Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2020/01/27 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study Session
AGENDA JAN. 27, 2020 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Council chambers Discussion items 1. 6:30 p.m. Development proposal for the northeast corner of Texas Avenue and Minnetonka Boulevard 2. 7:00 p.m. Southeast area bikeway project 3. 8:30 p.m. Draft legislative priorities 4. 9:00 p.m. Future study session agenda planning and prioritization 9:05 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal) 9:10 p.m. Adjourn Written reports 5. Fourth quarter investment report (Oct – Dec 2019) 6. Annual Health in the Park update 7. Notice of Eviction 8. Permit for phone art from Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) 9. Community survey update Meeting: Study session Meeting date: January 27, 2020 Discussion item: 1 Executive summary Title: Development proposal for the northeast corner of Texas Avenue and Minnetonka Boulevard Recommended action: Provide feedback on the development proposal. Policy consideration: •Is the city council generally supportive of the redevelopment concept? •Is the city council willing to consider a land use change and rezoning for the properties? •Is the city council willing to allow a planned unit development rezoning even though the site is less than 2.0 acres? •Is the EDA willing to explore tax increment financing for this proposal? Summary: Paster Development has an option to purchase agreement for the vacant commercial building and vacant parking lot on the northeast corner of Texas Avenue and Minnetonka Boulevard. The developer proposes a rental apartment development with 95 units in a traditional 3- to 4-story multi-family residential building at the corner of the site, and 11 walk-up style townhome units located in two 2-story buildings on the northern half of the site. The development would include a mix of studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units. The site will require environmental remediation, as the southern end of the site was home to a fuel station, and there have been multiple dry cleaners located in the general area. The developer intends to request a housing tax increment financing (TIF) district, which would require 20 percent of the units be affordable at 50 percent area median income (AMI). Per the Metropolitan Council, 50 percent AMI for a family of four is $50,000. In 2019 the city conducted a small area plan for the Texa-Tonka commercial area, which anticipated redevelopment for this site. The plan examined development scenarios for the site, which included multi-family residential on the corner, and townhomes on the northern portion of the site. A survey was conducted to get reactions to the development scenarios, and most survey respondents were in favor of this type of development at this location. Financial or budget considerations: The developer indicates there are extraordinary costs associated with the proposed redevelopment site and building and will request tax increment financing through the creation of a housing TIF district. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion; development concept plans; all documents hyperlinked in this report are available in the community development department for review Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Development proposal for the northeast corner of Texas Avenue and Minnetonka Boulevard Discussion Site information: The proposed redevelopment site is located on the northeast corner of Minnetonka Boulevard and Texas Avenue. The site is in the Texa-Tonka neighborhood, immediately east of the Texa-Tonka Shopping Center. Site area (acres): 1.86 acres Current use: Surrounding land uses: vacant 4,500 sf commercial building, vacant parking lot, vacant residential lot North: 29th Street & single-family homes East: Rainbow Park & single-family homes South: Minnetonka Boulevard & commercial uses West: Texa-Tonka Shopping Center & single-family homes Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Development proposal for the northeast corner of Texas Avenue and Minnetonka Boulevard Current 2040 land use guidance Current zoning COM - commercial RM - medium density residential C-1 neighborhood commercial R-3 two-family residence Proposed 2040 land use guidance Proposed zoning RH - high density residential PUD planned unit development Background: The vacant parking lot located on the east side of Texas Avenue was constructed in the 1950s to provide overflow parking for the Texa-Tonka Shopping Center. The parking lot has been unused for several decades and has fallen into disrepair. The vacant 1-story commercial building on the northeast corner of Minnetonka Boulevard and Texas Avenue has also been vacant or underutilized for many years. Present considerations: Paster Development has a purchase contract for the vacant commercial building and vacant parking lot on the northeast corner of Texas Avenue and Minnetonka Boulevard. The developer proposes a development with 95 rental units in a 3- to 4- story building on the south side of the site, and 11 townhome rental units located in two 2- story buildings on the northern portion of the site. The development would include a mix of studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units designed as a combination of walk-up style townhomes, walk-up apartments and traditional apartment units. The developer would request a rezoning from C-1 neighborhood commercial and R-3 two- family residential to a planned unit development (PUD). A PUD would offer flexibility to facilitate a more cohesive and innovative site and building design. Additionally, the development would require preliminary and final plat approval. The PUD ordinance and a tax increment financing (TIF) request would require the developer to meet the city’s green building policy. The developer will also be strongly encouraged to include additional sustainable, green and energy-efficient features into the development. Inclusionary housing: The developer intends to request that the city create a housing tax increment financing (TIF) district, which as per state law, would require 20 percent of the units be affordable at 50 percent area median income (AMI). Per the Metropolitan Council, 50 percent AMI for a family of four is $50,000. Monthly rental rates at 50 percent AMI are $937 for a 1-bedroom unit and $1,124 for a 2-bedroom unit. The number of units exceeds the city’s inclusionary housing requirements. Other relevant guidance documents: In 2019 the city completed a small area plan for the Texa- Tonka commercial area which anticipated redevelopment for this site. The plan examined development scenarios for the site, which included multi-family residential on the corner, and townhomes on the northern portion of the site. A survey was conducted to get reactions to the development scenarios, and the majority of survey respondents were in favor of this type of development at this location. One of the scenarios for the NE corner looked at a mixed-use building with approximately 3,000 square feet of commercial and 34 residential units in a building that was two stories near Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 1) Page 4 Title: Development proposal for the northeast corner of Texas Avenue and Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, and three stories to the north to take advantage of the grade of the site. This scenario anticipated a curb cut on Minnetonka being used to access the site. 58% percent of survey responses (page 37) showed support for this development scenario. Those that opposed this option were concerned about more multi-family units and more traffic. The plan also looked at a 10-unit townhome development on the northern end of the site. This development scenario was included in the survey (page 24), where 70.5% of respondents showed support for this type of development on the site. Of the 29% of people who were against it, only 8% commented why, and answers ranged between being too dense or not dense enough. A traffic study and market study were also completed as part of the small area plan which both support a proposal of this scale. Paster Development’s proposal is designed to reflect and align with the Texa-Tonka Small Area Plan. The original proposal for the site was a 140 unit, 6-story apartment building. Based on discussions with neighbors and the outreach that occurred during the planning process, Paster Properties decided to scale back the project. Next steps: Paster Development intends to apply for a comprehensive plan amendment to reguide portions of the site from commercial which allows up to 50 units per acre to high density-residential which allows up to 75 units per acre, a preliminary and final plat, and a rezoning to a Planned Unit Development. The developer also intends to request tax increment financing to defray a portion of extraordinary costs associated with the project that would prevent the project from being financially feasible. The developer and staff will schedule future study session(s) and/or a report with the city council to review and discuss the tax increment financing requests prior to city council consideration of formal applications. © 2019 DJR ArchitectureMinnetonka and Texas19 -047.00 St. Louis Park, Minnesota01.27.2020117(;$6$9(18(0,11(721.$%/9'352326('%8,/',1*6725,(681,767+67:685)$&(3$5.,1*63$&(6,17(5,253$5.,1*63$&(6 111172:1+20(66725,(681,766)'25$ 3$5.,1*5(&$3(1&/26('$3$570(17 72:1+20(6 685)$&( 675((7 727$/67$//66)'25$81,75(&$3$3$570(176 72:1+20(6 6)72:1+20(66)72:1+20(6SITE PLANSITE PLANStudy session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: Development proposal for the northeast corner of Texas Avenue and Minnetonka BoulevardPage 5 © 2019 DJR ArchitectureMinnetonka and Texas19 -047.00 St. Louis Park, Minnesota01.27.202017EAST ELEVATIONBUILDING ELEVATIONS EAST/WEST ELEVATIONSWEST ELEVATIONStudy session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: Development proposal for the northeast corner of Texas Avenue and Minnetonka BoulevardPage 6 © 2019 DJR ArchitectureMinnetonka and Texas19 -047.00 St. Louis Park, Minnesota01.27.202018BUILDING ELEVATIONSNORTH/SOUTH ELEVATIONS/(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ 522)75866%($5,1* /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/3 /(9(/ /(9(/ 522)75866%($5,1* SOUTH ELEVATIONNORTH ELEVATIONStudy session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: Development proposal for the northeast corner of Texas Avenue and Minnetonka BoulevardPage 7 © 2019 DJR ArchitectureMinnetonka and Texas19 -047.00 St. Louis Park, Minnesota01.27.202019PERSPECTIVESView from Minnetonka looking NorthPERSPECTIVESStudy session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: Development proposal for the northeast corner of Texas Avenue and Minnetonka BoulevardPage 8 © 2019 DJR ArchitectureMinnetonka and Texas19 -047.00 St. Louis Park, Minnesota01.27.202020PERSPECTIVESPERSPECTIVESView from Texas Avenue looking North EastStudy session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: Development proposal for the northeast corner of Texas Avenue and Minnetonka BoulevardPage 9 © 2019 DJR ArchitectureMinnetonka and Texas19 -047.00 St. Louis Park, Minnesota01.27.202021PERSPECTIVESPERSPECTIVESView from Texas Ave S looking South EastStudy session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: Development proposal for the northeast corner of Texas Avenue and Minnetonka BoulevardPage 10 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: January 27, 2020 Discussion item: 2 Executive summary Title: Southeast area bikeway project Recommended action: No action at this time. This report is intended to provide an overview of the recommended layout for the Southeast area bikeway project. Policy consideration: Does the recommended layout align with city council strategic priorities and policy direction? Summary: Council has requested staff to complete preliminary designs for bike facilities in the southeast area of St. Louis Park as outlined in the Connect the Park plan. The segments create a continuous bikeway from the Rec Center to the south border with Edina as well as connect Minneapolis and the Chain of Lakes to the Excelsior & Grand area. In all, the Southeast area bikeways will add 1.8 miles to the network. Staff has worked through an extensive community engagement process beginning in December 2017, working towards the best design for all road users. We have worked to refine our design using the feedback received. There has been continuous feedback to staff with concerns about the proposed design’s safety, impacts, and costs. In this report, staff provides information on how our design meets council’s goals and the recommended safety measures needed to accommodate bikes in this corridor. Staff plans to schedule a public hearing for this project for the Feb. 18 meeting. A decision on the preliminary layout and authorization to develop final plans is scheduled for the March 2 meeting. If approved, this project would be constructed from Fall 2020 to Spring 2021. Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city’s 2020 capital improvement plan (CIP) and will be paid for using general obligation bonds. The total construction cost for the entire project is estimated at $445,000. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Overview map Survey results – November 2019 Design evaluations – December 2019 Segment layouts Submittal from Wooddale/Browndale Citizens United for Safe Streets Prepared by: Ben Manibog, transportation engineer Jack Sullivan, senior engineering project manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: Southeast area bikeway project Discussion Background: Staff was directed to recommend a design for a bikeway on the following segments as a part of the Connect the Park capital improvement plan (CIP): • 38th Street from Excelsior Boulevard to France Avenue (0.4 miles) The four segments below together complete a bike route from the Rec Center to the Edina border (1.32 miles): • From the Rec Center west along the south side of Wolfe Park (0.32 miles) • South from Wolfe Parkway on Park Commons Drive to the intersection with Quentin Avenue (0.07 miles) • South along Quentin Avenue from Park Commons Drive to Princeton Avenue at 42nd 1/2 Street (0.58 miles) • South along Wooddale Avenue from 42nd 1/2 Street to 44th Street (0.35 miles) These segments were first identified as a part of the Active Living: Sidewalk and Trails Plan in 2007 and were then integrated into Connect the Park in 2012. Connect the Park is designed to create a system that provides sidewalks approximately every quarter mile and bikeways every half mile in order to improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity throughout the community. The proposed north-south and east-west corridors provide key connections that will enhance walking and biking in the city by connecting destinations such as parks, businesses, the Rec Center, the ROC, Edina, and Minneapolis. As in the case with most of the bikeways in the Connect the Park initiative, this transportation project is a retrofit project rather than a full reconstruction of the street. Reconstruction of any of these segments is not on the current 10-year CIP. Instead, this project will make improvements at key locations to further the city’s policy goals of safer travel for all modes of traffic. Policy: It has been the goal of the city to provide a robust and diverse network of sidewalks and bikeways to allow non-motorized transportation to be feasible, safe, and open to all users of the community. The following staff recommendations for bikeways in the southeast area of town are a direct result of the plans and policies supported by the council over the last several years. In 2018, council adopted the Climate Action Plan. As a part of the plan, the city pledged to reduce vehicle emissions by 25% by 2030. One of the initiatives to accomplish this was to reduce vehicle miles traveled by residents. Two actions of the initiative are to: • Accelerate investment in alternative transportation infrastructure. • Continue implementation of Connect the Park to increase commuter bicycling and pedestrian opportunities. In 2019, council adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. As a part of the mobility system goals and strategies, the city pledged to “Plan, design, build, and operate the city’s mobility system in a way that prioritizes walking first, followed by bicycling and transit use, and then motor vehicle use”. Strategies the city will use to accomplish this include: • Incorporate an approach that is based on surrounding land use context when planning and designing transportation projects. Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Title: Southeast area bikeway project • Continue to explore and evaluate flexible and innovative designs and seek guidance from established best practices, to achieve desired outcomes. • Use the Capital Improvement Program as a tool to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and transit networks. • Encourage compact, dense development and connected multimodal infrastructure to facilitate “car-lite” living. • Prioritize bicycle and pedestrian mobility projects with connectivity between residential neighborhoods, schools, employment, businesses, and bus and SWLRT transit. The Living Streets policy, adopted in 2019, includes principles that are taken into consideration in the design of all transportation projects. Four of the most pertinent principles related to this project are: • Enhance walking/biking and connections o By prioritizing mobility in an explicit way, leading with pedestrians, followed by bicycles and transit, and supporting them with vehicular movement, the city will be well-positioned for future mobility and can continue its growth. • Traffic management o Traffic is an important element of livability. The methods for traffic management depend largely on the type of roadway, its function, and the modes of travel expected on the roadway. The concept of traffic management is usually focused on limiting cut-through traffic, decreasing the speed of vehicles, and enhancing safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. • Support the urban forest o Trees have numerous environmental, stormwater, and community benefits. Trees are part of the urban forest, and the urban forest can be enhanced and expanded by proper management. • Ensure cost-effective and practical solutions o It is important that transportation projects minimize construction, replacement, and maintenance costs. Being cost-effective and practical is important for acceptance by the general public and to keep projects within budget. Target bicycle design by user: According to the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide, 4-7 percent of bikers are highly confident and will ride in traffic without bike lanes. Roughly half of all people are interested in biking but have concerns for their safety on roads. Without low-stress bike infrastructure on roads, this “interested but concerned” group will choose not to ride. This group is our focus when designing bikeways. Goals in Connect the Park, the comprehensive plan, and the Climate Action Plan are to decrease the use of personal vehicles. Making biking more appealing to a wider audience helps achieve those goals. Recommended layout: The recommended design for the project’s segments has evolved through the preliminary design process, which has included a substantial public engagement component. This project can be seen on the project layouts and includes: 1. 38th Street (Excelsior Boulevard to France Avenue) o Advisory bike lanes with no changes to existing parking restrictions. This street is currently posted no parking on both sides of the road. 2. Wolfe Park (Wolfe Parkway to Monterey Drive) Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 4 Title: Southeast area bikeway project o Use existing trails on the south side of the park parallel to Wolfe Parkway to connect the bikeway from Park Commons Drive and West Wolfe Parkway to the pedestrian crossing of Monterey Drive at 36th 1/2 Street. 3. Park Commons Drive (Quentin Avenue to West Wolfe Parkway) o Convert and widen north sidewalk to multi-use trail and narrow the road. There are no proposed changes to the current parking restrictions. 4. Princeton and Quentin avenues (Park Commons Drive to 42nd 1/2 Street) o “Share the road” bikeway with no changes to existing parking restrictions. 5. Wooddale Avenue (42nd 1/2 Street to 44th Street) o On-street bike lanes with bumped-out parking bays, on-street parking restrictions, and the removal of center yellow striping. Proposed bike infrastructure: 1. 38th Street (0.4 miles): Staff recommends the installation of advisory bike lanes (ABLs) on 38th Street from Excelsior Boulevard to France Avenue. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), advisory bike lanes demarcate a preferred space for bicyclists and motorists to operate on narrow streets that would otherwise be shared lanes. Unlike dedicated bicycle lanes, motor vehicle use is not prohibited in the advisory bike lane and is expected on occasion. According to the Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE), an ABL is a road consisting of a single center lane which supports two-way motor vehicle travel and an edge lane on either side. An ABL road does not have a centerline, and the edge lanes are marked by dotted white lines indicating that vehicles may pass over them. Motorists travel in the center lane until they need to pass an approaching vehicle. In order to pass, they merge into the edge lanes, after yielding to non-motorized users there. After completing the passing movement, motorists return to the center lane. Advisory bike lanes, although not frequently used, appear in a few locations in the Twin Cities: • 54th Street from France Avenue to Minnehaha Boulevard in Edina • 4th Street South from 19th Avenue South to 21st Avenue South in Minneapolis • 21st Avenue South from 4th Street South to Riverside Avenue in Minneapolis • 14th Street East from Park Avenue to 11th Avenue South in Minneapolis According to the ITE, ABLs have a calming effect on vehicular speeds. Challenges related to ABLs relate to education and road users’ comfort level using ABL roads. If the ABL was approved, staff plans to work on different ways to educate road users both in St. Louis Park and others that would use 38th Street. Staff proposes 6-foot wide edge lanes and an 18-foot wide center lane. If council approves an ABL at this location, staff will pursue a Request to Experiment as currently required by the FHWA. Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 5 Title: Southeast area bikeway project The following segments combined make a continuous bikeway (1.32 miles) from the Rec Center to the southern border of St. Louis Park at 44th Street where it connects to Edina’s bikeway system. 2. Wolfe Park (0.32 miles): Staff recommends using the southernmost trails of the park to connect the bikeway on Park Commons Drive to the intersection of Monterey Drive and 36th 1/2 Street. The alignment will use the existing trails of Wolfe Park and will not create new trails. The trails in Wolfe Park will remain multi-use. Meaning, both bicyclists and pedestrians may use the trail. 3. Park Commons Drive (0.07 miles): Staff recommends converting and widening the north sidewalk east of Quentin Avenue to a multi-use trail and thus narrow the road. Through the design and community engagement process, staff determined that providing an off-street bikeway on Park Commons Drive was the best arrangement for all road users. The transition from the Quentin Avenue bikeway to Wolfe Park was most easily done off- street rather than transitioning at the intersection of Park Commons Drive and West Wolfe Parkway. The newly expanded trail will accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians. The expanded trail will be 8 feet wide at its narrowest and 10 feet at its widest. Trail users heading toward Wolfe Park will utilize a refurbished trail that follows along the west side of West Wolfe Parkway. 4. Princeton and Quentin Avenue (0.58 miles): Staff recommends the installation of “share the road” bike facilities on Princeton Avenue and Quentin Avenue from Park Commons Drive to 42nd 1/2 Street. When designing for safe bike facilities, as the amount of traffic volume and speed decreases, less bike infrastructure is required to provide a lower-stress and more comfortable experience for users. Due to the lower traffic volume and speed on Princeton and Quentin, “share the road” striping and signage are recommended. The “share the road” bikeway will feature roadway striping (commonly called “sharrows”) as well as appropriate road signage. 5. Wooddale Avenue (0.35 miles): Staff recommends the installation of conventional bike lanes on Wooddale Avenue from 42nd 1/2 Street to 44th Street. When designing for safe bike facilities, as the amount of traffic volume and speed increases, a dedicated and separated bike facility is recommended to provide a lower-stress and more comfortable experience for users. Due to the higher volume and speed of traffic on Wooddale Avenue at this location, conventional bike lanes are recommended. Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 6 Title: Southeast area bikeway project The bike lanes will be 5 feet wide adjacent to the curb on each side of the road. The vehicular travel lanes will be 10 feet wide without center striping. The center striping of the road is explained later in the report. Enhancing walking/biking conditions and traffic management infrastructure: Traffic management and pedestrian enhancements are included in this project. These features, in addition to the proposed bike infrastructure, are being recommended to decrease vehicle speeds and to improve safety, especially for pedestrians and bicyclists. For each feature, please refer to the attached proposed layouts for further information. • Removal of the double yellow center striping on Wooddale Avenue from 42nd 1/2 Street to 44th Street: The double yellow striping is not required for the road, according to the Minnesota Manual for Uniform Traffic Control (MnMUTCD), and gives the corridor more of a highway feel. This is not the first time the city has removed centerline striping in the same place as bike lanes. The most recent example is on 28th Street from Louisiana Avenue to Dakota Avenue. • Pedestrian crossing improvements Wooddale Avenue and 42nd 1/2 Street: The sidewalk on the southeast quadrant is proposed to be realigned to bring it away from the back-of-curb and to create boulevard space. Staff also proposes to further square up the pedestrian crossing on the south approach to make it less skewed. Other ADA improvements relating to curb cuts and pedestrian landings are also proposed. Quentin Avenue and Park Commons Drive: By narrowing Park Commons Drive, we are reducing the crossing distance for pedestrians and bikes on the east and west approaches. The crossings would be shortened by approximately five feet. • Green crossbike striping: o Wooddale Avenue and 42nd 1/2 Street and Princeton Avenue o Quentin Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard o Quentin Avenue and Park Commons Drive According to MnDOT, motorists reported a favorable impression of green colored pavement as a traffic control device, citing an increased awareness that people bicycling might be present and where they might be positioned. Bicycle crossing markings also improve intersection safety by raising awareness of conflict areas, reinforcing the priority of through-moving bicyclists over turning drivers, guiding bicycles on a direct path, and reducing stress when crossing an intersection. The added crossbike striping will provide guidance to bicyclists on where to travel at these intersections. The striping will also indicate to drivers where to expect bicyclists. Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 7 Title: Southeast area bikeway project Installing crossbike striping on a county road requires approval and coordination with Hennepin County. Staff is working with the county on this and we will update council as the process moves along. • Crosswalks: What follows are the locations of marked crosswalks in the southeast bikeway corridor. These marked crosswalks will remain in place: o Wooddale Avenue and 44th Street o Wooddale Avenue and Morningside Road o Wooddale Avenue and 42nd 1/2 Street o 42nd 1/2 Street and Princeton Avenue o 42nd Street and Princeton Avenue o Quentin Avenue and 41st Street o Quentin Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard o Quentin Avenue and Park Commons Drive Parking: The southeast bikeways will add 1.8 miles of bikeway to the city’s network. 1.4 miles of these are on city streets. The recommended layout includes changes to the parking on the segment of Wooddale Avenue between 44th Street and 42 1/2 Street. No parking changes are recommended on any other segment as a part of this project. Today, Wooddale Avenue has a lane of traffic in each direction and a lane of parking on the west side. In order to fit a dedicated bikeway in each direction, space on the corridor needs to be reallocated. To do this, the on-street parking within the current road footprint is proposed to be removed. During the public process, staff heard concerns about having the parking entirely removed on the road. To address this, staff recommends constructing parking bays along Wooddale Avenue that utilize the space between the current curb and the edge of the existing sidewalk. To better understand the parking demand for this segment of the project, a parking study was completed. Our consultant observed the use of on-street parking on Wooddale Avenue the week of Oct. 30, 2017, during different times and days of the week. Out of the existing 63 on- street parking spaces from 42nd 1/2 Street and 44th Street, it was observed that a maximum of 14 spaces were used. The recommended layout provides 13 on-street parking spaces. The parking spaces will be distributed along the corridor in five parking bays. To install the parking bays, ten trees must be removed. Staff worked with the city’s Natural Resources Coordinator on selecting trees that were the smallest, in poorest health, etc. The ten trees are a combination of bi-color oak, maple, ash, hackberry, and elm trees. Of these ten trees, six have a diameter of 10 inches or less. For more information on specific tree location, species, and size, please view the attached recommended layout of Wooddale Avenue. Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 8 Title: Southeast area bikeway project Community engagement: What follows is a list of the meetings and other engagements that city staff conducted where these bikeway segments were discussed: • Open house 1 – Dec. 19, 2017 • Open house 2 – Sept. 25, 2018 • Open house 3 – May 8, 2019 • Survey – Nov. 1, 2019 • Open house 4 – Dec. 3, 2019 The southeast area bikeway was originally scheduled to be brought to council for approval in June 2019. Following the third open house, council and staff heard a large number of concerns regarding the segment of the project on Wooddale Avenue between 42nd 1/2 Street and 44th Street. Due to this, staff looked to further engage the affected neighborhoods to understand and determine if there were ways to mitigate their concerns for this segment of the project. Staff received feedback on the alignment of the bikeway through Wolfe Park. The original alignment ran along the north side adjacent to the sport courts and the Rec Center. With the recent construction of the pickleball courts on the north side, residents were concerned with the added conflict between the court’s users and trail users. Staff realigned the bikeway to follow the south side of Wolfe Park away from these conflicts with input from the Operations and recreation department. Wooddale Avenue additional engagement: To begin this additional engagement, staff created an online interactive survey to understand residents’ concerns, both those who live directly on the corridor and those who do not. Interactive survey The online survey, the results of which are attached, had over 340 responses. The respondents lived in the following areas: • Wooddale Avenue from 42nd 1/2 Street to 44th Street – 17% • Minikahda Vista or Browndale neighborhood (other than Wooddale Ave) – 12% • Elsewhere in St. Louis Park – 64% • Outside of St. Louis Park – 7% The participants were asked what their number one concern for Wooddale Avenue from 41nd 1/2 Street to 44th Street was. The 244 answers were divided as: 1. Bike safety – 32% 2. Preserving on-street parking – 19% 3. Pedestrian safety/crossing – 16% 4. Vehicle speeds – 14% 5. Preserving trees/green space – 11% 6. Other – 6% 7. Driving enforcement – 2% 8. Street sweeping/plowing - 0.5% 9. Parking enforcement – 0% Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 9 Title: Southeast area bikeway project There was a distinct difference in the concerns of Wooddale Avenue residents compared to all other respondents. Their differences are shown in the next two figures: Figure 1: What are your number one concerns for Wooddale Avenue? – Wooddale Avenue respondents only Figure 2: What are your number one concerns for Wooddale Avenue? – All other respondents Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 10 Title: Southeast area bikeway project The survey then asked the respondents how they wanted the city to prioritize their concerns. The 234 answers ranked the concerns below in the following order: 1. Pedestrian safety/crossing 2. Bike safety 3. Preserving trees/green space 4. Vehicle speeds 5. Preserving on-street parking 6. Driving enforcement 7. Street sweeping/plowing 8. Parking enforcement 9. Other Again, there was a distinct difference in the concerns of Wooddale Avenue residents compared to all other respondents. The differences are shown in the next table: Rank Wooddale Ave respondents (n=52) All other respondents (n=182) 1 Pedestrian safety/crossing Bike safety 2 Vehicle speeds Pedestrian safety/crossing 3 Preserving on-street parking Preserving trees/green space 4 Preserving trees/green space Vehicle speeds 5 Bike safety Preserving on-street parking 6 Street sweeping/plowing Driving enforcement 7 Driving enforcement Street sweeping/plowing 8 Other Parking enforcement 9 Parking enforcement Other Table 1: How do you want the city to prioritize your concerns? Wooddale Ave respondents vs. all other respondents Design evaluation: During the community engagement process as well as the survey, staff received many design suggestions from individuals in the community for the Wooddale Avenue segment of the project. These suggestions were evaluated and discussed at the December 2019 open house. They were evaluated considering the overall resident’s prioritized concerns, the comprehensive plan’s modal priorities (pedestrians first, bikes and transit next, then vehicles), engineering rules and guidance, and project costs. The six designs were: • On-street bike lanes with no on-street parking • “Share the road” bike route with on-street parking • Traffic calming with no bike infrastructure • Trail replacement of the existing sidewalk • Alternative route • On-street bike lanes with parking bays Further information about the Wooddale Avenue design considerations can be found in the “Design evaluations” document attached to the report. Staff is recommending on-street bike Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 11 Title: Southeast area bikeway project lanes with parking bays on Wooddale Avenue, which is the bicycle facility that balances the needs of all users of the corridor. Residents’ concerns: Throughout the community engagement process, most of the concerns we have heard through direct communications and the survey are from residents on the Wooddale Avenue segment of the bikeway. These location-specific concerns fit into the following categories: 1. Inconsistency of bike facility type 2. “Share the road”, sharrows, or shared lanes 3. Availability of parking 4. Vehicle speeds (traffic calming) and lane widths 5. Vehicle volumes and roadway classification 6. Crosswalks 7. Tree preservation and parking numbers 1. Inconsistency of bike facility type: Staff has heard concerns that the type of bike facility being recommended for Wooddale Avenue is not consistent with the facilities to the south and north. Specifically, that the type of bike facility changes from “share the road” in the County Club neighborhood in Edina, to bike lanes on Wooddale Avenue, to “share the road”, on Princeton Avenue and Quentin Avenue. When designing for safe bike facilities, as the amount of traffic increases, a dedicated and separated bike facility is recommended to provide a lower-stress and more comfortable experience for users. Due to the high volume of traffic on Wooddale Avenue, “share the road” does not meet the needs of our design user. Staff’s recommendation is that conventional bike lanes on Wooddale Avenue are the highest level of protection that we can provide in this corridor and will safely move drivers and bicyclists on the road. To provide some context, it is not realistic to expect to use the same type of road over a trip, regardless of the mode of transportation. To use a car to drive across town, a driver may use a local neighborhood street, a collector road, a county road, and an interstate to get to their destination. It would not make sense for all of the streets for that trip to be one kind or another. Each serves their own respective purpose in the road hierarchy. The same idea goes for bike infrastructure as well. Over a trip, a bicyclist may use neighborhood roads with no specific bikeway designation, “share the road”, bike lanes, trails, and separated bike lanes to get to their destination. The fact that a road with bike lanes doesn’t match into a road with “sharrow” facilities isn’t a justification for downgrading a road’s bike infrastructure and safety. 2. “Share the road”, sharrows, or shared lanes: Residents have proposed that “share the road” or sharrow bike facilities are safer on the Wooddale Avenue corridor when compared to conventional bike lanes. These claims are not consistent with engineering guidance and design standards from a variety of sources, including; the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). These are the resources that staff uses to develop our recommendations. Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 12 Title: Southeast area bikeway project Staff’s recommendations for bike infrastructure are primarily based on vehicle volumes and speeds. Shared lanes (“sharrows”) are more appropriate on lower speed and lower volume roads. Conversely, bike lanes are more appropriate on higher speed and higher volume roads. Through traffic data, staff observed higher speeds and volumes on Wooddale Avenue when compared to Princeton Avenue and Quentin Avenue. Conventional bike lanes improve the safety of bicyclists because they create a dedicated space on the road where all road users can easily predict bicyclists to be. Bike lanes also create separation between bicyclists and motorists. This separation is needed on roads with higher volumes and speeds. 3. Availability of parking: Staff has heard many concerns regarding the lack of parking provided in the recommended design, its capacity to meet residents’ daily needs, and possible safety implications with on- street bike facilities. Staff is recommending 13 parking spaces to best balance the impacts to existing trees and the observed parking demand. Staff has fielded multiple questions regarding the need for delivery vehicles to obtain permits to park along the road. The city does not currently require any vehicle to obtain a permit to deliver their goods or perform work at a residence or business. We expect that these vehicles will utilize the new parking bays. Similar to the Cedar Lake Road bikeway project, where parking was restricted for the majority of the corridor, every household on the Wooddale Avenue corridor is proposed to be within 200 feet of a parking bay or side street parking area. Bicycle lanes adjacent to parking lanes highlight the possibility of “dooring”. Despite this seeming increased risk, studies have shown a bike lane is still likely safer for the bicyclist than a wide outside lane (a.k.a. a shared lane). A study of bicycle crashes in Seattle found that streets with bicycle lanes had the fewest total dooring crashes compared to streets with shared lanes or marked shared lanes. Residents have also voiced concerns for vehicles stopped on the side of the road, which would require bicyclists to use the travel lane to move around the barrier. Under state law, drivers shall not stop, stand, or park a vehicle within a bike lane except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a police officer (MN 169.34). Blocked roadways are a condition that bicyclists currently encounter on Wooddale Avenue today. 4. Vehicle speeds (traffic calming) and lane widths: Studies have shown that wider streets typically have higher vehicle speeds, and conversely, narrower streets have slower speeds. On-street parking can effectively narrow the roadway and can help to reduce travel speeds when the number of parked vehicles is high enough in a corridor. On Wooddale Avenue, the recommended design exchanges the traffic calming element that on-street parking can provide with other traffic calming measures. The design Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 13 Title: Southeast area bikeway project includes narrower travel lanes (10 feet wide), bike lanes (5 feet wide), and no center striping. According to NACTO, lane widths of 10 feet are appropriate in urban areas and have a positive impact on a street’s safety without impacting traffic operations. Also, according to the FHWA, lanes as narrow as 10 feet do not result in an increase in crashes or reduce vehicle capacity. Narrow lane widths can contribute to lower vehicle operating speeds which can increase safety for all roadway users. Staff has also heard resident requests for traffic calming measures such as curb extensions on Wooddale Avenue. A curb extension brings the curb further into the street, often taking the place of a parking lane. On the Wooddale corridor, curb extensions would impede the ability to install on-street bike lanes. Curb extensions on the street would require the use of the space currently proposed for bike lanes. These extensions would require the use of regular curb and gutter, which bikes would not be able to traverse. Staff would also not recommend installing bike lanes and then requiring bikes to merge into traffic at each intersection’s curb extensions. This would decrease the predictability of bike’s location on the road. 5. Vehicle volumes and road classification: Staff has had requests to decrease the amount of traffic on the street. Staff does not recommend any measures to deter vehicles from using Wooddale Avenue. In addition, staff has heard concerns that the proposed project will increase the amount of motor vehicle traffic on the Wooddale Avenue corridor. The main causes of an increase in vehicle traffic volumes are redevelopment or road closures. Our experience with bikeway projects is that they do not increase the volume of vehicle traffic in the corridor. To effectively decrease the number of vehicles that use Wooddale Avenue, high impact changes are required, such as permanently diverting traffic onto side streets and cul-de-sac- ing Wooddale Avenue. Staff does not recommend any of these methods. Changing the traffic patterns on one street will have implications and consequences for adjacent streets. Furthermore, Wooddale Avenue is a connection for the adjacent neighborhoods to access Excelsior Boulevard, Highway 100, and other important larger roads. This street has been on the city’s municipal state aid (MSA) system since 1957. For a road segment to be designated as MSA it must terminate with another state aid street, a state highway, or a county roadway. Because of these connections, this road functions as a collector. As the term implies, collector roads, collect and distribute vehicular traffic from neighborhoods and commercial areas and provide a link between local streets, which are primarily designed for property access and arterials, which are designed for higher vehicular mobility. Because of how this road has and continues to actually function, the 2040 Comprehensive plan includes a recommendation to reclassify Wooddale Avenue from a local road to a Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 14 Title: Southeast area bikeway project major collector. Residents on the Wooddale corridor are concerned that this will somehow increase traffic. Changing the roadway classification does not increase traffic or direct more traffic to the road. Functional classification is a planning tool. Formally designating a road as a major collector does not change how the road is actually used or managed. 6. Crosswalks: In previous graphics, existing crosswalks were not included in the layouts. Staff does not propose any removal of crosswalks as a part of this project. The condition of the crosswalks will be reviewed in the spring, and where necessary, repainting will be completed as a part of the project. 