HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025/03/24 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
MARCH 24, 2025
There will be a short recess at 7:31 p.m. so that those who observe Ramadan may break
their fast.
6:00 p.m. Oath of Office – Council Chambers
1. Call to order
•Roll call.
Oath of Office Ceremony for Peter Hanlin, Fire Chief
Following Oath of Office Ceremony – Study session – Community Room
Discussion items
1. 2025 Market Value Overview
2. Public parking areas
Members of the public can attend St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and city council meetings in person. At regular
city council meetings, members of the public may comment on any item on the agenda by attending the meeting in-person or by
submitting written comments to info@stlouisparkmn.gov by noon the day of the meeting. Official minutes of meetings are
available on the city website once approved.
Watch St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority or regular city council meetings live 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 meeting’s end.
City council study sessions are not broadcast. Generally, it is not council practice to receive public comment during study sessions.
The council chambers are 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 24, 2025
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: 2025 Market Value Update
Recommended action: No action needed. This summary report is provided for informational
purposes to update the council on the local real estate market dynamics and preparing for the
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization process that begins in April.
Policy consideration: None at this time.
Summary: The assessed market valuation and classification for each property determines their
individual tax capacity and thus the overall tax capacity of the community. In addition to fiscal
budgeting and property tax implications, the composition of value and trending are important
for the 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 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.
This overview is reflective of the assessment as of Jan. 2, 2025 with a reminder that in the
equitable sense all adjustments are derived from the preceding year market activity. Events
occurring after January 2025 are viewed to have significant potential for influence in terms of
real estate values, conflicting market forces, interest rates and the valuation outlook. These
influences will be reflected in the next assessment.
The St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization convenes on April 14, 2025, with the
follow-up meeting, if necessary, tentatively as April 28, 2025.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion, market overview
Prepared by: Cory Bultema, city assessor
Reviewed by: Amelia Cruver, finance director; Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services
director; Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: 2025 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, community land trusts, 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 to calculate 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 January 2
each year. The assessment must comply with standards established by Minnesota law,
interpretations by the MN Department of Revenue, and review/oversight by the Hennepin
County Assessor’s Office.
Market value is defined in Minnesota Statute 272.03 subd 8 as “the usual selling price at the
place where the property to which the term is applied shall be at the time of assessment; being
the price which could be obtained at a private sale or an auction sale, if it is determined by the
assessor that the price from the auction sale represents an arm's-length transaction. The price
obtained at a forced sale shall not be considered.”
Classification of the property use is also defined by Minnesota statute. The rationale for this
requirement is that the Minnesota property tax system applies differing classification rates in
determining how the value is translated into tax capacity. The classification system greatly
favors residential property types (single-family, condo, townhome, apartments) versus business
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: 2025 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 the
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, it is standard policy to require an interior inspection in
the last year when reviewing 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 (the sales period is state dictated and time trended, also known as 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 24, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Title: 2025 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 2025 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 the 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 2016 through 2024 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
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
St. Louis Park 245,000 264,663 287,000 305,000 327,750 340,000 360,000 375,000 380,000
Edina 435,005 460,000 450,000 473,606 520,000 595,000 580,000 600,500 619,500
Golden Valley 290,275 312,750 309,950 343,000 367,450 388,620 425,000 424,000 424,900
Hopkins 215,000 218,650 250,000 259,950 288,000 297,450 315,000 325,000 365,000
Minnetonka 307,350 335,000 347,500 358,250 358,250 437,000 460,000 465,000 498,450
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 shows the dominant options available and their sale performance in the past year.
Annual 2024 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 474 410,000 14 149 206,700 37 52 275,275 20
Edina 493 820,000 18 235 215,000 44 42 522,500 21
Golden Valley 251 452,000 15 27 160,000 49 37 265,000 25
Hopkins 99 443,000 11 57 125,000 35 30 379,250 19
Minnetonka 426 585,500 18 110 202,500 37 122 355,450 20
Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors Sales Data (MAAR)
Several facts in the above table are notable. First, and often surprising to some, is that our
annual transaction volume is generally high in terms of turnover rate. This is due in part to our
pricing structure, the 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 over multiple years. To close, notation is made
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Title: 2025 Market Value Update
that the unusually high figure for Hopkins townhomes is related to one complex pricing much
higher than is their typical norm.
Summary of the St. Louis Park 2025 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 Jan. 2, 2025, the total valuation of the city stands at
$9.99 billion; versus $9.94 billion for 2024; versus $9.71 billion for 2023; versus $9.41 billion for
2022; and versus $8.55 billion for 2021. The year-over-year change for the 2025 assessment is
explored below.
Assessed Market Value Change for Dominant Sectors (Comparing 2025 to 2024 Assessment)
Single-Family Residential + 2.7% Market Basis versus + 3.3% with Improvements
Condominium + 0.4% Market Basis versus + 0.5% with Improvements
Townhomes + 3.4% Market Basis versus + 3.4% with Improvements
Apartments - 2.8% Market Basis versus - 1.3% with Improvements
Commercial - 3.4% Market Basis versus - 3.4% with Improvements
Industrial + 1.3% Market Basis versus + 1.3% with Improvements
St. Louis Park Total + 0.2% Market Basis versus + 0.9% 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 2025 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. Interest rates continued to be one of the major
drivers during the sales study period (10-01-2023 through 09-30-2024) for virtually all property
types be they residential, commercial-industrial or apartments. While the market has stabilized
in many respects for residential uses, sales volume remains well below that traditionally seen
(e.g. 590 sales in the current study period versus 750-800 from 2015 through 2020).
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
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 6
Title: 2025 Market Value Update
assess 2021; at $371,800 for assess 2022; leveling off at $373,300 for assess 2023; modest
growth at $377,200 for assess 2024; and slightly higher growth to reach $387,200 for the 2025
assessment. 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 -2.8% to +11.0% with six
neighborhoods downward and the remainder being upward.
