HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020/11/09 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
NOV. 9, 2020
All meetings of the St. Louis Park City Council will be conducted by telephone or other electronic
means starting March 30, 2020, and until further notice. This is in accordance with the local
emergency declaration issued by the city council, in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19)
pandemic and Governor Walz's “Stay Safe MN” executive order 20-056.
Some or all members of the St. Louis Park City Council will participate in the Nov. 9, 2020 city
council meeting by electronic device or telephone rather than by being personally present at
the city council's regular meeting place at 5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
Members of the public can monitor the meeting by video and audio at https://bit.ly/watchslpcouncil
or by calling +1-312-535-8110 meeting number (access code): 372 106 61 for audio only. Cisco
Webex will be used to conduct videoconference meetings of the city council, with council
members and staff participating from multiple locations.
6:30 p.m. - STUDY SESSION
Discussion items
1. 6:30 p.m. 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
2. 7:15 p.m. Connect the Park
3. 8:15 p.m. Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
8:20 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal)
8:25 p.m. Adjourn
Written reports
4. Update to the council on housing zoning regulations
5. St. Louis Park 4d Affordable Housing Incentive Program update
The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of city hall and on the text display
on civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952-924-2525.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: November 9, 2020
Discussion item : 1
Executive summary
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
Recommended action: The purpose of this report is to provide council with the draft list of
legislative issues and priorities for the 2021 legislative session .
Policy consideration:
•Does the council agree with the issues included in the draft document?
•Would the council like to pursue any other legislative issues?
•Does the council wish to continue retaining legislative consulting assistance to help
promote the city’s legislative agenda?
Summary: The state legislature will be reconvening the 92nd session on Tuesday, January 5,
2021. Similar to previous years, staff has prepared a draft list of legislative issues for the
council to review. Staff will make changes to the legislative agenda based on the council
discussion. As the 2021 legislative session progresses, additional issues may arise that can be
addressed as necessary. Staff is working on scheduling a virtual special study session with the
city’s legislators at a future date .
During this meeting, city’s lobbyist, Vic Moore will provide an update on the outlook for the
2021 leg islative session.
Financial or budget considerations: Funding for lobbyists is included in the budget.
Strategic priority consideration:
•St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to
create a more just and inclusive community for all.
•St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship.
•St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood
oriented development.
•St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their
way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
•St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through
community engagement.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Draft 2021 top legislative priorities
Draft 2021 legislative issues
Prepared by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Page 2 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
Discussion
Background: The state legislature will be reconvening on Tuesday, January 5, 2021. Similar to
previous years, staff has prepared a draft list of legislative issues for the council to review.
Additional Resources:
League of Minnesota Cities
LMC Legislative Action Center
LMC Legislative Priorities
LMC 2021 Policies
Policy Committees
M etro Cities
Policy committees
[1]
Table of Contents
Community Development Issues ..............................................................................................3
Establish a TOD Affordable Housing Fund ................................................................................... 3
Local Housing Trust Funds (LHTF) .............................................................................................. 3
Amend State Statute 471.9996 Rent Control Prohibited to Allow for a 90 Day Tenant Protection Period
Following the Transfer of (NOAH) Property Ownership................................................................. 3
Eviction expungement reform .................................................................................................. 3
Renter Initiatives (Request directed to State Legislature) .............................................................. 4
Tenant notice of grounds for eviction before legal action.............................................................. 5
Establish revenue resource for affordable housing....................................................................... 5
Tax Credit Contribution Fund .................................................................................................... 5
Rental Rehab Loan Program for small to medium size developments in seven county metropolitan area
............................................................................................................................................ 6
Housing construction - Limiting Local Regulatory Authority ........................................................... 6
Affordable housing fee on new development .............................................................................. 6
Maintain Local establishment of appropriate fee-for -service programs........................................... 7
Use of Pooled TIF for affordable housing .................................................................................... 7
Safeguard public code administration employees ........................................................................ 8
Other Community Development Issues.....................................................................................8
TIF District Statutory Modifications ........................................................................................... 8
DEED Program Funding ............................................................................................................ 9
Special Service Districts Statutory Authority.............................................................................. 10
Building and Energy Issues ....................................................................................................10
Environment and Sustainability (Climate Action Plan)................................................................. 10
Advanced State Energy Code (Requested to State Legislature) ..................................................... 11
Transportation Issues.............................................................................................................11
Redesign and Reconstruction of CSAH 25 ................................................................................. 11
Texas Avenue/ Minnetonka Blvd intersection reconstruction ...................................................... 12
Southwest LRT...................................................................................................................... 13
Tr ansportation funding .......................................................................................................... 13
Transit financing ................................................................................................................... 14
Automated Vehicles .............................................................................................................. 14
Public Safety Issues...............................................................................................................15
Police Trainee/Non-traditional Pathway to Policing Program....................................................... 15
Page 3 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
[2]
Railway Safety of Hazardous Materials and Oil Train Operations .................................................. 15
Local Control of Emergency Medical Services ............................................................................ 16
Oppose statutory prohibition on residential fire sprinklers .......................................................... 16
Oppose expansion of legal fireworks........................................................................................ 17
Continued Health Insurance Coverage for Disabled Public Safety Officers ..................................... 17
Permit to Purchase Firearms/Permit to Carry ............................................................................ 17
Protecting the Privacy and Safety of Public Officials and Peace Officers ........................................ 18
Criminal Background Checks................................................................................................... 18
Investments for Mandated law enforcement training................................................................. 19
Gun Violence Protective Orders (GVPOS).................................................................................. 19
State wide data collection on race and/or ethnicity for stopped motorist’s ................................... 19
General Issues.......................................................................................................................20
Local Control ........................................................................................................................ 20
Levy Limits ........................................................................................................................... 20
Local Government Aid .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Legal Notices: Eliminate Requirement for Paid Publication .......................................................... 20
Emerald Ash Borer ................................................................................................................ 21
Records Retention Related to Correspondence ......................................................................... 21
Telecommunications and Information Technology ..................................................................... 22
Cable Franchising Authority.................................................................................................... 22
Page 4 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
[3]
City of St. Louis Park
2021 Legislative Issues
Community Development Issues
Establish a TOD Affordable Housing Fund (Request directed to State Leg./Hennepin Co)
Issue: Efforts are being made to develop a corridor-wide housing strategy for the SWLRT Corridor for
providing a full range of housing options specifically within a half -mile of the station areas. The
fundamental issue with respect to the traditional approaches to infill/redevelopment and mixed-
income housing production/preservation, is an absence of funds.
Po sition: The city supports the creation of a TOD Affordable Housing Fund and requests that Hennepin
County and the State provide a financial resource to be used to support the preservation and creation
of affordable housing along the SWLRT corridor.
Local Housing Trust Funds (LHTF) (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: In the 2017 session, the legislature passed language that enables cities, counties or regions to set
up and resource LHTFs. In 2018, local affordable housing agencies will be working to identify a
consistent funding source and incentivize communities to take advantage of this locally controlled tool.
Po sition: The city supports legislation that establishes a dedicated revenue source for LHTFs,
encourages local jurisdictions, creates a state match and provides technical assistance dollars to
communities to set up their LHTF.
Ame nd State Statute 471.9996 Rent Control Prohibited to Allow for a 90 Day Tenant Protection
Period Following the Transfer of (NOAH) Property Ownership (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Currently state statute prohibits any local adoption of an ordinance to control rents on private
residential properties unless the ordinance is approved in a general election. Investment buyers have
been purchasing NOAH multi-family residential properties, rehabbing properties and increasing rents.
In some cases, new owners have non-renewed the leases of existing tenants with minimal notice
and/or implemented substantial rent increases with minimal notice. A 90-day period that would
prohibit rent increases and non-renewals would allow time for existing residents in these situations to
seek alternative housing.
Po sition: The city supports legislation that would allow for a 90-day tenant protection period following
ownership transfer of a NOAH multi-family residential property.
Eviction expungement reform (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Records of unlawful detainer filings remain on a tenant’s public record regardless whether the
matter was settled or dismissed prior to the court hearing or if the tenant prevails at the hearing. In
these cases, the eviction record is not a reasonable predictor of future tenant behavior and should be
Page 5 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
[4]
expunged since the existence of this record impedes the ability of the renter to secure suitable rental
housing in the future. A bill is being submitted in the 2020 session that would allow for expungement
of the eviction record in the cases noted above. In addition, the courts could grant an expungement if
an eviction case is three years old and the court finds that the court case is no longer a reasonable
predictor of future tenant behavior and the expungement is in the interest of justice and those
interests are not outweighed by the public’s interest in knowing about the record. Bill No. being
submitted – HF-1972
Po sition: The city supports legislation that would expand the eligibility for discretionary and mandatory
expungements for eviction case court files.
Re nter Initiatives (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: With the continued low vacancy rates for rental housing and the scarcity of affordable housing
units, it is important the state address some misleading and harmful leasing practices. Listed below are
several bills that are proposed to be introduced this year by HomeLine. HomeLine is seeking an
endorsement from Homes for All, a statewide housing coalition that advances shared policies
initiatives that lead to housing stability for all Minnesotans.
These include some changes to how court actions for serious/emergency repairs work, the
establishment of a statewide minimum heating requirement (SLP already has an ordinance) and
changes to some misleading and harmful leasing practices. These are among some of the most
common issues that renters face.
Lease Fairness
● Non -refundable fees for non-optional services should be prohibited. Administrative costs
must be incorporated in the tenant’s rent so they understand how much they’ll be paying each
month before they enter into a lease. Prohibited fees could include administrative fees, lease
processing fees, carpet-cleaning fees, etc.
●Tenants should be entitled to privacy: Unless an emergency, a tenant should have a minimum
of 24 hours -notice from the landlord prior to them entering the tenant’s home. In such cases,
the landlord should only be able to enter between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. and must give a four-hour
window of time for entry. Notice should be required even if the tenant has asked for repairs. If
this right is violated, tenants should be able to sue during or after a tenancy for a meaningful
penalty.
●Tenants should be able to break their lease in some cases of infirmity: Renters who have a
physician -certified medical condition, illness, or disability that hinders their ability to remain
in their current housing situation should be able to end their lease with a 2-month notice if
they must move to a medically -assisted or accessible housing unit. The tenant must have
documentation that they will be moving to an appropriate facility.
Heat and Repairs:
●Minnesota should have a statewide minimum heat code. If the tenant does not control the
heat, from October 1 to April 30 the heating shall be maintained at 68 degrees Fahrenheit.
●Emergency and non-emergency issue court fees should be equal. Currently, it costs roughly
$70 to file a Rent Escrow – set by law at the same price as a Conciliation Court (small claims
court) filing fee. However, if a tenant has a really serious emergency, like no heat in the winter
Page 6 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
[5]
or being locked out by the landlord, the tenant has to pay the full filing court filing fee of
around
$300 (ETRA / Emergency Tenant Remedies Action). An emergency should not cost more than a
non-emergency.
●Minnesota should revamp its apartment repair rules/ Emergency Tenant Remedies Action
expansion:
Currently, Minnesota law lists only the following as emergency issues: no running water, hot
water,
heat, electricity, sanitary
facilities, and other essential services. "Essential services" serves as a catch-all, but it's
hard to know what else fits there. This law should include, but not be limited to, the
following emergencies:
■no working refrigerator
■no working air conditioning (This would only apply if the rental was advertised as
having air conditioning included.)
■Notice of Intent to Condemn for unsafe/unsanitary conditions
■non-working elevators
■infestations
Te nant notice of grounds for eviction before legal action (Request to the State Legislature)
Issue: Currently, state statute does not require a rental property owner to provide a notice to tenants
prior to filing a legal eviction action for material breach of the lease. MN’s unlawful detainer process is
swift and a tenant can lose their housing within a few weeks of the filing. Requiring a notice be
provide d to tenants prior to filing an eviction action will ensure that residents are informed and aware
of the consequences of unresolved financial obligations or other breaches of the lease and provide an
opportunity to remedy the breach prior to filing the action.
Po sition: The city supports legislation that would require that the tenant be notified prior to the
landlord bringing an eviction action alleging a material breach of the lease
Establish revenue resource for affordable housing (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: The need for affordable housing in the State has grown to crisis proportion, requiring a larger
response than local jurisdictions can provide on their own. Increased State level funding is critical to
enable local jurisdictions to enact programs to facilitate the creation and preservation of affordable
housing, including subsidized and naturally occurring affordable housing.
Po sition: The City supports establishment of a financing source to fund local and regional programs to
facilitate the creation and preservation of affordable housing.
Tax Credit Contribution Fund (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: The private market is not supplying housing that is affordable to Minnesota’s low-income
households. A public private partnership could help ensure an adequate supply of housing. The
Minnesota Tax Credit Contribution Fund incentivizes private investment and promotes community and
economic development. This fund is being modeled after North Dakota’s Housing Incentive Fund. Since
Page 7 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
[6]
its inception in 2011, North Dakota's HIF has leveraged roughly $5 for every $1 invested, creating more
than 2,500 units across the state. Minnesota communities of all sizes would benefit from this simple,
effective tool.
The program is capitalized by contributions from taxpayers that have state income or
corporate/insurance premium tax liabilities. In exchange for contributions to affordable housing,
participating taxpayers receive credit against their state income tax liability equal to their contribution
to a specific development or the general loan pool. Participation in the program is simple, and the credit
is flexible, easy to use statewide, leverages significant private equity, and boosts local businesses.
Position: St. Louis Park strongly supports and encourages affordable housing. The city supports the
establishment of a tool to incentivize private investment and promote community and economic
development. The Minnesota Tax Credit Contribution Fund is about neighbors helping neighbors
create housing opportunities and helping businesses and communities thrive.
Rental Rehab Loan Program for small to medium size developments in seven county metropolitan
area (Request directed at the State Legislature)
Issue: Naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) is the largest resource of affordable housing in the
metro area. These multi-family residential rental developments which typically have limited amenities
are at risk of losing their affordability as investors purchase the properties, renovate and add amenities
and increase rents. As an incentive for current NOAH properties owners to retain the affordability of
their properties, a multi-family rehab loan fund should be established to provide funding for rehab and
capital investment in the development in exchange for establishing rent restrictions.
