HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024/03/25 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
MARCH 25, 2024
5:30 p.m. City council study session
Discussion item
1. 60 min. Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
6:30 p.m. Special city council meeting
1.Call to order
a.Roll call.
b.Pledge of Allegiance.
2.Approve agenda.
3. Presentations – none.
4. Minutes – none.
5. Consent item
a.Adopt ordinance approving PUD amendment – Zelia on Seven – Ward 2
6.Public hearings – none.
7.Regular business – none.
8. Communications and announcements – none.
9.Adjournment.
6:45 p.m. City council study session cont.
Discussion item
2. 90 min. Boards and commissions purpose and structure
Recess (at approximately 7:35 p.m.) – The city council will take a short recess so that those
who observe Ramadan may break their fast.
Written reports
3. 2024 market value update
4. Bulk material containers in the right of way
8. Communications and announcements – none.
9. Adjournment.
Members of the public can attend St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, city council
meetings and study sessions in person or watch live by webstream at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil or at
www.parktv.org, or on local cable (Comcast SD channel 14/HD channel 798). Recordings of the
meetings are available to watch on the city's YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/@slpcable,
usually within 24 hours of the end of the council meeting or study session.
The council chambers is equipped with Hearing Loop equipment and headsets are available to borrow.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952.924.2505.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: March 25, 2024
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
Recommended action: Provide staff direction as to preferred ordinance amendments.
Policy consideration: Does the council wish to amend Ordinance 2600-20 to require a 30-day
notice period and/or to require a city provided form of notice?
Summary: Since Feb. 1, 2021, in St. Louis Park, property owners/managers are required to
provide a seven-day notice to renters before filing an eviction action alleging a material breach
of the lease for nonpayment of rent or other unpaid financial obligations per Ordinance 2600-
20.
In 2023, the Minnesota State Legislature enacted MN State Statute 504B.321 requiring a 14-
day notice of eviction, effective Jan. 1, 2024. In response to this legislation, at the Oct. 23, 2023
city council study session staff recommended the city’s notice of eviction ordinance be
amended to align with the state’s new 14-day notice of eviction requirements. Staff also
recommended the notice be called a “pre-eviction notice” and that property owners/managers
be encouraged to use a city-prepared pre-eviction form in multiple languages. Several city
council members expressed interest in a 30-day notice and requiring use of the city-prepared
pre-eviction form. The council directed staff to engage in further outreach to gather input on
the potential impacts of both. Staff utilized the city’s website, social media platforms, the
SPARC (St. Louis Park Area Rental Coalition) group, and direct emails to conduct outreach and
garner feedback on the proposed amendments.
Staff collected comments provided through the survey, attorney recommendations, eviction
data from the Hennepin County eviction dashboard, as well as the State’s comprehensive
process leading to a 14-day notice period. Staff also consulted with the city attorney on changes
to the ordinance. This report summarizes the research and comments for council consideration.
Financial or budget considerations: Staff time to implement and monitor the ordinance.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion, eviction process, survey comments and advocate
comments
Prepared by: Marney Olson, housing supervisor
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager/deputy community development director
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
Discussion
Background: In March 2019, staff and the city council began a robust process to determine if
the City of St. Louis Park should enact an ordinance that would require landlords to provide a
notice to renters prior to initiating an eviction action for non-payment of rent or any unpaid
financial obligations in violations of the lease. Since the proposed ordinance was similar to a bill
presented for consideration during the 2020 state legislative session, the council deferred
further action on a local ordinance pending the outcome at the legislature. The 2020 legislature
did not act on the bill and the local ordinance was reintroduced for council consideration at the
Sept. 29, 2020 city council study session. The city council directed staff to conduct a public
outreach process, stressing the importance of engaging renters and rental property owners for
their input before enacting an ordinance.
After the public process concluded, staff drafted an ordinance that incorporated input garnered
from renters, rental property owners/managers and community members. The city council
heard the first reading of the notice of eviction ordinance on November 2, 2020, and the
second reading on Nov. 16, 2020. The city council passed Ordinance 2600-20 requiring a seven-
day notice of eviction effective Feb. 1, 2021.
In 2023, the Minnesota State Legislature enacted MN State Statute 504B.321 requiring a 14-day
notice of eviction, effective Jan. 1, 2024, which necessitates city ordinance updates. Prior to the
Oct. 23, 2023 city council study session, city staff and several city council members met with
both the St. Louis Park Eviction Prevention Team, an informal, grass roots community group
that has been working with St. Louis Park residents facing eviction, and the Minnesota Multi
Housing Association (MHA), an organization that represents multifamily housing property
owners and managers to discuss changes to the current policy.
At the October council meeting staff recommended that the city’s notice of eviction ordinance
align with the state’s new 14-day notice of eviction requirements to provide consistency for
renters and rental property owners throughout the state. Staff also recommended that the
notice be called a “pre-eviction notice” and that property owners/managers be encouraged to
use a city-prepared pre-eviction form in multiple languages. At the meeting, several city council
members expressed interest in a 30-day notice and requiring use of a city prepared pre-eviction
form. The city council directed staff to engage in further outreach and research and present
those findings to the city council.
Present considerations: Staff solicited feedback from a variety of stakeholders, conducted
research on the impact of extended pre-eviction notice periods on eviction rates in the metro
area, asked emergency rental assistance providers for information regarding the time it takes to
access funds through their programs, and sought legal advice of the city attorney regarding the
potential ordinance changes. This report summarizes the subsequent research, stakeholder
feedback and staff’s recommendations.
Stakeholder feedback: Staff utilized the city’s website, social media platforms, St. Louis Park
Area Rental Coalition (SPARC), and direct emails, including emails to the eviction prevention
team, MHA, STEP and HOME Line. The comment period was open from Feb. 6 to Mar. 6, 2024.
Respondents were asked to identify as a renter, rental property owner/manager, advocate,
community member or other. This was a similar outreach effort as the 2019 process.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
Survey respondents were asked to comment on the following two additional requirements to
the state statute:
1. Requiring property owners/managers to use the city’s pre-eviction form to provide
written notice to residential renter(s) before filing an eviction action.
2. Increasing the notice of eviction period from the state-mandated 14-day notice to a 30-
day notice.
Most renters and advocates favored the use of a city-provided pre-eviction form. Property
owners had mixed responses and questioned the necessity and flexibility of such a form. The
city attorney has advised the city not to require a city-prepared form applicable only to St. Louis
Park.
Regarding the notice period, the majority of renters and housing advocates supported
extending it to 30 days to allow more time for rent payment. Most property owners/managers
opposed the extension due to financial burdens to them and potential negative impacts on
residents and housing market dynamics.
MHA expressed a desire for consistency with state statute. The Eviction Prevention Team is
advocating for a 30-day notice and the creation of a city template.
In addition to seeking input from renters, rental property owners/managers, advocates and
community members, staff also requested the opinion of the city attorney relating to these
possible additional requirements.
The city attorney stated that the city has the authority to impose additional requirements
regarding evictions and codify those requirements in the city code. However, while a city can
require landlords to utilize a city prepared notice, there is a concern about creating confusion.
In addition to the city notice, landlords are required to satisfy notice requirements contained in
the lease, state statutes and possibly federal requirements. The various notices are legal
documents that are technical in nature and there isn’t a tailored notice that can be created. The
city’s notice will not replace the other required notices and will likely be another layer of
documents for the tenant to sort through and try to figure out.
An example of multiple legal requirements that could be confusing is that the state law requires
that the notice include the following language, “Your landlord can file an eviction case if you do
not pay the total amount due or move out within 14 days from the date of this notice. Some
local governments may have an eviction notice period longer than 14 days,” even if a city has
adopted a notice period longer than 14-days. The form would have to include the above
statement and a statement noting the city’s notice period, which can be confusing to a tenant.
Summary of comments received Feb. 6 – Mar. 6
The following is a high-level summary of comments received from Feb. 6 – Mar. 6. All individual
responses received are attached at the end of the report. All rental property owners/manager
responses are grouped together. In the survey, rental property owners/managers were
categorized into multifamily and single-family/condo/duplex property owners/managers.
Multifamily property owners/managers were also asked if they provide affordable housing,
NOAH, market rate, or mixed income housing. Individual responses are sorted by property type.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
Policy question 1: requiring use of pre-eviction form
Renter respondents: Nearly all of the renters, advocates and community members that
responded to the survey were in favor of requiring a city provided pre-eviction form.
Property owner/manager respondents: Rental property owners and managers had mixed
responses to this policy question. Some were in favor of the policy; however, others felt the
notice form was unnecessary because State Statute and city ordinance list all the requirements
that are needed in the notice. They also noted that no single form would cover all the legal
requirements of the State, city and property owner resulting in the need to provide the tenant
with multiple notices. Many property owner comments wanted the flexibility to modify the
template, expressing that any written notice that includes all required language should be
accepted.
Policy question 2: increasing notice of eviction period from 14 to 30 days
Renter respondents: Most renter respondents favor increasing the notice period to 30 days
from the state required 14 days. Some respondents felt 30 days was not long enough. The
primary reason stated in supporting the increase to 30 days was that it would allow more time
to gather funds required to pay outstanding rent.
Property owner/manager respondents: Most respondents across all types of property
owners/managers opposed an increase in the notice period to 30 days, including affordable
housing providers. The reasons stated for opposing an increase to 30 days included:
• Property owners/managers stated that filing an eviction and going to housing court are
a last resort. They noted it is an expensive and time-consuming process for both the
landlord and tenant. Most landlords stated working with tenants to resolve issues
without going to housing court. It was expressed that they feel a 30-day notice may limit
flexibility to address nonpayment situations without going to court.
• Property owners stated they feel a 30-day period is excessive and will create the risk to
the owner of losing two-months’ rent or more which would be a financial burden.
Owners noted they rely on timely rent payments and have financial responsibilities such
as mortgage payments, utilities, taxes, insurance rates and other financial obligations.
Small business owners expressed greater concerns about financial hardship.
• The property owners feel increasing the notice period to 30 days would have damaging
effects on both residents and owners, stating that residents who fall behind 30 or more
days of rent have less chance of catching up and restoring their current housing
situation. This results in the landlord having an increase in delinquent rent payments
and the tenant’s future housing being impacted by incurring high balances owed to a
previous landlord.
• A number of unintended consequences were presented, including landlords may require
higher security deposits, enforce stricter screening criteria, may pass on increased cost
of doing business to tenants in the form of higher rent, and may cause reduced
developer interest.
• Property owners noted the 14-day notice passed by the Legislature doubled the time
period previously enacted in St. Louis Park and should be given some time to evaluate
its effect on the city's housing market before considering a notice period longer than 14-
days.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
• Many respondents stated that they have years of experience in the business and have
experience working with tenants and noted that tenants who are able to pay rent do so.
They noted a 30-day notice adds to the amount of rent due which makes it harder to
pay.
• Respondents that indicated they have rental properties in Brooklyn Center stated that
the 30-day notice there has not made it easier for residents to catch up on rent as the
longer period increases the amount of rent they owe. These property owners/managers
stated that they have also found the 30-day notice has resulted in some residents
continually staying 30-days late on paying rent and if an eviction is the end result, the
resident’s balance is still owed and collection continues for years. Noting that even if
there is an eviction expungement, the outstanding debt makes it harder for the resident
to find future housing.
Housing advocates: In general, advocates supported an increase to 30 days. They noted the
importance of the tenants having time to find housing alternatives, arrange for school transfers,
or utilize resources to keep their housing.
Members of the St. Louis Park Community Housing Team also submitted an email to the city
council and staff the evening of Mar. 18. The email contained several advocacy letters of
support for requiring a 30-day notice to tenants before a landlord can file an eviction and
requiring a template created by the city to be used as the pre-eviction notice. The documents
are attached at the end of the report following the survey responses. Staff reviewed these
documents, but due to the timing of the submittal they have not been fully evaluated as of the
writing of this report. Specifically, the community housing team indicated there were 233
evictions from June through February. The source of this data is not referenced and is
inconsistent with the data on the Hennepin County Eviction Dashboard. The Hennepin County
Eviction Dashboard shows 89 evictions in St. Louis Park in calendar year 2023.
Community members and other respondents: offered a mixed response to requiring a 30-day
notice.
Emergency rental assistance:
St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) and Hennepin County provide emergency rental
assistance to St. Louis Park residents that meet certain criteria. STEP and Hennepin County’s
ability to provide emergency assistance or a guarantee to eligible renters within 14 days is
contingent upon timely receipt of supporting documents required to evaluate a request.
The City of St. Louis Park has partnered with STEP for many years, providing funding for the
emergency rental assistance program. STEP is a valuable resource for both St. Louis Park
residents and non-residents. STEP provides rent assistance to residents who have an
unexpected crisis and cannot pay their rent. In order to provide rental assistance, the
emergency event must be resolvable with the tenant’s ability to pay next month’s rent.
Documentation is requested at the time of application. Rent assistance is limited to one
month’s rent. Priority is given to those with gross incomes at or below 50% area median
income.
STEP staff shared that they respond to rent requests very quickly; generally responding the
same day or within one business day. Once STEP receives a fully completed application with all
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 6
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
supporting documents that are needed for rental assistance, they are able to make a
determination in less than 14 days. Once a request is approved, STEP sends the landlord a
guarantee letter the same day or next business day. Checks are generally sent out within one to
three business days directly to the landlord/property owner.
STEP indicated the most time-consuming parts of processing rental assistance requests are the
conversations to initially screen for eligibility, clients fully completing the application, and
clients providing necessary documentation that often needs to be acquired from third parties.
These documents include items such as multiple paystubs, bank statements, and bills.
Sometimes STEP needs to request additional documentation after the tenant has submitted
their application, which often delays the process.
Hennepin County emergency assistance (EA) and emergency general assistance (EGA) will
provide up to two months of rental assistance and up to $372 in court costs. EGA has a limit on
past due rent of $2,000, EA does not have a maximum dollar amount. Emergency assistance
staff stated there are times when a determination is made within 14 days and other times it
takes longer. The length of time to determine if someone is eligible is largely dependent on how
quickly information is gathered by the tenant. If it is determined that a client is eligible,
Hennepin County can issue a guarantee the same day. A “threat to evict”, which would include
a pre-eviction notice, is one of the eligibility requirements. If the tenant authorizes them to
contact the landlord, Hennepin County will notify the landlord that the tenant has applied for
emergency assistance. Applicants must be at or below 200% of the federal poverty limit and the
emergency situation must be resolvable to be eligible for the programs described above.
Minnesota state statute 504.B.291 states “redemption may be made with a written guarantee
from (1) a federal agency, state agency, or local unit of government, or (2) any other
organization that qualifies for tax-exempt status under United States Code, title 26, section
501(c)(3), and that administers a government rental assistance program, has sufficient funds
available, and guarantees funds will be provided to the landlord.” If the county has approved
assistance the county will provide a guarantee of payment to forestall the eviction process.
Hennepin County has multiple programs that can provide rental assistance. Depending on
eligibility a renter may go through something other than emergency assistance. Hennepin
County offers financial services at eviction court for eligible applicants, which includes a
program that is funded through the metro area sales tax and issued through the Rent Help
Hennepin System that residents are only eligible for if they have a court date. The Rent Help
Hennepin System will issue up to $7,000 in assistance for eligible applicants.
Eviction rate data analysis: Brooklyn Center is the only city in the state that has adopted a 30-
day notice of eviction ordinance to date. Brooklyn Center adopted its 30-day pre-eviction notice
in April 2022. Hennepin County eviction rates have been lower in St. Louis Park than in Brooklyn
Center in both 2022 and 2023. However, it is challenging to determine the direct impact of
notice periods on eviction rates due to several factors. It is also difficult to predict how the
impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and recent legislative changes will impact future eviction
rates.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 7
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
The following data is from the Hennepin County eviction dashboard. Hennepin County eviction
dashboard data shows the number of filings, evictions, filing rate and eviction rate by zip code.
55426 and 55416 are the two zip codes that primarily cover St. Louis Park, although they do
extend into other neighboring communities including Golden Valley, Minneapolis and Edina.
Below is a comparison of eviction data in 2022 and 2023 in St. Louis Park and Brooklyn Center,
which adopted a 30-day eviction notice in April 2022. 55429 and 55430 are the two zip codes
that primarily cover Brooklyn Center, but also include some neighboring communities such as
Brooklyn Park in these zip codes.
Beginning on June 1, 2022, all tenant protections from Minnesota’s COVID-19 related eviction
moratorium phaseout law expired. Because of the eviction moratorium and the limited time
that a 30-day eviction notice has been in place in Brooklyn Center, it is difficult to determine
whether a 30-day notice has had a significant impact on eviction filings. In 2023, the St. Louis
Park filing and eviction rates were lower than that of Brooklyn Center during which time St.
Louis Park had a seven-day notice and Brooklyn Center had a 30-day notice. In all zip codes, the
filing and eviction rates were higher in 2023 than 2022.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 8
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
The eviction data presented below was taken from the Hennepin County eviction dashboard
Mar. 20, 2024 for all evictions, not just non-payment of rent. The eviction rate in both St. Louis
Park zip codes was below 1% in 2022 and 2023.
Year Zip code City Filings Evictions Filing
Rate
Eviction
Rate
Ratio Rental
Units
2023 55416 St. Louis Park 138 49 1.6% 0.6% 0.36 8569
2022 55416 St. Louis Park 114 25 1.3% 0.3% 0.22 8569
2023 55426 St. Louis Park 105 40 2.5% 0.9% 0.38 4266
2022 55426 St. Louis Park 103 31 2.4% 0.7% 0.30 4266
2023 55429 Brooklyn
Center
273 131 5.9% 2.8% 0.48 4660
2022 55429 Brooklyn
Center
202 95 4.3% 2.0% 0.47 4660
2023 55430 Brooklyn
Center
179 86 6.2% 3.0% 0.48 2881
2022 55430 Brooklyn
Center
97 35 3.4% 1.2% 0.36 2881
Filing rate chart: This chart depicts the filing rate in 2022 and 2023 for the two St. Louis Park
(SLP) zip codes and two Brooklyn Center (BC) zip codes.
1.30%
2.40%
4.30%
3.40%
1.60%
2.50%
5.90%6.20%
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
SLP 55416 SLP 55426 BC 55429 BC 55430
Filing rate
2022 2023
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 9
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
Eviction rate chart: This chart depicts the eviction rate in 2022 and 2023 for the two St. Louis
Park (SLP) zip codes two Brooklyn Center (BC) zip codes.
Policy : The following is a summary of the feedback, research, legislative changes, and housing
market dynamics listed as pros and cons of requiring a city-provided form and a 30-day notice:
Requiring a city provided pre-eviction notice form
Pros Cons
All St. Louis Park renters receive the
same notice and provide clear, concise
language
The city attorney has concerns about preparing a notice form to
be used
Availability of the notice in multiple
languages
Some programs or funding sources require specific language or
an entirely separate notice, resulting in multiple notices being
sent to the tenant which could cause confusion
All notices would have the same notice
title with an intention of making the
purpose of the notice clear
The city-provided notice cannot include all lease provisions that
landlords want included in a notice which could result in multiple
notices being sent, adding to tenant confusion
0.30%
0.70%
2.00%
1.20%
0.60%
0.90%
2.80%3.00%
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
SLP 55416 SLP 55426 BC 55429 BC 55430
Eviction rate
2022 2023
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 10
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
Requiring 30-days notice
Pros Cons
30 days gives renters more time to
secure funds to pay outstanding rent
Property owners rely on timely rent payments to pay mortgage,
utilities, taxes, insurance and other financial obligations. Small
business owners are especially concerned about financial hardship. A
30-day notice creates the risk of the owner losing two or more
months of rent.
30 days allows the tenant more time to
gather required documents for rental
assistance and would provide more
time for a determination for
emergency rental assistance
Residents who fall behind 30 or more days on rent have less chance
of catching up and restoring their current housing situation. The
tenant’s future housing may be impacted by incurring high balances
owed to a previous landlord.
For tenants unable to pay within 30
days or unable to qualify for
emergency rental assistance, this gives
more time to find alternate housing
Most landlords work with tenants to resolve issues without going to
housing court. A 30-day notice may limit flexibility to address
nonpayment situations without going to court.
30 days would provide more time to
resolve non-payment to reduce
number of evictions filed
Could result in unintended consequences such as requiring higher
security deposits, stricter screening criteria, increased cost of doing
business passed on to tenants in the form of higher rent, reduced
developer interest.
The 14-day notice passed by the legislature effective January 1, 2024
doubled the time period previously enacted by the city council. There
has not been time to evaluate the effectiveness of the 14-day notice
period in St. Louis Park.
Tenants that are not eligible or able to obtain rental assistance will
now owe two months' rent.
Next steps: Next steps will be determined based on city council feedback and direction.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 11
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
Eviction process from Minnesota Attorney General website
Eviction Procedures (https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Consumer/Handbooks/LT/CH4.asp)
There are several steps both landlords and tenants must take in an Eviction Action:
1. The landlord must file a complaint against the tenant in district court. At least seven
days before the court date the landlord must have someone else serve the tenant
with a summons ordering the tenant to appear in court. [Minn. Stat. § 504B.321
(2023); Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.02.]
2. A court hearing must take place within seven to 14 days after the court issues the
summons. At the hearing, both the tenant and the landlord will be asked to give
their sides of the story. [Minn. Stat. § 504B.321 (2023).]
3. The judge will then deliver a decision. If the judge decides the tenant has no legal
reason for refusing to leave or pay the rent, the judge will order the tenant to vacate
the rental unit. If necessary, the judge will order a law enforcement officer to force
the tenant out. If the tenant can show immediate eviction will cause substantial
hardship, the court shall allow the tenant a reasonable period of time (up to one
week) in which to move. A tenant may not seek or receive a delay based on hardship
if the tenant is causing a nuisance or seriously endangering the safety of other
residents, their property, or the landlord’s property. [Minn. Stat. § 504B.345 (2023).]
If the Eviction Action has been brought only because the tenant owes rent, and the landlord
wins, the tenant can still “pay and stay.” To pay and stay, the tenant must pay the rent that is
past due (in arrears), plus interest (if charged), plus a $5.00 attorney fee if an attorney
represented the landlord, and finally, any “costs of the action.” Costs of the action includes the
filing fee (now about $325) plus the process server fee, plus witness fees if one was called
(subpoenaed) for trial; costs do not include other legal or similar fees for handling/processing
the case as those are capped at $5. [Minn. Stat. § 504B.291, subd. 1(a) (2023).]
If legal action is taken because the tenant owes rent, it is a defense for the tenant to produce a
copy or copies of one or more money orders or original receipts for the purchase of money
orders if the documents:
1. total the amount of the rent,
2. include a date or dates corresponding with the date rent was due; and
3. in the case of copies of money orders, are made payable to the landlord.
The landlord can argue against this defense by producing a business record that shows that the
tenant has not paid the rent.
The court may give the tenant up to a week to pay the court costs. If a tenant has paid the
landlord or the court the amount of rent owed, but is unable to pay the interest, costs and
attorney’s fees, the court may permit the tenant to pay these amounts during the time period
the court delays issuing an eviction order (Writ of Recovery). [Minn. Stat. § 504B.291, subd. 1(b)
(2023).]
If the Eviction Action has been brought because the tenant has withheld the rent due to
disrepair, the judge may order the tenant to deposit the rent with the court. If the tenant wins,
the judge may order that the rent be reduced (abated), in part or completely.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 12
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
To be clear: only a law enforcement officer can physically evict a tenant. The landlord cannot. A
Writ of Recovery —which is issued at the time the decision is handed down—must be provided
at least 24 hours before the actual eviction. The law enforcement officer can show up to
perform the eviction any time after the 24 hours have expired. [Minn. Stat. § 504B.365, subd. 1
(2023).]
A landlord does not obtain a judgment for unpaid rent in an Eviction Action. To obtain a
judgment for unpaid rent, a landlord must bring a separate action in conciliation court or
district court.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 13
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
Comments received between February 6 and March 6, 2024
Comments below are copied directly from the survey responses. No edits have been made.
Responses are broken down in the following categories: renters, rental property
owners/managers, advocates, community members and others. Rental property
owners/managers are further broken down into three categories: 1) multifamily properties with
affordable/NOAH/mixed-income units, 2) multifamily market rate and 3) single
family/condo/townhome/duplex
Renters
Policy addition #1: Requiring property owners/managers to use the city’s pre-eviction form to
provide written notice to residential renter(s) before filing an eviction action.
I think this would be a great addition and beneficial
Absolutely. Time is of the essence at this point
Not seeing the form I’ll just offer that the form be a fillable pdf that all landlord can use. The method
and time of delivery needs to be clear in the ordinance. I’m please to see a 30-day notice under
consideration. Finding other housing and moving help can take some time. Obtaining resources to
ameliorate the debt and stop the eviction action can really take time considering how much rent are
in the city.
I think property owners and people with power need to do everything in their power to help renters
avoid unwanted evictions
This seems fine, as long as it does not extend the eviction process. People willfully not paying rent
cost all renters money by driving up the costs.
My landlord in the last 2 years started charging us for water/heat/sewage and how we pay has
already changed twice with little notice. I could easily see this as preventing a landlord from evicting
someone who is behind simply because the rules change faster than they can keep up.
I like this. It seems that more houses in saint Louis park are being bought by rental companies. This
policy would ensure that all property owners are on the same page when renting their homes out.
NA
I think this is a good idea. Otherwise I am worried that the notices will not provide the information
that I need. It is hard to know what the next steps are if you do not have good information.
I think this is a good idea! This ensures that the language is clear and consistent and can offer support
site information.
Agreed.
Agree
This is not enough time
ok
"Pre-eviction" is a term that has a lot of force. It will get the tenant's notice PDQ.
yes, this would provide consistency
I think this would be a good policy change and be beneficial to renters.
Especially with the economy not being to kind lately and impacting many people. Landlords/rental
companies should keep that in mind and be considerate to the renters who are in communication,
have made some sort of effort to pay or try to make a payment plan.
Why??? The tenant has a responsibility to be aware
Agree, the format should be available in multiple languages.
I think this is a fantastic idea to ensure compliance with the law and consistency in paperwork.
I think it's a great idea so have time if need to vacate
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 14
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
I think this is good it would help renters know that it's an official process and not an illegal action
The number one goal of this policy should be to prevent homelessness and support family and
household preservation, and to protect vulnerable residents from being criminalized and penalized
for poverty. I've outlined a suggested process below that provides time and support to struggling
renters. Renters will need ample time to collect bi-weekly paychecks or find additional income or
financial support before being evicted. 1) A "notice of late payment" should be provided to the
residential renters not more than 10 days after the date of delinquent or unpaid rent in written,
verbal, and electronic form, if renter phone and email are available. Any references or emergency
contacts listed on the rental form or lease should also be contacted. 2) If delinquent or unpaid rent
remains, a "pre-eviction notice" using the city's pre-eviction form should be provided 30 days after
the date of the late payment notice in written, verbal, and electronic form, if renter phone and email
are available . Any references or emergency contacts listed on the rental form or lease should also be
contacted. This notice should also be provided to financial/social service providers who should
contact the residential renters to assess for financial or social service needs and connections to
resources to prevent homelessness and support family and household preservation. 3) If renter, or
someone on the renter's behalf, make a good faith effort to pay at least 10% of the delinquent or
unpaid rent within 30 days of the pre-eviction notice, then there will not be a "notice of eviction" and
the renters will be allowed an additional 30 days to pay in full.
Agree
Yes because sometimes the renter thinks their payment went through and the computer glitches out
when really their payment didn’t work
Yes. This form should include things that renters can do to resolve the eviction and resources. Legal
resources as well as financial resources or ways to resolve common issues and stay in your home
Policy addition #2: Increasing the notice of eviction period from the state-mandated 14-day
notice to a 30-day notice. If the alleged material breach of the lease (rent delinquency or
other unpaid financial obligations) is not corrected within 30 days from the date of the notice,
the property owners/manager may proceed with filing an eviction action based on any
allegations in the notice.
I think 30 days is more of a reasonable time frame to tell someone they could be losing their home
Again . Time to make saving home or belongings possible. Why such a rush to give someone a life
changing eviction on their record and put on street.
As a retired bureau chief for social services in large cities in Virginia I can tell the council how helping
clients with an impending evictions stresses city and agenda funds and difficulty in getting friends and
family to help. I’ve seen some mighty tearful people at wits end when their income cannot stretch to
cover all their basic needs. Put out / locked out by landlords and possession put on the street are
heart breaking events for the renter and others. Our caseworkers felt so defeated and helpless when
the timeframes ran out. 30 days notice before an eviction action may help some renters resolve the
debt or find other safe housing.
30 days would give renters more time to gather funds required to pay the delinquent debt. I do think
rules should be different for small, private landlords from what they are for big corporate landlords. A
small landlord may not be able to afford the missed rent for that long.
14 Day notice seems completely fine, most landlords will work with good tenants, it is the bad actors
purposely abusing the system that ruin it for everyone. 30 days is too long.
14 days feels like bare minimum. I have to give 2 months notice to move out so they can line up
another renter. I can't imagine the stress of trying to find a place and fully move in 2 weeks- especially
if you're leaving due to lack of funds.
I really like this. With the high prices of rentals and houses for sale, the more time for people who are
struggling financially will be good for them. My boyfriend and I have been renting in SLP for 3 years
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 15
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
and we love this city. We wish we would be able to buy a house here but the prices of houses for sale
is costly compared to the square foot you get. Many rental companies don’t offer a rent to buy or
even entertain the idea of selling either. I think in the 10 years most houses in SLP will only be rentals,
so good to get ahead of creating policy's that help the renters.
This sounds like a good idea
Have been served 30days Eviction Notice
I think adding more time is because it takes a long time to get money together. Government programs
are slow and by the time the money gets here it is too late to avoid an eviction. Does this also include
rule violations or is it also about money? Rule violations sometimes take a while as well.
I support the policy that provides the renter with the most time to take corrective action. People fall
on hard times and we should do as much as we can to support our neighbors
I don't know enough about how quickly people could find another place to live, what the backlog is,
etc. to comment on this one.
Agreed.
Agree
This is best
ok
I agree. 30 days is good/ plenty.
14 days doesn’t seem like nearly enough time for a person to come up with the finances. banks would
take more than 2 weeks to foreclose on someone who hasn’t paid their mortgage, renters should be
afforded that same luxury.
I’m indifferent between the new 14 and proposed 30 day policy.
30 days is fair.. life is unpredictable and sometimes emergency financial payments sometimes make
you pick between rent or whatever your personal emergency is (car issues, credit card debt, school,
medical etc)
Why?? The tenant should have responsibilities as well
Stick with the state requirement, there is already backlash from that.
I am always in favor of protecting renters and their rights to living quarters.
Same as above gives the person the time to correct it or vacate
I like this Im not sure it's necessary but it could but a very good measure to help renters that are
struggling
4) If delinquent or unpaid rent remains and no good faith effort is made to pay at least 10% of the
delinquent or unpaid rent within 30 days of the "pre-eviction notice", a "notice of eviction" should be
provided 30 days after the date of the "pre-eviction" notice in written, verbal, and electronic form if
renter phone and email are available. Any references or emergency contacts listed on the rental form
or lease should also be contacted. This period should be increased to 60 days for any property in
which children and/or pregnant people are residing. This notice should also be provided to
financial/social service providers who should contact the residential renters to assess for financial or
social service needs and connections to resources to prevent homelessness and support family and
household preservation.
Agree
Because if someone starts a new job it takes that long to receive a check from the new employer
A lot of the resources I am aware of can take up to 30 days, such as emergency assistance. I would
support 30-days, but I think 45 would actually be a lot better
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 16
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
Rental property owner/manager – multifamily properties with affordable,
mixed-income and NOAH units
Policy addition #1: Requiring property owners/managers to use the city’s pre-eviction form to
provide written notice to residential renter(s) before filing an eviction action.
No. Quit telling me how to run my business. We have attorneys and legal representation that can
provide us the accurate documentation to comply with state laws.
If Bigos Management were required to do this, it would be our preference that we could incorporate
the language into our own document that has been reviewed by our legal counsel. As we would
assume the risk for mistakes made here, we would prefer some ability to determine if the form would
create any additional litigation risk due to the format.
No issue with this policy
I think this is great! Smart idea! It should be available in as many languages as possible and using
standard language so folks are clear on next steps and possible resources to help.
I think it should stay at the 7-days but this is ok.
See below
I have not reviewed this form but I do think I would object
I object to the policy addition #1. As an operator, we already have a standard set of forms that are in
compliance with state regulations, are court accepted and are produced by our operating software.
Any city form would need to be filled out manually and be administratively burdensome.
I appreciate this option as it provides a consistent and multi-lingual approach to providing this
information.
Our form works well, and we use it in every city. To add an additional form will create more of a work
for management.
It doesn't matter to me as long as I have the required language. Assurance that the wording is given
to all owners/ property managers.
The eviction process is controlled by the courts and should be left alone.
Policy addition #2: Increasing the notice of eviction period from the state-mandated 14-day notice to a
30-day notice. If the alleged material breach of the lease (rent delinquency or other unpaid financial
obligations) is not corrected within 30 days from the date of the notice, the property owners/manager
may proceed with filing an eviction action based on any allegations in the notice.
Contest to St. Louis Park 30 Day Notice of Intent to File based off of Brooklyn Center Experiences
To Whom It May Concern: Bader, formerly known as Steven Scott Management, has a long and
reputable history of managing market rate, affordable, and tax credit apartments in the Twin Cities.
Since 1965 when we owned just a few apartments as Z&S Management, we’ve been proud to serve
residents of all income levels, demographics and sizes. Headquartered right here in St. Louis Park, our
company has evolved and grown, and we currently manage roughly 12,000 apartments in the
Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area for our clients. Of those 12,000 apartments, 618 are in St. Louis Park.
We are asking that you seriously reconsider the potential changes to the city’s notice of eviction
policy, increasing the notice of eviction period from the state-mandated 14-day notice to a 30-day
notice due to its damaging effect on both residents and owners alike. Residents who fall behind by
30+ days in rent, have far less chance to catch up and restore their current housing situation. Further,
their future housing may be impacted by incurring higher balances owed that will follow them for
years. To demonstrate, we manage properties in Brooklyn Center as well, where they established a
30-day eviction notice period roughly 2 years ago. Below are some examples of why this has been a
poor policy decision for renters and residents alike: *Inflation of bad debt 2019-$15,893.55 2020-
$5,623.03 Eviction Moratorium In Place 2021-$43,452.43 2022-$73,510.38 Moratorium Lifted June
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 17
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
1st 2023-$106,939.83 *The 30-day notice period does not make it easier for the residents who have
fallen behind to get caught up. Essentially once an eviction is filed, the resident is now 2 months
behind in rent vs. a 14-day notice that would result in the eviction being filed in the same month as
rent is owed. With a 14-day notice, it is much easier, to get caught up on one month’s rent vs being
buried in two months’ rent. *After the 1st few months into the new 30-day eviction notice, residents
figured out the work around which was ‘as long as they are able to pay their rent within the 30 days
of the letter, we are required to send a new letter for the next months’ rent accumulated prior to
filing’. This sends us on a monthly chase with the same residents and is not assisting the resident with
getting caught up, but only staying behind essentially a month of rent at a time. *Once an eviction
court hearing has occurred, and a writ is issued, the resident now vacates with a higher balance owed
which in most cases ends up in collections. Even with a 3-year expungement, the balance is still owed
and collection actions continue. This makes it harder for the resident to find future housing. Our
company, and our industry, is well aware of the housing challenges facing cities across the state. We
are committed to the communities we serve as a Minnesota-based company. Consistency across the
state in different municipalities in terms of housing policies is extremely important for our industry to
best serve our customers. The 14-day notice passed by the Legislature essentially doubled the time
period previously enacted in St. Louis Park and ought to be given some time to evaluate its effect on
our housing market. Going well beyond this statewide standard is foolhardy and will lead to problems
in our local market that will be regrettable in the future. We urge the city council to reject this
onerous policy and comply with the new state law which just went into effect earlier this year.