Most of the market movement was in a range of -1.5% to +4.5% 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 sale counts continue to be lower than historical norms
which is viewed as an indication that affordability has cooled over the recent two-to-three
years.
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 2025 assessment being
mixed from complex-to-complex and virtually flat 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; stabilizing to $203,900 for 2024; and at $204,000 for the 2025 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. Three larger complexes tend to dominate the aggregate percentage change
annually. In general, the market forces at play in this property type are similar to that of the
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 and are bouncing back
at +3.5% for the median market value in the 2025 assessment. The city-wide median market
value for this stock was at $211,200 in 2020; to $222,100 in 2021; rapid growth to $272,900 in
2022; stabilizing back to $260,700 in 2023; at $252,200 in 2024; and at $261,000 for 2025.
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 7
Title: 2025 Market Value Update
The following map links are included for your reference:
Qualified single-family sales, color coded price brackets - Sales Residential TA 2025
Assessed median value for single-family neighborhoods - 2025 Neighborhood Values
Assessed median value for condos & townhomes by complex - Condo Townhomes 2025
Charts follow to provide additional overview for the 2025 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 24, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 8
Title: 2025 Market Value Update
Year of Assessment 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
a.Median Assessed Value:330,250 371,800 373,300 377,200 387,200
b.City-Wide Static Change:7.8%12.6%0.4%1.0%2.7%
#Neighborhood Reference 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Parcels Median
1 Shelard Park N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 Kilmer 6.8%14.3%-2.4%1.4%7.4%246 346,250
3 Crestview 10.7%6.3%3.4%1.5%2.0%70 511,150
4 Westwood Hills 3.7%13.4%9.5%-3.6%11.0%292 629,550
5 Cedar Manor 12.0%13.1%0.3%0.7%5.6%578 397,650
6 Willow Park 7.8%17.7%-1.5%-3.2%-1.0%303 360,800
7 Pennsylvania Park 7.8%10.9%6.0%-4.3%-1.5%306 351,900
8 Eliot 13.0%12.0%-1.7%0.9%1.0%511 342,100
9 Blackstone 13.9%5.9%3.1%1.5%3.0%94 300,000
10 Cedarhurst 7.0%14.4%5.0%6.1%2.4%49 384,700
11 Eliot View 11.1%9.1%5.7%-2.4%-2.8%167 345,900
12 Cobblecrest 7.9%12.0%5.5%-4.8%4.9%385 434,100
13 Minnehaha 4.0%14.7%0.8%6.1%7.2%129 563,100
14 Amhurst N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
15 Aquila 12.0%15.1%-0.9%0.9%1.3%506 327,350
16 Oak Hill 10.3%10.2%-2.9%4.5%1.8%640 350,500
17 Texa Tonka 5.1%16.9%0.6%0.4%2.9%387 334,700
18 Bronx Park 7.8%10.6%-0.8%2.1%4.6%996 360,950
19 Lenox 10.0%11.6%-3.1%5.5%5.0%835 369,900
20 Sorenson 3.6%13.9%5.2%-2.9%1.7%452 373,400
21 Birchwood 6.7%12.2%0.2%2.3%2.5%636 388,200
22 Lake Forest 3.7%3.9%2.7%1.0%8.1%198 755,150
23 Fern Hill 6.1%12.9%1.9%0.3%6.3%962 569,050
24 Triangle 6.7%17.9%-3.2%0.8%0.4%94 340,400
25 Wolfe Park 6.1%15.8%0.2%1.5%2.0%16 374,250
26 Minikada Oaks 10.2%10.9%4.8%0.0%-1.0%77 507,800
27 Minikada Vista 7.9%12.2%-0.3%0.9%3.8%800 574,850
28 Browndale 5.5%9.2%1.3%2.4%-0.1%551 522,700
29 Brookside 10.7%16.9%2.0%2.2%0.6%329 399,800
30 Brooklawns 15.5%12.4%-2.5%1.1%4.2%151 403,900
31 Elmwood 3.4%14.3%-3.1%1.1%4.3%266 408,850
32 Meadowbrook N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
33 South Oak Hill 8.3%9.4%1.2%2.5%3.7%291 338,100
34 Westdale 6.0%9.9%2.6%6.2%2.6%106 368,100
35 Creekside 2.0%16.8%0.8%0.7%-2.2%171 410,200
Quintile Counts 2,281 2,464 2,923 1,358 2,561 11,594
a:Median assessed market values for all single-family parcels - including improvement values.
b:The % change is market driven value change and does not include improvement values.