7. Tree preservation and parking numbers: As previously stated, staff worked with the city’s Natural Resource Coordinator on preserving as many trees as possible. Additionally, when a tree was needed to be removed, we worked to select trees that were smallest in size, in poorest health, and species that were not as desirable. Staff has heard concerns about the recommended thirteen parking spaces available on the corridor. To install additional parking bays, staff determined that more trees would need to be removed. To add more parking, the project will impact additional trees at a rate of about one tree for one parking stall. Any parking added to the corridor after 30 total spaces would greatly impact the mature oaks along the Wooddale Avenue corridor. Financial considerations: This project is funded using general obligation (GO) bonds. Estimated construction cost for all segments of the project is $445,000. Proposed schedule: The proposed schedule for this project is as follows: Study session discussion Jan. 27, 2020 Public hearing Feb. 18, 2020 Approve preliminary layout and authorize final plans March 2, 2020 City council – approve final plans and order ad for bid Early summer 2020 Construction Fall 2020 – Spring 2021 GWX ?A@ GWX 3 100 17 LYNNAVESMORNINGSIDE RD NATCHEZAVESQUENTINAVESPRINCETONAVESKIPLINGAVESWOOD D A L E A V EPARK CENTER BLVDGRAND WAY P A R K NICOLLET BLVDW O L F E PKW Y41ST S T W COOLIDGEAVESBROWNDALEAVESBROOKAVESMACKEYAVESUTICAAVESJOPPA AVE S 42 1/2 ST W PARK C O M M O N S D R 43 1/2 ST W GLENHURSTAVES42ND ST W PARK C O M M O N S D R BROWNDALEAVESOTTAWAAVES42ND ST WPRINCETONAVESVALLAC H E R A V E 40TH ST W 37TH ST W 39TH ST W 38TH ST W 36 1/2 ST W 39TH S T W 42NDS T W 44TH ST WGLEN PLQUENTINAVESINGLEWOODAVESRALEI GHAVESSALEMAVESMONTEREYAVESRALEI GHAVESHUNTINGTON AVE SFRANCEAVESDARTAVE SVERNONAVESOTTAWAAVESTOLEDO AVE SSALEMAVESVERNONAVES40TH L N W PARK C E N TE R B L V D 0 500 1,000250 Feet ´ Southeast Bikeway Improvements Legend Proposed Bikeways New Alignment Existing Sidewalks Existing Trails City Limits Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 15 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 16 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 17 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 18 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 19 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 20 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 21 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 22 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 23 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 24 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 25 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 26 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 27 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 28 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 29 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 30 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 31 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 32 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 33 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 34 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 35 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 36 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 37 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 38 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 39 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 40 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 41 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 42 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 43 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 44 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 45 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 46 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 47 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 48 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 49 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 50 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 51 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 52 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 53 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 54 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 55 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 56 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 57 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 58 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 59 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 60 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 61 Wooddale Avenue design layouts compared1. Bike lanes with no parking2. Share the road bike route3. Traffic calming4. Trail replacement of the sidewalk5. Alternative route6. Bike lanes with parking baysKStudy session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway projectPage 62 Bike lanes with no parking•5‐foot bike lane, dedicated and safe facility•Cost‐effective•Retrofit project•Meets comprehensive plan priorities•Preserves trees•Removes all on‐street parkingKStudy session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway projectPage 63 Share the road•Doesn’t dedicate space for bikes, not safest design•Preserves all on‐street parking•Cost‐effective•Retrofit project•Preserves trees•Does not meet comprehensive plan priorities•Does not meet state aid standardsJStudy session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway projectPage 64 Traffic calming•Is not a bikeway•Preserves on‐street parking•Retrofit project•Preserves trees•Does not meet council’s expectationsJStudy session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway projectPage 65 Trail replacement of sidewalk•Not a dedicated bike facility•Pedestrians will also use it•Preserves on‐street parking•Retrofit project•Does not meet comprehensive plan priorities•Impacts trees•Impacts drivewaysJStudy session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway projectPage 66 Alternate routes•Bikes share the road with vehicles•Preserves on‐street parking•Retrofit project•Preserves trees•Does not meet comprehensive plan prioritiesJStudy session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway projectPage 67 Bike lanes with parking bays•Dedicates space for bikes•Retrofit project•Meets comprehensive plan priorities•Meets state aid standards•Removes on‐street parking•Removes select treesJStudy session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway projectPage 68 Design goal •Create the safest and most desirable bike route for all usersDesign criteria •Best practices of the industry•FHWA – Federal Highway Administration•MNDOT‐ Minnesota Department of Transportation•NACTO – Nation Association of City Transportation Officials•Council guidance and policy direction•Community feedback JStudy session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway projectPage 69 Comparing designsCommunity prioritized concernsBike lanes with no parkingShare the road facilityTraffic calmingTrail replacement of sidewalkAlternate route (Browndale)Bike lanes with parking baysPedestrian safety/crossingDoes not address Does not address Improves Does not address Does not address Does not addressBike safety Dedicated facilityNot dedicated, not safeNo bike facilityNot dedicated, safeNot dedicated, safeDedicated facilityPreserving trees/green spacePreserves trees Preserves trees Preserves treesRemoves treesPreserves treesRemoves treesVehicle speedsParking is removed, bike lanes addedDoes not address Decreases speeds Does not address Does not addressParking is removed, bike lanes addedPreserving on‐street parkingRemoves all parkingPreserves parkingRemoves some parkingPreserves parkingPreserves parking on corridorRemoves some parkingSUB TOTAL+0‐1+0+0+1‐1•Green = improves = +1•Yellow = doesn’t improve or diminish = +0•Red = diminishes = ‐1JStudy session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway projectPage 70 Comparing designs continued…Staff considerationsBike lanes with no parkingShare the road facilityTraffic calmingTrail replacement of sidewalkAlternate route (Browndale)Bike lanes with parking baysCommunity sub‐total+0 ‐1 +0 +0 +1 ‐1Comprehensive plan guidanceMeetsDoes not meetMeetsDoes not meet Does not meetMeetsState Aid rules MeetsDoes not meetDoesn’t apply Doesn’t apply Doesn’t apply MeetsNACTO guidance (biking)Does not meet Does not meet Does not meet Does not meetMeetsDoes not meetProject cost Retrofit Retrofit Retrofit Retrofit Retrofit RetrofitGRAND TOTAL+2‐3+1‐1+2+1•Green = meets expectation = +1•Yellow = doesn’t apply or unknown = +0•Red = does not meet expectation = ‐1JStudy session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway projectPage 71 December 2019Browndale/Minikahda Vista/Wolfe Park Multimodal Design EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD TO MONTEREY DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS Quentin Avenue/Park Commons Intersection Alignment Includes: Minor trail alignment and grade changes for ADA compliance 1 1 Excelsi o r Bl v d Park Co m m o n s D r Quent in AveMo n t e r e y D r Quent in Ave 2 A B 1 Includes: Signing and pavement markings 1 Quentin Avenue (Looking North) Includes: Signing and curb/trail reconstruction Park Commons Drive (Looking East) 2 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4860 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R 4820 P A R K C O M M O N S D R PARK COMMONS DRPARK COMMONS DR >'E B A Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 72 May 2019Browndale/Minikahda Vista/Wolfe Park Multimodal Design QUENTIN / PRINCETON / WOODDALE IMPROVEMENT OVERVIEW Quentin AvenuePrinceton AvenueWooddale Avenue Other Alternatives considered: R Bike route signing (only) R Browndale Avenue R Natchez Avenue 1 2 3 Quentin Avenue (South of Excelsior) Includes: Signing and pavement markings No changes to parking 1 Princeton Avenue Includes: Signing and pavement markings No changes to parking 2 Wooddale Avenue Includes: Changes to on-street parking Signing and pavement markings, and select areas for reconstruction to accommodate parking 3 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 73 May 2019Browndale/Minikahda Vista/Wolfe Park Multimodal Design WOODDALE AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS 1 Princeton Intersection Alignment 1 42 ½ StPrinceton Ave3 3 2 Wooddale Avenue Morningside Rd 44th St 43 ½ St 2 1 Intersection Detail Key Highlights R Provides on-street parking supply to meet observed demand R Parking located to minimize tree and driveway impacts and balance parking along each block R ~13 on-street parking spaces will remain 1 2 3 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 74 May 2019Browndale/Minikahda Vista/Wolfe Park Multimodal Design38TH STREET IMPROVEMENTSIncludes: Pavement markings and signing to develop an Advisory Bike Lane1138th St WFrance Ave Excelsior BlvdPark Commons DrMonterey Dr22Includes: Pavement markings and signingExcelsior Boulevard and 38th StreetWest 38th StreetStudy session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway projectPage 75 42 1/2 StRemove 13” Linden Tree Remove 5” Oak Tree Remove 16” Norway Mape Tree Remove 9” Hackberry Tree Remove 11” Elm Tree Remove 4” Bi-Color Oak Tree Remove 5” Ash Tree Remove 16” Norway Maple Tree Remove 7” Hackberry Tree 43 1/2 St44th StMorningside RdPrincet o n A v e Wooddale Avenue Wooddale Avenue Add 2 New Parking StallsAdd 3 New Parking StallsAdd 3 New Parking Stalls Add 2 New Parking StallsAdd 3 New Parking Stalls Pavement Reconstruction Restripe Existing Pavement New Concrete Realigned Bituminous Trail Bike Sharrow Existing Stop Sign Existing Tree Pavement Reconstruction Restripe Existing Pavement New Concrete Realigned Bituminous Trail Bike Sharrow Existing Stop Sign Existing Tree Remove 10” Ash Tree Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 76 Wooddale/Browndale Citizens United for Safe Streets Study Session (1-27-20) questions for City Council Members to inquire of staff for informed decision-making. Delivered: 1-22-20 1/22/20 1 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 77 Council member questions for staff… Safety: 1.Traffic speed and volume are the two most objective safety determinates for pedestrian and bicycle safety. Has staff incorporated posted speed and traffic volume reduction measures into this plan? If not, why not? (Mean southbound speed is already 4 mph above the posted limit) 2.The most current National Transportation Board Study (NTSB) Bicycle Safety on U.S. Roadways Report (November, 2019)https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1901.pdf states that cities either employ a “vertically protected bike lane” (plastic bumpers, separated curb, concrete wall) or cities must reduce traffic speeds and volume, or elect to remove a lane of auto-traffic (creating a one-way street) to keep cyclists safe.Dedicated bike lanes are not recommended. As this is the latest research to date regarding cyclist safety, has staff read and considered this information? 3.The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) cited by SLP engineers at the last open house (12-3- 19) does not contain specific bike safety recommendations, according to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). (NTSB Safety Research Report, p. 43-44). Why is staff not using the latest NTSB, recommendations (November 2019)? 4.Why did staff choose a less safe, unprotected, designated (painted) bike lane on Wooddale when the NTSB recommends a protected bike lane, reducing speed, calming traffic and/or the best safety practice of eliminating one lane of auto traffic? 1/22/20 2 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 78 Safety…continued: 1.Wooddale has 38 driveways that cross the bike lanes. Each driveway creates 4 conflict (crash) points. These driveway-conflict points are not included on the proposed plan. Why? Is this road inherently unsafe for cyclists due to the many driveways? 2.By adding 2 bike lanes (a total of 4 traffic lanes) to Wooddale, staff is creating 152 conflict points with driveways involving cyclists and autos. Not calculated are additional conflicts created when cyclists exit lanes, and when cyclists and pedestrians occupy intersections involving autos. Having 2 lanes of traffic versus 4 is the key to safety. Has staff considered these additional conflict points? 3.62% of cyclist fatalities are as a result of mid-block and driveway conflicts. (Source citation: p. 27 NTSB Safety Research Report: https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1901.pdf ). Mid-block conflicts include traffic actions/reactions such as: rear-ending, side swiping, cutting off, overtaking—all such actions must be taken into account regarding the 38 driveways. The designated bike lane proposed by staff is susceptible to all mid-block conflicts.How has staff resolved this fatality risk? 1/22/20 3 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 79 Safety…continued: 1.Tom Vanderbilt, a scholar at NYU’s Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management, wrote in his book Traffic , that “drivers tend to give cyclists more space as they pass when they are on a street without a bicycle lane. The white marking (of a bike lane) seems to work as a subliminal signal to drivers that they need to act less cautiously—that it’s the edge of the lane, and not the cyclist, that they need to worry about.” (Book source: Walkable City by Jeff Speck, p. 202) Has staff considered this point? 2.Research published in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention (April 2019)found that on -road bicycle lanes … are not the optimal solution for protecting bicyclists.“Our results demonstrate that a single stripe of white paint does not provide a safe space for people who ride bikes,”according to the study that observed 18,000 cars passing bikers.The study concluded that drivers provide more passing space and caution to bicyclists in a shared-road scenario.Did staff take this information into consideration when they endorsed the proposed plan as the safest bike facility? https://www.monash.edu/news/articles/more-than- a-stripe-of-paint-needed-to-keep -cyclists-safe 1/22/20 4 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 80 Safety…continued: 1.In light of this important research from the US government authority on bicycle safety, can staff objectively prove that a “designated bike lane” is safer than a “share the road” design? 2.Wooddale has had zero bicycle incidents with no “bike facility.” How did staff design a “safer” plan for “cyclists” than our present design where there has not been one fatality. 3.Minnesota had a total of 10 cyclist fatalities in 2019. This plan puts pedestrians at far greater risk— especially children at intersections—even with crosswalks. Has staff considered this grave danger to our children? 4.How many cyclists use Wooddale now and how many cyclists does staff expect to use the facility after the proposed pan is constructed? 5.The 11/19 NTSB study found that roads with a posted speed of 30-35 mph accounted for 45% of bike accidents and increased the likelihood of a fatal crash by 65%. What did the 2017 city speed study on Wooddale indicate the 85% speed was? (It was 31 -34 mph). In light of this fact, has staff considered speed and volume reduction as a solution for bike (and pedestrian) safety? 6.Why is staff proposing a “Major Collector Road” that will result in increased speeds and traffic volumes? 1/22/20 5 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 81 Intersection Safety: 1.What intersection safety countermeasures and treatments are you proposing? 