Position: St. Louis Park strongly supports and encourages affordable housing. The city supports the
establishment of a housing rehab loan program to facilitate the preservation of NOAH multi-family
residential rental properties and encourage owners to retain the affordability of their developments.
Housing construction - Limiting Local Regulatory Authority (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Recent discussions on affordable housing solutions includes agencies advocating for housing
programs for primarily multiple family developments, and local home builders pursuing reduced
regulatory authority by the state and cities. Last year, the Builders Association of the Twin Cities
working through a newly created branch organization called Housing First MN, worked toward a bill
that was defeated. Requiring new construction codes which could increase cost to receive legislative
committee approval before being adopted, potentially halting progress in public safety and energy
conservation standards. Additionally, these groups proposed restricting or eliminating local land use
standards developed by communities for livability.
Po sition: Although St. Louis Park strongly supports and encourages affordable housing, minimum code
requirements for energy conservation and building safety should not be compromised on the concept
of reducing construction costs to builders. In addition, local land use and zoning standards for
establishing quality of life standards in each community should not be limited by legislative action
Affordable housing fee on new development (Request directed to State Legislature)
Page 8 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
[7]
Issue: There is an increasing need of affordable housing across the state. Additional funds are needed
in order to create and maintain affordable housing units within the city. An affordable housing fee on
new development would help increase funds for future housing projects and initiatives.
Po sition: The city supports legislation that would allow for the collection of an affordable housing fee
on new development.
Maintain Local establishment of appropriate fee -for-service programs (Request directed to State
Legislature)
Issue: Call for affordable housing by construction industry is mistaking codes and fees to be the cause
of raising home values - not the rapidly increasing price of building materials and construction labor in
a free market economy.
Po sition: Maintain a consist ent minimum standard for building safety, longevity, and energy
conservation, and allow local government units to continue with fee-for-service programs as currently
outlined in statute (i.e. reasonable and justifiable).
Use of Pooled TIF for affordable housing (Request to the State Legislature)
Issue: Currently, state statute allows for the pooling of tax increment financing to be utilized for
affordable housing within the defined redevelopment area of the city. However, the pooled TIF must
be maintained in a separate fund with ongoing annual reporting requirements. Allowing cities with
established Local Housing Trust Funds or Affordable Housing Trust Funds (LHTF/AHTF) to deposit the
pooled TIF in those funds will allow for greater flexibility in the use of the pooled TIF for qualified costs
to facilitate the construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing while alleviating the
administrative burden of annual reporting. Additionally, pooled TIF from districts other than Housing
Districts (i.e., Redevelopment Districts) cannot be used for affordable ownership housing. This severely
restricts the funding available to assist lower-income households in homeownership.
Po sition: The city supports legislation th at would allow the city to deposit pooled TIF for affordable
housing in the city’s affordable housing trust fund and allow for pooled TIF from non-housing districts
to be used for affordable homeownership programs, as well as affordable rental projects.
Mai ntain 4D program (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Interest has been expressed to expand the 4D property tax discount program to increase the tax
reduction of taxes paid by participating multi-family rental properties. Cities with a significant number
of eligible properties may be unduly negatively impacted by an increase to the property tax reduction.
Po sition: The city supports an evaluation of the impact that expanding the tax benefit/reduction of the
program would have on communities.
Support state funding for programs that would assist in avoiding foreclosure, improve
homeownership rates and reduce racial disparities through homeownership programs (Request
directed to the State Legislature)
Page 9 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
[8]
Issue: BIPOC and low-income communities have historically lower rates of homeownership.
Homeownership is a proven effective means to aid households in wealth-building. More funding is
needed to assist BIPOC and low-income households in achieving and maintaining homeownership.
Po sition: The city supports funding for programs to assist BIPOC and low-income households in
improving homeownership rates, reducing racial disparities through homeownership programs, and
avoiding foreclosure.
Statewide prohibition on discriminating against renters receiving rental assistance (Request directed
to the State Legislature)
Issue: Rental property owners can legally refuse to rent to people based solely on the source of
income to pay their rent, leaving many households that receive various types of rental assistance
unable to find housing.
Po sition: The city supports a statewide prohibition on discrimination against renters receiving rental
assistance.
Safeguard public code administration employees (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: As public safety regulators, inspectors often face hostility from a few public members. A no
tolerance position for abusive behavior should be adopted. Assaults and murder have occurred on
code officials in the normal course of performing their duties for a local government unit.
Po sition: Support Minnesota League of Cities SD-29, Assaults on Code Enforcement Officials. The
change would move assault charges from the current fifth degree, or misdemeanor, to a more
stringent fourth degree, a gross misdemeanor, by expanding the public employees with mandated
duties statute to include code enforcement officials.
Other Community Development Issues
Small business assistance during COVID (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Small businesses across Minnesota are struggling with the adverse health and financial impacts
resulting from COVID-19. Despite recent federal, state and local assistance programs, additional
funding is much needed to assist businesses through the health crisis. These businesses, which are
both the economic engine of the state and the bedrock of their communities, are vulnerable to
significant closures if further actions are not taken.
Po sition: The City supports continuing financial relief programs (such as grants and low interest loans
to help sustain the state’s small businesses until the global health crisis has been brought under
control. Additional assistance should also be considered for the state’s self-employed and sole
proprietor entrepreneurs.
TIF District Statutory Modifications (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Tax Increment Financing (TIF) remains the most viable tool for local economic development and
community reinvestment efforts. TIF is a method local governments use to pay for the costs of
Page 10 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
[9]
qualifying improvements necessary to create new investment, redevelopment, or publicly-assisted
housing. The financing of the qualifying improvements is paid from the increased property taxes
generated from the new development, redevelopment, or housing that would not occur “but for” such
assistance. There are steps that the state could take that would enhance the effectiveness of TIF,
leverage additional private investment and create more jobs and tax base in communities . The current
types of State -authorized TIF districts lack flexibility and do not adequately address the varied and
unique redevelopment situations found in urban communities.
Currently, the Minnesota TIF Act requires more than 50% of the buildings in a project area must be
found to be substandard to qualify as a Redevelopment TIF District. In redevelopment situations
involving only a small number of parcels, this can be an insurmountable standard to meet thus
preventing new investment from occurring.
Po sition: The City supports greater flexibility and the inclusion of additional uses within current TIF
districts.
•In particular, the city supports a minor modification of the Redevelopment TIF District statute to
require that 50% of the buildings within project areas must be found to be substandard.
•The city supports the extension of the 5-year rule to 10 years for redevelopment and renovation
and renewal districts.
•To spur additional development, the city supports expanding authority to allow for the
establishment of Economic Development TIF Districts for assisting with commercial project
development for the purpose of retention and expansion of existing businesses and the
attraction of new business to the state to create and retain jobs.
•The city further supports the establishment of Transit Oriented TIF Districts within one-half mile
of light rail corridors and one mile from light rail corridor train stations for the purposes of
promoting economic development, redeveloping blighted areas, and the development of housing
near light rail corridors. Eligible expenditures within th e district include but are not limited to (1)
the city's or authority’s share of the costs necessary to provide for the construction of any
southwest light rail transit station and related infrastructure, including but not limited to parking
facilities, in cluding structured parking, pedestrian overpasses, pedestrian connections, and
walkways or trails; (2) infrastructure and roadway improvements, including but not limited to
sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer and utility improvements; (3) land acquisition costs; (4) costs
related to environmental remediation, soil correction, demolition, and relocation; (5) site
improvement costs; (6) costs incurred with respect to the development of or rehabilitation of
housing; and (7) related administrative costs. Additionally, if two or more cities or authorities
propose a joint development or adjacent developments, the cities or authorities would be
allowed to expend up to 25% of the total revenue derived from tax increments generated from
such a tax increment district to pay for the eligible expenditures of another tax increment district
located outside the city’s corporate limits
DEED Program Funding (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: The Department of Employment & Economic Development (DEED) is critically important in the
support of communities and local economic development initiatives. DEED manages several programs
utilized by the city that have positively impacted St. Louis Park.
Page 11 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
[10]
Po sition: St. Louis Park supports the continued annual funding of DEED programs at stable and
sustainable levels. The City believes that continued funding of DEED programs at the same, or an
increased level is vital to economic growth across Minnesota. The city supports legislative initiatives
that strengthen funding levels for economic development programs administered by DEED and other
state agencies such as Small Business Development Centers, the Minnesota Investment Fund, the Job
Creation Fund, Contamination Cleanup and Investigation Grant Program, Redevelopment Grant
Program, Transportation Economic Development Infrastructure Program and proposed new financing
tools that support development along transit corridors. The city further supports the continuation of
the Angel Tax Credit to spur the startup of high-technology businesses Minnesota communities rely on
these programs to remain competitive with neighboring states in their efforts to bring jobs and tax
base back to Minnesota.
Special Service Districts Statutory Authority (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: In 1988, cities were granted general authority under Minn. Stat. § 428A.01 to § 428A.101 to
establish Special Service Districts. As currently written, only commercial properties can financially
participate within Special Service Districts. This is challen ging for funding additional services within
mixed -use project areas. The City of St. Louis Park has established six Special Service Districts, including
multiple sections of Excelsior Boulevard. Providing infrastructure improvements and on-going
maintenance at the LRT station areas will also be a need
Po sition: The city supports the inclusion of multi-family housing developments as financial participants
within Special Service Districts and the establishment of Special Service Districts around transit and LRT
station areas.
Building and Energy Issues
Environment and Sustainability (Climate Action Plan)
(Request directed to State Legislature, Met Council & Hennepin County)
Issue: The city adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) on February 2018 with the ambitious goal of
achieving carbon neutrality, having a net zero carbon footprint, by 2040. The Climate Action Plan
outlines specific activities and goals the city will undertake to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The
plan includes seven mid-term goals by 2030 to keep the city on track.
•Reduce energy consumption in large commercial buildings 30 percent
•Reduce energy consumption in small- to mid -size commercial buildings 30 percent
•Design and build all new construction to be net-zero energy
•Reduce energy consumption in residential buildings 35 percent
•Achieve 100 percent renewable electricity
•Reduce vehicle emissions by 25 percent
•Reduce solid waste 50 percent from business as usual
Po sition: The city supports the statewide adoption of similar goals to those in the St. Louis Park Climate
Action Plan and requests ongoing support to achieve these goals. The city supports legislation that
Page 12 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
[11]
helps climate action planning by reducing energy usage and greenhouse-gas emissions. In addition, the
city supports legislation that provides state funding for energy conservation and renewable energy
initiatives.
Advanced State Energy Code (Requested to State Legislature)
Issue: Reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions of buildings is a major component toward
achieving the St. Louis Park Climate Action Plan, especially for larger commercial structures. Continuing
to construct new buildings to the current MN State energy code is counterproductive as requirements
are dated and allow for relatively high energy consumption. Future retrofitting of these buildings to
reduce energy and carbon emissions will be costly and difficult.
The cities of Bloomington, Edina, Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, St. Paul, and Rochester (Planning Team
cities) began convening a series of meetings with about a dozen cities from across the state to discuss
the topic of how to advance energy performance in new construction and major renovation buildings
in Minnesota. This group is called the Cities Advanced Building Performance Work Group .
St. Louis Park and St. Paul staff are representing the cities workgroup on the Minnesota Department of
Commerce (Commerce) and the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) Building Efficiency
Workgroup . The purpose is to explore potential policy solutions that will enable cities to voluntarily
promote or otherwise ensure greater energy performance measures for commercial and multifamily
residential buildings.
Po sition: Support legislation to adopt developing a more advanced state energy code and/or allowing
for local adoption of more efficient building standards.
Transportation Issues
Re design and Reconstruction of CSAH 25 (Request directed to Hennepin County)
Issue: The city and county have developed a long term vision to transform the CSAH 25 Corridor from
the rural design through-route it is today to a multimodal urban boulevard with well-designed
landscape architecture and place-making features. The goal is to transform this Hennepin County Road
into an amenity rich, pedestrian/ bicycle friendly, transit oriented Boulevard, between Trunk Highway
100 and France Avenue. A clear long-term vision for CSAH 25 will serve to guide both public and private
investment in this corridor. Already, the SWLRT Beltline station, park & ride and proposed Beltline
Station Redevelopment project is beginning to transform the west end of this corridor. The Shoreham
mixed -use project started the transformation at the east end, followed by Parkway 25 and the current
Parkway Residences project continues the redevelopment pattern. The new concept for CSAH 25,
which was developed in concert with Hennepin County, supports this change to a more urban place
that provides safe , attractive access to the Beltline LRT station in St. Louis Park and the neighboring W.
Lake Street LRT station in Minneapolis.
Analysis: The transformation of CSAH 25 into an urban boulevard includes the following actions and
considerations:
Page 13 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
[12]
•A commitment from Hennepin County, with involvement from Minneapolis, to changing the
corridor.
•CSAH 25 serves many important functions and is home to a surprising number of businesses,
residents and property owners. All stakeholders should be informed and involved in the design
proce sses.
•Integration of the planned improvements associated with SWLRT between Beltline Boulevard
and Lynn Avenue and the W. Lake Street multi-modal transportation plan into the vision for the
corridor.
•Strong connections to existing and planned bicycle routes, filling the existing gap in access to the
Cedar Lake Trail from the north.
•Providing space for pedestrians in the corridor and safe connections across CSAH 25 to get to
destinations. This includes amenities and landscaping to create a place where people want to
walk and spend time.
•Addressing storm water drainage and treatment.
•Consideration of the east end “triangle,” where Minnetonka Blvd, CSAH 25, France Avenue and
W. Lake Street meet. This area presents both opportunities for gateway treatments for both
Minneapolis and St Louis Park as well as operational challenges for the pedestrians, bicyclists
and local businesses.
•Consideration of a new name for the roadway that provides a positive identity while eliminating
the currently existing address confusion. Just as CSAH 5 is also named Minnetonka Boulevard,
CSAH 25 needs a street name around which an image and identity can be built. In the case of
CSAH 25, there is added confusion because of its history of being originally part of MN Highway
7, a na me that continues to be used by many.