Source: Annual Compilations by the St. Lous Park Assessing Office
St. Louis Park -- Single Family Residential Properties
Historical Change of Assessed Market Values (Quintile Cycle)
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 9
Title: 2025 Market Value Update
St. Louis Park -- Condominium Properties
Historical Change of Assessed Market Values
Year of Assessment 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
a. Median Assessed Value: 173,000 193,500 208,800 203,900 204,000
b. City-Wide Static Change: 0.8% 11.8% 7.9% -2.3% 0.05%
Code Complex Reference 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Units Median
MO Monterey Coop 3.8% 5.4% 6.6% -3.1% 0.5% 8 116,050
AC Aquila Commons Coop 0.7% 0.0% -1.0% -5.3% 0.0% 106 216,000
33 3300 On The Park 0.0% 15.4% 4.9% 2.4% -0.7% 128 216,900
35 35th St Condos - Apt Conver 20.0% 16.8% -8.9% -1.9% -0.4% 11 161,100
55 55+ Condos 6.9% -1.1% -1.0% 0.0% 9.9% 60 273,050
BK Brookside Lofts - 4100 Vernon 0.0% 20.9% 9.7% 2.1% -19.1% 27 265,200
BK Brookside Lofts - 4132 Vernon 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14 N/A
BR Bridgewalk - Conversion 4.9% 1.4% 14.9% 14.9% -0.5% 92 175,800
CA Calhoun Hill 12.2% -7.1% 6.6% 0.0% -0.5% 7 399,100
CH Coach Homes 1.5% 5.0% 13.2% 0.1% -6.0% 128 178,300
CS Cedar Trails - (South) 2.3% 9.2% 5.8% 3.1% -5.1% 32 233,800
CT Cedar Trails - (North of CLR) 7.4% 10.6% 3.4% -4.5% -2.6% 280 163,400
CW Cedar Trails - (S-West) 0.0% -1.0% 25.0% -4.0% 1.7% 48 278,400
EV Elmwood Village 0.0% 7.8% 9.0% -4.1% 1.3% 77 385,500
FH Fern Hill -4.8% 26.0% 4.7% -2.0% 2.1% 30 218,200
GR Greensboro Condos - HIA 2.8% 16.4% -0.7% 2.3% 6.2% 164 144,400
HV Harmony Vista (Hoigaards) 3.9% 0.0% 6.7% -2.0% -0.5% 74 248,300
IB Inglewood Boutique 5.2% 5.5% 4.5% -2.0% 6.5% 6 402,800
LN Lynn Ave Condos - Apt Conver 3.9% -1.0% -8.9% -2.0% 1.4% 12 197,300
LY Lynwood Condos 12.0% 5.5% 6.7% -2.0% -0.5% 11 220,600
MC Monterey Pl - Apt Convers -3.7% 3.7% -0.2% -2.0% 14.8% 30 295,000
MR Murphy Ridge Condo Twnhme 3.8% 5.4% 6.6% -1.9% -0.4% 4 181,700
MW Monterey West Condo Twnhme 3.9% 5.5% 6.7% -2.0% -0.5% 7 258,900
NP Natchez Pl -2.6% 5.4% 20.9% -5.7% 1.3% 27 237,900
OX Oxford Gardens - Apt Convers 3.9% -4.8% 6.5% -1.9% -0.4% 12 103,800
P0 Parkside Urban Lofts - 460 Bldg 6.1% 1.0% 15.7% -7.5% -3.0% 24 360,700
P2 Parkside Urban Lofts - 462 Bldg 11.7% 2.6% 16.1% -7.5% -3.0% 22 349,700
P4 Parkside Urban Lofts - 464 Bldg -1.1% 4.6% 2.0% 1.0% -3.0% 22 319,850
PP Pondview Park - Apt Conver 4.1% 0.2% 15.2% -1.9% 5.7% 30 184,100
PW Pointe West Condos 0.0% 5.6% 14.4% -10.4% -0.5% 86 363,400
S1 Sungate 1 - East of Alabama (N) -1.1% 5.4% 15.8% -1.9% 5.8% 20 186,900
S2 Sungate 2 - East of Alabama (S) 1.3% 17.1% 6.7% -2.0% 5.8% 26 232,800
S3 Sungate 3 - West of Alabama 0.0% 1.7% 6.7% -2.0% -0.4% 14 230,400
SR Sunset Ridge - HIA 3.1% 7.1% 12.8% -6.2% -3.7% 240 162,000
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 10
Title: 2025 Market Value Update
TF Twin Fountains 7.2% 1.7% 5.7% 2.8% -5.0% 88 147,700
EL Excelsior Lofts (T Joe Site) 2.1% -2.2% 6.6% -4.4% 4.8% 86 286,100
GW Grand Way (NE Bldg) -4.5% 4.0% 9.1% -10.1% 6.5% 124 378,900
TG The Grand NW @ Excelsior 0.0% 3.6% 5.1% 13.7% 2.3% 96 551,250
VL Village Lofts 7.7% 4.1% 1.4% -4.4% -7.8% 60 218,300
WE Westmoreland - HIA 2.1% 7.6% 7.7% 5.5% 4.9% 72 145,400
WF Wooddale Flats -9.1% 9.1% -2.0% 12.3% 3.7% 33 547,400
WL Wolfe Lake 4.3% -2.9% 6.2% 0.5% -0.5% 131 205,550
WM Westmarke Condos 8.1% 2.7% 16.2% 0.0% -7.3% 64 254,100
WO West Oaks 1.2% 3.1% 6.1% -4.1% 2.8% 75 289,600
WV Westwood Villa - HIA 0.0% 4.9% 20.8% -1.6% 1.1% 66 158,300
WY Wynmoor 0.0% 11.0% 2.9% 1.1% -1.7% 56 142,800
Quintile Counts 435 440 587 437 693 2,830
St. Louis Park -- Townhome Properties
Historical Change of Assessed Market Values
Year of Assessment 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
a. Median Assessed Value: 222,100 272,900 260,700 252,200 261,000
b. City-Wide Static Change: 5.2% 22.9% -4.5% -3.3% 3.5%
Code Complex Reference 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Units Median
BG Brunswick Gables 3.0% 14.1% -8.5% -0.2% 2.8% 7 292,900
DB Dan-Bar Rental Twnhme 3.0% 14.1% -2.0% -0.3% 2.8% 4 251,500
EW Excelsior Way Rentals 5.0% 21.4% -1.9% 6.8% 2.8% 38 294,600
GR Greensboro - HIA 0.5% 9.0% -2.7% 7.5% 2.5% 96 239,700
HE Hampshire Estates -3.0% 16.4% 0.0% -0.2% 2.8% 8 220,500
HH Hampshire House 2.9% 11.8% 0.0% 3.8% 2.7% 13 225,100
LL Lamplighter Park -2.2% 14.2% -2.1% -0.3% 2.8% 5 477,000
LA Lohmans Amhurst -0.4% 22.9% -4.5% -3.2% 3.5% 276 257,100
ME Medley Row 3.0% 14.2% -2.1% -0.3% 2.8% 22 387,500
MP Montery Park 6.8% 14.9% -2.1% -0.3% 2.8% 18 480,600
PC Princeton Court 3.2% 21.7% 5.9% -8.5% -10.8% 13 471,300
QC Quentin Court 3.0% 14.2% 4.0% -7.5% -3.4% 10 468,200
SH Shamrock 1.4% 15.7% -5.1% -0.3% 2.0% 16 229,050
SK Skyehill -8.1% 14.2% 0.1% 4.6% -1.2% 31 309,600
SW Sungate West -7.6% 21.7% 3.5% -1.4% 8.2% 48 259,600
VP Victoria Ponds 1.1% 17.5% -1.7% -1.7% 5.5% 72 473,500
WT Westwood 4.6% 22.1% -1.3% -4.0% 8.8% 38 300,300
ZA Zarthan Apt Twnhomes 2.3% 15.3% 9.2% -0.3% 5.2% 18 312,500
ZP Zarthan Park 2.9% 3.5% -1.0% -0.3% 7.0% 16 271,900
Quintile Counts 18 276 132 293 30 749 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.
