of
2020
Through
summer
(census)
Through
Nov. 2020
(Voting)
Provide various programing for example
to voting/census coupled with
community engagement to assess
community wants for HRC.
•Census
•Election/Voting protection
☒New Initiative
☐Continued
Initiative☐Ongoing
Responsibility
☒1 ☐ 2 ☐
3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐N/A
☒Commission Initiated Project
☐Council Initiated Project
☐Report Findings (council requested)☐Formal Recommendation (council
requested)
Whole of
2020
Host a series of events around different
engagement topics. Leading with a Race
Equity 101 for the community. First
event on Feb. 27th
☒New Initiative
☐Continued
Initiative☐Ongoing
Responsibility
☐1 ☐ 2 ☐
3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐N/A
☒Commission Initiated Project
☐Council Initiated Project
☐Report Findings (council requested)☐Formal Recommendation (council
requested)
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Human Rights Commission 2020 Annual Work Plan Page 2
Board and Commission
Annual Workplan
Approved: January 21, 2020
Updated:
2
City of St. Louis Park Strategic Priorities
1.St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all.
2.St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship.
3.St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development.
4.St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
5.St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement
OR Other
Purpose: definitions
•Project initiated by the board or commission
Commission Initiated Project
•Project tasked to a board or commission by the city council
Council Initiated Project
•Initiated by the city council
•Board and commission will study a specific issue or topic and report its findings or comments to the city council in
writing
•No direct action is taken by the board/commission
Report Findings
•Initiated by the city council
•Board and commission will study a specific issue or topic and makes a formal recommendation to the city council on
what action to take
•A recommendation requires a majoirty of the commissioners' support
Formal Recommandation
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Human Rights Commission 2020 Annual Work Plan Page 3
Board and Commission
Annual Workplan
Approved: January 21, 2020
Updated:
3
Modifications:
Work plans may be modified, to add or delete items, in one of three ways:
•Work plans can be modified by mutual agreement during a joint work session.
•If immediate approval is important, the board or commission can work with their staff liaison to present a modified work plan for city
council approval at a council meeting.
•The city council can direct a change to the work plan at their discretion.
Parking Lot
Items that are being considered by the board/commission but not proposed in the annual work plan. Council approval is needed if the
board/commission decides they would like to move forward with an initiative.
Initiative Comments:
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 2)
Title: Human Rights Commission 2020 Annual Work Plan Page 4
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: March 23, 2020
Written report: 3
Executive summary
Title: 2020 Market Value Overview
Recommended action: No action needed. This summary report is provided for informational
purposes to update Council on the local real estate market dynamics and preparing for the
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization process that begins in April.
Policy consideration: None at this time.
Summary: The assessed market valuation and classification for each property determines their
individual tax capacity and thus the overall tax capacity of the community. In addition to fiscal
budgeting and property tax implications, the composition of value and trending are important
for Council to understand as they focus on overall governance of the community.
This review is being made to give the Council additional information on how the community’s
real estate is reacting to the significant evolution of the housing stock (single-family, condo,
cooperatives, townhomes and apartment complexes), market performance trends for
commercial-industrial space, thoughts on the current market cycle, and the foundation to look
forward.
Current event guidance: The appeal process at present is in the informal phase with further
directives on formal appeal procedures under review by the Department of Revenue due to
COVID-19. Staff will advise on direction as events unfold. The remainder of this report is
reflective of the assessment as set with a reminder that in the equitable sense, all adjustments
are market derived from the preceding year market activity – any issues relating to the current
health/economy scenario will be reflected in the assessments moving forward per market
reactions.
The St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization convenes its organizational meeting
on Monday April 13, 2020 with the follow-up meeting scheduled for April 27.
Financial or budget consideration: Not applicable.
Vision consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Cory Bultema, city assessor
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: 2020 Market Value Overview
Discussion
Overview of the Minnesota Property Tax System
Minnesota law establishes a specific process and timeline for the entire property tax system,
including the assessment of property. The system is summarized as follows:
1.All real property is valued at market value and classified according to actual use annually.
The owners are notified, generally in March, with informal and multiple formal options for
discussion and appeal.
2.State law defines how the value is translated into tax capacity annually via class rate
structures, programs, exclusions and credits (e.g. blind, disabled, homestead, veteran
exclusion, low-income rental, agricultural et al). These refinements are administratively
maintained.
3.Budgets for each taxing jurisdiction are set annually. Funding sources include the property
tax levy, voter approved market value referendums, bonding, special assessments, user
fees, grants and programs in a variety of operational sources which vary among
jurisdictions.
4.In Minnesota, property taxes are a levied budget. The tax budget levied in each tax
jurisdiction is divided by the total tax capacity of that unique area (e.g. city, county, school
district, met council et al). The result is the respective total levy extension multiplier (rate).
The multipliers are applied to each individual property in calculating the property taxes in
the year following the assessment and setting of the budget. It is essential to understand
that the property tax “rate” as used in the Minnesota system is simply a math equation and
not a full reflection of tax base composition, service level, efficiency or performance.
The Assessing function deals primarily with the first two steps which often entails explaining the
basic system outline to taxpayers/owners. As noted above, the process begins with
measurement of market activity as staff renders an opinion of market value and classification
annually for 17,000+ parcels in St. Louis Park as of January 2 each year. The assessment must
comply with standards established by the Minnesota Department of Revenue, Minnesota
statutes and with review/approval by the Hennepin County Assessor’s Office.
Market value is defined in Minnesota Statute 272.03 subd 8 as “the usual selling price at the
place where the property to which the term is applied shall be at the time of assessment; being
the price which could be obtained at a private sale or an auction sale, if it is determined by the
assessor that the price from the auction sale represents an arm's-length transaction. The price
obtained at a forced sale shall not be considered.”
Classification of the property use is also defined by Minnesota statute. The rationale for this
requirement is that the Minnesota property tax system applies differing classification rates in
determining how the value is translated into tax capacity. The classification system greatly
favors residential property types (single-family, condo, townhome, apartments) versus business
property types (commercial and industrial). This differential is further affected by specific
programs and laws such as fiscal disparities and state-wide levies.
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: 2020 Market Value Overview
The Assessment Process
The purpose of the assessment is to annually render an accurate and equitable opinion of
market value of each parcel of property. Doing so requires current information about the
properties being assessed and the local real estate market. In addition to the economic market
forces at work, the individual property location, use and physical characteristics play a
significant role in the valuation.
