HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022/09/12 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study Session AGENDA
SEPT. 12, 2022
Members of the public can attend the meeting in person, watch by webstream at
bit.ly/watchslpcouncil, or watch on local cable (Comcast SD channel 17/HD channel 859).
Recordings are available to watch on the city’s YouTube channel at
https://www.youtube.com/user/slpcable, usually within 24 hours of the end of the council
meeting or study session.
6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – council chambers
Discussion items
1. 30 min. Review appointment process for vacancies on city council
2. 30 min. Hemp-derived THC draft ordinance
3. 30 min. Proposed study session agenda topic
5 min. Communications/updates (verbal)
Written reports
4. Connected infrastructure system wrap-up
5. DWI/Traffic Safety Police Officer Grant Program
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 after noon on Friday on the city’s website.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952.924.2505.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: September 12, 2022
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: Review appointment process for vacancies on city council
Recommended action: The city council is asked to discuss and provide direction on the process
for handling vacancies on the council.
Policy consideration: Is the council comfortable with the process outlined to handle vacancies
in office?
Summary: The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter and state law provide guidelines for handling
vacancies in office. A vacancy in elective office is generally declared due to the death,
resignation, removal from office, failure to maintain residence requirements of office,
continuous absence from the city for more than three (3) months, felony conviction, or the
failure of any councilmember without good cause to attend any council meeting for a period of
three (3) consecutive months. When a vacancy is deemed to exist, the council is required to
declare, by resolution, a vacancy for the remainder of the term and appoint an eligible person
to fill the vacancy. If the vacancy occurs within 90 days of the next regularly scheduled city or
state election the council shall appoint an eligible person to serve until the following year's
regularly scheduled election. If the vacancy occurs more than 90 days before the next regularly
scheduled city or state election, the council shall call a special election concurrently with the
next regularly scheduled city or state election for the purpose of electing an eligible person to
fill the remainder, if any, of the unexpired term created by a vacancy. The conduct of special
elections must follow all election laws, including all related deadlines, as far as practicable.
The city council may use various methods to fill a vacancy. The appointment process cannot
start until a vacancy has been declared by action of the council. To ensure a vacancy is filled in a
way that is transparent, equitable, and accessible to all interested individuals, staff
recommends using an application and interview process. Past vacancies in office have been
handled using a similar method.
The purpose of the discussion is to review a proposed appointment process to fill vacancies that
may occur on the council. This will allow staff to develop the necessary materials, including an
application and communications strategy, and make other required arrangements to be
prepared to facilitate an appointment process if and when a vacancy occurs.
The vacating councilmember would be asked to refrain from the appointment process.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Discussion, Draft application, Draft city council vacancy FAQ
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Review appointment process for vacancies on city council
Discussion
The council may use various methods to fill a vacancy. The process may not start until a vacancy
has been officially declared by action of the council. The information detailed below is provided
to assist council in understanding their options for filling vacancies and the staff
recommendations related to the process to fill a vacancy. Receiving direction on the proposed
process will allow staff to develop the necessary materials, including an application and
communications strategy, and make other required arrangements to be ready to facilitate an
appointment process if and when a vacancy occurs.
What are the eligibility requirements for appointment to the city council?
According to the Minnesota Constitution (Minn. Const. art. VII §§1, 6), an appointee to the St.
Louis Park City Council must:
• Be at least 21 years old at the date of taking office
• Be an eligible voter
• Be a U.S. citizen
• At large seats: have lived in St. Louis Park for the 30 days prior to and at the time of
application
• Ward seats: have resided in St. Louis Park for the 30 days prior to and live in the ward at
the time of application
• Not be convicted of a felony under state or federal law unless the individual’s civil rights
have been restored
What are some options for council to consider for the appointment process?
• Option 1 - Appoint individual: The council may choose to appoint an individual without
an application or interview process.
• Option 2 - Undertake an application and interview process: The council may choose to
do an application and interview process. This process would involve advertisement of
the vacancy, an application period, review of applications and interview of candidates,
and appointment of a candidate. *Note: staff recommends this option.
• Option 3 - Other: The council may choose a different method for filling the vacancy.
If Option 2 is selected, what would be the estimated timeline for the process?
If council agrees with the staff recommendation to undertake an application and interview
process, the estimated timeline (6-8 weeks) is outlined below. This timeline is based on when a
vacancy has been officially declared by action of the council. The timing of the vacancy on the
council meeting calendar will also impact the timeline. The timeline begins once it is
determined that a vacancy needs to be declared.
• Council declares vacancy: At either a regular or special council meeting, council formally
declares a vacancy
• Day after vacancy has been declared: Application available
• Application period: Two weeks from date available
• Application review period: 1-2 weeks, depending on quantity received and if all eligible
candidates will be interviewed
• Candidate interviews: 1-2 weeks, depending on number to be interviewed and council
availability
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: Review appointment process for vacancies on city council
• Appointment of new council member: Next regular council meeting after interviews
have concluded and at least 4 councilmembers have agreed on candidate to appoint
What will the application look like?
Other than the requirements listed above, there are no additional legal requirements for an
individual to hold office. It is recommended that the application questions stay at a high level. A
draft application and candidate FAQ are attached for review.
How will applications be submitted?
Members of the public will be able to apply online via the city’s website. Paper copies of
application will also be available at city hall.
How long will the application be open to the public?
A two-week application period is recommended to keep the process moving forward.
How will we advertise the vacancy?
Staff will develop a robust communications plan to inform residents of the vacancy. The plan
for outreach will include, but is not limited to, social media campaign (Facebook, Twitter,
Instagram, NextDoor), news release in local paper, dedicated page on website, gov delivery
notifications, advertisements at city facilities, etc.
Can the council request that candidates not seek election to a full term?
The council may ask an individual not to run for election at the end of the term, but the
candidate is not bound to anything and can change their mind. If a candidate is eligible for the
office and meets all the filing requirements, they must be allowed to file for office.
Are the applications public?
Yes, applications and materials submitted to the council are public data.
Who will review the applications and select candidates to interview?
Council determines this process. The city council may choose to interview some or all of the
candidates. To ensure the process is as equitable and accessible as possible, staff would
recommend reviewing the applications collectively and interviewing all eligible candidates. As
with other processes, it is recommended that the council ask each candidate the same
questions during the interview process.
If there are interviews or other discussions by the council during this process, are they
considered public meetings?
Yes. All open meeting laws apply to the process, including interviews.
How is the appointment and oath of office done?
The council will need to take action at a regular meeting to appoint the selected individual, 4 of
6 votes are required. If the outgoing councilmember still happens to be in office at the time the
council determines who to appoint, that councilmember cannot vote on the matter and should
refrain from participating (Minn. Stat. 415.15).
The new council member will need to take the oath of office before undertaking any business.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Title: Review appointment process for vacancies on city council
DRAFT - Application for city council vacancy
The City of St. Louis Park welcomes your interest in filling the vacancy on the city council for the
office of [insert office] effective [insert date]. The city council is required to appoint a person to
the seat for the remainder of the term expiring [insert date]. If you have any questions, contact
Melissa Kennedy at 952.928.2840 or mkennedy@stlouispark.org.
Eligibility requirements:
According to the Minnesota Constitution (Minn. Const. art. VII §§1, 6), an appointee to the St.
Louis Park City Council must:
• Be at least 21 years old at the date of taking office
• Be an eligible voter
• Be a U.S. citizen
• At large seats: have lived in St. Louis Park for the 30 days prior to and at the time of
application
• Ward seats: have resided in St. Louis Park for the 30 days prior to and live in the ward at
the time of application
• Not be convicted of a felony under state or federal law unless the individual’s civil rights
have been restored
Note: Applicants who do not meet the eligibility requirements will not be considered for
appointment.
How to apply:
• All interested individuals are required to complete this application to provide
background information for the council’s consideration.
• Submit completed application to Melissa Kennedy, city clerk.
o Via email: mkennedy@stlouispark.org or
o Return to the city clerk’s office located on the 3rd floor at city hall (5005
Minnetonka Blvd.) during regular business hours. The city clerk’s office is open
Monday – Friday from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
• Applications must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. [insert date].
Timeline (subject to change):
[insert date] – city council application available
[insert date] – applications due (11:59 p.m.)
[insert date] – city council review applications
[insert date] – city council interviews selected candidates
[insert date] – appointment of new council member
Data privacy notice
Minnesota law requires that you be informed of the purposes and intended uses of the
information you are providing on this application. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
13.601, your name, city of residence, employment history, volunteer work, awards and honors
are public data and are available to anyone who requests the information. The data that you
give us about yourself is also needed to identify you and assist in determining your suitability
for serving on the city council. This data is not legally required, but refusal to supply the
information requested may affect the city council’s ability to evaluate your application. Should
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Title: Review appointment process for vacancies on city council
you be appointed to the city council, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.601, your
residential address and either a telephone number or electronic mail address (or both) where
you can be reached also become public information.
Applicant information:
First name: _______________________________ Last name: ___________________________
Address: ______________________________________________ ZIP code: _______________
Email: _____________________________________Phone number: ______________________
Why are you interested in becoming a member of the St. Louis Park City Council?
Describe your experiences that have prepared you to serve on the city council.
Briefly describe one to three goals/initiatives you feel are important to your overall vision for
St. Louis Park that you would like to see addressed as a council member.
If appointed, would you plan to seek reelection to a full term?
Yes
No
Voluntary (optional) information:
How do you identify your gender?
Female
Male
Non-binary
Prefer not to say
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 1) Page 6
Title: Review appointment process for vacancies on city council
What your preferred pronouns?
She/her/hers
He/him/his
They/them/theirs
Prefer not to say
What is your race/ethnicity?
Hispanic or Latino
Black or African American
American Indian or Alaska Native (not Hispanic or Latino)
Asian (not Hispanic or Latino)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (not Hispanic or Latino)
White (not Hispanic or Latino)
Two or more races (not Hispanic or Latino)
Candidate Eligibility Statement
Instructions:
• Review the eligibility requirements for office.
• If eligible, sign and date below.
• If you do not meet all requirements, you are not eligible for office.
• All information on this form is available to the public.
Affirmation:
For the office of city councilmember [insert office title], I swear (or affirm) that I have
provided my true name or the name by which I am generally known in the community. I also
swear (or affirm) that:
• I am eligible to vote in Minnesota;
• I am a U.S. citizen
• I am, or will be on assuming office, 21 years of age or more;
• I will have maintained residence in this district for at least 30 days before the general
election (Note: To remain a councilmember, the individual must continue to maintain
this residency);
• I have not been convicted of a felony under state or federal law, or my civil rights have
been restored;
• I do not have an impermissible conflict of interest to serve in this office; and
• I meet any other qualifications for this office prescribed by law.
Candidate name (please print): ___________________________________________________
Candidate signature: ____________________________________________________________
Date: __________________________
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 1) Page 7
Title: Review appointment process for vacancies on city council
DRAFT - City council vacancy FAQ
How many council members are on the St. Louis Park City Council?
St. Louis Park voters elect the mayor and six city council members (two at large and four ward)
to four-year terms. The mayor and at large council members represent all residents; the ward
council members are primarily responsible for representing the people in their ward. The
current vacancy is for [insert office]. Visit [insert URL] to view the city’s ward and precinct map.
Why is there a vacancy?
On [insert date], Council Member [insert name] announced their resignation from the city
council effective [insert date]. At their regular meeting on [insert date], the St. Louis Park City
Council accepted Councilmember [insert name] resignation and declared a vacancy of the
[insert office] city council seat effective [insert date]. Given the timing of the resignation, the
city council must appoint a person to the seat for the remainder of the term, which ends [insert
date].
When are applications due?
Applications must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. [insert date]. The city council will review
applications the week of [insert date]. Interviews of selected applicants will take place [insert
date]. The goal is to appoint a new council member by [insert date]. The timeline for review of
applications, interviews and appointment of the new council member is subject to change.
Where do I submit my application?
Applications should be completed online. If you are unable to complete an online application
and would like a paper application, contact Melissa Kennedy at mkennedy@stlouispark.org or
call 952.928.2840.
Who is eligible serve on the St. Louis Park City Council?
According to the Minnesota Constitution (Minn. Const. art. VII §§1, 6), an appointee to the St.
Louis Park City Council must:
• Be at least 21 years old at the date of taking office
• Be an eligible voter
• Be a U.S. citizen
• At large seats: have lived in St. Louis Park for the 30 days prior to and at the time of
application
• Ward seats: have resided in St. Louis Park for the 30 days prior to and live in the ward at
the time of application
• Not be convicted of a felony under state or federal law unless the individual’s civil rights
have been restored.
What is the length of the appointment?
The appointment is for the term ending [insert date].
When does the city council meet?
• The city council typically meets on Monday nights.
• Regular meetings, where formal action is taken, are on the first and third Mondays of the
month at 6:30 p.m.
• Study sessions, where council discusses various topics, but no formal action is taken, are
held on the second and fourth Monday of the month at 6:30 p.m.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 1) Page 8
Title: Review appointment process for vacancies on city council
• Typically, if there are five Mondays in a month, no meeting is held on the fifth Monday.
• The EDA meets Monday evenings as needed. Meetings are typically held just prior to
regularly scheduled city council meetings on the first and third Mondays.
Is attendance required at all meetings?
No. However, applicants should be prepared to commit to attending all meetings with few
exceptions. Especially on the first and third Mondays, some topics for votes may require a
certain number of council members to be present to take formal action.
Are there other meetings that council attends in the community?
Yes. Council members are often asked to attend community and neighborhood meetings or
events, ribbon cuttings, grand openings, and other events as they are able.
Where are meetings held?
Ordinarily, meetings take place at St. Louis Park City Hall, in the council chambers.
Where do I find information on council meetings?