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 11
Title: 2025 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.
- For 2025 – market change at - 2.8% and - 1.3% 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 and 2025 assessments, the market driven change cooled for the existing stock.
The primary influences are relatively flat rents, the recent increase in interest rates, expenses
also under some pressure, and capitalization rates. In addition to the sales approach, the
income approach tends to dominate and is summarized mathematically as:
- Gross income – operation cost & reserves = 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 forty
percent being class C stock (typically less than 3 stories, built circa 1960-1975) and sixty percent
being Class A and B stock.
For your reference, the 2025 median unit values for the stock are: Class A at $280,500 with an
overall change of 1.4%; the Bs are in a range of $183,000 to $197,500 at an overall change of
negative 0.7%; and the median value for the Class C stock is $124,000 per unit, down 5.9% from
2024. The current assessment reflects the influx of additional units still being absorbed in the
market as well as ramifications from interest rate increases.
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 12
Title: 2025 Market Value Update
Commercial and Industrial: Value changes year-over-year are heavily dependent on how these
uses are performing in a range of national, regional and immediately local economies.
Commercial and industrial properties are valued across jurisdictional boundaries to a significant
extent with the specific use dictating the extent of geographic market areas.
This sector 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
the 2022-2023-2024 assessments with the majority of shifting among the use categories being
stabilized for the 2025 assessment with one notable exception.
The overall market adjustment for the 2025 valuation on the commercial properties was down
3.4% inclusive of nominal new construction value. That negative trend was driven by initial
weaknesses in the class B office markets which segued into the B+ and A- markets as businesses
have rolled through remote/virtual work being combined with in-office work and responses on
productivity versus how much space is needed. Without a doubt, these are business decisions
that are expected to evolve given the rapid advances in technology.
The bulk of other uses, on the other hand, are essentially stabilized with moderate growth. The
restaurant/grocery sector leads the way at 5.4% growth, the hotel/hospitality sector was up
2.3% and the broad range of retail uses was up 1.8% overall.
While the city’s variety of use types, and their spread locations, essentially gives a great deal of
cushion in the overall sense, the total performance – i.e. dominant tax base – is expected to
continue having a degree of variation. These uses have weathered through the pandemic,
supply chain driven inflationary pressures, space use mismatch between what was and what is
desired in the market.
The overall market adjustment for the industrial stock was up 1.3% which was predominantly
market driven with minimal improvement value for the year. As an inner-ring suburb, our
industrial stock is not a high percentage of the parcel count, valuation and tax capacity.
Three observations are made. 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 demand for space and construction costs. 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
have been, and are expected to continue to be, 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.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: March 24, 2025
Discussion item: 2
Executive summary
Title: Public parking areas
Recommended action: The purpose of this discussion is to review a number of public parking
lots and areas in the city, their locations and parking use. Staff requests direction on the policy
questions below.
Policy consideration: This discussion has the following policy questions:
1.Does council wish to continue the past assessment policy (as laid out in this report)?
2.Does council support staff recommendations on the next steps for the evaluated public
parking areas?
Summary: The purpose of this discussion is to follow up on an Aug. 8, 2022 council discussion
regarding public parking. At that meeting, council provided the following direction pertinent to
this discussion:
•On-street public parking is considered a shared resource for anyone in the community
to use.
•Staff should complete an evaluation of the parking areas A, B, C, and D, as described
later in the report, prior to moving forward with a plan to reconstruct them. The
evaluation will determine who is using them and if they are necessary for area parking
demand.
Engineering staff has completed the evaluation of the parking areas and have been meeting
with community development, finance and public works staff to discuss the topic. Evaluated
areas are those that were directed by council in 2022, as well as the other public parking areas
previously identified by the city.
Recommendations are included in this report and presentation.
Financial or budget considerations: Staff recommendations for the public parking areas are
included in the discussion section of this report. Reconstruction costs are not currently included
in the capital improvement plan. Any reconstruction cost will depend on the future
configuration of the parking spaces.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Public parking location map
City assessment policy
City council report Aug. 8, 2022
Prepared by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Reviewed by: Jack Sullivan, assistant city engineer; Sean Walther, planning and zoning manager
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Public parking areas
Discussion
Background: The purpose of this discussion is to follow up on an Aug. 8, 2022 council discussion
regarding public parking. At that meeting, council provided the following direction pertinent to
this discussion:
• On-street public parking is considered a shared resource for anyone in the community
to use.
• Staff should complete an evaluation of the parking areas A, B, C, and D, as described
later in the report, prior to moving forward with a plan to reconstruct them. The
evaluation will determine who is using them and if they are necessary for area parking
demand.
Engineering staff has completed the evaluation of the parking areas and have been meeting
with community development, finance and public works staff to discuss the topic. Evaluated
areas are those that were directed by council in 2022, as well as the other public parking areas
previously identified by the city.
Current conditions
What is a "municipal parking lot"?
The city currently owns and operates a number of public parking areas that have historically
been called "municipal parking lots." These may be actual lots or they could be parts of right of
way that essentially act as a parking lot. They are located throughout the city and are not
adjacent to city buildings.