The St. Louis Park Assessing division maintains a record of every property in the city including
its size, location, physical characteristics and condition. As there are 17,000+ taxable parcels in
the city, it is virtually impossible to have complete knowledge of each property, which may or
may not sell in a given year.
The Minnesota property tax system therefore requires periodic inspections. The current cycle
of inspection is on a five year rotating schedule (known as the quintile) which may be altered
due to physical change of the property due to new construction, renovations, additions and
damage. The goal of the periodic and interim inspection process is to assess the characteristics
and corresponding market value of each property as closely as possible versus the property’s
competitive position.
It is important to know that the valuation process for residential properties in the State of
Minnesota is based on mass appraisal. The valuations are modeled by the use of a computer
assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) methodology. To summarize, the physical characteristics for
each property are maintained in a large database which calculates the individual valuations
based upon the location, style and physical characteristics for each property. While often
viewed as a mathematical equation to be manipulated, a truly functional CAMA system allows
focused modeling on properties with similar marketability. The purpose of modeling is to
replicate a mirror image of market performance based on competitive properties that have sold
during the comparison time period (fact-based modeling).
Minnesota requires almost all sales to be recorded in an electronic Certificate of Real Estate
Value (e-CRV) data system. In all cases, the sales information is scrutinized and qualified. Initial
clerical screening occurs at the city and county level. The sale information is then frequently
augmented with more detail from a variety of professional data services and staff may follow-
up with direct buyer/seller verifications and re-inspections in the case where the sale indicates
that we may have imperfect information.
Evidence suggesting anything but an arms-length transaction (a forced sale, foreclosure, a sale
to a relative, etc.) results in the sales information being excluded from study. This is important
as the market information constitutes the measurable database for the statistical comparisons
necessary to make the property assessment.
The mass appraisal process is different from the individual appraisal system used by banks,
mortgage companies and others. Mass appraisal is a modeling exercise using large groups of
sales to review competitively similar groups of properties. The individual appraisal process is
comparing one subject property with a limited number of (most) similar competing properties.
In the appeal process, the assessing staff looks to both the mass valuation models and a current
individual appraisal analysis for further review.
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: 2020 Market Value Overview
Big Picture of the Residential Market – Realtor Perspective
Before discussion of the 2020 assessment, we want to provide a big picture overview from the
perspective of Realtors. The broad spectrum of owner based residential real estate peaked at
roughly 2007 and bottomed out around 2011. The market fully rebounded by (circa) 2016. The
following chart is an aggregate of single-family homes, condos and townhomes from 2011
through 2019 on an annual basis. This provides a comparative reference for St. Louis Park and
our immediate neighbors through the last decade.
Historic Median Sale Price – Aggregate of Single-Family Homes, Condos and Townhomes
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
St. Louis Park 185,600 198,950 219,000 230,000 239,000 245,000 264,663 287,000 305,000
Edina 345,000 349,000 351,000 380,000 397,000 435,005 460,000 450,000 473,606
Golden Valley 199,450 218,000 247,700 248,700 264,900 290,275 312,750 309,950 343,000
Hopkins 126,250 160,500 181,500 182,000 213,500 215,000 218,650 250,000 259,950
Minnetonka 233,750 255,400 280,000 273,984 300,000 307,350 335,000 347,500 358,250
Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors Sales Data (MAAR)
In contemplating the historical figures above, all of the primary owner-based housing options
are included. This aggregate price structure gives an interesting but incomplete perspective for
each community. The variation from year-to-year depends on which market segment has more
sales as well as the volume of sales with new construction/major renovations. The chart below
breaks out the dominant mix of options available and their sale performance in the past year.
Annual 2019 Market Performance: Sale Volume – Median Sale Price – Days on Market
Single-Family Condominiums Townhomes
# Median Days on # Median Days on # Median Days on
Sales Sale Price Market Sales Sale Price Market Sales Sale Price Market
St. Louis Park 632 325,000 19 174 167,900 26 62 221,300 20
Edina 643 607,500 35 296 185,000 25 40 452,500 27
Golden Valley 329 370,000 21 25 225,000 25 51 217,500 14
Hopkins 128 309,000 14 72 114,000 15 49 185,500 17
Minnetonka 638 423,200 24 168 186,000 21 182 281,000 20
Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors Sales Data (MAAR)
Several facts in the above table are notable. First and often surprising to some is that our
annual transaction volume is generally high in terms of turnover rate. This is due in part to our
pricing structure, the housing options available, the mix of options available, and the balance
between single-family, condo and townhome stock. The most significant fact in the table above,
however, is timing of market exposure (Days on Market). All of the local communities are
clearly showing short exposure times with limited inventory available which has continued over
multiple years. The move to a seller’s market has been particularly emphasized in the lower
bracket stock from the realtor perspective. While prior value appreciation has been relatively
stable, the current market has continued the trend of value compression between the more
rapidly moving lower price points and the relatively slower pace for the upper value stock.
Whether that supply/demand equation is influenced by outside economic factors, interest rates
and household income remains to be seen.
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: 2020 Market Value Overview
Summary of the St. Louis Park 2020 Assessment Roll
The Notice of Valuation and Classification commence mailing in March of each year. Each notice
reflects the property value and classification for a two-year period with the format as required by
the MN Department of Revenue. As of January 2, 2020, the total valuation of the city stands at
$8.15 billion versus 2019 ending at $7.73 billion. Valuations advanced throughout the spectrum
with two noticeable trend splits which will be covered at further length. Apartments again led the
way in terms of market appreciation along with commercial-industrial uses. Both of these sectors
have exhibited a combination of market appreciation and new improvement valuations which is
at the upper edge of market performance in the metro area. The ownership based residential
sector (single-family, condos and townhomes predominantly), from an assessed value
perspective, have seen a significant leveling off as the market paused a bit in 2019.
Further understanding of the value composition and year-over-year trending is explored in the
following chart.
Assessed Market Value Change for Dominant Sectors (Comparing 2020 to 2019 Assessment)
Single-Family Residential + 1.3% Market Basis versus + 1.9% with Improvements
Condominium + 4.0% Market Basis versus + 4.0% with Improvements
Townhomes + 3.1% Market Basis versus + 3.1% with Improvements
Apartments +11.4% Market Basis versus +15.2% with Improvements
Commercial + 7.5% Market Basis versus + 8.1% with Improvements
Industrial +11.3% Market Basis versus +11.3% with Improvements
St. Louis Park Total + 4.8% Market Based versus + 5.9% Gross Change
Source: St. Louis Park Assessing Office. The “total” line is subject to 0.5% refinement as the state assessed
rail and utility values are assumed and not available at report writing.