Sincerely, Jennifer Gordon Chief Operating Officer Bader
No. I fear this will have an upward impact on rents. If someone is not paying our business for services
rendered (i.e. safe housing) we have the right to find someone that will pay for services. 14 days is
already enough. The more my units are collecting $0 income from non-paying tenants the more I
have to increase rents to offset my costs. We are a very small owner, 31 units in your city. 100% of
our units would qualify for 4d taxes and affordability. I do not have thousands of dollars every year to
lose to people that don't pay. I deliberately keep my rents low but if someone isn't paying I need to
find a new tenant that will (while following state law) otherwise other tenants need to make up for
bad debt every year and I'll increase rents to do so.
St. Louis Park City Council Members, I am writing to express concerns regarding the proposed policy
amendments currently under consideration by the city council, specifically the extension of the
mandated notice period from 14 to 30 days in St. Louis Park. As representatives of Bigos
Management, responsible for overseeing seven multi-family communities in St. Louis Park with an
additional property set to launch in late summer 2024, we collectively provide approximately 1631
homes in this community, five of the seven properties participate in the affordable housing programs
IHP and 4D. Bigos Management has consistently prioritized collaborative resolutions with our
residents, reserving housing court as a last resort. The proposed extension of the notice period to 30
days threatens to limit the flexibility we require to address nonpayment situations effectively,
potentially leading to the removal of grace periods and enforcing stricter rent payment deadlines by
the first of each month. This may, in turn, necessitate the initiation of eviction proceedings
immediately after the 30-day period. Our primary goal is to mitigate the necessity of eviction filings,
recognizing the financial burden they impose on both tenants and landlords, as well as the adverse
effects on residents' rental histories. In 2023, we filed 17 eviction proceedings in St. Louis Park,
contributing to a noteworthy surge in delinquent debts. The extended notice period, coupled with the
protracted duration it takes for housing court to adjudicate cases and the additional weeks required
for the court to restore possession to the landlord, has effectively doubled the timeline for evictions.
This, in turn, has resulted in residents and landlords accumulating substantially higher levels of debt
during this extended period. Extending the notice period to 30 days would only exacerbate these
issues, resulting in increased expenses for landlords and residents alike. Our experience indicates
that, in cases of financial emergencies, many residents can navigate available support options and
work with us to suspend eviction actions within the initial delinquency month. Residents who proceed
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 18
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
to housing court often face challenges in qualifying for assistance or do not attempt to secure aid, and
extending the notice period is unlikely to alter the outcome of their situations. As a Minnesota-based
company committed to the communities we serve, we understand the broader housing challenges
faced by cities across the state. We emphasize the importance of consistency in housing policies
across municipalities to best serve our customers. The 14-day notice period mandated by the
Legislature, though an adjustment for St. Louis Park, should be given time to evaluate its impact on
the local housing market before considering a further extension. We strongly urge the city council to
reconsider this proposed policy, aligning with the recently enacted state law. Adopting a 30-day
notice period would be ill-advised, potentially leading to regrettable consequences in our local
housing market. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jim Cramer Sr. Director of
Property Management/Bigos Management
Bader, formerly known as Steven Scott Management, has a long and reputable history of managing
market rate, affordable, and tax credit apartments in the Twin Cities. Since 1965 when we owned just
a few apartments as Z&S Management, we’ve been proud to serve residents of all income levels,
demographics and sizes. Headquartered right here in St. Louis Park, our company has evolved and
grown, and we currently manage roughly 12,000 apartments in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area
for our clients. Of those 12,000 apartments, 618 are in St. Louis Park. We are asking that you
seriously reconsider the potential changes to the city’s notice of eviction policy, increasing the notice
of eviction period from the state-mandated 14-day notice to a 30-day notice due to its damaging
effect on both residents and owners alike. Residents who fall behind by 30+ days in rent, have far less
chance to catch up and restore their current housing situation. Further, their future housing may be
impacted by incurring higher balances owed that will follow them for years. To demonstrate, we
manage properties in Brooklyn Center as well, where they established a 30-day eviction notice period
roughly 2 years ago. Below are some examples of why this has been a poor policy decision for renters
and residents alike: *Inflation of bad debt 2019-$15,893.55 2020-$5,623.03 Eviction Moratorium
In Place 2021-$43,452.43 2022-$73,510.38 Moratorium Lifted June 1st 2023-$106,939.83 *The
30-day notice period does not make it easier for the residents who have fallen behind to get caught
up. Essentially once an eviction is filed, the resident is now 2 months behind in rent vs. a 14-day
notice that would result in the eviction being filed in the same month as rent is owed. With a 14-day
notice, it is much easier, to get caught up on one month’s rent vs being buried in two months’ rent.
*After the 1st few months into the new 30-day eviction notice, residents figured out the work around
which was ‘as long as they are able to pay their rent within the 30 days of the letter, we are required
to send a new letter for the next months’ rent accumulated prior to filing’. This sends us on a monthly
chase with the same residents and is not assisting the resident with getting caught up, but only
staying behind essentially a month of rent at a time. *Once an eviction court hearing has occurred,
and a writ is issued, the resident now vacates with a higher balance owed which in most cases ends
up in collections. Even with a 3-year expungement, the balance is still owed and collection actions
continue. This makes it harder for the resident to find future housing. Our company, and our
industry, is well aware of the housing challenges facing cities across the state. We are committed to
the communities we serve as a Minnesota-based company. Consistency across the state in different
municipalities in terms of housing policies is extremely important for our industry to best serve our
customers. The 14-day notice passed by the Legislature essentially doubled the time period previously
enacted in St. Louis Park and ought to be given some time to evaluate its effect on our housing
market. Going well beyond this statewide standard is foolhardy and will lead to problems in our local
market that will be regrettable in the future. We urge the city council to reject this onerous policy
and comply with the new state law which just went into effect earlier this year.
By the time we get through the 14 day period and wait for a hearing date, and then get a sheriff writ,
and then the sheriff lock out we are talking numerous months of unpaid rent. We typically never
recover any of the unpaid rent. Where is the protection for property owners? We were hit HARD
during covid and had people living rent free for 2 years. Some were covered by RentHelp, but not all.
Also, the level of damages in these units is rarely ever covered, and adds to the overall costs and loss.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 19
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
In addition, often times when there is an eviction action in process for non-payment, there are other
lease violations going on. Violations that even if we do report them, it will not speed up the process.
Issues like smoking in the unit (which is often denied and hard to prove), noise complaints from
surrounding units, foot traffic in and out of the unit/building that is beyond normal visiting.
Extra notice makes it more difficult for the property owners/managers.
This is absolutely terrible for landlords AND renters. For landlords- it is already incredibly expensive to
go through the eviction process. I have personally spent over $3,000 on legal fees, there is over
$4,000 in unpaid rent, the tenant hasn't paid their utility bills repeatedly to the tune of thousands
that gets added to property taxes, AND is actively destroying the unit and we will have to completely
remodel everything when they move out (bare minimum $10,000 in damages). We have waived late
fees MANY times and tried so hard to work with this person before it got to the point of eviction, and
now have to pay even more money to post notice to leave, more money to have the sheriff come out
to remove, more money to store their things - and I can guarantee we won't see a dime from this
tenant. It does not help anyone when an already drawn-out process takes even longer. The tenant
continues racking up debt they don't intend to pay (otherwise it would never get to this point), but
that debt will absolutely be pursued in small claims and then affect their credit and ability to make
future purchases. The drawn-out process is stressful for ALL involved and believe me when I say that
no landlord I know pursues an eviction action without exhausting absolutely every alternate option
because we do NOT end up money ahead- the opposite is true, and it is a move made out of
desperation to get possession back so a terrible situation doesn't get worse. Each week that goes by
makes it worse, and incurs more expense (unpaid rent, unpaid utilities, damages). And for tenants -
why slow down something that by this point has already been going on for months? Courts typically
set up payment plans and draw it out even further. It is awful for neighboring tenants as well,
particularly in a multi-family unit. It ruins the experience for others, who are trying to have a positive
experience in what is an amazing city to raise a family and with fantastic schools. Instead, units are
filled with folks who aren't paying their bills instead of the next possible tenant who will, and will be
an asset to the city of St Louis Park, and appreciate the amazing resources it offers.
No, that is so difficult for property owners and creates a loss for them. We want to provide fair
housing and this is unfair to us. In todays market we could lose so much money if this happens.
Hi, I'm the CEO of Real Estate Equities. We just developed Arbor Court Apartments in St. Louis Park.
We are extremely grateful to be offering such a wonderful affordable property in your lovely
community of SLP. And we appreciate the support and relationship we've experienced with your city
staff and council members. I think the above 30 day notice idea is a bad idea if you want to attract
more developers to do more affordable housing in SLP. The various requirements imposed by the new
state law (14 day) are already onerous for property operators and are part of an overall pattern of
increasing burden and risk on the property owner/operator. In general, our company has been
avoiding developing affordable housing in City's that appear to have an adversarial stance towards
property owners and/or have elected to impose additional regulations on property owners, e.g. Mpls
and St. Paul. I'd be concerned that SLP could gain a negative reputation in the development
community if it adds to the already significant new 14 days notice rule. SLP is a great community
and the best answer to our overall affordable housing shortage is additional supply and helping
developers and operators to be successful. I hope this helps.
This creates a a hardship for landlords to affectively manage our buildings and provide needed
affordable housing in St Louis Park
I object to the policy addition #2. We are an affordable apartment operator in multiple cities, only
one other requires a 30-day notice. It does not work and results in greatly increased operating and
legal costs. It is administratively burdensome and only delays eviction. Most often, it results in
residents abusing the system by paying rent on the 30th day or going to eviction court and paying
then. These regulations will decrease the supply of new apartments and hurt renters in the end.
Given my experience last year with an eviction within Hennepin County, although not in Saint Louis
Park, and the extensions granted due to court failures, tenant communication failures, and delays due
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 20
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
to eviction case loads for the Sherriff's department, the 14-day notice requirement appears to be
more than adequate. Start to finish, following advice to provide a 14-day notice, the process to
remove the problematic tenants was costly, stressful, and time consuming. Not taking into account
that the tenants were found to have done >$10k in damages to the property in addition to owed rent.
As an independent landlord with limited support, managing a 30-day notice would require me to
provide that notice the day after rent is due in order to maintain a financially stable property. I should
note that profitability is currently entirely out of the question where tenants may have chronic rent
issues while not seeking help, communicating, or negotiating.
The current 14-day notice period provides the tenant a grace period to pay their rent or make a
payment plan with management. Most of the time, this leads to a quick resolution of the issue
without an eviction being filed. Our number of actual evictions is relatively low considering the
amount of units we have in St. Louis Park. A 30-day notice period would slow the process down, and
I don't believe that it would have a positive impact on the number of actual evictions. We try to work
with everyone to avoid eviction for non-payment of rent. It's been my experience that most of the
people who end up evicted from our units have reached a point where they had no intention of
paying their rent. It would not matter whether they had 14 days or 30 days, they were not going to
pay their rent. Landlords are just people, and the vast majority do not want to evict other people out
of their homes. Not only is it emotionally tough to do to another human being, it doesn't even make
any business sense. It costs money, creates more vacancy and turnover costs, and usually, the
delinquent rent is never collected. As an actual case point, we currently have a tenant in one of our
buildings in St. Louis Park who is delinquent on rent. She has told us multiple times that she would
pay the rent and then does not pay. Finally, on 2/7, we gave her the 14-day notice. She still did not
pay. Then on 2/23, we filed the eviction. Our court date is 3/13. Provided we win in court and she
still doesn't move out, it will take about two more weeks to get the Sheriff out to enforce the eviction.
If she leaves her belongings behind, we have to store them for another 28 days. And often, when we
get a unit back after an eviction, the unit is trashed and costs a lot of time and money to make rent
ready again. If all of these things happen (which happens quite often in full eviction cases), this unit
will lose revenue for 3+ months. The 14-day period keeps a good balance between tenant and
landlord by giving the tenant a grace period and allowing the landlord reasonable timeframe to obtain
their unit back. Please remember that the only way we can pay our bills is to have units rented with
the rent payments current. The longer our units sit without any income, the further behind we get.
We have no other source of income with which to pay our expenses. Thank you for your careful
consideration regarding this matter. Please feel free to contact me for any additional information.
It was my understanding that the state mandates supersedes cities. If it is 30 days it is 30 days.
During covid residents were allowed to avoid paying rent without any reason. Residents that took
advantage of that option found themselves deep in debt and requesting bailout funds from local and
Federal programs. This was especially severe in NOAH housing. Today they are having dificulty finding
apartments because of their nonpayment of rent to prior landlords. Allowing a 30 day stay on the
eviction hurts landlords and tenants as it allows tenants to get further into trouble. Most landlords
work with tenants that loose jobs or experience health problems. The 30 day notice will do more to
harm low income tenants because it will give them a unstatainable safety net and it will cause
landlords to raise their standards for new applicants. Why would a landlord want to accept tenants
that have a bad credit history. What can the city do to be proactive? It can develope a standarized
training program for tenants to teach them about timely payment of debt, saving money, budgeting
ad saving money for emergencies and buying homes. In summary the 30 day notice hurts the persons
it was intended to help. Further if the City is going to control the economics of the apartment industry
it might want to consider30 day delays for payment of wages, property taxes and all other contractual
obligations in the City.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 21
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
Multifamily market rate
Policy addition #1: Requiring property owners/managers to use the city’s pre-eviction form to
provide written notice to residential renter(s) before filing an eviction action.
I am in support of this
yes
This seems like an extra barrier to a landlord filing an eviction. We’re already required a letter from
my understanding. The process is cumbersome and no one from the county is there to help the
landlord figure it out. This is an extra unnecessary step that will only complicate the process further.
The 14 day is the law now why complicate it?
No, I have my own and it contains all the necessary information including rental assistance programs
offered through St Louis Park and the State of Mn.
It is always nice to have a form however, no form always covers all situations. I would recommend
providing a template for use to help make sure everyone has the same information. The template
should be able to be modified to reflect the situation.
Weidner property has their own and would like to stay uniform in that way.
In the 14 notice to quit, we spell out unpaid rent, late fee, who to pay rent to, where to call to find
money. Not sure what else we can give them
I think that this one isn't that important one way or another. Weather we use your form or ours all
the important information needs to be the same. If the city believes that enough pre-eviction notices
aren't containing the proper information then it makes since to switch.
I think it is unnecessary. I think a letter from the property management company is sufficent. I think
adding a form is just making it harder on landlords and property managers. One more hoop to jump
through.
I have no issue with this this policy addition
I feel the same way regarding both proposed policy change proposals - there is a current State of MN
process for eviction of tenants. If you add on a local policy it will be confusing and cause more
difficulties in an already difficult situation. In the real world, a tenant will have been given notice of
being behind on their rent and will have had more than 30 days to remedy the situation (most like at
least 30 days). It makes no sense to confuse the rules - for the tenant or the landlord.
One more cumbersome step for landlords who are being cheated, lied to, and taken advantage of. St.
Louis Park has become the enemy of responsible hard working citizens. My taxes on the property
have increased from $2400 to over $8000/year! Please don't spew the hypocrisy about "affordable
housing" as extreme taxation has been my greatest expense and will overtake the mortgage in about
1 to 2 years.
I do not agree. Pre-eviction should be between property owner and renter.
No issue with this policy
This seems pretty standard in many cities now. Sometimes this forms can be more cumbersome, so
they should be easy to work with.
Yes
Being consistent with the state makes the most sense.
Currently follow this practice.
No objection to using a standard form as long as the language is clear.
Policy addition #2: Increasing the notice of eviction period from the state-mandated 14-day notice to a
30-day notice. If the alleged material breach of the lease (rent delinquency or other unpaid financial
obligations) is not corrected within 30 days from the date of the notice, the property owners/manager
may proceed with filing an eviction action based on any allegations in the notice.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 22
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
This is unnecessary as renters are given plenty of notice with a 15 day notice (and often longer
depending on the situation with their landlord in previous communications). As a property owner
providing safe, affordable housing in St. Louis Park, this puts us at risk to loose multiple months of
rent by having to give 30 days from 15 days. It has been increasing more expensive to provide rentals
in the city of St. Louis Park with rising taxes and insurance that this will drive landlords to either have
to raise rent or not provide housing.
yes
If a landlord has already gotten to the point of evicting someone, it’s been a long time without pay.
The eviction process is also costly. To add two more weeks to it is another huge cost. The house needs
to be cleaned and repaired, which often takes another full month. By the end of the eviction process,
a landlord is out several thousand dollars. For us, we live in a duplex with renters on the other side.
We’re not rich people getting richer. We can’t afford those extra costs. 16 more days translates to
$2,000 more that we’re out. We do not have endless funds to keep shelling out, and the profit margin
is not big enough to make up for these costs.
not neededthe 14 day is enough. It is my feeling that a longer period will be harder on the residents
to find future housing having at least 3 months owed in back rent
No 1. Impact on Landlords: Longer notice periods can prolong the time it takes for landlords to
address lease violations or non-payment of rent, potentially leading to increased financial strain if
tenants are not fulfilling their obligations. 2.Property Management: Extended notice periods may
also complicate property management, as landlords may need to wait longer before taking action to
address issues such as non-payment or breaches of lease agreements. 3. Tenant Behavior: Longer
notice periods could enable tenants to take advantage of the situation by delaying payment or
compliance with lease terms. Being understanding and accommodating can foster positive
relationships and potentially prevent evictions. Here are some steps I take to assist struggling
tenants: Open Communication: I Encourage tenants to communicate with me early if they are
experiencing difficulties. I Create a welcoming environment where tenants feel comfortable
discussing their challenges without fear of immediate repercussions. (A 30 day eviction notices takes
this away from me. Takes away the "humanness") Flexible Payment Plans: I have offered flexible
payment plans to tenants who are struggling to pay rent on time. This could involve breaking down
payments into smaller, more manageable installments or temporarily adjusting the payment
schedule. (30 day eviction notices takes this away) Referral to Resources: I provide information
about local resources and assistance programs available to tenants who are facing financial hardship.
This could include government assistance programs, nonprofit organizations, or community-based
services that offer rental assistance or financial counseling. Temporary Solutions: Consider
temporary solutions, such as partial rent forgiveness or rent deferment, for tenants who are
experiencing short-term financial difficulties due to unforeseen circumstances like job loss or medical
emergencies. (30 day eviction notices take this away from me) A 30 day eviction notice is NOT the
answer it actually makes things worse for both. By taking a proactive and compassionate approach to
working with struggling tenants, I can help alleviate their financial burden while also maintaining a
positive landlord-tenant relationship. This approach ultimately lead to better outcomes for both
parties in the long run.
The 30-day notice for pre-eviction is not only burdensome but also poses significant challenges to
both landlords and tenants alike. Extending the notice period from 14 to 30 days exacerbates an
already lengthy and complex eviction process, leading to unintended consequences that ripple
through the housing market in St. Louis Park. First and foremost, the extended notice period directly
impacts landlords' ability to manage their properties efficiently. In cases of non-payment of rent,
landlords face the prospect of extended periods without rental income, which can have severe
financial implications. With the current 14-day notice period, landlords are already stretched thin,
navigating through the intricacies of housing court, which typically takes 30 to 45 days to resolve.
Doubling the notice period only prolongs this process, potentially leaving landlords in limbo for over
60 days before regaining possession of their property. The financial strain on landlords doesn't stop
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 23
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
there. The uncertainty surrounding extended eviction timelines necessitates budgeting for prolonged
periods of lost revenue. Landlords may find themselves forced to allocate resources for up to 90 days
of vacancy, factoring in not only the time it takes to evict a non-paying tenant but also the downtime
required to re-rent the property once possession is regained. This prolonged vacancy poses a
significant risk to landlords' financial stability and may deter investment in rental properties
altogether. Moreover, the implementation of a 30-day notice period could trigger a series of
unintended consequences that further exacerbate housing challenges in St. Louis Park. One such
consequence is the potential for landlords to tighten application criteria in an attempt to mitigate the
risks associated with longer eviction processes. Heightened scrutiny during the application process
could disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, making it even more difficult for individuals
and families to secure stable housing. Additionally, landlords may respond to extended eviction
timelines by imposing higher security deposits and increasing rental rates to offset the increased
financial risk. This, in turn, exacerbates housing affordability issues, making it increasingly challenging
for low and moderate-income residents to find suitable housing options within the community.
Furthermore, the prospect of extended eviction timelines and heightened financial risks may deter
developers from investing in affordable housing initiatives in St. Louis Park. The increased regulatory
burden associated with longer notice periods could disincentivize developers from undertaking
projects aimed at expanding the supply of affordable housing, further exacerbating existing housing
shortages and affordability challenges in the community. In conclusion, while the intent behind
extending the notice period for pre-eviction may be well-meaning, the potential consequences must
be carefully considered. Rather than addressing underlying issues within the housing system, such
measures risk exacerbating existing challenges and undermining efforts to promote housing stability
and affordability in St. Louis Park. Alternative solutions that balance the needs of both landlords and
tenants while addressing systemic issues within the housing market are necessary to achieve
meaningful and sustainable change.
To do so is allowing for them to basically continue to go in arrears on for another month causing a
spiral effect. Additionally, we would like to keep in step with our other Minnesota properties.
If we give them 14 day notice to quit, no money. Then file takes 2 weeks to get a court date. When
you get to court if they are trying to find money the court delays the trial to give the tenant time to
try and find money. So by that time we are into our second month with no rent, it is being made
harder and harder on the landlord. This is a big discussion. I hope more landlords are involved in the
decision makeing process.
I think that 14-days notice is enough time. The whole process is lengthy, time consuming, and
expensive. additionally 14-days is fair for the tenant/resident. 30 days doesn't help the resident or
anymore then 14 days and won't do anything to resolve the issue. It will end up increasing costs for
the owner, therefore increasing market rents.
I think this too is a bad idea. 14 day pre-eviction notice is enough. As a property manager I
communicate with all my residents that are not paying rent on time. Often with little to no response
in return. I think there should be more responsibilty for the resident to communicate their status on
how they plan or not plan to pay rent. It can't all fall on the shoulders of the property management
froup.
My opinion is this will result in an increase to our bad debt. Residents balances will grow beyond a
reasonable amount for them to pay off.
In my opinion it makes more sense to assist landlords in best practices for finding tenants who can
pay the stated rent (credit checks, background checks previous evictions) and bring back the
Drug/Crime addendum requirement. That was an effective deterrent to those issues as well as
eliminating potential problems with renters. See above for the same response to this policy change.
This policy weakens the position of hard working, responsible property owners and allows a greater
window for retaliatory vandalism. It is an unnecessary government over reach. It protects delinquent
tenants and is a shield from law and justice for those who do not comply with the agreed upon lease.
Will be a major victory for drug users, degenerate free loading tenants, and the criminal element.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 24
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
The state mandated 14 day notice already puts a property owner at risk for losing another full
month's rent (money I need to pay mortgage, bills and property taxes). Extending this to 30 days
means property owners will be at risk of losing a minimum of 2 months rent. If tenant ends up being
evicted, overdue rent typically does not get paid by tenant. I then need to pay for repairs and cleaning
to get my home ready for next tenant which puts me at risk of losing up to 3 months of rent. I am a
nurse and 3+ months of lost rent, not including unpaid rent from tenant prior to eviction is very costly
for me. I am opposed to extending beyond 14 days. Please take into consideration that 75% of
landlords are "mom & pop" property owners, we are the ones who pay property taxes, utilities,
garbage, city fee's for licenses NOT THE TENANTS. extending beyond 14 days is punishment to
property owners, our rights should be considered too.
30 day leeway is a little long, St. Louis Park should keep it at 14 days, staying along with the city new
law.
I work as much as i can with residents when they pay late. I dont believe threatening an eviction or
constantly bringing it up when someone pays late or has a smaller balance is beneficial. Managers
and residents need to do their best to work together to reduce any rent balance. I use eviction as a
last resort when a balance is not getting reduced. I do my best to get residents to reach out to
emergency assistance and other programs. Since housing courts can be 30 days out, pushing notice
periods back even further can cause more issues and financial strain on a property. Time, effort and
money should be going more into resources to make sure residents have resources in case of an
emergency.
No
No. This is completely unnecessary. Residents know when they have not paid rent. If you want
affordable housing, stop making it difficult for landlords to collect the rent that is owed them. Courts
get backed up and it creates a situation where renters accrue larger debts when several months are
then owed.
The past 7 Day, now the current 14 Day Notice has been an adequate amount of notice. A 30 Day
would cause further debt to accumulate, causing a larger issue for renters.
Disagree with this. This will automatically put residents at minimum two months behind on the rent-
the current month of default + after the waiting period the next months rent. This is not beneficial
policy to the resident nor the landlord. It's creating unnecessary financial burden for both.
As operators of multifamily housing, we strive to create a safe and welcoming environment for our
residents. Unfortunately, there are times when a resident/household does not follow community
guidelines and makes other residents uncomfortable in their own homes. In situations where this
behavior is a material breach of lease, we have the ability to evict. By increasing the eviction window
from 14 to 30 days, there is the potential for this unwelcome behavior to persist for a longer period of
time. It is unfair to the other residents in the building to have to accommodate unwelcome behavior
for an extended period of time in order to protect the offender. In addition, there are many families,
individuals, couples, etc currently looking for housing in St. Louis Park, which is in scarce supply. In
some situations, they may be living in substandard housing, crowding into smaller apartments homes,
or some other less than ideal living situation while they wait for better housing to become available.
By prolonging the eviction process, these groups will have to wait longer to obtain quality housing.
Again, this is a situation where the greater community is being adversely impacted in the name of
protecting lease violators.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 25
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
Rental property owner/manager – Single family/condo/townhome/duplex
Policy addition #1: Requiring property owners/managers to use the city’s pre-eviction form to
provide written notice to residential renter(s) before filing an eviction action.
No problem.
This is not needed. With the new MN statute which went into effect 01/01/2024 there are already
requirements from the state that are very thorough. Adding your own forms for only one city in the
state is confusing for property owners, managers and tenants.
Absolutely not. Our Minnesota State Law is the standard we should follow. State law also mandates
the wording that must be in the eviction letter. We can't have every city trying to rewrite state laws.
I don't generally have an objection to forms so long as they are balanced and impress the gravity of
situation to the tenant.
This proposal is simply an attempt to put a thumb on the scales of landlord tenant law by injecting the
tenant's rights activists into the eviction process as early as possible. Firstly the tenant knows they
haven't paid the rent or when they have violated their lease. Landlords and tenants actually
communicate with each other frequently and effectively, especially when the rent hasn't been paid
on time. It is not a secret that this proposed policy will be used to require an owner/manager to
deliver to the tenant, in advance of an eviction, a list of tenant rights and resources available to fight
(read how to contact activist advocates). The intent isn't to aid in effective communication between
landlords and tenants, but rather to force the landlord to deliver a manual to the tenant on how to
lawyer up at no cost. The city wants to give tenants and the activists as much time as possible to
connect and get prepped to fight or negotiate. Everyone knows this is simply a way to use the
landlord as the messenger on behalf of the advocates to hand a "know your rights" and "call a
tenant's right activist" information flyer imbedded in a notice of eviction. It is pure political favoritism
to the tenant's rights activists at the expense of property owners and managers' right to rely upon
and enforce their property rights as negotiated under the terms of legal residential leases.
Although I have not filed any evictions in the City, I do not advise on making the process more difficult
for property owners. Ultimately if there are too many rules and regulations, there will be less rentals
available in the City.
Any form of written notice should be sufficient in letting a tenant know they will be filing for eviction.
Requiring a form just adds more potential complications for the property manager.
That's fine.
I would support using a city authored form to notify renter(s) before filing an eviction action. I believe
consistency is important. There should be no doubt of the meaning and action required based on a
standard form that applies to everybody.
I think this is fine.
I like the idea of using a form to provide eviction, then it's consistent and legally we are doing it
correctly.
Disagree. We have enough government control over things. It is difficult to reach some governmental
units which would delay things even more.
It is hard to see what benefit this would provide. The State of Minnesota already provides for a 14 day
notice. Is additional notice really needed? Residents have already contractually agreed to pay and no
doubt know that they have not paid.
thats fine
No issue with city form
Agree
I am in favor of this change.
It would be good for rents to know of resources.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 26
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
Not in support. Because I'm involved in city matters, I would find this easy. However, many property
managers are not nearly as involved and would have no idea this is required. Prop mgrs could believe
they are acting correctly only to find out that they didn't use a specific form.
The pre eviction should be considered the lease the tenants signed. The lease (should) clearly state
the rules regarding late payment. How does this benefit the tenant long term? It tells them they can
be late and it’s okay.
This could cause additional administrative cost for my business resulting in increased future rent.
If it’s an easy to use form, I have no issue with this.
Why? Can you explain the reason for this and the benefit to tenants and owners? Our attorney-drawn
lease covers all of these situations. What is the goal, here?
This is a good idea since written notice is already required by the state.
I feel like any written notice should be allowed as long as the necessary info is included. City doesn't
need to mandate their form be used but could offered as a resource to landlords.
Keep in alignment with the Minnesota mandated 14-day notice, which would start 7 days after the
pre-eviction form.
There are already state rules that govern the eviction process. Adding addition city rules only makes
an already difficult process more cumbersome, and does not help the situation.
Need more info on what the forms will require before we can provide feedback in this ask.
Without details on what will need to be included in the pre-eviction form, it should not be approved
to force to use the form. The city needs to consider the rights of landlords and not just renters.
Owners of 1-2 properties do not have the time and finances to manage new requirements.
No problems.
Please stick with the requirements of the state and not add extra to this process.
I am good with this
I think this is fine as long as the City Attorney reviews the form to confirm that it complies with State
Law before the form is approved.
Policy addition #2: Increasing the notice of eviction period from the state-mandated 14-day notice to a
30-day notice. If the alleged material breach of the lease (rent delinquency or other unpaid financial
obligations) is not corrected within 30 days from the date of the notice, the property owners/manager
may proceed with filing an eviction action based on any allegations in the notice.
This proposed change is absolutely asinine. I am a proponent of affordable housing and currently rent
out both sides of a duplex between 30%ami and 60%ami. The 30 day notice puts an undue burden on
owners of the property. Having recently finished the eviction of the 30% ami unit we have absorbed
over 10000 of damages (unpaid rent, damages to the property, attorney fees, etc etc. I am not some
massive corporation who is faceless. I provide safe, updated, and affordable housing and in turn use
this to help my family. I have lived in my units. Rehabbed them myself, added to the tax base and
work ad a partner in the community. We take care of our residents and this is a slap in the face to
consider a 30 day eviction notice. I agree with many tenant protections but this is too arduous and
crosses a line from a balance at 14 days to ludicrous. To get to an actual eviction after the 30 days
notice, add another month or two afterwards to complete the process and you have some on
control of a unit damaging it, Not paying for it. Etc for 3 months. Please don't do this.
When a person gets a month behind on their rent, they very rarely are ever able to catch back up.
This leaves them always in arrears of financial obligations. Any smart minded business person is
simply going to non-renew their lease upon expiration due to the fact that they are always carrying a
large delinquency. For a person who is truly struggling financially there are many programs/agencies
who can help them get back on track. That is in the best interest of all parties involved. If a resident
moves out owing back dated rent they likely are going to owe money after the deposit is reconciled.
So either way that hardship will continue to haunt them after move out by denial of residency
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 27
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
elsewhere and collections agencies which affect the credit score. Pushing the issue down the road
isn't in the best interest of the tenant, resolve is. And again, Adding your own policies for only one city
in the state is confusing for property owners, managers and tenants.
Hell no! Even with a 14 day state mandated eviction notice...it is about 30 days before you actually go
to court. Tenants who are not paying use this to their advantage. Frankly they don't care if they pay
or not, until they try to find a new place to rent. Is the City of St. Louis Park going to reimburse owners
for their losses if you increase the notice? The letter mandated by the State also specifies where the
tenant could go for help with their rent. Most rental companies have posted in their buildings where
renters can go for state aid. It is not the apartment or rental home owners responsibility to absorb
the cost of unpaid rent by the tenants. Most tenants owe anywhere from 2-4 months rent, by the
time they get evicted.
The longer period is only prolongs the enviable. Having been a property manager for 20 years, if
tenant can pay they will. In hundreds of leases, the cure period has never been successful for me.
To extend the notice period by an additional 15-16 days, simply is the city of st louis park giving
additional "free" rent to each tenant that the owner/manager successfully evicts for non-payment of
rent. For evictions due to lease violations such as noise, or violating a neighbors lease rights, this
longer notice period forces the neighbors of the tenant being evicted to be further victimized before
the landlord can effectively act on their behalf.
This is ridiculous. I should allow someone to live in a house I own for free for 30 days, and at that
point officially start the eviction process? Do you think my bank will give me a free 30 days without
paying my mortgage? It sounds like this city council wants SLP to become more like Minneapolis.
What a joke.
Although I have not filed any evictions in the City, I do not advise on making the process more difficult
for property owners. Ultimately if there are too many rules and regulations, there will be less rentals
available in the City.
Increasing the length of notice required prior to filing eviction is unreasonable. Especially when
considering the delay between filing and the granted court date. Last year it our court date was 2
months after filing. The courts already state, the eviction is not granted if the tenant meets all
financial obligations prior to the hearing. Adding additional required notice just extends the financial
burden/hardship to property managers and could end up in less settlements due to this hardship.
No. Keep it at 14. Owners are squeezed on margins due to insurance increases and other
assessments. It should only be 14 days.
I believe 30 days is too long to allow for a correction and puts small volume landlords like myself at a
disadvantage. I would support remaining at the 14 day, state mandated period. I would not support
the 30 day notice.
I don't agree with this. Usually it takes a bit to get to this point and things probably haven't been
going well for a while and it just prolongs it. I think that is too long and 14 days is plenty. I'm guessing
the additional 16 days don't make a difference. If they can't pay in 14 days, they likely don't pay in 30
either and it just delays things. And then it is hard on the owner as far as collecting lost rent and
being able to repair it & clean it to show it and try to get it rented.
I think this should stay at 14 days vs 30 days. Moving from 7 day to 30 day is drastic. I think following
the state law at 14 days is a good middle ground. We just own 1 duplex and if it's a payment issue we
cannot afford to go that long without a tenant paying. If the eviction is for another reason we want to
get the tenant out sooner than later so hopefully they won't do as much damage.
Disagree. As a landlord, property manager, the owner already loses 2 months rent due to eviction.
Serve letter, wait for time period and then evict which takes about a month. This would cause them
to lose even more money.
Hard to see how additional notice benefits a resident. They will already be getting 14 days notice. All
of these notice provisions that delay an eviction or lease termination do not really benefit the
resident. The longer it goes on the higher the collection claim. During COVID, I had multiple residents
who extended their occupancy because of the impediments in the system. The result was both a
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 28
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
delay in eviction but also a vast increase in collection claims against them. Evictions that previously
would have resulted in collections of a few thousand dollars increased to collections of over $10,000.
Does the resident really benefit from a further delay?
I own rental property in minneapolis so I haven't used SLP's process, but I think that 30 days vs 14
makes me less likely to want to be lenient with tenants as the eviction process is already lengthy and
my rents barely cover the mortgage much less all the utilities and snow removal. If a tenant notifies
me in advance taht there will be a challenge paying I am open to helping, but I also need to protect
myself.
The process of eviction often takes some time, 2 weeks is sufficient notice. Once filed often takes
substantial time in court to complete. With this policy you're looking at 3-4 months of a tenant in a
property, with notice of eviction and unlikely compensation. This is a high risk period for further
damages and obviously heavy lost income. As a landlord who manages elsewhere, I will think long
and hard prior to purchasing and renting additional property in Saint Louis Park.