Staff would like to redefine and narrow the term "municipal parking lot" for clarity around
decision-making. Staff would also like to coin a new, catch-all term. The new terms and
definitions are:
• Public parking area: This is the new, catch-all term to include public parking lots and
parking allowed in the right of way. These areas may be adjacent to commercial or
residential properties. Excepting for lots described as "municipal parking lots," these
areas are reconstructed with public dollars.
• Municipal parking lots: A subset of public parking is to be known as municipal parking
lots. While the city will continue to provide seasonal maintenance to these lots, when
reconstruction is warranted, it is to be 100% assessed to property owners determined to
benefit from the lot's usage. To be termed a municipal parking lot, the following criteria
must be met:
o Parking spaces that are not located in right of way; and
o Requires maintenance that is not congruent with routine maintenance of public
streets/ alleys; and
o The parking is predominantly used by adjacent properties and not for transit
park and ride.
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Public parking areas
Below is the historical "municipal parking lot" list, along with their status and underlying
property type. Attached is a map showing the locations of these areas.
Map
designation
Parking area name and address Status Underlying
property type
A 27th Street and Louisiana Avenue
• 2701 Louisiana Avenue
In service Parcel
B Alabama Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard
• 6000 Excelsior Boulevard
In service Right of way
C Louisiana Park and Ride (N)
• 7201 Minnetonka Boulevard
In service Parcel
D Louisiana Park and Ride (S)
• 3016 Louisiana Avenue
In service Parcel
E Lake Street business parking areas
• Bohn Welding Lot - in Idaho Avenue's right of way
• Lake Street alley parking lot - in the alley's right of
way behind the buildings
• Georgia Avenue lot - in 35th Street's right of way
In service Right of way
F 2914 Inglewood Ave S
• Small lot behind businesses
Leased to adjacent
property owner
Parcel:
encumbered
for parking
use only
G Gorham lot
• 3301 Gorham Avenue
Closed Parcel
H 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue
• 3575 Wooddale Avenue
Planned for
redevelopment
Parcel
How has funding for these parking areas been handled over time?
For decades, council direction has been that property owners using the lot should be assessed
100% of the cost to reconstruct these parking areas when pavement conditions dictate
replacement is necessary. The rationale was that the property owners were receiving the
benefit of the parking and, therefore, should fund the reconstruction. The city has a long
history of providing seasonal maintenance for these parking areas.
As noted above, on Aug. 8, 2022, council provided direction that all on-street public parking is
considered a shared resource for the community. The direction to publicly pay for parking
located in the right of way is further supported by past council action in other areas of the city.
Public parking area study and recommendations
A study of parking area use was conducted at public parking areas A, B, C and D. The study
lasted one week; its purpose was to document two things: the daily parking volume and where
the rider(s) in the vehicle head once they are parked.
Data collection for each parking area was conducted using video. Video cameras were installed
in locations to view the entire parking area and to capture destinations of users. In some
instances, an additional camera was installed to view user destinations in more detail. The data
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Public parking areas
was postprocessed from the video recordings, and the number of parked vehicles in each area
was documented every 30 minutes of each day for a week-long timeframe.
Information for parking areas E, F, G and H was not collected as a part of this study. These areas
were previously studied as a part of other processes.
The following are the staff's recommendations for each parking area. In the photos, green
designates right of way, and red shows parcels.
Map designation: A
Address and map: 27th Street and Louisiana Avenue (2701 Louisiana Avenue)
Parking use:
Total spots 23
Average weekday 18
Average weekend 3
Maximum usage 21
•Maximum observed parking occurred numerous times during weekdays.
•Post office employees are the most common users.
•No vehicles were observed on Sunday.
Analysis:
•Meets new municipal parking lot definition.
•Only one business uses the spaces and no noted shared parking need.
•On-street inventory shows sufficient parking to meet the demand.
•Future reconstruction of Louisiana Avenue will likely require right of way acquisition.
Recommendations:
•Reconstruction is not currently needed.
•Retain parcel for potential right of way needs with Louisiana Avenue reconstruction project.
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Title: Public parking areas
Next steps:
• Continue to monitor pavement condition; reevaluate if needed.
• Possible dispositions could be to reconstruct and assess, close the lot or lease to the
business using it.
Map designation: B
Address and map: Alabama Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard (6000 Excelsior Boulevard)
Parking use:
Total spots 20
Average weekday 8
Average weekend 5
Maximum usage 20
• Users observed to be a mixture of patrons/employees of surrounding businesses.
• Peak capacity and duration of use varied, depending on the time of day.
Analysis:
• Does not meet the new municipal parking lot definition.
• Surrounding businesses use spaces to meet parking demand.
• Layout is inefficient for parking and maintenance needs.
• Pavement condition is fair.
• For awareness: Jessen Press (parcel to the north) has expressed interest in acquiring this
land to supplement future development.
Recommendations:
• Reconstruction and reconfiguration is recommended.
Next steps:
• Evaluate options to rebuild parking and incorporate it into the city's 10-year CIP based on
condition, available funding and staff workload.
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Title: Public parking areas
Map designation: C
Address and map: Louisiana Park and Ride (N) (7201 Minnetonka Boulevard)
Parking use:
Total spots 23
Average weekday 5
Average weekend 3
Maximum usage 10
• Transit users and typical work hours predominated.
• Short-duration uses included transit pick-up/drop-off, mail and delivery.
• One nearby business owner observed parking daily.
• Weekend parking was low and appeared to be mainly nearby business owners/ employees.
Analysis:
• Does not meet the new municipal parking lot definition.
• Pavement condition is fair.
• Hennepin County will likely need to acquire right of way for the Minnetonka Boulevard
Phase 2 reconstruction project.
Recommendations:
• Reconstruction is recommended.
• The number of parking stalls could be reduced based on current use.
Next steps:
• Retain the parcel until planning for Minnetonka Boulevard Phase 2 is complete and then
incorporate it into the city's 10-year CIP based on condition, available funding and staff
workload.