The market driven appreciation reflects a roughly apple-to-apple comparison. This measure is
inherently the primary focus for the mass appraisal methodology reflected by review of
transactions. There are also factors relating to use change, divisions and exemption changes.
Gross change reflects the total valuation change and includes improvement values arising from
new construction, additions, renovations and use repositioning. This metric reflects the full
scale of economic activity as assessed for 2020. The total value change will also be reflected in
tax capacity change as it relates to the payable 2021 tax period… as can be seen above the shift
will favor the lower density residential stock while being levied onto the more rapidly growing
commercial, industrial and apartment stock.
Each of the above categories will be explained at further length in the following summary with
reminder that that an assessment is fashioning a mirror image of the market. It has included
the traditional sales review, extensive qualification review, on-market listings at multiple points
throughout the year, accessing listing data, quintile inspections (approximately 20% of the stock
is reviewed each year) and new construction and renovation permit reviews.
We begin our review of the overall residential sector by breaking it down into the three
dominant categories: low density (single-family homes); mid-to-high density ownership based
(condos and townhomes) and apartment units.
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Title: 2020 Market Value Overview
Single Family Homes: Just under one-half of the total housing units are single family homes.
The city of St. Louis Park is broken down into 35 distinct neighborhoods which are configured to
local history rather than cohesive competitive influences. Of the 32 neighborhoods with single-
family properties, performance was mixed as you will see in the summary data table following
this narrative.
The following is a quantile breakdown of the most recent study period (the array is from lowest to
highest, 5 brackets with median of each). The purpose of presenting a quantile array is to provide
the reader with additional insight as to the volume and value bell curve of valuation that represents
the St. Louis Park single-family housing stock. The sales are time adjusted per MN Department of
Revenue standards using an annual trend of 2.94% as used for setting the assessment:
Quantile Array - Time Adjusted Price
Low High Count Q Median
132,200 260,600 111 239,300
260,800 299,300 111 281,900
299,700 339,500 110 313,700
339,700 419,000 111 373,300
419,500 1,687,500 111 528,900
Source: St. Louis Park Assessing Office
Study Period as 10-01-2018 through 09-30-2019
As can be seen above, the bulk of sales and housing stock values are in an approximate range of
282,000 to 373,000 with the city assessed median for the 2020 assessment at 306,400. When
combining market appreciation, a very low volume of distressed properties, an active
renovation sub-market and very low interest rates there would normally be an indisputably
wider expansion in the stratifications over the past year. This is relatively healthy in an
advancing market as it reflects a growing variety of housing options.
The market movements are not fully balanced, however, as the lower priced brackets are
proceeding at a slightly faster rate of appreciation which is illustrated as the median (mid-point)
assessed value advancing at 2.9% while the total stock value change was 1.3%. This is due to
the upper pricing brackets continuing their multi-year trend of very minimal value movement
for the most part. The lower pricing brackets remain stronger in terms of value growth
although the pace of annual change has slowed considerably for the first time in several years.
These price bracket trends are relatively consistent throughout Hennepin County although it
varies a bit depending on the specific community, their price points and housing mix.
Condominiums: There are 46 distinct condominium complexes in the community. The
complexes are a decidedly diverse stock in terms of structural vintage, design format
(apartment conversions, row-house, lo-rise, hi-rise and most everything in between).
As noted in prior years, condos and townhomes tend to be considerably more volatile in
valuations. This is generally due to four major factors: condos tend to have an in-complex sub-
market which can swing quickly; the complexes compete locally and more readily into nearby
cities; differing perceptions of value differ between the owner-occupant buyer versus the
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 7
Title: 2020 Market Value Overview
investor/rental buyer; and sale pricing can be affected in a significant manner by association
assessments.
The local market exhibits a very wide pricing structure. Time reference on the market
adjustments can be illustrative: the 2013 assessment was at -7.5%; the 2014 assessment was at
+7.8%; the 2015 assessment was at +8.5%; the 2016 assessment was at +8.2%; the 2017
assessment was at +5.8%; the 2018 assessment was at +9.1% ; the 2019 assessment was +6.5%
and for the 2020 assessment appreciation was at +4.0%. There are considerable variations
among the complexes with eight adjusting down (due to market and equalization factors) while
six complexes are adjusted upward over 10.0% this year.
Townhomes: There are 19 distinct townhome complexes in the community. Just under one-
half of them are relatively small with fewer than 20 units in the complex. The other half are
predominantly in the 20-50 unit count bracket with three larger complexes. In general, the
market forces at play in this property type are similar to that of the condos with several
mitigating factors. They include a higher average unit value which is more consistent in terms
of a lower degree of value variability. It is also our perception that the physical designs tend to
be less problematic with few exceptions, while the rate of distressed transactions and on-
market listings have tended to be less dramatic.
The following charts provide additional overview for the 2020 assessment. The first page
reflects the single-family neighborhoods over the past five years. The next two pages provide
the complex based breakdown of the condos and townhomes also over five years. Both charts
include a parcel count reference and median market value which allows insight and perspective
of the local housing market over an extended market period.