As an initial matter it is disappointing how the city presented this survey to the community. The City
selectively directed its community outreach related to the solicitation on the Notice of eviction policy
changes solely to renters. Specifically, it posted on Facebook, "Are you a renter in St. Louis Park? We
want to hear from you on changes to the St. Louis Park notice of eviction policy. Comments will be
accepted until March 6 at bit.ly/EvictionPolicySurvey." To truly gain an understanding of your
constituents' views I would encourage the City to actively seek comments from all community
members. As it relates to the notice period itself, City Counsel members suggested an increase from
14 to 30 days during the Oct. 23rd Study Session due to the following: (1) a Counsel Member's family
member having received two eviction notices in the last two months and the impact eviction can have
on obtaining subsequent housing; (2) 14 days did not provide enough time to utilize applications for
assistance or obtain legal aid; and (3) if someone can afford to own a property, perhaps they can
better afford to weather a loss. The 14 day notice period was enacted to address the unexpected
hardships individuals may face and permit renters to obtain assistance and legal help in the
unfortunate event they find themselves in such a hardship. The reasons suggest by members of the
City Counsel in favor of the 30 day period fail to demonstrate how the 14 day period is inadequate.
Rather, the State legislature and those in favor of the state bill recognized 14 days was in fact
adequate to meet these needs. The City Counsel must strike a balance between providing help to
those who cannot meet their rent obligations and the hardship that a homeowner faces when they do
not receive the rental income to pay their mortgage, property taxes and other expenses (which do
not have 30 day grace period for payment). The 14 days strikes this balance and more time should be
given to see the impact this new law has before the City considers extended the requirement. It is
an inaccurate and broad generalization to state that because "someone can afford to own a property,
perhaps they can better afford to weather a loss." Those someones the Counsel Member is referring
to in the statement, could be a family that needs that rental payment to put toward their mortgage
and other obligations.. it is a form of income that is relied upon to meet obligations, just as a renter's
income is relied upon to meet their obligations. If the true intent of the City Counsel is to provide
opportunities and resources for individuals to utilize applications for assistance or obtain legal aid,
then I encourage the City to evaluate options of how this information can proactively be provided to
renters, such as in the lease, rather than placing such hardship on homeowners by increasing the
notice period to 30 days. Not paying rent can result in an eviction and more difficulty in obtaining
housing. Yet, not receiving rental income for multiple months (which could be likely result if forced to
provide a 30 day notice period and proceed through the eviction proceedings in court) could result in
foreclosure. I strongly urge the City Counsel to consider the implications this has on all parties
involved.
This seems too long to me. As a property owner, I wouldn't serve this notice until the rent was at least
2-3 weeks past due and only if the tenant had no plans or ability to pay the rent. Waiting an additional
30 days past the eviction notice would mean not receiving rent for almost 2 months. If the notice is
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 29
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
changed to be a 30-day notice rather than a 14-day notice, it would incent property owners to serve
eviction notices more quickly after a non-payment of rent. The end result would likely be the same.
I am not in favor of this change. It is a potential hardship for single unit owners. I am supportive of the
14 day metric.
Evictions already take time and money increasing this to 30 days places and undue burden on us
landlords. St. Louis park is already a city landlords dislike with these continued changes there will be
less small time landlords offering single family homes for rent in the Park.
In support of this. 30 days seems fair. However, what policy makers may not be aware of is that
some tenants will take advantage of this and repeat the offending issue over and over again, month
after month. There needs to be some type of escalation for problem renters who abuse the system.
This is absolutely insane. The people who create and propose these changes clearly do not own rental
properties. I think the city needs an education on what we “make” on these rental units. Missing 1
months rent payment can kill a yearly “profit.” The city and state need housing. FACT. So why are
they making it that more difficult to own a property? Are we trying to scare property owners from
buying rental units? Seriously this could add 6 weeks to an eviction (2-3 months) plus the repairs that
will need to be made. You’re looking at 5-6months minimum in this case. 2-4weeks makes a huge
difference. Why is the city and state telling people how to do their job when they have no experience
doing themselves? Insane.
This most certainly will cause increase in cost to my business creating a need for increased future rent
and potential to sell to owner occupant reducing number of rental properties in the city
This provides hardship on small property owners such as myself. If my tenant doesn’t pay rent, that
burden is on myself to cover the mortgage. Requiring 30 days (16 more than the state mandate) is
unnecessarily long to start proceedings. Please consider us small property owners when deciding to
vote against this policy change.
This will put smaller owners out of business. Taxes are high enough as it is and keep going up. St.
Louis Park rental license keeps going up. Twice a year required inspection costs even more money.
HOA fees are going up as well, so the rent needs to also go up. To wait 30 days for an eviction
proceeding to start would put me out of business. I need that rent to pay the mortgage, and my rent
is reasonable. It takes several weeks to find a new renter. We're not a for-profit business, just hoping
to break even, like many other smaller owners. All this will do is increase rents and price out some
renters. Please take a closer look at the trickle down ramifications of this. Think about what happens
if you don't pay your mortgage for 30 days. A larger company could probably manage. For me, a
missed mortgage would be very difficult. Why don't you change the rules so that an owner with less
than four units can abide by the 14-day state requirement? Even 14-days is tricky enough? A larger
company could manage better than an individual owner. Please do not do this to us. 🙏🙏
30 days seems like overkill. The mandated 14 days is great. Most lease agreement already have a
grace period. When payment periods are already 30 days this could be a horrible cycle of
delinquencies and notices. Is there also going to be a maximum amount of notices in a 1 year period?
This seems like a perfect system for anyone looking for a loophole to exploit.
Follow the state guidelines. The state mandates the law so I don't feel like the city needs to overstep
and add extra time for delinquent payments. We rely on the income from our rental condo to support
our family. If a tenant is delinquent in rent then it already takes long enough to evict them and try to
recover the lost rent.
Landlords will work with their tenants to avoid the eviction process whenever possible. If a tenant
doesn't have a plan in place within14 days to pay their rent, they most likely won't have one place in
30 days. Adding additional delays doesn't change the end result, only makes the process more
difficult for both the renter and landlord.
Please consider property owner rights too before making these decisions and increasing the
requirements. In today’s market, putting a significant financial burden on owners is not feasible and
unfair.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 30
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
This is not reasonable for landlords who now will have the financial burden for more than required by
law while renters can stay rent free for longer periods. The city should stay within the required state
law considering the rights of landlords and not just renters. Owners of single properties they rent do
not have the resources to manage additional requirements.
When a tenant is not paying rent, landlords need a more speedy time for eviction. After the notice a
court date needs to be set which can take a month or more. This will make landlords wait at least 2
months to evict a non paying tenant.Costs are high. They need to receive their rent on a timely basis.
Property taxes and other costs have increased. Waiting 2 or more months put owners at risk. People
will start to think about not having or not buying rentals then.
I would like to keep it at 14 days notice. If we get to that point, it will be difficult to pay the mortgage
if our tenants are not paying us.
I do not agree with increasing the notice period above the state guidelines. Going to a 30-day notice
period will make it more than four times longer than the previous standard. I, like many landlords
have very little money to afford not being paid by a tenant. Mortgage companies still need to be paid
and allowing tenants 30 days before I can even file puts undue hardship on the landlord ultimately
creating a worse rental market.
I am not ok with 30 days - it should be the same as the state. In that time I too have financial
obligations and also the worry of damage etc to my unit. it should match the state
I disagree with requiring anything more than State Law. The eviction process is already incredible
long and costly. It can take months to get a court date. It doesn't make sense to increase the timeline
of a process that is already easily months long if you factor in how long it takes to get a court date
prior to being able to issue a summons. If a landlord prevails in an eviction case taking months long
while rent is not being paid, there is no simple/likely way to recapture that cost including lost rent and
legal/court fees which ultimately drives rents higher to cover general eviction cost risk. Thank you for
considering my comment.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 31
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
Advocates
Policy addition #1: Requiring property owners/managers to use the city’s pre-eviction form to
provide written notice to residential renter(s) before filing an eviction action.
I think this could hold merit but shouldn't be yet another hoop for the owner/property manager to
jump through. As a tenant, it's nice not to be blindsided by an eviction notice. Yet it's more difficult to
imagine a scenario in which a tenant is oblivious to an upcoming eviction notice. Wrongful acts are
seldom not recognized by the perpetrator. I think the existing state mandated process already
provides steps for owner/manager and protection for the tenant to navigate. Makes me wonder what
is unique to St. Louis Park that warrants the pre-eviction form that the county and state don't share. I
think if this policy does get approved, it should not add additional time to the overall eviction notice.
I am in support of a universal form for landlords to use in St. Louis Park. This ensures that each
resident is receiving the same information regarding potential eviction. I would strongly encourage
this notice to include details in multiple languages as well.
I am in favor of a standard form that is easy to read and includes all relevant information to position
the renter to resolve their situation
Yes, that would add consistency to information given and possibly a tracking avenue.
This seems like more paperwork and complexity for landlords who own property in multiple
jurisdictions. What would the benefit be to the resident?
Yes
Approve
Yes, the city should provide a template so that all tenants receive the same information and it’s easy
to understand.
Policy addition #2: Increasing the notice of eviction period from the state-mandated 14-day notice to a
30-day notice. If the alleged material breach of the lease (rent delinquency or other unpaid financial
obligations) is not corrected within 30 days from the date of the notice, the property owners/manager
may proceed with filing an eviction action based on any allegations in the notice.
I disagree with the increase as it puts the financial responsibility and burden on the owner/manager
without any compromise from the tenant. What is unique to St. Louis Park that warrants the 30 day
increase and pushing the financial burden that the county or state don't share? Especially since the
notice time has been doubled from seven to fourteen days already. I think if this policy does get
approved, the city of St. Louis Park needs to have a program that offers some financial assistance to
the owner/manager through the eviction process.
I am in full support of extending the notice of eviction period to 30 days. This provides more time for
families to correct the missing payment(s). Many organizations who provide emergency assistance
take more than 14 days to process applications, extending this notice period allows the family a
greater opportunity to make the necessary payments and avoid eviction/homelessness.
30 days is important because finding housing alternatives, arranging for school transfer and getting
rental assistance are all extremely timeconsuming
Yes, 30 days gives tenants time to find more affordable housing and/or take advantage of available
resources to keep their housing, or legal help at court.
Residents should have a clear understanding of their financial obligations and if they predict that they
will be late, they should start communicating early, not wait until they are late and get a notice.
Residents need to be more responsible when signing leases they can not afford.
Yes, this is an ethical response.
Approve
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 32
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
Yes 30 days should be allowed. Tenants need time to reach out for financial and legal assistance, since
the application process can be complicated. It’s to everyone’s benefit if the tenant is able to stay in
their home and have time to find resources for rent help.
I think this policy seems fair enough by allocating additional time because for some people it could be
due to how their pay periods fall. For instance if their pay periods are biweekly, sometimes a renter
will advise the leasing agent they will get paid on the 11th and will pay the rent. However, they
landlord knows this is how the tenant pays rent every month, but they will go on and file evictions
charges on the 11 which makes the tenant have to pay more. The landlord gets to collect late fees
and make the tenant pay for the eviction filing process.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 33
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
Community members
What is your primary concern about the notice of eviction requirements and proposed
changes?
Primary concern is that you requested input only from renters! Of course renters are going to want
more leniency and protection from eviction, with no emphasis on their responsibility!. The only good
thing I see in your two points, is, including financial aid resources in the eviction notice. Calling it pre-
eviction is a legal nightmare and increasing the notice to 30 days is unfair to property owners and
disrespectful of their rights.
Actions have consequences. Nonpayment should not grant a prolonged free-ride. We are creating
problems rather than encouraging remedies and resourcefulness. Property owners are still paying
bills. It’s not their responsibility to prop up those who cannot follow the contract. It sounds like SLP is
trying to drive out rental properties.
None,
Creating more restrictions for property owners actually makes things worse for renters and removes
rental units from the total inventory. Due to overreaching government influence, owners will choose
to sell instead of risk bringing in a non-paying resident.
That evictions create homelessness
Neighborhood stability
I have been on the other side of this proposed change. I had a neighbor who was an awful human
being. Did not pay rent, smoked in a non smoking area, and verbally abusive to neighbors. The
eviction process took months, and during the time he knew he was being evicted he made our life
hell, and trashed the apartment in the mean time. There is already a 14 day wait - if you are next
door to one of these clowns you would know that it means you can not enjoy your own home. There
is no reason to make this harder. In the end with the idiot I dealt with 2 of the good neighbors left to
get away from this guy. This propose notice time only makes life worse for the regular people.
My primary concern about the proposed notice requirement is that it will lead to faster eviction filings
and even more evictions. As a result, housing stability would be negatively impacted for St Louis Park
residents who are most in need.
Give people sufficient notice.
As there has been an increase in non-payment of rent since covid started, I think resources should be
focused on advising people of where assistance funds are available. Landlords are generally unable to
defer their monthly obligations so when a renter doesn't pay, action needs to be taken quickly. A
longer eviction period could lead to bad renter habits.
There is already a very lengthy process in place for property owners from filing an eviction to the day
that renters need to move out. I believe it takes about 6-8 weeks currently. Adding an additional 2
weeks is unnecessary and will decrease property prices as those who want to purchase rental
properties will want to avoid Saint Louis park additional unnecessary guidelines. And it will not be
enough time for renters to change their financial considerations.
Length of notice and and information about help, and proof of notice delivery.
Follow the state 14 day notice. DO NOT increase it to 30.
Problem: A new, unneeded policy wratchet. At least match the state if tinkering is a must. Stop here.
Offramp now. Solution: Easily fixed with 2 months advance rent in addition to an equitable damage
deposit to protect family ownership asset - life savings of equity! Renter's will not be happy if/when
they get a new lease to sign to compensate for unneeded changes (significant additional risk). Any
so-called form that passes legal objections sbould be coded in statute - with langauge only - to
prevent the form from future unauthorized changes. Is there a stakeholder working group for a
policy item with such a great impact?
Ease of administration
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 34
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
I am very much in favor of the proposed changes.
I am glad this issue is being addressed with changes that I support.
With renters taking a financial beating in today's economy and dwindling housing options, the city
must act more in the interests of renters instead of landlords. Landlords have the power of the
sheriff's office to evict renters, and the city must counter that power as best as it can.
I believe that doing more then 15 days would be punishing the owner of the property and cause more
evictions.
Landlords should be paid. They also do not ever want to evict someone and would prefer to work
with them. Stop making things more difficult.
I would like there to be a distinction for the time of year when evictions are done at a 14 or 30 days.
Winter time should allow a 30 day notice versus spring/summer
agree with proposed changes
Not enough time given to the person to either make payment in full or to find alternative housing.
I believe that eviction is an extreme & very harmful action. I understand that a landlord cannot have a
renter who doesn't pay rent for a long period of time, but losing one's home is so destructive to a
family that people who can't afford to pay rent should be given as much consideration as possible
finding a reasonable approximation of equity between renters and owners
I recognize that owners/management need to ensure that they can effectively run their business yet, I
am well aware of what happens when people get an eviction notice and the challenge that faces them
to find a new place.
That they might not be passed.
fairness to the property owner who has to pay their bills
30 days is far too long. Eviction is an adversarial event which is just prolonged 16 extra days. An
owner of a property should not have to put up with possible bad behavior. The renter could have
tried to negotiate if paying rent on time was going to be an issue.
Enough time and access to resources for people find stable housing. Possibly direct help from the city
to find said housing i.e. a someone who can find affordable properties.
Renters have more rights than owners/landlords
Proposed changes would affect property owners would be on the hook for multiple months’ rent
before they could evict and get a new tenant in
Allows for squatters, lower property values as city becomes less attractive for landlords,
It's morally right to give people as much time as possible to find alternate housing
Allowing enough time for people already under duress to find help and save their place to live.
A 14 day notice is too short to allow renters to access the resources they need to stay in their homes.
Too long, 14 maximum, pre notice is unnecessary.
I was previous apt. manager. There are renters who possibly do damage to their apartment when
given eviction notice. This would damage the property and affect the perception of the other tenants.
Falling behind on rent is stressful and emotionally painful. There are multiple assistance programs for
those falling behind on rent. Allowing an increase of 2 to 4 weeks for notice of eviction takes away for
the accountability of the renter and puts just as much financial strain on the homeowner. If this goes
through, Homeowners should have financial resources to help make mortgage payments if tenants
have additional time before being evicted.
Prolonging the eviction process will accumulate a larger debt.
It should be fair to the renter and the landlord and it should align with state statute.
That they be enforced.
It should not be different than the state... if the state is 14 days, then keep it at 14 days. As for using
a city supplied form, how do you know it will cover everything needed, as some evictions are not due
to payment, sometimes it is destruction of property. So have a city supplied form for an option, but
do not make it mandatory. I had a cousin that got evicted, but we also have to remember that the
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 35
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
property owner is a person also that may really need that rental income to live on... so dont forget
about them also.
I think we should be aligned with the state on the 14 days but add the pre-eviction form.
I used to represent tenants facing eviction as a Legal Aid attorney. I think providing more notice is an
excellent idea and can hopefully help tenants resolve issues or find another place to live.
People absolutely must be given enough time to find resources and/or pay up past due rent. We have
always relied on the kindness of strangers, after all, and people must be given a chance.
I feel they should align with the state requirement of 14 days.
I am in favor of greater leniency toward the renters in today’s increasing cost of living. Also, with the
increasing illnesses due to Covid, RSV, and influenzas, sickness can cause a significant loss of income
as well.
30-day notice before being allowed to start eviction process is a very long timeline
State mandate is sufficient. Unfortunately, too many of those who do not meet their financial
responsibilities, will simply 'calculate' an additional month for how long they can stay in their current
rental unit. The property owner will need the additional 2 weeks to prepare the unit for next rental.
Giving the delinquent party a full month, results in the property owner losing an additional months
income.
Failure to pay rent is a failure of the tenant. Landlords should not be punished for that.
If people are behind in their rent I am inclined to think it is because they are having financial hardship.
They would need time to either secure funds or make arrangements to move. A month gives time and
lessens the possibility of them becoming homeless.
That they be standardized, easy to read, provide enough notice and make it clear how to avoid
eviction.
14 days seems fair. I would like to see justification for more than double the state requirement. This
email mentioned comments in an October City Council meeting, but in both October Council meetings
there is nothing in the minutes about this.
I think giving people 30 days notice is much preferred to 14 days notice. Life is hard, people need time
to figure things out. This gives them grace as human beings.
A balance between the rights of the lessor and the lessee,
Giving renters as much time and resources as possible to remedy their situation before being
uprooted.
Too much pressure put on owner with a longer notice
30-day notice period necessitates property owner loses at least 2 or 3 months of rent (original month
of missing payment, 30 day notice period, AND an additional month to clean and re-lease the unit).
Many small landlords (not large companies) cannot afford 3 months of missed payments. If small
landlords aren't willing to invest in St. Louis Park, that will decrease the variety and availability of
rentals in our city.
The eviction process is a stand alone to adjudication of whether the rental agreement is breached.
Eviction is costly for property owners and will be pursued only in situations where necessary. Keep
the timing consistent with state law. If eviction is for behavioral/community standards violations why
should other renters be exposed for longer than necessary?
Eviction is necessary course for landlords to be able to take action. I view the 30 day notice as a
warning and allows renters to either reconcile with their landlord or make alternative arrangements
That residents are allowed reasonable time to prepare for a move, locate housing, or acquire financial
assistance to pay all rent due.
14 days isn't enough time to relocate
That it can't happen fast enough. Both changes are good. Good landlords won't mind the changes and
I don't care what the bad ones think.
The crime in SLP is skyrocketing. Many of us already don't feel safe and the city has completely
changed, for the worse, in the past few years. If you're not responsible enough to pay your rent,
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 36
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
then they should be evicted. Can we for once protect the people renting the properties and not the
ones not paying their rent. Do you not realize the stress it puts on the property owners when their
tenets are not paying their rent?
14 Day notice is plenty of time. Increasing to 30 days only exasperates the proplem. Getting to the
point of eviction notice has already proven that the renter is not in compliance with keeping up with
obligations of the lease.
I like the change.
To give people more notice/time to get money together to pay rent or to make plans for moving.
I think it's a good change.
I feel the eviction window should be extended to 30 days and agree with the proposal to have
resources included with the eviction notice
I am concerned that calling the notification a “pre-eviction” notice will be confusing. I don’t know
what the form looks like, so I am not abject if to it’s use, but I think it is clearer to say that an eviction
notice will be submitted in X days for failing to comply with rental agreement, followed by steps to
take to repair full compliance.
I’m in favor of the proposed changes to SLPs eviction notice policy. I’m a lawyer and have done a lot
of pro bono work with clients who have been evicted and the consequences are often financially and
personally devastating. An eviction can have a domino effect on an already and often times
precarious financial situation for many families. Often times an eviction could be avoided if tenants
were given an opportunity to remedy the breach before the eviction is filed. Even if they do resolve
the breach prior to being evicted, the filing on their record follows them. The proposed changes to
our city policy create a more equitable playing field between tenants and landlords, preserves the
existing rights of landlords and supports equity within our community.
Allowing adequate time to find alternative housing
Making sure people facing eviction have adequate notice to correct issues and remain in housing as
much as possible.
community feedback
It favors the renters over the land owner. Both are responsible to be good citizens. How is the
property owner expected to pay the mortgage or property taxes if the renters don't pay? Does the
city give the land owner a break on taxes if renters don't pay?
I think these proposed changes are great. As the housing crisis worsens, staying ahead of it with
protections for renters is a good thing. Finding a place to stay is getting harder and harder, giving
evicted folks more time to do that is a great change.
No concern, I think it is a good idea.
that it wouldn't give someone enough time to find a new place to live - so they would end up living in
their car or on the street.
My preference would be to give as much time/notice as possible. In my most recent renting
experience with a private landlord, they were unaware of legalities required by the state for renters
rights. I suspect a lot of private landlords are in a similar situation. I might also like to include rental
resources for help with rent, etc with the “pre-eviction” notice.
Policy addition #1: Requiring property owners/managers to use the city’s pre-eviction form to
provide written notice to residential renter(s) before filing an eviction action.
Disagree with the term ‘pre-eviction’ and disagree with changing the language from the state form.
The city has too much overstep and should align with the state.
I agree with this.
I think this is fine.
I like the idea because it ensures the city can make the renters rights and responsibilities clear
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 37
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
This would allow the city to monitor evictions and an opportunity to provide assistance and help
people in SLP avoid homelessness.
Fine I guess. But what are they using now? Who is going to look at it? Or is it a form just to have a
form? What is gained?
It's a bit challenging to providr
Yes
This seems redundant as eviction language is right in the lease that is signed by the resident. I think a
notice of eviction in the event of breach of lease suffices.
This is fine
Explain what the city’s form and what are the pros and cons
A city form is unneeded. What type of information does the city even need on for a standardized
form? Offer one businesses can use, optionally.
The city doesn’t own the property, the owner should be able to handle it legally on their own.
I believe a consistent form from property owner/managers when providing renters written notice
would be helpful for all involved.
I agree with this addition.
Agree completely with this policy addition.
It would provide consistency
Just complicating things and wasting more time and resources.
As long as the form is not overly burdensome for the landlord to complete
everyone gets the same type of notice; owners/managers do not have to do their own. It should be
quite clean in the pre-eviction notice of why it is being sent, who to contact (name & email/phone
number, community resources for help.
good idea
favor because education and support is economical here and helpful
A consistent form/process is always better in terms of ensuring consistency and makes it easier for
both the renter and owners/managers.
I think this is fair. Eviction is hard on renters, owners and our community. It seems reasonable to
enact the pre eviction notice requirement.
fine
Should be at option of owner.
Yes. In as many languages as possible and clear and concise as possible. With documented evidence
that it was delivered to tenants and on which date.
Seems like an unnecessary step that would already be covered in the tenants lease
I'm in favor
Yes. This provides hope to the renter that eviction might not occur if things get worked out.
Uniformity is essential to eliminate bias in eviction proceedings.
Unnecessary
Think it’s a good idea so the tenant would understand the situation.
In favor for the pre-eviction form
Agree. Otherwise there will be d.isputes about the notice.
This make sense.
You will never be able to cover all eviction items... so make a form if you want, but do not make it
mandatory.
I agree
Great idea- many of the cases I saw lack of communication makes it too late to problem solve and
evictions stay on your record for 10 years and leads to homelessness so very in favor of this.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 38
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
Seems absolutely appropriate. When people know they are on notice they may come up with the
needed back rent or at least have an opportunity to make some type of moving arrangement. This is
logical and humane.
No issue with this
Agree, the more notice the renter can get will give them more time to seek additional funds.
This is great.
I have no opinion one way or the other, but what does this accomplish?
Serves no purpose. Just send the eviction action.
A form letter including copies in multiple languages is a good idea as it supports both the owners,
renters and SLP community in having consistent messaging to all. Also much less of a chance for miss
understanding.
Yes, I support a standard process
Sounds good. Makes sense.
I agree this is a great requirement.
I agree.
This seems good, as it provides more time and information, and feels less heavy-handed than a full
eviction notice.
Ok with that
This is redundant. Property owners already need to provide a form to renters from the State,
including resources for assistance. A second form is unnecessarily complicated.
Standardization is good, as long as the form is easily accessible and doesn’t create additional barriers.
This is helpful by mandating multi language assistance and it prevents landlords from using deceptive
paperwork to avoid tenants attention
approve
Agree
Love it.
I've not seen this, so I'm not able to advise.
this should not be required, it is simply government interfering with a private business and requiring
additional paperwork for both the city and the leasee, a true waste of resources
Excellent. Connecting people who need support with the resources available to them is a great idea.
Yes
This makes sense.
I like this policy, it creates ease for the property manager, and could be easier to understand for the
recipients
The form, because it’s standardized (i.e. the same for all renters), should be used. Just change the
name, or the language/title on the form given to renters.
I support this
Seems reasonable. Everyone needs to understand the rules and get adequate information
Good to give people a consistent message, and this will make it easier for property managers.
This seems sensible as long as it's provided in multiple formats to avoid difficultly for non-technical
people to use and update the form with any additional required information.
Renters know when the rent is due. Additional time is delaying responsibility.
Paper trail for such a serious step = great.
Yes, assuming the city also gets from property owners/managers to ensure that no required
information is overlooked when drafting the form.
I think it's fair to give folks notice - to let them know they will be evicted.
Yes! Please! Along with maybe rental assistance resources.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 39
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
Policy addition #2: Increasing the notice of eviction period from the state-mandated 14-day
notice to a 30-day notice. If the alleged material breach of the lease (rent delinquency or
other unpaid financial obligations) is not corrected within 30 days from the date of the notice,
the property owners/manager may proceed with filing an eviction action based on any
allegations in the notice.
Disagree with the change from 14 to 30 days.
This policy is unjust. You like to think that all landlords are wealthy but some are people who got laid
off and can no longer afford their mortgage payment but they don’t have enough equity to sell (or
they have a stellar mortgage rate so they are trying hard to make it through this hardship) so they
rent their home and move in with a relative until they can get back on their feet. Some property
owners cannot afford 2 months of a mortgage payment while the delinquent tenant stays in the
home rent free. It’s not the landlord’s job to single-handedly support someone who cannot pay/hold
up their end of the contract.
Disagree with this.
This should be aligned to the state guidelines. We should not seek to make rent higher for renters
than the state already has.
This is a better policy than the state policy. I wish the city would also provide financial counseling in
addition.
Allow for interventions to keep people/families in stable housing.
There is no reason for this. See original comments.
Good idea
Increasing the eviction period by 16 days is almost 4.5% of a year. With evictions on the rise, the
amount of revenue that equates to will make it even harder to operate a building. Resources should
be focused on guiding residents to financial resources prior to a missed payment.
Absolutley terrible idea as it is already a system which heavily favors a renter versus a landlord.
I don’t understand, if I don’t pay in 30 days does that mean I will be evicted on the 30th day?
Follow the state and leave at 14 days.
No change. Leave language as is to match the state. Wiser people have vetted that already.
14 days is plenty of notice.
This extended 30 day notice would allow renters more time to seek out financial assistance.
I agree with this addition.
I agree with this 30-day notice over 14; however, the city should push for 60-day notice: 14 is
ridiculously low; 30 is better but still not much of a window for renters in financial distress; 60 is a
modern-day standard that should be pursued.
Most landlords have already tried working with their tenants on an agreement to catch up back on
rent. I feel if you make the time period longer we will see more landlords starting the evection
process sooner and not allowing exceptions. If the city does move forward with a 30 day eviction
notice I would suggest it be applied only to evictions for payment that are less the 30 days past due,
No.
I would like to see a distinction made for time of year for the evictions. I would keep 14 day for the
spring and summer months and 30 days for notice given in the fall/winter time.
if the pre-eviction notice gives a date for them to expect a 14-day notice I think it should be left as 14
days. It has already given them extra time for the renter to contact the owner as to how they are
agreeing to solve the issue
I support this. I would hope the city provides some sort of assistance to the renter to help rectify the
situation.
I believe that this is a necessary change
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 40
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
favor, I think it would be a significant advantage for the renter, though to be fair, I'm unsure to what
degree this might advantage or disadvantage the owner. However, since I think it would be modest
either way, on balance I favor the proposal.
I would support 30 days. When people don't have much money, the more time they have to look for
ways to get extra income would suggest the more likely they are to come up with the money they
owe.
I do not know enough about the steps that come before this point in the process. 30 days seems fair
but is pre eviction another 30 days? I’d like to know more.
This is unfair to the property owner who also is accountable for their bills.
No. Too long. Read a previous comments regarding adversarial situation.
14day max
This allows for loss of income of property owner and provides the tenant free living for additional
time. Also will lower property values as less attractive rental location.
I'm in favor
Yes
14 days is simply not enough time to allow renters to access the resources they are entitled to and
desperately need to stay in their homes.
14 is double todays, why go to 30?
Due to previous experience I think that 14 days is sufficient. Most sincere tenants will try to reach out
to the landlord and work something out. Waiting longer will give the tenants who have no intention
of paying their rent additional time to find unpleasant plans.
Falling behind on rent is stressful and emotionally painful. There are multiple assistance programs for
those falling behind on rent. Allowing an increase of 2 to 4 weeks for notice of eviction takes away for
the accountability of the renter and puts just as much financial strain on the homeowner. If this goes
through, Homeowners should have financial resources to help make mortgage payments if tenants
have additional time before being evicted. As a homeowner with a renter occupying the residence, If
I had to wait 30 days to evict a non-paying tenant, I would not be able to pay the mortgage and would
fall Into delinquency.
Not in favor of extending to 30 days. 14-days is sufficient.
The 14 day notice is sufficient.
This makes sense. As long as it is enforced.
No... property owners are people and need income also. Dont punish them. Keep it inline with the
state 14 days...
If the situation caused by the renter is serious the 30 days would be an exceptional burden on the
rental company.
Another excellent idea- same reasons as above
Again, who does not need a chance to pull their lives together. A 7-Day notice is cruel and unusual
punishment. 14 days is only a step in the right direction. 30-day notice is proper and allows enough
time for people to managed their Affairs or plan a move.
I feel we should remained aligned with the 14 day notice at the state level.
Same as above.
This is very long. I'm concerned that this additional timeline will place burdens on rental property
owners and will reduce their ability to continue to offer rentals to paying tenants of lower income.
For large corporations this additional time can be absorbed into the profit/loss calculation. For the
single unit landlord, this becomes an extraordinary financial burden. Considering the damage/filth
left behind by disgruntled renter, it can easily become the tipping point that renders the rental
income into rental loss.
This is harmful to landlords, 14 days is plenty.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 41
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
As noted above it gives the renter a better chance to find other lodging or obtain support services if
they don’t have any. While there will always be people who game the system I prefer to tolerate that
to some degree to allow the system to support those in need.
I support more time between the notice and filing the eviction
14 days sounds good and is the state requirement. Please provide justification for moving to a 30-day
notice.
Agree with this.
I agree.
Again this seems good for providing more time and options.
14-day puts less stress on owner, especially in case of non-paiement., Maybe 30 day for first notice
but subsequent ones shorter would be a good compromise. I am thinking about smaller owners who
might need money from the rents themselves.
Disagree. This is a large financial burden on the property owner, who misses 1 month of rent for the
initial delinquency, 1 month for 30 day notice, and 1 more month for eviction action, cleaning, and
finding new tenants. This will make owning property in SLP untenable for any except the largest
companies. Small/independent landlords should be encouraged to have property here because it
increases the variety and availability of rental properties. Penalizing small businesses does not help
residents.
This is confusing, is the city going to be the judge and tell property owners whether they can proceed
to filing a court action? Does the city have that right? I think keeping in step with the state is best.
I am tentatively in support of this timeframe. It allows reconciliation time and notice but I do not
know how long an eviction notice takes to execute. If this is an addion
approve
Agree
Love it.
I strongly support the 14 days or less.
Renter is already not complying with it's obligations, additional time should not be granted
Great. Assistance programs are perpetually understaffed and underfunded. They can take a long time
to process applications and get in touch with applicants. Giving more time is the least we can do.
Yes
30 days should give adequate time.
I agree with this policy, a move from 14 to 30 days provides more ample time to correct and/or find
new housing. Forcing people into homelessness would create more strain on our community and
resources
I agree.
I support this
This is good
A month is a good amount of time to give people to try to resolve issues (especially financial ones),
and also seems to be timely enough so landlords can keep processes moving and incur less risk.
The only real downside to this is the drawn-out eviction processes that could be added on. MN isn't
horrible with the higher end of the range being 3 months, but 3 months+ of no rent from a tenant
could push the landlord into foreclosure. IMO any tenant protections should have safeguards for the
financial impact of the delayed/no rent.
Why do the renters need additional time to pay the rent? They know when rent is due. An additional
30 days doesn't solve the situation and the land owner is out the month of rent.
I was honestly surprised our state eviction notice was so short. I fully support the move to 30-days,
and I suspect anyone else that's dealt with a crummy landlord or trying to find a place in a crowded
renters market will agree.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 42
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
I support this, and would even support a 60 or 90 day advance notice. Housing is a human right, not a
profit center.
this also gives folks a couple of pay periods to get cash together if they have had a life emergency and
need to gather funds for rent.
Yes!
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 43
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
Other
Respondents who selected other most commonly specified themselves as a homeowner or
owner while others identified themselves in multiple categories including renter and former
rental property owner.
Policy addition #1: Requiring property owners/managers to use the city’s pre-eviction form to
provide written notice to residential renter(s) before filing an eviction action.
Give them notice on or before the 5th that you will file an eviction on the 21st if no payment
received.
No need for the city to get in to other peoples business unless you intend to also participate with the
landlord when expenses are incurred do to rouge tenants.
This is not a matter that then city should be involved with. Property owners should be required dto
follow the state law.
I do not agree with requiring the use of a pre-eviction form prepared by the city as I would prefer
documentation provided by my own legal representative. The onus is on the tenant who is not
upholding their terms of the lease agreement to have the documentation translated.
This isn't that big of a deal as long as it doesn't apply retroactively AND the form is easy to find. I don't
really care one way or another, but maybe include it in landlord training so that landlords are aware
of the forms they need, and notify property managers in the area as well.
I think it's great to have a city approved pre-eviction form as an option, it should not be required if a
property owner wants to give notice in other sufficient ways.
Terrible idea. It will create more of a burden and lower property values
I believe this is unnecessary. Landlords already have to file with the County, this would be just one
more step and cost for the landlord.
As long as the form is consistent with state statute, the form could be helpful if it saved me the
expense of having an attorney draft a form.
If this notice is sent with the 14 day State Required notice, I don't really understand the point. More
paperwork for no benefit to either party.