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Title: Public parking areas
Map designation: D
Address and map: Louisiana Park and Ride (S) (3016 Louisiana Avenue)
Parking use:
Total spots 11
Average weekday 2
Average weekend 1
Maximum usage 4
•Use very low
•One vehicle was parked the entire week.
•Minimal short-duration uses to include transit drop-offs/pick-ups and residential delivery/
construction vehicles.
•Some quick late-night parking activities observed.
Analysis:
•Does not meet the new municipal parking lot definition.
•Pavement condition is fair.
•Hennepin County will likely need to acquire right of way for the Minnetonka Boulevard
Phase 2 reconstruction project.
Recommendations:
•Reconstruction is recommended
•The number of parking stalls could be reduced based on current use
Next steps:
•Retain the parcel until planning for Minnetonka Boulevard Phase 2 is complete and then
incorporate it into the city's 10-year CIP based on condition, available funding and staff
workload.
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Title: Public parking areas
Map designation: E
Address and map: Lake Street businesses' parking areas
These parking areas were evaluated as a part of the Historic Walker Lake planning study, which
determined that they were needed for area parking. The following areas are included:
• Bohn Welding Lot (6570 Lake Street): located in Idaho Avenue's right of way
• Lake Street alley parking lot: located in the alley's right of way behind the buildings
• Georgia Avenue lot (6470 Lake Street): located in 35th Street's right of way
Parking use:
Total spots 85
Analysis:
• Does not meet the new municipal parking lot definition.
• Pavement condition is poor and drainage improvements are needed.
Recommendations:
• Reconstruction is recommended
Next steps:
• Evaluate options to rebuild and incorporate into the city's 10-year CIP based on available
funding and staff workload
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 9
Title: Public parking areas
Map designation: F
Address and map: 2914 Inglewood Avenue
Parking use:
Total spots 35
Analysis:
•Meets new municipal parking lot definition.
•The city entered into a shared parking agreement in 2006 with an adjacent owner.
•They reconstructed the lot and are responsible for operation and maintenance. The public is
allowed to park there.
•The agreement expires in June 2026; the property owner would like to renew.
Recommendations:
•Staff recommends renewing the lease
Next steps:
•Staff will renegotiate the lease
Map designation: G
Address: Gorham lot (3301 Gorham Avenue)
This parking lot closed in 2019 based on the Historic Walker Lake parking study, which
determined that it was not needed for area parking. It is currently being leased to US Internet
for staging. They will vacate the site by May 2025, remove the remnants of the parking lot and
restore the site with grass. While not directly related to this policy discussion, staff felt that this
lot should be included in this report for completeness.
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 10
Title: Public parking areas
Map designation: H
Address: 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue (3575 Wooddale Avenue)
This parking lot is the Wooddale Station development site. The EDA is working with Roers
Companies to create a development concept consistent with the city's vision. This parcel was
not studied as part of the review. While not directly related to this policy discussion, staff felt
that this lot should be included in the report for completeness.
Financial considerations: The parking areas recommended for reconstruction above are not
included in the 10-year CIP. Staff recommends incorporating them into the city's 10-year CIP
based on their condition, available funding and staff workload. The cost of reconstruction will
depend on the future configuration of the parking spaces.
Summary, recommendation and next steps: This report includes the following conclusions and
recommendations based on past direction.
Conclusions:
1. Based on the new definitions, the city has two municipal parking lots and a number of
additional public parking areas in the city.
2. Past council direction and past practice have guided the city to fund the reconstruction of
parking areas that do not qualify as a municipal parking lot.
3. The city's assessment policy requires that 100% of the cost to construct or reconstruct
municipal parking lots be paid for by the property owners who use the lots.
Based on these conclusions and the completed study, staff has the following recommendations
and next steps:
1. Incorporate the following parking areas into the city's 10-year CIP based on condition,
available funding, coordination with other projects and staff workload.
Alabama Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard - 6000 Excelsior Boulevard
Louisiana Park and Ride (N) - 7201 Minnetonka Boulevard
Louisiana Park and Ride (S) - 3016 Louisiana Avenue
Lake Street businesses' parking areas
2. Continue to monitor the following area.
27th Street and Louisiana Avenue - 2701 Louisiana Avenue
3. Renew the lease for the municipal parking lot at 2914 Inglewood Avenue with the adjacent
property owner in 2026.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!C
E
D
A
R
L
A
K
E
R
D
L O U I S I A N A A V E S
E
X
C
E
L
S
I
O
R
B
L
V
D
M
I
N
N
E
T
O
N
K
A
B
L
V
D
W
O
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
3
6
T
H
S
T
W
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
7W
A
L
K
E
R
S
T L A K E S T
W FR AN C EA V E
S
D A K O TA A SY O S E M I T EA V E SH
I
G
H
W
A
Y
1 6 9T E X A S A V ESH I G H W AY 1 0 0 S
F
O
R
D R D
O
X
F
O
R
D
S
T
A: 2701 Louisiana Ave
B:6000 Exc elsior Blvd
C: 7201 Minnetonka Blvd
D:3016 Louisiana Ave
E: Lake St businesses parking
H: 3575 Wo oddale Ave
G:3301 Gorham Ave
F: 2914 Inglewo od Ave
Dakota
Park
Wolfe Park
Aquila Park
Bass Lake
Preserve
Lamplighter
Park
Westwood
Hills Nature
Center
´
Public parking areas
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: Public parking areas Page 11
Assessment Policy
Amended March 7, 2022
I.Introduction
A special assessment is a levy on a property for a particular improvement that benefits the
owner(s) of the property. The authority is provided to cities through MN Statutes §, Chapter
429.Special assessments assign cost of the improvement to those receiving a direct benefit
from the improvement.
Assessment amounts are based upon the total cost of the particular improvement and are
allocated by the Council as guided by this policy. The amount assessed against any particular
parcel shall not be greater than the increase in the market value of the property due to the
improvement.