Visit www.stlouispark.org/government/city-council for more information about the city council
and about city council meetings.
What are the roles of a council member?
• Transact regular city business and allocate resources for programs and services to provide
the best value to the community
• Establish and maintain strategic priorities to guide decision-making
• Provide policy direction through the city manager
• Serve as Economic Development Authority
What is the role of the city manager?
St. Louis Park operates under the council/manager form of government. An elected city council
sets the policy and overall direction for the city. Then city staff, under the direction of a city
manager, carry out council decisions and provide day-to-day services. The city manager
provides leadership, direction, and guidance to all city departments and is accountable to the
city council.
What is the compensation?
The annual salary for a council member is currently $[insert].
The annual salary for members of the Economic Development Authority is $[insert].
What are the city council’s strategic priorities?
On May 21, 2018, the St. Louis Park City Council adopted the following strategic priorities:
• St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion 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.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 1) Page 9
Title: Review appointment process for vacancies on city council
• St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through
community engagement.
Where can I find additional information about city operations, council rules, and/or serving in
public office?
City charter [insert hyperlink]
City code [insert hyperlink]
City council rules and procedures [insert hyperlink]
Comprehensive Plan 2040 [insert hyperlink]
Demographics [insert hyperlink]
www.stlouispark.org
League of Minnesota City’s Handbook for elected officials [insert hyperlink]
Who do I contact if I have questions?
For questions, contact Melissa Kennedy, city clerk, at 952.928.2840.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: September 12, 2022
Discussion item: 2
Executive s ummary
Title: Hemp-derived THC draft ordinance
Recommended action: Provide direction to finalize a business license ordinance for the sale of
hemp-derived THC for public process, publication, and first reading.
Policy consideration:
• Does council wish to adopt an ordinance for establishing a business license with
regulations and penalties for the sale of hemp-derived THC products as allowed by
Statute?
• Does council wish to include food and beverage establishments as being eligible for
licensure?
Summary: On July 1, 2022, a Minnesota law was passed that allows people 21 and over to buy
and consume pre-packaged edible products with no more than 5 milligrams of hemp-derived
THC per serving and no more than 50 milligrams per package. The types of edible products may
include foods ranging from gummies to popcorn, and beverages like non-alcoholic beer or
flavored Seltzers.
The legislation is silent on many parameters of where or how sales can occur. Current City code
does not include provisions to address these issues for hemp-derived THC food and beverages
that can now be produced, distributed, sold, and consumed in the state.
Staff, in conjunction with the city attorney, have been researching this developing subject as
state agencies and the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) provide guidance. Based on current
information, a draft business licensing ordinance for the sale of hemp-derived cannabinoids
was developed to address concerns related to the health and safety of the community. Key
components of the program include product safety, testing, access to youth, and location of
sales. If the state legislature develops further regulations and state agencies take on an active
role for regulation and licensing, the city can readily amend the ordinance as needed.
Financial or budget considerations: An annual license fee of $1100 would be proposed to cover
time and costs incurred including license processing, background review, verification
inspections with sample collection, laboratory analysis, and underage sales compliance checks.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Draft Ordinance ; THC Checklist
Prepared by: Michael Pivec, property maintenance and licensing manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, director of building and energy
Mike Harcey, police chief
Bryan Kruelle, deputy police chief
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Hemp-derived THC draft ordinance
Discussion
Background: On July 1, 2022, a Minnesota law was passed that allows people 21 and over to
buy and consume pre-packaged food and beverages products with no more than 5 milligrams
of hemp -derived THC per serving and no more than 50 milligrams per package. As these are
edible products, the law did not establish any specific tax or other parameters regarding the
manufacture, distribution, or sale by anyone throughout the state. Possession and consumption
of edibles is not regulated by locations or age.
The scope of sales for pre-packaged edible THC products could potentially include retail stores,
entertainment facilities, licensed food & beverage establishments, farmers markets, food
trucks, or homes without local community regulations or licensing established. Passage of the
Federal Farm Bill in 2018 removed low concentrations of hemp-derived THC as a controlled
substance, thereby reducing financial institution’s concern over transactions and allowing the
use of credit cards for purchases. THC products allowed for sale in Minnesota appear to be
transacted as any other commodity.
Information released from state agencies and the LMC over the past month have clarified that
state agencies will not be licensing or inspecting the manufacturing of edibles (as done for food
products). Although the law requires edible products to be sold in sealed packages with
appropriate labeling, they can be made in any home or other non-licensed facility. The product
manufacturer should be using food-grade products and have an independent laboratory test
the contents to meet state standards for THC and other ingredients. Products are currently only
verified by complaint to the Board of Pharmacy for THC concentration and Department of
Agriculture for the food base.
Present considerations: The recent legalization of hemp-derived THC has resulted in cities
evaluating the impact on their communities. Business licensing is a tool that provides a city with
regulatory and effective enforcement authority. Licensing standards can be specifically
established to help protect the health and safety within local communities where gaps exist in
state law or have been absent.
In developing a draft ordinance, staff and the city attorney based it on our current
administratively-issued business licensing format, information from other cities, and
consideration of criteria specific to THC product sales. Discussions with current retailers and
review of products now being sold confirmed that verification of product packaging and
contents would be a beneficial safeguard for public health.
In researching council concerns on equity and social justice, staff discovered that a few primary
factors have been reported in other states with legalized sales.
• Due to disproportionate conviction rates, background checks can result in a
disproportionate number of BIPOC individuals being excluded from license eligibility, if
past conviction of marijuana are used as a screening criterion.
• Due to factors related to access to capital, there is a relatively high cost to open a stand-
alone marijuana dispensary or being awarded a license when the city has a maximum
number of licenses issued.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Hemp-derived THC draft ordinance
The proposed ordinance is intended to meet public safety and health needs and address known
equity concerns.
Listed below are key components of the proposed license:
• Sale locations
Presently hemp-derived cannabinoid products have no limits on where they can be sold
and have potential to be sold at farmers markets, food trucks or residential dwellings.
The licensing ordinance would restrict sales to stationary commercial buildings
permitted for retail sales or food & beverage service and cannot be located within 300
feet of a school. Licenses would not be issued to mobile food vehicles or for temporary
stands.
Staff analysis is that the “sale locations” key component meets public safety goals
through restrictions on geographic location and equity goals through the allowance of a
diversified business model. The proposed ordinance does not require a stand-alone
dispensary with all of the requisite up-front costs.
• Restrictions on sales
At the 7/18/2022 study session, there was discussion on allowing sales at food and
beverage establishment. There is a growing interest to offer non-alcoholic beverages
with THC at restaurants or entertainment establishments. The draft ordinance would
allow for this through the sale of canned/glass THC beverages or snacks, provided the
customer is served with the product in the sealed and labeled package. This provision
can be retained or removed before the ordinance is finalized for publication.
Preventing accessibility of cannabinoid products is paramount to the health and safety
of youth and adolescents. Like tobacco sales, cannabinoid product sales are prohibited
by means of self-serving merchandising including any type of vending machine and must
be stored behind a counter or other area not freely accessible to customers. Sale is
prohibited to any person under the age of 21. Sampling of THC products within an
establishment selling any THC products is prohibited. Packages remain sealed until
purchased by the customer and remain sealed on the licensed premises with exception
for food & beverage establishments.
• Police background check
Verification and investigation of applicant information helps ensure credibility of the
business seeking licensure and authorizes additional investigation as deemed necessary.
The ordinance includes applicant disqualifiers from obtaining a license. When viewed
through a racial equity lens, past convictions for simple marijuana possession are not
being included due to the disproportionally high rate of past arrests and convictions for
people of color. Staff considered ways to not have small sales of marijuana also be a
disqualifier but unlawfully selling any amount of marijuana for money is considered a
felony and it is challenging in the background check process to differentiate between
types of drugs included in a conviction. Staff therefore recommend that only applicants
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Hemp-derived THC draft ordinance
who have controlled substance felony convictions within the last five years be
disqualified.
• Inspections
Licensing inspections are performed at least once during the year. Staff will check that
displays, signage, and products comply with city license requirements. The inspector will
also provide businesses with a checklist prepared by the MN Board of Pharmacy that will
be utilized in the inspection process.
• Testing requirements
State statute requires independent testing of cannabinoid products, and that each
prod uct include the name of the accredited laboratory on the label. However, the test
results are not available to the public. To ensure products are properly labeled and
reflect the level of THC is specified, city staff would complete random purchasing of THC
products during site inspections. Following proper chain of custody procedures, the
samples (complete in original sealed packaging) would be sealed in an evidence type
bag at the retailer and delivered to a laboratory for testing. The proposed license fee is
based on up to four samples tested per year.
• Other cannabinoid products
Cannabinoid type products will likely continue to evolve as product developers change
the molecular make-up to create different chemicals. Currently HHC is gaining market
interest and remains unregulated. The licensing ordinance specifically prohibits HHC,
allowing only Hemp-derived THC specifically identified in Statute. The ordinance does
not apply to any medical cannabis product dispensed by a registered medical cannabis
manufacturer or previously allowed CBD products.
• Violation and penalty
Any violations of the conditions will be based on the progressive table, beginning with
fines, and progressing to license suspension or revocation. Annual license applications
may also be denied as with other administratively-issued business licenses.
Policy questions
• Does council wish to adopt an ordinance for establishing a business license with
regulations and penalties for the sale of hemp-derived THC products as allowed by
Statute?
• Does council wish to include food and beverage establishments as being eligible for
licensure?
Financial Considerations: Fees for licenses are established by council through ordinance every
year. The fees are intended to recover the approximate costs of staff time and related expenses
incurred by providing the licensing program for public benefit.
As a new program, staff is projecting up to two annual inspections and four samplings of
products. Other components include the administration of the application, background review,
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Title: Hemp-derived THC draft ordinance
and a police-conducted underage sales compliance check. Unique to this license will be
laboratory costs of about $100 per sample. The proposed annual fee for 2023 if adopted is
$1,100.
Next steps: Staff will finalize the ordinance for review at a public meeting and publication. First
reading of the ordinance could be scheduled for October. Following a second reading, an
effective date would be expected during December. This corresponds to issuing the annual
calendar year licenses effective Jan 1.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Title: Hemp-derived THC draft ordinance
Ordinance No. _____-22
Ordinance amending St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 8, Article II, Division 3
related to Hemp-derived THC
The City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota does ordain:
Sec. 1. The St. Louis Park City Code, Chapter 8, Article II, Division 3 is hereby amended
by adding:
Subdivision XVI. Cannabinoid Products
Sec. 8-471. Purpose.
(a) Based on the most reliable and up-to-date scientific evidence and guidance from the U.S.
Surgeon General, the city council finds that the rapid introduction of legalized edible and
consumable nonedible products containing any amount of cannabinoids (“Cannabinoid
Product”), including tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”), presents a significant potential threat to the
public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of St. Louis Park, and can interfere with brain
development in youth and adolescents.
(b) Minnesota has recognized the danger Cannabinoid Products pose to youth and adolescents
by prohibiting the sale of Cannabinoid Products to those under age 21 and regulating label
design (i.e. prohibiting cartoon-like characters). Minn. Stat. § 151.72, subds. 3(c) and 5a(b). As
such, the city council desires to prevent the sale of Cannabinoid Products to underage people
within the city.
(c) The city council finds that in this emerging marketplace there is a real likelihood that people
may purchase incorrect or mislabeled Cannabinoid Products. These noncompliant products
represent a unique risk to the general welfare of the community.
(d) The city council finds that a local regulatory system for Cannabinoid Product sellers is
appropriate and not unduly burdensome to ensure that sellers comply with the state cannabis
laws and business standards of the city to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the city’s
youth and all residents. The city does not intend to inhibit the production, sale, or use of
medical cannabis products.
Sec. 8-472. Definitions.
The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this article, and in addition to the
definitions contained in Minn. Stat. §151.72 as amended, shall have the meanings ascribed to
them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Title: Hemp-derived THC draft ordinance
Cannabinoid means a chemical compound derived from the cannabis plant or synthetically
derived from the cannabis plant.
Cannabinoid Product means any edible cannabinoid product or nonedible cannabinoid product
authorized for sale in Minnesota Statute.
HHC means the intoxicating cannabinoid hexahydrocannabinol.
Licensed premises means the premises described in the approved license application as set
forth in this article.
School means a building used for the purpose of elementary or secondary education, which
meets all the requirements of compulsory education laws of the State of Minnesota.
THC means the cannabinoid tetrahydrocannabinol whether derived naturally or synthetically
from the cannabis plant.
Underage person means a person who is under the age of 21.
Sec. 8-473. License required.
(a) No person shall sell or offer to sell any Cannabinoid Products without first having obtained a
license to do so from the city.
(b) No license shall be issued for the sale of Cannabinoid Products at any place other than the
applicant’s place of business where retail, food, or beverage sales also occur. No license shall be
issued for a moveable place of business; nor shall any single license be issued at more than one
place of business. No license shall be issued for sales from a residential dwelling unit or
accessory structure.
(c) Complete applications shall be reviewed by the city for verification and investigation of the
facts set forth in the application, including a background investigation of the applicant. The
Police Department is responsible for background checks prior to issuance of license and is
authorized to conduct such additional investigation as deemed necessary.
(d) The director of the department responsible for issuance of a license shall make the
determination whether to approve or deny the license. Any denial shall be communicated to
the applicant in writing, specifying the reasons for denial. The applicant may appeal the denial
in accordance with the procedure specified in section 8-36 of the city code.
(e) Complete applications for issuance of annual licenses shall be submitted to the city at least
thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the license. The determination regarding approval or
denial of the license renewal shall be communicated to the applicant in writing, specifying the
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Title: Hemp-derived THC draft ordinance
reasons if the application is denied. The applicant may appeal the denial in accordance with the
procedure specified in section 8-36 of the city code.