•Development of a funding and phasing plan. Transforming CSAH 25 will be a large project and
will take time and significant resources to implement. New development in the corridor may be
able to play a significant role in funding the transformation, but timing will be critical for that to
happen.
Po sition: We thank Hennepin County for their participation in the redesign process and request the
County’s support and funding for the actual rehabilitation/ reconstruction of CSAH 25.
Texas Avenue/ Minnetonka Blvd intersection reconstruction (Request directed to Hennepin Co.)
Issue: Texas Avenue between Lake Street and Wayzata Boulevard is one of the few continuous north-
to-south roadway connections in the City of St. Louis Park. The city has reconstructed the section of
Texas Avenue from Lake Street to 400 feet south of Minnetonka Boulevard in 2017 and 2018. The new
roadway includes bicycle, pedestrian and intersection improvements that have greatly increased the
efficiency and safety in this segment of the corridor. The road project stopped short of the Minnetonka
boulevard intersection. In 2016 and 2018 a bikeway was installed along Texas Avenue north of
Minnetonka Boulevard.
To complete the upgrade of the Texas Avenue corridor, we would like to partner with Hennepin County
on the reconstruction of the intersection. The new intersection would include separate bicycle
Page 14 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
[13]
facilities, sidewalk improvements, better sightlines for drivers, signal replacement, and ADA upgrades.
All things that are much needed at this location.
Analysis: In order to extend the bicycle, pedestrian and roadway enhancements that were completed
to the south and to the north of the Minnetonka Boulevard intersection the following items would
need to be addressed.
•Sidewalks: The sidewalks require updating to meet ADA requirements for pedestrian ramps,
width, and clearance from obstructions.
•Bike lanes: In 2018, the county enhanced the bike lanes on Minnetonka Boulevard. However, at
the intersection, these lanes do not have adequate space. The same is true for the bikeway on
Texas Avenue. Most bicycle related crashes occur at intersections, it is important to maintain the
bikeway through the intersection to eliminate confusion for all users of the road.
•Intersection modifications: the city has developed a layout for this intersection that will greatly
improve the way it operates for all users. Eliminating sightlines issues, creating space for bicycles
and pedestrians.
•Replace signal system: The new signal system and intersection geometrics should be updated to
include flashing yellow arrows and turn lanes as needed to improve traffic flow. The signal
should be able to detect bicycles. Finally, the pedestrian push buttons will be replaced to meet
ADA requirements.
Po sition: The city is requesting that Hennepin County partner with the City for the reconstruction of
the Texas Avenue/ Minnetonka Blvd intersection.
Southwest LRT (Directed to State Legislature, Met Council & Hennepin County)
Position : The City continues to strongly support the Southwest LRT Project.
Transportation funding (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: A comprehensive transportation system is a vital component in planning for and meeting the
physical, social and economic needs of our state and metropolitan region. Adequate and stable sources
of funding are necessary to ensure the development and maintenance of a high quality, efficient and
safe transportation system to meets these needs.
Analysis: Under current transportation financing structures, funding for the existing transportation
system in the metropolitan region continues to be inadequate. Our transportation funding system
relies primarily on local property taxes, local fees, gas tax, and the motor vehicle sales tax (MVST).
Automobiles are becoming more fuel efficient and MVST receipts continue to lag projections, resulting
in funding levels that continually fail to meet the needs. Transportation funding and planning must be a
high priority for state, regional and local policymakers so that the regional transportation system can
sufficiently meet the needs of the state’s residents and businesses and its projected population
growth. This includes the municipal state aid system.
In addition, cities lack adequate tools and resources for the maintenance and improvement of local
systems, with funding sources restricted to property taxes, local fees, and special assessments. Cost
participation requirements for state and county roads can overburdened city budgets. It is imperative
Page 15 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
[14]
that alternative revenue generating authority be granted to municipalities and additional state
resources be made available for this purpose to relieve the burden on the property tax system.
Po sition: The city:
•Supports stable and sufficient statewide transportation funding;
•Supports local tools to meet the long-term transportation system needs of the city;
•Supports funding to assist cities overburdened by cost participation responsibilities;
•Supports state funding for state and county highway projects, including congestion and safety
improvements; and
•Supports state financial assistance, as well as innovations in design and construction.
Transit financing (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: The Twin Cities metropolitan area is served by a regional transit system that is expanding to
include rail transit and dedicated busways. Any operating subsidies necessary to support this system
should come from a regional or statewide funding source. The prope rty taxpayers of individual cities
and counties should not be required to fund the operation of specific transit lines or routes of service
within this regional system.
Analysis: MVST revenue projections have not been reliable and the Legislature has repeatedly reduced
general fund support for Metropolitan Transit. As a result, the regional transit providers continue to
operate at a funding deficit. Shifting demographics in the metropolitan region will mean increased
demand for transit in areas with and without current transit service.
Po sition: The city supports stable and growing revenue sources to fund the operating budget for all
regional transit providers at a level sufficient to meet the growing operational and capital transit needs
of the region and to expand the system to areas that currently have little or no transit options. The city
also supports an increase in the regional sales tax to fund the expansion of regular route service, the
continuing capital expenses and expanded operational needs of the metropolitan transit system, if the
increase is accompanied by sufficient local controls over the collection and expenditure of the new
revenue and geographic balance is maintained in the expansion of service to allow cities to
appropriately plan for growth in population and service needs along new and expanded transit service.
The city opposes diversions of the uses of this tax for any other purposes.
Automated Vehicles (Request directed to the Met Council)
Issue: Automated vehicles are those in which at least some aspect of a safety-critical control function
(e.g., steering, throttle, or braking) occurs without direct driver input. Automated vehicles may be
autonomous (i.e., use only vehicle sensors) or may be connected (i.e., use communications systems
such as connected vehicle technology, in which cars and roadside infrastructure communicate
wirelessly).
Automated vehicles have the potential to bring about transformative safety, mobility, energy, and
environmental benefits to the surface transportation system. These benefits could include crash
avoidance, reduced infrastructure needs, energy consumption and vehicle emissions, reduced travel
times, improved travel time reliability and multi-modal connectivity, and improved transportation
Page 16 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
[15]
system efficiency and accessibility, particularly for persons with disabilities and the growing aging
population. Automated vehicles could also transform the private use of land in terms of reducing
parking needs – surface or structured parking. Automated vehicle technologies are becoming some of
the most heavily researched automotive innovations. Currently, some automated vehicle technologies
are available, but are only a fraction of what will be available in the future.
Po sition: MnDOT is undertaking research and planning related to automated/autonomous vehicles.
The Met Council is encouraged to continue to work with MnDOT as a part of planning for the impact
these types of vehicles will have on the region, particularly from a transportation and land use
perspective.
Public Safety Issues
Police Trainee/Non-traditional Pathway to Policing Program (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: The candidate pool for police officers in Minnesota continues to shrink in numbers and diversity.
There is a narrowing in the representation of a candidate ’s diversity including but not limited to race
and ethnicity, age and life experience, and academic and career development in other disciplines.
During the 2017 legislative session $400,000 was appropriate d for communities participating in this
new program on a 50/50 cost split. The City of St. Louis Park and other cities have used this approach
as a tool for diversifying their departments. In 2017, one candidate successfully completed this
program and is now a St. Louis Park police off icer. In 2018, one candidate successfully completed this
program and is now a St. Louis Park police officer. In 2019, one candidate successfully completed this
program and is now a St. Louis Park police officer. The St. Louis Park Police Department is currently in
an open hiring process for the program with an anticipated promotion to Police officer in 2020. The
need to create a wider and deeper candidate pool will continue to be a long term challenge for all
police departments in the state.
Po sition: The city requests that this funding not only be maintained but increased in future biennium’s.
Rai lway Safety of Hazardous Materials and Oil Train Operations (Request directed to State
Issue: The current state within St Louis Park suggests that there will be continued flow of hazardous
material commodities including but not limited to crude oil and ethanol at current or increased levels
in the future.
Analysis: The demand for these commodities and the proximity of Minneapolis to our city points to St
Louis Park as an alternative for managing heavy traffic and staging within the system. The potential risk
exists across all of the system including the BNSF, CP and TCW lines. Track improvements that result
from the SWLRT will allow for higher speeds and safer options for the rail companies to consider
through St Louis Park.
Po sition: The city needs to actively engage in legislative discussions around the accountability, safety
and funding of accident prevention and responder training, and information sharing. There needs to be
funding for community awareness, mitigation and resiliency efforts as well. Rail companies need to be
Page 17 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
[16]
required to share the needed information required for response and mitigation. Including the
reinstatement of fees on railroads and pipelines as outlined in (2018-HF3775/SF3527)
Local Control of Emergency Medical Services
Issue: Current laws regulating emergency medical services (EMS) in Minnesota allow ambulance
provid ers the ability to provide EMS services in an exclusive operating area known as a Primary Service
Area (PSA) for an indefinite amount of time with little or no oversight or transparency.
Analysis: Ambulance services currently have no response time requirement from the Emergency
Medical Services Regulatory Board (EMSRB) - the state’s EMS regulatory agency which oversees and
issues ambulance licenses. The EMSRB also has no oversight on ambulance billing rates, while
ambulance services (both public and private) have the ability to use revenue recapture to receive
unpaid bills from an individual’s state tax returns. These are only a few of the many examples of the
limited oversight of ambulance services in the state. The current system does not require ambulance
services to disclose the number of ambulances staffed, where the ambulance is responding from or any
other important data points that would be important to ensuring a community is receiving quality
ambulance services. While the current structure of Minnesota’s EMS regulations is intended to create
exclusive operating areas, there are numerous overlapping service areas across the state with no
guidance on who has the authority to determine which provider is the primary ambulance service for
those overlapped areas.
Position: It is our belief that local units of government - who are closest to the service delivery – that
are best positioned to determine who the licensed ambulance provider is, what level of service is
provided, and the authority to ensure there is transparency. Propose uncoupling the professional
standards overview by the EMSRB from the service area determination thus allowing the local unit of
government to determine who provides service within their political boundary. This allows the
professional standards to continue to be set by the EMS Regulatory Board which is made up of industry
professionals and stakeholders.
Oppose statutory prohibition on residential fire sprinklers (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: The Appellate Court struck down the Department of Labor and Industries (DLI) adoption of the
latest International Residential Code (IRC). The IRC is for building new single-family and duplex homes,
which had a provision for residential fire sprinklers in newly constructed one- and two-family homes
that were 4,500 sq. feet and larger.
Analysis: The sprinkler provision was challenged on whether it was done legally and appropriately.
The refore the requirement to build these homes safer using sprinklers is no longer in effect. This is a
concern because, in terms of fire safety, the most dangerous place to be is at home. In addition, most
often the victims of a fire are the young and elderly , who have a more difficult time getting out in an
emergency situation. Residential fire sprinklers save lives and are cost-effective. Recent studies in
Page 18 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
[17]
Minnesota show the cost of installing residential fire sprinkler systems averages $1.15 per sprinkled
square foot, or approximately 1% of new home construction.
Po sition: The city opposes efforts that prohibit future adoption of the residential fire sprinkler code .
Oppose expansion of legal fireworks (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: There is a continued effort to expand the sale and use of a wider variety of fireworks
Analysis: The bill prohibits cities from banning the sale of fireworks, but it allows cities to pass
ordinances banning people from using fireworks. Exploding fireworks would be available for purchase
from June 1 to July 7, the use is not restricted. In the city of St. Louis Park where both business and
residential properties are in close proximity there is an unacceptable level of risk given that many of
these are wood frame combustible construction, non-sprinkled and high occupancy.
There is an inherent danger in aerial fireworks which cause a number of injuries and pose a serious fire
risk. Fireworks injuries in 2015 were the highest they have been in the last 10 years. 43% of the
fireworks injuries in the past ten years happen to people 0-19 years of age (children, teens, and young
adults). Fire damage due to fireworks in 2014 was $1.75 Million.
Po sition: Oppose the following legislation which expands fireworks in Minnesota
o Tents (2018 – HF328/SF235)
o Bricks and Mortar (2017- HF1395/SF1191
Continued Health Insurance Coverage for Disabled Public Safety Officers (Request directed to State
Legislature)
Issue: MS299A.465 states that the employer is responsible for continued payment of their contribution
for health insurance coverage for police officers, firefighters, and dependents, if applicable, that were
disabled in the line of duty. Although cities may req uest a reimbursement of the health insurance
payments, only a fraction is reimbursed from the Department of Public Safety, resulting in increasing
costs due to this unfunded mandate.
Po sition: The city has only been partially reimbursed for the cost of this mandate. Over the past 10
years, city has paid over $230,000 in health contributions for disabled public safety officers, and only
26% of the city’s 2019 request was reimbursed. The city requests that this mandate be fully funded by
the state.
Pe rmit to Purchase Firearms/Permit to Carry (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Currently the Permits to Purchase Firearms statute (MN Stat. 624.7131; 624.7132) requires local
law enforcement agencies to complete required background checks within 7 days and the Permit to
Carry (MN Stat. 624.714) statute requires the County Sheriff’s Department to complete the required
background checks within 30 days.
Page 19 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
[18]
Analysis: The St. Louis Park Police Department completes approximately 300 permits to purchase
background checks per year. In 2020, the St. Louis Park Police Department anticipates having to
complete approximately 500 permits to purchase backgrounds checks. Aligning the two statutes to
require the background checks to be done in 30 days would allow local law enforcement agencies more
time to complete thorough background checks and also reduce the number of applicants who act on
impulse for a permit to purchase a firearm.
Po sition : St. Louis Park supports aligning the Permits to Purchase Firearms statutes (MN Stat. 624.7131;
624.7132) with the Permit to Carry (MN Stat. 624.714) statute in terms of the time required for
conducting background checks (from 7 to 30 days).
Protecting the Privacy and Safety of Public Officials and Peace Officers (Request directed to State
Legislature)
Issue: Only five states (FL, CO, CA, ID, TX) have a law prohibiting the publishing, posting, promotion of
peace officers' and other public officials' home addresses, phones, spouse's addresses, other contact
information, etc., with intent to cause harm or harassment. Minnesota has no such law, presenting an
opportunity to join other states showing a commitment to protecting public officials and peace officers
from having their personal information, spousal information, and other info published and/or shared
on social media, with the intention of causing harassment or harm.