The City Council has the authority to deviate from this policy as deemed appropriate by the
Council or when the law requires such a deviation. When the City deviates from the policies
identified in this document, it will identify the reasons for the deviation in the feasibility report
or at the public hearings associated with the public improvement.
This policy does not supersede or replace assessment references in the City Code.
II.Improvements to be Assessed
A.Municipal Parking Lots
The city owns and operates municipal parking lots that are not adjacent to City buildings. The
primary uses for these lots is for transit park and ride or private property parking.
1.Costs to be Assessed
a.Reconstruction or Rehabilitation
When the condition of the parking lot requires reconstruction or rehabilitation,
the total project cost may be levied as a special assessment to benefitting
properties in accordance with this policy. The assessment will be levied on a
project specific basis.
b.Maintenance Costs
Annual, seasonal, and preventative maintenance are performed by the City.
The total cost may be assessed to benefitting properties on an annual basis.
2.Benefitting Properties
The following information will be used to determine the benefitting properties
and the number of stalls to assign to each benefitting property for the
assessment rate:
a.A parking study will be completed to determine the parking lot users.
Benefitting properties are ones that have customers or employees that are
using the lot.
b.A land use review of surrounding properties will be done to determine parking
ratios required by City Code and prior approvals. This is done to determine if
the properties have adequate private parking. If a property does not have
adequate private parking or if parking spaces in the lot were counted to meet
their parking ratios, they will be considered a benefitting property.
3.Assessment Rate
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: Public parking areas Page 12
2
The assessment rate shall be per parking stall. To calculate this rate, the total
cost will be divided by the number of stalls in the parking lot. Each benefitting
property will be assigned a number of stalls within the parking lot.
This rate will be applicable to all reconstruction or rehabilitation projects and annual
maintenance costs.
The stall assignment is for assessment purposes only. The parking stalls are not for
exclusive use of the properties assessed.
B. Fire Sprinkler Systems
Property owners may petition the city to assess the costs install a fire sprinkler system in an
existing building. To be considered under this policy, the proposed work shall result in the
sprinkling of the entire building in compliance with the applicable City ordinance and state laws.
Petitions will be responded to by the Fire Department.
1. Petition
The petition must meet the requirements of MS Chapter 429, as they apply to fire
sprinkler systems. The petition, can be in the form of a letter or email, and shall include
the following items:
a. Fire sprinkler plans and specifications.
b. A cost estimate from three (3) qualified companies (licensed by the State of
Minnesota as a fire sprinkler contractor).
c. A written statement that the owner(s) shall be responsible for contracting for
the actual installation and proper operation of the fire sprinkler system.
d. Signatures of all property owners.
The petitioner(s) must waive all rights to the public hearing and any appeal of the
special assessment adopted by the City Council.
All petitions for the special assessment of the project must be received and acted upon
by the City Council prior to the start of any fire sprinkler installation. The City shall not
approve the petition until it has reviewed and approved the plans, specifications, and
cost estimates contained in the petition.
Consideration of any petition made under this policy is subject to a determination by
the City Council, in its sole discretion, that sufficient City funds are available for the
project. City staff will periodically advise the Council with regard to the availability of
appropriate funds.
2. Costs to be Assessed
a. The amount to be specially assessed shall not exceed the amount of the
construction estimate, plus any City administrative or interest charges. The
petitioner shall be responsible for any construction costs exceeding the amount
of the construction estimate.
b. The administrative fee for processing the sprinkler assessment application shall
be set in the City’s fee schedule.
c. If the petitioner requests the abandonment of the special assessment project,
all City costs incurred shall be reimbursed by the petitioner.
3. Payment of Assessments
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: Public parking areas Page 13
3
a.No payment shall be made by the City for any installation until the work is
completed and finally approved by the City and the assessment has been
adopted.
b.If the petitioner requests the abandonment of the special assessment project,
all City costs incurred shall be reimbursed by the petitioner.
C.Sewer Availability Charges (SAC) and Water Availability Charges (WAC)
Property owners may petition the city to assess the costs of Metropolitan Council SAC and City
WAC. Petitions will be administered by the Inspections Department. The requirements for SAC
and WAC deferrals include:
1.Eligibility Requirements
The City may authorize the assessment of the SAC and WAC charges if the City
determines it is in the best interest of the community and if the following conditions are
met:
a.The occupant of the benefitting property shall be a non-profit organization.
b.The occupant shall be engaged in works to serve a public purpose. This may
include charitable organizations or organizations that benefit veterans of the
United States Armed Forces.
c.The maximum SAC and WAC that can be assessed against any property is 25 SAC
units.
2.Petition
The petition shall be submitted to the City of St. Louis Park Building & Energy
Department in writing and the petition submission shall include the following items:
a.a valid SAC Determination Letter from the Metropolitan Council that indicates
the number of SAC units and any applied SAC unit credits for the proposed
property and use(s), and
b.the number of SAC units the petitioner requests to be assessed against the
benefitting property, and
c.the petitioner(s) must waive all rights to the public hearing and any appeal of
the special assessment adopted by the City Council, and
d.signatures of all property owners.
All petitions for the special assessment of the project must be received and acted upon by the
City Council. The City Council will not approve the petition until city staff has reviewed and
approved all city permits that may be associated with the proposed use and/or required
property improvements associated with the petition.
Consideration of any petition made under this policy is subject to a determination by the City
Council, in its sole discretion, that sufficient City funds are available for the project. City staff will
periodically advise the Council with regard to the availability of appropriate funds.
3.Costs to be Assessed
a.The amount to be specially assessed shall not exceed the cost of the SAC and
WAC for the non-profit use of the benefiting property based upon Metropolitan
Council’s SAC Determination, plus any City administrative or interest charges.
b.The petitioner shall be responsible for any SAC and WAC costs exceeding the
special assessment amount if the use or project changes following City
approvals.
c.The administrative fee for processing the SAC and WAC assessment application
shall be set in the City’s fee schedule.
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: Public parking areas Page 14
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: Public parking areas 4 Page 15
d.If the petitioner requests the abandonment of the special assessment project,
all City costs incurred shall be reimbursed by the petitioner.