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 8
Title: 2020 Market Value Overview
St. Louis Park -- Single Family Residential Properties
Historical Change of Assessed Market Values (Quintile Cycle)
Year of Assessment 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
a. Median Assessed Value: 240,100 254,200 274,900 297,800 306,400 b. City-Wide Static Change: 4.4% 5.0% 6.9% 6.7% 1.3%
# Neighborhood Reference 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Parcels Median
1 Shelard Park N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A
2 Kilmer 0.8% 8.3% 6.4% 8.2% 3.9% 243 266,450
3 Crestview 4.3% 6.9% 0.2% 4.4% 2.7% 68 405,750
4 Westwood Hills 5.6% 4.9% 11.6% 0.6% 2.0% 292 457,200
5 Cedar Manor 6.5% 7.5% 7.9% 8.5% -0.7% 573 294,100
6 Northside (x) Willow Park 5.3% 10.4% 12.2% 6.1% -4.1% 303 301,100
7 Pennsylvania Park 2.2% 5.4% 0.0% 4.2% 9.2% 304 294,600
8 Eliot 5.6% 7.9% 6.9% 8.2% -2.2% 510 269,800
9 Blackstone 6.8% 1.5% 4.2% 9.5% 8.1% 95 230,800
10 Cedarhurst 4.1% 1.3% 4.2% 18.3% 3.8% 48 275,600
11 Eliot View 6.0% 6.8% 8.5% 7.0% 5.1% 165 284,300
12 Cobblecrest 5.6% 2.9% 7.2% 10.2% 0.9% 382 341,300
13 Minnehaha 8.8% 0.6% 4.9% 7.8% 2.2% 129 412,100
14 Amhurst N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A
15 Aquila 6.7% 4.5% 10.7% 5.3% 5.0% 504 250,850
16 Oak Hill 4.5% 7.5% 6.8% 11.0% 3.5% 638 278,850
17 Texa Tonka 2.9% 9.6% 7.8% 7.4% 1.9% 385 262,200
18 Bronx Park 4.0% 3.4% 7.2% 6.9% 4.3% 992 286,000
19 Lenox 5.0% 5.4% 8.1% 7.5% 2.3% 831 280,700
20 Sorenson 6.4% 2.4% 11.5% 8.1% 2.0% 451 304,300
21 Birchwood 4.5% 3.7% 11.5% 7.0% 2.8% 649 308,300
22 Lake Forest 3.6% 0.7% 5.9% 3.3% -3.1% 196 625,200
23 Fern Hill 3.2% 2.9% 5.2% 4.4% 0.9% 962 437,300
24 Triangle 0.7% 7.0% 5.7% 10.3% 4.5% 108 276,200
25 Wolfe Park 5.0% 5.1% 10.5% 3.8% 5.4% 16 293,450
26 Minikada Oaks 0.9% 11.1% 0.9% 2.3% -1.6% 76 400,400
27 Minikada Vista 2.9% 5.4% 3.9% 5.1% -2.5% 798 454,800
28 Browndale 3.7% 4.2% 6.2% 7.9% 1.7% 549 437,500
29 Brookside 6.7% 9.2% 7.6% 6.1% -2.9% 328 294,200
30 Brooklawns 5.0% 12.1% 6.2% 2.6% -0.4% 149 303,150
31 Elmwood 6.4% 7.1% 7.8% 3.7% 5.0% 267 338,600
32 Meadowbrook N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A
33 South Oak Hill 4.9% 1.9% 2.9% 11.4% 8.2% 291 265,100
34 Westdale 1.3% 4.5% 7.0% 14.9% -2.8% 106 282,700
35 Creekside 7.6% 2.3% 8.1% 4.4% 1.3% 172 346,650
Quintile Counts 2,464 2,902 1,350 2,554 2,281 11,580 a: Median assessed market values for all single-family parcels – including improvement values.
b: The annual percent change is market driven and does not include improvement values.
Source: Annual compilations by the St. Louis Park Assessing Office
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 9
Title: 2020 Market Value Overview
St. Louis Park -- Condominium Properties
Historical Change of Assessed Market Values
Year of Assessment 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
a. Median Assessed Value: 125,700 143,500 155,100 169,900 171,600
b. City-Wide Static Change: 10.6% 7.1% 9.2% 6.5% 4.0%
Code Complex Reference 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Units Median
MO Monterey Coop 2.1% 4.5% 6.4% 6.6% 3.3% 8 102,050
AC Aquila Commons Coop 6.2% 8.3% 6.5% 6.6% 3.3% 106 228,800
33 3300 On The Park 20.7% 1.8% 13.9% 4.4% 3.6% 128 176,100
35 35th St Condos - Apt Conver 2.4% 4.9% 5.7% 0.0% 3.3% 11 129,300
55 55+ Condos 9.5% -7.7% 8.0% 21.1% 6.8% 60 237,000
BK Brookside Lofts - 4100 Vernon 20.2% -6.6% 0.0% 15.5% -2.1% 27 242,000
BK Brookside Lofts - 4132 Vernon 19.6% -6.3% 0.0% 15.5% -2.1% 14 N/A
BR Bridgewalk - Conversion 15.7% 11.5% 9.5% 12.0% 2.4% 92 125,700
CA Calhoun Hill N/A 3.8% 6.5% 4.9% 3.4% 7 360,700
CH Coach Homes 17.7% 5.2% 7.5% 13.7% 10.6% 128 157,100
CS Cedar Trails - (S Condo TH) -3.1% 11.2% 6.7% 9.9% 1.7% 32 202,150
CT Cedar Trails - (North of CLR) 15.2% 11.6% 5.9% 8.6% 3.8% 280 143,100
CW Cedar Trails - (S-West Condo TH) 7.0% 4.6% 4.4% 9.9% 13.4% 48 230,550
EV Elmwood Village 6.5% 5.3% 4.5% 6.8% 1.7% 77 337,800
FH Fern Hill 2.8% 9.5% 0.0% -2.9% -7.3% 30 173,600
GR Greensboro Condos - HIA 8.7% 27.4% 8.8% 2.1% 22.0% 164 112,000
HV Harmony Vista (Hoigaards) 2.8% 5.1% 6.4% 6.7% 6.9% 74 229,700
IB Inglewood Boutique 5.0% 16.6% 6.5% 3.0% -9.3% 6 333,050
LN Lynn Ave Condos - Apt Conver 5.0% 5.0% 6.3% 7.4% 5.1% 12 211,800
LY Lynwood Condos 4.9% -4.1% 4.5% 8.9% 8.1% 11 179,400
MC Monterey Pl - Apt Convers 3.5% 5.9% 5.0% 6.9% -0.1% 30 262,950
MR Murphy Ridge Condo TH - Rental 4.9% 5.3% 5.9% -5.9% 3.3% 4 159,400
MW Monterey West - Condo TH Coop 5.0% 0.5% 0.0% -9.0% 3.3% 7 227,100
NP Natchez Pl 12.7% 5.0% 0.0% 14.9% 13.7% 27 200,600
OX Oxford Gardens - Apt Convers 4.8% 4.7% 0.0% 6.6% 3.3% 12 100,800
P0 Parkside Urban Lofts - 460 Bldg 12.3% 7.6% 9.1% 2.2% 1.8% 24 324,200
P2 Parkside Urban Lofts - 462 Bldg 11.1% 3.0% 9.9% 6.4% -1.1% 22 292,800
P4 Parkside Urban Lofts - 464 Bldg 8.6% 4.0% 11.3% 2.2% 8.9% 22 309,500
PP Pondview Park - Apt Conver -4.9% 14.8% 4.6% 6.7% 14.0% 30 147,800
PW Pointe West Condos 2.9% 7.9% 5.0% 10.3% -2.4% 86 337,300
S1 Sungate 1 - East of Alabama (No.) -3.2% 17.2% 17.1% 6.6% 5.3% 20 149,300