Analysis: This is increasingly a concern for public officials and law enforcement when those seeking to
cause harm recklessly share or publish emails or other correspondence that includes personal
information. Any measure that reduces the threat of reporters or demonstrators showing up at public
officials homes or those of relatives is a great option for addition to our statutes. Statutes that include
the component requiring the publication or posting to be done WITH INTENT to cause harassment or
harm seem likely to be more useful and defensible in the courts. Colorado's law can be found here
(link ). With the proliferation of social media, there have been several instances where public officials
personal information was disseminated to cause harm. For example, after the unfortunate death of
Eric Garner in New York, the decedent’s daughter tweeted the home address of one of the involved
officers to 5,000 Twitter followers who, in turn, re -tweeted this 500+ times.
Po sition : This issue can affect any public official and Police Officers, when opposing sides of a discourse
attract an element that wants to cause harm or harassment. The City supports an effort in Minnesota
to add this protection to public officials’ privacy and the safety of their families.
Criminal Background Checks (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Every day in Minnesota guns are sold by unlicensed sellers without first conducting a criminal
background check to ensure that the buyer is not a prohibited purchaser. This proposal would close the
online, gun show and individual sale loopholes by requiring all sales to at least have a criminal
background check at the point of sale at an Federal Firearms License (FFL) before a transaction is
legally allowed to occur.
Analysis: The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 stipulates that individuals “engaged in the business” of
selling firearms must possess a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Holders of FFLs are required to conduct
Page 20 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
[19]
background checks and maintain a record of all their firearm sales. Certain gun sales and transfers
between private individuals, however, are exempt from this requirement. Those who would fail a
background check can access firearms through these sources. Unlike an FFL, the seller is not required
to conduct a background check to determine whether the purchaser is prohibited from purchasing and
possessing a gun. Federal, state, local and tribal laws should be enacted to close these loopholes. If all
gun sales proceed through an FFL, a single, consistent system for conducting gun sales, including
background checks, will be established. The laws we have in place to ensure gun purchasers go through
FFLs are undermined by oversights in the law that allow individuals prohibited from owning firearms to
obtain weapons at events such as gun shows without undergoing a background check.
Po sition: The City supports preventing individuals who are not legally able to purchase a gun from
doing so without background checks at gun shows, online or in private transactions.
Investments for Mandated law enforcement training (Request directed to State Legislature)
Po sition: Support continuing the POST Board training reimbursement allocation to local agencies,
which began in 2018, into fiscal year 2022-2023 through the Peace Officer Training Fund for mandated
training in the areas of recognizing and valuing diversity and cultural differences, conflict management
and mediation, crisis intervention and mental Illness crises.
Gun Violence Protective Orders (GVPOS) (Request directed to State Legislature)
Position: Support allowing law enforcement, qualified health care practitioners, family members and
intimate partners who believe an individual’s dangerous behavior has a substantial likelihood to lead to
violence to request an order from a civil court authorizing law enforcement to temporarily remove any
guns in the individual's possession and to prohibit new gun purchases for the duration of the order.
State wide data collection on race and/or ethnicity for stopped motorist’s (Request directed to State
Legislature)
Issue: There is not a state wide method of collecting a motorist’s race or ethnicity for traffic stops.
Some police departments ask officers to report a person’s race and/or ethnicity. This option results in
officers making assumptions on the motorist’s race and/or ethnicity and can lead to inaccurate data.
Analysis: A state wide system would allow for agencies to submit and most importantly review
accurate data to determine whether racial profiling is a problem in cities across the state. This
information allows for greater police transparency and accountability.
Po sition: The city supports a state wide system that accurately tracks information on traffic stops,
including race and ethnicity, of stopped motorists.
Page 21 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
[20]
General Issues
Local Control (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Cities are often laboratories for determining public policy approaches to the challenges that face
citizens. Success in providing for the basic needs of a functional society is rooted in local control to
determine how best to respond to the ever-changing needs of a citizenry. Because city government
most directly impacts the lives of people, and representative democracy ensures that locally elected
officials are held accountable for their decision s through local elections, local governments must have
sufficient authority and flexibility to meet the challenges of governing and providing citizens with
public services.
Po sition: Individual communities should be allowed to tailor their services to mee t the unique needs of
their citizens without mandates and policy restrictions imposed by state and federal policy makers. The
state should recognize that local governments, of all sizes, are often the first to identify problems and
inventive solutions to s olve them, and should encourage further innovation by increasing local control.
The state should not enact initiatives that erode the fundamental principle of local control in cities
across Minnesota.
Levy Limits (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: During the 2008 legislative session, levy limits were imposed for three years (2009-2011) on
cities over 2,500 in population.
A one-time levy limit was applied to taxes levied in 2013, payable in 2014, only. This was in effect for all
counties with a population of 5,000 and over and cities with a population of 2,500 and over. All cities
with a population less than 2,500, all towns and all special taxing districts were exempt from the limits.
Le vy limits replace local accountability with a state judgment about the appropriate level of local
taxation and local services. Additionally, state restrictions on local budgets can have a negative effect
on a city’s bond rating due to the restriction on revenue flexibility.
Po sition: St. Louis Park opposes efforts to establish a levy limit or other proposed restrictions for local
government budgets. Based on our legislative policies that strongly support local budgetary decision
making, St. Louis Park opposes levy limits of any type.
Legal Notices: Eliminate Requirement for Paid Publication (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Current law requires print ads for “proceedings, official notices, and summaries” in local
newspapers. In the 2011 Session, House File 162 called for allowing political subdivisions (cities,
counties, school boards, etc.) to replace the print ads with a single annual notice stating that all such
notices would appear on the political subdivision’s website (i.e. the city website).
Po sition: The city continues to support the elimination of this requirement, which would save cities
thousands of dollars in annual publishing costs. Publishing legal notices on the city website instead
allows the potential to reach a much greater audience in St. Louis Park than via the local newspaper,
Page 22 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
[21]
which only reaches about half of the community. Additionally, businesses working with the city or
bidding on city projects find it cumbersome to monitor many different publications. The city is
currently publishing its legal notices at www.stlouispark.org in addition to publishing them in the
official newspaper.
Emerald Ash Borer (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) is the most destructive and economically costly forest pest ever to
invade North America. Ash trees killed by EAB become brittle very quickly and will begin to fall apart
and threaten overhead cables and power lines, vehicles, buildings and people. Few cities are prepared
and no city can easily afford the costs and the liability threats resulting from EAB. Peer-reviewed
studies have confirmed that a coordinated, landscape-based strategy is more cost effective than
fighting EAB city by city.
Po sition: St. Louis Park supports additional state funding to provide technical assistance and matching
grants to communities for EAB management/removal costs and related practices.
Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources
Issue: The city needs funds for pollinator habitat and buckthorn control/vegetative restoration. Funds
by the Legislative -Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources would be used at Oak Hill, Louisiana
Oaks Park and Bass Lake Preserve and support the city’s strategic plan on environment and
sustainability.
Po sition: St. Louis Park supports funding for these projects from the Legislative -Citizen Commission on
Minnesota Resources.
Re cords Retention Related to Correspondence (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: HF 1185 was introduced during the 2017 legislative session relating to data practices that
included changing the definition of “correspondence” in government record retention law to include
social media and text messaging and requiring a minimum three -year retention period for
correspondence.
Analysis: The proposed bill was designed to provide a statewide standard retention period for
correspondence. Concerns with the bill include an unfunded mandate on cities (especially small ones)
to meet the new requirements, and the burden of including social media and text messaging in the
definition of correspondence. Social media and text messaging capture typically requires separate
capture software / hardware than email, and thus contributes to increased costs.
Po sition : The city opposes the bill in its current form. State provided funding and restricting the
definition of correspondence to email at this point would be helpful. Delaying full inclusion of social
media and text messaging to future years so the State can include funding options (and possibly some
standards) would also be helpful. The city does support a standard correspondence retention period
and feels the proposed 3 year minimum is reasonable. That said, not every city is funded or technically
ready to do this. As a result, the city currently endorses the LMC position on the role that should be
fulfilled by existing records retention requirements. The current LMC position is to oppose HF 1185.
Page 23 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
[22]
Telecommunications and Information Technology (Request directed to State and Federal Legislature)
Issue: Telecommunications and information technology is essential public infrastructure for the
efficient, equitable, and affordable delivery of local government services to residents and businesses.
Telecommunications includes voice, video, data, and services de livered over cable, telephone, fiber-
optic, wireless, and all other platforms.
Analysis: The city and League of Minnesota Cities supports a balanced approach to
telecommunications policy that allows new technologies to flourish while preserving local regu latory
authority. Regulations and oversight of telecommunications services are important prerogatives for
local government to advance community interests, including the provision of high quality basic services
that meet local needs, spur economic developme nt, and are available at affordable rates to all
consumers. For the City of St. Louis Park, this is also consistent with its priority efforts to advance racial
equity and to be a technology connected community. Supportive policies should also not diminish local
authority to work cooperatively with other public agencies, non-profit organizations, and the private
sector to broaden choice and competition of telecommunications services to meet local needs.
Po sition : The city opposes the adoption of state and federal policies that restrict cities’ ability to
finance, construct, or operate telecommunications networks.
Cable Franchising Authority (Request directed to State and Federal Legislature)
Issue: In September 2018, the FCC released a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM)
proposing new rules regarding how local franchising authorities (LFAs) may regulate cable operators
and cable television services. The franchise fee revenue received by the City of St. Louis Park from
Comcast and CenturyLink could be reduced by as much as 20 percent as a direct result of the proposed
rule changes. In the FNPRM, the FCC tentatively concludes that:
1.Cable -related, in -kind contributions required by a franchise agreement shall be treated as
franchise fees subject to the statutory five percent cap on franchise fees set forth in Section 622
of the Communications Act of 1934. This would allow cable operators to unilaterally offset from
cable franchise fee payments the value of certain franchise requirements such as free service to
schools and public buildings, PEG channel capacity, connections to PEG origination points and
even existing institutional network obligations.
2.That LFAs are prohibited from using their video franchising authority to regulate the provision
of most non-cable services, such as broadband Internet access service, offered over a cable
system by a cable operator.
The FNPRM also proposes that cable operators be allowed to construct and install facilities and
equipment for non-cable services in the rights-of-way without any local regulation or compensation.
Analysis: The City of St. Louis Park filed comments with the FCC August 30 stating its opposition to
these measures, and plans to submit further information during the comment period following
publication of the FNPRM in the federal register. The Legislature, Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), and Congress should also continue to recognize, support and maintain the exercise of local
franchising authority to encourage increased competition between incumbent cable system operators
Page 24 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
[23]
and new wireline competitive video service providers including: maintaining provisions in Minn. Stat.
ch. 238 that establish and uphold local franchising authority, including the authority to receive a gross
revenues based franchise fee and local authority over areas including: control and access to public
rights -of -way by all video and cable service providers; fees on providers to ensure the provision of
public, educational, and governmental (PEG) programming; video channels and video streaming for
PEG programming equivalent to that of the local broadcast stations; ensuring programming is
accessible and searchable through detailed Electronic Programming Guide listings that are equivalent
to that of local broadcast stations; access to capacity on institutional networks (I-Nets) provided by
local cable system operators for public safety communications, libraries, schools, and other public
institutions; and strengthening local authority to enforce customer service standards and transparency
in pricing.
Po sition: Given the depth of cable TV PEG operations and subscribership in St. Louis Park, and the fact
that franchise negotiations will likely begin in early 2019, the city intends to continue working with its
telecommunications attorneys and with trade organizations (Minnesota Association of Community
Telecommunications Advisors and National Association of Telecommunications Advisors and Officers)
to closely track and respond to assaults on local franchising authority.
Page 25 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
City of St. Louis Park
2021 Legislative Priorities
The St. Louis Park city council asks state, county and met -council representatives to advance the city’s top two legislative
categories of affordable housing and climate action. Listed below are the city’s legislative priorities for 2021.
Affordable housing
o Production
o Establish dedicated revenue for
affordable housing
o Allow an affordable housing fee on
new development
o Establish a TOD affordable housing
fund and financial resources
o Preservation
o Establish a rental rehab loan program
for small to medium size developments
to preserve NOAH multi-family
residential rental properties
o Establish a dedicated revenue source
for Local Housing Trust Funds (LHTF)
o Allow pooled TIF to be deposited in
LHTF’s for affordable housing
o Establish a tax credit contribution fund
o Maintain local regulatory authority for
fee-for-service building inspections to
ensure public safety and verify
compliance
o Protections
o 90-day tenant protection period
prohibiting rent increases and non-
renewals following the transfer of
(NOAH) property ownership
o Expand the eligibility for discretionary
and mandatory expungements for
eviction case court files
o Require tenant notice of grounds for
eviction before legal action
o Advance renter initiatives such as lease
fairness and revamp standards on the
minimum heat code , equal emergency
and non-emergency court fee s and
repair rules/emergency tenant
remedies
o Capital investment in the Perspectives bonding
request
Climate action
o Statewide adoption of similar goals to the St.
Louis Park Climate Action Plan
o 100% renewable energy by 2030
o Carbon neutral by 2040
o Adopt an advanced state energy code and/or
allow for local adoption of more efficient
building standards
o Support the current state building and energy
code development process
o Support efforts to encourage zero emissions
vehicle/low emissions vehicles (ZEV/LEV)
o Funding for electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure
o Support climate change efforts such as the MN
Green New Deal bill
Multimodal Transportation
o County partnership on:
o Reconstruction of Texas Avenue/
Minnetonka Blvd intersection
o Funding for reconstruction of CSAH 25
o Establish stable statewide transportation
funding
o Support stable and growing revenue sources to
fund regional transit providers
o Regional planning on automated vehicles
General
o Preserve local control
o Oppose the establishment of levy limits
o Oppose reductions to local government aid
o Advocate that a percentage of tax revenue
generated by recreational marijuana (if
approved by the legislature ) be allocated to
cities to cover law enforcement and mental
health
o Maintain and increase funding for the
pathways to policing program and create
pathways to firefighting program
o Support a statewide system to track race data
for police traffic stops
Page 26 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2021 draft legislative issues and priorities
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: November 9, 2020
Discussion item : 2
Executive summary
Title: Connect the Park
Recommended action: None at this time. Staff is seeking agreement from the council on the
updated goals for Connect the Park.