(f) Exemptions.
(1) This article does not apply to any medical cannabis product dispensed by a registered
medical cannabis manufacturer pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 152.22 to 152.37. Medical
cannabis dispensaries that sell non-medical cannabis products which are also
Cannabinoid Products are not exempt from this article.
(2) This article does not apply to Cannabinoid Products that contain non-intoxicating,
non-psychoactive cannabinoids as the primary cannabinoid ingredient, such Cannabidiol
(“CBD”) or Cannabinol (“CBN”), and which have no more than trace amounts of THC.
Sec. 8-474. Denial of license.
(a) Grounds for Denial. The following will be grounds for denying the issuance or renewal of a
license under this article:
(1) The applicant is under the age of 21 years.
(2) The applicant who, within five years of the license application, has willfully violated
or been convicted of a felony under a federal, state, or local law governing the
manufacture, distribution, sale, or possession of controlled substances under federal or
state law.
(3) The applicant has had a license to sell Cannabinoid Products revoked within the past
five years.
(4) The applicant fails to provide any information required on the license application or
provides false or misleading information on such license application.
(5) The applicant is prohibited by state, or other local law, ordinance, or other regulation
from holding a license under this article.
(6) The proposed licensed premises is within 300 feet of a school measured from
property line to property line.
(7) Pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 340A.412, subd. 14, no license shall be issued to an
exclusive liquor store.
(b) Mistakenly Issued. If a license is mistakenly issued or renewed, it shall be revoked upon the
discovery that the person was ineligible for the license under this section.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 2) Page 9
Title: Hemp-derived THC draft ordinance
Sec. 8-475. Regulations Adopted.
(a) Sales. It shall be a violation of this article for any person to sell or offer to sell any
Cannabinoid Products:
(1) To any person under the age of 21 years.
(2) By means of any type of vending machine.
(3) By means of self-service merchandising whereby the customer does not need to
make a verbal or written request to an employee of the licensed premises to receive
the Cannabinoid Product. All such products shall be stored behind a counter or other
area not freely accessible to customers.
(4) That contain any chemical compound or drug that is otherwise a controlled
substance under Minnesota law.
(5) That contain any amount of HHC.
(6) By any other means or to any other person prohibited by state or other local laws,
ordinances, or other regulations.
(7) That fails to meet the labelling requirements as established in Minn. Stat. §151.72
subds. 5, 5a, and 6.
(8) That fails to meet the testing requirements as established in Minn. Stat. §151.72
subd. 4.
(b) Sampling and on-site consumption.
(1) Sampling of Cannabinoid Products within an establishment selling any Cannabinoid
Product is prohibited.
(2) Cannabinoid Products may not be consumed and must remain sealed on the licensed
premises. Exceptions to this regulation include on premise consumption of Cannabinoid
Products at a food and beverage establishment that is licensed by the Minnesota
Department of Health and licensed under this article. Food and beverage
establishments selling cannabinoid products must provide product to consumers in
original packaging, complete with labeling. Such establishments must abide by all other
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 2) Page 10
Title: Hemp-derived THC draft ordinance
state and county laws regarding on-premises consumption and sales, including the
Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act (Minn. Stat. §§144.411 to 144.417).
(c) Signage. The licensee shall display a sign in plain view to provide public notice that selling
any of these products to any person under the age of 21 is illegal and subject to penalties. The
notice shall be placed in a conspicuous location in the licensed establishment and shall be
readily visible to any person who is purchasing or attempting to purchase these products.
(d) Delivery. All sales of Cannabinoid Products must be completed on the licensed premises.
Delivery by the licensee or a third party to the consumer is prohibited.
(e) Testing Requirements. All manufacturer testing must comply with the requirements set forth
in Minn. Stat. § 151.72, Subd. 4, as may be amended.
(f) Labeling Requirements. All labeling must comply with the requirements set forth in Minn.
Stat. § 151.72, Subd. 5, 5a, and 6, as may be amended.
Sec. 8-476. Responsibility for sales.
Actions of their employees regarding the sale of Cannabinoid Products shall be considered an
action by the licensed owner.
Sec. 8-477. Compliance checks and testing.
(a) Compliance check. All retail areas on premises licensed under this article shall be open to
inspection by the city during regular business hours. From time to time the city may conduct
compliance checks by engaging minor persons over 15 years of age but under 21 years of age to
enter the licensed premises to attempt to purchase Cannabinoid Products.
(b) Testing verification. The city may, from time to time, purchase products from a licensee for
laboratory testing at a laboratory of the city’s choosing at city’s cost. The sample must meet all
composition and correlated labelling requirements in Minn. Stat. §151.72 and this article.
(1) Collection. The city may, from time to time, purchase products from a licensee for
testing. The city employee or designated representative conducting the collection must
fill out the chain of custody form and place sample in a transport container with a
tamper-evident seal affixed by the collector. The chain of custody form must verify the
time and date of sample collection and the name of the licensee. The city must
transport the batch sample to a testing laboratory for testing within 48 hours of the
sample collection.
(2) Receipt. The testing laboratory must certify upon receipt that the tamper-evident
seal is intact and that the sample was collected less than 48 hours earlier. If the tamper-
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 2) Page 11
Title: Hemp-derived THC draft ordinance
evident seal is broken or if the collection occurred more than 48 hours prior to the
laboratory’s receipt of the sample, the laboratory must not accept the sample for
testing. The testing laboratory shall make all efforts to eliminate risk of contamination of
the sample.
(3) Label Information. The testing laboratory will collect all information on the label
regarding the composition of the product. Such label information may include batch
number, name of product, whether it is edible or nonedible, and the stated amount or
percent of cannabinoids.
(4) Testing. The samples shall be tested for the presence, amount, and percent by
weight of individual cannabinoids, namely THC and any other cannabinoid determined
by the city.
(5) Reporting. The laboratory shall produce a report and send report to both the
licensee and the city. The laboratory will include in the report the sample’s label
information collected at intake.
(6) Within 30 days after testing of the sample, the testing laboratory must dispose of the
remaining material of the analyzed sample. If there is sufficient sample material to
retest and the sample is not yet disposed, the licensee may order a retest the sample at
licensee’s cost if the sample failed to pass testing.
(7) Violation. It shall be considered a violation of this article if a laboratory report shows
that a product has failed to comply with the composition and correlated labelling
requirements of Minn. Stat. §151.72 and this article.
(8) Penalty and remediation. If a sample violates this section, the products identical to
the sampled product must not be sold. Other penalties for such violations are listed in
Section 8-478.
Sec. 8-478. Violation; penalty.
(a) Generally. Any violation of this article shall be grounds to revoke or suspend a license under
this article. Notwithstanding misdemeanor prosecution, the city may also seek an
administrative penalty or civil injunctive relief for violations under this article.
(b) Criminal penalty. It shall be a:
(1) Misdemeanor to sell Cannabinoid Products to a person under the age of 21 years.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 2) Page 12
Title: Hemp-derived THC draft ordinance
(2) Misdemeanor to furnish Cannabinoid Products to a person under the age of 21
years.
(3) Misdemeanor to violate the provisions of Minn. Stat. §151.72 or this article.
(c) Administrative penalties.
(1) Presumed administrative penalties for violations: The presumed penalties for
violations of a licensee are as follows:
Type of Violation 1st
Violation
2nd Violation
within 36
months
3rd Violation
within 36
months
4th Violation
within 36
months
1. Sale of cannabinoid
products while license is
under suspension.
Revocation. N/A N/A N/A
2. Sale of cannabinoid
products to underage
person.
$500
$1,000 and
1-day
suspension.
$2,000 and
30- day
suspension.
Revocation.
3. Failed test of sample
product or misbranding.
$250 and
remaining
identical
products
must not be
sold.
$500 and
remaining
identical
products
must not be
sold.
$1,000, 1-day
suspension,
and remaining
identical
products must
not be sold.
Revocation.
4. Other violations of
Minn. Stat. 151.72 or this
article.
$250 $500 $1,000 and 1 -
day
suspension.
Revocation.
(2) The imposition of a presumptive penalty shall be communicated by a written notice
to the licensee by the director of the department responsible for issuance of a license.
The penalty may be appealed to the city manager through an administrative hearing
process by filing a written appeal to the city clerk within ten days of the notice.
(3) The city manager’s decision may be appealed to the city council by filing a written
appeal to the city clerk within ten days of receiving written notice of the city manager's
decision. Appeal of a city council decision must be made within ten days of written
notice of the decision. The city council’s decision is final.
(4) Subsequent violations: Violations occurring after the notice of hearing has been
mailed, but prior to the hearing if requested, must be treated as a separate violation,
and dealt with as a second violation unless the city manager and licensee agree in
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 2) Page 13
Title: Hemp-derived THC draft ordinance
writing to add the violation to the first appearance. The same procedure applies to the
second, third, or fourth violations.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its passage and publication
according to law.
First Reading TBD
Second Reading TBD
Date of Publication TBD
Date Ordinance takes effect TBD
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council (insert date)
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 2) Page 14
Title: Hemp-derived THC draft ordinance
Law Enforcement Hemp-Derived - THC Inspection Checklist
Please complete for each business/location inspected. (7/28/2022)
Business Name Street Address City State Zip Code
Date Name and Title of Employee
Inspection Details
All cannabinoid products sold for human or animal consumption
If possible, view a sales transaction to confirm that the store is properly verifying age on
all transactions. If it is not possible to view a transaction, confirm the process the store
uses to verify no tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) sales are to anyone under 21.
Check products for cannabinoids that are not allowed. No other substance extracted
or otherwise derived from hemp may be sold for human consumption if it is intended
for health benefit (e.g., relieve pain, induce sleep, etc.) or intoxication.
▪ Allowable substances include all hemp-derived THC and cannabidiol (CBD).
Permissible amounts of THC are subject to statutorily defined quantity limits and
whether the product is an edible or nonedible (discussed further below).
Check products labeling to confirm all labeling is correct and appropriate.
The label information below may be provided on an outer package or may be provided
using a small scannable barcode or matrix that links to a page on the manufacturer’s
website and contains all the required information. The information must be
prominently and conspicuously placed on the label or displayed on the website in terms
that can be easily read and understood by the consumer.
▪ The name, location, contact phone number, and website of the manufacturer of the
product.
▪ The name and address of the independent, accredited laboratory used by the
manufacturer to test the product.
▪ An accurate statement of the amount or percentage of cannabinoids found in
each unit of the product meant to be consumed.
Edible Cannabinoids
Edible cannabinoids are defined as products that are intended to be eaten, or consumed as
beverages by humans, contain a cannabinoid in combination with food ingredients, and are
not drugs
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 2) Page 15
Title: Hemp-derived THC draft ordinance
Check products labeling to confirm all labeling is correct and appropriate.
Labels must include the following information:
▪ The amount or percentage of THC in each serving.
▪ NOTE: Edible cannabinoid products must not contain more than 5 milligrams of
any tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) combined per single serving, or more than a
total of 50 milligrams of all THC combined per package. Furthermore, products
must not contain more than 0.3% of any THC.
▪ If an edible cannabinoid is intended for more than a single use, each serving
must be indicated by scoring, wrapping, or other indicator of individual
serving size.
▪ A full list of ingredients, including identification of any major food allergens declared by
name.
▪ The following statement “Keep the product out of reach of children.”
▪ A statement stating that the “product does not claim to diagnose, treat, cure, or
prevent any disease and has not been evaluated or approved by the United
States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) unless the product has been so
approved.”
Edible products must NOT include:
▪ The likeness or contain cartoon-like characteristics of a real or fictional
person, animal, or fruit that appeals to children.
▪ Imitations of any brand of products primarily consumed by or marketed to children.
▪ Any packaging that in a way resembles the trademarked, characteristic, or product-
specialized packaging of any commercially available food product.
▪ Any statement, artwork, or design that could reasonably mislead any person to
believe that the package contains anything other than an edible cannabinoid
product.
▪ Any claim that the product may be used or is effective for the prevention,
treatment, or cure of a disease or that may be used to alter the structure or
function of human or animal bodies, unless that claim has been approved by the
FDA.
Review product packaging. An edible cannabinoid product must be prepackaged in
packaging or a container that is tamper-evident, and opaque at the final point of sale
to a customer. The edible cannabinoid packaging is required to be child resistant. If you
suspect the packaging is not child resistant, you may have to contact the manufacturer
and request a Child Resistant Certificate. The requirement that packaging be child-
resistant does not apply to an edible cannabinoid product that is intended to be
consumed as a beverage and which contains no more than a trace amount of any
tetrahydrocannabinol.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 2) Page 16
Title: Hemp-derived THC draft ordinance
Nonedible Cannabinoids
Examples of nonedible cannabinoids include, but are not limited to tablets, capsules,
solutions, tinctures, or other products meant for oral administration/ingestion; creams,
lotions, ointments, salves, or other products meant for topical administration; products
meant to be inhaled, smoked, vaped, sprayed into nostrils, or insufflated (sniffed); and
hemp flowers and buds.
Check products labeling to confirm all labeling is correct and appropriate (continued from page 1).
Labels must include the following information:
▪ The serving size.
▪ NOTE: Nonedible cannabinoid products must not contain more than 0.3% of any THC.
▪ A statement stating that the “product does not claim to diagnose, treat, cure, or
prevent any disease and has not been evaluated or approved by the United
States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) unless the product has been so
approved.”
Keep this Inspection Checklist for your records.
Violations may be reported to the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy through a complaint form found at Hemp-
Related/Edible Cannabinoid Complaints (https://mn.gov/boards/pharmacy/public/hemprelatedcomplaints.jsp) If
submitting a complaint, detailed information is strongly encouraged (e.g., photos of product, manufacturer
information, retailer information, etc.).