Ok
Yes
As someone who does anti-displacement work across the suburbs in my work as a Housing Justice
Organizer (at JCA), I would strongly recommend requiring the city's form. Renters need uniform,
concise, and helpful language that the city can provide, and having a template that is the basis for
multiple language translations would increase accessibility. It simplifies the process for landlords, who
would no longer need to craft their own notices and worry about not being in compliance with
required language. It is a win for all parties.
Think this is a very good idea
Combine the two proposals. 30 days WITH a pre-eviction form. This is the most people-centric and
caring option.
Yes. It the right thing to do
I would just suggest that you require they use this form “or any written document with the same
content”.
Yes, strongly support.
No.
This seems like an equity-based approach that should not be burdensom to property managers. I
don't know if this is possible, but it makes a lot of sense for the form to also include local resources
for residents (emergency rent assistance, legal support, etc).
Do not support, existing eviction due process is sufficient.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 44
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
T his makes sense, as it may give renters a chance to find a new place to live or pay the rent.
Use the county form
I absolutely agree with this. NOT doing this seems like a recipe for nothing but preventable disaster,
pain, and potential trauma.
Sounds like this would simplify the process and keep it uniform. Yes.
No. Adds yet another red tape step for eviction that could prove detrimental to the property owner.
Why? Why does the city need their fingers in this business?? Do property owners not have the right
to manage their properties?? What is the city going to do, other than make it more difficult for
anyone to want to own property in SLP?
Great idea to protect renters
Policy addition #2: Increasing the notice of eviction period from the state-mandated 14-day notice to a
30-day notice. If the alleged material breach of the lease (rent delinquency or other unpaid financial
obligations) is not corrected within 30 days from the date of the notice, the property owners/manager
may proceed with filing an eviction action based on any allegations in the notice.
No, with the delay of the court schedule the landlord is going to be out that amount of rent already.
Why allow them to stay another 14 days with no payment. These are businesses. The lease says rent
is due. Your wokeness is destroying our city.
Will cause further delays at the expense of the landlord causing a ripple effect in cash flow.
This is an unreasonable burden on property owners, Especially owners who own a small number of
properties. It shockingly seems to benefit those who do not pay for their rental at the expense of
small business owners. The city should take a neutral position rather than advocating for those who
do not pay their rent.
Absolutely not. The process is long enough where the landlord, in which case would have been me,
could be significantly burdened financially with difficulty to pay the mortgage lender. 14 days is more
than sufficient. I think it should be up to the Landlord to decide if a longer notice term is appropriate
on a case by case basis depending on the individual tenant and their track record of late payments
etc. I have been both a renter and property manager and this is not fair to the Landlord to require a
longer window than is required by the state.
This is a terrible idea for the following reasons: 1) this fails to take into account that the 14 day notice
is NOT the entire eviction process, it's only notice before the notice that you have filed for eviction
which is another 7-14 days and after that they still can "pay and stay" after that hearing. 2) This
forces landlords into never giving tenants any leeway or time to figure issues out. My tenants are
currently behind on rent, but I gave them time to negotiate/figure it out before I mailed that 14 day
notice. Mailing the notice significantly escalates the conversations and damages relationships with
tenants, and the longer that notice is, the sooner it has to be mailed. If the notice period goes to 30
days, I am faced with no other option than to mail an eviction notice IMMEDIATELY on the 6th of the
month if I am not paid because it takes so long to actually evict anyone. With a 14 day notice there is
more time for me to work things out with tenants BEFORE engaging the city/government on an
eviction action. As a current renter who rents out my own properties, I once did forget to pay my own
rent on time as an honest mistake, and the landlord just reached out to me on the 6th of the month
and we settled it immediately out of court, with no hard feelings or city involvement. With a 30 day
notice period, that landlord would have no choice but to send official notice immediately without
giving tenants the chance to work issues out. 3) The above is exacerbated when you take into
account that many rents are paid on electronic platforms that, I can speak as a software engineer, do
make mistakes. (Currently, my tenants did pay their rent but it was returned for insufficient funds).
Hashing out these issues of timing with credit card/ACH transfers does take time, and extending the
notice period makes it harder for tenants and landlords to work out honest mistakes amicably. In
summary, this regulation, while well intentioned, is actually going to lead to more eviction lawsuits,
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 45
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
more involvement/red tape from the city, and poorer relationships between landlords and tenants,
because it does not allow for good landlords and good tenants to solve small issues outside of a court
setting. Once it actually gets to the point where a landlord wants to evict a tenant, which is an
absolute last resort in which everyone loses money, 14 days notice to only FILE for an eviction
hearing, which will not take place until 7-14 days from that filing, and that have a "pay and stay"
period AFTER that hearing, is more than enough time.
We should adhere to state policy. 14 days is plenty of time. If we want to help rent delinquent
citizens lets work on resources that can be made available to them before we get to this point. It
can't all fall on the property owners.
No need as if a good tenant they would not be evicting them.
Tenants have many rights in the State of MN. The state has increased to 14 days, to increase it to 30
day would only increase costs and time for a landlord to file. Most landlords want to work their
tenants rather than put them on the street. If something is going to be worked out, 14 days is
sufficient to get that work out. Additionally, most landlords likely have some sort of debt-service with
their property. When the tenant does not pay, the landlord still does have to pay. Increasing this
notification period to 30 days would then likely push the eviction timing to close to 60 days. Most
landlords are smaller mom & pop, this is then 2 months of payments that they would have to make.
Additionally, it is very likely that the unit is going to need some work (paint/flooring at a minimum),
which also takes time and money. Maybe if the city had a policy or a fund for Landlords to use to
cover the cost of that second month and the turning of the unit or carrying cost, then this might make
more sense.
I disagree with SLP establishing a standard that increases the length of the required notice beyond
that which is established by the state.
In most cases, we've already warned these residents for many months that they need to pay their
rent on time. 14 days is enough time to communicate your payment plans to owners and most
owners I've worked with in the past (both personally and professionally) are willing to work with
someone who effectively communicates.
oK
No
I also strongly support 30 days for the notice period. Folks face an uphill battle when applying for
emergency resources (like rental assistance) and need the additional time to navigate these systems.
Individuals who do not speak English often face more obstacles to finding, applying for, and securing
assistance, meaning that increasing to 30 days is an equity issue. Brooklyn Center has seen success
with their 30 day notice, and keeping disputes out of court saves money both for the landlord and the
renter.
Agree with this policy of 30 days notice
Combine the two proposals. 30 days WITH a pre-eviction form. This is the most people-centric and
caring option.
Don’t agree with changes. If tenants can’t pay on time they will not be able to pay in 30 days either
1) it’s bad enough that landlords lose 2 weeks rent, why make it 4 weeks?! 2) as with all
landlord/tenant rules you make up, there ought to be exceptions for people like me who only rent to
their own kids - yet I still need a license, etc.; most of the rules makes no sense for non-professional
landlords.
Yes, strongly support. I believe both policy changes will help stabilize the situation for the renter, and
perhaps encourage expanding solutions on both ends: renter and owner.
Our city should support the state-mandated 14-day notice. I do not support the 30-day notice. I have
lived two doors down and across the street from evicted tenants. A lot of damage and disturbances
can be co-current with an eviction notice. Prolonging the number of days only prolongs the anguish of
the neighbors and the quality of our life in St. Louis Park.
This time period would allow many more people to correct their obligations and stay housed.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 46
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment
Do not support, existing eviction due process is sufficient. The current process allows for notification
and extending the overall duration of the process negatively affects neighboring tenants if tennant
behavior is disruptive or dangerous.
Completely against this process for a multitude of reasons. 1)The property taxes in St. Louis Park are
already high, even higher than Edina. If developers are given yet more reasons to not build or
renovate rental units within St. Louis Park, which is a small suburb, there will be: a) less property
taxes collected, which results in increases in property taxes for home owners and other businesses b)
creates disincentives for property owners to rent to renters without excellent credit c) places
financial burdens on small/privately owned rental properties, including individual home owners who
rent their properties, as it is statistically the case that more than 1 month of lost rent is incurred
(outside of the 30 day notice), resulting in 2, 3 or more months of income loss for property owners 4)
angry tenants that receive eviction notices for unpaid rent, often will cause undue damage to a unit,
the longer they stay in it... causing yet additional costs to the property owner.
Keep it consistent with the county and state mandated 14-day. There is lots of information and
assistance available currently to access
I absolutely agree with this as well. Giving people a reasonable chance, even if it's a last chance, to fix
their situation, is always the preferable policy. Providing resources along with any pre-eviction notice
is best practice as well.
I don't have a problem with this per se, but I would want to know how long the actual eviction
process takes? For instance, if it actually takes another 30 days or more to move someone out of the
rental, a landlord is looking at two months or more (presuming the renter is already behind a month
or more rent) with revenue on that unit. That might be too burdensome for some landlords. Not all
landlords are multi-millionaires.
I am ok extending to 30 days to give the renter additional time to make things right but that is it.
Why? At some point, slp has to manage like this is the real world. 14 days is plenty of time. No doubt,
those getting evicted will not be surprised...There is a reason they are being evicted. At some point,
slp leadership needs to understand that actions they take are making it increasingly less desireable to
live here live here.
Great idea to protect renters, who are often the poorest of the poor where one bad month can jam
them up for years, so 30 days is better than 14!
6812 West Lake Street, Saint Louis Park, MN 55426
March 8, 2024
St Louis Park City Council
5005 Minnetonka Blvd
St Louis Park, MN 55416
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
I am writfng to you to encourage the city to take further actfon to keep residents in safe and secure
housing. I understand the Council is considering a new notfce of evictfon policy that would change the
notfce period from the state-mandated 14 days to 30 days. The Council is also considering requiring
property owners and managers to use a city-created pre-evictfon form to provide the required notfce.
STEP provides direct assistance to about 3,800 residents each year. Each month, STEP receives dozens of
calls from renters seeking help to preserve their housing. We see firsthand the challenges that St Louis
Park residents face in maintaining their housing. We also see the negatfve and lastfng impacts from when
people lose their housing due to evictfon.
Evictfons are a necessary legal instrument, but it should be the last resort. Housing is a human right and
policymakers have a responsibility to help preserve people having a roof over their head. The proposed
notfce period extension gives residents a reasonable amount of tfme to try to resolve the situatfon that
has led to the notfce to file an evictfon. Residents facing evictfon often have many barriers to navigate.
Language barriers, disability, chronic physical or mental conditfons, demanding employment, caregiving
responsibilitfes, and social isolatfon are some of the common barriers we observe at STEP. For some
residents, fourteen days is not an adequate amount of tfme to resolve their issue. Thirty days will
provide the opportunity for many families to resolve their issue and not face an evictfon proceeding.
In cases where the situatfon is not resolvable, the increased notfce period will allow families more tfme
to identffy and implement new housing arrangements. It is challenging enough to find housing in this
area with even two months of notfce. Fourteen days is not adequate.
STEP sees the benefit of having a uniform pre-evictfon form. This would improve residents’
understanding of their situatfon better and facilitate seeking and receiving outside assistance to resolve
their situatfon.
I encourage Councilmembers to support greater protectfons to tenants in our community. It will lead to
fewer evictfons and a more stable and vibrant community.
Respectiully,
Derek Burrows Reise
Executfve Director
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1)
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment Page 47
Justifications for Amendments to the Pre-Eviction Ordinance
The St. Louis Park Community Housing Team-Eviction Prevention are residents who volunteer
to reach out to renters facing a filing for eviction. Since October of 2020, we have provided
information and support to over 500 residents by mail and in-person. We implore the Council
to rebalance the rights of renters and landlords to reduce displacement in our community.
1.The Pre-Eviction Notice is an anti-displacement policy that should benefit both
landlords and tenants. From the recent SLP Maxfield Housing Report, we know that our
city is 42% renters, and that 34.3% of them are cost-burdened (using more than 30% of
their income for rent). We should be doing everything possible to help renters stay in
their homes. Increasing the time of the pre-eviction notice will allow tenants more time
to access legal and financial help when tenants can’t pay rent. When a tenant is evicted
or self-evicts, the landlord bears additional costs of turning over the unit. It will help both
landlords and tenants if we give people the best chance to remain in their home.
2.There are many barriers to finding legal and financial services. (See attached
supporting document.) Tenants face numerous barriers to accessing assistance, which
must be sought at the same time as they are working, caring for children, and coping
with the stress of possibly losing their home. Barriers include knowing where to go for
assistance (which is often particular to one’s circumstances); lack of access or skill with
technology; language and cultural barriers; disability (physical/cognitive/emotional);
uncooperative landlords (who must send required documents); distrust of the system;
and transportation issues.
3.What our team has learned about the housing assistance system while door-
knocking since October 2020: Minnesota lacks a one-stop shop system that matches a
tenant’s needs to service providers; the scope of what most service providers do is not
available to tenants; service providers lack knowledge of what other service providers
offer; attorneys who represent tenants at their hearings can sometimes secure housing
assistance for their client (we first noticed this in June 2023).
4.Most eviction filings in SLP are in large apartment complexes. From June through
February, there were 233 evictions, of which 13 were private homes. Of these, only two
were owned by individuals. The rest were listed as LLC properties (5.6% are not large
apartment complexes and less than 1% privately owned). A single apartment building
that we visited was owned by a family group.
5.Landlords continue to use pre-eviction notices that are confusing and full of legal
jargon. (See attached pre-eviction notices, filed since Jan 1.) Every tenant should receive
clear, concise information through a city template. Renters deserve fair and uniform
treatment.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1)
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment Page 48
6.The law allows both the 30-day notice as well as the ability to require a
template-See Memo from Housing Justice Center (Housing Justice Litigator, Jessica
Szuminski) and Letter of Support from HOME Line (Samuel Spaid, Housing Attorney,
Impact Litigation and Research Director; and Regan Reeck, Tenant Organizer)
7.These amendments align with other recently passed SLP legislation
(Tenant Protection Ordinance) to protect renters.
8.These amendments have the support of STEP (see attached Letter of Support,
Derek Reise, Executive Director)
9.Brooklyn Center passed a 30-day ordinance in 2022. Research by Jack Post
Gramlich (University of Minnesota; Hubert H. Humphry School of Public Affairs, Feb.
29, 2024) shows “reduced eviction rates in the period
37-48 weeks after policy adoption.” Note: Brooklyn Center’s ordinance includes a just-
cause provision (landlords cannot file for an eviction without a reason) in addition to the
30-day notice.
10. Cost-Burdening is an Equity Issue. The impacts of housing cost-burden are felt
disproportionately. More than three quarters of low-income Minnesotans are cost-
burdened, and 63% of senior renters are cost-burdened. Additionally, 57% of Black
renters and 45% of white renters are cost-burdened. (Source: MHP State Housing
Profile)
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1)
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment Page 49
8011 34th Ave S., Suite 126
Bloomington, MN 55425
O ce Phone:
612.728.5770 O ce Fax: 612.728.5761
www.homelinemn.org
March 15, 2024
Saint Louis Park City Council and Mayor Nadia Mohamed
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Re: Proposed Pre-Eviction Recommendations
Dear Saint Louis Park City Council and Mayor Nadia Mohamed:
HOME Line's primary program is a tenant hotline that provides free and con dential legal advice
to renters about their speci c housing situation. We advise on a wide range of topics including
but not limited to repairs, evictions, security deposits, leases, and privacy.
HOME Line began in 1992 as a service to suburban Hennepin County residents. Today we serve
the entire state and have advised over 318,000 clients, including over 48,000 eviction calls. Over
the past 32 years we have advised over 8,300 St. Louis Park renter households.
HOME Line strongly supports providing tenants with as much notice as possible prior to eviction.
Stable housing is a good thing, not just for the tenant and their household, but for the entire
community. While, on the other hand, the loss of stable housing carries signi cant and
well-documented consequences both for the individual, their household, and the community.
The connection between housing and health is so well-documented, many private and public
organizations devote signi cant resources toward improving health through improved access to
housing. The federal and state COVID eviction moratoriums and nancial aid are a recent
example.
Evictions directly, and negatively, impact the housing stability of an entire household. While
evictions may be a part of our current housing system, because of the harm they cause our
communities, they should be limited only to those cases that are absolutely necessary. Requiring
a 30-day notice is a step in the right direction.
As the city of Saint Louis Park and the state of Minnesota recognize, a formal notice of an
overdue balance gives the tenant an opportunity to correct a mistake, provide a defense, or nd
nancial assistance. The landlord and tenant often both save money by avoiding the costs of an
eviction, and, even in those cases where they don’t, the substantial bene ts to our communities
are worth it.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1)
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment Page 50
Minn. Stat. 504B.321, subdivision 1a, requires a 14-day notice but speci cally allows cities to
provide for a longer time—as at least one other city, Brooklyn Center, already does. While there
was enough consensus to pass a 14-day notice at the state level, this time period does not
re ect the best possible option for our communities, which is why cities were explicitly allowed
to require longer time periods.
Like the Saint Louis Park Community Housing Team, HOME Line believes that a strong pre-
eviction ordinance is a vital tool for reducing displacement and providing tenants with resources
and strategies to prevent an eviction from ever being led. It promotes clear communication
between landlords and tenants and provides tenants with options and the chance to seek
nancial aid and legal advice.
We have seen the e ectiveness of the 14-day notice provided by the state, but 14 days is often
not enough time, particularly in cases where nancial assistance is needed—which, in 2023, was
the reason for 90 percent of eviction cases led in Saint Louis Park.
We believe extending the notice period to 30 days would further reduce eviction lings and help
the citizens of Saint Louis Park remain in their homes and community, providing housing stability
and increasing the health of the community.
We as an organization would also like to call on the city to take seriously the insight and
experiences of the Saint Louis Park Housing Team. Of the multiple eviction prevention teams in
the metro that we provide information and support to, they are one of the most active in
assisting their neighbors in nding support. The suggestions and perspectives that they hold
come from years of speaking with people in their homes during an incredibly stressful time.
We thank the Saint Louis Park Housing Team for their advocacy and call on the St. Louis Park City
Council and Mayor to strengthen the current policy.
Respectfully,
HOME Line /s/Samuel Spaid
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1)
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment Page 51
Samuel Spaid
Housing Attorney
Impact Litigation and Research
Director 8011 34th Ave. S., Suite #126
Bloomington, MN 55425
Direct: (612) 728-5770 x 112
samuels@homelinemn.org
Regan Reeck
Tenant Organizer
8011 34th Ave. S., Suite #126
Bloomington, MN 55425
reganr@homelinemn.org
Jessica Szuminski | jszuminski@hjcmn.org | (651) 391-9133
TO: St. Louis Park City Council and Staff
FROM: Jessica Szuminski, Attorney, Housing Justice Center DATE:
March 16, 2024
RE: Comments on St. Louis Park’s Pre-Eviction Ordinance Draft
I am an attorney with the Housing Justice Center writing in strong support of the St. Louis
Park Community Housing Team’s Pre-Eviction Notice Recommendations.
Housing Justice Center (HJC) is a nonprofit public interest advocacy and legal organization
committed to preserving and expanding affordable housing for low-income individuals and
families. HJC attorneys and organizers work throughout Minnesota to advance the rights of
tenants and expand access to safe and affordable housing.
I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute to the Pre-Eviction Notice conversation in St.
Louis Park (“the City”). HJC believes that a strong Pre-Eviction Notice policy is an essential tool
to advance affordable housing goals, increase equity and well-being in our
neighborhoods, and empower renters throughout our community.
I.The Recommendations of the Community Housing Team to Amend the Pre-Eviction Notice Ordinance Should Be Adopted.
HJC appreciates the City’s commitment to pursue a Pre-Eviction Notice policy that will
positively impact St. Louis Park. Without pre-eviction notices, renters have virtually no time to
respond or rectify any issues when their landlord files an eviction. Many tenants don’t find out
that an eviction has been filed against them until it is too late and they have no chance to
redeem themselves. Further, some landlords struggle to maintain accurate ledgers, and asking
the landlords to provide a ledger explaining the basis for their pre-eviction notice allow the
tenant and landlord time to resolve disputes over how much rent may be owed. In our work
within the Twin Cities, we’ve advocated on behalf of tenants who have received faulty
accounting records accompanying pre-eviction notices and worked to resolve the
discrepancies between the landlord and tenants’ records. Our experience demonstrates that
longer timeframes to seek assistance and clear, understandable language in notices are
essential to ensuring tenants’ rights are meaningful.
A. St. Louis Park Should Adopt a 30-Day Notification Period.
A 30-day period is the minimum necessary to provide tenants adequate time to seek rental
assistance and other resources before an eviction filing permanently tarnishes their tenant
history. For example, applications to Hennepin County programs like Emergency Assistance
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1)
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment Page 52
Page 2 of 6
can take up to 30 days just to process before a tenant can even learn whether they’ve been
approved for assistance.i Applicants don’t even have the right to know why their applications
haven’t been processed until 30 days have passed,ii and the State admits that there are often
delays after applications are submitted.iii These extra 16 days give tenants a greater chance to
avoid the scarlet letter of eviction by either redeeming their rent owed or moving out
before the deadline passes. Some landlords may argue that the 30-day timeline lengthens the
time before they can recover their property, but it actually improves the chances for a faster
resolution to what the landlord seeks (i.e. money) without causing further irreparable harm to
the tenant.
B. St. Louis Park Can and Should Require Landlords to Use a City-Provided Notice
Form Template.
The City has the necessary authority to require a mandatory template for issuing pre-eviction
notices. Doing so ensures that tenants receive all essential information under the law in a
digestible, legible format. All tenants should have the opportunity to receive clear and
concise information about their legal rights in a format that provides a straightforward
understanding of what the pre-eviction notice they are receiving is. As experience has
shown, landlords often create ambiguous or misleading notices that may comply with the
current ordinance’s written requirements, but ultimately fail to fulfil the ordinance’s
purpose of offering tenants the chance to redeem any unpaid rent without need for court
intervention. A mandatory template ensures that the notice is legible, logically formatted,
and straightforward. It provides the further benefit of guaranteeing that no mandatory
language is inadvertently left out on landlord-generated forms.
1. St. Louis Park has municipal authority to regulate pre-eviction notices.
Requiring such a pre-eviction notice template fits squarely within the City’s municipal
powers. Though municipalities “have no inherent powers,” they may pass ordinances when
such power is “expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of those powers
which have been expressly conferred.”iv Cities have broad discretion to regulate in the world of
health, safety, and welfarev and associated activity within its municipal limits.vi Landlord and
tenant regulations fall under a municipality’s power to regulate health, safety, and
welfare.vii Municpal landlord/tenant law is merely complementary to state landlord and
tenant law: “[i]t is clear . . . that a municipality can regulate an activity even where the state is
also regulating that activity.”viii Dictating the format in which landlords must deliver
mandatory notices to tenants is simply one exercise of this power held by cities. When the law
permits municipalities to legislate in the same realm where the state has passed
statutes, the city must ensure that its local regulation does not conflict with state law, or in
other words, local ordinances must not be preempted by state law.ix
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No.
1) Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment Page 53
Page 3 of 6
The City need not fear an additional requirement for a mandatory template because it has
already done so in several realms of municipal legislation and regulation.1 Requiring a
mandatory form provided by the City is commonplace in local regulation. Statutes and
ordinances frequently incorporate mandatory forms by reference.x In fact, the City has
already done so, such as in St. Louis Park Code of Ord. § 20-5(9) where “the user agreement
shall be executed on a form provided by the city,” or § 8-434 where the Ordinance dictates the
format, sizing, and substance of mandatory notices that must be posted to the public.
2. There is no conflict or preemption between a municipal mandatory pre-
eviction notice template and the state law on pre-eviction notices.
Clarifying pre-eviction notice law by requiring a template form does not create a conflict or
preemption concern with the state laws addressing the same topic (Minn. Stat. § 504B.321).
There are “three ways in which state law will preempt municipal legislative authority: [1] by
expressly stating so [express preemption]; [2] where the express or implied terms of the
state and local laws are irreconcilable [conflict preemption]; and [3] by comprehensively
addressing the subject matter in a manner that requires uniformity and statewide
application [field preemption].” Clark v. City of Saint Paul, 934 N.W.2d 334, 340 (Minn.
2019).xi Express preemption is inapplicable here. In Minn. Stat. § 504B.321, nothing
expressly prohibits municipalities from enacting legislation that is more protective than the
statewide mandates.2 Field preemption is also inapplicable because the state law has not so
fully occupied the field of landlord and tenant law to as to prevent municipalities from
supplementing the state requirements. In fact, the state’s landlord and tenant laws
explicitly assume that municipalities will add further regulations to landlords and tenants, and
it frequently assumes compliance with local law as part of the state requirements on
landlords and tenants.3
1 For examples, see, e.g., St. Louis Park Code of Ord. §§ 28-1-82; 28-1-109(b); 3-57(k); 3-62; 5-3; 6-34(a); 6-71(b)
(1); 8-35(a); 8-39; 8-298; 8-303; 8-465; 8-572; 8-580; 8-803; 20-4; 14-76; 14-103; 24-153; 30-160(b); 32-31(b).
2 The only portion of Minn. Chap. 504B where the legislature expressly preempts any local regulation is under §
504B.205 addressing a tenant’s right to seek police and emergency services. “This section preempts any
inconsistent local ordinance or rule.” § 504B.205, subd. 3. Even in this expression of preemption, the
legislature clarifies only inconsistent or specific types of local law are preempted; it does not mandate that
municipalities are prohibited from passing any legislation that covers the content in § 504B.205.
3 Local laws are incorporated numerous times in Chapter 504B. Under § 504B.161, landlords are required “to
maintain the premises in compliance with the applicable health and safety laws of the state, and of the local units
of government where the premises are located.” § 504B.161, subd. 1(a)(4) (emphasis added).
Further, “[t]he covenants contained in this section are in addition to any covenants or conditions
imposed by law or ordinance or by the terms of the lease or license.” Id. subd. 4 (emphasis added). Chapter 504B
also assumes violations of city law within its definition of violation generally: “‘Violation’ means: (1) a violation
of any state, county or city health, safety, housing, building, fire prevention, or housing maintenance code
applicable to the building . . . .” § 504B.001, subd. 14 (emphasis added).
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No.
1) Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment Page 54
Page 4 of 6
Conflict preemption also does not apply because nothing in the proposed mandatory pre-
eviction notice requirement is irreconcilable with the state law.xii Minnesota Courts
frequently find that cities may pronounce greater restrictions than are found in state
statues.xiii “[N]o conflict exists where the ordinance, though different, is merely additional
and complementary to or in aid and furtherance of the statute.” Graco, Inc. v. City of
Minneapolis, 937 N.W.2d 756, 760 (Minn. 2020) (quoting Mangold Midwest Co. v. Vill. of
Richfield, 143 N.W.2d 813, 817 (Minn. 1966)).xiv
The state laws around pre-eviction notice establish the minimum of what landlords must
include in their notices; it does not go further and also establish the ceiling of what landlords
can be mandated to include as terms or the format they can be required to follow. Section
504B.321 states that “the notice must include” several key provisions.xv It does not limit that
the notice “may only include” the stated terms, nor does it prohibit a municipality from
including further requirements on top of the state minimum. Thus, § 504B.321 “sets a floor,
which does not prohibit, but instead permits” more stringent requirements upon landlords
at the municipal level. Graco, 937 N.W.2d at 76. A landlord who complies with the City’s
mandate to use the City template necessarily complies with the state law.xvi
Mandating that landlords use the City’s template form for Pre-Eviction Notices ensures both that
landlords will comply with state law and that tenants will receive the information in a clear
and concise format. The City should not hesitate to implement this requirement and ensure
that its renter residents are adaquately protected by its landlord tenant laws.
II. Conclusion
HJC appreciates the City’s commitment and investment in creating a strong Pre-Eviction
Notice Ordinance for renters and communities throughout St. Louis Park. Please feel free to call
me at (651) 391-9133 about this matter. I welcome further discussion and look forward to
discussing my comments in more detail.
Sincerely,
Jessica Szuminski Housing
Justice Litigator
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No.
1) Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment Page 55
Page 5 of 6
i CURA, THE ILLUSION OF CHOICE: EVICTIONS AND PROFIT IN NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, Findings: Social Service Run Around (2019),
https://evictions.cura.umn.edu/news/findings-social-service-run-around.
ii MN Dept. of Human Services, Combined Application Form (DHS-5223), p. 19,
https://edocs.dhs.state.mn.us/lfserver/Public/DHS-5223-ENG.
iii MNbenefits, Frequently Asked Questions, https://mnbenefits.mn.gov/faq#how-do-i-contact-my-county.
iv Clark v. City of Saint Paul, 934 N.W.2d 334, 340 (Minn. 2019); Minnetonka Elec. Co. v. Vill. of Golden Valley, 141
N.W.2d 138, 140 (Minn. 1966).
v “No specific legislative sanction is needed to vitalize the general welfare clause of a city charter. No express grant
of power to legislate upon any particular subject is necessary.” State v. Crabtree Co., 15 N.W.2d 98, 100 (Minn.
1944). “[T]he city has, in municipal matters, ‘all the legislative power possessed by the legislature of the state, save
as such power is expressly or impliedly withheld.’” Graco, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 925 N.W.2d 262, 267 (Minn.
Ct. App. 2019), aff’d, 937 N.W.2d 756 (Minn. 2020).
vi “[T]he City does not need express or implied authorization from the Legislature to regulate activity within its
municipal limits.” Minnesota Chamber of Com. v. City of Minneapolis, 944 N.W.2d 441, 455 n.6 (Minn. 2020).
See City of St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter § 1.02 (“The City of St. Louis Park . . . may license
and regulate persons, corporations and associations engaged in any occupation, trade or business; . . . may define,
prohibit, abate and suppress all things detrimental to the health, morals, comfort, safety, convenience and
welfare of the inhabitants of the City and all nuisances and causes thereof, . . . may pass ordinances for
maintaining and promoting the peace, good government and welfare of the City and for the performance of all the
functions thereof.”).
vii See Minn. Stat. § 504B.161, subd. 1(a)(4) (“In every lease or license of residential premises, the landlord or
licensor covenants: . . . to maintain the premises in compliance with the applicable health and safety laws of the
state, and of the local units of government where the premises are located . . . .”).
viii Minnetonka Elec. Co. v. Vill. of Golden Valley, 141 N.W.2d 138, 141 (Minn. 1966).
ix City of Morris v. Sax Invs., Inc., 749 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Minn. 2008).
x See, e.g., St. Paul Code of Ord. §§ 192.02, 193A.07(c), (c)(1), (d); Minn. Stat. § 35.155, subd. 11(d)(7); §
60A.0921, subd. 2(g)(2); § 62A.31, subd. 1g; § 116J.873, subd. 2.
xi See Fletcher Properties, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 2 N.W.3d 544 (Minn. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting Minn.
Chamber of Com. v. City of Minneapolis, 944 N.W.2d 441, 447 (Minn. 2020)) (“There are three types of state
preemption of municipal legislative authority: express preemption, conflict preemption, and field
preemption.”).
xii “Two laws are not irreconcilable if ‘the ordinance does not permit, authorize, or encourage violation of the
statute.’” Graco, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 925 N.W.2d 262, 270 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019), aff’d, 937 N.W.2d 756
(Minn. 2020) (quoting Mangold Midwest Co. v. Vill. of Richfield, 143 N.W.2d 813, 819 (Minn. 1966)).
xiii See State v. Clarke Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 56 N.W.2d 667, 672 (Minn. 1952). “Municipalities may differ among themselves as to the necessity and scope of such regulations, but so long as the regulations are
adopted in good faith, with an eye single to the public welfare, courts will not interfere.” State v. Crabtree Co., 15
N.W.2d 98, 100 (Minn. 1944). “We see no reason why reasonable local regulations adapted to local
conditions and in harmony with the wishes of a majority of the inhabitants of a village should not be permitted to
stand, and such has been the opinion of the Attorney General.” Power v. Nordstrom, 184 N.W. 967, 969 (Minn.
1921).
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No.
1) Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment Page 56
Page 6 of 6
xiv See Fletcher Properties, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 2 N.W.3d 544, 559 (Minn. Ct. App. 2024). “[A]n ordinance is
not ‘necessarily preempted if it includes additional requirements not present in state law.”” Minnesota
Chamber of Com. v. City of Minneapolis, 928 N.W.2d 757, 763 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019), aff’d, 944 N.W.2d 441
(Minn. 2020); see Power v. Nordstrom, 184 N.W. 967, 969 (Minn. 1921) (“[A]n ordinance . . . may supplement a
statute.”).
xv § 504B.321, subd. 1a(a).
xvi Graco, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 925 N.W.2d 262, 270 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019), aff’d, 937 N.W.2d 756 (Minn.
2020) (finding that the Ordinance did not conflict with state law because “an employer that complies with the
Ordinance necessarily complies with MFLSA”).
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No.
1) Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment Page 57
SLPCHT Letter of Support for Pre-Eviction Notice Amendments
To City Council of Saint Louis Park and The Housing Staff,
We, the undersigned community members, advocates, and organizations, are devoted to
preventing displacement and advocating for tenant rights. In 2023, 303 households in St.
Louis Park received a filing for eviction, over 90% of which were for nonpayment of rent. We believe
that a strong pre-eviction notice policy is needed to keep our neighbors
housed and allow much needed time for tenants to access resources and strategies,
preventing an eviction action from ever being filed in court.
We believe the following amendments must be included:
1.Length of Notification Period must be 30 Days
Fourteen days is an inadequate time to seek legal help, pursue options of moving, find relevant sources
to pay past due rent, and/or work out a resolution with a landlord. Thirty days would
reduce eviction filings and tenants wouldn’t experience a harmful mark on their record.
Landlords would have an increased chance of avoiding court fees, receiving back-rent, and
retaining their renters. Thirty days has seen success in communities like Brooklyn Center and
should be the minimum.
2.Require Landlords to use the City Template
Current pre-eviction notices created independently by landlords are confusing, misleading,
laden with legal jargon, and often intimidating. The city must require universal, clear, and
accessible language through a mandatory city template to ensure that tenants are receiving the proper
information.
The process by which the city has chosen to consider these changes has been geared towards landlord
input and inaccessible to people who are housing insecure. Even with these barriers, St. Louis Park has
the opportunity to continue to be a leader in MN by improving on the
state level ordinance for pre-eviction notice.
We urge the city to do what is right: lengthen the notification period to 30 days and
require the use of a city template. Those facing housing insecurity deserve nothing less.