Policy consideration: Does the city council support the updated goals of Connect the Park?
Summary: Connect the Park is the building of infrastructure that supports the policies and
programs of the city. It is the implementation plan of the Active Living Sidewalk and Trail Plan
with a goal of making a measurable difference in how people travel around the community by
implementing a comprehensive citywide system of sidewalks, bikeways, and trails.
At the July 13, 2020 study session, staff provided the council with a status update on the miles
of facilities constructed and asked the city council the following policy question: “Does the city
council support the routes identified on the Connect the Park map?”
The council provided staff with feedback that they support the installation of bikeways,
sidewalks and trails as shown in the Connect the Park capital improvement plan (CIP); however,
they felt that an update of the goals is necessary to reflect the strate gic priorities, policies and
plans of the city. They also stressed that there need to be measurements of the system usage
to understand the effectiveness of the Connect the Park program.
This report includes draft updated goals for Connect the Park. It is anticipated that there will be
additional study sessions in the coming months to discuss metrics for analyzing the usage and
opinions of the system.
Financial or budget considerations: The funding source for the Connect the Park segments is
General Obligation bonds. This report focuses on policy as it relates to the Connect the Park
implementation plan. The city council’s direction on this policy discussion will likely result in
financial or budget considerations in future reports.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Aug. 26, 2019 Connect the Park study session report (page 8-18)
Aug. 26, 2019 study session minutes (page 2-4)
July 13, 2020 Connect the Park study session report (page 3-10)
July 13, 2020 study session minutes (page 2-5)
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, senior engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Connect the Park
Discussion
Background: Connect the Park was discussed by the council at two previous study sessions,
Aug. 26, 2019 and July 13, 2020.
The conversation in August of 2019 focused on the status of the initiative at the halfway point
of the 10-year capital improvement program. There was significant emphasis on how the
program has evolved and has be en re defined by city plans, policies, directives and best
practices of the industry. See the linked Aug. 26, 2019 study session report and meeting
minutes for a recap of the council policy direction and community feedback that have shaped
how staff approaches the design for the bikeway, sidewalk and trail segments included in the
Connect the park capital improvement plan .
The council provided staff with feedback that they support the installation of bikeways,
sidewalks and trails; however, they felt that there were additional policy questions that needed
to be addressed.
The policy question for the July 2020 study session was, “Does the city council support the
routes identified on the Connect the Park map?”. Staff heard that council agrees with adding
sidewalks, bikeways and trails as identified in the Connect the Park plan and in the locations
shown on the Connect the Park maps. However, council requested that the following items
need to be addressed as Connect the Park moves forward:
•There have been significant change s since the initial development of Connect the Park
and the goals need to be updated to reflect the city’s strategic priorities .
•There is a need to have metrics to understand how the investments in Connect the Park
are making a meaningful difference on how the community moves about the city.
This report focuses on the first item of updating the goals to align with the city’s strategic
priorities. Once the goals have been agreed upon staff will come back at a subsequent meeting
to recomme nd metrics that align with the updated goals.
W hat is Connect the Park? Connect the Park is the building of infrastructure that supports the
policies and programs of the city. It is the implementation plan of Active Living Sidewalk and
Trail Plan with a goal of making a measurable difference in how people travel around the
community by implementing a comprehensive citywide system of sidewalks, bikeways, and
trails. It builds on existing council policies and plans to set a course for implementation of the
non-motorized transportation and recreation for the community.
Connect the Park goals: The re were eleven goals created for Connect the Park in 2013. These
goals were developed from the extensive process that started with the Active Living Sidewalk
and Trails Master plan in 2008 and was culminated with the Connect the Park 10-year capital
improvement plan in June of 2013.
1.Develop an interconnected network of pedestrian and bicycle routes throughout the
city and linked to transit systems.
2.Establish a citywide grid -system of sidewalks approximately every ¼-mile.
3.Establish a citywide grid -system of bicycle facilities approximately every ½-mile.
4.Close gaps in the existing neighborhood sidewalk networks.
Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Connect the Park
5. Provide active connections to transit, including buses and light rail.
6. Establish safe crossings of highways, arterial roads and rail corridors
7. Develop safe connections to schools, commercial hubs, employment centers,
institu tions and transit.
8. Develop links from neighborhoods to parks and natural areas, providing opportunities to
improve the health and well-being of residents and workers.
9. Improve connections to regional trails to link the city to larger metropolitan open space
systems and destinations.
10. Provide safe and easily accessible routes for residents and workers in the community,
including children, seniors and the disabled.
11. Create a cohesive, well-designed system that includes a coordinated approach for signs,
wayfindin g and other "user-friendly" amenities such as rest areas, information kiosks
and upgraded landscaping.
Connect the Park goals update : The council provided feedback that the goals should be updated
to reflect the strategic priorities, plans and policies of the city that have been adopted since 2012.
To achieve this, staff used the city’s five strategic priorities as the foundation for the new goals.
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.
In addition, staff consulted the polices and plans that have been adopted since 2012 that reflect
the strategic priorities of the city. The following are some of the more prominent documents
that were utilized to create the new goals:
• 2040 Comprehensive Plan
• 2040 Comprehensive Plan Vision
• Climate Action Plan
• Living Streets Policy
• Complete Streets Resolution
• Active Living Sidewalk and Trail Plan
• Healthy Eating and Active Living (HEAL) Policy
From these documents, staff created the following three new goals for Connect the Park.
Goal 1: Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from single -occupancy vehicles.
Goal 2: The quality and function of the transportation network contributes to equitable
outcomes for all people .
Goal 3: The pedestrian and bicycle transportation network will provide opportunities to
improve public health and well-being of the community.
Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Connect the Park
Each of the updated goals has a set of strategies to help achieve the goal. These strategies will
be used to guide the evaluation and development of each project to ensure it is accomplishing
the new goals.
Goal 1: Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from single-occupancy vehicles.
Strategies:
• Prioritize pedestrians, bikes, transit , then vehicles.
• Build a comprehensive network of pedestrian and bicycle routes throughout the city
that connects residents and visitors to destinations.
• Remove or reduce barriers in the bicycle and pedestrian transportation network.
• Develop wayfinding signage throughout the city to promote the use of pedestrian and
bicycle routes.
Goal 2: The quality and function of the transportation network contributes to equitable
outcomes for all people.
Strategies:
• Everyone has a bicycle and pedestrian connection to schools, parks, businesses, places
of worship, etc.
• Design the transportation network for the most vulnerable user.
• Build a pedestrian and bicycle transportation network that will address the past and
current institutional barriers created by racial inequalities .
Goal 3: The pedestrian and bicycle transportation network will provide opportunities to
improve public health and well-being of the community.
Strategies:
• Eliminate fatalities and serious injuries that are the result of crashes on city streets.
• Create spaces that feel safe and comfortable for users.
• Build a network that will normalize the idea that everyone belongs in all corners of the
city .
• Create a network that allows physical activity that is accessible to all and connects to
nature.
Next Steps: If council supports the goals and strategies presented in this report, then staff will
come back to a study session in early 2021 to present metrics that would be used to measure
the effectiveness of Connect the Park.
After the metrics have been discussed, a feasibility review for all remaining segments could be
completed all at once or on a per-segment basis to better define the type of facility and order
of magnitude costs for the project.
It is expected that the council policy conversation regarding goals, metrics and feasibility review
could be completed by the end of summer of 2021. This would help to inform the public
process for the upcoming capital improvement projects scheduled for 2022 and beyond.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: November 9, 2020
Discussion item : 3
Executive summary
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Re commended action: The city council and city manager to set the agenda for the regularly
scheduled study session on Nov. 23, 2020.
Policy consideration: Not applicable.
Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the regularly scheduled study session
on Nov. 23, 2020.
Also attached to this report is:
-Study session discussion topics and timeline
-Proposed topics for future study session discussion:
Topic Proposed by Councilmember
Transportation commission & commissions in general Rachel Harris and Larry Kraft
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Tentative agenda – Nov. 23, 2020
Study session discussion topics and timeline
Proposed topics for future study session discussion
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant
Reviewed by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Nov. 23, 2020.
6:30 p.m. Closed executive session
Discussion item
1.Discuss labor negotiations strategy
7:30 p.m. Study session - To be held via videoconference
Tentative discussion items
1.2021 budget and capital planning update – administrative services (60 minutes)
Staff will provide an update on 2021 budget and capital programs including long range
financial planning. Discussion will provide further direction for finalizing the budget and
related plans for 2021.
2.SWLRT Wooddale Station RFP developer response – community development (60 minutes)
Staff will be presenting information and seeking feedback from council regarding the
recommended developer and development proposal for the redevelopment of the EDA-
owned property adjacent to the Wooddale light rail station.
3.Future study session agenda planning – administrative services (5 minutes)
Communications/meeting check-in – administrative services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Written reports
4.Police use of force policy work group update
Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Study session discussion topics and timeline
Future council items
Priority Discussion topic Comments Timeline for council
discussion
3 Discuss public process expectations
and outcomes
Staff is working on the approach for
undertaking this discussion. 1st qtr. 2021
4 Revisit housing setback, FAR , &
more related to affordable housing Going to planning commission for discussion. 1st qtr. 2021
5 Home-based businesses (HBB ) 1st qtr. 2021
6 Public forums at council mtgs 9/23/19 SS. Staff doing research of other cities. 1st qtr. 2021
8 Community and neighborhood
sidewalk designations To be combined w/ Connect the Park discussion. 4th qtr. 2020
9 Remove mint & menthol
exemption from existing flavored
On hold pending court decision *On hold
10/13
-Easy access to nature, across
city, starting w/ low-income
neighborhoods
-WHNC Access Fund
Combine P10 and P13 .
*On hold pending direction from school district. *On hold
11 Conversion therapy ban TBD
+ Community health: services and
connections in SLP
Written report
10/26/20
+ Creating pathways for BIPOC
individuals and families TBD
+ Youth on commissions 4th qtr. 2020
Council items in progress
Priority Discussion topic Comments Next Steps
7 STEP discussion: facilities Council asked staff to consider lending options
to assist STEP in buying a new bldg.
STEP is searching
for a new facility
Police use of force policy review Discussed 7/27 & 9/29/20. Staff is developing
process. Written report update 11/23/20
Discuss draft action
plan; date TBD
Policing: structural analysis Discussed 7/27 & 9/29 /20. Staff is developing
process.
Discuss draft action
plan; date TBD
R evitalization of Walker Lake area
Council approved updated parking ord. Dec.
2019; Planning Commission working on new
zoning ord. and design guidelines for the
district – recommendation to council Q4;
Construction of phase 1 completed summer
2019; Phase 2 currently under construction
Discussion of
ordinance and
design guidelines
late 2020
Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: November 9, 2020
Written report: 4
Executive summary
Title: Update to the council on housing zoning regulations
Recommended action: None at this time. The purpose of this report is to update council on
research staff is conducting and will be presenting to the planning commission in November.
Policy consideration: This item is fourth on the city council’s list of priority discussion topics.
Please inform staff of questions you may have.
Summary: This report was provided in the October 26, 2020 study session packet and provided
again at council’s request. In 2018, a request was submitted by city council members Rog and
Miller to review the housing regulations to prevent lower-value homes from being torn down or
added on to for the construction of highe r-value homes. Their request stated:
“In 2006 the city council authorized changes to zoning. These changes were in response to the
move -up in the park initiative which was designed to encourage families to stay in St. Louis
Park, including the St. Louis Park school system, by accommodating modest additions to their
homes instead of seeking a larger home outside the city.”
Today’s housing market in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area is seeing a rapid increase
in the price of multiple -family and single -family housing. St. Louis Park is no exception. While
there are many factors that influence the housing market values, council wanted us to focus on
the concern that single -family homes are becoming less affordable as builders and private
owners add onto their homes or tear down old smaller homes and build larger ones.
On July 9, 2018, after some deliberation, city council agreed to discuss the topic at a future
study session. A copy of those meeting minutes is attached. Subsequently, this topic was added
to planning commission’s work plan and elevated to a higher priority for discussion.
Staff reviewed the city council’s comments from the July 9, 2018 study session, researched the
history of the low -density residential zoning requirements, and evaluated the scale of housing
relative to lot sizes (i.e. ground floor area ratio and floor area ratio). This report contains a
summary of the research and potential amendments that will be presented to planning
commission for initial discussion purposes.
The planning commission will begin to discuss this item in a study session on November 4,
2020. Staff will work with the planning commission on this topic and report back to the council
with the commission’s recommendations.
Financial or budget considerations: Not at this time.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion; GFAR/FAR analysis ; Citywide maps for GFAR and FAR;
Table of history of code requirements; July 9, 2018 council minutes
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator; Jennifer Monson, senior planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor; Karen Barton, CD director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Update to the council on housing zoning regulations
Discussion
Background: The city council discussed this topic in study session on July 9, 2018. In summary,
there was consensus on the following points:
1.Multiple -family and single -family housing is becoming less affordable . While the city
council expressed concerned about the affordability of both multiple -family and single -
family housing, the focus of the meeting was on the zoning regulations pertaining to the
scale of single -family houses.
2.The council continue s to support the move -up in the park programs. Nevertheless, some
city council members expressed concerns about the scale of additions and new
construction. Specifically, the impacts larger houses may have on adjacent properties.
3.The city should not regulate aesthetics. The city should focus on the scale and
affordability of single -family homes and avoid regulations that encourage or require
specific aesthetic elements.
4.What impacts is housing having on the climate action plan and energy efficiency goals?
Housing affordability, housing stock and housing demand has been documented in previous
housing market studies. This report does not provide additional information on this topic. Also,
the climate action plan impacts were not clear. While a larger house built in 2020 is very likely
to require more energy than a smaller house built in 2020, it is not as clear that larger new
homes use more energy than a smaller 1960s house. This report does not provide additional
information in this regard.
I nstead, staff gathered information about the scale of housing in St. Louis Park relative to the
size of the lots in the city and what this looks like historically. It focuses on two such measures
that are, or have been, regulated by the zoning code.