Minnesota Board of Pharmacy Board Fax: 651-215-0951
335 Randolph Ave., Suite 230 Board Email:
pharmacy.board@state.mn.us St. Paul, MN 55102
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: September 12, 2022
Discussion item: 3
Executive summary
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic
Recommended action: City council and city manager review the proposed study session agenda
topic and decide next steps.
Policy consideration: Does the city council want to move forward with the proposed study
session topic?
Summary: A proposed study session agenda topic related to managing change in residential
neighborhoods was submitted for consideration. Given the scope of the request, staff broke the
proposal down into several themes and provided an analysis for each, including recommended
dispositions. The staff analysis was shared with the councilmembers who submitted the proposal.
Following their review of the staff analysis, the requesting members asked that the proposal be
updated to the following:
Managing change in SLP’s residential neighborhoods
Traditional single-family neighborhoods (in areas zoned R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4) play an important
role in the overall health, equity, and stability of our community, including our schools. Decisions
made - or not made - about what happens in these districts will inform the future of our
community on a deep level. What kind of community do we want to be – and not be? How can
thoughtful decision-making related to single family neighborhoods align with and support our
Vision 3.0 values and recommendations around housing, as well as our strategic priorities around
housing, environmental stewardship, and racial equity?
We would like to have a high-level discussion with council members on the topic of equitable and
sustainable neighborhoods, which may result in a directive to staff to identify and propose
policies/programs that will help us achieve this outcome.
The next step in the process is for council to decide, as a group, if they would like to add the
proposed topic to a future study session agenda. The item may be included with other items
already scheduled for discussion.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Topic proposal and staff analysis
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City Council
Study Session Topic Proposal
Date:
Prepared by:
Proposed agenda topic:
Brief Description of topic (no more than 200 words):
How does this topic align with the council strategic priorities? If not, why should the council
consider the topic:
** All completed forms must be sent to Kim Keller, city manager kkeller@stlouipark.org and
Debbie Fischer, office assistant dfischer@stlouispark.org by the Tuesday before a city council study
session.**
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 2
Managing change in SLP’s residential neighborhoods
Traditional single-family neighborhoods (in areas zoned R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4) play an important role in
the overall health, equity, and stability of our community, including our local schools. Decisions made -
or not made - about what happens in these districts will inform the future of our community on a deep
level. What kind of community do we want to be – and not be? How can thoughtful decision-making
related to single family neighborhoods align with and support our Vision 3.0 values and
recommendations around housing, as well as our strategic priorities around housing, environmental
stewardship, and racial equity?
To get out in front of risks, trends, and opportunities, and to address past harm, we propose
consideration of several council actions that could, in combination and over time, lead to residential
neighborhoods of the future that feature intelligently increased density, more green space and tree
canopy, and housing options that promote equity, socioeconomic diversity and racial integration.
Specific ideas for consideration might include:
Equity/Ownership/Wealth-building
• Lowering minimum lot size
• Creating rental density caps to preserve ownership options
• Allowing ownership of ADUs
Sustainability/livability
• Lowering maximum Ground Floor Area Ratio for new construction
• Increasing side setback requirements for new construction
• Requiring shadow studies for new construction
• Creating a tree preservation ordinance for new home construction
Lifelong home
Our Vision 3.0 report indicates the “the city’s intention is to create a place so special that people want to
make it their lifelong home.” We have much to offer that’s special, but how can we make it possible for
more individuals & families to actually make SLP their lifelong home? What are the barriers and
opportunities to being/becoming a community where more people can buy a house, start a family, raise
kids, and then downsize, all in SLP? We propose consideration of a strategic approach that includes:
• Maximizing the number of available “starter homes” (see above and below)
• Raising the maximum income for Move up in the Park to help more families, particularly those
with kids in SLP schools, expand their homes rather than move out of the city (we are missing
the sweet spot with this program for many families with kids in our schools)
• Incentivizing/creating more affordable senior living options so older homeowners who wish to
can sell their homes and stay in the community, freeing up more affordable homes for new
buyers.
We also propose, separately or in tandem, a discussion on zoning reform that would allow duplexes in
areas zoned R-1 and R-2. Such a discussion should emphasize homeownership and prevention of
investors/developers reaping disproportionate benefit from a zoning change.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 3
MANAGING CHANGE IN SLP’S RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
COUNCIL REQUESTED STUDY SESSION TOPIC
Staff Analysis
Zoning/land use related topics:
Several specific ideas for consideration that were noted under the sustainability/livability
heading of this request indicated interest in changes to rules related to “new construction.”
Depending on what would be included as “new construction” (i.e., new building permit,
driveway permit or site work permit, buildings with additions that meet our current criteria for
a Construction Management Plan, tear down and rebuilds) would have differing staffing
impacts for implementation, plan reviews, and enforcement.
Lowering minimum lot size
This has been a topic nationally as a way to reduce costs of new home construction.
However, there are many factors that should be considered in relation to reducing
minimum lot sizes in the city.
Lowering minimum lot sizes is a viable option in the city, in part because the city has
allowed smaller lot sizes in the past. The impacts of this should be explored further. Many
of the city’s zoning codes are set up based on the current minimum lot sizes and may also
need to be adjusted in some fashion to work in coordination and not generate a multitude
of variance requests. However, the size of a lot and the price of the land often contributes
significantly to the cost of housing. This is true not only on the real estate cost per square
foot, but also market decisions about the price and size of housing that can be built on it.
The city has many neighborhoods with 40‐foot‐wide lots and even some with 20‐foot‐wide
lots when they were originally platted. However, allowing a smaller minimum lot size does
not necessarily mean more lots will be created. In many parts of the city where smaller lot
sizes were initially platted, the market buyers chose to buy more than one lot, combined
them, and built only one house on the property, either to have a larger yard or larger house.
Similarly, the city has recently put more controls on tear downs and major additions due to
concerns about neighborhood disruptions or just general concerns about the style of new
houses being built. Reducing the lot size may result in more tear downs to split a lot and
build two new houses. Demolition costs essentially add to the price to create developable
parcels and may reduce the affordability of housing. Of course, some may build houses on
only one of the lots and in a manner that would meet the zoning requirements, which
would ease selling the adjacent underlying lot. Some examples of each condition from one
neighborhood are depicted below (outlined in red).
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 4
Another factor to be considered is the disruption to the streets and impacts to utilities
when new sewer and water connections are made to the public utility mains for the new
houses. The city code allows only one building to be served by a sanitary sewer service line
connection (Sec. 32‐93).
Before deciding the geographic scope of this potential change, the city should review
service capacity of the utility mains to serve more housing in the low‐density areas, as well
as areas that may have utility services stubbed to the property already which may limit
disruptions and costs and consider any environmentally sensitive areas where adding
housing density is undesirable.
Making changes to the minimum lot size could also help some properties subdivide to allow
the land under detached ADUs to be sold. However, it is important to make sure any new
lots that are created will have access to public streets.
Allowing ownership of accessory dwelling unit (ADU)
The recently adopted code specifically prohibits separate ownership of accessory dwelling
units. Section 36‐162(e)(5) states, “The accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold independently of
the principal residential dwelling and may not be a separate tax parcel.” The purpose of this
provision is to ensure orderly development and subdivision of property that complies with
city code zoning regulations and avoiding circumventing those standards.
Absent this provision, a property owner could file a common interest community plat
without any city review or approval. Essentially, they’d create a condominium association
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 5
for a single‐family lot, defining the ownership and responsibilities for the land, dwelling,
ADU, and any common interests.
If the property were subdivided through a preliminary and final plat or registered land
survey with city approval, the ADU would cease to be defined as an ADU in the zoning code
and would become the principal building on its own lot or parcel and would be expected to
meet all lot size and dimensional requirements and all zoning code provisions for a single‐
family residential lot and use.
Zoning code provisions typically are neutral regarding tenure (owned/leased). The St. Louis
Park zoning code only requires a property to be owner‐occupied in a few circumstances.
These include operating a bed and breakfast or a rooming house, and to initially establish an
ADU. These provisions assume that on‐site management by the property owner of these
uses help reduce or avoid externalities and nuisances that might otherwise arise, serves to
prohibit investors from purchasing single‐family homes and building an ADU and renting
both out, and they are also a barrier that deters and reduces the number of these uses
operating in the city.
Allow duplexes in R‐1 and R‐2 districts
The St. Louis Park 2040 comprehensive plan housing chapter already includes the strategy,
“Allow for two‐family dwelling units (twin homes and duplexes) on appropriately sized lots
in low density residential areas.” The planning commission continues to include this in their
ambitious work plan, which received city council approval in 2021. City staff are preparing
information for planning commission study session discussions that will include this topic
specifically. This does not require further city council direction currently.
Lower ground floor area ratio
Ground floor area ratio (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.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 6
GFAR in the R‐1 and R‐2 zoning districts are currently limited to 0.35. The GFAR was
increased from 0.30 to 0.35 in the early 2000s.
In 2021, city staff provided research and analysis to the city council regarding GFAR. Staff’s
analysis of GFAR from that time is summarized below.
GFAR analysis: Staff found lots with GFARs of more than 0.25 are a small percentage of all
lots in the city (3%). The houses on lots these lots were mostly constructed during the city’s
largest period of growth in the 1940s to 1960s. Additionally, the properties with higher
GFAR are predominantly found on small lots, smaller than the minimum lot size required by
code today, and the houses on these lots are not abnormally large compared to others in
the city. The data showed that there are no clear patterns that new homes have
substantially higher GFARs than homes built between the 1940s and 1960s in the city.
The map below shows the GFAR and highlights the lots with GFARs above 0.25.
Lowering the GFAR only restricts the area of the footprint of certain buildings relative to the
size of the lot it is built upon. It does not necessarily reduce the loss of yards, greenspace, or
trees, because GFAR generally does not restrict detached buildings structures, driveways,
patios, decks terraces, and parking areas. If the GFAR is reduced from 0.35 to 0.30, it would
prevent future houses from covering more than the new limit. If the new limit was 0.30,
then 43 properties (0.5% of all single‐family lots) identified so far by staff would become
legal, nonconforming structures in this regard. If the limit was 0.25, then at least 331
properties would become legal, nonconforming.
The code in 1976 incorporated an Open Lot Area1 requirement of between 400 and 600
square feet on residential lots. This prevented some buildings and other structures in part
of the property. The city frequently received variance applications from this provision and
granted them, so the rule was dropped in 2001.
1 Open Lot Area means an area of a lot, not located within a front yard or side yard abutting a street that has a
minimum dimension of 20 feet in all directions and does not include a building, driveway, outdoor storage, or
parking space. Open covered porches, gazebos, decks, and patios are permitted encroachments into the open lot
area. Swimming pools are permitted encroachments provided they do not occupy more than 50% of the open lot
area.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 7
If the issue of concern is greenspace, a clearer requirement would be to restrict impervious
surface. There would be some effort and expense to gather data about current conditions
of impervious surface, and There are challenges for generated by impervious surface
requirements, too. It is not readily available data to understand the appropriate thresholds
and it can be a complicating and more costly to generate the data needed when reviewing
permits as surveys are expensive and even general estimates from site plans and aerial
photos can be challenging to produce, review and confirm. This will increase the cost of
applying for permits by approximately $2,000 if a survey is required, even for simple
projects such as a small deck or shed.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 8
Staff reviewed several recently built houses that have generated some complaints and/or are
larger in size or GFAR. Staff noted some common characteristics:
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 different architectural styles than the original house.
The first‐floor elevation and surrounding grade was higher than the original house.
The floor to ceiling height tends to be 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 same neighborhood
and on the same block.
Creating a tree preservation ordinance for new home construction
The city’s tree preservation ordinance currently does not apply to single family lots, except
when a single‐family property is part of a subdivision to create additional buildable lots.
Staff recommends this item be handled with the environmental stewardship/sustainability
discussion in 2023. It is a natural resources topic that should be considered in the context of
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 9
many other tree policies the council has indicated interest in discussing, including the
citywide tree canopy goal staff reported on in April 2022.
During construction, trees and other vegetation are particularly at risk of damage from
equipment driving over root systems and material lay down areas. However, if the city does
not require the tree to be preserved before or after construction, then it is a difficult item to
police except in the property owner’s own interest to preserve the tree and being better
informed of the risks and protections that may be needed.
In addition to adopting a regulation, this would require additional staff to be hired to
uniformly enforce the new regulations, which would be a staff‐time intensive effort to
ensure the protections are in place and remain in place throughout.
Requiring shadow studies for new construction
The city currently requires shadow studies for new construction of multifamily residential
and commercial buildings. Requiring the current rules to also apply to single‐family houses
is not practical, as most lots in the city could not meet the requirements, especially where
the streets run north‐south. Combined with the suggestion that the city explore reducing
the lot size requirements, this would be unachievable.
City staff has done some initial review of the shadow impacts of single‐family residences on
other single‐family residences, and it would be rare that the rooftop of one house would be
significantly impacted by shadows of neighboring houses, at least from the spring to fall
based on the minimum side yard and height requirements in place today. This means that
structures are not limiting rooftop solar access. The impacts are primarily to side walls /
south sides of houses.
Illustrated below are the shadow impacts of houses based on our existing zoning standards
for our existing small lots. These show to‐scale demonstrations of impacts of building to the
maximum footprint and height in the R‐2 single‐family residence zoning district when next
to two smaller footprint 40 feet wide lots. For simplicity, we’ve used shadows cast at
midday on the spring and fall equinoxes, which is conveniently at 45 degrees in Minnesota.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 10
While the city is getting closer to being able to accurately, or at least preliminarily, depict and analyze
shadows, our geographic information systems base maps, 3D capability, and staff training are not quite
there, yet. Below is a somewhat crude base map showing “boxes” where houses are situated in the city,
then applies an accurate depiction of the areas cast in shadow for more than 2 hours between the hours
of 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. on November 21/January 20. This gives us a close proximity to how the city’s
current shadow regulations would play out. Essentially all the south walls are shadowed more than the
code allows, and accurate diction of the roofs, would compound the impact.