In Warmth and Solidarity,
Saint Louis Park Community Housing Team
Signatures:
Richard J Patterson, MD, MPH (St Louis Park)
Barbara Patterson, St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park Community Housing Team-Eviction Prevention Team
Claudia Oxley, St Louis Park
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1)
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment Page 58
Barbara Isham-Schopf, SLP
Kirsten Brekke Albright, St. Louis Park (SLP Community Housing Team)
Mary Broman, Vista Lutheran Church, St. Louis Park
Amy Spomer
Anne Selbyg, St. Louis Park resident, and employee of St. Louis Park Schools
Kenneth Isham-Schopf
Carol M Bungert, St Louis Park
Carla Carlson, Saint Louis Park resident
Jay Lindgren
Claudia Oxley, St Louis Park
Janice Goldstein, St. Louis Park, MN
Stephen Ziff, SLP, SLP Community Housing Team
Barbara Isham-Schopf, St. Louis Park Community Housing Team-Eviction Outreach
Judith Tyrer, St. Louis Park
Roxanne Lange, St. Louis Park, St.LouisPark Community Housing Team
Asadullah Zazai
Elaine Savick, St Louis Park, SLP Community Housing Team
Ruth Paradise
Hope Melton, Edina Neighbors for Affordable Housing
Arnie Bigbee, founding member of Edina Neighbors for Affordable Housing
Jinnet Fowles, Edina, Edina Neighbors for Affordable Housing
Lori Johnson
John Carlotto, St Louis Park
Pat Renner
Fred Chatterton, SLP, Isaiah
Matthew Kinney , St Louis Park
Sally Bressler, Minnetonka Community Housing Team
Steven Anderson, St. Louis Park, MN,, ISAIAH Leader
Tamar Ghidalia, Minneapolis, individual and 3W Consulting
Juli Rasmussen, St Louis Park (ISAIAH SD46)
Lori Johnson St Louis Park
Daisy Henry
Carol Sandberg
Dorothy J Doyle, St Louis Park
Roger Johnson - St Louis Park
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1)
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment Page 59
Celia Anderson
Beth Gendler, Jewish Community Action, located in St. Paul; statewide organization
ACER(African, Career, Education and Resource Inc) Brooklyn Park, MN 55445
Michael Smith NAACP Minneapolis
Louise Winter, St. Louis Park, Isaiah and League of Women Voters SLP
Ivory Taylor, St. Paul, Associate Director, Housing Justice Center
Rochelle Nichols, St. Louis Park
Austin Strong, St Louis Park, Isaiah
Carly Mason, St. Louis Park, ISAIAH
Berdetta Lang, St.Louis Park, SLPCHT volunteer
Pastor Kjell Ferris, St. Louis Park, Vista Lutheran Church
Sylvia Pogoff, Minnetonka
ray shawn, St. Louis Park
Barb Anderson St Louis Park
Nicole Carson, Hopkins, Vista Lutheran Church
dMariinus Van Putten Vista
Larissa Penny, St Louis Park, VISTA
carol j. ennenga Vista Lutheran
Cheryl Novak 8601 Fairview Ave N New Hope Mn. 55428 from Vista
Gloria Niehans VistaLutheran
Emma Peterson, Vista Lutheran
jean white. /edina, mn Vista Lutheran.
Jean Olson Vista Lutheran
Joy Shidla, Minneapolis, Vista Lutheran
Kristi Johnson -- Vista lutheran
Mark Edward Ennenga SLP Vista
gail gannon. edina. Vista lutheran
Christiana Howell, Minneapolis, Vista Lutheran
jean bresser s l p vista
Marette Tyrer Minnetonka Vista Luthern
Roy Tyrer MInnetonka Vista Lutheran
kendrick hall
Connie Hessevick St Louis Park Vista Lutheran Church
Pam Pivec St Louis Park Vista LUltheran
william tape sp vlsta
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1)
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment Page 60
Roberta Swanson, St Louis Park, Vista Lutheran
Maurice Cummings SLP Vista Lutheran
carol drake st.louis park, vista
joann tape slp vista
lois palm hoppinks vista
Marilyn Klug, St. Louis Park, SLPCHT Eviction Prevention Team
Ellen LaFontaine
Sam Mathieu, St. Louis Park
Ann Roach, St. Louis Park
Carol Clay
Deborah Fowler, St. Louis ark
John Schenk, St. Louis Park
Dan LaFontaine, Saint Louis Park
Hanna Williams
Sharon Decker, St Louis Park
Pat DiBartolomeo, St Louis Park
Liz Stroder
Ian Rosenthal, Minneapolis, Jewish Community Action
Norma Anderson, Minneapolis, NAACP
Fatuma Irshat, St Louis Park, Resident
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 1)
Title: Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment Page 61
Meeting: Special city council
Meeting date: March 25, 2024
Consent agenda item: 5a
Executive summary
Title: Adopt ordinance approving PUD amendment – Zelia on Seven – Ward 2
Recommended action: Motion to adopt second reading of ordinance amending Chapter 36
pertaining to PUD 9 to remove an E-generation building and update the site plan and approve
summary ordinance for publication.
Policy consideration: Does the council support the proposed ordinance amending PUD 9 to
change the allowed uses and change the site plan for the Zelia on Seven development?
Summary: Bigos Management applied for an amendment to the planned unit development
(PUD) for the properties located at 5855 and 5909 Highway 7. Zelia on Seven, formerly known
as Via Sol, is a five-story, mixed-use development that includes 217-unit market rate and
affordable dwelling units and vacant commercial space. The building opened in 2022.
The proposed changes require an amendment to Sec. 36-268 PUD-9 to remove the previously
planned E-generation building, to allow use of the ground floor commercial for resident
amenities, to allow but not require solar and wind energy systems, and amend the site plan
with the reconfigured outdoor amenity area to include a pool and deck and expanded surface
parking lot to serve the present parking demand.
Previous actions Governing body Date
Public hearing conducted.
Recommendation of approval passed.
Planning commission 03/06/2024
First reading City council 03/18/2024
Financial or budget considerations: None
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: draft ordinance, summary ordinance
Prepared by: Laura Chamberlain, senior planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager/deputy community development director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Page 2 Special city council meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adopt ordinance approving PUD amendment – Zelia on Seven – Ward 2
Ordinance No. _____-24
Amending the St. Louis Park zoning ordinance
regarding PUD 9
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Whereas, the planning commission conducted a public hearing on March 6, 2024
regarding the ordinance; and
Whereas, the city council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
planning commission (case no. 24-04-PUD); and
Whereas, the ordinance approves the removal of anaerobic digester and greenhouse
from Site A.
Now, therefore be if further resolved that the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section
36-268-PUD 9 is hereby amended by adding underscored text and deleting strikethrough text.
Section 36-268-PUD 9.
(a)Development plan.
The site shall be developed, used, and maintained in conformance with the following
Final PUD signed Official Exhibits:
1.PUD Exhibit
2. G001GN-000 – Cover Sheet
3.GN-001 – Drawing Index
3.4. GN-002 – General Legend & Abbreviations G002 – Legend
4.5. GN-003 – Area Calculations G003 – General Notes
5.6. C001 – Existing Conditions and Removals
7. C002 – Tree Removals and Protection Plan
6.8. C003 – Tree Removals and Preservation Plan
7.9. C101 – Site Plan – Overall
8.10. C102 – Site Plan Northwest
9.11. C103 – Site Plan Northeast
10.12. C201 – Temporary Erosion Control Plan
11.13. C301 – Grading and Drainage Plan – Overall
14. C302 – Grading and Drainage Plan – Northwest
15. C303 – Grading and Drainage Plan - Northeast
12.16. C401 – Sanitary Sewer and Watermain
17. C402 – MCES Forcemain Plan and Profile
18. C403 – MCES Forcemain Plan & Profile
13.19. C501 – Storm Sewer Plan & Profile C402 – Storm Sewer Plan
20. C502 – North Building – Storm Sewer Plan
14.21. C801 – Typical Stormwater Details Site Details
15. C802 – Site Details
16.22. C901 – City Std Utility Plates
Page 3 Special city council meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adopt ordinance approving PUD amendment – Zelia on Seven – Ward 2
17.23. C902 – Detail Sheet StormwaterCity Std Utility Plates
18.24. C903 – City Std Site Utility Plates
19.25. C904 – Detail Sheet Erosion Control City Std Erosion Control Plates
26. C905 – Detail Sheet Pavement
20.27. C1001 – MNDOT Std Ped Curb Ramp Details
21.28. C1002 – MNDOT Std Ped Curb Ramp Details
22.29. L101 – Planting Plan Index – Overall
23.30. L102 – West Planting Plan – Northwest
24.31. L103 – East Planting Plan – Northeast
32. L104 – East Planting Plan, Shrubs
33. L105 – Soil Amendments and Site Mulching Plan
34. L106 – East Layout Plan Plaza
35. L107 – East Layout Plan, Bike Shop Front and Urban Forest
36. L108 – West Irrigation Plan
37. L109 – East Irrigation Plan
38. L501 – Landscape Details
39. L502 – Landscape Details
40. L503 – Landscape Details
25.41. L801 – Planting Details
26.42. V101 – Preliminary Plat
27.43. V102 – Preliminary Plat
28.44. V103 – Preliminary Plat
45.EN-050 – Electrical Site Plan
29.46. E101 – Photometric grid Electrical Site Plan – Overall
30.47. S001 – Site Plan
31.48. AN-100.1 – Overall Floor Plans P1 & Level 1 A101 – North Building Floor Plans
32.49. AN-100.2 – Overall Floor Plans Level 2 & 3 A102 – North Building Floor Plans
33.50. AN-100.3 – Overall Floor Plans Level 4 & 5 A103 – North Building Floor Plans
34.51. AN-100.4 – Overall Roof Plan A104 – North Building Floor Plans
35.52. AN-100.5 – PV Panel Layout A105 – North Building Floor Plans
36.53. AN-201 – Overall Building Elevations A106 – North Building Elevations
37. A107 – North Building Illustrative Elevations
38. A301 – E-Generation Floor Plans
39. A302 – E-Generation Roof Plan
40. A303 – E-Generation Elevations
41.54. A501 – Illustrative Sections
42.55. A502 – Sections
43.PLACE – Envelope Proposals
44.PLACE – Sustainability Proposals
45.PLACE – Proof of Parking
46.PLACE – Lighting Proposals
47.PLACE – Parking Requirements
48.PLACE – Mobility Plan (Travel Demand Management Plan)
The following shall be considered Final PUD Official Exhibits from March 25, 2024
onward. If there is conflicting information between the following and the previous list of
Official Exhibits, the following shall be considered correct:
Page 4 Special city council meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adopt ordinance approving PUD amendment – Zelia on Seven – Ward 2
1. T001 – Title
2. C000 – Survey
3. C001 – Civil Site Plan
4. C100 – Selective site demolition and erosion control plan
5. C101 – Selective site demolition and erosion control plan
6. C200 – Grading Drainage and Erosion Control Plan
7. C201 – Grading Drainage and Erosion Control Plan
8. C300 – Paving and Geometric Plan
9. C301 – Paving and Geometric Plan
10. C400 – Civil Details
11. C500 – Watershed Summary
12. L100 – Landscape Overview Plan
13. L101 – Parking Expansion Landscape Plan
14. L102 – Pool Area Landscape Removals Plan
15.As-Built Landscape Data and 2024 Removals 2-1-24_Trees
16.As-Built Landscape Data and 2024 Removals 2-1-24_Shrubs
17. L103 – Pool Area Landscape Restoration Plan
18. L104 – Landscape Detail
19. L105 – Landscape Details
20.Zelia on Seven-Site Lighting Plan 1-22-24
The site shall also conform to the following requirements:
(1)The property shall be divided into two zones, as indicated on PUD Exhibit of the
Official Exhibits. The zones shall be established by dividing the site into “Site A –
E-Gen West”, and “Site B – North East”.
(2)Parking will be provided off-street in a surface lot, on-street, and in structured
parking. The property shall be developed with 217 residential units, including 18
live/work units, a minimum of 5,000 square feet of ground floor commercial
space, and 0.88 acres of urban forest, an e-generation energy facility, and a
greenhouse.
(2)Parking will be provided off-street in a surface lot, on-street parallel parking, and
structured parking. A total of two-hundred eleven fourteen (214211) parking
spaces will be provided: 97 parking spaces shall be provided underground in the
structured parking, 90 parking spaces shall be provided on the surface lot, 24
parking spaces shall be provided on-street.202 spaces for residential units or
0.93 spaces per dwelling unit, 7 spaces for non-residential uses and 5 spaces for
shared cars. An additional 55 spaces are required as a proof of parking as
indicated on Sheet 45 of the Official Exhibits. Parking requirements are provided
based on Sheet 47 of the Official Exhibits.
(3)The maximum height for Site A – E-Gen shall not exceed 33 feet for the building,
and 40 feet for the flue. The maximum building height for Site B – North East
shall not exceed 61 feet and five stories and 78 feet for the helical wind turbine.
(4)The development site shall include a minimum of 12 percent designed outdoor
recreation area based on private developable land area.
(5)The development shall incorporate a Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan.
The details of the TDM plan shall be included in the planning development
contract or as an exhibit thereto and amendments shall require city approval.
Page 5 Special city council meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adopt ordinance approving PUD amendment – Zelia on Seven – Ward 2
The activities performed as specified in the TDM plan shall be reported to the
city annually until December 31, 20272024, and upon request by the city after
that date.
(b)Site A – E-Gen West
(1)Permitted.
a.Parking lot Greenhouse
(2)Permitted with conditions:
a.Anaerobic digester. Anaerobic digesters shall be permitted only as part of
a larger development which contains at least one other principal use, and
where electricity and bio-gas produced by the digester is used primarily
by the larger development.
i.Organic material, as defined in the Zoning Code, is the only input
allowed.
ii.No more than 3,000 tons of organic material shall be processed
per year.
iii.The digester system, associated equipment and operations must
occur completely within a negative-pressure building.
iv.Organic material shall be deposited from the delivery vehicle
directly into an enclosed container integrated with the digester
system.
v.Sorting of material must occur in an enclosed container integrated
with the digester system.
vi.Odor controlling devices shall be used to prevent odors from
being detectable outside of the building containing the digester
system.
vii.Flaring of bio-gas is only allowed to burn excess gas and shall not
be visible from off-site.
viii.No outdoor storage is allowed.
ix.Retail distribution of compressed natural gas is not allowed.
x.All necessary permits relating to items such as: emissions, solid
waste processing, energy production, industrial waste water, and
storm water must be obtained from the appropriate agencies.
xi.All necessary contracts or agreements with material providers and
utility companies must be submitted to the City prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
(3)Accessory uses.
a.Parking lots.
b.Outdoor seating, with the following conditions:
i.No speakers or other electronic devices which emit sound are
permitted outside of the principal structure if the use is located
within 500 feet of a residential use.
ii.Hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. if
located within 500 feet of a residential use.
c.Outdoor uses and outdoor storage are prohibited.
d.Solar energy systems.
(c)Site B – North East
(1)Permitted with conditions:
Page 6 Special city council meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adopt ordinance approving PUD amendment – Zelia on Seven – Ward 2
a.Multiple-family dwellings. Uses associated with the multiple-family
dwellings, including, but not limited to the residential office, fitness
facility, mail room, assembly rooms or general amenity space.
b.Live-work Type I.
i.All material or equipment shall be stored within an enclosed
structure.
ii.Operation of the home occupation is not apparent from the public
right-of-way.
iii.The activity does not involve warehousing, distribution or retail
sales of merchandise produced off the site.
iv.No person is employed at the residence who does not legally
reside in the home.
v.No light or vibration originating from the business operation is
discernible at the property line.
vi.Only equipment, machinery and materials which are normally
found in the home are used in the conduct of the home
occupation.
vii.No more than one non-illuminated wall sign limited to two square
feet in area is used to identify the home occupation.
viii.Space within the dwelling devoted to the home occupation does
not exceed one room or forty-five (45) percent of the floor area,
whichever is greater.
ix.No portion of the home occupation is permitted within any
attached or detached accessory building.
x.The structure housing the home occupation conforms to the
building code; and in the case where the home occupation is day
care or if there are any customers or students, the home
occupation has received a certificate of occupancy.
c.Commercial uses. Commercial uses are only permitted on the first floor,
and are limited to the following: coffee shops, office, private
entertainment (indoor), retail shops, service, showrooms, and studios.
i.All parking requirements must be met for each use per Sheet 62
of the Official Exhibits.
ii.Hours of operation for commercial uses shall be limited to 6 a.m.
to 12 a.m.
iii.Restaurants are prohibited.
iv.In vehicle sales is prohibited.
d.Civic and institutional uses. Civic and institutional uses are limited to the
following: education/academic, library, museums/art galleries, indoor
public parks/open space, police service substations, post office customer
service facilities, public studios, and performance theaters.
(2)Accessory uses:
a.Incidental repair or processing which is necessary to conduct a permitted
use and not to exceed ten percent of the gross floor area of the
associated permitted use.
b.Home occupations as regulated by this chapter.
i.Except family day care is prohibited.
Page 7 Special city council meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adopt ordinance approving PUD amendment – Zelia on Seven – Ward 2
c.Catering, if accessory to food service, delicatessen, or retail bakery.
d.Gardens.
e.Parking lots.
f.Outdoor seating, with the following conditions:
i.No speakers or other electronic devices which emit sound are
permitted outside of the principal structure if the use is located
within 500 feet of a residential use.
ii.Hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. if
located within 500 feet of a residential use.
g.No outdoor uses or storage allowed.
h.Solar energy systems.
(Ord. No. 2640-22, 1-18-2022)
(3)Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS), with the following conditions:
a.Wind turbines shall be of the helical-type.
b.Helical wind turbines shall meet the following design requirements:
i.One WECS shall be allowed per lot.
ii.The WECS unit shall not exceed 17 feet in height, and shall not
exceed 79 feet overall, including the building height when
attached to the roof of a building.
iii.The fall zone shall be completely within the property lines of the
lot within which the WECS is located.
iv.Minimize visual impact. WECS design and location shall minimize
visual impact.
v.Color and finish. All WECS shall be white, grey, black or another
non-obtrusive color. Blades may be black in order to facilitate
deicing. Finishes shall be matt or non-reflective.
vi.Tower lighting. WECS shall not be artificially lighted, except as
specified herein and to the extent required by the FAA or other
federal or state law or regulation that preempts local regulations.
vii.Signs and displays. The use of any portion of a WECS for displaying
flags and signs, other than warning or equipment information
signs, is prohibited.
viii.Associated equipment. Ground equipment associated with a
WECS shall be housed in a structure. Structures housing
equipment shall meet the architectural design standards of the
Zoning Ordinance. Control wiring and power-lines shall be
wireless or underground.
ix.Braking system required. All WECS shall have an automatic
braking, governing or feathering system to prevent uncontrolled
rotation, over speeding and excessive pressure on the structure,
rotor blades and turbine components.
x.Design height. The applicant shall provide evidence that the
proposed height of the WECS does not exceed the height
recommended by the manufacturer or distributor of the system.
xi.Interconnection agreement. The applicant shall provide a copy of
the utility notification requirements for interconnection, unless
Page 8 Special city council meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adopt ordinance approving PUD amendment – Zelia on Seven – Ward 2
the applicant intends, and so states on the application, that the
system will not be connected to the electricity grid.
xii.Technology standards. WECS must meet the minimum standards
of a WECS certification program recognized by the American Wind
Energy Association, such as AWEA’s Small Wind Turbine
Performance and Safety Standard, the Emerging Technologies
program of the California Energy Commission, or other 3rd party
standards acceptable to the City.
xiii.Noise. Audible sound due to wind energy system operations shall
comply with the standards governing noise contained in the City
of St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances.
xiv.If the WECS remains nonfunctional or inoperative for a continuous
period of one year, the system shall be deemed abandoned and
shall constitute a public nuisance. The owner shall remove the
abandoned system at their expense after a demolition permit has
been obtained. Removal includes the entire structure including
foundations to below natural grade and transmission equipment.
(d)Special performance standards.
(1)All general zoning requirements not specifically addressed in this ordinance shall
be met, including but not limited to: outdoor lighting, architectural design,
landscaping, parking and screening requirements.
(2)The site is exempt from the shadowing requirements specified in Section 36-
366(b)(1)g of the zoning ordinance.
(3)All trash, garbage, waste materials, trash containers, and recycling containers
shall be kept in the manner required by this code. All trash handling and loading
areas shall be screened from view within a waste enclosure.
(4)Signs shall be allowed in conformance with the approved redevelopment plan or
final PUD site plan and development agreement in accordance with the following
conditions:
a.Pylon signs are prohibited;
b.Freestanding monument signs shall utilize the same exterior materials as
the principal buildings and shall not interfere with pedestrian, bicycle or
automobile circulation and visibility;
c.Maximum allowable number, sizes, heights and yards for signs shall be
regulated by section 36-362, MX requirements.
d.Wall signs of non-residential uses shall only be placed on the ground floor
and exterior walls of the occupied tenant lease space, and/or a
monument sign.
e.Wall signs shall not be included in calculating the aggregate sign area on
the lot if they meet the following outlined conditions:
i.Non-residential wall signs permitted by this section that do not
exceed seven percent of the exterior wall area of the ground floor
tenant lease space.
ii.The sign is located on the exterior wall of the ground floor tenant
lease space from which the seven percent sign area was derived.
iii.No individual wall sign shall exceed 100 square feet in area.
(5)Façade.
Page 9 Special city council meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adopt ordinance approving PUD amendment – Zelia on Seven – Ward 2
a.Fibrous cement, high performance brick veneer with rain screen cladding
systems, and vertically integrated photovoltaic panels shall be considered
Class I Materials.
(6)Awnings.
a.Awnings must be constructed of heavy canvas fabric, metal and/or glass.
Plastic and vinyl awnings are prohibited.
b.Backlit awnings are prohibited.
Section 1. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council March 18, 2024
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
First reading March 18, 2024
Second reading March 25, 2024
Date of publication April 4, 2024
Date ordinance takes effect April 19, 2024
Page 10 Special city council meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adopt ordinance approving PUD amendment – Zelia on Seven – Ward 2
SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION
Ordinance No. ____-24
Amending the St. Louis Park zoning ordinance
regarding PUD 9
This ordinance states that the Zoning Code Section 36-268 PUD 9 will be amended to remove
anaerobic digester and greenhouse as allowed uses for Site A – West and update official exhibits.
This ordinance shall take effect no sooner than 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the city council March 25, 2024
Nadia Mohamed /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sun Sailor: April 4, 2024
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: March 25, 2024
Discussion item: 2
Executive summary
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure
Recommended action: None
Policy consideration: Should non-statutory boards and commissions report to the city council?
1.If yes, then does the council wish to continue with the same program or does council
wish to establish strategic priority-based commissions?
2.If no, then does the council wish for the:
a.non-statutory boards and commission program’s purpose to be to support
community-informed decision making and leadership development?
b.structure to be a single strategic board?
Summary: The city council has been discussing its boards and commissions since March 2022.
The council, staff and stakeholders, including boards and commissions members, have been
engaged in this discussion throughout the following touchpoints:
•An external assessment conducted in early 2023 on the boards and commissions
program.
•Stakeholder engagement and conversations around a program purpose for the boards
and commissions program.
•Additional engagement for stakeholders to provide feedback on the staff proposed
program purpose and structure, which included direct conversations with the council.
Based on the information gathered throughout this process staff has outlined program
structure options (which include revisions to the original staff recommended model based on
the additional engagement) for the council to consider and offer policy direction on. We also
heard support from the council around making incremental changes; if the decision was made
to try a different structure, it could be considered a pilot. Council could also choose to keep the
current structure.
Financial or budget considerations: None.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Appendix A: Boards and commission background data
Appendix B: Policy decision tree
Appendix C: Timeline and engagement outcomes
Appendix D: Input received at commission workshop of Nov. 21, 2023,
public comments received by council and/or staff since Oct. 2, 2023
and official meeting minutes of council workshop of March 4, 2024
Prepared by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure
Discussion
Background:
Since March 2022, the city council has been discussing the city’s boards and commissions
related to their structure, role, function and authority to ensure alignment with the city’s
strategic priorities. This report provides an overview of the city’s current board and commission
structure and options for the council to consider around reporting structure, program purpose
and structure for the boards and commissions in St. Louis Park.
Current structure:
The city currently has ten boards and commissions made up of volunteers with wide-ranging
interests and expertise who care about the community and want to participate in public
service. Five of these boards are “advisory,” and the other five are “statutory bodies.” The five
statutory bodies are created by power given to the city from the state; these boards and
commissions must remain under some form of structure that resembles how they currently
function because they conduct business that is statutorily required. The five statutory boards
are not being considered during this discussion.
The charter authorizes the city council to create commissions with advisory powers to
investigate any subject of interest to the city. The city code contains the enacting ordinances for
those bodies, created with the express purpose of acting in an advisory capacity to the city
council. Membership requirements, composition, scope of work and authority are varied. The
city council currently appoints most board and commission members. Boards and commissions
created solely through the authority of the city council may be changed at the discretion of the
council. These are the boards and commissions in scope for the discussion: the Community and
Technology Advisory Commission, Environment and Sustainability Commission, Human Rights
Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission and Police Advisory Commission.
Data regarding current boards and commissions program:
In response to council questions about the makeup and participation of current boards and
commission members, staff compiled a number of data sets. See appendix A for detailed
information.
Addressing barriers to participation:
The assessment as well as additional stakeholder engagement highlighted the need to address
barriers to participation, identified in the assessment as:
• Virtual participation prohibited by law
• No food, transportation or childcare considerations
• Meeting setup is not community-centric
• Open meeting law is cited as a reason for obstacles
• Overall expectation of the city is that residents should and will come to them, and if
they do not, it is assumed that it is because they are not interested or able
The barriers that can be addressed with either model outlined below in this report are
compensation (food, transportation and childcare) and the decision-making tools (use of
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure
parliamentary procedures). These would be dependent on the final policy direction received
and would require additional policy direction and action by council.
Open meeting law and legal implications: All local government agencies in Minnesota must
adhere to the Open Meeting Law, which states that all meetings, including executive sessions,
must be open to the public. This includes the governing bodies (city council) of a statutory or
home rule charter city and any of the following: committees, subcommittees, board,
department or commission of a public body. Depending on factors such as reporting structure,
program purpose, and operational considerations there may be a certain level of flexibility that
could be introduced.
Compensation: The council could offer policy direction regarding boards and commissions
member compensation. Staff recommends that this discussion happen later when additional
research could be conducted, especially given the changing employment landscape with recent
state legislative action, and an official recommendation on policy and potential budget impacts
presented. This could be done regardless of board and commission structure.
Community-centric meetings: The current boards and commission structure lends itself to a
very structured environment that is at odds with being community-centric; the need to follow
parliamentary procedures was named specifically in the assessment as a barrier and the need
to commit to the monthly meetings long-term was another barrier that was named during
additional engagement.
Additional decision-making tools, such as consensus-based models, can be explored and
possibly implemented.
Present considerations:
The council has multiple policy questions to consider regarding this topic.
• First and foremost, the council needs to determine if they wish for boards and
commissions to be advisory to council directly or to council via staff. The council’s
direction on this policy question will determine the feasibility of certain aspects of the
staff recommendation.
• The second policy question focuses on the structure of boards and commissions and is
dependent on the council’s decision to the first policy question.
• Council could also choose to keep the current structure as is.
Should non-statutory boards and commissions report to council?
The first policy question before the council is to determine if the council wishes to have boards
and commissions continue to report to them or report through the city manager.
The challenge in this process has been the role and interaction between the council and the
board and commission members. A handful of the themes from the assessment identify this
and the corresponding themes are outlined here:
• Theme 2, we do not know what we are supposed to be doing.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure
o Respondents wonder what their role is in relation to the council, city manager,
staff and community.
o There is lack of clarity about council expectations, needs and motivations for
engaging community through this program.
o While many respondents said it was nice to have latitude, the lack of guidance or
structure from the council also makes people feel rudderless without focus.
• Theme 3, we get mixed messages.
o “You are here to advise council” but they rarely interact with council, are not
consistently asked for advice and there is no reliable mechanism for interaction
or workflow – staff is the conduit.
• Theme 4, we feel disconnected.
o Commissioners only interact with council once a year (if that), and for a very
limited time and purpose.
• Theme 5, systems are not in place to support us sufficiently.
o The workplan process does not support the charge of advising council.
o There is not a reliable system in place for being proactive and supporting
council’s required needs.
• Theme 9, it is about who you know … and you do not know us (community members of
groups currently underrepresented).
o Respondents believe that appointment to commissions is based on who you
know, and that the people that are most actively recruited are the people that
council and staff already know.
If the council chooses to have this program continue to be advisory to the elected body, the
council will need to take a larger role in providing direction, connection and time to the
program beyond the annual check-in meeting to discuss each board’s workplan.
The staff recommendation to shift the reporting structure from the council to the city manager
is a way to have the structure reflect the most common current practice, address the issue of
role and interaction between the council and boards and commissions, and provide clarity for
the process. In most situations, work direction for boards and commissions comes directly from
staff. The assessment and additional stakeholder engagement found that board and
commission members really appreciate and respect their staff liaison.
• Theme 7, staff is amazing, but they do not have capacity.
o Universally, commissioners rave about their staff liaisons and feel that they go
over and above in terms of effort. However, staff and commissioners alike note
that this is a tiny piece of the staff liaison’s overall job and they are stretched
thin.
Staff and the consultants heard that boards and commissions still wanted to have a connection
to the council. This is something that staff is proposing be addressed in the workflow and have
provided examples of in the analysis below.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure
A decision tree is included as appendix B that outlines the decisions and options to those
decisions that the council could make. Further details on the structural options are outlined in
the analysis of the two models below.
Structural options: an analysis of two models
Staff has outlined two potential models for the council to consider depending on their answer
to the first policy question proposed above.
If the council chooses to have the boards and commissions program report to the city manager,
then staff recommends Model 1 (a single strategic board with strategic priority-based seats) for
consideration. If the council chooses to have the boards and commissions program report to
them, staff offers Model 2 (aligning boards and commissions with strategic priorities) for
consideration. The two models are as follows:
Model 1. A single strategic board with strategic priority-specific seats (revised staff
recommendation)
Program purpose: Community-informed decision making and leadership development
Reporting structure: City manager
Description: A single, large strategic board made up of approximately 25-30 vetted and
approved community members. Members from that board would indicate which of the
strategic priorities they are most interested in supporting, then participate in smaller project
and topic-based work groups throughout the year in alignment with topics brought forward
through the systems approach. The full body would meet two or three times per year for
leadership development opportunities.
Example workflows:
Budgeting software
1. The finance division is implementing new budgeting software that has an
external facing component. As the software is being implemented, finance staff
want to engage members of the single strategic board for input on how best to
communicate the information to residents.
2. Community engagement coordinator recruits five to seven board members who
indicated an interest in community engagement and race, equity and inclusion to
provide input to finance staff over the period of two months.
3. Finance staff will use the input provided to ensure that the software is accessible
and understandable to residents. Staff highlights this input to council in a report
during the budget process.
Urban Forestry Management Plan
1. Council provides staff direction to create an Urban Forestry Management Plan.
2. Natural resources staff refers the draft Urban Forestry Management Plan to the
strategic board for research and discussion.
3. Community engagement coordinator recruits five to seven board members who
indicated an interest in environmental stewardship to review and provide input
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure
on the plan over a period of two to three months, along with one or two staff
liaisons to support.
4. Final plan will be brought to board for endorsement, which then will be brought
to council for discussion and adoption and include board feedback for
consideration. Commission members will be invited to attend.
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan work group
1. Council provides staff direction to create a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan.
2. Engineering staff requests community members to serve on a Comprehensive
Safety Action Plan work group, with the goal of reducing and eliminating serious-
injury and fatal crashes affecting all roadway users.
3. Community engagement coordinator recruits five to seven board members to
serve on work group over a period of one year. The selected board members
would be those who indicated an interest in environmental stewardship,
connected infrastructure, community engagement, and race, equity and
inclusion. The board members will provide input on a plan to one or two staff
liaisons and an external consultant.
4. Final plan will be brought to board for endorsement, which then will be brought
to council for discussion and adoption. Commission members will be invited to
attend.
Community health
1. A group of members from the single strategic board identify the need to
promote resources related to community health to youth and others in the
community.
2. Community engagement coordinator connects with staff from fire and race,
equity and inclusion to determine capacity to support this conversation. Once
staff has agreed, five to seven board members are recruited to serve on a work
group over a period of one year. The selected board members may be some of
the original requestors of this topic in addition to community engagement, and
race, equity and inclusion.
3. Staff and board members collaborate to understand the issue and resources
available. Additional community partners may be brought into the conversation.
4. Final plan and/or recommendation will be brought to the board for
endorsement, then brought to council for informational purposes if no policy
action is requested.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure
Engagement alignment:
Model 1: Single strategic board with strategic priority-specific seats (revised staff
recommendation)
Theme Impact Meets within
structure
Does not meet
within
structure
Influence policy and
have a meaningful
impact
Clarifies role or reporting structure as
named in evaluation report. X
Leadership
development
Leadership development through
special presentations and civic learning. X
Connection to
strategic priorities
Meets. Also allows for work that falls
across strategic priorities, e.g. hate
crime reporting, Vision 4.0process,
budget process or Comprehensive
Safety Action Plan.
X
Cross-topic
collaboration
Allows for cross-topic collaboration as
well as inter-topic collaboration within
broader strategic priorities.
X
Address barriers to
participation
Potential for all barriers to be
addressed. X
Revisions from additional input: Staff made revisions from the recommendation presented to
council on Oct. 2, 2023, based on input from additional stakeholder analysis. The following
changes were made:
• Strategic priority-based seats were added to address the current commission members’
concern around the loss of specialized expertise. Spaces would be available for existing
commission members to apply.
• Workflows were added to address the concern around lack of clarity of how the
structure would operate.
• Current members could be seated on the new body to add consistency to the overall
program amongst structural change.
• Staff is providing data in appendix A related to vacancy rates to address concerns
around the reduction of available seats. Since 2017, the average vacancy rate on the five
advisory bodies was 16% or approximately seven seats total out of 50 which the council
appoints.
Race equity and inclusion (REI) analysis: This model has the potential to address the barriers to
participation that have been identified throughout this process. The flexibility of project
scheduling, meeting cadence and virtual meeting ability, all make it easier for residents to
participate. Staff believes this makes it more likely that we will see a wider range of participants
in terms of diversity (such as race, economic status, age, education, and abilities).
The most opportune time to address equity and inclusion considerations is during the creation
of a program structure. An inclusive structure means that less time and effort needs to be spent
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure
on programming considerations (e.g. recruitment) because people are more likely to feel
inclined to participate.
This model also takes into consideration the importance of leadership development and
embeds it into the structure of the program. Instead of doing this, many government agencies
and community organizations offer leadership development training and programs to serve on
boards and commissions. Often these programs are targeted toward under-represented
communities so that all people, regardless of background, can participate confidently in public
processes.
The cross-topic collaboration that is featured in this model centers the REI work in
acknowledging that racial equity is a lens that should be applied across all topics, not siloed to
one board or one project.
Connection to council: Throughout this process, stakeholders identified that they wanted a
connection to the council. In addition to the connection the council would have to the work of
the smaller groups as noted in the work flows above, council would also be invited to an annual
session where the full strategic board discusses their work throughout the year and plans for
the upcoming year. Additional touchpoints could be built into the program as desired.
Staffing considerations and resources: A community engagement coordinator will manage and
align this program with its program purpose and additional engagement programing. This role
would serve as the liaison to the single strategic board.
This structure provides for a streamlined and efficient staffing model and switches from five
designated staff liaisons to the community engagement coordinator who coordinates with city
staff from across the organization who have projects that need the consideration of a resident-
based group. This provides for a better use of staff time and capacity and provides for a wider
range of city business to benefit from a resident-based engagement program.
Limitations to be considered: As noted in the Oct. 2, 2023, report, with innovation there are
unintended consequences and trade-offs. There is the potential for participation
inconsistencies. Additionally, concerns were raised during additional stakeholder engagement
that have not been addressed in the revised structure, such as concerns around meeting
effectiveness with a large board and city staff as perceived barrier. Staff plans to address these
through additional engagement on the planning and implementation of the new program.
Model 2. Boards and commissions aligned with strategic priorities
Program purpose: To provide input to the council on key policies and decisions that align with
the five strategic priorities.
Reporting structure: Council
Description: Current program stays as-is from a structural perspective, however, the current
advisory commissions would be disbanded, and new commissions would be established to align
with the city’s adopted strategic priorities.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2) Page 9
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure
Example workflow:
Land acknowledgement policy
1. Council refers a land acknowledgement policy to Race, Equity and Inclusion
Commission for research and discussion.
2. Race, Equity and Inclusion Commission meets over two to three months to
research policy and craft recommended policy direction and language.
3. Race, Equity and Inclusion Commission members present results to council (via
report or presentation with support from staff).
4. Council uses input from Race, Equity and Inclusion Commission to inform
decision-making.
Urban Forestry Management Plan
5. Council provides staff direction to create an Urban Forestry Management Plan.
6. Council requests input from the Environmental Stewardship Commission on the
draft Urban Forestry Management Plan.