S2 Sungate 2 - East of Alabama (So.) -3.2% 1.5% 20.0% 14.9% 0.9% 26 177,400
S3 Sungate 3 - West of Alabama -3.2% 17.3% 2.4% 6.7% 1.4% 14 217,700
SR Sunset Ridge - HIA 6.5% 25.5% 3.2% 9.7% 3.0% 240 144,000
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 10
Title: 2020 Market Value Overview
TF Twin Fountains 7.3% 14.3% 15.5% 10.3% 1.1% 88 131,300
EL Excelsior Lofts (T Joe Site) 10.8% -4.6% 10.6% 8.4% -1.5% 86 268,600
GW Grand Way (NE Bldg) 9.1% 0.8% 9.8% 0.4% 5.6% 124 364,850
TG The Grand NW @ Excelsior 10.2% 3.3% 9.8% -4.2% 4.4% 96 435,400
VL Village Lofts 9.4% -4.0% 9.0% 9.7% 6.6% 60 217,800
WE Westmoreland - HIA -1.3% 5.5% 22.6% 7.1% 11.3% 72 111,100
WF Wooddale Flats N/A 41.1% 4.0% 1.0% 2.9% 33 483,700
WL Wolfe Lake 5.7% 19.0% 31.6% 3.8% 2.3% 131 191,000
WM Westmarke Condos -1.7% 5.0% 6.4% 6.6% 1.7% 64 212,450
WO West Oaks -1.8% 1.8% 21.4% 10.5% 1.0% 75 265,400
WV Westwood Villa - HIA 0.3% 0.3% 30.3% 19.5% 10.7% 66 125,700
WY Wynmoor 5.0% 0.4% 34.2% 11.2% 3.3% 56 125,800
Quintile Counts 435 440 546 437 693 2,830
St. Louis Park -- Townhome Properties
Historical Change of Assessed Market Values
Year of Assessment 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
a. Median Assessed Value: 165,200 174,900 190,200 211,200 222,900 b. City-Wide Static Change: 6.6% 4.0% 9.5% 9.5% 3.1%
Code Complex Reference 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Units Median
BG Brunswick Gables 6.1% 7.5% 7.1% 7.9% 2.8% 7 265,600
DB Dan-Bar Rental Twnhme 5.1% 2.7% 4.0% 8.0% 2.70% 4 213,000
EW Excelsior Way Rentals 21.0% 25.7% 26.5% 14.0% 6.50% 38 214,500
GR Greensboro - HIA 12.1% 7.0% 10.0% 15.2% 1.80% 96 204,100
HE Hampshire Estates 5.1% 4.9% 10.2% 15.2% 2.80% 8 190,400
HH Hampshire House 5.0% 0.0% 8.6% 14.3% 2.70% 13 183,200
LL Lamplighter Park 5.6% 3.6% 6.9% 8.7% 2.80% 5 425,600
LA Lohmans Amhurst 5.9% 6.0% 12.8% 7.0% 5.50% 276 219,600
ME Medley Row 6.1% 3.4% 7.9% 11.0% 2.80% 22 328,400
MP Montery Park 3.1% 2.4% 7.0% 2.5% 0.30% 18 390,350
PC Princeton Court 3.1% 3.0% 4.8% 1.8% 0.30% 13 434,200
QC Quentin Court 3.1% 2.9% 17.5% 2.3% 0.30% 10 428,500
SH Shamrock 3.0% 2.2% 7.6% 18.8% 11.30% 16 202,200
SK Skyehill 7.4% -6.1% 11.5% 9.4% 2.80% 31 285,500
SW Sungate West 17.6% 6.5% -0.1% 11.5% 14.40% 48 209,200
VP Victoria Ponds 3.5% 1.2% 5.2% 7.7% -3.60% 72 391,100
WT Westwood 9.0% -3.5% 3.7% 19.2% 1.20% 38 228,000
ZA Zarthan Apt Twnhomes 2.5% 4.0% 8.4% 16.0% 2.80% 18 231,200
ZP Zarthan Park 2.6% 4.0% 10.3% 16.7% 2.80% 16 241,500
Quintile Counts 18 276 132 293 749
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 11
Title: 2020 Market Value Overview
Apartments: This sector is largely driven in the historic sense by tenant supply/demand, the
income stream and owner return expectations. To begin, a brief review of recent assessment
adjustment for market change and total value change including new construction are below:
- For 2012 – market change at + 4.9% which included very little new construction value.
- For 2013 – market change at + 8.2% and +13.9% including new construction.
- For 2014 – market change at + 8.2% and +20.2% with multiple new complexes on-line.
- For 2015 – market change at +12.1% and +13.3% for the next phase of new complexes.
- For 2016 – market change at +12.0% and +17.8% including new construction.
- For 2017 – market change at + 6.4% and + 9.5% including new construction.
- For 2018 – market change at + 7.5% and +13.3% including new construction.
- For 2019 – market change at + 8.2% and +11.4% including new construction.
- For 2020 – market change at +11.4% and +15.2% including new construction.
Looking at the above historical pattern presents a very clear picture of an extended period of
robust growth in the multi-family stock. This includes mixed market appreciation rates annually
for the Class A-B-C stock with ongoing new construction of multiple new complexes. The market
demand for units is primarily attributed to our location with proximity to downtown Minneapolis
as well as major employers in the west metro area as well as the broader economy.
Class A projects have been the primary focus for new construction due to the inter-connected
nature of the traditional approaches to valuation… cost to build, income stream and sales. It is
important to recognize that the Class A and B stock was under-built dating back to the mid-
1980 to mid-1990 time periods. The new complexes are helping to diversify the housing stock
in that the total unit count is now distributed with approximately half being class C stock
(typically less than 3 stories, built circa 1960-1975) and half being Class A and B stock. For your
reference, the median unit values for the stock are: Class A at $246,000; B’s in a range of
$158,000 to $202,000 and the C’s at $109,000. While there are variations within each of the
classes, these values are very well supported in the market.
For the 2020 assessment, the market appreciation for the various classes was as follows: Class
A’s at 4%, B’s at approximately 6% and the C’s at 24%. A number of sales transactions have
occurred over consecutive sale study periods which have set and reset highwater benchmarks.