Recommended disposition of above items:
Lot size/GFAR/Setbacks: Council Study session
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 11
Allowing ownership of ADU’s: Written Report
Allow duplexes in R‐1 and R‐2 districts: In process; no further action require‐
Requiring Shadow Studies for new construction: Written Report
Creating Tree Preservation Ordinance: Handle offline (environmental/sustainability
system discussion)
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 12
Senior Housing in St. Louis Park
Incentivizing/creating more affordable senior living options so older homeowners who wish to
can sell their homes and stay in the community, freeing up more affordable homes for new
buyers.
Staff analysis of request: (Please provide a high‐level review of the proposed topic. Focus on
key points, facts, impact, legal and/or future considerations.)
Current incentives to promoting multifamily residential development include financial
assistance acquisition and transfer of publicly owned land, and assistance in partnering on
securing public grants and loans.
There are a number of senior housing options in the city that provide various rent levels and
supportive service levels.
Current Senior Housing in SLP (2022)
Ten completed senior (including senior‐preference) housing rental developments, for a
total of 1,028 units.
Hamilton House offers a preference for seniors, but disability is another preference so
not all residents are seniors.
Three developments are “affordable”. Hamilton House is Public Housing, Menorah West
and Menorah Plaza are multi‐family subsidized, rent is income based and affordable at
30% AMI.
One development has a percentage of units affordable. The Elmwood has 17 affordable
(60% ami) housing units required by the inclusionary housing policy.
Two senior ownership developments, 166 total units.
Total senior rental and home ownership units 1194, 1364 including Risor which is under
construction.
The Saturday Properties/Anderson development has indicated that they are planning to
include a 55+ building as part of the Elmwood redevelopment complex. This building
would be required to include affordable units per the Inclusionary housing policy as
would the other buildings in the development.
RENTAL
Project
name
Address No. of
Units
No.
Afford.
Occp. Date Type of Senior
Hamilton
House
2400 Nevada
Ave S
108 108 1976 Public Housing (Senior
Preference),
Subsidized
Menorah
West Apts
3600 Phillips
Parkway
45 45 1986 Affordable/Subsidized
Menorah
Plaza
4925
Minnetonka Blvd
151 151 1981 Affordable/Subsidized,
Assisted Living Offered
Parkshore
Place
3663 Park
Center Blvd
207 1988 Senior market rate
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 13
Knollwood
Place
3630 Phillips
Parkway
153 1987 Senior market rate
Tower Light 3601 Wooddale
Ave
43/29/33 2012 Sr./Assisted
Living/Memory Care
Roitenberg
Family
3610 Phillips
Parkway
52/24 2002 Assisted
Living/Memory Care
Parkwood
Shores
3633 Park
Center Blvd
68/23 2001 Assisted
Living/Memory Care
Comfort
Residence at
St. Louis
Park
7115 Wayzata
Blvd
12/10 2014 Assisted
Living/Memory Care
The
Elmwood
5605 W 36th St 70 17 2021 53 market rate/17
affordable
TOTAL
COMPLETED
1028
Risor 3510 Beltline
Blvd
152/18 18 Under
construction
152 market rate/18
affordable at 50%
TOTAL
COMPLETED
AND UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
1198 339
HOME OWNERSHIP
Project
name
Address No. of
Units
Occp. Date Type of Senior
Aquila
Commons
8200 W 33rd St 106 106 2012 Coop
Village in the
Park
3600 Wooddale 60 2007 Senior Living
TOTAL OWNER
UNITS
166 units
Senior Homeownership data in St. Louis Park ‐ Summary
Senior (65+) American Census Survey (ACS) 2019 data
71.9% of 65+ households own their own home
67.8% of owner‐occupied housing units pay less than 30% of their household income
towards housing costs
43.6% of renter occupied housing units pay less than 30% of their household income
towards housing costs
Median monthly owner costs for seniors without a mortgage is $650
Median monthly owner cost for seniors with a mortgage is $1422
Median rent for seniors is $1195
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 14
Occupied housing units – seniors 65+ 4,744 ±251
HOUSING TENURE
Owner‐occupied housing units 71.90% ±4.2
Renter‐occupied housing units 28.10% ±4.2
Average household size of owner‐occupied
unit
1.61 ±0.06
Average household size of renter‐occupied
unit
1.25 ±0.09
Owner‐occupied housing units 3,409 ±239
SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS AS A
PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE
PAST 12 MONTHS
Less than 30 percent 67.80% ±4.8
30 percent or more 32.20% ±4.8
OWNER CHARACTERISTICS
Median value (dollars) 261,900 ±9,664
Median selected monthly owner costs with
a mortgage (dollars)
1,422 ±136
Median selected monthly owner costs
without a mortgage (dollars)
650 ±21
Renter‐occupied housing units 1,335 ±226
GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF
HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS
Less than 30 percent 43.60% ±9.8
30 percent or more 56.40% ±9.8
GROSS RENT
Median gross rent (dollars) 1,195 ±126
Senior housing demand – Maxfield Research 2017/2018
Demand is projected for 1,000 senior housing units through 2030. 222 units are
completed or underway (Elmwood and Risor), with additional planned units in process
since the study.
Maxfield found demand for multiple senior housing product types. By 2030, demand in
the St. Louis Park for senior housing is forecast for the following:
o Active adult ownership 164 units
o Active adult rental 273 units
o Active adult affordable rental 254 units
o Active adult subsidized rental 22 units
o Assisted Living 203 units
o Memory care 79 units
Considerations:
The development of additional senior housing serves a two‐fold purpose in meeting the
housing needs in St. Louis Park: older adult and senior residents can relocate to new
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 15
age‐restricted housing in St. Louis Park, and existing units that were occupied by seniors
become available to other new households. Development of additional senior housing
does mean that a greater percentage of housing need may be satisfied by housing unit
turnover in the community.
Based on the census data, staying in an owner‐occupied home if the mortgage is paid off
may be the most affordable option for seniors. St. Louis Park homes also tend to be
smaller and may be more desirable for seniors to stay in their home without feeling the
need to downsize.
The Elmwood, an age restricted building, had a difficult time leasing up their affordable
(60%) 2 bedroom rental units. The city ultimately agreed to eliminate the 2
occupants/2bd requirement so that the units could be leased to one‐person senior
households.
Many seniors still desire a homeownership option.
The sale of a single‐family home owned by a senior will offer a homeownership
opportunity for another household but would have minimal impact on the number of
annual purchasing opportunities
o Based on the recent sales data, over 9% (1063) home sales closed in SLP in the
past 12 months with a median sale price of $344,750, with 50% of sales below
this amount and 50% of sales above this amount. This medium sale price is
within the affordability parameters for household with an income at 80% AMI.
o In the past 5 years over 4,910 homes have sold in SLP.
The demand for senior housing options by type noted in the 2017 Maxfield study appear
reasonable and could be attained by 2030, although the number of affordable units will
be a challenge to accomplish if all of the affordable units were to be in 55+ restricted
buildings. The needs could be met if supplemented with affordable units created in the
general occupancy developments being built.
Resources required: (Include relevant information such as cost, staffing, capacity)
The Maxfield Comprehensive Housing study is scheduled to be updated in the fall of 2022, with
completion in 1st quarter 2023. The study will include an analysis of senior demographics, a
review of current senior housing options in the community and a determination of senior
housing needs in the future, including the need for affordable options, among other things.
Staffing required to conduct additional outreach and analysis to determine what factors are
preventing senior homeowners who desire to leave their single‐family homes but are unable to
do so.
Any new programming, whether focused on development or homeowners would require
dedicated staff time and most likely funding resources. The amount of either would depend on
the programming.
Other dependencies: (Include relevant information that could impact this proposal, such as:
other agencies/jurisdictions, a pending policy discussion or action by council on related item,
additional research that may be required to answer pending questions)
See above.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 16
Projected timeline: (Given current business levels and capacity, what is the projected timeline
for staff to be able to work on and implement? If this was to be done now, what would the
impact be on other projects and/or standard line of business?)
Staff have contracted Maxfield Research to update the city’s housing study this fall. The results
of the updated Maxfield study would be needed for the data to have an informed need‐based
discussion. The timeline should coincide with the completion of the study which is estimated to
be 1st quarter of 2023.
Recommended disposition:
Council study session after completion of Maxfield Study in 2023
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 17
Move up in the Park
Raising the maximum income for Move up in the Park to help more families, particularly those
with kids in SLP schools, expand their homes rather than move out of the city (we are missing
the sweet spot with this program for many families with kids in our schools)
Staff analysis:
The Move up in the Park guidelines were previously set at 120% Area Median Income for a
family of four for 1 – 4 person households ($140,750) and increased with family size for 5 or
more units. The program income limits are based on the income data for the Minneapolis/St.
Paul metro area. Due to a change in the funding source to pooled TIF, the income limits were
reduced to comply with TIF income limits: $117,300 for 1 – 2 person households (100% AMI),
$134,900 for 3 or more person households (115% AMI). HUD updates the income limits in April
of each year.
According to the most recent 2019 American Census Survey (ACS) data, the median income for
families with children (4 person households) in St. Louis Park is $124,757. In 2019, 100% area
median income (AMI) was $100,000; 120% AMI was $120,000. The median income varies
greatly depending on family composition and is significantly higher for married households than
single households with children; $147,857 for married family households, $48,981 male only
(no spouse) head of household with children, $39,375 female only (no spouse) head of
household with children.
The Move up loan funds 25% of the cost of an addition up to $25,000. Renovation costs have
risen since the inception of the program, but the maximum loan amount has not. In 2021 the
average permit valuation of an addition was $163,500 and permit valuations tend to be lower
than actual costs.
Considerations:
This program is funded with pooled TIF, which sets the maximum income limit at 115%
for the program.
The program is meant to financially assist households to move up, not out, of St. Louis
Park by adding on to their existing home to better meet their future needs instead of
moving out of St. Louis Park to buy a larger house.
The 2022 income limit for a household of 4 at 120% AMI based on the Minneapolis/St.
Paul metro area incomes is $140,750. The ACS 2019 120% AMI for SLP was $120,000
and the 2019 ACS median income for families with children was slightly above 120%
AMI at $124,757.
An increase to 120% AMI would require an alternative funding source than pooled TIF or
the AHTF.
Additions and major remodels have continued to be strong in St. Louis Park. There were
63 additions and 104 major remodels in 2021. Only two of these used Move Up loans in
2021.
Construction costs have increased but the maximum loan amount has remained at
$25,000.
Making a change to increase the Move Up program to target higher income households
will increase the number of households that would be eligible to utilize the move‐up
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 18
program. Increasing the amount of the deferred loan will create a greater financial
benefit for homeowners utilizing the program. Both of these changes will increase the
programs budget.
Defining the “sweet spot” is a question that will need further analysis and should
represent an income limit that assists families where financial assistance is a factor in
their decision to add on to their home or move, but allows families with the means to
support a decision to add on to their home versus moving to do so without city funding.
As part of the 2023 budget process, staff has proposed to
increase the income limit to 120% AMI.
increase the maximum loan amount to $35,000.
Increase program funding to $210,000 for 2023 (from $175,000 in 2022) to
accommodate the higher maximum loan amount and increased access.
Resources required: (Include relevant information such as cost, staffing, capacity)
Modifying the program requirements would have little impact on staffing capacity; however, a
change to increase the maximum loan amount would have an impact on the budget.
Additionally, an alternate funding source for the program will need to be identified since
pooled TIF could not be used for the program at 120% AMI.
Other dependencies: (Include relevant information that could impact this proposal, such as:
other agencies/jurisdictions, a pending policy discussion or action by council on related item,
additional research that may be required to answer pending questions)
See above considerations. In addition to funding costs and priorities, council has also asked
staff to research lowering maximum ground floor area ratio and increasing setback
requirements for new construction, which can impact utilization of the move‐up program.
Projected timeline: (Given current business levels and capacity, what is the projected timeline
for staff to be able to work on and implement? If this was to be done now, what would the
impact be on other projects and/or standard line of business?)
If staff’s proposed changes are approved as part of the 2023 budgeting process, staff will begin
implementing on January 1, 2023.
Recommended disposition:
Include with another item already planned/scheduled (budget)
o Changes to increase the income limit, maximum loan amount, and amount of
funding are already being considered as part of the 2023 budgeting process.
o Alternative funding source has been identified to fund the modified program.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 19
Residential Rental Caps to Preserve Ownership Options
Staff analysis of request: (Please provide a high‐level review of the proposed topic. Focus on
key points, facts, impact, legal and/or future considerations.
Council Concern: Equity/Ownership/Wealth‐building: Creating rental density caps (to preserve
homeownership options).
The increase of investor ownership of single‐family (SF) homes has become more prevalent,
both nationally and in the Minneapolis‐St. Paul metropolitan area in the past 10 years. When
the Great Recession forced many homeowners out of their homes in the early 2009/2010,
investors picked up foreclosed homes at low prices and turned them into rental properties. St.
Louis Park also saw a significant increase in single family rentals in the 2009/2010. In some
areas of the metro, the single‐family market has continued to grow which has created more
options for renters, but the sf rental market in SLP has remained relative constant.
Current SLP SF rentals: The city has a total of 11,698 single‐family homes. The number of
licensed single‐family rental units for 2021 was 871, or 7.4% of the single‐family rental housing
stock. The current number of single‐family rentals licensed for 2022 is 782, or 6.7%; a decrease
of 89 properties from 2021.