Present considerations: The zoning ordinance has remained relatively constant since the first
ordinance’s adoption in 1932. Two changes made over time worth noting include the changes
to the ground floor area ratio (GFAR) and deletion of the floor area ratio (FAR).
GFAR is defined by code as the lot area covered by a building measured from the exterior faces
of exterior walls but excluding decks and terraces and detached garages which do not exceed
15 feet in height. (Please note: The GFAR reported includes only the principal buildings. Staff
was unable to identify properties with detached accessory buildings that exceed 15 feet in
height as this information is not readily available.)
FAR Is defined by code as the numerical value obtained by dividing the total floor area of
buildings, excluding the basement, by the lot area on which such buildings are located.
An analysis of both GFAR and FAR is attached to the report and summarized below.
G FAR and FAR analysis : Staff found that the majority of lots with higher GFAR and FAR were
constructed during the city’s largest period of growth, in the 1940s to 1960s. Additionally, h igh
GFAR and FAR is predominantly found on lots smaller than the minimum lot size required by
code today.
Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Update to the council on housing zoning regulations
The GFAR and FAR maps show that the GFAR and FAR vary widely throughout the city. The
construction data also show that there are no clear patterns that newer homes have
substantially higher GFAR and FAR than homes built between the 1940s and 1960s.
Additional observations. Striking a balance between the goals of the move -up in the park
initiative and scale of housing is complicated when also trying to provide flexibility and meeting
the expectations and desires of homebuyers in today’s market. Additionally, evaluating the
actual and perceived impacts of additions and new construction is difficult.
Staff will review this research with the planning commission, most likely over more than one
study session meeting. We will review several more recently built houses that have generated
some complaints and/or are larger in size, GFAR or FAR. We will also share some common
characteristics we noticed, such as:
•The size of the original house was particularly small.
•They added upper floors to the original house.
•They had steeper roof pitches than the original house.
•The houses are simply different architectural styles than the original house.
•The first-floor elevation and surrounding grade was higher than the original house.
•The floor to ceiling heights are taller in the newer houses.
The relative change in size from the old house to the new house was one explanation for a few
of the houses that generated complaints. The two following examples illustrate the results of
two houses that were replaced with new houses. Both represent a significant change, however,
both new homes are similar in style and size to other houses found in the city, and in some
cases the same neighborhood and block.
Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: Update to the council on housing zoning regulations
BEFORE AFTER
Based on council’s direction to continue to support move up in the park and to avoid getting
into purely aesthetic and design style elements, this issue and the first four observations listed
were not further pursued by staff as problems to remedy.
Witho ut getting deeply into the building design and aesthetic requirements, staff considered
the following five issues to initiate discussions with the planning commission.
1.Establish a maximum allowed increase in the ground floor elevation. When removing a
house to build a new house, or keeping a foundation to build a new house, some of the
newer buildings have raised the ground floor elevation. This was likely done to have a
higher ceiling height in the basement which makes the basement more habitable and
useable for purposes such as bedrooms, bathrooms, and family rooms. Staff could see
this as also attractive for creating accessory dwelling units. Additionally, it gives the
homeowner a potentially cost -effective option to consider instead of expanding the
footprint of the house with costly new construction that takes up more space in the
backyard.
Raising the ground floor elevation, however, may have some perceived or real impacts on
the neighboring properties. Typically, when the ground floor is raised, the homeowner
also raises the grade adjacent to the house. The new grade may alter existing drainage
patterns, and sometimes gives the perception that water is directed onto neighboring
properties, which is not permitted by code.
Before After
Before After
Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Title: Update to the council on housing zoning regulations
Additionally, the height of the building is measured from the grade adjacent to the house,
to the mid-point of the gable of the new house. Therefore, when the grade is raised, the
perceived height as seen from the street or next door, is also raised. This may result in
the new house appearing to be taller than, or further out of scale with the neighboring
house when the new house may only be slightly taller than other houses on the block.
If the council wishes to establish a maximum increase in the ground floor elevation, then a
one -foot increase may be reasonable. It allows for some increase in the basement ceiling
floor elevation, while limiting the impact on neighboring properties. If the homeowner
desires more ceiling height than this allows, then they may have the option of lowering
the basement floor when building a new house if the utilities and ground water elevations
allow for it. Digging a lower basement floor elevation will add substantial cost to the
home compared to adding to the top of the existing foundation.
2.F loor to ceiling heights. Similar to the desirability for higher ceilings in basements, newer
homes tend to have ceiling heights of 9 or 10 feet and may have entry ways or living
rooms that are even higher. While these are desirable for interior spaces, they also tend
to result in houses that appear a bit larger than neighboring houses with 7 to 8 fe et tall
ceilings. Ceiling heights over a certain size could be deemed in the city code to be a
second story.
3.Increase the side yard setback for the second floor. Requiring a greater setback for the
second story has come up during this conversation. Curre ntly , a minimum side yard of six
feet is required in the R-1 district, and five feet in the R-2 district. This setback applies to
the entire house. While a greater side yard for the second story may reduce the visual
impact the second floor has on a neighboring property, it comes with substantial
disadvantages and increased costs.
A greater side yard setback for the second floor limits the architectural styles allowed in
St. Louis Park. It results in what is sometimes referred to as a wedding cake style house
where the second tier is smaller than the first. This is generally not compatible with many
common architectural styles and looks forced or artificial in nature. This option also drives
up the cost of construction. The load bearing walls of the second floor are located over
the open space of the rooms below. This requires additional engineering and construction
costs. The costs are exacerbated when a homeowner desires an open floor concept on the
first floor.
The City of Edina utilized this code provision for a short period of time. The provision was
struck from the code due to the impacts summarized above; the arguments between
homeowners, contractors and the city; the cost and frequency of physical adjustments
required during construction to meet the code ; and the high number of variances
requested.
4.Adjust the ground floor area ratio (GFAR). The GFAR, often referred to as the house
footprint, is an effective method to establish a reasonable amount of the lot the house
can cover. As noted above and in the attached history of code changes, the GFAR has
Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 4) Page 6
Title: Update to the council on housing zoning regulations
been adjusted a few times since 1932. For example, the R-1 district in 1932 allowed a
GFAR of .4. This was reduced to .3 in 1959 and remained in place until 2006 when it was
increased to .35 as part of the move -up in the park initiative.
Reducing the GFAR would have greater impacts on smaller lots. For example, a GFAR
maximum of .35 will allow a 2,450 square foot first floor on a 7,000 square foot lot but
only 1,750 square feet on a 5,000 square foot lot. Additionally, lot sizes vary all over the
city . This makes it likely that large houses will periodically be located adjacent to small
houses simply because the GFAR allows for more house to be constructed on large lots.
5.Adjust the floor area ratio (FAR). The city first introduced a FAR requirement of .3 in 1959.
The FAR requirement was removed from the code in 1992, so the city currently does not
require a FAR requirement. The FAR, however, is indirectly administered by the GFAR and
max imum height requirements. These two requirements work together to form a
maximum building envelope allowed for each property in which a house may be built. As
a result, it also limits the amount of floor area that can be built. The FAR of a lot alone
treats wide/deep one-story buildings equally to tall buildings with small footprints. FAR
alone is not an effective tool to regulate or have predictable building forms. Staff has
struggled to identify an appropriate FAR based on our research to date and based on the
examples we have reviewed. More definition of the issue and concerns would be needed
to arrive at a proposal.
Next Steps. This report provides a summary of staff’s research in the existing housing stock,
including recent additions and new construction. It also includes a summary of the history of
code changes since 1932 to present and summarizes some code changes that have been
brought up through the course of the discussion.
Staff will present this research with the planning commission and report back to the council its
findings. Staff also asks if there are other items the city council would like planning commission
to consider.
Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 4) Page 7
Title: Update to the council on housing zoning regulations
Ground Floor Area Ratio (GFAR) and Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
GFAR is defined by code as the lot area covered by a building measured from the exterior faces
of exterior walls but excluding decks and terraces and detached garages which do not exceed
15 feet in height.
FAR Is defined by code as the numerical value
obtained by dividing the total floor area of
buildings, excluding the basement, by the lot area
on which such buildings are located. The city did
not have a FAR requirement until 1959 when a
FAR of .3 was adopted. The FAR remained until
1992 and is no longer a required regulation for
single -family homes. Instead the city uses height
and GFAR to limit single -family building scale.
Staff used GIS and assessing data to compute and analyze the GFAR and FAR for single-family
properties to determine if any clear patterns could be found. Maps showing the citywide
analysis are attached at the end of this report.
GFAR The allowed GFAR was .4 until 1959 when it was changed
to .3 and remained until 2006 when it was increased to .35.
Based on the data for GFAR, the majority of homes in the city
have a GFAR of less than .2. Lots in the middle and eastern half
of the city tend to have a higher GFAR than lots that were
constructed in the western half of the city. Typically, these lots
tend to be smaller in size compared with the western half of
the city, which has a more suburban development pattern.
There are 43 homes, or 0.4% of the city’s single-family housing stock across the city with a GFAR
between .3 and .35. 74% of these homes were constructed between 1940 and 1970 when most
the city’s housing stock was constructed.
The average lot size of lots with GFAR between 0.25 and 0.3 is 7,400 square feet and the
average home size on those lots is 1,957 SF. The average size of lots with GFAR greater than 0.3
is 7,400 square feet a nd the average home size on those lots is 2,205 square feet, with the
smallest home being 912 SF.
Floor Area Ratio. The majority of homes (65%) have a FAR less
than .25, 17% of homes have a FAR between 0.25 and 0.3, and
18% of homes have a FAR greater than 0.3.
81% of homes with FAR greater than .30 were constructed
between 1930 and 1960. However, there are a few homes that
were originally constructed when the city had a maximum FAR
of 0.3 between 1970 to 2006. It is unclear if these homes were
constru cted larger than the code allowed, if variances were
received, or the lot size was somehow reduced (i.e. subdivision or right-of-way acquisition).
Ground Floor
Area Ratio
(GFAR)
% of lots
0 to 0.2 86.4%
>0.20 to 0.25 10.7%
>0.25 to 0.30 2.4%
>0.30 to 0.35 0.4%
>0.35 to 0.47 0.1%
Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 4) Page 8
Title: Update to the council on housing zoning regulations
The average lot size for properties with a FAR greater than 0.3 is 6,305 square feet and the
average home size on these lots is 1,696 square feet.
The recently constructed larger homes may be attributed to the city’s “move up in the park”
program which encourages expansions and redevelopment to occur within the city to attract
families to stay in St. Louis Park rather than moving to further suburbs.
Ground Floor Area Ratio Analysis
Single-family lots in R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts
Legend
Ground Floor Area Ratio
0.00 - 0.20 (86.4%)
0.21 - 0.25 (10.7%)
0.26 - 0.30 (2.4%)
0.31 - 0.35 (0.4%)
0.36 - 0.46 (0.1%)´0 0.5 10.25 MilesSource: St. Louis Park Assessing Data and Community Development, 2020
Page 9 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 4)
Title: Update to the council on housing zoning regulations
Floor Area Ratio Analysis
Single-family lots in R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts
Legend
Floor Area Ratio
0.00 - 0.15
0.16 - 0.20
0.21 - 0.25
0.26 - 0.30
0.31 - 0.40
0.41 - 0.72 ´0 0.5 10.25 MilesSource: St. Louis Park Assessing Data and Community Development, 2020
Page 10 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 4)
Title: Update to the council on housing zoning regulations
History of code requirements
Standard 1932 1949 1959 1971 1976 1992 2006 Current
R-1 Density A
Uses 1 & 2-family 1-family 1-family 1-family 1-family 1-family 1-family 1-family
Min lot size 6,000(ex)/7,200(new)6,000(ex)/7,200(new)9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
Min lot size/dwelling 4,800
Min lot width ----75 75 75 75 75 75
Setbacks
Front > of 35, or > of 35, or 35 35 35 >of 30, or > of 30, or 30
average of house on each
side, or
average of house on each
side, or ------
average of house
on each side, or
match house with
smallest front yard --
match house on one side match house on one side --------
Requirement not to
exceed 50.
Requirement not to
exceed 50.--------
Side 9/6*9/6*9/6*
Side: 1-story 4 4 9/6*9/6*9/6*------
Side: > 1-story 7 7 9/11*9/11*9/11*------
Side abutting street ----15 15 15 15 >60 lot width 15 >60 lot width 15 >60 lot width
9 <60 lot width 9 <60 lot width 9 <60 lot width
Rear 35 35 35 25 25 25
Rear: 1-story 15 15 ------------
Rear: 2 1/2 story 20 20 ------------
40 foot rule --------------+2"/1ft>40
GFAR 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.35 0.35
GFAR: interior 40**40**------------
GRAR: corner 50**50**------------
FAR ----0.3 0.3 0.3 --
Max height 2.5 story 2.5 story 30 feet/3 stories 30 feet/3 stories 30 feet/3 stories 30 feet/3 stories 30 feet/3 stories 30
Rear adj to front yard ----= to front yard = to front yard = to front yard = to front yard = to front yard = to front yard
R-2 Density B
Uses 1 & 2-family 1-family 1-family 1-family 1-family 1-family 1-family 1-family
Min lot size 4,800 4,800 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200
Min lot size/dwelling 4,800
Min lot width ----60 60 60 60 60 60
Setbacks
Front > of 25, or > of 25, or 30 30 30 >of 25, or > of 25, or 25
average of house on each
side, or
average of house on each
side, or ------
average of house
on each side, or
match house with
smallest front yard --
match house on one side match house on one side ------------
Requirement not to
exceed 50.