This has occurred in virtually all classes to a differing degree in terms of timing. Class A
capitalization rates are now approximately one-half what they were a twenty years ago –
keeping in mind that means that values have essentially doubled. The overall market is now
extending that investment return structure to the C’s as renovated which in turn incentivizes
the existing stock to improve physically in order to compete.
For the A’s and B’s, our unit values were already tight relative to the market and these
complexes are more sensitive to new construction competition. For the C’s the time
adjustments are a mixture of economic forces. To begin, rents are up nominally year-over-year
if the condition is unchanged. For those properties undergoing renovations, their ability to
generate income and sale marketability are dramatically improved. Timing varies a bit
depending on perspective. Buyers think in immediate terms as the property is essentially
turnkey ready to operate. Owners who continue to hold/operate are often in a one-to-two-year
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 12
Title: 2020 Market Value Overview
pattern as it takes time to plan repairs, initiate with cost/labor increases, restore physically,
return to operations and for the income stream to stabilize. The most significant factor in Class
C value movement has been the suburban sale pattern, renovated or not, at increased unit
values with much lower capitalization rates in particular.
In conclusion, the apartment sector remains strong fundamentally for vacancy rates, alternative
housing choices and a continued job growth trend. The capitalization rate issue is driven by
market participants. We have noted the extreme length of the current growth cycle – St. Louis
Park’s location and the development of light rail are expected to foster an extension of growth
beyond what may be expected in other suburban locations.
Commercial and Industrial: This sector has exhibited continuous market appreciation and new
construction growth for an extended period approaching a decade. Value changes year over
year are dependent on how these uses are performing in a range of national, regional and
immediately local economies. Commercial and industrial properties are valued across
jurisdictional boundaries to a significant extent with the specific use dictating how large of an
area the competitive market occupies.
The overall market adjustment for the 2020 valuation on the commercial properties was 8.1%
inclusive of new construction and 7.5% net of improvements. This represents a continued trend
of extended growth above metro norms. This is largely attributed to our location, the strong
economy, an eclectic and interesting mixture of uses and the pace/volume of redevelopment.
The overall market adjustment for the industrial stock was 11.3% market driven without new
construction value for the year. Looking at these figures brings three observations to mind.
The first is that value changes in this use category become tricky as demand for buildings
previously viewed as functionally obsolescent is varying due to the economy. A significant
volume of the current industrial stock is located near the future light rail station areas which is
a major driver of value change in terms of use, alterations and interim holding. The two
preceding issues brings us to the economic reality of under-lying land values. As a mature inner
ring suburb – also actively engaged in redevelopment – our land value can be a limiting factor
for industrial users. The reason being that industrial uses are land intensive and low-rise while
our location and associated land values are a self-reinforcing premium driven by density.
To close, both the commercial and industrial sectors are at or near record high level with
multiple signs that the metro market is beginning to slow the growth curve.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: March 23, 2020
Written report: 4
Executive summary
Title: February 2020 monthly financial report
Recommended action: No action required at this time.
Policy consideration: Monthly financial reports are part of our financial management policies.
Summary: The monthly financial report provides an overview of general fund revenues and
departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. A
budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included with this report.
Financial or budget considerations: Expenditures should generally be at approximately 17% of
the annual budget at the end of February. General fund expenditures were at 15% of the
adopted annual budget through February.
The only expenditure variance at this time is in organized recreation at 24.6% because the full
annual community education contribution of $187,400 was paid to the school district in
February, which is consistent with prior years.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Summary of revenues and expenditures – general fund
Budget to actual – enterprise funds
Prepared by: Darla Monson, accountant
Reviewed by: Tim Simon, chief financial officer
Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Actual $2,899 $6,184
Budget $3,475 $6,949 $10,424 $13,898 $17,373 $20,847 $24,322 $27,796 $31,271 $34,745 $38,220 $41,694
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
$ THOUSANDS Monthly Expenditures -General Fund
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of February 29, 2020 20202020201820182019201920202020Balance YTD Budget Budget Audited Budget Unaudited Budget YTD Feb Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes25,705,886$ 26,597,928$ 26,880,004$ 26,952,306$ 28,393,728$ 28,393,728$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits3,924,648 4,001,644 4,103,424 5,515,346 4,660,811 969,929 3,690,882 20.81% Fines & Forfeits269,200 282,146 279,700 265,509 280,000 14,105 265,895 5.04% Intergovernmental1,864,877 2,006,435 1,760,900 1,677,525 1,760,082 409,404 1,350,678 23.26% Charges for Services2,162,410 2,180,589 2,187,319 2,154,902 2,273,824 138,383 2,135,441 6.09% Rents & Other Miscellaneous1,318,037 1,427,744 1,367,012 1,498,174 1,456,102 319,558 1,136,544 21.95% Transfers In1,929,090 1,929,076 1,999,877 1,949,877 2,038,338 330,390 1,707,948 16.21% Investment Earnings 160,000 251,494 180,000 200,869 210,000 210,000 0.00% Other Income40,950 35,802 31,300 47,348 621,280 204,051 417,229 32.84% Use of Fund Balance *523,835 298,156 224,466 - 