1.Trend: A review of the number of licensed single‐family rental units over the past 10
year shows that the number has been fairly flat with a more significant decrease from
2021 to 2022. This may be due to current housing market conditions and the inflated
property prices. Investors or those that became landlords during the recession may be
taking advantage of the market to sell their rental properties. The number of single‐
family rentals over the past 10 years has varied between 826 and 898. The current
number of licensed single‐family homes for 2022 is 782. This is the lowest number of SF
rentals since 2009.
2.Location: Although the single‐family rental properties are located throughout the city in
every census tract, single‐family rentals are more concentrated in the neighborhoods
located in center of the city north of highway 7. There are pockets of greater
concentration in the southwest neighborhoods and the north central and the south
neighborhoods adjacent to highway 100. Neighborhoods with higher property values
tended to have less concentration and fewer single‐family rentals. (Map below*)
3.Owners: Based on data provided by the Minneapolis Federal Reserve, which identifies a
non‐homesteaded property as an investor‐owned single family rental home, the
number of investor‐owned single‐family rentals in SLP is relatively low. City wide:
10+ investor‐owned properties ‐ 0.4% (47) properties,
5+ properties ‐ 1% (115),
2+ properties ‐ 2.6% (296),
For comparison, other metro cities had the following percentages of SF rentals in their
community with 2‐plus investment properties (SLP 2.6%):
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 20
Edina – 2%Bloomington – 2.7%
Hopkins ‐ 2.4%Minneapolis – 5.6%
Richfield – 3.2%Golden Valley – 1.9%
Minnetonka – 2%Eden Prairie – 1.8%
Robbinsdale – 3.7%Roseville – 2.6%
*Single Family Rentals
Impact: Adoption of a rental density ordinance could result in an overall decrease in the
number of single‐family rentals in the city over time, although this would be dependent on the
restrictions that are put in place and the market. If home values continue to increase, it is likely
that more single‐family rentals would be sold to take advantage of the strong market.
If a restriction is imposed as a not‐to‐exceed percentage by block similar to several other cities
currently restricting SF rentals, neighborhood blocks exceeding the density restriction could
come into compliance as properties sell. The city would have to restrict the issuance of a rental
license to any future owner until the block drops below the compliance threshold. This would
also be true for any owner‐occupied home for sale on a block that exceeds compliance. No
rental license would be issued, requiring the house to remain a non‐rental property.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 21
Whether these former rental homes would promote “equity, socioeconomic diversity, and
racial integration” or “equity/ownership/wealth‐building” is unknown. The only thing we can
say with some certainty is that the sale of a rental home for use as a primary residence would
increase owner‐occupied homeownership of single‐family homes in that one neighborhood
block. Also, there is no guarantee that lower valued properties wouldn’t be purchased and
demolished to build a new home or transformed with a significant addition. An analysis of the
number of single‐family rentals that are valued as affordable would need to be undertaken to
determine which homes would potentially be homes for first‐time, first‐generation, or lower
income buyers.
Single Family Home Sales in SLP
In 2021, 1063 (9%) single‐family homes sold in St. Louis Park.
Through July 2022, 91 SF homes sold.
The median sale price over the past 12 months was $350,000; the average was
$372,487.
The current affordable housing price for a family at 80% AMI in the metro area is
$355,600, which is greater than the median sale price in St. Louis Park. What this does
tell us that at least 531 homes sold in 2021 in SLP were sold at a price below the home
value affordable to a household with income at 80% AMI.
Demographics related to Homeownership
The 2019 ACS census data shows 85% of housing units in St. Louis Park are occupied by white
households. The next largest demographic of households is Black or African American at 7%. St.
Louis Park’s homeownership gap is even greater than the state’s homeownership gap, which is
one of the worst in the nation. In St. Louis Park, 63% of white households are homeowners;
whereas only 8% of Black households are homeowners. 92% of Black households are renters.
Limiting single‐family rentals may continue to perpetuate segregation in our low‐density
residential neighborhoods.
Other considerations:
1.Many households seeking larger‐size (3+ bedroom) housing units in SLP often rely on,
and/or prefer single‐family rentals to meet their space needs. A decrease in single‐
family rental properties with more bedrooms that accommodate larger size families
could create an unintended outcome for larger‐size households seeking housing in St.
Louis Park. Implementing such an ordinance could be perceived as exclusionary to large
families and may also have a greater impact on households of color by making it more
challenging to find housing appropriate to meet their needs in the community.
2.Concerns and challenges related to an owner’s property rights to use and/or sell their
property could be a possible concern.
3.Enforcement capacity and concerns.
4.Research has shown that large‐scale investors tend to avoid cities with strong tenant
protections in place.
5.In other communities that have enacted an ordinance to limit the number of single‐
family rentals, there have been unanticipated outcomes such as:
a.Homeowners obtaining a rental license with no intention of renting their
property, simply to further restrict any single‐family rentals on their block
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 22
b.Homeowners obtaining a rental license with no intention of renting their
property, simply to make their property more marketable if/when they decide to
sell it.
Other MN communities with rental density restrictions:
Communities in MN that adopted rental density restrictions did so primarily to address what
they determined to be a correlation between concentrations of rental housing and negative
impacts on community livability. Their concerns focused on what they identified as indicators
of neighborhood quality of life criteria including increased nuisance complaints, parking
concerns, increased police incidents, decreased property maintenance levels and decreased
property values.
Of the six communities identified that adopted a rental density policy, all limited the
percentage of rentals per block ranging from 10% to 35% of the parcels. The 6 cities included 4
college towns, one smaller first ring suburb of St. Paul (W. St. Paul), and a northern suburban
community, Anoka. The college towns adopted the policies in order to curb student rentals.
W.St. Paul and Anoka are both communities with older modest housing that was attractive to
investors during the housing recession. Their investor‐owned housing with 2+ properties is at
10%.
Legal concerns:
In recent years, two communities that proposed adopting a rental density restriction policy did
face significant opposition during the adoption process. One city chose to adopt the policy (a
college town), the other decided not to move forward (1st ring suburb of Minneapolis). The city
of Winona’s rental density restrictions were challenged in 2014.
Northfield stated that they are considering removing their rental density restriction. They cited
the exclusive nature of the policy and their experience related to homeowners seeking a rental
license to ensure that the 20% restriction limit is met on their block which prohibits legitimate
rental properties from being established. They also cited that the colleges have built more
student housing on campus and there is less need for off campus student housing. Winona also
stated that they have had homeowners obtain a rental license for their primary residence in an
effort to limit legitimate rentals.
St. Louis Park’s City Attorney recently weighed in on the city enacting an ordinance limiting the
number of single‐family rentals, which was provided in a memo to the city council on August
25, 2022 under attorney‐client privilege, that discusses concerns with such an ordinance and
lays out a path to implement it, if the council desires.
Resources required: (Include relevant information such as cost, staffing, capacity)
Staff resources will be required to further research the current status of the single‐family
rentals in the city, whether the desired outcomes would be obtained from adoption of a rental
density ordinance, and if there could be unintended consequences. Whether existing staff have
the capacity to assume these added responsibilities would need to be determined.
Implementation of a rental density ordinance would require designated staff oversight. The
Building and Energy staff currently administer the St. Louis Park rental licensing program; staff
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 23
resources would be needed to implement the ordinance, provide on‐going education to anyone
selling or purchasing a single‐family property in St. Louis Park, provide compliance monitoring,
mapping identification, and enforcement action as needed.
Other dependencies: (Include relevant information that could impact this proposal, such as:
other agencies/jurisdictions, a pending policy discussion or action by council on related item,
additional research that may be required to answer pending questions)
Consideration of this ordinance would require additional research and a policy discussion at the
council level. Building and Energy would likely need to be lead on the discussion as rental
licensing, and thus enforcement of an ordinance limiting the number or single‐family rentals,
would fall under that department’s purview.
Projected timeline: (Given current business levels and capacity, what is the projected timeline
for staff to be able to work on and implement? If this was to be done now, what would the
impact be on other projects and/or standard line of business?)
Given the city attorney’s opinion, the subsequent process laid out in that opinion, and staff’s
capacity, this would likely take 6‐12 months at a minimum to properly enact.
Recommended disposition:
Written report
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Proposed study session agenda topic 24
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: September 12, 2022
Written report: 4
Executive summary
Title: Connected infrastructure system wrap-up
Recommended action: None.
Policy consideration: The purpose of this report is to summarize the outcomes of the recent
discussions within the connected infrastructure system study sessions.
Summary: On Sept. 6, the council completed a series of discussions focused on advancing the
city's strategic priority related to connected infrastructure. These discussions primarily focused
on public policy and construction, operations, and maintenance of connected infrastructure.
The study session system started on July 11, 2022. Since that time, staff has provided the
council with information and there have been several policy discussions on topics related to
connected infrastructure. This report serves as a summary of all the discussions and includes
the council direction provided.
Financial or budget considerations: Funds are budgeted in the CIP for connected infrastructure
projects. The additional funds to implement the changes discussed during this system will be
brought forward to council as a part of 2023 and 2024 budget discussions.
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
Prepared by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Reviewed by: Jack Sullivan, engineering project manager
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Connected infrastructure system wrap-up
Discussion
Background: This system included study sessions covering a range of topics relating to
connected infrastructure. Topics were grouped, and each meeting built on the previous
discussion and had self-contained outcomes based on various policy and practice questions.
Reports on these topics were considered and discussed by the city council, and where
appropriate, direction on future expectations and outcomes was provided to staff for
implementation. A summary of the topics covered in this system includes:
Meeting subject: Connected infrastructure system introduction
Date: 7/11/2022
Overview: Staff introduced the system, including an overview of the connected infrastructure
capital planning process and guiding documents. The proposed topics included in the system all
center on connected infrastructure policy and provide opportunities to consider how connected
infrastructure is planned for, constructed, and maintained in the city. The topics examined
current programs and offered opportunities, identified by both council and staff, for expansion
or adjustment where applicable.
Outcomes of the discussion: The council generally approved of the topics included in the
system. Council members offered feedback on the topics and requested information to be
included during later portions of the system review. In addition, the council requested
information on two additional topics: traffic management program and streetlights.
Meeting subject: Sidewalk maintenance
Date: 7/11/2022
Overview: This was a follow-up on a council request to review the possibility of changing snow
removal responsibility for sidewalks adjacent to Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH)
properties from property owner to city responsibility. The goal was to provide NOAH property
residents with city-maintained access to transit stops.
There are 157 NOAH properties in the city: 47 of those properties do not have a sidewalk in
front of them and 54 are already on city-maintained routes. Of the remaining 56 properties, it
was determined the sidewalks adjacent to 24 of the properties could be added to the city-
maintained system. These sidewalks are wide enough to clear snow with the equipment the
city owns. The sidewalks in front of the other 32 properties are either too narrow for city
maintenance equipment, do not connect to the public system, or are already being done by the
property owner's maintenance staff. Most of the sidewalk segments in front of these properties
would require capital projects to either widen them or connect them to the existing public
system.
Outcomes of the discussion: The council supported adding the 24 identified sidewalks adjacent
to NOAH properties to city snow removal responsibility. The city will start removing snow from
these sidewalks this winter.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Connected infrastructure system wrap-up
Meeting subject: Bollard protected bikeways
Date: 7/11/2022
Overview: This was a follow-up discussion regarding the Dakota bikeway pilot program report
from April 11, 2022. As council requested, staff provided additional information on the
resources and costs needed to operate and maintain bollards on buffered bike lanes. To ensure
that this was a comprehensive overview, staff included the cost to install bollards on all
continuous buffered bike lanes in the city, not just the buffered bike lanes on Dakota Avenue. In
all, there are 6.6 miles of buffered bike lanes in the city.
Outcomes of the discussion: The council supported Option 1 – Seasonal bollard installation.
This would install bollards on the buffered bike lanes after spring street sweeping has been
completed (usually late April or early May) and remove the bollards ahead of fall leaf pickup.
The council directed staff to install bollards on all buffered bikeways in the city where there was
not a parallel separated facility. They indicated that approval to do this work would not have to
come back to council prior to implementation and that staff should use an inform process to
notify the property owners in the corridor.
The cost to do this is $66,000 per year, with a capital cost of $71,840 every six years. These
costs were included in the 2023 budget conversations; however, it was not included in the 2023
budget. Staff will plan to include it as a 2024 budget request.
Meeting subject: Connect the Park update
Date: 7/25/2022
Overview: Discussion of Connect the Park topics, including feasibility reports, data collection,
wayfinding, and website updates.
Outcomes of the discussion: The council provided the following direction and feedback:
• Feasibility reports: The council indicated that the feasibility reports for bikeways and
sidewalks helped to inform council decisions. Council felt that staff should continue to
develop sidewalk feasibility reviews as previously provided. However, they indicated
bikeway feasibility reports could be modified to reduce the level of staff effort.
• Data collection: The council supported moving forward with data collection for bicycle
and pedestrian counts. The cost to do this is $55,000 per year for annual counts at 52
locations. In addition, there would be a cost to install ten automatic stationary counters
with a capital cost of $305,000. These costs were included in the 2023 budget
conversations; however, only the cost for the annual counts was included in the
proposed budget. The capital cost for the stationary counters was not included in the
proposed 2023 budget. Staff will plan to include the capital cost as a 2024 budget
request.
• Wayfinding: The discussion focused on installing street sign blades with bike symbols
and wrapping signal cabinets to provide additional wayfinding. The cost to change out
sign blades is estimated at $76,800. Council directed staff not to include the citywide
replacement in the 2023 budget request but to continue to change out signs with
upcoming roadway projects. Council was interested in adding up to six wayfinding signal
wraps for an estimated total cost of $15,000. However, no funding source was
identified. Staff is working on identifying a funding source.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: Connected infrastructure system wrap-up
• Website updates: Staff provided an overview of our updated interactive "getting
around" map, how we can influence existing travel apps such as Google with new bike
routes, and how we leverage social media to promote biking and walking in the
community. There is no follow-up action from this update.