7. The staff liaison leads discussions on this topic at several of the commission’s
monthly meetings over a period of three to four months.
8. Members of the Environmental Stewardship Commission present their
recommendations to council.
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
1. Council provides staff direction to create a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan.
2. Engineering staff requests input from community members on a Comprehensive
Safety Action Plan (a plan aimed at reducing and eliminating serious-injury and
fatal crashes affecting all roadway users).
3. Engineering staff brings discussion questions to separate meetings of the
Connected Infrastructure Commission; Environmental Stewardship Commission;
Race, Equity and Inclusion Commission; and Community Engagement
Commission for comment.
4. Final plan is brought to each commission for final endorsement.
5. Plan is then brought to council for discussion and adoption.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2) Page 10
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure
Engagement alignment:
Model 2: Five boards & commissions aligned with strategic priorities
Theme Impact Meets
within
structure
Does not
meet within
structure
Influence policy
and have a
meaningful impact
Requires the council to have regular meetings to
interface with commissions in addition to
annual work plan meeting and regularly reading
all commission minutes.
X
Leadership
development
Current leadership development opportunities
within B&C structure continue and would
require and additional leadership development
program separate from the structure.
X
Connection to
strategic priorities
Of the five strategic priorities, not all are
suitable for the focus of a standalone
commission. Further details described below. X
Cross-topic
collaboration
No system for cross-topic collaboration.
X
Address barriers
to participation
Some barriers may be addressed, such as
compensation and parliamentary procedures.
Barriers related to flexibility, and community
centric meeting options not addressed.
X
Revisions from additional input: Staff included this model based upon the Mar. 4, 2024, council
workshop where some council members indicated that they were interested in exploring this
model in more detail.
Race equity and inclusion (REI) considerations: This model is structurally the same as the
current structure. It maintains the current system that naturally attracts residents with time
and resources, and puts the burden on residents who are not engaged to join a system and
structure that was not built for them to participate easily. To help address REI considerations,
staff would recommend the city develop an additional or separate leadership development
program, which can create additional burden or limit an individual’s ability to participate.
Given this model’s structural similarity to the current one, it does not address the concerns
around creating a community-centric program. It upholds the status quo and does not center
those voices who had said that the expectation of the city is that residents should and will come
to them, and if they do not, it is because they are not interested or able.
As noted above, a few barriers to participation could be addressed, such as compensation
(should council offer policy direction on that in the future and potentially additional budget)
and a new decision-making tool could be chosen instead of the current parliamentary
procedures.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2) Page 11
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure
Staffing considerations and resources: This model decentralizes program management and
relies on staff liaisons to support its function and management. It is less efficient than a single
strategic board in that staff liaisons will be in the similar position now of navigating situations
where there is no direction from council or a timely policy or program to weigh in on. The
current structure also does not allow for opportunities for other city business that does not
closely align with a strategic priority to access input from residents. Lastly, should a commission
be developed for all five strategic priorities, an extra burden would be placed on the
community development department. Currently, community development provides staff
support to three statutory bodies which, given the legal significance of their work, requires
much more staff capacity than an advisory body. An additional housing commission that is
advisory to council would also likely result in confusion about roles and responsibilities.
Limitations to be considered: If the council chooses this model, additional conversations would
be required to define roles and responsibilities that address the themes and input raised from
the assessment.
This model was considered as an option when staff originally completed an analysis of
structural options that align with the program purpose in the fall of 2023. While alignment with
the strategic priorities sounded like a great option, once staff began to work through alignment
to the strategic priorities the following was noted related to the possible work of each of the
commissions:
• Environmental Stewardship: There is great alignment between this strategic priority and the
current Environment and sustainability commission.
• Race, Equity and Inclusion: After considering the engagement and how important it was for
race, equity and inclusion lens to be a part of the work of all of the commissions, it would be
challenging to have this be a standalone commission where the work would be siloed. There
would be work for this commission, but it would continue to be challenging to account for
the desired cross-topic communication.
• Community Engagement: Similar to the concerns related to the race, equity and inclusion
committee, community engagement is and should be a part of the work that all of the
commissions are considering. There would be limited policy work for this commission and
cross topic collaboration would be difficult.
• Connected Infrastructure: Much of this priority addresses managing infrastructure assets,
with limited policy work. It could cause frustration and confusion for volunteers to make
recommendations council on these technical recommendations that rely on statutes,
studies, standards, council policies, etc. Due to the technical nature of our infrastructure
(as it relies on statutes, standards, council policies, etc.) it may be challenging for volunteers
to make recommendations.
• Housing: Several existing boards already are dedicated to housing, along with Planning
Commission and BZA. Additional staffing considerations have been detailed above.
Additionally, this model does not allow for work that falls outside of strategic priorities, e.g.
hate crime reporting, Vision 4.0, budget process, public safety or community health.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2) Page 12
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure
Additional considerations: Current boards and commission members could be considered for
seats on one of the new commissions. However, the five strategic priorities do not align with all
of the current commission topics. Ultimately, some of the current commission work would not
translate into the model.
This model would also require that each commission sunset and reestablish every ten years
when strategic priorities are updated through the community visioning process.
Summary of models and adherence to themes identified
Model/Theme Influence
policy and
have a
meaningful
impact
Leadership
development
Connec�on
to strategic
priori�es
Cross-topic
collabora�on
Address
barriers to
par�cipa�on
1. Single
strategic
board with
strategic
priority-
specific seats
X X X X X
2. Boards &
commissions
aligned with
strategic
priori�es
X X X
Operational changes to be made and considered
Over the course of this process, staff has proposed policy changes that are in the council’s
purview, such as the program purpose and structure. Once council has made a final decision on
those items staff will develop the necessary operational changes to align with the program
purpose and final structure. The operational changes will be a very important aspect of the way
the program is managed, and some are dependent on the policy direction the council provides.
The assessment found that there are operational changes that need to be made to support the
overall cohesion of the program.
The following operational changes will be addressed after the council gives final policy direction
to the program:
Ordinance amendments: Once final policy direction is given, staff will bring forward official
ordnance amendments to the boards and commissions sections of the city code that are in
alignment with what the council has directed. These amendments, which would include
purpose, membership details, procedures, term limits, meeting frequency, decision making
tools, etc. would be approved during official council meetings and would follow standard
process for ordinance amendments.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2) Page 13
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure
Boards and commission rules of procedure: This document would need to be amended or
rewritten completely to align with the new program. Staff will incorporate information
gathered and discussed amongst stakeholders regarding these updates.
If the council chooses to keep the reporting authority to them, the revised rules of procedure
will come to the council for approval. If the council chooses to change the reporting through
the city manager, the revisions to the procedures would be done administratively and shared
with council and board and commissions.
Application process and outreach: Staff will incorporate changes into the application process to
increase access to participation into the program. An example could be additional ways to
submit applications and adjusting the questions to focus on interest and ideas versus traditional
expertise.
With the implementation of a new program comes opportunities to create new and engaging
outreach materials and messaging that can help attract a wide range of interest from across the
city.
Onboarding and orientation: A uniform onboarding and orientation process will be established
regardless of the selected structure. It will incorporate recommendations from the boards and
commissions assessment and additional input from stakeholders from throughout this process.
Staff and structure for the long term: One of the findings of the assessment was to provide
staffing and structural support for the long term to support this program by hiring dedicated
community engagement staff. An additional full-time employee position was added to the 2024
budget to support this program. Their role will be to support staff liaisons, cultivate
relationships and connections with community members, support recruitment and the
appointment process and build consistent training and program support.
Next steps:
Once policy direction is received from the council, staff will begin developing necessary
operational changes and adjustments to align with the council’s direction. Staff will return with
any necessary changes that require council action, policy direction and/or regular updates on
the progress of the program.
Items that will require council action are the ordinance amendments and, potentially, the
boards and commissions procedures. There may also be items that will require additional policy
direction (e.g. commission member compensation). Informational items to council will be
details around the final boards and commissions program, the application process, outreach
and recruitment and onboarding.
Staff will also begin engaging with the statutory bodies around the application, outreach and
onboarding processes as those are being revised and updated to ensure their input is
incorporated into the process.
Appendix A: Board & Commission background data
Graph 1. Vacancy rates (2017-2023)
Since 2017, the average vacancy rate on the five advisory bodies (Communica�on and Technology Advisory Commission (CTAC), Environment and Sustainability
Commission (ESC), Human Rights Commission (HRC), Police Advisory Commission (PAC) and Park and Recrea�on Advisory Commission (PRAC) is 16% or about 7
seats out of the 50 seats total. Note: the council is responsible for appoin�ng 50 seats for the advisory bodies noted. This does not include the 5 seats appointed
by the school district.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 14
Table 1. Demographics of non-statutory board & commission members as of March 2024
Board/Commission Total
members
(when
full)
White
(not
Hispanic/La�no)
Black/African
American
Two or more
races (not
Hispanic/La�no)
Asian (not
Hispanic/
La�no)
Hispanic
/La�no
Undisclosed
/Vacant
CTAC 9 5 0 1 0 0 3
ESC 13 8 0 1 1 1 2
HRC 9 2 0 0 0 2 5
PRAC 6 4 0 0 0 0 2
PAC 13 7 0 0 0 0 6
50 26 0 2 1 3 18
Note: The council is responsible for appoin�ng 50 seats for the advisory bodies. This does not include the 5 seats appointed by the school district.
Table 2. Applica�on and appointment data by race
Year No. posi�ons* Applica�ons received ** Applicant race data
Posi�ons by
group
Applica�ons by group Who was appointed?
2018
13 posi�ons
24 total
o 4 reappointment
• White (not Hispanic or La�no) = 21
• Asian (not Hispanic or La�no) = 1
• No answer = 2
• ESC = 6
• Housing = 1
• HRC = 1
• Planning = 2
• PAC = 3
• ESC = 9
• Housing = 5
• HRC = 10
• Planning = 12
• PAC = 3
• White (not Hispanic or La�no) = 8
• Asian (not Hispanic or La�no) = 1
• No answer = 1
• NOTE: 3 vacancies not filled due to lack of qualified applicants.
2019
17 posi�ons
53 total
o 9 reappointment
• White (not Hispanic or La�no) = 41
• Asian (not Hispanic or La�no) = 1
• Black or African American = 4
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 15
• Hispanic or La�no = 2
• Two or more races (not Hispanic or La�no) = 1
• No answer = 4
• ESC = 3
• Housing = 1
• HRC = 3
• PRAC = 2
• Planning = 2
• PAC = 3
• TAC = 3
• ESC = 14
• Housing = 4
• HRC = 8
• PRAC = 6
• Planning = 10
• PAC = 5
• TAC = 6
• White (not Hispanic or La�no) = 9
• Asian (not Hispanic or La�no) = 1
• Black or African American = 4
• Hispanic or La�no = 1
• Two or more races (not Hispanic or La�no) = 1
• No answer = 1
2020
26 posi�ons 63 total
o 13 reappointment
• White (not Hispanic or La�no) = 53
• Black or African American = 2
• Two or more races (not Hispanic or La�no) = 2
• No answer = 6
• CTAC = 4
• ESC = 6
• Housing = 1
• HRC = 5
• PRAC = 2
• Planning = 2
• PAC = 6
• CTAC = 12
• ESC = 13
• Housing = 3
• HRC = 10
• PRAC = 8
• Planning = 7
• PAC = 10
• White (not Hispanic or La�no) = 22
• Black or African American = 2
• Two or more races (not Hispanic or La�no) = 0
• No answer = 2
2021 18 posi�ons 45 total
o 7 reappointment
• White (not Hispanic or La�no) = 36
• Asian (not Hispanic or La�no) = 2
• Black or African American = 1
• Hispanic or La�no = 1
• Two or more races (not Hispanic or La�no) = 2
• No answer = 3
• CTAC = 1
• ESC = 6
• Housing = 2
• HRC = 1
• Planning = 4
• PAC = 4
• CTAC = 9
• ESC = 16
• Housing = 3
• HRC = 7
• Planning = 5
• PAC = 5
• White (not Hispanic or La�no) = 13
• Asian (not Hispanic or La�no) = 2
• Black or African American = 1
• Hispanic or La�no = 1
• Two or more races (not Hispanic or La�no) = 1
• No answer = 0
2022 15 posi�ons 41 total
o 6 reappointment
• White (not Hispanic or La�no) = 4
• Asian (not Hispanic or La�no) =
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 16
• Black or African American =
• Hispanic or La�no =
• Two or more races (not Hispanic or La�no) = 1
• No answer =
• CTAC = 3
• ESC = 3
• HRC = 2
• PRAC = 2
• Planning = 2
• PAC = 3
• CTAC = 5
• ESC = 10
• HRC = 8
• PRAC = 6
• Planning = 9
• PAC = 3
• White (not Hispanic or La�no) =
• Asian (not Hispanic or La�no) =
• Black or African American =
• Hispanic or La�no =
• Two or more races (not Hispanic or La�no) =
• No answer =
Notes:
*Across all boards and commissions (statutory + discre�onary). Represents vacant posi�ons + posi�ons in which a member was seeking reappointment.
**Number reflects number of individual applicants. A person who applied for more than one board or commission is counted as one applicant for the group that
was their first choice.
Table 4. Reappointment data for boards and commissions
Reappointment rates Total applicants Total open posi�ons
Total reappointment
applica�ons
Approved
reappointments
% of posi�ons
reappointed
Rate of
reappointment
2017 61 30 12 12 40% 100%
2018 24 13 4 4 31% 100%
2019 53 17 8 5 29% 63%
2020 63 26 13 9 35% 69%
2021 45 18 7 7 39% 100%
2022 41 15 6 3 20% 50%
Totals 287 119 50 40 34% 80%
Staffing resources required for current structure
Staff of the five advisory boards and commissions spend significant hours each month on boards and commissions work, including mee�ng prep and follow up,
preparing or reviewing minutes, and atending the mee�ng itself. The number of hours spent suppor�ng each commission varies by the amount of staff support
required, the length of mee�ng, and the amount of mee�ng prepara�on and follow-up work needed.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 17
In a given year, approximately $28,000-35,000 in staff �me is dedicated to boards and commissions work; this is the cost of five staff liaisons (plus one support
staff for one commission) plus secretarial services to transcribe minutes.
Advisory boards & commissions work products
During the time period of Jan 1, 2021 through Dec. 31, 2023, based on staff’s tracking, only the Human Rights Commission has weighed in on a policy
question from council (regarding the neighborhood funding program).
While commissions have produced dozens of work products—many of which have eventually gone to council—those have all been staff driven. Some
examples include:
Environment and Sustainability Commission:
• Letter to Public Utilities Commission on Tariffed On-Bill financing pilot program
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission:
• Park dedication approvals
Community Technology Advisory Commission:
• Feedback on a use-of-force dashboard
Police Advisory Commission:
• Collaboration with CTAC on data collection for, and development of Police Use of Force Dashboard
==
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 18
Appendix B. Policy ques�on decision tree
Does council wish
boards and
commissions to be
advisory to council?
Does council wish to
continue the existing
program?
Re-engage with existing
program
Does council wish to
establish strategic
priority commissions?
Establish strategic
priority commissions
Council must advise
staff how to proceed
Does council prefer a
single strategic board
Establish single board
wtih strategic priority-
based seats
Council must advise
staff how to proceed
Yes
No Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 19
Appendix C. Timeline and engagement outcomes
Timeline of process to date:
Jan. – March 2023: External assessment of the boards and commission program conducted by
Transformational Solutions. Current and past board members, staff liaisons, council members and
external stakeholders were engaged.
June 12, 2023: Transformational Solutions presented its report and findings from the assessment.
The report recommended first establishing the purpose of boards and commissions as a whole and
aligning this programming with the regular decision-making processes of the city.
June 26, 2023: Council discussed initial ideas for the purpose of the board and commissions
program at a study session, the following themes were identified: give members a rewarding
experience; use the program as a way to connect with community; center race, equity, and
inclusion; integrate and listen to community perspective; build and strengthen public trust; and
ensure they have real influence in decision-making.
June – September 2023: Staff continued to conduct engagement with stakeholders. The goal of the
community engagement phase was to define a clear purpose for the program following the top
recommendation of the consultants. Staff had secondary goals of reducing barriers to participation
in the program generally and aligning the program with the organizational policy process of the city.
Engagement included a wide variety of stakeholders who would be impacted by this decision,
including current board members, city elected officials, staff liaisons, city leadership and other
community members.
Oct. 2, 2023: Staff presented a proposed program purpose and recommended structure during a
city council study session. The recommended program purpose was “to support community-
informed decision making and develop leaders in St. Louis Park.” The recommended structure was a
single strategic board made up of approximately 25 community members. Members from this large
body would participate in smaller, project and topic-based groups throughout the year in alignment
with topics brought forward through the special study sessions systems approach. Council
requested more discussion and additional engagement with stakeholders before making a final
decision.
Nov. 21, 2023: Council, board and commission members and members of the public participated in
a facilitated conversation to discuss the proposed staff recommendation. The summary of input
provided is attached to this report.
March 4, 2023: Council participated in a facilitated workshop to discuss possible options for the
boards and commissions program. The summary of the discussion and unofficial meeting minutes
from this workshop are attached to this report.
Engagement themes and outcomes:
There has been multiple engagement touchpoints throughout this process. The following are
the themes and outcomes from each engagement process
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 20
Stakeholder engagement from June-Sept . 2023:
After an analysis of the comments received during the engagement process, the following common
themes were identified across multiple stakeholder groups:
• Influence policy and have a meaningful impact: Stakeholders shared that they want their
input to be thoughtfully considered and want to see how their input is used in the policy
process. Participants identified instances where this occurred and mentioned that they felt
like their time spent on those topics was useful and meaningful.
• Leadership development: Boards and commissions serve as a leadership development
opportunity to participants and members stressed the importance of keeping this as an
aspect of the new program and a desire to make this even stronger.
• Connection to strategic priorities: Participants discussed the importance of a connection
between a commission’s work and the city’s strategic priorities.
• Cross-topic collaboration: Stakeholders shared that overlap in topic areas and working
across topics more collaboratively positively impacts the quality and utility of input.
• Address barriers to participation: Barriers identified included the formality of parliamentary
procedures, the need to commit to monthly meetings for a long period of time, lack of
flexibility in options for participation, no compensation for time, lack of childcare options
and meetings held in the evenings during mealtimes.
Nov. 21, 2023 conversation with council
On Nov. 21st a facilitated conversation between board and commission members, members of the
public and council was held. The following are the major points of feedback received.
• Challenges to the proposed structure: lack of clarity, loss of specialized expertise, perceived
devaluing of current members, concerns around meeting effectiveness with large board,
limited leadership development opportunities and representation, staff as perceived
firewall.
• Opportunities in the proposed structure: cross-topic collaboration, highly flexible structure,
streamlined communication and collaboration, community empowerment and impact.
March 4, 2024 council workshop
The council participated in a workshop on March 4, 2024, that was facilitated by an external
consultant in order for council to be able to discuss the staff recommendation, potential options
and how much change they were comfortable with. The following is a summary of the conversation:
• Proposed structure evaluation: Council members expressed mixed feelings about the
proposed new structure after reviewing stakeholder feedback. While some saw potential for
improvement, others expressed disappointment and concerns over reduced community
involvement and a concern that existing successful efforts have not been explored deeply
enough. Some council members expressed interest in exploring a model that re-aligned the
purpose of the five advisory boards to the five strategic priorities.
• Comfort with change: Council members were open to change but preferred an incremental
approach. Collaboration, community buy-in, and ongoing feedback were emphasized as
important themes and next steps.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 21
• Impact of no changes: Concerns were raised about traditionally underrepresented groups
being left out if no changes were made to the existing structure. Innovative solutions and
increased community outreach were deemed necessary.
• Time commitment: While council members desired increased connection with boards and
commissions, personal and professional constraints limited their availability. Suggestions
including board liaisons and increased presentation opportunities were received by council
members with mixed enthusiasm.
• Community-friendly process: Council members agree that they desire a more community
friendly process, perhaps through looser regulations around open meeting law barriers, but
this desire seemed at odds with later workflow considerations. While parliamentary
procedures were seen as a challenge to community participation, council members also
noted they were useful to learn.
• Workflow considerations: Various perspectives were offered on how workflow to boards
and commissions should function. Suggestions included a systems approach, role
clarification, and improved orientation programs. Resistance to a reporting structure to staff
seemed evident, although several members of the council acknowledged that staff
ultimately provide the bulk of the work direction.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 22
Cheyenne Bradeen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lynette Dumalag
Friday, March 1, 2024 7:34 AM
; Kim Keller; Cindy Walsh; Cheyenne Bradeen
Re: Boards & Commissions
Thanks, Nancy. I've copied staff on this email so it is noted.
Lynette
From:
Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024 5:41 PM
To: Lynette Dumalag
<LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov> Subject: Fw: Boards
& Commissions
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
From:
To: nmo ame @st ouispar mn.gov <nmo ame @st ouisparkmn.gov>; yfarris@stlouisparkmn.gov
<yfarris@stlouisparkmn.gov>; pbauduin@stlouisparkmn.gov <pbauduin@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Marg Rog
<mrog@stlouisparkmn.gov>; idumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov <idumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>; sbudd@stlouisparkmn.gov
<sbudd@stlouisparkmn.gov>; tbrausen@stlouisparkmn.gov <tbrausen@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 05:30:47 PM CST
Subject: Boards & Commissions
Mayor and Councilmembers,
On June 12, 2023, consultants from Transformational Solutions presented results of their extensive study of Boards and
Commissions in St. Louis Park.
The presentation began with some questions and a statement of study approaches, then stated the most important conclusions of
the study.
TOPLINE MESSAGES
There are great building blocks in place. St. Louis Park has the potential to stand out as a leader in this kind of
engagement.
Many cities are taking a look at their Boards and Commissions for much the same reasons as St. Louis Park -wanting to
update, ensure relevance, be responsive to new demographic & community trends.
The program has evolved over many years as have Community needs.
Adjustments to the program can realign goals & priorities to more accurately re flect current strategic priorities. The
themes, implications and recommendations are things to be worked through over time, not decided on today or all at
once. (emphasis added)
The 3-page staff Executive Summary & Discussion of the study for this June 12 meeting omitted mention of this summary
conclusion, as have all other staff writings about the study, including the SLP web page for the Boards and Commissions project.
Subsequent sections of the Consultants' presentation discussed concerns and conditions which the consultants evaluated in their
project.
THEMES were derived from interviews with Commissioners and other stakeholders. IMPLICATIONS
of the Themes include needs for resources, clarity of purpose and improved communication.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 23
Focus on Purpose
What is the purpose of citizen engagement?
What is the purpose of Boards & Commissions? What is
the purpose of each Board or Commission? How can a
B&C program feel cohesive?
Design Supports that Match Purpose {Form Follows Function)
In addition, the City should develop a set of considerations that guide their decisions about creating, combining,
sunsetting or changing the purposes of all the Commissions on a regular basis.
On June 26, staff presented their work on the Boards and Commissions project.
Executive Summary -Purpose and Next Steps -Summary
"On June 12, 2023, the city council reviewed a report on the current state of the board and commission
program. The report recommended that the Council adopt a clear overall purpose for the program and
establish a structure that aligns with the City's strategic priorities."
Staff proposals seem to reflect a very selective filtering of the consultants' advice, which reduces the validity of their
recommendations as a basis for Council decision-making.
Boards and Commissions have varying purposes, varying levels of expertise and differing levels of support and collaboration with
staff.
Currently, three Commissions -Human Rights, Environment and Sustainability, and the Housing Authority -each support one of the
Strategic Priorities. Strengthening each Commission is a manifestation of Community Engagement, a fourth priority. Other
Commissions contribute to specific city services. Commissioners' specialized expertise and community-based views have led to
initiatives such as the Climate Action Plan, improved Community Technology developments, police policies and more. Commissions
are a productive component of our self-government that should be protected from casual reduction and limitations.
If Council elects to pursue an evolutionary approach to updating Boards & Commissions by reviewing their purposes and providing
support for their work, as the Consultants advise, some small changes may yield significant progress toward greater integration of
boards and commissions into City processes.
Possible support steps might include
Provide Council & Commission agendas and minutes to all Commissioners. Unsubscribing is easily done for those that
are not useful.
Resolve conflicts of meeting schedules. The Planning, Environment, and Police Advisory Commissions all meet on the
1st Wednesday of each month.
Provide member information packets (or online guides) similar to new Council Member information.
Provide City Managers' communication about future Council topics. Friday night is too late for additional data
gathering.
Provide legal counsel to Commissions to clarify meetings and task force law.
Evaluate funding for conferences or consultants.
Thank you for your work to enhance Boards and Commissions in St. Louis Park. Nancy
Rose
2
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 24
Cheyenne Bradeen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Thursday, December 21, 2023 7:37 AM
Cheyenne Brodeen; Melissa Kennedy
Kim Keller; Cindy Walsh
Fwd: abolishing boards and commissions??
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
for the files
----------Forwarded message --------
From: Susan Sanger
Date: Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 10:02 AM
Subject: abolishing boards and commissions??
To: Margaret Ro <nmohamed@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Hello all-
Seriously?? The Council is contemplating abolishing non-statutory boards and commissions? This is not a good idea and
is totally contrary to SLP's long-standing commitment to promoting citizen engagement in city affairs. The clear
message to the community will be: "the city doesn't want your input". In addition, it eliminates a source of resident
expertise that can inform and improve city-decision-making, and a source of city "ambassadors" to other community
residents. Since surveys have shown that board and commission members want to do more to help the city, I suggest
instead that you take them at their word and assign them greater responsibilities.
Sue Sanger
Margaret Rog (she/her)
Nonprofit Development Professional
1
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 25
Cheyenne Bradeen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Julia Fredrickson
Margaret Rog
Monday, December 18, 2023 6:19 AM
Cheyenne Bradeen; Melissa Kennedy
Kim Keller
Fwd: Boards
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2023 12:15:58 AM
To: Margaret Rog <MRog@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Boards
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I believe the various boards should not be combined, as I am concerned about having decision making concentrated in
the hands of a few. I also think that if a smaller group of people are sitting on a combined board it's likely that certain
topics will get more attention while others get lost over time. Since the objective is to add more diversity, I believe the
city will benefit from getting multiple perspectives shared by a broader group of people.
Boards provide an avenue for residents to dip their toes into governance without making an enormous initial
commitment. It helps them learn more about the complexities of specific topics they are passionate about and lets
them exchange information with a broader group of others within our community (not just the contacts of the smaller
group). Some of those who take this initial step may end up being city leaders over time and their board experience
will bring long-term context to the decisions made over time. Conversely, if there are fewer contributors making
board decisions, when one or more people leave those posts there will be larger gaps.
Sent from my iPhone
1
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 26
Cheyenne Bradeen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sue Budd
Friday, December 15, 2023 8:56 AM
Kim Keller; Melissa Kennedy; Cheyenne Brodeen
FW: St. Louis Park commission restructuring
Below is another angle to consider -the new group, while mai ntaining some of the current commissions. Isabel said
it was fine to share this, so please add it to the repository of public feedback we are getting. Thanks,
Sue Budd
City Council Ward 3
St. Louis Park
952-928-1460
sbudd@st louisparkmn.gov
From: Isabel Anderson <
Date: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 8:09 PM
To: Sue Budd <SBudd@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: St. Louis Park commission restructuring
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Councilmember Budd,
I hope you are well! We met at at Cheryl Youakim's fundraiser to refresh your memory. I am emailing you
because I've been following the city of St. Louis Park restructuring its' commission program. A lot of what city
staff proposed seems like an awesome and welcome change from what's currently being done-such as having
task forces\.
I would however caution against moving to one strategic board for a couple reasons. The primary reason
would be the optics of eliminating the human rights commission and police advisory commission. A little
backstory, I worked on several campaigns in Plymouth in 2020 and 2022. The city got rid of its' human rights
commission about 10 years ago. That's something that people up there still talk about to this day, in particular
from their more progressive residents. There was quite a bit of backlash because of how poor the optics were.
The task force idea is great, but in my opinion can also be done with the current commissions.
I know you're already skeptical of changing over to one strategic board, but I thought this was something that
warrants consideration. Hope you are having a great December!
Best,
Isabel
Ward 3-the best ward in SLP :)
1
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 27
Cheyenne Bradeen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sonya Rippe
Monday, December 11, 2023 6:42 PM
Cheyenne Bradeen; Jason West
Cindy Walsh
Attachments:
Fw: SLP Boards & Commissions
231212 Bs&Cs portion only.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
I received this email tonight and wanted to share with city staff. Thanks.
Regards,
Sonya Rippe
From: Jay Jaffee
Sent: Monday, De
To: Sonya Rippe Bruce Cantor, ; David Yakes
Subject: Fwd: SLP Boards & Commissions
In case you didn't get this. I am in agreement with his view as you all probably know.
Jay
Begin forwarded message:
From: Thom Miller
Subject: SLP Boards & Commissions
Date: December 11, 2023 at 16:22:36 CST
To: Thom Miller
Reply-To:
Good afternoon,
For those of you who don't know me, I'm a former city council member here in the Park and am now on
the Housing Authority Board. This email is concerning the current plan by the city staff to eliminate the
boards and commission structure and replace it with another body.
I've selected those receiving this email simply based on feedback, or know you from my work on the
council. I realize this is a completely unsolicited email. Feel free to pass this on to others if appropriate.
I won't be continuing to send any more updates unless you choose to respond.
I so appreciate our city council examining our city's Boards and Commissions structure. It's a topic that
is long overdue for consideration. To the council and staff's credit, they worked very hard to solicit
feedback from our B&C members on their observations about the current structure. I could flood you
1
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 28
with all kinds of consultants' resulting reports, they are available on the city's website, or if you would
like, I can email them to you. But the recap is that, in general, while the participants greatly enjoy their
work, they feel they could do more. There is a lack of understanding about the role that Bs&Cs play in
our public policy. I whole-heartedly agree.
The consultants and staff are recommending the elimination of the Bs&Cs to be replaced by a greater
"communi ty sounding board" if you will, (my words, not the staffs'). No doubt there would be benefits
to some type of structure like this, but I'm greatly concerned that dissolving our boards, a key way in
which our community engages with public policy, is not best for our city.
I simply urge you to reach out to others in the community to inform them of these plans and to contact
your city council member to voice your concerns, either in support of the plan, or not. A written report
on this topic is included in this evening's agenda for the council (attached). To be clear, the council
WILL NOT be discussing the topic this evening. That will happen after the new year. But if my time in
office taught me one thing ... once local public policy starts rolling, it is very hard to stop. I encourage you
to participate.
Thank you!
2
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 29
Cheyenne Bradeen
From: Kim Keller
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 5:15 PM
To:
Subject:
Margaret Rog; Cheyenne Brodeen; Melissa Kennedy; Amanda Scott-Lerdal
RE: Boards
This is helpful -thank you
Kim Keller
City Manager I City of St. Louis Park
Office: 952.924.2526
From: Margaret Rog <MRog@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 2:42 PM
To: Cheyenne Brodeen <CBrodeen@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Melissa Kennedy <MKennedy@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Kim
Keller <KKeller@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Amanda Scott-Lerdal <AScottLerdal@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Fw: Boards
Forwarding with permission. Not sure this is the right group to forward to?
Margaret Rog (she/her)
Council Member -Ward 1
From: Jay Jaffee
Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2023 9:08 PM
To: Margaret Rog <MRog@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Boards
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Council Member Rog,
As you may or may not know, I have been serving on the Park and Rec Commissi on since last year and I have really
enjoyed it. I have also attended the focus group and then the meeting two weeks ago where city staff discussed
their proposal and asked for input on it. In addition city staff attended the November PRAC meeting sharing their
proposal and asking for input.
I spoke up then and I want you to know my thoughts. I understand what they are trying to do and it makes sense for
some of the commissions. However, I believe the PRAC is unique in that we are constantly meeting with activity
1
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 30
2
presidents/representatives to learn about their plans and their needs. Additionally, twice a year we bring together the
presidents to further discuss their issues and help them find ways to address these issues as they are often the same
and the solution may well be something city staff can do that helps them all. For example a common concern we hear is
the difficulty the various activities have reaching out to certain groups, especially if they are new residents both to SLP
as well as the country. We have brainstormed potential solutions that the city can implement to improve those
communications and then participation among the youth in those populations.
The ongoing nature of our contact with the various sports and activities really seems to require a consistent and
ongoing group to address their issues. I don’t think the “amoeba” plan described by city staff is going to be able to
address that need.
These are my thoughts, I am not speaking for the PRAC or anyone else.
Thanks for your attention,
Jay
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 31
Cheyenne Bradeen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Tim Brausen
Monday, November 27, 2023 3:50 PM
Taylor Williams
Kim Keller; Cindy Walsh; Cheyenne Brodeen
Re: Boards and Commissions Restructure
Thank you for this email, and your service on the Police Advisory Commission. Our city is enhanced by an active
citizenry willing to share their opinions and concerns with their elected officials, along with our public servants. By copy
of this response I am sharing your email with city staff so that we have a complete record to assist us all in making
decisions about this proposed restructuring.
Though I haven't determined how I will be voting on the restructuring proposal, I must note that many of our
commissions and boards are having difficulty keeping members, including the PAC which has three open seats at this
time. A continuing issue for the city has been finding enough youth members for our commissions and boards (though
we adults value youth input, the youth seem less inclined to participate, possibly due to the time commitment involved.)
Our proposed restructuring is a response to these realities.
We're committed to studying this matter thoroughly and making a determination how to proceed in the future. As
always, we'll try to do the best for our community and residents. Regards, Tim
Tim Brausen
St. Louis Park Ward 4 City Council Member
On Nov 21, 2023, at 3:41 PM, Taylor Williams
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Councilmember Brausen,
My name is Taylor Williams, and I live in Ward 4. I wanted to email you with my concerns regarding the
proposed boards and commissions restructuring.
First, regardless of which structure the city ultimately decides to pursue, I would like you to consider
ensuring the Police Advisory Commission is not disbanded or rolled into the proposed Single Strategic
Board.
As a current member of the Police Advisory Commission, I know the commission has played a pivotal
role in our community advocating for transparency between our police department and the community.
I believe it's critical for our city with a community policing model, at this time when society is broadly
reckoning with the role of policing, that our city has a commission that can act as a conduit between the
community and the police department.
Second, I believe our city needs to give more voi ce to our youth, empower our youth, and give them
additional opportunities to shape our community. I was hoping we would come out of this process with
a Youth Commission/Board made up entirely of Youth appointees, and I am disappointed that not only
is this not in the proposal, but that we're actually reducing the number of youth that can participate in
our 1
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 32
city government. I also have concerns that 5 youth members in a room of 25 adults will not have a
real opportunity to be heard.
Lastly, I am concerned about the proposal for the Single Strategic Board as a whole:
- I believe one of St Louis Park's greatest strengths is its capacity to build public leaders. The current plan
cuts our roster of potential leaders significantly. Our commission alone currently has 12 seats. The new
board, that would repl ace a handful of commissions, would only have 25 total.
- I worry the quality of discussion will be greatly diminished. A productive meeting where all 25 members
feel as though they had a chance to be heard seems unlikely -if not extremely unfair and intimidating
for those with social anxiety or even just those who don't dominate discussion.
-One of the greatest benefits to serving on a city board/commission is the depth of expertise you can
gain relating to the Commission's specific function. Without this granular and critical information, I
believe a Commissioners' ability to best serve the community will be hampered -and the community will
lose out on critical conduits for valuable knowledge.
Thank you for your time, and considering this important issue. I ask you to reject staff's current
proposal, consider the inherent value to the community and the potential for inclusivity of
current Commissions, and explore ways to retain and empower those Commissions.