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues37,898,933$ 38,712,858$ 39,087,692$ 40,486,322$ 41,694,165$ 2,385,819$ 39,308,346$ 5.72%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration1,341,606$ 1,340,282$ 1,837,620$ 1,673,834$ 1,868,599$ 207,287$ 1,661,312$ 11.09% Finance978,752 964,036 1,034,199 1,078,148 1,124,045 182,986 941,059 16.28% Assessing759,865 710,715 772,746 751,737 808,171 122,990 685,181 15.22% Human Resources796,666 735,050 805,620 756,767 823,209 116,356 706,853 14.13% Community Development1,479,911 1,559,721 1,502,521 1,515,672 1,571,894 245,108 1,326,786 15.59% Facilities Maintenance1,162,342 1,223,109 1,170,211 1,209,474 1,265,337 158,841 1,106,496 12.55% Information Resources1,589,432 1,526,028 1,674,937 1,474,604 1,709,255 300,601 1,408,654 17.59% Communications & Marketing755,940 829,732 805,674 786,448 828,004 120,478 707,526 14.55% Community Outreach27,637 12,085 0.00%Total General Government8,892,151$ 8,900,758$ 9,603,528$ 9,246,684$ 9,998,514$ 1,454,647$ 8,543,867$ 14.55% Public Safety: Police9,930,681$ 9,877,014$ 10,335,497$ 10,469,594$ 10,853,821$ 1,711,876$ 9,141,945$ 15.77% Fire Protection4,657,973 4,630,520 4,813,078 4,754,524 5,040,703 759,934 4,280,769 15.08% Building 2,544,762 2,295,910 2,555,335 2,430,473 2,696,585 387,793 2,308,792 14.38%Total Public Safety17,133,416$ 16,803,444$ 17,703,910$ 17,654,590$ 18,591,109$ 2,859,603$ 15,731,506$ 15.38% Operations: Public Works Administration230,753$ 208,050$ 290,753$ 214,436$ 273,318$ 53,481$ 219,837$ 19.57% Public Works Operations3,091,857 2,998,935 3,111,481 3,098,894 3,331,966 439,235 2,892,731 13.18% Vehicle Maintenance1,253,367 1,210,279 1,242,236 1,266,537 1,278,827 222,271 1,056,556 17.38% Engineering525,834 552,432 570,377 583,453 551,285 42,621 508,664 7.73%Total Operations5,101,811$ 4,969,696$ 5,214,847$ 5,163,320$ 5,435,396$ 757,607$ 4,677,789$ 13.94% Parks and Recreation: Organized Recreation1,582,490 1,499,780 1,579,569 1,498,237 1,637,002 402,508 1,234,494 24.59% Recreation Center1,860,755 2,004,937 1,949,657 2,041,386 2,061,394 248,822 1,812,572 12.07% Park Maintenance1,830,530 1,866,744 1,833,297 1,799,075 1,906,363 254,072 1,652,291 13.33% Westwood Nature Center622,346 599,704 643,750 612,266 748,683 94,778 653,905 12.66% Natural Resources559,662 376,359 484,784 429,409 504,143 38,750 465,393 7.69%Total Parks and Recreation6,455,783$ 6,347,524$ 6,491,057$ 6,380,372$ 6,857,585$ 1,038,930$ 5,818,655$ 15.15% Other Depts and Non-Departmental: Racial Equity and Inclusion -$ -$ -$ 4,592$ 314,077$ 47,552$ 266,525$ 15.14% Sustainability26,283 497,484 25,306 472,178 5.09% Transfers Out1,040,000 0.00% Contingency and Other315,772 186,966 74,350 115,657 0.00%Total Other Depts and Non-Departmental315,772$ 1,226,966$ 74,350$ 146,531$ 811,561$ 72,858$ 738,703$ 8.98%Total General Fund Expenditures37,898,933$ 38,248,388$ 39,087,692$ 38,591,498$ 41,694,165$ 6,183,646$ 35,510,519$ 14.83%*Primarily related to E911 expenditures from restricted fund balance.Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 4) Title: February 2020 monthly financial reportPage 2
Budget to Actual - Enterprise FundsAs of February 29, 2020 Current BudgetFeb Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetFeb Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetFeb Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetFeb Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetOperating revenues: User charges 7,472,931$ 378,592$ 7,094,339$ 5.07% 7,897,086$ 437,569$ 7,459,517$ 5.54% 3,510,090$ 110,278$ 3,399,812$ 3.14% 3,065,882$ 260,011$ 2,805,871$ 8.48% Other 533,242 42,772 490,470 8.02% 43,000 43,000 0.00% 169,100 169,100 0.00% - - Total operating revenues8,006,173 421,364 7,584,809 5.26% 7,940,086 437,569 7,502,517 5.51% 3,679,190 110,278 3,568,912 3.00% 3,065,882 260,011 2,805,871 8.48%Operating expenses: Personal services1,521,345 262,560 1,258,785 17.26% 809,868 133,037 676,831 16.43% 539,901 69,387 470,514 12.85% 896,367 104,989 791,378 11.71% Supplies & non-capital268,300 64,095 204,205 23.89% 72,500 12,813 59,687 17.67% 247,550 47,358 200,192 19.13% 12,500 12,500 0.00% Services & other charges2,073,702 162,933 1,910,769 7.86% 4,621,847 1,095,847 3,526,000 23.71% 2,920,580 211,046 2,709,534 7.23% 329,946 53,574 276,372 16.24% Depreciation * Total operating expenses3,863,347 489,588 3,373,759 12.67% 5,504,215 1,241,697 4,262,518 22.56% 3,708,031 327,791 3,380,240 8.84% 1,238,813 158,563 1,080,250 12.80%Operating income (loss)4,142,826 (68,224) 4,211,050 -1.65% 2,435,871 (804,128) 3,239,999 -33.01% (28,841) (217,513) 188,672 754.18% 1,827,069 101,448 1,725,621 5.55%Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Interest income 7,450 7,450 0.00% 13,250 13,250 0.00% 13,000 13,000 0.00% 5,600 5,600 0.00% Debt issuance costs- - - Interest expense/bank charges(412,950) (203,835) (209,115) 49.36% (87,250) (33,136) (54,114) 37.98% (23,500) (23,500) 0.00% (34,850) (6,087) (28,763) 17.47% Total nonoperating rev (exp)(405,500) (203,835) (201,665) 50.27% (74,000) (33,136) (40,864) 44.78% (10,500) - (10,500) 0.00% (29,250) (6,087) (23,163) 20.81%Income (loss) before transfers3,737,326 (272,059) 4,009,385 -7.28% 2,361,871 (837,264) 3,199,135 -35.45% (39,341) (217,513) 178,172 552.89% 1,797,819 95,361 1,702,458 5.30%Transfers inTransfers out(638,635) (106,439) (532,196) 16.67% (873,785) (145,631) (728,154) 16.67% (248,289) (41,382) (206,908) 16.67% (342,130) (57,022) (285,108) 16.67%NET INCOME (LOSS)3,098,691 (378,499) 3,477,190 -12.21% 1,488,086 (982,894) 2,470,980 -66.05% (287,630) (258,894) (28,736) 90.01% 1,455,689 38,340 1,417,349 2.63%Items reclassified to bal sht at year end: Capital Outlay(2,649,356) (39,397) (2,609,959) 1.49% (1,411,750) (240) (1,411,510) 0.02%- - - (3,245,049) (240) (3,244,809) 0.01%Revenues over/(under) expenditures449,335 (417,896) 867,231 76,336 (983,134) 1,059,470 (287,630) (258,894) (28,736) (1,789,360) 38,100 (1,827,460) *Depreciation is recorded at end of year (non-cash item).Water SewerSolid WasteStorm WaterStudy session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 4) Title: February 2020 monthly financial reportPage 3
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: March 23, 2020
Written report: 5
Executive summary
Title: Proposed property acquisitions - 5647 and 5707 Minnetonka Boulevard
Recommended action: None at this time. Staff seeks confirmation that it should proceed with
the proposed strategic property acquisitions.