Meeting subject: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study
Date: 7/25/2022
Overview: This report shared the details on preliminary options and costs for the last bridge in
the Connect the Park plan, currently in the CIP for construction in 2035.
Outcomes of the discussion: Support of staff recommendation for implementation of
Alternative 4: Old Hwy 100 and Bridge 27787 rehabilitation. During the 2024 CIP update, staff
will review the overall Connect the Park plan to determine if this trail bridge could be moved up
in the CIP to be completed sooner than 2035.
Meeting subject: Sidewalk policy
Date: 8/8/2022
Overview: Staff introduced a draft sidewalk policy to be used to identify sidewalks to be
evaluated as a part of transportation projects. The policy would create a consistent approach to
better reflect the city's mobility priority and communicate that a continuous sidewalk network
provides connections for the entire community, not just for the people that live on the street.
Outcomes of the discussion: In general, the council was supportive of the concepts included in
the sidewalk policy. The policy includes an exemption for streets with less than 200 vehicles.
Staff will review the traffic volumes on our local roads to determine if this threshold should be
modified.
To better understand the cost and budget implications of this policy, staff will identify potential
locations for new sidewalk construction adjacent to the street segments scheduled for
rehabilitation in the 10-year CIP. Once this is done, cost estimates will be done, and an analysis
of how the cost for implementation would factor into the overall city budget.
Council was also supportive of simplifying the conversation surrounding sidewalks to reduce
confusion. If a policy is adopted, the remaining sidewalks would be removed from the Connect
the Park plan and would be constructed as a part of future transportation projects consistent
with the Sidewalk policy.
An update on this item will be brought back when the connected infrastructure system is at
council in 2023.
Meeting subject: Public Parking
Date: 8/8/2022
Overview: Staff provided an overview of the types of public parking available in the city, on-
street and municipal parking lots. Information was also provided on their construction cost and
funding sources.
Outcomes of the discussion: Council generally supported staff's recommendations.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Title: Connected infrastructure system wrap-up
On-street parking:
• On-street parking is considered a shared resource for anyone in the community to use.
• Since it is a shared resource, staff does not recommend the implementation of permit
parking when there is not a demonstrated medical need.
Municipal parking lots: Council generally supported Option 3: Evaluate parking lots prior to
moving forward with any reconstruction of municipal parking lots. A parking study has already
been done for the three lots in the Historic Walker Lake area; the findings of that study indicate
that they are needed for area parking demand. Staff estimates that a parking study for the
remaining four lots will cost $50,000. Staff is working on identifying a funding source to
complete this study.
No specific direction was provided for funding of the lots, should a determination be made that
they are necessary for a given area. An update on this item will be brought back when the
parking lot evaluation is complete.
Meeting subject: Citywide crash analysis
Date: 8/22/2022
Overview: This report shared the citywide crash analysis that was completed in 2020. The
analysis reviewed crash data from 2017-2019. This analysis was done to better understand
roadway safety in our city, identify locations that could benefit from traffic management
improvements, and establish a baseline understanding of crashes.
Outcomes of the discussion: Staff is working on a Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
discretionary grant application to develop a comprehensive safety action plan.
Meeting subject MnDOT – Highway 7 Road Safety Audit
Date: 8/22/2022
Overview: This report provided a summary of the findings of the Highway 7 Road Safety Audit.
Outcomes of the discussion: The council was interested in finding out the purpose of having
MnDOT attend a future meeting and if they would be able to influence the final report. Staff
has reached out to MnDOT, and they have indicated that the intent of presenting the report at
a council meeting would be to have the consultants that developed the report present its
findings to the city and therefore try to provide an uninfluenced opinion of ways to improve
safety. While the council would not be able to change the final report, you will be able to
express what you see as being project priorities and locations. The city council, staff, and
residents will certainly have plenty of influence when these projects start to get funded and
developed.
Meeting subject Traffic control policy
Date: 9/6/2022
Overview: Staff provided an overview of the policy concerning requests for traffic control,
including process and outcomes.
Outcomes of the discussion The council supported staff's recommendation to take a systems
approach to traffic control. Members were very supportive of the data-driven approach and
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 4) Page 6
Title: Connected infrastructure system wrap-up
moving away from one that centers on local interest. There were some comments made about
wanting to make sure we still have residents' voices as part of the process. Next steps are to
suspend the existing policy, work through the requests that are already in the queue, and reach
out to residents that have requested a petition. Staff will be applying for federal funding to
complete a comprehensive safety plan and be looking at what a proactive systems approach
would look like. This topic will come back to council during the connected infrastructure system
in 2023.
Meeting subject Traffic management program
Date: 9/6/2022
Overview: Staff gave an overview of traffic management and the resources necessary to create
a standalone traffic management program.
Outcomes of the discussion: Council members were supportive of wrapping the development
of a funding program for small/mid-level traffic management interventions into the broader
traffic control policy update.
Meeting subject: Public streetlights
Date: 9/6/2022
Overview: This report provided an overview of public streetlights in the city.
Outcomes: The council provided feedback that the current practice does not take a systems
approach. Direction to see if a systems approach to streetlights could be incorporated into the
comprehensive action plan. If it does not work within that scope, staff should bring this topic
back for discussion during the connected infrastructure system in 2023.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: September 12, 2022
Written report: 5
Executive summary
Title: DWI/Traffic Safety Police Officer Grant Program
Recommended action: Council approval of a fiscal year 2023 grant awarded to the St. Louis
Park Police Department to fund a full-time DWI/Traffic Safety police officer.
Policy consideration: Would the council like to accept the grant awarded to the St. Louis Park
Police Department to fund a full-time DWI/Traffic Safety police officer?
Summary: The federally funded grant program administered through the Minnesota
Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety assists in addressing state and local
mandates related to the promotion of public roadway safety. While the program’s primary
focus is on impaired driving, it also includes other dangerous driving behaviors including
speeding, and aggressive or distracted driving. Additional focus areas include encouraging the
use of protective vehicle safety equipment (including child safety devices), educating the public
on the importance of hands-free driving, as well as bicycle and school bus safety measures.
Both enforcement and education strategies are utilized. The grant officer works peak nights and
times as supported by data to ensure program goals are aligned with agency efforts.
At a time when traffic related crimes and their companion public issues are at all-time highs,
the need for proactive and targeted strategies capable of addressing the issues have never
been more critical. The addition of the grant officer not only attends to traffic related concerns
but is also anticipated to help address rising levels of violent crime through increased police
presence and partnering opportunities.
This grant award is allocated through a competitive process, with approximately 25 grants
awarded statewide. The program funds up to $125,125 per grantee during the award period.
Only costs directly associated with the DWI/Traffic safety grant program are covered;
equipment costs are not covered. The grant operational period coincides with the federal fiscal
year of October 1, 2022, to September 30, 2023.
Financial or budget considerations: Reimbursement up to $125,125 with no additional
equipment costs. (Leveraging existing equipment.)
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.
•St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through
community engagement.
Supporting documents: Draft Resolution
DWI/Traffic Safety Officer request for proposal
Prepared by: Mike Harcey, police chief
Bryan Kruelle, deputy police chief
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Page 2 Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: DWI/Traffic Safety Police Officer Grant Program
Resolution No. 22-____
Resolution approving state of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety, grant
award and agreement with the City of St. Louis Park associated with a full time
DWI/Traffic Safety Officer
Whereas, the city of St. Louis Park on behalf of its Police Department desires to enter into
an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety, to fund a full time
DWI/Traffic Safety officer. The grant award agreement stipulates the DWI/Traffic Safety officer
will work primarily to detect and interdict impaired drivers as well as focusing on dangerous
driving behaviors to include speeding, distracted driving, and occupant protection while the
grant award period is in effect.
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota as follows:
1. That the city of St. Louis Park on behalf of its Police Department enter into a grant
agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, for the DWI Officer grant during
the period from October 1, 2022, through September 30, 2023.
2. Mayor Jake Spano and City Manager Kim Keller, or successors, are hereby authorized to
execute such agreements and amendments as are necessary to implement the project on
behalf of the city of St. Louis Park and to be the fiscal agent and administer the grant.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council September 19, 2022
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Page 1
State of Minnesota - Department of Public Safety
Request for Proposal - Federal Fiscal Year 2023
DWI/Traffic Safety Officer
•Responses must be received not later than 4:00pm, on July 22, 2022.
•Late responses will not be considered.
Overview
The Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS), Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) is seeking proposals
from law enforcement agencies for a full time DWI/Traffic Safety Officer. The DWI/TS officer will work
the peak nights and times when data indicates impaired driving is most likely to occur. While primarily
seeking to detect and interdict impaired drivers, the DWI/TS Officer will also focus on the dangerous
driving behaviors of speeding, distracted driving and occupant protection.
The Minnesota DPS-OTS has a mandate to promote the safety of those who use public roadways. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) provides federal funding to the DPS-OTS to
design and implement Minnesota’s highway safety program to reduce traffic crashes and the deaths,
injuries, and property damage resulting from those crashes to fulfill this mandate. The DPS-OTS and
NHTSA seek to support a traffic safety program which:
•prevents injuries and deaths resulting from motor vehicles being driven in excess of posted
speed limits,
•encourages the proper use of occupant protection devices (including the use of safety belts and
child restraint systems) by occupants of motor vehicles,
•prevents injuries and deaths resulting from persons driving motor vehicles while impaired by
alcohol or a controlled substance,
•to prevent crashes and reduce injuries and deaths resulting from crashes involving motor
vehicles and motorcycles,
•prevents injuries and deaths resulting from crashes involving school buses,
•prevents crashes resulting from unsafe driving behavior (including aggressive or fatigued driving
and distracted driving arising from the use of electronic devices in vehicles),
•improves law enforcement services in motor vehicle crash prevention, traffic enforcement
supervision, and post-crash investigation procedures,
•increases driver awareness of commercial motor vehicles to prevent crashes and reduce injuries
and fatalities,
•improves driver performance through
•driver education,
•driver testing to determine proficiency to operate motor vehicles, and
•driver examinations (physical, mental, and driver licensing),
•improves pedestrian performance and bicycle safety, and
•provides for
•an effective record system of crashes (including resulting injuries and deaths),
•crash investigations to determine the probable causes of crashes, injuries, and deaths,
•vehicle registration, operation, and inspection, and
•emergency services.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: DWI/Traffic Safety Police Officer Grant Program 3
Page 2
NHTSA requires the DPS-OTS to develop performance measure targets in key traffic safety behavior
areas and report yearly on progress toward achieving our goals. These performance standards measure
the level of Minnesota’s success in moving the bar Toward Zero Deaths.
Available Funding
Funding will be allocated through a competitive process with review by a committee representing
content and community specialists with regional law enforcement knowledge. We expect to announce
selected grantees in late July, 2022. If selected, you may only incur eligible expenditures when the grant
contract agreement is fully executed and the grant has reached its effective date.
Type of Federal/State Funds
Funding provided by NHTSA includes the following types of funding:
• Section 405D – Impaired Driving (CFDA # 20.616)
For impaired driving enforcement.
• Section 402 PT – Police Traffic Services (CFDA # 20.600)
For speed, distracted and move over enforcement. These funds can also be used to support
other campaigns as needed when approved by the DPS-OTS grant coordinator.
Amount of Grant Funds
Up to $125,125.00 per grantee
This amount includes the Toward Zero Deaths Conference registration costs.
Approximate number of grants intended
25
General Funding Rules
DWI/TS Officer salary, including OT and fringe while performing duties related only to this grant.
Agency Match
Expenses that are paid for with state, county, municipal and/or private funding demonstrate a
vested interest and commitment to the program and should be reported. Agencies should claim
matching funds such as:
• Vehicle mileage calculated at the current IRS rate of (currently $0.585/mile, but subject
to change on 1/1/2023)
• Any time the DWI/TS Officer is on duty but is prompted to assist other officers
• Any agency expense incurred in support of this project (i.e., purchase of a dedicated
patrol vehicle and/or equipment for a dedicated patrol vehicle)
Equipment
The project does not allow for the reimbursement of equipment.
Reimbursement of Funds
The grant will coincide with the federal fiscal year which begins October 1, 2022 and ends
September 30, 2023 and will cover funding for the salary of one full time DWI/TS Officer up to
$125,125.00 (up to $125,000 in DWI/TS Officer Salary plus up to $125 for TZD registration).
NHTSA guidelines stipulate that general types of police services normally provided to the public,
cannot be reimbursed through grant funds (supplanting).
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: DWI/Traffic Safety Police Officer Grant Program 4
Page 3
Agencies with a currently funded DWI/TS Officer are eligible to apply for a continuation and will
be evaluated using the stated application data and on past performance. In order to receive any
funding for the Federal Fiscal Year 2023, the agencies must submit an application. Applicant
agencies must have a complement of at least 20 sworn peace officers.
The grant funds are to be used for DWI and Traffic Safety enforcement and are available on a
cost reimbursement basis. Costs are reimbursed after they are incurred and paid by the grantee
agencies. As a result, applicant agencies must have “start-up” monies available. Recipients must
submit invoices for reimbursement on a quarterly basis.
Officer time and fringe benefits that are reimbursed through this grant must be for actual hours
spent on DWI and Traffic Safety enforcement and other eligible time as discussed on page 2.
Only the employer’s portion of fringe benefits is eligible for reimbursement. The State has an
obligation to determine if costs to be reimbursed by this grant contract are reasonable. If
requested, the grantee must furnish an explanation of the basis for such rates. Reimbursement
requests will use the 2023 DWI/TS Officer invoice spreadsheet here.
Administration of Grant
Administrator time will not be covered by the grant and should be calculated as agency
matching funds.