Thank you,
Taylor Williams
2
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 33
Cheyenne Bradeen
From: Sue Budd
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 12:35 PM
To:
Subject:
Kim Keller; Melissa Kennedy; Cheyenne Brodeen
FW: Please don't disband board and commissions
Forwarding another email I received, in case Sasha did not also send this to city staff. See
below.
Sue Budd
City Council Ward 3
St. Louis Park
952-928-1460
sbudd@stlouisparkmn.gov
From: Sasha Shahidi
Date: Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 8:15 PM
To: Sue Budd <SBudd@stlouisparkmn.gov> Subject:
Please don't disband board and commissions
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Councilmember Budd,
First, I want to thank you for attending ESC meetings multiple times recently and taking a true interest in our work/
relationship with Council!
I am writing as a resident of St. Louis Park and a Commissioner on the Environment and Sustainability Commission.
I implore you not to dismantle the boards and commissions structure in St. Louis Park at this time.
•After being involved in multiple discussions and listening sessions with city staff, fellow commissioners, and
other community members, I do not think there is a fully fleshed out or useful alternative now.
•Getting rid of the boards and commissions without a strong alternative is hasty and would risk losing incredible
and dedicated volunteers permanently, meaning dozens (if not hundreds) of collected years of valuable
experti se and knowledge. It would also mean a lost connection between the city and residents on important
issues addressed by the ESC that affect all of us (climate resiliency, sustainable long-term planning,
environmental justice, etc.).
•While I understand there have been problems with some city commissions over the years (lack of direct
connection between commissions and City Council, lack of support/resources for some commissions, unclear
connection between some commissions and city strategic priorities, inconvenient meeting models, etc.), I don't
think dissolving all commissions for issues within some of them makes sense.
•City staff's recommendation to create one citizen body does not seem to address the original problems that lead
to this restructuring idea. I think there might be space for a citizen body of this nature in addition to certain
boards and commissions but not instead of them.
•There might be other ways to restructure while allowing certain boards and commissions to continue doing their
great work and address some of the original concerns.
1
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 34
2
I encourage you to take more time to consider this issue and look for ways to address concerns with the current
structure, perhaps with less drastic changes, and not sacrifice the many benefits that boards and commissions bring
to the city.
Thank you,
Sasha Shahidi
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 35
Cheyenne Bradeen
From: Margaret Rog
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2023 9:01 PM
To: Kim Keller; Cheyenne Bradeen; Cindy Walsh
Subject: Fw: Please don't disband board and commissions
Hi there, forwarding in case you haven't also received. Thanks.
MR
Margaret Rog (she/her)
Council Member -Ward 1
mrog@stlouisparkmn.go
V (612) 928-1447 (0}(612)
590-1806 (c)
From: Sasha Shahidi
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2023 8:17 PM
To: Margaret Rog <MRog@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Please don't disband board and
commissions
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Councilmember Rog,
I am writing as a resident of St. Louis Park and a Commissioner on the Environment and Sustainability Commission.
I implore you not to dismantle the boards and commissions structure in St. Louis Park at this time.
•After being involved in multiple discussions and listening sessions with city staff, fellow commissioners, and
other community members, I do not think there is a fully fleshed out or useful alternative now.
•Getting rid of the boards and commissions without a strong alternative is hasty and would risk losing incredible
and dedicated volunteers permanently, meaning dozens (if not hundreds) of collected years of valuable
expertise and knowledge. It would also mean a lost connection between the city and residents on important
issues addressed by the ESC that affect all of us (climate resiliency, sustainable long-term planning,
environmental justice, etc.).
•While I understand there have been problems with some city commissions over the years (lack of direct
connection between commissions and City Council, lack of support/resources for some commissions, unclear
connection between some commissions and city strategic priorities, inconvenient meeting models, etc.), I don't
think dissolving all commissions for issues within some of them makes sense.
1
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 36
•City staff's recommendation to create one citizen body does not seem to address the original problems that lead
to this restructuring idea. I think there might be space for a citizen body of this nature in addition to certain
boards and commissions but not instead of them.
•There might be other ways to restructure while allowing certain boards and commissions to continue doing their
great work and address some of the original concerns.
I encourage you to take more time to consider this issue and look for ways to address concerns with the current
structure, perhaps with less drastic changes, and not sacrifice the many benefits that boards and commissions bring
to the city.
Thank you,
Sasha Shahidi
2
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 37
Cheyenne Bradeen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Tim Brausen
Monday, November 20, 2023 6:47 PM
Sasha Shahidi
Kim Keller; Cindy Walsh; Cheyenne Brodeen; Melissa Kennedy
Re: Please don't disband board and commissions
Thank you for this email. By copy of this response I am sharing your email with City staff so that we have a complete
public record as we make this decision.
At this time I haven't made up my mind on the matter, and will continue to listen to the public including our
commission and board members.
As always, we'll try to do the best for our residents. Regards, Tim
Tim Brausen
St. Louis Park Ward 4 City Council Member
On Nov 19, 2023, at 8:16 PM, Sasha Shahidi wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Councilmember Brausen,
I am writing as a resident of St. Louis Park and a Commissioner on the Environment and
Sustainability Commission. I implore you not to dismantle the boards and commissions structure in
St. Louis Park at this time.
•After being involved in multiple discussions and l istening sessions with city staff, fellow
commissioners, and other community members, I do not think there is a fully fleshed out or
useful alternative now.
•Getting rid of the boards and commissions without a strong alternative is hasty and would risk
losing incredible and dedicated volunteers permanently, meaning dozens (if not hundreds) of
collected years of valuable expertise and knowledge. It would also mean a lost connection
between the city and residents on important issues addressed by the ESC that affect all of us
(climate resiliency, sustainable long-term planning, environmental justice, etc.).
•While I understand there have been problems with some city commissions over the years (lack
of direct connection between commissions and City Council, lack of support/resources for some
commissions, unclear connection between some commissi ons and city strategic priorities,
inconvenient meeting models, etc.), I don't think dissolving all commissions for issues within
some of them makes sense.
•City staff 's recommendation to create one citizen body does not seem to address the original
problems that lead to this restructuring idea. I think there might be space for a citizen body of
this nature in addition to certain boards and commissions but not instead of them.
•There might be other ways to restructure while allowing certain boards and commissions to
continue doing their great work and address some of the original concerns.
1
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 38
2
I encourage you to take more time to consider this issue and look for ways to address concerns with the
current structure, perhaps with less drastic changes, and not sacrifice the many benefits that boards
and commissions bring to the city.
Thank you,
Sasha Shahidi
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 39
Cheyenne Bradeen
From: Sasha Shahidi
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2023 8:24 PM
Cheyenne Bradeen; Melissa Kennedy To:
Subject: Please don't disband board and commissions
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Cheyenne and Melissa,
It was recommended that I share with you what I have written to Mayor Spano and the St. Louis Park City
Counci !members.
Thank you,
Sasha
I am writing as a resident of St. Louis Park and a Commissioner on the Environment and Sustainability Commission.
I implore you not to dismantle the boards and commissions structure in St. Louis Park at this time.
•After being involved in multiple discussions and listening sessions with city staff, fellow commissioners, and
other community members, I do not think there is a fully fleshed out or useful alternative now.
•Getting rid of the boards and commissions without a strong alternative is hasty and would risk losing incredible
and dedicated volunteers permanently, meaning dozens (if not hundreds) of collected years of valuable
expertise and knowledge. It would also mean a lost connection between the city and residents on important
issues addressed by the ESC that affect all of us (climate resiliency, sustainable long-term planning,
environmental justice, etc.).
•While I understand there have been problems with some city commissions over the years (lack of direct
connection between commissions and City Council, lack of support/resources for some commissions, unclear
connection between some commissions and city strategic priorities, inconvenient meeting models, etc.), I don't
think dissolving all commissions for issues within some of them makes sense.
•City staff's recommendation to create one citizen body does not seem to address the original problems that lead
to this restructuring idea. I think there might be space for a citizen body of this nature in addition to certain
boards and commissions but not instead of them.
•There might be other ways to restructure while allowing certain boards and commissions to continue doing their
great work and address some of the original concerns.
I encourage you to take more time to consider this issue and look for ways to address concerns with the current
structure, perhaps with less drastic changes, and not sacrifice the many benefits that boards and commissions bring
to the city.
Thank you,
Sasha Shahidi
1
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 40
Cheyenne Bradeen
From: Melissa Kennedy
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, November 15, 2023 11:07 AM
Cheyenne Brodeen
Subject: FW: Proposal to Change SLP Commissions
FYI..
Melissa Kennedy (she/her/hers)
City Clerk I City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Office: 952.928.2840
mkennedy@stlouisparkmn.gov
www.stlouisparkmn.gov
Experience LIFE in the Park
From: Claudia Oxley
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 10:56 AM
To: Melissa Kennedy
<MKennedy@stlouisparkmn.gov> Subject: Proposal to
Change SLP Commissions
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Melissa,
My name is Claudia Oxley and I live in Ward 1. I'm writing to express my strong disagreement with a recent
staff recommendation to significantly alter the structure of St Louis Park's commissions to a single group that
meets a very limited number of times each year.
I respect the work of staff and the efforts to understand the barriers to participation and impact to staff time
of the current structure.However, I believe the proposal will even further dilute the impact of community
participation and the motivation to engage. For me, the motivation to get involved would be directly
proportional to the impact I believe I would have on city decision-making. A general group, with a generalized
mission who meets infrequently would be completely unappeal ing to me. I don't see the difference between
just holding periodic town halls and this approach.
Structures of governance do have to periodically be reworked to adapt to new ways of operating and to
reduce bureaucracy that just naturally accumulates over time. It's certainly time for change. In my work on
non-profit boards and corporate governance, groups I've worked with make very practical changes to reduce
barriers to participation. Some examples include: 1) Reducing meeting frequency (quarterly or every other
month vs monthly); 2) Zoom calls vs in person meetings; 3) Streamlining the archaic use of Robert's Rules of
Orders such that key meeting controls are kept, but the flow is more natural; 4) Reducing the overall number
of commissions; 5) Ensuring meeting times are action-oriented and directly related to decision-making impact.
I'm sure many of these ideas were identified. Starting with some changes to key groups would allow for an
iterative approach in which people could experiment with what works. The proposal feels very "baby out with
the bathwater" to me.
1
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 41
I understand it's significant to reject a staff recommendation, but this one truly undermines civic
engagement. I hope you'll reconsi der and reassess the approach to improving the process.
IReplyReply allForwar�
2
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 42
Cheyenne Bradeen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Tim Brausen
Thursday, November 9, 2023 1:27 PM
Ryan Griffin
Kim Keller; Cindy Walsh; Cheyenne Brodeen
Re: Boards and Commissions restructure concerns
Ryan, thank you for your email. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue. By copy of this response I am sharing your
email with City staff so they have a complete record of citizen concerns relating to the structure of boards and
commission for the City.
I indicated to the staff that I am interested in exploring other set ups for the boards and commissions, including the
staff proposal that we are currently looking at. That being said, I am continuing to listen to board and commission
members and the opinions of interested community members, as we work to make the system better in assisting
Council and staff in making the best possible decisions about our future. I'll continue to do so until we make a decision.
As always, we'll try to do what's best for the City and its residents. Regards, Tim
Tim Brausen
St. Louis Park Ward 4 City Council Member
On Nov 8, 2023, at 4:03 PM, Ryan Griffin
CAUT ION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Tim,
It's been a while, how are you? I'm coming up on 10 years volunteering for the city, and you've been
around longer than me, so I think it's safe to say we go way back! Anyway, I wanted to reach out and
share my perspective on an important topic and also hear your thoughts.
I believe we as a city have a great resource in our current commissions. I can speak specifically on the
Environment and Sustainability Commission, which I've been a part of since 2014. What a great
experience it's been seeing our Climate Action and Sustainability journey come to life over these years.
It's been fantastic to see the ESC be a feeder to Council and State Representative as well. It's certainly
helped shift many careers, my own included, toward positions of sustainability and energy leadership.
Best of all, we now have expert staff who can hel p us do so much more than we could back then. So
with all that accomplished, do we still need a Sustainability Commission? My answer, and the
unanimous answer of the ESC is a resounding 'YES!'.
In all these years, I have not worked with a more dedicated and professional group of ESC members
than the ones we have today. We are a highly talented body of experts waiting to help serve and advise
Council. Certainly the Climate Action Plan gives the city structure and guidance, but we on the
Commission are in touch with the latest trends, technologies and viewpoints of our community. I fully
appreciate that there are a few things that can be improved upon, especially as it relates to our ability to
bring in voices that have not yet been represented, and directly engage with Council. Changing the
1
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 43
commission structure to a singular body, however, will move us the wrong way and greatly diminish the
professional resource the city has at its disposal. I am normally an advocate for change, but the change
we need now is not a complete overhaul, but rather some simple improvements to how we operate
and communicate with our city leaders.
Take care, and I'd be happy to discuss further anytime!
Sincerely,
Ryan Griffin
2
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 44
Cheyenne Bradeen
From: Ryan Griffin
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 4:12 PM
To:
Subject:
Cheyenne Brodeen; Melissa Kennedy; Emily Ziring
FW: Boards and Commissions restructure concerns
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Cheyenne, Melissa, Emily:
I reached out individually to each Councilmember with my thoughts on the proposed restructure. Didn't want to
flood your inbox by cc'ing you on everything, but most of my messages looked something like this.
-Ryan
From: Ryan Griffin
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 4:02 PM
To: Sue Budd <SBudd@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Boards and Commissions restructure concerns
Sue,
It's been great having you attend a few ESC meetings this year. You're the first Councilmember to do this in many years,
and it really goes a long way for us. Having someone there, even just once in a while, helps us know that our voices are
being heard. I know you already listened to us directly, but I wanted to pass along my own thoughts, and hear any that
you might have.
I believe we as a city have a great resource in our current commissions. I can speak specifically on the Environment and
Sustainability Commission, which I've been a part of since 2014. What a great experience it's been seeing our Climate
Action and Sustainability journey come to life over these years. It's been fantastic to see the ESC be a feeder to Council
and State Representative as well. It's certainly helped shift many careers, my own included, toward positions of
sustainability and energy leadership. Best of all, we now have expert staff who can help us do so much more than we
could back then. So with all that accomplished, do we still need a Sustainability Commission? My answer, and the
unanimous answer of the ESC is a resounding 'YES!'.
In all these years, I have not worked with a more dedicated and professional group of ESC members than the ones we
have today. We are a highly talented body of experts waiting to help serve and advise Council. Certainly the Climate
Action Plan gives the city structure and guidance, but we on the Commission are in touch with the latest trends,
technologies and viewpoints of our community. I fully appreciate that there are a few things that can be improved
upon, especially as it relates to our ability to bring in voices that have not yet been represented, and directly engage
with Council. Changing the commission structure to a singular body, however, will move us the wrong way and greatly
diminish the professional resource the city has at its disposal. I am normally an advocate for change, but the change we
need now is not a complete overhaul, but rather some simple improvements to how we operate and communicate with
our city leaders.
Take care, and I'd be happy to discuss further anytime!
1
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 45
Sincerely,
Ryan Griffin
2
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 46
Cheyenne Bradeen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Tim Brausen
Friday, October 6, 2023 5:37 PM
Marisa Bayer
Kim Keller; Cindy Walsh; Melissa Kennedy; Cheyenne Brodeen; Michael Sund
Re: Commission and Board Discussion at Oct 2 Meeting
Attachments: City council agenda October 2, 2023.pdf; 100223 - 3 -Boards and commissions
program update.pdf
Ms. Bayer, thanks for reaching out to me on this subject, and I'm sorry it's taken time to respond. I'm open to the
new proposal, but do want to hear from the community on this issue. By copy of this email I'm sharing your email
with the City Manager and staff, to share your concerns and to make sure the record reflects public input.
As a former member of two commissions and a task force, I recognize the value of our commissions and boards;
however, I've also seen where the system breaks down in getting community input on issues that matter. A robust
discussion about the boards and commissions purposes and processes is merited. We'll be looking at this issue some
more before we make any decision. As always, we'll try to do what's best for the City and its residents. Regards, Tim
Tim Brausen
St. Louis Park Ward 4 City Council Member
On Sep 29, 2023, at 10:23 AM, Marisa Bayer
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Councilmember Brausen,
I currently serve on the Environment and Sustainab ility Commission (ESC) and am a resident of Ward 4.
I understand that the City Council will be reviewing the board and commission structure at a special
session on Oct 2 and wanted to share my thoughts with you.
I've read the staff recommendations and wanted to share that both as a current commission member
and St. Louis Park resident, I am disappointed in their recommendation to dissolve all commissions that
aren't statutorily required. The existence of a human rights commission, environmental commission,
etc. helps position St. Louis Park with its peers and in some cases, ahead of peer communiti es by
elevating voices of its residents on key issues and topics.
I agree with the feedback highlighted by the staff report, such as a need to connect to strategic
priorities and barriers to participation, but believe that a total dissolution of commissions that aren't
required is a decision to avoid addressing these challenges rather than create solutions. It's unfortunate
to see that more detail on potential solutions to the current structure challenges weren't provided or
investigated (based on the summary report). During our September ESC meeting, our focus group
conversation on this topic resulted in what I believed to be different solutions and support for the
current structure (such as our
1
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 47
2
strong staff liaison, clear connection to strategic priorities, and specific events and policies we are
engaged on).
There may be information that leads to a decision that not all commissions and boards are necessary,
but the recommendation to remove those that aren't required in place of a board that rarely meets and
is less engaged overall feels short sighted and the path of least resistance. I'd like to encourage you and
the other council members to reconsider the staff recommendation.
Thank you,
Marisa Bayer
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Melissa Kennedy <MKennedy@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Date: Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 7:52 PM
Subject: Boards and commissions program update
To:
Cc: Emily Ziring <EZiring@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Cheyenne Brodeen <CBrodeen@stlouisparkmn.gov>,
Michael Sund <MSund@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Dear board and commission members,
First, we’d like to thank you for participation in the conversations around boards and
commissions and how to make them more impactful to our St. Louis Park community. Your
involvement and passion for the community is what makes St. Louis Park such a great place.
Second, staff have formulated recommendations for the council to consider related to an
overall purpose for boards and commissions and a new proposed structure that aligns with that
purpose. This item will be before the council at a special study session on Monday, October 2nd.
The agenda and staff report are attached. This item will be discussed immediately following the
conclusion of the regular council meeting. While study sessions are open to the public,
generally council's practice is to not take public comment at study sessions.
Once policy direction is received from the council, staff will hold a feedback session with
current members on the program purpose and structure in October. The council will be invited
to participate in that conversation and hear directly from current members.
Monday’s conversation is aimed at getting policy direction from the council. The operational
aspects of the program design and implementation will occur in the months following.
In October, staff will also be visiting each of the five commissions whose work would be most
impacted by the new structure to discuss what each group’s current workload is and what
transition to the new program looks like.
Any questions on the report can be directed to Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services
director, cbrodeen@stlouisparkmn.gov or 952-234-1503.
Thank you,
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 48
3
Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Michael Sund, elections and civic engagement coordinator
--
Marisa Bayer
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 49
January 16, 2024
Dear St. Louis Park City Council and St. Louis Park City Manager,
Thank you for investing time and resources into reviewing the role of St. Louis Park commissions and
boards. We appreciate the time taken to investigate how we can best improve our system and serve the
city.
The League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization working to protect and expand
voting rights and ensure everyone is represented in our democracy. We empower voters and defend
democracy through advocacy, education, and litigation, at the local, state, and national levels. The
League of Women Voters Program consists of positions backed by studies and consensus.
The League of Women Voters principle for responsive governments states that "LWV believes that
democratic government depends upon the informed and active participation of its citizens."
Many of the St. Louis Park commissions and boards align directly with the positions supported by the
League of Women Voters Minnesota, “to ensure equality of opportunity in employment, real property,
public accommodations, education, and other public services for all persons, including but not limited
to supporting administrative enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and the state’s responsibility for
and responsiveness to American Indian citizens.”
It is our understanding that the recommendation is to replace five advisory commissions consisting of
fifty-five members with a twenty-five-member sounding board. While we understand that it is not prudent
to have boards or commissions with over-lapping mission statements, we also strongly urge you to
consider their positive contributions. Dissolving them will result in losing valuable citizen involvement,
input, and collaboration.
The current recommendation is to dissolve the following commissions:
Police Advisory Commission (13 members)
Community Technology Advisory Commission (10 members)
Environment & Sustainability Commission (13 members)
Human Rights Commission (10 members)
Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission (9 members)
In addition, the recommendation is to keep the following:
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
Charter Commission
Housing Authority
Fire Civil Service Commission
Planning Commission
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 50
As you are aware, these entities not only support St. Louis Park elected officials, civic groups, and
community leaders in collaborating to develop a long-range plan for the city, they also help find problem-
solving solutions related to diversity, public safety, racism, violence, combating climate change,
maintaining neighborhoods and so much more.
St. Louis Park has a reputation for civic leadership. Over the years, these commissions have nurtured and
created leaders in our community, from our newly elected mayor to our representation at the state. St.
Louis Park has been made better for the leadership development and opportunities to serve that
commission system provides.
Many accomplishments have been made by the work of these citizens and their staff liaisons, and we
would like to highlight a few:
Human Rights Commission - They are vital in our focus for racial equity, and our local league was
especially grateful for the Human Rights Commission support of Ranked Choice Voting.
Police Advisory Commission - This commission was created to replace the Police Commission,
formerly mandated by the State of Minnesota. Its three former commissioners, including our own
LWVSLP member Linda Trummer, agreed to the disbandment of the commission with the
stipulation that an advisory commission take its place. Knowing that this advisory commission
would be considered for dissolvement would have changed decisions made years before. PAC has
been an effective tool in the advancement of community-oriented policing in St. Louis Park.
Community Technology Advisory Commission – While this commission advises and collaborates
with the city council and boards and commissions on the application of technology for the purpose
of improving city services and the quality of life for St. Louis Park's citizens, businesses, and
visitors, it also plays a key role in prioritizing broadband.
Environment & Sustainability Commission – St. Louis Park is a leader in this arena and has been
able to do so thanks to the work of this commission in activating our SLP Climate Action Plan. The
city now promotes environmental awareness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission – This commission was instrumental in creating
'Connect the Park,' improving parks and Westwood Nature Center, and supporting the many
programs that serve all ages in St. Louis Park.
The League of Women Voters St. Louis Park strongly urges the council to maintain the structure of the
commissions and boards. We would be happy to have further conversations with council members,
commissioners, and staff regarding our positions. Thank you.
Regards,
Deb Brinkman
Deb Brinkman
LWVSLP President
Empowering Voters. Defending Democracy.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 51
Amanda Scott-Lerdal
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Melissa Kennedy <MKennedy@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Thursday, March 7, 2024 10:52 AM
Ch eyenne Bradeen
Fwd: Please forward to City Council
FYI -fo r inclusion in the upcoming staff report.
Melissa Ken nedy, MCMC
City Clerk
City of St. Louis Park
952.928.2840
www.stlouisparkmn.gov/vote
From: Sigrid Fink
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 9:39:27 AM
To: Melissa Kennedy< MKennedy@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Please forward to City Council
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am a resident of St. Louis Park and I'm emailing you to ask that you vote against any proposed changes to the
existing Commission program/structure.
Thank you,
Sigrid Finke,1111111111111
Sent from my iPhone
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 52
Amanda Scott-Lerdal
From:
Sent:
To:
Margaret Rog <MRog@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Friday, March 8, 2024 9:52 PM
Cheyenne Bradeen; Kim Keller
Subject: Fwd: Commission Revisions
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Carly Butt
Date: March 8, 2024 at 3:32:00 PM CST
To: Nadia Moham ed <NMoham ed@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Yolanda Farris
<yfarris@stloui sparkmn.gov>, Paul Baudhuin <pbaudhuin@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Margaret
Rog <MRog@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Sue
Budd <SBu dd@stlouisparkm n.gov>, Tim Brausen <TBrausen @stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Commission Revisions
CAUTION: This email originate d from outsi de of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello
As a St. Louis Park resident, I would li ke to see our existing Commissions kept. I urge you to
vote against any proposed elimination of the following Commissions:
Police Advisory Commission
Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission
Human Rights Commissi on
Environment & Sustainability Commission
Community Techn ology Advisory Commission
The concerns prompting staff's proposal can be addressed without eliminating the
Commissions mentioned above. I ask that you consider investi gating solutions to mitigate
the concerns with existing issues before elimin ating Commissions.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 53
Amanda Scott-Lerdal
From:
Sent:
To:
Marg aret Rog <MRog@stlou isparkmn.gov>
Thursday, March 14, 2024 11:55 AM
Cheyenne Bradeen; Kim Keller
Subject: Fwd: vote against any proposed elimination of existing Commissions
Sent from my iPhone Begin
forwarded message:
From: Sharon Lehrman
Date: March 14, 2024 at 11:28:38AM CDT
To: Nadia Mohamed <NMoh amed@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Paul Baudhuin
<pbaudhuin@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Margaret Rog <MRog@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Lynette
Duma lag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Sue Budd <SBudd@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Tim
Brausen <T Brausen@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Yolanda Farris <yfarris@stlouisparkmn.gov> Subject:
vote against any proposed elimination of existing Commissions
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
As a St. Louis Park resident, I would like to see our existing Commissions
kept. I urge you to vote against any proposed elimination of existing
Commissions.
Across the existing Boards & Commissions there are currently 74
Commissioners and 9 Youth Commissioners. Staff's proposal reduces the
number of non-statutory Commissioners to approximately 25.
It seems unlikely that reducing the number of Commissions, Commissioners,
and frequency of meetings would increase community engagement and
transparency.
I ask that you choose to keep our Police Advisory, Parks & Rec, Human
Rights, Environment & Sustainability, and Community Technology Advisory
Commissions.
Thank you.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 54
Be the reason someone smiles today!
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 55
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023, an event was held in the City of St. Louis Park in order to provide the
opportunity for the city council to hear from board and commissioner members regarding a proposed
change to the boards and commissions structure. During the event, facilitators held a feedback
activity in which table participants had the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed
structural changes of the City of St. Louis Park boards and commissions.
During the small group activity, attendees were asked to share their thoughts on specific question
prompts with the city council member(s) that were seated at their table, as well as to write down a
summary of their thought(s) on sticky notes. Those sticky notes were collected, compiled, and
organized into themes. The raw data of what was written on each sticky note can be found in an
attached file, or by clicking here.
The following summary provides an analysis of the data collected during the small group activity,
including the grouping of data into themes.
Opportunities and Positives in the Proposed Structure
Cross-Topic Collaboration and Engagement:
Opportunities for cross-topic collaboration and increased engagement.
Ability to connect across different areas of interest.
Flexibility and Inclusivity:
The structure is diverse, broad, and flexible.
Opportunity for more people to qualify and be involved.
Streamlined Communication and Project Creation:
Opportunity to streamline communication paths.
The ability for the commission to create its own projects, is balanced with city council initiatives.
Event Follow-Up
& Summary
Event Date: Tuesday, November 21st, 2023
Summary
Question 1:
What are the opportunities, or areas of concern, regarding the new proposed
structure?
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 56
Community-Driven Approaches:
The ability for the board to propose topics and ideas, ensuring community-driven initiatives.
Opportunities for a large group to come together and hear diverse perspectives.
Empowerment and Youth Involvement:
Concerns about the lack of youth empowerment in the proposed structure.
Questions about where youth fit into the new structure.
Concerns about the proposed structure
Lack of Clarity and Direction:
Unclear roles and responsibilities in the new structure.
Concerns about undefined aspects and lack of clear direction.
Loss of Expertise and Knowledge:
Loss of specialized knowledge and experience of volunteers.
Concerns about the lack of specific expertise in the new structure.
Risk of losing granular expertise and depth of knowledge.
Risks of devaluing current board and commission members.
Meeting Frequency and Effectiveness:
Concerns about the effectiveness of meetings with 25 people.
Reduction in engagement points and opportunities for community involvement.
Staff Influence and Firewall:
Staff as a perceived firewall between council and community.
Concerns about giving staff even more influence.
Diversity and Representation:
Concerns about the potential reduction in diversity and representation.
Worries about limiting community engagement and opportunities for public service.
Transparency and Accountability
Appointment Process:
Concerns about transparency in appointments to committees and task forces.
Suggestion to make the appointment process more clear and less susceptible to manipulation.
Expertise and Representation:
Emphasis on requiring expertise among applicants.
Calls for diverse representation and a separate forum for youth members.
Question 2:
What are the tweaks that could be made to the proposed structure that would
make you feel better about the proposal?
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 57
Maintaining Trust and Cadence:
Desire to retain commissions that are working well and strong.
Keeping a certain number of commissions in line with city strategic priorities for trust and comradery.
Hybrid Approaches:
Support for hybrid approaches, combining certain commissions while keeping others independent.
Proposals to maintain the current structure in conjunction with the new strategic board (Hybrid #1 and
#2).
Communication and Meetings
Council Interaction:
The need for the board to have a direct line of communication with the city council.
Formalizing channels for communication with the council.
A call for council to listen directly to commissions at least every three months.
Meeting Frequency and Format:
Calls for more regular meetings to reserve time for workgroups.
Suggestions for a more frequent meeting schedule, shorter meetings, and regular forums to discuss
priorities.
The advantage of meeting monthly is for a more flexible and manageable schedule.
Concerns about the challenges of missing meetings in a quarterly setup.
Selection Process Clarity:
Emphasis on clarity in the selection process, seeking out multiple profiles or expertise.
Concerns about the clarity of the recruitment process for traditionally underrepresented communities.
Structure and Changes
Size and Structure:
Suggestions to have more than 25 people in the new version of the commission.
Proposals for structural changes, including retaining current chairs/vice chairs, using members for
formal work groups, and keeping advisory roles for council.
Targeted Work and Focus:
Support for commissions targeted to strategic priorities, especially if moving away from the current
structure.
Advocacy for more targeted or focused work at the direction of the council.
Accountability and Reporting:
Suggestions to have the group report directly to the city council, expressing concerns about staff
filtering information.
Support for more accountability with regular reporting to the city council.
Miscellaneous Theme
Youth Involvement and Diverse Voices:
Recognition of the need for a separate forum for youth members.
Encouragement to bring in more diverse voices by engaging with other commissions.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 58
Positive Aspects of the Proposed Structure
Increased Attention to Forgotten Issues:
Potential to bring more attention to issues that have been overlooked in the current structure.
Staff Involvement and Relationships:
Staff involvement in the selection process and engaging with residents.
Leveraging staff relationships to increase public involvement.
Diversity and Collaboration:
Opportunity for a more diverse and integrated approach.
Bringing together a diverse group of minds to discuss city initiatives.
Working in coalition with other commissions for new projects.
Efficiency and Effectiveness:
Greater staff involvement leading to increased efficiency and effectiveness.
Extra staff person providing more attention to boards and commission work.
Unified Entity and Collaboration:
A more unified entity as opposed to siloed commissions.
Allowing areas with overlapping issues to work together more easily.
Impact and Input in City Council:
Having a bigger impact/input in city council and having ideas heard.
Increased ability to dialogue with and have a closer connection to the council.
Engagement and Flexibility:
Improved engagement, with people attending fewer meetings since there would only be 2x meetings per
year.
Increased flexibility to act, with the ability to get things done through subcommittees.
Innovations and Resources:
Something new for the city with the single strategic board.
Possibility for innovations like a citizens academy with a dedicated staff member.
Availability of additional resources to support the proposed structure.
Cross-Functional Collaboration:
Encouraging cross-functional collaboration within a diverse group.
Feedback Loop and Administrative Ease:
Possibly a better feedback loop with sharing of information among diverse audiences.
Administrative ease from a city staff perspective.
Concerns and Criticisms
Question 3:
What are strengths of the new proposed structure?
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 59
Although this category was supposed to focus on strengths, we saw a theme appear in these comments that
were more concerns and criticisms of the proposed proposal.
Impact on Community and Power Structure:
Concerns about the proposal giving city staff even more power at the expense of community impact.
Assertion that there is no strength without direct city council involvement.
Resource Utilization:
Suggestion to discuss how additional resources could be used to fix the current structure.
Park and Rec Perspective:
Doubts about the plan benefiting the city, apart from adding more bodies.
City Council Involvement:
Concerns about staff not being equivalent to the city council in terms of direct involvement.
Standardization and Well-Defined Processes:
The city should have a well-defined process for involving commissioners.
Emphasis on standardized application and award processes.
This question was added after a conversation between consultants and city council on what information they
felt they still wanted to get. This question made up a variety of questions and really symbolized the city
council’s desire to ensure they heard all concerns and ideas before they left.
Commissioner Representation
Empowerment and Voice:
Positive feedback on feeling heard as a youth commissioner.
Concerns about not feeling heard and the need for more community input.
Diversity and Engagement:
Acknowledgment of larger engagement from the community but a concern about the lack of diversity.
Recognition of the need for more engagement and diversity in commissions.
Expertise and Passion:
Recognition of the current system allowing for expertise development and the pursuit of passion topics.
Concerns about losing expertise, education, and leadership development opportunities in the proposed
structure.
Communication and Collaboration
Communication Challenges:
Acknowledgment of communication challenges between council, staff, and commissions.
Desire for better communication, including a feedback loop and understanding council responses.
Question 4:
General thoughts, current structure thoughts, and do you feel you have been
listened to in the process?
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 60
Engagement with City Council:
Desire for council to take commission suggestions and more engagement with city council.
Lack of engagement and communication with city council as a concern.
Collaboration and Connection:
Positive aspects of the current structure include joint meetings with other commissions and liaison visits
from the council.
Recommendations for joint meetings, updates to commission purposes, and better connections with city
council.
Structure and Flexibility
Current Structure Appreciation:
Appreciation for the current structure's regular meeting time, history of action, and credibility.
Positive aspects of the current structure include the ability to build trust, relationships, and a regular
cadence of meetings.
Concerns about Staff Recommendations:
Surprise and concern about staff recommendations not addressing key issues brought up by
consultants.
Desire to better understand staff recommendations and explore alternative solutions.
Efficiency and Effectiveness:
Concerns about the efficiency and effectiveness of the current structure, including challenges in
advancing projects through monthly meetings.
Acknowledgment of limited staff involvement potentially impacting efficiency and effectiveness.
Recruitment and Engagement
Recruitment Challenges:
Concerns about recruitment and engagement, including limited resources for commissions.
Recognition of recruitment and engagement challenges, with a desire for more equity outreach.
Vacancies and Community Input:
Concerns about vacancies, lack of community input, and feeling unheard.
Suggestions to have a wider range of community input in the commission.
Improving the System:
Recognition of the need to fix the system rather than removing it.
Recommendations for improvements, such as cross-pollination between commissions and regular
scheduled meetings.
Specific Commission Concerns
Police Advisory Commission (PAC):
Positive feedback on PAC's effectiveness in bringing mandated updates but concerns about losing this in
the proposed structure.
Recognition of the importance of community oversight for police and concerns about losing PAC's role.
Flexibility and Learning Opportunities:
Recognition of the learning opportunities as a citizen in the current structure.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 61
Concerns about limited flexibility for meetings and the need for a Zoom option.
Niche Expertise and Topics:
Recognition of the valuable niche topical expertise in areas like human rights, policing, tech,
sustainability, and parks.
Suggestions to match each commission with city strategic priorities.
This report was compiled by Chad Henderson, Co-founder & Consultant at Yellow Umbrella Coaching and
Consulting. If you have any questions please reach out directly to me at
chad@yellowumbrellaconsulting.com.
Follow-Up
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 2)
Title: Boards and commissions purpose and structure Page 62
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: March 25, 2024
Written report: 3
Executive summary
Title: 2024 market value update
Recommended action: No action needed. This summary report is provided for informational
purposes to update council on the local real estate market dynamics and prepare for the Local
Board of Appeal and Equalization process that begins in April.
Policy consideration: None at this time.