Policy consideration: Does the EDA wish to acquire the properties at 5647 and 5707
Minnetonka Boulevard to continue efforts to facilitate the development of affordable
ownership housing in this location?
Summary: Since May 2018, per EDA direction, the EDA has purchased two single-family homes
located at 5639 and 5643 Minnetonka Boulevard. The first was a foreclosure and the owners of
the second approached the EDA requesting its purchase. These properties are located next to an
apartment building to the east and two other single-family homes to the west. All four single-family
homes are zoned R-4 medium density multi-family residential. If assembled, all four single-family
properties could potentially be redeveloped into affordable, non-traditional ownership housing
such as row homes or townhomes, to further expand and diversify the city’s housing stock.
Last month, staff was separately approached by the two remaining property owners located at
5647 and 5707 Minnetonka Blvd (see attached Location Map) inquiring if the EDA would be
interested in purchasing their respective properties. Staff subsequently negotiated a purchase
price of $279,500 for the 5647 Minnetonka Boulevard property and $260,000 for the 5707
Minnetonka Boulevard property. The City Assessor examined these values and concurred that
the proposed purchase prices were within market. Should the EDA acquire the properties, staff
will reach out to affordable home ownership agencies to determine if there are partnership
opportunities to develop affordable ownership housing options. A proposal for any such a
partnership would be brought to the council for input.
Purchase agreements for 5647 & 5707 Minnetonka Blvd are being prepared by legal counsel for
the EDA’s review and approval in the coming weeks. Closing on the properties could occur on or
before May 1, 2020.
Financial or budget considerations: The $539,500 cost to acquire both properties is allocated
within the 2020 Development Fund budget. The EDA would incur additional costs related to
property management before the property is redeveloped. The cost of acquisition and related
expenses would be covered by the Development Fund with the intent to recoup the EDA’s
investment from the future sale of the properties to a developer.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Location map
Prepared by: Julie Grove, economic development specialist
Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, economic development coordinator
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA executive director and city manager
Study session meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Proposed property acquisitions - 5647 and 5707 Minnetonka Boulevard
Location Map of Proposed Property Acquisitions
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: March 23, 2020
Written report: 6
Executive summary
Title: Notice of eviction: update
Recommended action: Staff recommends council defer further action on a Notice of Eviction
ordinance until the outcome of a bill (HF1972) that has been introduced for consideration at
the legislature is known. The bill would require a 14-day notice period prior to filling a legal
eviction action.
Policy consideration: Does the council support delaying action on this item until the legislature
has had an opportunity to consider adoption of HE1972?
Summary: At the March 25, 2019 study session, staff reviewed a proposed Notice of Eviction
policy to promote tenant protection for all rental residents in St. Louis Park. The policy would
require rental property owners/managers to provide a notice to tenants prior to the filing of an
eviction action for nonpayment of rent. At the October 28, 2019 study session, representatives
from HOME Line and the Volunteer Lawyers Network & the Housing Court Project provided
input on the impacts of the policy largely from the tenant’s perspective.
Council directed staff to conduct a public outreach process stressing the importance of reaching
out to rental property owners for their input. The proposed policy was posted on the city’s
website and social media platforms and viewers were invited to provide comments. An article
was also included in the SPARC (St. Louis Park Area Rental Coalition) newsletter and mailed to
all rental property owners. Commenters were asked to identify as a rental property
owner/manager, renter/tenant, community member or other.
Based on the public comments received, staff proposed in a written report at the January 27,
2020 council study session, that the notice period be reduced from 14 to seven days. The
council directed staff to bring the policy back for discussion and consideration of approval at a
future council meeting. Since council’s last discussion, a bill (HF1972) has been introduced for
consideration at the legislature. This bill would require a 14-day notice period prior to an
owner/landlord filing a legal eviction action. Since this bill is proposing a requirement very
similar to the policy being considered by the council, staff is recommending that the council
defer acting on the city’s policy until the outcome of the proposed legislation is known.
Financial or budget considerations: Implementation and ongoing management and monitoring
of these policies/programs will require additional city staff time, as well as direct costs related
to educating rental property owners of the new requirements.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, CD deputy director and housing supervisor
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session Meeting of March 23, 2020 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: Notice of eviction: update
Discussion
Background:
Notice of eviction policy/SLP summary: Before bringing an eviction action alleging a material
breach of the lease including nonpayment of rent or other unpaid financial obligations, the
proposed ordinance would require a landlord provide a notice to the tenant 14 days prior to
filing to rent or other unpaid financial obligations and must state the total amount due along
with a specific accounting of the amount of the total due. The notice must be delivered
personally or mailed to the residential tenant at the address of the leased premises. If the
alleged material breach of the lease or the rent delinquency is not corrected within 14 days of
the delivery or mailing of the notice, the landlord may proceed with filing a complaint based on
any allegations in the notice. The landlord must attach a copy of the notice to the complaint.
The notice is meant to ensure that residents are informed and aware of the consequences of
unresolved material breaches of the lease or financial obligations to the landlord that are in
violation of the lease. Eighty-four comments were received on the proposed Notice of Eviction
policy. A summary of the comments by self-identified groups was included with the January 27,
2020 written report to council.
Based on the comments received, staff proposed the following amendments to the draft
policy presented at the October 28, 2019 study session:
•Allow for electronic delivery of the notice in addition to the mailed or delivered notice if
the tenant has indicated that is their preferred form of communication.
•Reduce the notice period from 14 days to seven days. Seven days still provides a notice
period to the tenants but eliminates the likely risk that failure to remedy the delinquent
debt will result in two months of lost rent to the owner and reduces the financial burden
risk to residents that could face having to pay two month’s rent to remedy the
delinquency in order to avoid successive eviction actions.
Legislative action: A bill (HF1972) has been introduced at the legislative session that would
require landlords to provide a 14-day notice to residents prior to filing an eviction action. It is
anticipated that the bill will pass through the House committees and will be heard/voted on the
floor of the House. The bill must also pass through the relevant committees in the Senate
before March 27th in order to be heard on the floor of the Senate. Making it to the floor of the
Senate is less certain.
Next steps: At the direction of the council, staff will defer further action on the city’s Notice of
Eviction policy until the outcome of the MN State legislative action on bill HF1972 is known.
Once the outcome of the legislative action is known, staff will return to council to provide and
update and determine next steps as needed.