Eligibility
Eligible applicants for this RFP are Minnesota city police departments, county sheriff’s offices, University
police departments and Native American Tribal police agencies with a compliment of at least 20 sworn
peace officers. Private companies and organizations are not eligible. Agencies applying must utilize the
state’s e-Charging platform for processing impaired drivers.
County Population, VMT and Behavioral Measures from 2017-2021 crash data will be used to identify
counties with the greatest need for FFY23 DWI/TS Officer grant funds. For greater impact in preventing
traffic-related serious injuries and deaths, applications from counties with traffic deaths and serious
injury yearly averages that are at or above 2017-2021 state averages will be given additional
consideration.
Training Requirements
Officers and Deputies working enforcement activities funded by this grant must have at least 2 years-
experience as a licensed peace officer and shall have completed the following training prior to working:
• IACP’s 16-hour Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) course
• IACP’s Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) or Drugs That Impair Driving
(DTID)
• Minnesota’s Occupant Protection Usage and Enforcement (OPUE) course
Refreshers
Officers who last completed an SFST course of any kind before October 1, 2018, must complete an
SFST Update class, the online ARIDE course and the online OPUE by Oct. 1, 2023.
ARIDE Online – 6 POST credits
This course will instruct officers on the difference between alcohol and drug impaired drivers;
how they are detected and what can be expected. Officers will learn the observable signs of
seven major drug categories, medical conditions that mimic drug influence, and what they will
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: DWI/Traffic Safety Police Officer Grant Program 5
Page 4
see when they encounter drivers under the influence of specific drugs. This course may be used
as ARIDE refresher.
• Course access instructions
• Frequently asked questions.
OPUE Online
This course is approximately three hours and will address seat belt, child restraint and air bag
history and development. Officers will learn the engineering designs that makes these safety
devices an important part of motor vehicles. Officers will be guided through the specifics about
these safety devices and how they are protected both when they are occupants as well as when
they respond to crashes.
If officers in your agency are unable to satisfy these training requirements, contact your DPS-OTS
enforcement grant coordinator to request an exception. Potential reasons for exceptions include
(but not limited to):
• Training is not available within a reasonable travel distance
• Low staffing levels
• Reduced training budget
The Office of Traffic Safety strongly supports enhanced traffic enforcement training. Given the current
challenges several law enforcement agencies are facing, we realize these training requirements may
prevent some officers from working grant-funded shifts during a time that traffic enforcement is needed
more than ever. Any exception to the training requirements will only be for this federal fiscal year. The
DWI/TS Officer/Deputy time for SFST, ARIDE, OPUE and their updates will be a reimbursable cost
under this grant.
Reporting and Invoicing
Invoices and Progress Reports are required to be submitted via E-grants to the OTS on the following
schedule:
• Jan. 23, 2023: All project activity between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31, 2022
• April 17, 2023: All project activity between Jan. 1 and March 31, 2023
• July 16, 2023: All project activity between April 1 and June 30, 2023
• Oct. 22, 2023: All project activity between July 1 and Sept. 30, 2023
Final Report Requirement
A final report provides a summary of grant activity during the federal fiscal year. The final report is due
Oct. 22, 2023, and should include the following:
• Review of activity
• Review of goals and objectives
• Review of the budget and performance measures
• Media and community outreach activities
• Describe successes and challenges
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: DWI/Traffic Safety Police Officer Grant Program 6
Page 5
Collaboration
Grantees are required to meet (either in-person or virtually) with their DPS-OTS grant coordinator
during the grant period. Successes and challenges will be discussed and well as a review of progress
made toward meeting agency goals.
Problem Identification
The State submits a Highway Safety Plan (HSP) to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA). The HSP documents the State’s highway safety program that is data-driven in establishing
performance targets and selecting the countermeasure strategies, planned activities and projects to
meet performance targets. The HSP includes a description of the data sources and processes used by the
State to identify its highway safety problems. The OTS uses several crash data sources to determine a
county’s problem identification.
Minnesota’s Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion
The State of Minnesota DPS/OTS values diversity and inclusion and will take that into
consideration. County Population, VMT Behavioral Measures (2017-2021) see equity tab.
State and County Crash Data
Review Crash Facts 2020 and County-Specific Fact Sheets. This will help to determine your
DWI/TS Officer. Additional Reports and Statistics can help plan your grant activities. If your
county’s data differs from statewide data, contact your grant coordinator to discuss changes to
your work plan.
DWI Dashboard
Maps DWI’s, severe and fatal crashes throughout Minnesota which helps law enforcement
agencies coordinate and plan enforcement efforts. DWI Dashboard can be found on MyBCA.
Additional Crash Data Resources
• County Population, VMT Behavioral Measures (2017-2021)
• Worst Alcohol Counties (2017-2021)
Occupant Protection
• In the past five years (2017-2021) 1,345 motor vehicle occupants died on Minnesota roads
Of those fatalities, 463 (34%) did not use their seat belt
• Of occupants who were ejected from their vehicle and killed, 67% were unbelted
• Recent year-over-year unbelted trends are alarming
2020 was up 44% from 2019
2021 was up 8% from 2020
• Unbelted fatalities occur almost equally between daytime/sunrise (50.2%) and
sunset/nighttime (48.7%)
• Of MVO fatalities occurring at nighttime, 41% were unbelted
• Seatbelt usage is higher in daytime hours.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: DWI/Traffic Safety Police Officer Grant Program 7
Page 6
Killed MVOs by Belt Status and Light Condition
Daylight Sunrise Sunset Dark Other/Unk Total
(2017-2021)
Belt
Status
N % N % N % N % N % N %
Not Used 217 29.0% 15 44.1% 17 34.7% 208 41.4% 5 50.0% 462 34.4%
Unknown 106 14.2% 7 20.6% 8 16.3% 109 21.7% 2 20.0% 232 17.3%
Used 425 56.8% 12 35.3% 24 49.0% 186 37.0% 3 30.0% 650 48.4%
748 100.0% 34 100.0% 49 100.0% 503 100.0% 10 100.0% 1,344 100.0%
TZD Conference
The TZD Conference is a forum for sharing information on best practices in engineering, enforcement,
education and emergency medical/health services and for identifying new approaches to reducing the
number of traffic fatalities and life-changing injuries on Minnesota’s roads. The conference will be held
Oct. 12-13, 2022, in St. Cloud, Minnesota. More information will be posted to the TZD Conference page
as it becomes available.
Hotel reimbursement:
Several DPS-OTS grants include reimbursement of individual wages, which continues to
increase. When funding becomes limited, these programs along with hotel costs are not
sustainable. To continue working toward the goal of zero deaths, the DPS-OTS will fund traffic
safety activities instead of hotel costs.
If your agency will not be able to attend the conference because your agency cannot incur hotel
costs, a scholarship program is available. Complete the TZD Hotel Scholarship form can be found
on the TZD Conference page. The scholarship is open to all interested individuals. The
application deadline is August 1, an executed grant agreement is not necessary to apply.
TZD Conference registration fee:
The Office of Traffic Safety will continue to pay the $125 TZD Conference registration fee for the
DWI/TS Officer, only. DPS-OTS grant coordinators will provide further instructions on how to
register after grants are awarded.
Grant Monitoring
Minn. Stat. §16B.97 and Policy 08-10 Grant Monitoring require the following:
• One monitoring visit during the grant period on all state grants of $50,000 and higher
• Annual monitoring visits during the grant period on all grants of $250,000 and higher
• Conducting a financial reconciliation of grantee’s expenditures at least once during the grant
period on grants of $50,000 and higher. For this purpose, the grantee must make expense
receipts, employee timesheets, invoices, and any other supporting documents available upon
request by the State.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: DWI/Traffic Safety Police Officer Grant Program 8
Page 7
Application Process
The application and 2023 Work Plan (link to your grant’s work plan) can be found in E-Grants, and
completed in its entirety.
If the application is accepted, the agency’s authorized representative and/or financial officer will be
responsible for compiling information and submitting plans, reports, and invoices to the DPS-OTS.
Certifications
Program guidelines and federal audit requirements must be distributed and acknowledged by
subcontractors or Partner Agencies. Subcontractors and partner agencies must sign that they
agree to the certifications and assurances for federal highway safety grants.
A section within E-grants application will be provided for the information needed from
applying agencies.
• Program Guidelines (Attachment A)
• Terms and Conditions (Attachment B)
• Federal Audit Requirements (Attachment C)
Risk Assessment
If the grantee will distribute the funds it receives from this grant to another entity for a
purpose not related to procurement, the grantee must provide the DPS-OTS Coordinator with
a risk assessment of that entity to be reviewed and signed by DPS-OTS.
Resolution Process
Before a grant may be executed, the lead agency mentioned in the application must provide the
DPS-OTS with a resolution from the appropriate city council or county board authorizing its
participation in the program. This agency must obtain a resolution from their city council or
county board authorizing them to participate in the grant and indicate who is authorized to sign
the grant agreement unless the officials below are signing the grant agreement:
• Statutory Cities - Mayor and City Clerk
• Counties - Board Chair and Clerk of the Board
The sample resolution (link to sample resolution) will ensure acceptability by DPS-OTS and
quicker processing of awarded grants. Including a grant dollar amount in the resolution will
cause problems if the amount awarded is different than the amount requested. If your council
or board requires a specific amount, include “or a lesser amount as awarded by the Department
of Public Safety” added after the amount is specified. Including the proper name of an
authorized official, rather than just a title, will cause problems if the person in that position or
office changes. If your council or board requires a specific name as well as title, include “or (his
or her) successor (on staff or in office)” added after the name is specified.
Selection Criteria and Weight
Each application will be reviewed by a team at the DPS-OTS. The review committee will review
each applicant on a 100-point scale. Items that will be evaluated in the review process include:
• Problem Identification (25/100)
• Performance measures outlined in the work plan (30/100)
• Equity Score by County (10/100)
• Previous grant performance if/when applicable (25/100)
• Additional program-specific criteria (10/100)
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: DWI/Traffic Safety Police Officer Grant Program 9
Page 8
Negotiations on applications may occur; clarification may be needed, hours, plans, or
budgets may be modified. Applications must be submitted to the DPS-OTS via e-grants by
4:00 p.m. on (Friday, July 22, 2022).
Review Process and Timeline:
Once the applications are submitted via e-Grants, the review committee has approximately 3 weeks
to evaluate the grant applications, and will respond via email to the applicant no later than (Friday,
August 12, 2022).
Questions regarding the application and evaluation process must be directed to Duane Siedschlag, by
10:00 a.m., (Thursday, July 14, 2022). Answers to questions that are not specific to a proposal will be
posted to the DPS-OTS Website within approximately three business days.
Termination of a Grant
A grant may be cancelled by the DPS-OTS if any of the following occur:
• The grantee failed to have activity during a complete quarter unless approved in advance by the
DPS-OTS grant coordinator
• The Financial Status Reports (invoices) were submitted one month late at least two times during
the grant year unless the grantee was given prior approval from the DPS-OTS coordinator
• Two Financial Status Reports were submitted that included ineligible costs.
• Other breaches of laws, requirements, rules or procedures by the grantee.
A grantee is responsible for letting the DPS-OTS coordinator know whenever the project director will be
away from work for fourteen consecutive days or more and for providing the coordinator with contact
information on an interim project director during that time period.
These rules will not be in effect in the case of a grantee agency affected by an emergency or natural
disaster (such as a major fire, flood or tornado). Having a critical staff person or project director quit or
otherwise leave is not a natural disaster. If a critical person leaves, the grantee is responsible for
notifying their DPS-OTS coordinator and working out a timeline by which duties, reports, and invoices
will be resumed with him or her and obtaining that coordinator’s written approval of the plan.
Grant Application Instructions
Responses to the RFP will be submitted as an application through e-grants. If you are new to the system
click on the New User link, on the E-Grants log in page, fill out the form and save. Your request will be
reviewed by DPS within a day or two. Instructions on how to use E-Grants are located on the E-Grants
home page under Training Materials.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: DWI/Traffic Safety Police Officer Grant Program 10
Page 9
Complete the following sections in the application:
Certifications - Complete the form in e-Grants
By submitting the application, the authorized representative for the applicant organization
acknowledges that the following documents have been read in their entirety and acknowledges that the
documents will be incorporated in the grant agreement if funds are awarded to the organization:
• 2023 DWI/TS Officer Request for Proposal
• Grant Program Guidelines (Attachment A)
• Terms and Conditions (Attachment B)
• Federal Audit Requirements (Attachment C)
• Approved Work Plan
• Approved Budget
Agency Information - Complete the form in e-Grants
The fiscal lead of the grant is the agency that is applying to enter into the grant agreement with the DPS-
OTS and is the legal applicant responsible for fiscal oversight of the project.
Pre Award Risk Assessment (Grantee) - Complete the form in e-Grants
The federal government requires a pre-award risk assessment for all agencies receiving funds as part of
the grant.
Pre Award Risk Assessment (OTS Coordinator) – Your DPS-OTS Coordinator will complete this section.
Entity SAM Snapshot - Your DPS-OTS Coordinator will complete this section.
A System for Award Management (SAM) registration is required for businesses to do federal contracting
and for nonprofits to receive grants. The fiscal lead agency must be registered in the sam.gov website.
Budget
These budget amounts from the work plan must be entered into the budget page in e-Grants. In e-
Grants, there are two amounts to enter for each budget item. One is the budgeted amount and the
other is the amount for match; funding provided by local agencies for costs not covered by the grant
including mileage. Fill in a $0.00 in the match line, but you will still be able to report match during the
quarterly invoicing process.
Budget Summary
This page is populated from the information entered into the budget in e-Grants.
Signature Option
The DPS allows acceptance of grant agreements and amendments using several signature options.
Indicate the type of signature you will use to sign the grant agreement if funds are awarded.
Study session meeting of September 12, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: DWI/Traffic Safety Police Officer Grant Program 11