Summary: The assessed market valuation and classification for each property determines their
individual tax capacity and thus the overall tax capacity of the community. In addition to fiscal
budgeting and property tax implications, the composition of value and trends are important for
council to understand as they focus on overall governance of the community.
This review is being made to give the council additional information on how the community’s
real estate is reacting to the significant evolution of the housing stock (single-family, condo,
cooperatives, townhomes, and apartments), market performance trends for commercial-
industrial space, thoughts on the current market cycle and the foundation to look forward.
Pandemic guidance: This overview is reflective of the assessment as of Jan. 2, 2024 with a
reminder that in the equitable sense all adjustments are derived from the preceding year
market activity. Events occurring during 2023 have been mixed in terms of real estate values,
interest rate impact on the market and the valuation outlook.
The St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization convenes its organizational meeting
on Monday April 1, 2024 with the follow-up meeting scheduled for April 15, 2024 if necessary.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion and following market overview
Assessed median value for single-family neighborhoods
Sales Residential TA 2024
Condo Townhomes 2024
Prepared by: Cory Bultema, city assessor
Reviewed by: Amelia Cruver, finance director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: 2024 market value update
Discussion
Background:
Overview of the Minnesota Property Tax System
Minnesota law establishes a specific process and timeline for the entire property tax system,
including the assessment of property. The system is summarized as follows:
1.All real property is valued annually at fee simple market value and classified according to
actual use. The owners are notified of the assessed valuation and classification in March
with informal and multiple formal options for discussion and appeal.
2.State law defines how the value is translated into tax capacity annually via class rate
structures, programs, exclusions and credits (e.g. blind, disabled, homestead, veteran
exclusion, low-income rental, agricultural et al). These refinements are administratively
maintained.
3.Budgets for each taxing jurisdiction are set annually. Funding sources include the property
tax levy, voter approved market value referendums, bonding, special assessments, user
fees, grants and programs in a variety of operational sources which vary among
jurisdictions.
4.In Minnesota, property taxes are a levied budget. The property tax budget levied in each
jurisdiction is divided by the total tax capacity of that unique area (e.g. city, county, school
district, met council et al). The result is the respective total levy extension multiplier (rate).
The multipliers are applied to each individual property in calculating the property taxes in
the year following the assessment and setting of the budget. It is essential to understand
that the property tax “rate” is simply a math equation and not a full reflection of all revenue
sources, tax base composition, service level, efficiency or performance.
The assessing function deals primarily with the first step and portions of the second, while our
work is such that we often explain the basic system outline to taxpayers/owners. As noted
above, the process begins with measurement of market activity as staff renders an opinion of
market value and classification annually for 17,000+ parcels in St. Louis Park as of Jan. 2 each
year. The assessment must comply with standards established by the Minnesota Department of
Revenue, Minnesota law and with review/approval by the Hennepin County Assessor’s Office.
Market value is defined in Minnesota Statute 272.03 subd 8 as “the usual selling price at the
place where the property to which the term is applied shall be at the time of assessment; being
the price which could be obtained at a private sale or an auction sale, if it is determined by the
assessor that the price from the auction sale represents an arm's-length transaction. The price
obtained at a forced sale shall not be considered.”
Classification of property use is also defined by Minnesota statute. The rationale for this
requirement is that the Minnesota property tax system applies differing classification rates in
determining how the value is translated into tax capacity. The classification system greatly
favors residential property types (single-family, condo, townhome, apartments) versus business
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: 2024 market value update
property types (commercial and industrial). This differential is increased further by specific
programs and laws such as fiscal disparities and state-wide levies.
The Assessment Process
The purpose of the assessment is to annually render an accurate and equitable opinion of
market value of each parcel of property. Doing so requires current information about the
properties being assessed and the local real estate market. In addition to the economic forces
at work, the individual property location, use and physical characteristics play a major role in
the valuation.
The St. Louis Park Assessing division maintains a record of every property in the city including
its size, location, physical characteristics and condition. As there are 17,000+ parcels in the city,
it is impossible to have complete knowledge of each property, which may or may not sell each
year.
The Minnesota property tax system therefore requires periodic inspections. The current cycle
of inspection is on a five-year rotating schedule (known as the quintile) which may be altered
due to physical change of the property due to new construction, renovations, additions and
damage. The goal of the periodic and interim inspection process is to assess the characteristics
and corresponding market value of each property as closely as possible versus the property’s
competitive position. Due to the importance of current and accurate information on the
property characteristics and condition, we must have an interior inspection in the last year prior
to reviewing for appeals.
It is important to know that the assessment process for residential properties in the State of
Minnesota is based on mass appraisal. The valuations are modeled by a computer assisted mass
appraisal (CAMA) methodology. To summarize, the physical characteristics for each property
are maintained in a large database which allows recalibration of the individual valuations based
upon the location, style and physical characteristics for each property. While sometimes viewed
as a mathematical equation to be manipulated, a truly functional CAMA system allows focused
modeling on properties with similar marketability. The purpose of modeling is to fashion a
mirror image of market performance based on properties that have sold during the comparison
time period (time trended and fact-based modeling).
Minnesota requires almost all sales to be recorded in an electronic Certificate of Real Estate
Value (e-CRV) data system. The sales information is scrutinized and qualified. Initial clerical
screening occurs at the city and county level. The sale information is then frequently
augmented with more detail from a variety of professional data services and staff may follow
up with direct buyer/seller verifications and re-inspections in cases where we may have
imperfect information.
Evidence suggesting anything but an arms-length transaction (a forced sale, foreclosure, a sale
to a relative, etc.) results in the sales information being excluded from the sale study. This is
important as the market information constitutes the measurable database for the statistical
comparisons necessary to make the property assessment.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: 2024 market value update
The mass appraisal process is different from the individual appraisal system used by banks,
mortgage companies and others. Mass appraisal is a modeling exercise using groups of sales to
review competitively similar groups of properties. The individual appraisal process is comparing
one subject property with a limited number of similar competing properties. In the appeal
process, assessing staff looks to both the mass valuation and a current individual appraisal
analysis for further review.
Big Picture of the Residential Market – Realtor Perspective
Before discussion of the 2024 assessment, we want to provide a big picture overview from the
perspective of Realtors. The broad spectrum of owner based residential real estate is often
carried in news media and the industry does comprise a highly significant variable in the local,
regional and national economy. The following chart is an aggregate of single-family homes,
condos and townhomes from 2015 through 2023 on an annual basis. This provides a
comparative reference for St. Louis Park and our immediate neighbors through the last decade.
Historic Median Sale Price – Aggregate of Single-Family Homes, Condos and Townhomes
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
St. Louis Park 239,000 245,000 264,663 287,000 305,000 327,750 340,000 360,000 375,000
Edina 397,000 435,005 460,000 450,000 473,606 520,000 595,000 580,000 600,500
Golden Valley 264,900 290,275 312,750 309,950 343,000 367,450 388,620 425,000 424,000
Hopkins 213,500 215,000 218,650 250,000 259,950 288,000 297,450 315,000 325,000
Minnetonka 300,000 307,350 335,000 347,500 358,250 358,250 437,000 460,000 465,000
Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors Sales Data (MAAR)
In contemplating the historical figures above, the primary owner-based housing options are
included. This aggregate price structure gives an interesting overall perspective for each
community. The variation from year-to-year depends on which market segment has more sales
as well as the volume of sales with new construction/major renovations. The refinement chart
below breaks out the dominant options available and their sale performance in the past year.
Annual 2023 Market Performance: Sale Volume – Median Sale Price – Days on Market
Single-Family Condominiums Townhomes
# Median Days
on # Median Days
on # Median Days
on
Sales Sale Price Market Sales Sale Price Market Sales Sale Price Market
St. Louis Park 478 409,000 11 156 216,150 33 62 270,000 21
Edina 456 819,000 13 214 219,000 27 38 520,000 16
Golden Valley 238 475,750 15 39 195,000 30 31 305,000 21
Hopkins 100 394,600 12 47 137,000 25 41 240,000 16
Minnetonka 413 560,000 14 120 217,500 23 140 348,250 15
Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors Sales Data (MAAR)
Several facts in the above table are notable. First – and often surprising to some - is that our
annual transaction volume is generally high in terms of turnover rate. This is due in part to our
pricing structure, the mix of housing options available, and the numerical balance between
single-family, condo and townhome stock. The most significant fact in the table above,
however, is timing of market exposure (Days on Market). All of the local communities are
clearly showing extremely short exposure times which has continued over multiple years. The
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: 2024 market value update
move to a seller’s market has been particularly emphasized in recent years from the realtor’s
perspective. While prior value appreciation has been predominantly in the lower priced
brackets, market activity in 2020 was appreciating throughout the price points, intensified for
the upper brackets during 2021 and became somewhat mixed in 2022 and 2023 as interest
rates became more significant across the price brackets. How that supply/demand equation is
influenced by the general economy, local competition, interest rates and household income is
the annual question in setting the assessment.
Summary of the St. Louis Park 2024 Assessment Roll
The Notice of Valuation and Classification commence mailing in March of each year. Each notice
reflects the property value and classification for a two-year period with the format as required
by the MN Department of Revenue. As of Jann 2, 2024, the total valuation of the city stands at
$9.94 billion; vs $9.71 billion for 2023; vs $9.41 billion for 2022; vs $8.55 billion for 2021 and vs
$8.13 billion for 2020. The year-over-year change for assess 2024 is explored below.
Assessed Market Value Change for Dominant Sectors (Comparing 2024 to 2023 Assessment)
Single-Family Residential + 1.0% Market Basis versus + 1.5% with Improvements
Condominium - 1.8% Market Basis versus - 1.8% with Improvements
Townhomes - 0.8% Market Basis versus - 0.7% with Improvements
Apartments - 0.7% Market Basis versus + 7.5% with Improvements
Commercial + 1.2% Market Basis versus + 1.8% with Improvements
Industrial + 5.2% Market Basis versus + 5.4% with Improvements
St. Louis Park Total + 0.7% Market Basis versus + 2.5% Gross Change
Source: St. Louis Park Assessing Office. The “total” line is subject to slight refinement (0.3% to 0.5%
generally) as the state assessed rail and utility values are assumed and not available at report writing.
Market basis reflects a roughly apple-to-apple comparison of the primary use sectors from one
year to the next. This measure is the primary focus of the mass appraisal methodology reflected
by review of qualified transactions. There are also nominal shifts associated with use change,
divisions/combinations of parcels and changes to exemptions.
Gross change reflects the total taxable valuation of the city which includes improvement values
arising from new construction, additions, renovations and use repositioning. This metric reflects
the full scale of economic activity as assessed and by tax capacity. Improvement values were
moderately strong for the 2024 assessment given that we are a largely built-out community.
Each of the above categories will be explained at further length in the following summary with
a reminder that an assessment is fashioning a mirror image of the market. It has included the
traditional sales review, extensive qualification review, on-market listings multiple times per
year, income-expense relationships, construction trending and the quintile inspection cycle.
We begin our review of the overall residential sector by breaking it down into the three
dominant categories: low density (single-family homes); mid-to-high density ownership based
(condos and townhomes) and apartment units. The largest factor during the sales study period
(10-01-22 through 09-30-23) was interest rates for virtually all property types be they
residential, commercial-industrial or apartments. When the Federal Reserve raised their funds
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Title: 2024 market value update
rate it quickly rippled out into the lending sectors leading to a rapid uptick for virtually all
mortgage rates. As can be expected, this cooled the real estate economy.
Single Family Homes: Just under one-half of the total housing units are single family homes. For
reference, the city’s median market value was at $306,400 for assess 2020, at $330,250 for
assess 2021, at $371,800 for assess 2022, leveling off at $373,300 for assess 2023 and modest
growth to reach $377,200 for assess 2024. The city of St. Louis Park is broken down into 35
distinct neighborhoods which are configured to local history rather than competitive influences.
Of the 32 neighborhoods with single-family properties, the full range of adjustment was -4.8%
to +6.2% with six neighborhoods downward, one flat and the other twenty-five moving upward.
The majority of market movement was in a range of -3.0% to +3.0% with the lower value
brackets more on the lower end of the spectrum while the upper brackets, being slightly less
interest rate sensitive, were toward the upper end of the range. This is viewed from the context
of a more balanced market following multiple years where the lower end stock was moving
upward much more rapidly than the upper brackets. This return to a broader market value
range is somewhat of a misnomer, however, as annual appreciation at 12% for the 2022
assessment is not normally viewed as a sustainable or healthy movement. This played out in
2023 with the interest rates being the dominant market driver for the most recent assessment.
Condominiums: There are 46 distinct condominium complexes in the community. The
complexes are a decidedly diverse stock in terms of structural vintage and structural design
format (apartment conversions, row-house, low-rise, high-rise and most everything in
between).
As noted in prior years, condos tend to be considerably more volatile year-over-year. This is
generally due to four major factors: condos have an in-complex sub-market which can swing
quickly; the complexes compete locally and more readily with those in nearby cities;
perceptions of value differ between the owner-occupant buyer versus the investor/rental
buyer; and sale pricing can be affected in a significant manner by association assessments and
maintenance.
This complexity and variety of market options has continued with the 2024 assessment being
relatively strong in the aggregate sense. The city-wide median value was at $171,600 for 2020,
at $173,000 for 2021, at $193,500 for 2022, hard shift to $208,800 for 2023 and slight
corrections leading to $203,900 for the 2024 assessment.
Townhomes: There are 19 distinct complexes in the community. Just under one-half of them
are relatively small with fewer than 20 units. The other half are predominantly in the 20-50 unit
count bracket with three larger complexes that tend to dominate the aggregate percentage
change annually. In general, the market forces at play in this property type are similar to that of
condos with price point being a significant point of departure. The higher median unit value is
normally a more moderating influence but with the rapid uptick of interest rates this niche of
housing options cooled more rapidly for the 2023 and 2024 assessments following very robust
appreciation for 2022. The city-wide median market value for this stock advanced from
$211,200 in 2020 to $222,100 in 2021, rapid growth to $272,900 in 2022, stabilizing back at
$260,700 in 2023 and at $252,200 for the 2024 assessment.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 3) Page 7
Title: 2024 market value update
The following map links are included for your reference:
• Qualified single-family sales, color coded price brackets Sales Residential TA 2024.pdf
• Assessed median value for single-family neighborhoods 2024 Neighborhood Values
• Assessed median value for condos & townhomes by complex Condo Townhomes
2024.pdf
Charts follow to provide additional overview for the 2024 assessment and five-year tracking.
Page 8 reflects the single-family neighborhoods. Pages 9-10 provides the complex based
breakdown of the condos and townhomes. The charts include parcel count reference and
shading to denote their quintile inspection schedule.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 3) Page 8
Title: 2024 market value update
a: Median assessed market values – aggregate change including improvement values.
b: Localized market driven change – does not include improvement values.
Source: Annual compilations by the St. Louis Park Assessing Office.
Year of Assessment 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
St. Louis Park -- Single Family Residential Properties
Historical Change of Assessed Market Values (Quintile Cycle)
a.Median Assessed Value:306,400 330,250 371,800 373,300 377,200 Parcel 2024
b.City-Wide Static Change:1.3%7.8%12.6%0.4%1.0%Counts Median
1 Shelard Park N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 Kilmer 3.9%6.8%14.3%-2.4%1.4%246 322,300
3 Crestview 2.7%10.7%6.3%3.4%1.5%70 501,250
4 Westwood Hills 2.0%3.7%13.4%9.5%-3.6%292 567,350
5 Cedar Manor -0.7%12.0%13.1%0.3%0.7%578 376,500
6 Northside (x) Willow Park -4.1%7.8%17.7%-1.5%-3.2%303 364,300
7 Pennsylvania Park 9.2%7.8%10.9%6.0%-4.3%306 357,300
8 Eliot -2.2%13.0%12.0%-1.7%0.9%512 338,600
9 Blackstone 8.1%13.9%5.9%3.1%1.5%94 291,250
10 Cedarhurst 3.8%7.0%14.4%5.0%6.1%49 375,800
11 Eliot View 5.1%11.1%9.1%5.7%-2.4%167 355,700
12 Cobblecrest 0.9%7.9%12.0%5.5%-4.8%385 414,000
13 Minnehaha 2.2%4.0%14.7%0.8%6.1%129 525,400
14 Amhurst N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
15 Aquila 5.0%12.0%15.1%-0.9%0.9%506 323,250
16 Oak Hill 3.5%10.3%10.2%-2.9%4.5%640 344,150
17 Texa Tonka 1.9%5.1%16.9%0.6%0.4%387 325,300
18 Bronx Park 4.3%7.8%10.6%-0.8%2.1%995 345,200
19 Lenox 2.3%10.0%11.6%-3.1%5.5%835 352,300
20 Sorenson 2.0%3.6%13.9%5.2%-2.9%452 367,000
21 Birchwood 2.8%6.7%12.2%0.2%2.3%636 378,550
22 Lake Forest -3.1%3.7%3.9%2.7%1.0%198 698,500
23 Fern Hill 0.9%6.1%12.9%1.9%0.3%964 535,100
24 Triangle 4.5%6.7%17.9%-3.2%0.8%94 339,200
25 Wolfe Park 5.4%6.1%15.8%0.2%1.5%16 367,000
26 Minikada Oaks -1.6%10.2%10.9%4.8%0.0%77 513,000
27 Minikada Vista -2.5%7.9%12.2%-0.3%0.9%799 553,600
28 Browndale 1.7%5.5%9.2%1.3%2.4%551 523,200
29 Brookside -2.9%10.7%16.9%2.0%2.2%329 397,300
30 Brooklawns -0.4%15.5%12.4%-2.5%1.1%151 387,700
31 Elmwood 5.0%3.4%14.3%-3.1%1.1%269 392,100
32 Meadowbrook N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
33 South Oak Hill 8.2%8.3%9.4%1.2%2.5%291 326,000
34 Westdale -2.8%6.0%9.9%2.6%6.2%106 358,900
35 Creekside 1.3%2.0%16.8%0.8%0.7%171 419,400
Quintile Counts 2,281 2,464 2,923 1358 2561 11,598
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 3) Page 9
Title: 2024 market value update
Year of Assessment 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
a.Median Assessed Value:171,600 173,000 193,500 208,800 203,900
b.City-Wide Static Change:4.0%0.8%11.8%7.9%-2.3%2024
Code Complex Reference Yr Blt 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Units Median
MO Monterey Coop 1995 3.3%3.8%5.4%6.6%-3.1%8 115,450
AC Aquila Commons Coop 2006 3.3%0.7%0.0%-1.0%-5.3%106 216,000
33 3300 On The Park 1980 3.6%0.0%15.4%4.9%2.4%128 218,500
35 35th St Condos - Apt Conver 2003 3.3%20.0%16.8%-8.9%-1.9%11 161,800
55 55+ Condos 2006 6.8%6.9%-1.1%-1.0%0.0%60 248,350
BK Brookside Lofts - 4100 Vernon 2006 -2.1%0.0%20.9%9.7%2.1%27 327,700
BK Brookside Lofts - 4132 Vernon 2006 -2.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%14 N/A
BR Bridgewalk - Conversion 1980 2.4%4.9%1.4%14.9%14.9%92 176,600
CA Calhoun Hill 2014-15 3.4%12.2%-7.1%6.6%0.0%7 401,000
CH Coach Homes 1980 10.6%1.5%5.0%13.2%0.1%128 189,600
CS Cedar Trails - (South Condo Twnhme)1977 1.7%2.3%9.2%5.8%3.1%32 246,300
CT Cedar Trails - (North of CLR)1973 3.8%7.4%10.6%3.4%-4.5%280 167,800
CW Cedar Trails - (S-West Condo Twnhme)1977 13.4%0.0%-1.0%25.0%-4.0%48 273,800
EV Elmwood Village 2005 1.7%0.0%7.8%9.0%-4.1%77 380,700
FH Fern Hill 2001 -7.3%-4.8%26.0%4.7%-2.0%30 213,650
GR Greensboro Condos - HIA 1970 22.0%2.8%16.4%-0.7%2.3%164 136,000
HV Harmony Vista (Hoigaards) 2008 6.9%3.9%0.0%6.7%-2.0%74 249,500
IB Inglewood Boutique 2008 -9.3%5.2%5.5%4.5%-2.0%6 378,300
LN Lynn Ave Condos - Apt Conver 2003 5.1%3.9%-1.0%-8.9%-2.0%12 194,500
LY Lynwood Condos 1966 8.1%12.0%5.5%6.7%-2.0%11 221,600
MC Monterey Pl - Apt Convers 2005 -0.1%-3.7%3.7%-0.2%-2.0%30 257,050
MR Murphy Ridge Condo Twnhme - Rental 2006 3.3%3.8%5.4%6.6%-1.9%4 182,500
MW Monterey West - Condo Twnhme Coop 1995 3.3%3.9%5.5%6.7%-2.0%7 260,100
NP Natchez Pl 1987 13.7%-2.6%5.4%20.9%-5.7%27 234,900
OX Oxford Gardens - Apt Convers 2003 3.3%3.9%-4.8%6.5%-1.9%12 104,200
P0 Parkside Urban Lofts - 460 Bldg 2005 1.8%6.1%1.0%15.7%-7.5%24 371,800
P2 Parkside Urban Lofts - 462 Bldg 13-14 -1.1%11.7%2.6%16.1%-7.5%22 360,500
P4 Parkside Urban Lofts - 464 Bldg 14-15-16 8.9%-1.1%4.6%2.0%1.0%22 329,650
PP Pondview Park - Apt Conver 2003 14.0%4.1%0.2%15.2%-1.9%30 174,100
PW Pointe West Condos 2001-03 -2.4%0.0%5.6%14.4%-10.4%86 365,100
S1 Sungate 1 - East of Alabama (North)1978 5.3%-1.1%5.4%15.8%-1.9%20 176,700
S2 Sungate 2 - East of Alabama (South)1979 0.9%1.3%17.1%6.7%-2.0%26 220,100
S3 Sungate 3 - West of Alabama 1979 1.4%0.0%1.7%6.7%-2.0%14 231,400
SR Sunset Ridge - HIA 1981 3.0%3.1%7.1%12.8%-6.2%240 168,300
TF Twin Fountains 1980 1.1%7.2%1.7%5.7%2.8%88 155,500
EL Excelsior Lofts (T Joe Site) 2007 -1.5%2.1%-2.2%6.6%-4.4%86 273,100
St. Louis Park -- Condominium Properties
Historical Change of Assessed Market Values
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 3) Page 10
Title: 2024 market value update
a: Median assessed market values – aggregate change including improvement values.
b: Localized market driven change – does not include improvement values.
Source: Annual compilations by the St. Louis Park Assessing Office.
GW Grand Way (NE Bldg)2004 5.6% -4.5% 4.0% 9.1% -10.1% 124 355,850
TG The Grand NW @ Excelsior 2007 4.4% 0.0% 3.6% 5.1% 13.7% 96 538,950
VL Village Lofts 2006 6.6% 7.7% 4.1% 1.4% -4.4% 60 236,700
WE Westmoreland - HIA 1980 11.3% 2.1% 7.6% 7.7% 5.5% 72 138,600
WF Wooddale Flats 2014 2.9% -9.1% 9.1% -2.0% 12.3% 33 527,900
WL Wolfe Lake 1972 2.3% 4.3% -2.9% 6.2% 0.5% 131 206,600
WM Westmarke Condos 2007 1.7% 8.1% 2.7% 16.2% 0.0% 64 274,000
WO West Oaks 2007 1.0% 1.2% 3.1% 6.1% -4.1% 75 281,800
WV Westwood Villa - HIA 1971 10.7% 0.0% 4.9% 20.8% -1.6% 66 156,600
WY Wynmoor 1969 3.3% 0.0% 11.0% 2.9% 1.1% 56 145,300
Quintile Counts 693 435 440 587 437 2,830
St. Louis Park -- Townhome Properties
Historical Change of Assessed Market Values
Year of Assessment 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
a.Median Assessed Value:211,200 222,100 272,900 260,700 252,200
b.City-Wide Static Change:9.5% 5.2% 22.9% -4.5% -3.3%2024
Code Complex Reference 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Units Median
BG Brunswick Gables 7.9% 3.0% 14.1% -8.5% -0.2%7 285,000
DB Dan-Bar Rental Twnhme 8.0% 3.0% 14.1% -2.0% -0.3%4 244,700
EW Excelsior Way Rentals 14.0% 5.0% 21.4% -1.9% 6.8% 38 286,700
GR Greensboro - HIA 15.2% 0.5% 9.0% -2.7% 7.5% 96 233,800
HE Hampshire Estates 15.2% -3.0% 16.4% 0.0% -0.2%8 214,500
HH Hampshire House 14.3% 2.9% 11.8% 0.0% 3.8% 13 219,100
LL Lamplighter Park 8.7% -2.2% 14.2% -2.1% -0.3%5 464,100
LA Lohmans Amhurst 7.0% -0.4% 22.9% -4.5% -3.2% 276 248,500
ME Medley Row 11.0% 3.0% 14.2% -2.1% -0.3% 22 377,000
MP Montery Park 2.5% 6.8% 14.9% -2.1% -0.3% 18 467,600
PC Princeton Court 1.8% 3.2% 21.7% 5.9% -8.5% 13 528,200
QC Quentin Court 2.3% 3.0% 14.2% 4.0% -7.5% 10 484,750
SH Shamrock 18.8% 1.4% 15.7% -5.1% -0.3% 16 224,650
SK Skyehill 9.4% -8.1% 14.2% 0.1% 4.6% 31 313,500
SW Sungate West 11.5% -7.6% 21.7% 3.5% -1.4% 48 240,000
VP Victoria Ponds 7.7% 1.1% 17.5% -1.7% -1.7% 72 448,900
WT Westwood 19.2% 4.6% 22.1% -1.3% -4.0% 38 276,100
ZA Zarthan Apt Twnhomes 16.0% 2.3% 15.3% 9.2% -0.3% 18 297,100
ZP Zarthan Park 16.7% 2.9% 3.5% -1.0% -0.3% 16 254,000
Quintile Counts 30 18 276 132 293 749
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 3) Page 11
Title: 2024 market value update
Apartments: This sector is largely driven in the historic sense by tenant supply/demand, the
income stream and owner return expectations. This use category has exhibited very robust
growth for an extended period of time (effectively increasing total unit counts by 40%+ in the
last decade with many more projects under construction and in the pipeline). Thus, we provide
a longer historical perspective on market change and improvement values:
- For 2014 – market change at + 8.2% and +20.2% with multiple new complexes on-line.
- For 2015 – market change at +12.1% and +13.3% for the next phase of new complexes.
- For 2016 – market change at +12.0% and +17.8% including new construction.
- For 2017 – market change at + 6.4% and + 9.5% including new construction.
- For 2018 – market change at + 7.5% and +13.3% including new construction.
- For 2019 – market change at + 8.2% and +11.4% including new construction.
- For 2020 – market change at +11.4% and +15.2% including new construction.
- For 2021 – market change at + 2.3% and + 3.9% including new construction.
- For 2022 – market change at + 9.7% and + 13.6% including new construction.
- For 2023 – market change at + 2.6% and + 7.0% including new construction.
- For 2024 – market change at - 0.7% and + 7.5% including new construction.
Looking at the above historical pattern presents a very clear picture of extended market
appreciation in conjunction with active renovations and robust new construction. The totals
above reflect aggregate value change which includes mixed market change annually for the
Class A-B-C stock. The market demand for units is primarily attributed to our location adjacent
to the Minneapolis core with proximity to major employers in the west metro as well as cultural
and natural amenities. For the 2024 assessment, the market change is down slightly for the
existing stock with the primary influence being interest rates and the relationship with
capitalization rates (income approach methodology is net income / capitalization rate =
valuation).
Class A projects have been the primary focus for new construction due to the inter-connected
nature of the traditional approaches to valuation: cost to build, income stream and sales. It is
important to recognize that Class A and B stock were severely under-built dating back to the
mid-1980 to mid-1990 time periods. The new complexes are helping to broaden and diversify
the housing stock in that the total unit count is now distributed with approximately 40% Class C
stock (typically fewer than three stories, built circa 1960-1975) and 60% Class A and B stock.
For reference, the 2024 median unit values for the stock are: Class A at $280,500 and
essentially unchanged; Class B stock in a range of $183,000 to $197,500 at an overall change of
negative 3.5%; and the median value for the Class C stock is essentially flat at $124,000 per
unit. The current assessment reflects the influx of additional units still being absorbed in the
market as well as ramifications from interest rate increases.
Commercial and Industrial: This sector had exhibited continuous market appreciation and new
construction growth for an extended period approaching two decades. The 2021 assessment
ended that market appreciation streak due to the pandemic with the general economy
limitations continuing into 2022, 2023 and now 2024 assessment. While sectors of this market
have come back from the pandemic influence, specific use types have been slower to rebound.
Value changes year over year are heavily dependent on how these uses are performing in a
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 3) Page 12
Title: 2024 market value update
range of national, regional and immediately local economies. Commercial and industrial
properties are valued across jurisdictional boundaries to a significant extent with the specific
use dictating the extent of geographic market areas.
The overall market adjustment for the 2024 valuation on the commercial properties was 1.8%
inclusive of new construction while the market driven adjustment of the existing stock was
limited to 1.2% year-over-year. While this group of properties saw an overall gross increase in
value, existing valuation movements are very mixed. The two outer edges of market movement
are noted as: Class B offices having performance/occupancy issues are coming down in
valuation, while the service sectors of restaurants and hotels are moving upward. Many other
use niches saw nominal movement in value. This overall commercial sector for the 2024
assessment continues to show a degree of uneven market performance due to the effects of
the pandemic on their business which ripples down to their underlying market value in the fee
simple sense. It is noted that the economic variables of business value, value-in-use and leased
fee may or may not align with fee simple interest which is the required standard for valuation in
the MN property tax system. All sub-sectors have been adjusted as closely as possible in
relation to market evidence including sales, active usage and leasing.
The overall market adjustment for the industrial stock was 5.4%, which was predominantly
market-driven with nominal new construction value for the year. In closing, review of these
figures brings three observations to mind. The first is that value changes in this use category
vary with the general economy – many buildings viewed as functionally obsolete are having an
extension of economic life due to construction costs and higher unit values. Whether that use
extension beyond economic/physical life will continue is an annual question. Secondly, a
significant volume of the current industrial stock is located near the future light rail station
areas which are major drivers of use change, demolition, redevelopment plays and interim
holding. The two preceding issues bring us to the economic reality of underlying land values. As
a mature inner ring suburb – heavily engaged in redevelopment – our land value per square
foot can be a limiting factor for industrial users. The reason being that industrial uses are
typically land intensive and low-rise while our location and associated land values are
effectively a self-reinforcing value premium driven by density.
To close, the commercial sector saw overall growth. Segments of this sector saw no movement
in value due to the impact of the pandemic still playing out. The industrial market saw overall
increases in value due to location, especially those close to the future light rail stations and
those that allow for outdoor storage, which is a very rare commodity in the market.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: March 25, 2024
Written report: 4
Executive summary
Title: Bulk material containers in the right of way update
Recommended action: None at this time. The purpose of this report is to provide the council
with a summary of staff recommendations on city code changes that would allow bulk material
containers in the right of way under certain conditions.
Policy consideration: Does council wish to allow bulk material containers in the right of way
under certain conditions?
Summary: Since 2003, the city has not permitted bulk material containers to be in the public
right of way as part of its solid waste city ordinance. Examples of bulk material containers are
roll-off containers, dumpsters, tubs, pods, or soft-sided dumpster bags. The ordinance did not
include exceptions or variances allowing staff to waive the requirements due to special
circumstances.
After receiving feedback that this code does not meet community needs, staff approached city
council at the April 2023 study session with the idea of amending the city code to allow bulk
material containers to be placed in the right of way.
The council was supportive of the changes but was concerned about the type of storage
containers allowed in the right of way, public safety, navigating cars around the containers and
the duration of time containers would be allowed in the right of way.
The council’s direction to staff was to develop reasoning under what conditions the city would
allow bulk material containers in the right of way and what requirements would be placed on
them if allowed.
Financial or budget considerations: The proposed changes to the ordinance that would permit
bulk storage containers in the right of way would include establishing a fee to recover city costs.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
April 10, 2023 study session report
Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, engineering services manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Bulk material containers in the right of way update
Discussion
Background: Staff brought this matter to council in April 2023 for consideration because of
feedback that the current city code prohibition on bulk material containers in the right of way
did not meet community needs. Staff shared that since the code was adopted, there have been
numerous instances in which parcels in the city do not have adequate space to place bulk
material containers on private land. Based on a discussion with the city attorney, there are no
provisions in our city ordinance that would allow this section of the code to be waived. The
Zoning Code has provisions to allow for variances; however, the city ordinance does not.
During the 2023 discussion, the council provided staff direction that they would support
allowing bulk material containers in the right of way under certain circumstances . Based on
comments made by the council during the discussion, it was clear that the council was
supportive of allowing them when there was no other option, but it was also clear that the
containers should be clearly marked, not block traffic and should be on a restricted timeline.
The council also shared that only hard-sided structural containers would be considered.
With that in mind, engineering staff held meetings with representatives from fire, police, public
works, and building and energy to define the conditions under which bulk material containers
would be allowed in the right of way and requirements.
Present considerations: The most frequent reason cited when contacted by residents for this
request is that yards are too small or too steep for a container to be delivered and removed.
Based on the staff direction, an understanding of resident needs and feedback from other city
departments the following is recommended.
If a yard is too small or steep for a container, driveways - both off-street and in alleys - must be
considered a viable option for bulk material containers before an exception could be granted.
If the driveway or yard does not work for a container, it can be placed in the right of way. When
talking about where in the right of way, the consideration is to allow the containers on the
street. Since the typical alley right of way is only 12 feet wide, this would not be conducive to
an encroachment of any width. Most boulevards are too narrow and blocking a sidewalk would
be prohibited.
Approval would be determined at the staff level, with requests going through engineering’s
right of way permit process. Soft-sided dumpster bags would not be allowed in the street under
any circumstance.
Conditions of approval: If it is determined that there is not adequate space on private property,
bulk material containers would be allowed on the street. This will be accomplished by issuing a
right of way permit. The applicant would be required to follow these conditions:
• Containers must be in front of the applicant’s property.
• The street must be wide enough to allow the container and allow traffic to pass. If the
street is less than 28 feet wide, temporary no parking signs will be required opposite the
storage container to allow safe passing.
• If parking is already restricted in front of the property, a permit will not be issued.
• Containers will not be allowed within ten feet of hydrants.
• All storage containers must be marked with reflectors or cones to increase night
visibility.
Study session meeting of March 25, 2024 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Bulk material containers in the right of way update
• Only hard-sided, structurally stable containers are allowed. Soft-sided or bag containers
are not allowed to be stored in the right of way.
• A two-week time limit will be placed on each permit.
• Each address may apply for a maximum of two exceptions within 12 months.
• Permits shall be restricted between November 1 and April 1 so that they are not
obstacles for winter snow removal.
• Permits should be applied for by the container’s owner, not the property owner; that
way, the city can notify the business to remove delinquent containers. Solid waste
businesses are licensed in the city.
Recommendation: Staff recommends amending the solid waste management ordinance (Ord.
No. 2529-17,12-18-17) to allow for exceptions to bulk material container storage in the right of
way using the criteria outlined above.
Financial considerations: If bulk material containers are allowed in the right of way, a right of
way permit would be issued. The fee for the permit would ensure that city staff costs to
monitor the program would be covered.
Next steps: If the council is supportive of the conditions and considerations outlined in this
report, staff will begin the process of updating the city code.
To make these changes to the code, the city attorney advised that the solid waste ordinance
must be amended or re-written to allow for conditional storage in the right of way. In addition,
other areas of the code will be reviewed to determine if they need to be updated. Staff will
bring code changes to the city council in the coming months.