Requirement not to
exceed 50.------------
Side 7/5*7/5*7/5*
Side: 1-story 4 4 9/6*9/6*9/6*------
Side: > 1-story 7 7 9/11*9/11*9/11*------
Side abutting streeet ----15 15 15 15 >60 lot width 15 >60 lot width 15 >60 lot width
9 <60 lot width 9 <60 lot width 9 <60 lot width
Rear 25 25 25 25 25 25
Rear: 1-story 15 15 ------------
Rear: 2 1/2 story 20 20 ------------
40 foot rule ----------+2"/1ft>40 +2"/1ft>40 +2"/1ft>40
GFAR 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.35 0.35
GFAR: interior 40**40**------------
GRAR: corner 50**50**------------
FAR 0.3 0.3 0.3 --
Height 2.5 story 2.5 story 30 feet/3 stories 30 feet/3 stories 30 feet/3 stories 30 feet/3 stories 30 feet/3 stories 30
Rear adj to front yard ----= to front yard = to front yard = to front yard = to front yard = to front yard = to front yard
R-3 Density C
Uses 1 & 2 family 1 & 2 family 1 & 2-familiy 1 & 2-familiy 1 & 2-familiy 1 & 2-familiy 1 & 2-familiy 1 & 2-familiy
Min lot size 4,800 4,800 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 1-family: 7,200
2-family: 8,000 2-family: 8,000 2-family: 8,000
Min lot size/dwelling 2,400 2,400 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
Min lot width 60 60 60 60 60 60
Setbacks
Front > of 20, or > of 20, or 30 30 30 >of 25, or > of 25, or > of 25, or
average of house on each
side, or
average of house on each
side, or ------
average of house
on each side, or
match house with
smallest front yard
match house with
smallest front yard
match house on one side match house on one side ------------
Requirement not to
exceed 50.
Requirement not to
exceed 50.------------
Side: 1-story 4 4 ------------
Side: > 1-story 7 7 ------------
Side: 1-family 9/6*9/6*9/6*7/5*7/5*7/5*
Side: 2-family 9/11*9/11*9/11*9/6*9/6*9/6*
Side abutting streeet 15 15 15 15 >60 lot width 15 >60 lot width 15 >60 lot width
9 <60 lot width 9 <60 lot width 9 <60 lot width
Rear 30 30 30 25 25 25
Rear: 1-story 15 15 ------------
Rear: 2 1/2 story 20 20 ------------
40 foot rule ------+2"/1ft>50 +2"/1ft>50 +2"/1ft>50
GFAR 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35
GFAR: interior 50**50**------------
GRAR: corner 60**60**------------
FAR 0.4 0.4 0.4 --
Height 3 stories 2.5 or 3 stories 35 feet/3 stories 35 feet/3 stories 35 feet/3 stories 35 feet/3 stories 35 feet/3 stories 35 feet/3 stories
Rear adj to front yard ----= to front yard = to front yard = to front yard = to front yard = to front yard = to front yard
*Both sides lower number with attached garage or alley.
** Measured to center of alley. GFAR is a total of all buildings on the property.
Page 11 Study session meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 4)
Title: Update to the council on housing zoning regulations
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: November 9, 2020
Written report: 5
Executive summary
Title: St. Louis Park 4d Affordable Housing Incentive Program update
Recommended Action: None at this time. This report is intended to provide a brief update on
the 4d program and inform the council of a proposed revision to the length of required
affordability for participants from ten years to five years.
Policy consideration: Does the council support the staff recommendation to revise the length
of required affordability in the 4d program from ten years to five years?
Summary: At the December 10, 2018 council study session, council approved implementation
of the 4d Affordable Housing Incentive program effective January 1, 2019. The program enables
owners of multi-family rental housing in St. Louis Park to utilize a state provision called 4d, also
known as the Low-Income Rental Classification (LIRC). The 4d statute defines eligible properties
as those which meet two conditions: the owner of the property agrees to rent and income
restrictions serving households at 60% AMI or below and receives “financial assistance” from
federal, state or local government. Based on the defined eligibility criteria, the city create d a
Local 4d program in which qualifying properties receive the 4d tax break in return for agreeing
to conditions which meet the city’s housing policy goals. Participating owners must sign a
commitment to keep at least 20% of units in their building affordable for a term of 10 years. In
return, the city pays the first year application fee to the State of Minnesota for certification of
the 4d property tax classification ($10/unit) and offers a city grant in the amount of $200 per
affordable unit, capped at $6,000/ per property, for the cost of energy efficiency and healthy
homes improvements as identified in the free audit or other property improvements as
approved by the city. Owners participating in this program must also agree to limit future rent
increases to 5% or less annually for existing residents in affordable units.
Despite extensive marketing of the program the past two years, only one property is participating
in the program. Given the lack of interest in the program, staff surveyed local rental property
owners with eligible rents levels. A number of the owners indicated an interest in participating
but expressed hesitation about the 10-year commitment, considering the uncertainty in the
rental market. In an effort to increase participation and in response to this concern, staff is
proposing to reduce the re quired affordability term from 10 years to five years.
Financial or budget considerations: The housing rehab fund and the affordable housing trust
fund are the proposed primary funding sources. Adequate funds are available in the housing
rehab fund to support program expenses for 2021.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion
NOAH property map and list
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, community development deputy director/housing supervisor
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Page 2 Study session Meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 5)
Title: St. Louis Park 4d Affordable Housing Incentive Program update
Discussion
Current St. Louis Park 4d Affordable Housing Incentive Program
The 4d program enables owners of multi-family rental housing in St. Louis Park to utilize a state
provision called 4d, also known as the Low-Income Rental Classification (LIRC). To be eligible,
properties must meet two conditions: the owner of the property agrees to rent- and income -
restrictions serving households at 60% AMI or below and they must receive “financial
assistance” from federal, state or local government. This allows the city to create a Local 4d
program in which qualifying properties receive the 4d tax break in return for agreeing to
conditions which meet the city’s housing policy goals. Participating owners must sign a
commitment to keep at least 20% of units in their building affordable for 10 years. Owners
participating in this program must also agree to limit future rent increases to 5% or less
annually for existing residents in affordable units.
Program benefits
Qualified building owners that agree to keep at least 20% of the units affordable at or below
60% area median rents and incomes for 10 years receive:
•40% property tax reduction on qualifying units (4d property tax classification)
•Payment of first year application fee to the State of Minnesota for certification of the 4d
property tax classification ($10/unit)
•Free energy efficiency and healthy homes audits
•Utility rebates and city grants offered to each 4d property in the amount of $200 per
affordable unit, capped at $6,000/ per property for the cost of energy efficiency and healthy
homes improvements as identified in the free audit or other property improvements as
approved by the city
Eligibility guidelines
Owners of market-rate multifamily properties mus t meet the following criteria:
•Buildings with at least three rental units, licensed properties in good standing with no code
compliance issues .
•At least 20% of the rental units in a building must be occupied by and affordable to
households whose income is at or below 60% of the Area Median Income .
•Existing tenants in units that have program compliant rents do not need to be income qualified .
•Income qualification is determined upon initial occupancy for new tenants. Thereafter,
increased incomes of tenants in affordable units will not violate the program requirements.
•Buildings can include units with owner occupants, but only rental units are eligible for 4d
tax status.
•Property Owners will select the percentage of their building to restrict, with a minimum of
20%. If they select more than 20%, after five years and upon request, the City will approve a
reduction of the percentage of restricted units to the minimum level of 20% of the units per
building.
•City will draft and record a declaration against the property that limits the rents and incomes
on the qualified units for 10 years (a recorded document is required for 4d tax classification
status) Staff is proposing that the term for the rent restrictions be reduced to five years.
•Deadline for annual application to the state of MN for tax payable in following year is
March 31. Deadline for submitting applications to the city to participate in the program is
February 22.
Page 3 Study session Meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 5)
Title: St. Louis Park 4d Affordable Housing Incentive Program update
Present considerations: The 4D tax incentive program provides a financial incentive to preserve
the affordability of NOAH rental units and rent-restricted units There are 159 class C multi-
family rental properties with a total of 5037 units located in St. Louis Park. Class C properties
tend to be older with few amenities and have rent levels that are much more likely to qualify as
Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) which are also the properties most likely to
participate in the city’s 4d program.
To date, only one property is participating in the 4d program despite extensive marketing of the
program over the past two years. The participating property is a NOAH multi-family residential
rental property with a total of 22 units. The owner committed 17 of the units as affordable at
60% area medium income for a 10-year period.
Several multi-family rental property owners have indicated an interest in participating in the 4d
program but expressed concerns about the length of commitment considering the uncertainty
in the market. To address this issue and increase participation, staff is proposing to reduce the
required affordability term from 10 years to five years.
Ne xt Steps: The 4d Affordable Housing Incentive program, along with several other city
programs focuse d on preserving naturally occurring affordable housing, will be marketed to
multi-family residential rental owners starting this fall through a SPARC newsletter distribution
to all owners of properties that have a rental license. Marketing efforts will continue through
January and February 2021. MN Housing’s deadline for applications to participate in the 4d
program for 2022 is March 31, 2021.
Excelsior
Bl
v
d
Minnetonka Blvd
Lake StLouisiana AveWo
o
d
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
36th St W
Cedar Lake
R
d
Ward 4
Ward 1
Ward 2
Ward 3
NOAH Multifamily Rental Buildings
Legend
Class C Apartment Building (159)Wards
Ward 1 (51)
Ward 2 (17)