4.Payment of Assessments
a.No payment shall be made by the City until all required city permits have been
approved by the City and the assessment has been adopted.
b.If the petitioner requests the abandonment of the special assessment project,
all City costs incurred shall be reimbursed by the petitioner.
D.Energy-Related Improvements
Property owners may petition the city to assess the costs to install energy improvements in
existing buildings. To be considered under this policy, the proposed work shall result in projects
in compliance with the applicable City ordinance and state laws. Petitions will be responded to
by the Building & Energy Department.
1.Eligibility Requirements
The City may authorize the assessment of the energy improvement if the City
determines it is in the best interest of the community and if the following conditions are
met:
a.For energy improvement projects on residential property, only residential
property having five or more units may obtain financing for projects under this
clause.
b.Assessment is for the construction, reconstruction, alteration, extension,
operation, maintenance, and promotion of energy improvement projects in
existing buildings.
c.Eligible energy systems are heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment,
building envelope and renewable energy systems.
2.Petition
The petition must meet the requirements of MS Chapter 429 as they apply to energy
improvements. The petition shall be submitted to the City of St. Louis Park Building &
Energy Department in writing and the petition submission shall include the following
items:
a. Plans and specifications,
b.A cost estimate from three (3) qualified companies (licensed by the State of
Minnesota) and
c.A written statement that the owner(s) shall be responsible for contracting for
the actual installation and proper operation of the improvement.
d. The petitioner(s) must waive all rights to the public hearing and any appeal of
the special assessment adopted by the City Council, and
e.Signatures of all property owners.
Each property owner petitioning for the improvement must receive notice that free or low-cost
energy improvements may be available under federal, state, or utility programs.
All petitions for the special assessment of the project must be received and acted upon by the
City Council prior to the start of any improvement. The City shall not approve the petition until it
has reviewed and approved the plans, specifications, and cost estimates contained in the
petition.
Consideration of any petition made under this policy is subject to a determination by the City
Council, in its sole discretion, that sufficient City funds are available for the project. City staff will
periodically advise the Council with regard to the availability of appropriate funds.
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: Public parking areas 5 Page 16
3.Costs to be Assessed
a.The amount to be specially assessed shall not exceed the amount of the
construction estimate, plus any City administrative or interest charges. The
petitioner shall be responsible for any construction costs exceeding the amount
of the construction estimate.
b. The administrative fee for processing the energy improvement assessment
application shall be set in the City’s fee schedule.
c.If the petitioner requests the abandonment of the special assessment project,
all City costs incurred shall be reimbursed by the petitioner.
4.Payment of Assessments
a.No payment shall be made by the City for any installation until the work is
completed and finally approved by the City and the assessment has been
adopted.
b.If the petitioner requests the abandonment of the special assessment project,
all City costs incurred shall be reimbursed by the petitioner.
III.Assessment Considerations
All properties benefiting from improvements are subject to the special assessment.
The project types to be assessed are not limited to those explicitly described in this policy. The City
Council reserves the right to consider additional infrastructure improvements on a case by case basis for
assessment, including but not limited to storm drainage improvements, streets, sanitary sewer, water,
street lights, walls, noise walls, boulevard trees, and sidewalks (both new and replaced).
IV.Payment of Assessments
A.Duration
The length of time that assessments are to be paid varies according to the total cost assessed,
the table below is a guideline. Staff may choose a different term based upon the type of
assessment and dollar amount.
$0 to $999.00 1 year
$1,000 to $2,499.99 2 years
$2,500 to $3,999 3 years
$4,000 + 5 or more years
B.Interest Rate
Interest rates vary based on project financing but are set no more than 2% above the City’s rate
on the sale of bonds or U. S. Treasury rate if the project is financed with existing City funds.
C.Repayment Schedule
1.All unpaid balances will be certified to Hennepin County for payment with
property taxes after November 1 of the year in which the assessment hearing was
conducted.
a. Property owners can pay the entire assessment following the adoption of the
assessment roll with no interest charged.
b.Property owners may also make an interest free partial payment. For ease of
administration, a minimum of 25% of the assessable cost must be applied for a
partial payment
2.Interest will start accruing on all unpaid balances on December 1 of the year in
which the assessment hearing was conducted.
6
V.Definitions:
For the purposes of this policy, the following definitions will apply:
RECONSTRUCTION - will be defined as a project whereby all meaningful elements of a facility are
analyzed for removal and replacement. These include curb and gutter, bituminous or concrete
pavement, gravel base, subgrade replacement as necessary and items appurtenant to these elements.
REHABILITATION – will be defined as a project whereby the pavement, gravel base and other roadway
items are reclaimed or replaced. These elements included bituminous or concrete pavement, gravel
base and subgrade replacement as necessary, spot replacement of concrete curb and gutter and
driveways.
TOTAL COST-
A. Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Cost
The total project cost for reconstruction and rehabilitation projects includes the following:
Construction cost plus engineering, administration, legal fees, assessment rolls, plus right-of-
way costs (fee acquisition and/or easement costs including staff time) and temporary funding
charges, plus other charges for services and contingencies, plus any assessable charges from
other governmental agencies (i.e. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, Hennepin
County, State of Minnesota), plus any assessable costs previously incurred by the City.
A portion of other contributing funds from the City (i.e. MSA), Trunk Utility, Water Resources,
etc.) or outside governmental agencies may be deducted from the total improvement cost to
determine the assessable cost.
B.Maintenance Cost
The total cost for annual, seasonal, and preventative maintenance includes, but is not limited to,
the following: Sealcoating, crack sealing, patching, striping, signage, snow removal, sweeping,
power for lighting, replacement or maintenance of bike racks and other fixtures within the lots,
landscape maintenance, storm sewer maintenance and any other work deemed necessary to
ensure a facility is in good condition.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 7, 2022
Kim Keller, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Study session meeting of March 24, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: Public parking areas Page 17