Ward 3 (62)
Ward 4 (29)
November 2020
Page 4 Study session Meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 5)
Title: St. Louis Park 4d Affordable Housing Incentive Program update
Name Year Built Studios One Bedroom Two Bedrooms Three Bedrooms Total Units Address Ward Precinct
TWO 5 UNIT APT BLDGS ON 2 PARCELS 1941 0 5 0 0 5 5112 Minnetonka Blvd 1 1
SUNSET BOULEVARD APARTMENTS 1972 0 0 0 3 3 2900 Joppa Ave S 1 1
JOPPA LANE & JOPPA LANE II (ONE PARCEL)1964 0 84 60 0 144 4310 Minnetonka Blvd 1 1
PARK EMBASSY APARTMENTS 1962 0 72 35 0 107 4400 Minnetonka Blvd 1 1
TWO 5 UNIT APT BLDGS ON 2 PARCELS 1941 0 5 0 0 5 5100 Minnetonka Blvd 1 1
FRANCE PLACE (LEBENS OCCUPIES 1 UNIT)1941 0 4 0 0 4 2924 France Ave S 1 1
PARK RIDGE APARTMENTS 1967 0 81 12 0 93 2480 State Highway 100 1 2
COURTYARD APARTMENTS 1964 0 45 107 0 152 2510 State Highway 100 1 2
8 Unit townhouse style 1995 0 0 8 0 8 3106 Inglewood Ave S 1 3
PARK POINT (NO E) 1 0F 5 PARCELS 1948 0 10 5 0 15 4320 State Highway 7 1 3
BTA CONST 1950 0 6 5 0 11 4405 State Highway 7 1 3
THIRTY-ONE WEST (1 OF 6 PARCELS)1962 0 2 8 0 10 4008 31st St W 1 3
THIRTY- ONE WEST (1 OF 6 PARCELS)1967 0 1 5 0 6 4001 31st St W 1 3
PARK TOWERS by Bigos Ted 1961 5 67 65 6 143 4810 State Highway 7 1 3
BRITTANY APARTMENTS 1967 1 26 12 0 39 3127 State Highway 100 1 3
PARK POINT (NO E) 1 OF 5 PARCELS 1948 0 10 5 0 15 4315 Minnetonka Blvd 1 3
14 UNIT APT BLDG ON MINNETONKA BLVD 1963 0 0 14 0 14 4411 Minnetonka Blvd 1 3
9 UNIT APT BLDG ON MINNETONKA BLVD 1961 1 0 8 0 9 4421 Minnetonka Blvd 1 3
Mixed Use Bldg 0 0 0 3 0 3 4801 Minnetonka Blvd 1 3
The Edge Of Uptown Apts 1968 4 75 60 0 139 4725 Minnetonka Blvd 1 3
4 PLEX (FORMER SFR) HOMESTEAD UNITS?1910 0 4 0 0 4 3047 Toledo Ave S 1 3
Uptown West Apartments 1951 40 80 0 0 120 3030 Raleigh Ave S 1 3
VILLA CAPRI TOWNHOME APTS 1967 0 0 12 0 12 3043 Inglewood Ave S 1 3
INGLEWOOD MANOR 1969 0 2 4 0 6 3050 Inglewood Ave S 1 3
PARK POINT (NO E) 1 0F 5 PARCELS 1948 0 10 5 0 15 4305 Minnetonka Blvd 1 3
PARK POINT (NO E) 1 0F 5 PARCELS 1948 0 10 5 0 15 4325 Minnetonka Blvd 1 3
PARK POINT (NO E) 1 OF 5 PARCELS 1948 0 10 5 0 15 4310 State Highway 7 1 3
3030 Lynn-13 units 1965 0 5 8 0 13 3030 Lynn Ave S 1 3
THIRTY-ONE WEST (1 0F 6 PARCELS)1967 0 10 0 0 10 3925 31st St W 1 3
THIRTY-ONE WEST (1 0F 6 PARECELS)1966 1 5 3 0 9 4020 31st St W 1 3
THIRTY-ONE WEST (1 0F 6 PARCELS)1962 0 1 5 0 6 4108 31st St W 1 3
THIRTY-ONE WEST (1 0F 6 PARCELS)1961 1 4 3 0 8 4009 31st St W 1 3
INGLEWOOD TERRACE 1963 0 1 5 0 6 3100 Inglewood Ave S 1 3
17 UNITS ON LYNN 1963 0 5 10 2 17 3016 Lynn Ave S 1 3
MENORAH PLAZA 1981 12 134 9 0 155 4925 Minnetonka Blvd 1 3
Boulevard 100 1962 2 42 15 3 62 3000 State Highway 100 1 4
COLONIAL ESTATES (PARKING ON 0063)1964 3 17 34 0 54 5621 Minnetonka Blvd 1 4
4 PLEX (REVIEW HOMESTEAD STATUS)1948 0 4 0 0 4 6220 34th St W 1 4
FLAG BUILDERS 1950 0 11 0 0 11 6005 35th St W 1 4
HAMILTON PROPERTIES 1963 0 2 6 0 8 6224 Hamilton St 1 4
WARREN SYNDER-11 units - 1 br 1950 0 11 0 0 11 5924 35th St W 1 4
WARREN SYNDER- 11 unit-1 br 1950 0 11 0 0 11 5918 35th St W 1 4
4 PLEX ON LAKE STREET 1948 0 4 0 0 4 6221 Lake St W 1 4
FLAG BUILDERS 1950 0 11 0 0 11 6017 35th St W 1 4
RICE PROPERTIES 1964 0 4 4 0 8 6211 Hamilton St 1 4
WESTLAKE ESTATES 1968 0 9 18 0 27 5700 Lake St W 1 4
4 PLEX ON LAKE STREET 1948 0 4 0 0 4 6227 Lake St W 1 4
6 PLEX 1967 0 6 0 0 6 3480 Zarthan Ave S 1 4
4 PLEX (REVIEW HOMESTEAD STATUS)1948 0 4 0 0 4 6216 34th St W 1 4
ANDERSON 34TH (11 UNIT APARTMENT)1964 0 5 5 1 11 6227 34th St W 1 4
JAMES OTTO, 13 gar stalls 1949 2 10 1 0 13 6000 35th St W 1 4
4 - PLEX VANDERLINDE(old Dbl)1958 2 0 2 0 4 4102 36th St W 2 6
PARK TRAIL APTS (1 OF 3 PARCELS)1960 0 26 28 0 54 4511 36 1/2 St W 2 6
PARK VILLA 1959 0 18 3 0 21 4320 36 1/2 St W 2 6
PARK TRAIL APTS (1 OF 3 PARCELS)-motel style 1960 12 23 11 0 46 4522 36 1/2 St W 2 6
HUNTINGTON APARTMENTS 1951 0 18 2 0 20 3551 Huntington Ave S 2 6
PARK TRAIL APTS (1 OF 3 PARCELS)1960 0 9 11 0 20 4545 36 1/2 St W 2 6
LYNN PLAZA 1959 5 30 9 0 44 3612 Lynn Ave S 2 6
MINIKAHDA COURT 1951 39 41 45 0 125 3542 Minikahda Ct 2 6
APARTMENT BLDG - ZWEIGBAUM 1960 0 0 14 0 14 4040 36th St W 2 6
LIV Apts (3 BLDGS ON 1 PARCEL)1967 15 36 18 0 69 4505 36 1/2 St W 2 6
5 PLEX ON KIPLING 1938 0 5 0 0 5 3757 Kipling Ave S 2 7
H&M APTS 1958 0 21 1 0 22 4016 Utica Ave S 2 7
NOAH Multifamilty Rental Buildings
Page 5 Study session Meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 5)
Title: St. Louis Park 4d Affordable Housing Incentive Program update
Era on Excelsior (1 of 3 Parcels)1953 10 100 0 0 110 6841 Meadowbrook Blvd 2 8
Era on Excelsior (1 of 3 Parcels)1953 13 130 154 0 297 7000 Meadowbrook Blvd 2 8
Era on Excelsior (1 of 3 Parcels)1953 13 130 0 0 143 6800 Excelsior Blvd 2 8
MARNA SMITH 1961 1 0 11 0 12 6309 Excelsior Blvd 2 8
Hansen Apartments 1949 0 6 5 0 11 6114 Excelsior Blvd 2 8
SOMERSET OAKS 1978 0 20 60 20 100 7400 Oak Park Village Dr 3 10
6 PLEX ON PENNSYLVANIA 1964 0 1 4 1 6 3610 Pennsylvania Ave S 3 10
Vail Place 100%Exem 2002 1 7 0 0 8 3647 Sumter Ave S 3 10
8 PLEX ON TEXAS 1965 0 4 4 0 8 3607 Texas Ave S 3 10
OAK PARK VILLAGE APTS 1978 0 27 45 28 100 7267 Oak Park Village Dr 3 10
4 PLEX ON PENNSYLVANIA 1962 0 1 3 0 4 3600 Pennsylvania Ave S 3 10
6 PLEX ON LIBRARY LANE 1971 0 5 1 0 6 3384 Library La 3 11
4 PLEX (REVIEW HOMESTEAD STATUS)1956 0 0 4 0 4 3379 Brownlow Ave 3 11
Trailway (1 OF 3 PARCELS)-motel style 1958 0 10 17 0 27 8400 Minnetonka Blvd 3 12
Trailway Apartments (1OF 3 PARCELS)1962 0 11 1 0 12 2948 Wyoming Ave S 3 12
Trailway Apts (1 OF 3 PARCELS)1962 0 11 0 0 11 8340 Minnetonka Blvd 3 12
LOUISIANA CT - PPL (1 OF 11 PARCELS)1963 0 9 3 0 12 2722 Louisiana Ct 3 12
LOUISIANA CT - PPL (1 OF 11 PARCELS)1963 0 3 3 3 9 2705 Louisiana Ct 3 12
LOUISIANA CT - PPL (1 OF 11 PARCELS)1963 0 0 7 5 12 2717 Louisiana Ct 3 12
LOUISIANA CT - PPL (1 OF 11 PARCELS)1963 0 9 7 0 16 2704 Louisiana Ct 3 12
LOUISIANA CT - PPL (1 OF 11 PARCELS)1963 1 0 10 0 11 2740 Louisiana Ave S 3 12
LOUISIANA CT - PPL (1OF 11 PARCELS)1963 0 3 3 3 9 2730 Louisiana Ct 3 12
LOUISIANA CT - PPL (1 OF 11 PARCELS)1963 0 9 3 0 12 2742 Louisiana Ct 3 12
LOUISIANA CT - PPL (1 OF 11 PARCELS)1963 0 9 3 0 12 2754 Louisiana Ct 3 12
PERSPECTIVES 1963 0 2 10 0 12 2760 Louisiana Ct 3 12
PPL 1963 0 2 10 0 12 2768 Louisiana Ct 3 12
RHODE ISLAND CHATEAU (1 of 2 parcels)1967 0 23 12 0 35 2727 Rhode Island Ave S 3 12
RHODE ISLAND CHATEAU (1 of 2 Parcels)1967 2 47 22 1 72 2700 Rhode Island Ave S 3 12
VIRGINIA APT'S,Bill Christ 1961 0 10 13 0 23 3025 Virginia Ave S 3 12
KIBORT (2 BLDGS ON 2 PARCELS)1961 0 5 5 1 11 8200 31st St W 3 12
ROYAL PARK (1 OF 3 PARCELS)1961 24 0 12 0 36 3101 Xylon Ave S 3 12
ROYAL PARK (1 OF 3 PARCELS)1963 0 9 27 0 36 3100 Virginia Ave S 3 12
VIRGINIA APTS; Eric Osmundson 1962 0 10 13 0 23 3063 Virginia Ave S 3 12
AQUILA PARK (1 OF 5 PARCELS)1963 0 15 20 6 41 8308 30 1/2 St W 3 12
VIRGINIA TERRACE APARTMENTS 1961 0 0 12 0 12 8201 30 1/2 St W 3 12
PARK TERRACE Fred Klug 1962 0 5 12 0 17 8216 31st St W 3 12
KIBORT (2 BLDGS ON 2 PARCELS)1962 0 5 5 1 11 8208 31st St W 3 12
ROYAL PARK (1 0F 3 PARCELS)1961 24 0 12 0 36 8301 31st St W 3 12
Schwartz Russ Sylvia 1961 0 0 10 1 11 3109 Virginia Ave S 3 12
EMBASSY WEST APTS 1961 0 0 6 0 6 3125 Virginia Ave S 3 12
AQUILA PARK (1 0F 5 PARCELS)1960 0 10 30 1 41 8224 30 1/2 St W 3 12
WHITE GATE MANOR-36 units 1962 0 13 19 4 36 8300 31st St W 3 12
11 UNIT APT BLDG ON VIRGINIA 1961 0 0 10 1 11 3101 Virginia Ave S 3 12
COLONIAL APTS (ON VIRGINIA)-NO GARAGES 1961 0 0 10 1 11 3117 Virginia Ave S 3 12
TEXAS TERRACE 1969 0 5 12 0 17 8008 28th St W 3 12
LOUISIANA CT - PPL (1 0F 11 PARCELS)1963 2 0 10 0 12 2750 Louisiana Ave S 3 12
LOUISIANA CT - PPL (1 OF 11 PARCELS)1963 0 9 3 0 12 2711 Louisiana Ct 3 12
2BLDGS Prospectives Inc 1963 0 12 12 0 24 2759 Louisiana Ct 3 12
EXEMPT,PERSPECTIVES 1963 0 2 10 0 12 2753 Louisiana Ct 3 12
LOUISIANA CT - PPL (1 0F 11 PARCELS)1963 0 7 3 1 11 2741 Louisiana Ct 3 12
AQUILA PARK (1 OF 5 PARCELS)1964 0 12 26 3 41 8300 30 1/2 St W 3 12
AQUILA PARK (1 OF 5 PARCELS)1964 0 12 26 3 41 8216 30 1/2 St W 3 12
AQUILA PARK (1 0F 5 PARCELS)1963 24 0 1 0 25 8150 30 1/2 St W 3 12
AQUILA COURT 3 Bldgs on 1 Parcel 1963 0 0 34 1 35 3033 Xylon Ave S 3 12
ROYAL TERRACE APARTMENTS 1963 0 0 18 0 18 8217 30 1/2 St W 3 12
8209 PROPERTIES (APT BLDG)1962 0 10 1 0 11 8209 30 1/2 St W 3 12
MENORAH WEST 1986 0 45 0 0 45 3600 Phillips Pkwy 3 9
Creekview Apt's; Sela '99 1968 1 31 12 0 44 8817 35th St W 3 9
CREEKVIEW APTS (VERIFY)1964 0 8 3 0 11 3544 Aquila Cir 3 9
KNOLLWOOD MANOR 1960 0 11 0 0 11 8824 35th St W 3 9
KNOLLWOOD PLACE (SENIORS) PT = A 1987 0 69 84 0 153 3630 Phillips Pkwy 3 9
TARGET APARTMENTS (1 OF 3 PARCELS)1966 0 11 0 0 11 8824 36th St W 3 9
TARGET APARTMENTS (1 OF 3 PARCELS)1966 1 11 0 0 12 8812 36th St W 3 9
APT BLDG ON 35TH STREET 1962 0 11 0 0 11 8801 35th St W 3 9
TARGET APARTMENTS (1 OF 3 PARCELS)1966 0 11 0 0 11 8800 36th St W 3 9
Page 6 Study session Meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 5)
Title: St. Louis Park 4d Affordable Housing Incentive Program update
Sholom Comm Alliance 2003 36 39 3 0 78 3610 Phillips Pkwy 3 9
KNOLLWOOD ESTATES - 36 UNITS 1960 0 3 33 0 36 3536 Aquila Cir 3 9
SHELARD VILLAGE 1971 0 38 75 12 125 400 Ford Rd 4 13
WESTWOOD CHATEAU (2 BLDGS ON 1 PARCEL)1968 0 34 12 0 46 2240 Nevada Ave S 4 14
WESTWOOD GARDENS (1 OF 3 PARCELS)1967 0 38 30 0 68 7307 Cedar Lake Rd 4 14
WESTWOOD GARDENS (1 OF 3 PARCELS)1962 0 20 41 0 61 7316 Cedar Lake Rd 4 14
Hamilton House 0 0 108 2 0 110 2400 Nevada Ave S 4 14
WESTWOOD GARDENS (1 OF 3 PARCELS)1967 0 17 6 0 23 2527 Nevada Ave S 4 14
COLORADO APARTMENTS 1969 6 25 11 1 43 1410 Colorado Ave S 4 15
MILLER Apts,7th unit LNC 1964 0 5 2 0 7 7342 14th St W 4 15
PENNSYLVANIA APTS (2 BLDGS ON 2 PARCELS)1962 0 0 11 0 11 1349 Pennsylvania Ave S 4 15
PENNSYLVANIA APTS (2 BLDGS ON 2 PARCELS)1962 0 2 4 0 6 1357 Pennsylvania Ave S 4 15
12 Unit Apt - No Name 1964 1 11 0 0 12 1328 Idaho Ave S 4 15
LOU PARK APARTMENTS 1978 2 51 55 0 108 1351 Hampshire Ave S 4 15
HAMPSHIRE HOUSE (1 OF 3 PARCELS)1965 0 1 11 0 12 1360 Hampshire Ave S 4 15
HAMPSHIRE HOUSE (1 0F 3 PARCELS)1965 0 2 10 0 12 1412 Hampshire Ave S 4 15
NO NAME (2 BLDGS ON 2 PARCELS)1960 2 1 4 0 7 1356 Idaho Ave S 4 15
5 UNIT APT BLDG (HORNIG)1956 0 0 5 0 5 1338 Jersey Ave S 4 15
NO NAME (2 BLDGS ON 2 PARCELS)1960 2 1 4 0 7 1346 Idaho Ave S 4 15
JERSEY MANOR 1966 0 16 5 0 21 1325 Jersey Ave S 4 15
PARK WEST APARTMENTS 1971 0 36 24 0 60 1427 Colorado Ave S 4 15
DAKOTA POINTE APTS (TOWNHOME STYLE)1969 0 0 19 1 20 1421 Dakota Ave S 4 15
BAYCLIFF APARTMENTS 1969 0 17 6 0 23 1436 Colorado Ave S 4 15
HAMPSHIRE HOUSE (1 0F 3 PARCELS)1972 0 0 12 0 12 1428 Hampshire Ave S 4 15
12 UNIT APT - HORNIG 1961 1 1 10 0 12 1345 Idaho Ave S 4 15
WAYSIDE HOUSE--EXEMPT 100%1961 0 0 8 1 9 1349 Jersey Ave S 4 15
WAYSIDE House Inc; Exempt 1961 0 0 10 1 11 1341 Jersey Ave S 4 15
HAMPSHIRE COVE APTS-9 2 BRS 1980 0 0 9 0 9 1436 Hampshire Ave S 4 15
HAMPSHIRE APTS (2 BLDGS ON 2 PARCELS)1964 1 0 7 0 8 2401 Hampshire Ave S 4 16
HAMPSHIRE APTS (2 BLDGS ON 2 PARCELS)1964 1 0 7 0 8 2407 Hampshire Ave S 4 16
4815 OLD CEDAR LK RD 1961 0 25 0 0 25 4815 Old Cedar Lake Rd 4 16
Page 7 Study session Meeting of November 9, 2020 (Item No. 5)
Title: St. Louis Park 4d Affordable Housing Incentive Program update