37% of cyclist fatalities occur at intersections, and 59% of all bike crashes involving autos occur at intersections. NTSB found that including intersection safety treatments in the FHWA countermeasure initiative could help improve cyclist (and pedestrian) safety (NTSB Safety Research Report p. vii).Which intersection safety treatments are you proposing? (Residents propose adding stop signs and crosswalks, flashing lights, roundabouts, shrinking the intersection footprint, planters.) 2.Four critical intersections interrupt the bike lane and have no crosswalks. The proposed plan presented by Jack Sullivan at the 12-3-19 meeting contains no crosswalks. Three of these intersections are at the 3-way stop at Wooddale, Princeton, and 42 ½ Street that connects to Susan Lindgren Elementary School; the fourth intersection is on Wooddale at Morningside Road that connects to the busy Browndale Park.) Has staff considered the increased danger/risk this issue poses? 3.ONE CHILD HAS ALREADY BEEN HIT BY A CAR on Wooddale Ave. at the 44th St. crosswalk. Proven safety measures are what is needed, such as traffic speed reduction and traffic calming. Has staff considered the significantly increased risks involved at intersections with the proposed plan? 1/22/20 6 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 82 Intersection Safety: 1.Intersection transitions: how do you plan to transition from a “dedicated bike lane” to a “share the Road” design (to Princeton/Quentin)? Presently you show a bike lane edged in painted green bars—this creates further driver/cyclist confusion and leads to more accidents/fatalities. 2.NTSB recommends the following “intersection safety treatments,” such as bicycle signal face, bicycle image box (utilizing paint), bicycle box (utilizing paint), 2-stage bicycle turn box. What intersection safety treatments, countermeasures, and intersection transition treatments has staff designed for this plan according to NTSB recommendations? 3.Why are additional stop signs not a part of your plan for Wooddale? Won’t stop signs reduce speed and traffic volume (similar to Browndale Ave. and Wooddale Ave. south of 44th St.)? 1/22/20 7 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 83 Inconsistent design with surrounding streets: 1.The proposed plan is inconsistent with the bikeway designs of surrounding communities and adjoining streets. Specifically, 44th St. has higher traffic volumes, yet utilizes a “share the road” design. WHY? The staff-recommended plan is also inconsistent with Princeton/Quentin that branches off of Wooddale and will utilize a “share the road” design . Such design inconsistency creates driver and cyclist confusion and leads to higher accident incident rates. Why the inconsistency? 2.Has staff considered the research regarding the increased risk factor to cyclists that autonomous vehicles (including delivery vehicles) will pose by blocking bike lanes? Ward 2 Council Member Mavity stated to residents at a Browndale Park meeting this past summer that, “We are not planning for you. We are planning for the next 100 years.”Autonomous vehicles, unable to stop, will choose to hit a cyclist or pedestrian rather than strike another vehicle. 1/22/20 8 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 84 Poor Geometry of Wooddale, 42 ½ St. and Princeton intersection: 1.The “GEOMETRY” of the intersection at Wooddale, 42 ½, and Princeton is extremely poor. It has a short curve, poor sight distance, and a blind short angle, establishing hazardous and dangerous conditions for children and other pedestrians. It is even more hazardous considering the current plan to eliminate the crosswalks. At this intersection, parked cars are repeatedly struck by southbound cars. When this blind curve becomes a bike lane, those parked cars will be replaced by cyclists; the likelihood that they will be struck increases the chance of cyclist fatalities. What is staff’s defense of this perilous, three-way intersection? 1/22/20 9 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 85 Environmental concerns: 1.By eliminating 10-13 trees (with up to 10 more trees at grave risk adjacent to the parking bays), the tree canopy is drastically reduced. By widening the road (thereby increasing operating car speeds and volumes) has staff accounted for the increased emissions with fewer trees to absorb greenhouse gasses? What will these emission levels be? Has an environmental assessment been done? 2.By removing or destroying up to 23 trees, the City cannot replace these trees, as asphalt will now occupy the former boulevard space. How does this action support the climate initiatives of the St. Louis Park Climate Action Plan? 3.The mature tree canopy absorbs between 10-45% of the rain that falls on it. Removal (or unintentional destruction) of up to 23 trees will increase runoff considerably. The existing system (built over half a century ago) is over-capacity, as evidenced by the chronic flooding behind the homes in the 4200 block.How much will the storm-water runoff increase? How is staff proposing to handle the considerable, added runoff? Does the proposal include funding for building additional capacity for the increased levels of storm water resulting should this proposal be adopted? 1/22/20 10 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 86 Economic impacts: 1.Why was the original Option 1 plan (the “share the road” plan proposed at the listening session on 9/25/2018) dropped when it was the overwhelming preference of residents? NTSB research states that this plan is safer than the current proposed plan. 2.The cost of the neighborhood-preferred plan is approximately $10,000 (signs and road markings for “share the road”); the cost of the proposed plan stated by staff at the 12/3/19 meeting is upwards of $400,000. Doesn’t this contribute to an already over-budget plan? Has staff considered this issue when the current plan is LESS SAFE than a “share the road” plan? 3.Does the consultant (SRF) stand to gain financially if the staff-proposed plan is adopted versus the neighborhood-preferred “share the road” plan? If yes, isn’t this a conflict of interest for the consultant? If the proposed plan is enacted, how much will SRF stand to profit financially? 4.Has staff calculated the projected loss of home values in consideration of the extreme reduction of on- street parking and tree loss? If not, why not? 5.Does the state-aid funding for Wooddale outweigh the increased lives at risk? Is staff prioritizing money over the safety of cyclists and pedestrians? 1/22/20 11 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 87 Livability: 1.This extreme loss of parking with no nearby options puts seniors and persons with disabilities at grave risk.Residents require on-street parking for in-home health care, repair people, domestic services and, for certain residents, their work-from-home livelihood. Without parking, these vehicles and postal service, construction, delivery and home-maintenance trucks will block entire lanes and create hazardous conditions for cyclists and cars; cars and large trucks (and open doors) will prohibit drivers and cyclists from spotting oncoming traffic. Furthermore, adjoining streets where parking is allowed will be overwhelmed with parked cars. How does staff plan to resolve this critical livability issue? 2.What will residents with single-lane driveways and no garages do? 3.How will trash be collected without putting cyclists at serious risk? 4.Where will the snow be placed with an absence of boulevards or berms? 5.Will the City deploy rotary plows to clear bike lanes when snow banks spill onto the road? 1/22/20 12 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 88 BIKE LANE PLANNING – BEST PRACTICES National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Research Report, November 2019, NTSB/SS-19/01 PB2019-101397 Geometric Design Context – National Transportation Safety Board The NTSB Bike Safety Research Report found that placement of a bike lane with higher frequency of intersections, midblock conflicts and driveways have a higher crash risk and a higher fatality crash risk. Midblock and Driveway conflicts, which the proposed plan will have, account for 62% of cyclist fatalities and intersections for 37% of cyclist fatalities. Placement matters: Midblock Conflicts (overtakes, hitting from behind, sideswipes) o Painted line bike lanes are called conventional bike lanes (not protected.) Not included in city’s plan for Wooddale. With 38 driveways and 2 separate bike lanes there are a minimum of 150+ additional midblock conflict points with autos. Frequency of Driveways o Wooddale has 38 Driveways, not included in city’s proposed plan Frequency of Intersections o Requires one every 800 feet, not included in city’s proposed plan Intersection Safety Design o Requires bike-specific safety design including pedestrian safety at bike lane, not included in city’s proposed plan except minimal green striping Intersection Transition Safety Design o Not included in city’s proposed plan Pedestrian Conflicts o Not included in city’s proposed plan Protected bike lanes - vertical, physical protected bike lane o (bollards, curbs, on-street parking) Unprotected bike lanes - Painted line bike lanes (also called conventional) o Painted line bike lanes (conventional bike lanes) add no safety from midblock collisions such as overtakes, hitting from behind and sideswipes. Multi-Lane, Single-Lane How many intersections Does the Lane Cross How many Driveways Does the Lane Cross - 38 Driveways o Not included in city’s proposed plan Raised Bike Lane (up on the boulevard) Street Level Bike Lane (at street level) Clean Bike Lanes o not in city’s proposed plan to budget for removal of snow and leaves Operational Characteristics – curbside activity, not in city’s proposed plan Direction of Travel in the Bike Lane Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 89 BIKE LANE PLANNING – BEST PRACTICES National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Research Report, November 2019, NTSB/SS-19/01 PB2019-101397 Volume and Speed for Cyclist Safety NTSB (FHWA is not bicycle-specific safety) At the December 3, 2019 city meeting, the city referenced using the FHWA as guidance for their bike lane design. NTSB Pg 41. “However, it (FHWA) does not include guidance on geometric design elements associated with bicycle facilities.” NTSB Pg 41. “ Therefore, bicyclist crash risk while traveling on separated bike lanes depends on many factors, such as the placement of the separated bike lane,…. and the frequency of intersections and driveways it crosses.” NTSB Pg 44. “Still, there are currently no bicycle-specific countermeasures on the FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures list, despite DOT’s 2010 policy calling for the improvement of bicycle and pedestrian safety and the full integration of bicycling and walking into the US transportation system.” Volume of Daily Traffic, Safety for Cyclists o FHWA, Volume of Traffic City measured daily use on Wooddale, ~3000 autos daily City plan using FHWA, proposed Major Collector Street and unprotected bike lane, daily auto usage up to 10,000 daily o NACTO, per NTSB report Pg. 43 Recommends a separated, protected bike lane above 6,000 For volumes lower than 6000 but at greater than 25mph, NACTO recommends separated, protected bike lanes or reducing speeds, which may include auto lane reduction Speed Safety for Cyclists o FHWA 30mph, city’s proposed plan for unprotected lane o NTSB 30mph increases risk of fatalities by 65% o NTSB recommends 20-25 mph on residential streets (default) o NTSB recommends 25 mph on all city streets (default) o NACTO if 30 mph, separated, protected bike lanes and reduced speeds and may include lane reduction (road diets) Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 90 BIKE LANE PLANNING – BEST PRACTICES Sustainable Neighborhoods require Pedestrian and Biking Safety. Per the LEEDS Technical Guidance Manual for Sustainable Neighborhoods - https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/Technical-Guid.-Man.-for-Sust.-Neighborhoods-2012.pdf On street parking protects pedestrians on a sidewalk from vehicles on the street, increases street activity, and reduces the need for off-street parking, which consumes buildable land, increases storm water run-off, requires driveways, and interrupts sidewalks. To increase access to on-street parking in your community, amend your municipality’s street design and transportation requirements to require a minimum amount of on- street parking. Where possible, require projects to provide on-street parking along a minimum of 70 percent of both sides of all existing and new streets. This amount depends on street characteristics including accessibility requirements, spacing for driveways, fire hydrants, intersections, etc. Lower traffic speeds promote multimodal transportation by enhancing safety for pedestrian and bicycle travel. Traffic-calming measures contribute to lower traffic speeds through street design and engineering criteria that help attain an intended target speed. Require maximum target speeds for certain street types to encourage lower traffic speeds. Where appropriate, require a 20-mile per hour speed limit for existing and new residential streets, and require a 25-mile per hour speed limit for mixed-use streets. Lower your municipality’s standard speed limits for existing roads. Include traffic-calming measures including narrow rights-of-way, narrow lane widths, on-street parking, and intersections spaced no more than 800 feet apart. Travel lane widths should be no more than 11 feet and parallel parking lane widths no more than 8 feet. Mandate textured paving materials; medians and median landscaping; and roadside curb treatments such as bulb-outs, street furniture and other landscaping elements. WOODDALE: The proposed plan is unsafe; it has NOT included these safety design countermeasures to ensure Pedestrian and Biking safety and Green Sustainability. Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 91 Minnesota takes first steps to become 'age-friendly society' for growing number of seniors The Governor's Council on an Age-Friendly Minnesota likely will be formed during the first few months of next year to address demographic changes. By Jackie Crosby Star Tribune DECEMBER 12, 2019 — 10:13PM JERRY HOLT - STAR TRIBUNE The state is taking steps to coordinate care for aging seniors. Shown is Mt. Olivet adult day care center in 2018. TEXT SIZE Minnesota is taking its first steps to plan for a more age-friendly society. Gov. Tim Walz this week launched a broad-based effort that will involve nine state agencies, tribal leaders, local governments, nonprofits, businesses and private citizens to address the unprecedented demographic shift unfolding in the state. Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 92 Minnesota has among the highest life expectancies in the nation. Sometime in the coming year, the state is expected to cross a demographic threshold in which there will be more people 65 and older than school-aged children. The oldest baby boomers are about 73 now, and adjusting to the inevitable aging of this massive generation will affect all aspects of life: housing, transportation, health care, financial security, employment and the need for social services. “This work cannot be accomplished by any one state agency,” Walz said in the executive order, “but instead must be a collective effort that requires coordination, collaboration, innovation and focus across state agencies.” The Governor’s Council on an Age-Friendly Minnesota likely will be formed during the first few months of next year. The purpose will be to develop a comprehensive plan for the state and suggest policies for lawmakers to discuss during the 2021 session. The council will include representatives from the Minnesota Board on Aging, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, the Metropolitan Council and the state Departments of Commerce, Employment and Economic Development, Health, Human Services, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs. “Minnesota has been doing a lot of good work across many different agencies, but we haven’t had the mechanism to pull it together and prioritize it across the board,” said Kari Benson, executive director of the Minnesota Board on Aging. “That’s key. We need to connect that work and really raise the profile.” The governor’s announcement came as part of a summit on Wednesday sponsored by the Minnesota Leadership Council on Aging, which has been pushing the state to establish a framework with broad vision that also will allow cities and counties the flexibility to respond to specifics of their communities. It sets Minnesota on a path to follow a five-year process established by the World Health Organization and AARP to help municipalities, tribal governments and states address such issues as ageism in health care and the workplace, disparities between urban and rural areas, and policies that prevent flexible housing options for older adults. To date, 424 communities, six states and Puerto Rico are participating in the AARP’s “age- friendly” communities network, where the goal is to share ideas to overcome challenges and to harness untapped potential of an aging population. Specifically, age-friendly or livable communities have walkable streets, multiple housing and transportation options, access to key services and options for residents to participate in community activities. Minnesota members of the AARP network include Minneapolis, Maple Grove, Northfield, Alexandria and Hennepin County. Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 93 “It’s not a certificate of achievement — it’s a commitment to work going forward,” said Will Phillips, the director of AARP Minnesota, about the program, which only recently broadened the “age-friendly” designation to include states. “States can do a lot to knock down barriers, to create policies that can incent even more work to happen at the local level,” Phillips said. Walz told those gathered for the summit that while creating the council is a first step, it comes through an executive order that could be reversed in future administrations. He said he hopes the group’s work will lead to lasting policy changes that will make Minnesota a better place to live for all ages. “This is a universally shared value,” Waltz said. “It’s a universally understood point that our state is so much better socially and economically if we get this right. ” Jackie Crosby is a general assignment business reporter who also writes about workplace issues and aging. She has also covered health care, city government and sports. jcrosby@startribune.com 612-673-7335 jackiecrosby Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 94 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway projectPage 95 Page 96Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 97 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 98 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 99 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 100 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 101 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Page 102 Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 2) Title: Southeast area bikeway project Meeting: Study session Meeting date: January 27, 2020 Discussion item: 3 Executive summary Title: Draft legislative priorities Recommended action: The purpose of this report is to provide council with an updated draft list of legislative priorities. Policy consideration: Does the council agree with the updated issues and priorities that are included in the draft document? Summary: The state legislature will be reconvening its 92nd session Tuesday, February 11, 2020. As in previous years, staff has prepared a draft list of legislative issues for the council to review. Based on the January 13 council discussion you will note that the supporting document has been streamlined considerably to more easily reflect the specific priorities of the council. On Monday, February 3, 2020 the council will meet with Senator Ron Latz, Representative Cheryl Youakim, Representative Ryan Winkler, Hennepin County Commissioner Marion Greene and Metropolitan Council representative Lynnea Atlas-Ingebretson to discuss the 2020 legislative priorities. Financial or budget considerations: Funding for lobbyists is included in the budget. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all. St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Study session January 13, 2020 (discussion) Study session December 9, 2019 (report) Discussion 2020 legislative priorities Prepared by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Draft legislative priorities Discussion 2020 Legislative Priorities The state legislature will reconvene on Tuesday, February 11, 2020. Similar to previous years, staff has updated the draft list of legislative issues for the council to review. As the 2020 legislative session progresses, additional issues may arise that can be addressed as necessary. Additional resources: League of Minnesota Cities LMC Legislative Action Center LMC Legislative Priorities LMC 2019 Policies Policy Committees Metro Cities Metro Cities Legislative Policies Policy committees City of St. Louis Park 2020 Legislative Priorities Housing o Establish a revenue resource for affordable housing o Allow affordable housing finance bond authority and general obligation (GO) bonds to fund affordable housing to serve low income households o Establish a TOD affordable housing fund and financial resources o Establish a dedicated revenue source for Local Housing Trust Funds (LHTF) o Allow for a 90-day tenant protection period prohibiting rent increases and non-renewals following the transfer of (NOAH) property ownership o Expand the eligibility for discretionary and mandatory expungements for eviction case court files o Renter initiatives such as lease fairness, heat and repairs o Require tenant notice of grounds for eviction before legal action o Establish a tax credit contribution fund o Establish a rental rehab loan program for small to medium size developments to preserve NOAH multi-family residential rental properties o Allow for the collection of an affordable housing fee on new development o Allow pooled TIF to be deposited in LHTF’s for affordable housing o Capital investment in the Perspectives bonding request Climate o Statewide adoption of similar goals to the St. Louis Park Climate Action Plan o Maintain current state code rule development process to ensure continued progress in energy conservation and building construction standards o Adopt an advanced state energy code and/or allowing for local adoption of more efficient building standards 100% renewable energy o Support efforts to encourage zero emissions vehicles / low emissions vehicles (ZEV/LEV) o Provide funding for electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure o Support climate change efforts such as the MN Green New Deal Transportation o Support funding of the redesign and reconstruction of CSAH 25 o County partnership on reconstruction of Texas Avenue/ Minnetonka Blvd o Establish stable statewide transportation funding o Support stable and growing revenue sources to fund the operating budget for all regional transit providers o Regional planning on automated vehicles General o Maintain local control o Oppose the establishment of levy limits o Oppose reductions to LGA o Maintain local regulatory authority for fee-for-service building inspections to ensure public safety and verify compliance o Advocate that a percentage of tax revenue generated by recreational marijuana (if approved by the legislature) be allocated to cities to cover law enforcement and mental health issues Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 3) Title: Draft legislative priorities Page 3 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: January 27, 2020 Discussion item: 4 Executive summary Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization Recommended action: The city council and city manager to set the agenda for the special study session scheduled for Feb. 3, 2020 and the regularly scheduled study session on Feb. 10, 2020. Policy consideration: Not applicable. Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the special study session scheduled for Feb. 3, 2020 and the regularly scheduled study session on Feb. 10, 2020. Also attached to this report is: - Study session discussion topics and timeline Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Tentative agenda – Feb. 3 and Feb. 10, 2020 Study session discussion topics and timeline Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant Reviewed by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization Feb. 3, 2020. 5:30 p.m. Special study session – Community room Tentative discussion items 1.Meet w/ legislators – Administrative services (60 minutes) Meeting with the city’s state legislators, Met Council representative and Hennepin County Commissioner to discuss 2020 Legislative Priorities. Feb. 10, 2020. 6:30 p.m. Study session – Council chambers and community room Tentative discussion items 1.City council safety training (Council chambers) 2.Boards and commissions application review and appointment process – Administrative services (45 minutes) Discuss the annual appointment process for boards and commissions and review agenda for the annual boards and commission meeting. 3.Accessory dwelling units draft ordinance – Community development (45 minutes) Staff will present the recommendations from planning commission and staff for how to amend the city code to allow ADUs in low density residential areas (single-family and two- family areas) and seek city council input before proceeding with the next steps toward adoption of an ordinance. 4.Wooddale station south parcel future redevelopment discussion – Community development (45 minutes) Staff will be seeking input from the council regarding future redevelopment of the south parcel at the SWLRT Wooddale Station in advance of distribution of a Request for Proposals for the site. 5.Future study session agenda planning – Administrative services (20 minutes) Review study session prioritization survey results and an overview on the council’s annual schedule. Communications/meeting check-in – Administrative services (5 minutes) Time for communications between staff and council will be set aside on every study session agenda for the purposes of information sharing. Written reports 6.CDBG annual allocation 7.Parkway Residence TIF request 8.6th amendment to redevelopment contract with PLACE Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization Study session discussion topics and timeline Priority Discussion topic Comments Timeline 1 Discuss public process expectations and outcomes Staff is working on the approach for undertaking this discussion. June 8, 2020 2 Prioritizing transit options thru investments, and engineering and operations decisions SS discussion 10/21/19. Next steps: staff reach out to Metro Transit, bench company, and Met Council rep. Update – staff met with Metro Transit Dec., 2019 In process 3 Easy access to nature, across city, starting w/ low-income neighborhoods TBD 4 WHNC Access Fund *On hold pending direction from school district.*On hold 6 SEED’s community green-house /resilient cities initiative On hold until Food Access and Security study is complete, and recommendations have been made. March 9, 2020 7 Community and neighborhood sidewalk designations TBD 8 Revisit housing setback, FRA, & more to maintain and create more affordable housing TBD 9 Public forums at council mtgs 9/23/19 SS. Staff is doing research of other cities. TBD Accessory dwelling units/ home- based businesses SS discussion 6/10/2019. Referred to planning commission. Staff to prepare ADU ordinance for pc discussion Qtr. 3 2019. Home occupation-based businesses pc discussion Qtr. 1 2020. Feb. 10, 2020 Revitalization of Walker Lake area Part of preserving Walker building reports: 8/28/17, 9/25/17, 1/22/18, design study 2/12/18, update 4/23/18, design study updates 8/27/18; SS report 2/11/19; SS discussion 5/28/19, planning commission to review ordinances for implementation Qtr. 3 & 4 2019; parking ord. in process of council approval; construction of phase 1 completed; Planning for 2020 phase 2 construction work underway In process Crime free ordinance/ affordable housing strategies Discussed 5/14/18. 1st reading housing trust fund 10/1/18; Other affordable housing strategies/Crime Free Ordinance – Nov/Dec, 12/10 & 12/17/18 & 1/14/19 council discussion; Certain provisions of crime free ord. suspended; Work group formed; CFO work group discussed on 3/25/19; Work group had 1st mtg in May, two meetings in June, one in July and August. Meetings on Sept 26, Oct 9, Oct 30, Nov 13, Dec 4. In process - Pending workgroup recommend- ation Immigration and supporting families Discussed 8/6 and referred to HRC. HRC held comm. mtg. in Oct. Council/HRC discussion on 12/10; referred back to HRC for refinement of recommendations TBD STEP discussion: facilities Discussed on 1/14/19; city, STEP & school toured Central Community Ctr and continuing discussions TBD Changes to sign ordinance TBD Climate crisis TBD Remove mint & menthol exemption from existing flavored tobacco policy TBD Conversion therapy ban TBD Meeting: Study session Meeting date: January 27, 2020 Written report: 5 Executive summary Title: Fourth quarter investment report (Oct – Dec 2019) Recommended action: No action required at this time. Policy consideration: Reporting on investments quarterly is part of our financial management policies. Summary: The quarterly investment report provides an overview of the City’s investment portfolio, including the types of investments held, length of maturity and yield. Financial or budget considerations: The total portfolio value at December 31, 2019 is just over $81 million. Approximately $35 million is invested in longer term securities that include U.S. Treasury notes, Federal agency bonds, municipal debt securities and certificates of deposit. The remainder of the portfolio is held in money market accounts and commercial paper for bond construction project payments and cash flow needs between property tax settlements. The overall yield to maturity decreased to 1.78% from 2.09% the prior quarter as interest rates continued to decline from earlier in the year. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion Investment portfolio summary Prepared by: Darla Monson, accountant Reviewed by: Tim Simon, chief financial officer Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Title: Fourth quarter investment report (Oct – Dec 2019) Discussion Background: The City’s investment portfolio is focused on short term cash flow needs and investment in longer term securities. This is done in accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A and the City’s investment policy objectives of: 1) preservation of capital; 2) liquidity; and 3) return on investment. Present considerations: The portfolio value increased by $23 million in the fourth quarter to $81 million at December 31, 2019 from $58 million at September 30, 2019. Bonds were issued in November for water and storm water projects netting approximately $8.7 million in cash. Nearly half of the proceeds were used immediately to reimburse for utility costs that had already been incurred on the Cedar Lake Road, Walker Lake, pavement management, and water treatment plant 6 reservoir projects. The bond issue also included $8.61 million of cash to refund the 2010D fire station bonds, which will be paid on February 1, 2020. Money market balances also increased due to the receipt of the second half property tax and tax increment settlements from Hennepin County on December 2. The overall yield of the portfolio decreased again in the fourth quarter to 1.78%, compared to 2.09% at September 30 and 2.23% at June 30. This is the combined yield including both cash held in money market accounts and long-term investments, and interest rates on both have declined in the second half of 2019. Cities will typically use a benchmark such as the two-year Treasury (1.58% on December 31, 2019) or a similar measure for yield comparison of their overall portfolio. There was $33.3 million in money market accounts at the end of the year. Approximately $21.4 million is for cash flow purposes to fund the February 1 debt service and pay as you go TIF note payments as well as payroll and on-going operating expenses until the next tax settlement is received, which will be a 70% advance of the first half tax payments in June 2020. There is also approximately $3.3 million of bond proceeds cash in money market accounts for contract payments on current projects such as the nature center and SCADA, and the $8.61 million noted earlier that will be used to refund the fire station bonds on February 1, 2020. Money market rates have decreased .7% since June 30 and are presently between 1.38% - 1.47%. Nearly $13 million of the portfolio is invested in very short-term commercial paper securities, including $11 million of bond proceeds that is scheduled to mature incrementally to fund projected construction costs for the nature center and other street and utility projects. The other $2 million of commercial paper is for operating cash needs and matures in early 2020. Commercial paper are promissory notes issued by banks and large corporations and usually have higher rates than money market accounts for investing cash in the shorter term. Rates on the six commercial paper securities in the portfolio range from 1.71% - 2.11% and all mature within 90 days. Another $1.4 million of the portfolio is invested in certificates of deposit. There are 6 CD’s in the portfolio, each with a face value of $245,000 or less, which guarantees that each CD is insured by the FDIC up to $250,000. The rates range between 1.75% - 2.3% and all will mature in 2020. The remaining $33.3 million of the portfolio is invested in other long-term securities which include municipal bonds ($2.3 mil), Federal agency bonds ($8.3 mil) and U.S. Treasury notes Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 5) Page 3 Title: Fourth quarter investment report (Oct – Dec 2019) ($22.7 mil). Municipal bonds are issued by states, local governments, or school districts to finance special projects. Agency bonds are issued by government agencies such as the Federal Home Loan Bank and Fannie Mae and can have a call date provision where they can be called prior to final maturity. Rates on treasury notes purchased for the portfolio during the quarter ranged from 1.48 – 1.66%. Less than a year ago, rates on treasuries were over 2.5%. This table is a summary of the City’s portfolio at December 31, 2019: Next steps: None at this time. 9/30/19 12/31/19 <1 Year 52% 66% 1-2 Years 18% 12% 2-3 Years 12% 13% 3-4 Years 13% 5% >4 Years 5% 4% 9/30/19 12/31/19 Money Markets/Cash $16,532,615 $33,305,952 Commercial Paper $8,927,315 $12,960,910 Certificates of Deposit $1,884,535 $1,407,118 Municipal Debt $2,322,487 $2,320,868 Agencies/Treasuries $28,342,553 $31,014,426 City of St. Louis Park Investment Portfolio Summary December 31, 2019 Institution/Broker Investment Type CUSIP Maturity Date Yield To Maturity Par Value Market Value at 12/31/2019 Estimated Avg Annual Income 4M Liquid Asset Money Market 1.38%2,119,866 2,119,866 29,254 4M Plus Money Market 1.46%18,021,461 18,021,461 263,113 4M Liquid Asset Money Market (bond proceeds)1.38%722,176 722,176 9,966 4M Liquid Asset Money Market (bond refunding escrow)1.38%8,622,633 8,622,633 118,992 UBS Institutional Money Market 1.47% 1,217,118 1,217,118 17,892 UBS Institutional Money Market (bond proceeds)1.47% 2,602,698 2,602,698 38,260 33,305,952 PFM Comm Paper - MUFG Bank Ltd NY 62479LAD7 01/13/2020 2.11% 1,000,000 999,340 21,100 UBS Comm Paper - Koch Industries (bond proceeds) 50000DAN6 01/22/2020 1.70% 2,000,000 1,998,060 34,000 UBS Comm Paper - Banco Santander (bond proceeds) 05971RBM5 02/21/2020 1.77% 3,000,000 2,991,840 53,100 UBS Comm Paper - British Columbia (bond proceeds) 11070JCK4 03/19/2020 1.71% 3,000,000 2,988,360 51,300 UBS Comm Paper - Natixis NY (bond proceeds)63873JCK4 03/19/2020 1.79% 3,000,000 2,987,340 53,700 PFM Comm Paper - JP Morgan 46640PCP6 03/23/2020 2.04% 1,000,000 995,970 20,400 12,960,910 PFM CD - Goldman Sachs Bank NY 38148JHB0 01/14/2020 2.20% 240,000 240,053 5,280 PFM CD - Amer Express UT 02587DXE3 01/30/2020 1.95% 240,000 240,067 4,680 PFM CD - Camden Nat'l Bank ME 133033DR8 02/26/2020 1.80% 240,000 240,154 4,320 PFM CD - Private Bank & Tr IL 74267GVA2 02/27/2020 1.75% 240,000 240,175 4,200 PFM CD - World's Foremost Bk NE 9159919E5 08/06/2020 2.30% 200,000 200,520 4,600 PFM CD - Comenity Cap Bk UT 20033AND4 10/13/2020 2.00% 245,000 246,149 4,900 1,407,118 PFM Muni Debt - Connecticut State Txble GO Bonds 20772JKN1 10/15/2020 1.78% 1,000,000 1,002,420 17,800 PFM Muni Debt - California State Txble GO Bonds 13063DGA0 04/01/2021 2.80% 450,000 455,832 12,600 PFM Muni Debt - Minnesota State Txble GO Bonds 60412ASE4 08/01/2022 1.76% 200,000 205,264 3,520 PFM Muni Debt - San Jose CA Txbl GO Bonds 798135H51 09/01/2023 2.13% 650,000 657,352 13,845 2,320,868 PFM FNMA 3135G0T60 07/30/2020 1.60%1,250,000 1,248,838 20,000 PFM US Treasury Note 912828L32 08/31/2020 1.09% 600,000 598,992 6,540 PFM FHLB 3130ACE26 09/28/2020 1.48% 575,000 573,948 8,510 PFM FHLMC 3137EAEJ4 09/29/2020 1.69% 530,000 529,968 8,957 PFM FHLMC 3137EAEK1 11/17/2020 1.91% 800,000 801,568 15,280 PFM US Treasury Note 912828N48 12/31/2020 1.02% 150,000 150,141 1,530 PFM US Treasury Note 912828N48 12/31/2020 1.12% 750,000 750,705 8,400 PFM Freddie Mac 3137EAEL9 02/16/2021 2.47% 800,000 806,856 19,760 PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0U27 04/13/2021 2.55% 500,000 505,830 12,750 PFM US Treasury Note 912828Q78 04/30/2021 1.86% 250,000 249,238 4,650 PFM US Treasury Note 912828Q78 04/30/2021 1.87% 675,000 672,941 12,623 PFM US Treasury Note 912828R77 05/31/2021 2.02% 1,600,000 1,595,120 32,320 PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0U35 06/22/2021 2.76% 700,000 711,837 19,320 PFM FHLB Global 3130A8QS5 07/14/2021 1.25% 750,000 744,398 9,375 PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.73% 650,000 654,290 11,245 PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.85% 1,150,000 1,157,590 21,275 PFM FHLB 3130AF5B9 10/12/2021 3.02% 750,000 768,345 22,650 PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.72% 700,000 695,786 12,040 PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.64% 575,000 571,539 9,430 PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.85% 200,000 198,796 3,700 PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0U92 01/11/2022 2.65% 400,000 408,092 10,600 PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.12% 500,000 503,240 10,600 PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.18% 800,000 805,184 17,440 PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.69% 1,300,000 1,308,424 34,970 PFM US Treasury Note 912828TJ9 08/15/2022 2.76% 1,050,000 1,050,987 28,980 PFM US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 3.00% 950,000 964,469 28,500 PFM US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.78% 1,000,000 1,015,230 27,800 PFM US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.51% 2,550,000 2,588,837 64,005 PFM US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.55% 1,675,000 1,700,510 42,713 PFM US Treasury Note 912828R69 05/31/2023 2.53% 1,000,000 1,000,039 25,300 PFM US Treasury Note 912828R69 05/31/2023 1.83% 350,000 350,015 6,405 PFM US Treasury Note 912828T91 10/31/2023 1.78% 1,225,000 1,223,900 21,805 PFM US Treasury Note 912828T91 10/31/2023 1.55% 250,000 249,772 3,875 PFM US Treasury Note 912828T91 10/31/2023 1.48% 450,000 449,596 6,660 PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0V34 02/05/2024 2.58% 475,000 489,697 12,255 PFM FHLB 3130AFW94 02/13/2024 2.58% 500,000 515,550 12,900 PFM US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.55% 600,000 608,327 9,300 PFM US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.66% 1,600,000 1,622,187 26,560 PFM FHLB 3130AGWK7 08/15/2024 1.55% 175,000 173,647 2,713 31,014,426 GRAND TOTAL 81,009,274 1,440,557 Current Portfolio Yield To Maturity 1.78% Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 5) Title: Fourth quarter investment report (Oct – Dec 2019)Page 4 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: January 27, 2020 Written report: 6 Executive summary Title: Annual Health in the Park update Recommended action: None at this time. Policy consideration: None at this time. Summary: Health in the Park (HIP) has been operating since 2013, creating connections and engaging in conversations on health and wellbeing in St. Louis Park. To inspire the continuation of community driven initiatives, Health in the Park continues to operate with a high degree of resident and staff involvement. The following is a report on the 2019 HIP activities. Financial or budget considerations: None at this time. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Laura Smith, wellness and volunteer coordinator Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/hr director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Title: Annual Health in the Park update Discussion Background: How did Health in the Park begin? Health in the Park (HIP) began in 2013 with a three-year grant from Blue Cross and Blue Shield intended to help St. Louis Park increase access and reduce barriers to healthy activity, and to improve the health and livability of the community. The project funded an initiative in St. Louis Park to engage community members in city-wide healthy living initiatives. The initiative brought together residents, people working in the city and many community partners in a community conversation about health in the city and created proactive, long-term initiatives designed by these community members. The city’s organizational development coordinator supervised this initiative. What is Health in the Park now? When grant funding ended in 2016 and the organizational development coordinator retired, the city’s wellness and volunteer coordinator (Laura Smith) was assigned to keep connections with our HIP volunteers, actively recruit and train new volunteers, and maintain collaborative relationships between residents/volunteers and city staff in order to continue to create and implement meaningful community-driven health initiatives with local government support. Who is involved with HIP? There are currently 14 volunteer HIP champions. These volunteers are eager to connect with school and city staff and share their enthusiasm for health and wellbeing. HIP champions meet quarterly to learn about initiatives that impact community health and have conversation and collaborate on ways to improve health in St. Louis Park. Champions have expertise and passions for different health areas. City staff, school personnel and others regularly present to HIP champions at their quarterly meetings to connect, collaborate and share information and ideas on health-related city initiatives (including the comprehensive plan, food study, bike lanes, school lunch program, mental health programs, etc.). What do HIP champions do? Champions participate in a variety of ways which align with their goals and interests. • Receive initial training from city staff. Training includes information on city departments and their intersection with health and an overview of the Health in the Park program. • Attend quarterly meetings to share information, connect and learn. 2019 meeting topics included: Connect the Park, mental health initiatives in the schools, Climate Action Plan, food insecurity, HIP Champion updates and outreach. • Create wellbeing events and initiatives. In 2019, the Be the Light Walk, created by HIP Champion Andrea Nyhusmoen, received the MPRA Award of Excellence for its ability to bring awareness to mental health issues, provide resources for mental health, build community and capitalize on the therapeutic value of spending time outdoors. • Review Healthy Living Grant requests and make recommendations. Information provided below for grants that were implemented in 2019. What is a Healthy Living Grant? The Healthy Living Grant Program was created in 2017 by city staff and HIP champions. The city sets aside $15,000 annually in grant funds to encourage residents to create innovative health and wellbeing initiatives. Grants are available to all community members who desire to implement a community health initiative. Grant guidelines Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 6) Page 3 Title: Annual Health in the Park update provide that 25% of the budgeted funds ($3,750) may be used for repeat programs, 25% ($3,750) of budgeted funds may be used for city-initiated programs to remove barriers for under-represented groups, and 50% ($7,500) of budgeted funds may be used for new grant requests. In 2019, ten grants were awarded and successfully implemented for a total of $10,250 in budgeted funds: • Repeat programs: SEEDS held six Cooking Matters weekly cooking classes for teens and tweens focusing on affordable and healthy recipes. HIP Champion Susan Ericksen hosted 16 free yoga classes for school staff and parents at each of the four elementary schools. The Be the Light Walk welcomed around 200 participants on December 21 to bring awareness to mental health issues and build community. Birchwood Neighborhood used funds to host their annual neighborhood 5k. Approximately 175 adults and children participated in the event. • City-initiated programs: The city partnered with Hamilton House on two healthy cooking classes with 40 participants. The city partnered with Perspectives to improve their community space, provide new furnishings and create a more welcoming environment for women and children who use their services. • New programs: Peter Hobart PTO created a jump roping program with Pros of the Rope, focusing on physical activity and inclusion for elementary school students during recess. One month of TreeHouse support group sessions for 55 young people to connect with each other and support each other’s wellbeing. SHOUT OUT LOUD suicide awareness event which raised $50,000 for Prairie Care Minnesota’s education and innovation programs. The St. Louis Park High School senior party was supported by promoting a chemical free event. What activities are planned for 2020? The champion group will continue to meet, connect, collaborate, learn and share in 2020. Additionally, HIP champions are currently planning the first ever Health in the Park fair, to be held February 22, 2020 at the St. Louis Park Middle School. Free physical and mental wellbeing activities and speaker sessions will be offered, as well as education on physical and mental wellbeing in St. Louis Park. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: January 27, 2020 Written report: 7 Executive summary Title: Notice of Eviction Recommended action: No action at this time. Staff recommends council consider a Notice of Eviction policy requiring seven days noticing to tenants prior to bringing an eviction action. Policy consideration: Does the council support a tenant protection policy as proposed requiring owners to provide a notice to tenants prior to filing an eviction action for nonpayment of rent? Summary: At the March 25, 2019 study session staff reviewed a proposed Notice of Eviction policy to promote tenant protection for all rental residents in St. Louis Park. The implementation of a Notice of Eviction policy would require rental property owners/managers to provide a notice to tenants prior to the filing of an eviction action for nonpayment of rent. At the October 28, 2019 study session, representatives from HOME Line and the Volunteer Lawyers Network & the Housing Court Project attended the session and provided input on the impacts of the policy largely from the tenant’s perspective. Minnesota Multi-housing Association was invited but was unable to attend. They have since submitted written comments. Council directed staff to conduct a public outreach process stressing the importance of reaching out to rental property owners for their input. The proposed policy was posted on the city’s website and social media platforms and viewers were invited to provide comments. An article on the proposed policy was also included in the SPARC (St. Louis Park Area Rental Coalition) newsletter and mailed to all rental property owners. Commenters were asked to identify as a rental property owner/manager, renter/tenant, community member or other. Financial or budget considerations: Implementation and ongoing management and monitoring of these policies/programs will require additional city staff time, as well as direct costs related to educating rental property owners of the new requirements. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion Notice of Eviction on-line comments MN Multi-Housing Association comments Robin Ann Williams of Bassford Remele letter Home Line/Volunteer Lawyers Network response letter Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, community develop deputy director and housing supervisor Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session Meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 2 Title: Notice of Eviction Discussion Background: A bill was introduced at last year’s legislative session and is planned to be reintroduced this year that would require that a notice be provided to tenants prior to filing an eviction action. The notice is meant to ensure that residents are informed and aware of the consequences of unresolved financial obligations to the landlord that are in violation of the lease. The bill failed to obtain a hearing in the senate last year and did not move forward in the legislative session. In response, a local policy similar to the policy in the legislative bill was presented for council’s consideration. The proposed policy presented at the October 28, 2019 study session is as follows: Notice of eviction policy/SLP Before bringing an eviction action alleging a material breach of the lease for nonpayment of rent or other unpaid financial obligations, a landlord must provide written notice to the residential tenant specifying the allegations of nonpayment of rent or other unpaid financial obligations and must state the total amount due along with a specific accounting of the amount of the total due. The notice must be delivered personally or mailed to the residential tenant at the address of the leased premises. If the alleged material breach of the lease or the rent delinquency is not corrected within 14 days of the delivery or mailing of the notice, the landlord may proceed with filing a complaint based on any allegations in the notice. The landlord must attach a copy of the notice to the complaint. Summary of public input comments: 84 comments were received on the proposed Notice of Eviction policy. A summary of the comments by self-identified groups is provided below and the individual comments are attached. Community members: •Many comments supporting the notice. Commenters thought it was reasonable and that it gives renters time to remedy the situation •Several thought the notice requirement should be longer and that the city should create notice templates for owners to use •Several others felt the ordinance isn’t necessary, that renters know when they are paying rent late, they sign a lease; leases and state statute cover rental agreements and evictions and should be adequate and should be at the discretion of the owner, no need for another layer of government regulation •Some felt 14 days is too long, resulting in tenants being 2 months behind on rent. Small rental property owners could be put in a financial hard spot and that the notice should apply for financial arrears only Renters: •Agree with policy and stated it seems fair •Reasonable to provide a short grace period •Strikes a good balance •Deliver in person/sign that it was received Property owners: •Majority felt notice requirement was not necessary. Majority of owners already provide notice (rare not to) and an opportunity for tenants to pay arears prior to filing in the case of non-payment of rent Study session Meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 3 Title: Notice of Eviction •Property owners commented that evictions are costly and time consuming and a last resort for owners. It is easier to negotiate than file an eviction. Most owners wait until the 10th to act spending the first part of month negotiating with tenants •Property owners stated a 14-day period is excessive and will create the risk to the owner of losing two-months’ rent which creates a financial burden. Owners are a for-profit business that relies on timely rent payments; can’t stay in unit for free and property owners have financial responsibilities such as mortgage payments, utilities, and other financial obligations •Unintended consequences could include: requiring higher security deposits; stricter screening criteria; increased cost of doing business passed on to tenants; landlords will remove current grace period to pay without a late fee and immediately send out the 14 day notice; will replace “reminder letter” with notice of intent to file an eviction; negatively impact tenant/landlord relationship; tenant hardship to pay rent after the 15th and then have to pay the next month’s rent two weeks later, tenants end up being buried in debt •Owners stated there is no “major problem” that requires the city to step in and fix; felt it is an overreach of city authority; binding legal contract with terms spelled out already in place; tenants’ responsibility to read and understand terms of the lease; not local governments role – these issues should be part of the lease agreement •Allow email/electronic notification, need clear guidelines on proof of notification delivery •Only five other states have 14-day notice or greater requirements Based on the comments received, staff proposes the following amendments to the draft policy presented at the October 28, 2019 study session: •Allow for electronic delivery of the notice in addition to the mailed or delivered notice if the tenant has indicated that is their preferred form of communication •Reduce the notice period from 14 days to 7 days. Seven days still provides a notice period to the tenants but eliminates the likely risk that failure to remedy the delinquent debt will result in two months of lost rent to the owner and reduces the financial burden risk to residents that could face having to pay two month’s rent to remedy the delinquency in order to avoid successive eviction actions. Staff has consulted the city’s legal counsel on the city’s authority to implement a notice prior to eviction requirement. Counsel’s opinion is that the city has the local authority to implement the new policy and impose new requirements but cautioned that there is always a risk that the city could be challenged. Next steps: Implementation of the notice of eviction policy will require a codification in the ordinance, most likely in the tenant protection ordinance. If council is in favor of moving forward with the policy with the proposed amendments, staff will work with legal counsel to draft an ordinance and return to a future meeting to hold the first public hearing for adoption of the proposed ordinance. Study session Meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 4 Title: Notice of Eviction Notice of eviction on-line comments Community member comments: •I think the statement is good for personal delivery to tenant. However, the mailing and response within 14 days is problematic. I sent something to someone in SE Minneapolis and it took a week for him to get it. If this happens to a renter, or if it is sent to the wrong address or if the apartment number is not on the envelope, it could take a week to arrive. Thus, the tenant would only have a week to address the problem. I suggest a 3 week time period for the notice (as it is unrealistic to expect a landlord to personally deliver all the notices to tenants). Thanks for considering this. •This is a fair and just policy. I strongly approve. •This notice of Eviction limited to non-payment of rental fees and the action the landlords must take in notification seems to be a reasonable policy that allows all parties to be aware of the situation. •I support the Notice of Eviction Policy proposed by the St. Louis Park Community Housing Team. I believe the policy will benefit our entire community. •Renter's know when they are late in the rent. Or when they have damaged the apartment or are misusing the residence. An additional written notice of what they already know is not needed. Renter's read and sign a lease agreement. State statute already covers rental agreements, including terminations and evictions. Adding another layer of government regulations is not an answer to effectively and efficiently promote a range of affordable and market rate rental housing in the City. ps I was a renter for approximately 25 years before buying a home. •My concern is related to the 14 day notice requirement. I'm afraid that in waiting for 14 days, a landlord might be forced to wait an additional month/rental period before they can begin lease termination for a tenant. •The law should include information about how the tenant can dispute a landlord's claim within the 14 days between notice and filing, and it should include reference to rules about escrow accounts for repairs as an exception to the rule. The way this rule reads, if a tenant has an escrow account with the courts, the tenant can still be evicted for non-payment. •Thank you, Council, for considering this update to the City's Eviction Policy. I wholeheartedly endorse this proposed notice of eviction. It increases the rights of renters, improves transparency, gives renters time to improve the situation and avoid eviction, and increases clear communication between the renter and the landlord. Thank you for considering this update. I hope it is adopted. •We have owned a home in SLP for 29 years...I support this policy if the rental management has previously tried to get their tenants to clean up...make property repairs, keep up the property etc. After all these years living next to a renter I am unclear who has what responsibility. Can you clarify this? What is the property managers responsibility vs the renter? We are tired of living g next to a dump and not knowing who the proper owner is or who to call. •What the downsides to this proposal? It seems reasonable to alert the renter and give the owner an opportunity to collect funds. But there are always two sides. •I feel the Tenant should receive 30 day notice. 14 days is not enough time to either come up with the money or find somewhere else to live. Maybe there is extenuating circumstances in some cases, medical problem, like recent recovery from surgery or other. Let's help these Study session Meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 5 Title: Notice of Eviction people who are down on their luck instead of punishing them. We need more affordable housing around the Twin Cities. •14 days to correct a matter that is non-financial, seems unrealistic. 14 days to arrange for restitution within agreed upon period, in lieu of an eviction notice, makes more sense to me. Not everything can be completed within 14 days. •Makes sense to me. I'm curious what the current policy is. How is this different than the current procedure? •This seems like a good idea, and an extra layer of communication from property owner/manager to the renter/tenant. Our world is so busy today, and while I think people know when they are behind on payments, the extra courtesy of additional communication clearly spells out what is necessary to take care of the situation before it becomes an eviction. Hopefully, it will bring both parties together to work out a resolution before it becomes the process of eviction. •I feel that is a fair solution, although the 14 day notice seems to be a bit harsh. I think a 30 day notice suffice and would allow the renter a more reasonable amount of time to solve their issues regarding this issue. I’m sure they are well aware! •I am not sure I understand just what you are saying. does that give the person another 14 days. or can the Land lord Give this notice to you and the tenet at the same time. The does the land lord have to wait for a court date. If the Land Lord is waiting and it puts them in the rears with the bank. I just dont get it. •Sec. 504B.147, Subd. 3, states: Subd. 3.Landlord notice requirements. The landlord may not give a notice to quit the premises or notice of a rent increase that is shorter than the time period the lease provides for the tenant to give notice of an intention to quit the premises. Sec. 504B.135(b) states: (b) If a tenant neglects or refuses to pay rent due on a tenancy at will, the landlord may terminate the tenancy by giving the tenant 14 days notice to quit in writing. It appears to me that your proposed ordinance may conflict with the first cited statute unless the City requires a landlord to amend all leases to a 14 day notice period. And, in addition, it appears that your proposed language directly conflicts with the second cited statute in that your proposed ordinance states that "other unpaid financial obligations" are grounds for a 14-day notice while the statute does not. If I was a tenant's lawyer, I think I would have a valid argument that your statute is more restrictive than rights given to a tenant under state law in some instances which would be grounds to declare your ordinance void as to those circumstances. Why are you bothering to draft such an ordinance anyway? The subject is covered in Minn. Stat. 504B. This seems to me to be a waste of time and tax dollars. •This is totally asinine They sign a contract, all terminology of non payment is know up front. And 99% of landlords probably let them know if they are late and need to correct issues If I go delinquent on a vehicle payment, I know they will come yak my vehicle. If you give them another 14 days, then file eviction Landlords are out a whole month of money My 2 cents •This should be at the discretion of the building owner/landlord to determine, the city does not need to be involved. If the terms are accurately outlined in the rental agreement that each party complies to - then it is the both parties responsibility to understand and adhere to them. •I am in favor of a notice of eviction policy for tenants to have time to remedy the situation. I believe this proactive step could help tenants and property managers resolve issues quicker, and in a more orderly fashion. My only suggestion is to reconsider the amount of time to remedy the complaint. I would think something like 30 days to remediation before an Study session Meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 6 Title: Notice of Eviction eviction notice is more appropriate. Given that people are many times only paid 2 times a month, they may not be able to pay back the potential delinquent rent in 14 days. I think supporting renters through this, with a slightly longer time period may help the rental market in SLP to be more stable. Thanks •I fully support this initiative by our city council. Thank you for looking out for those in our community who might be in vulnerable situations. •After reviewing the Eviction Notice Policy proposal, I am in favor of this policy. Not only costly, evictions can make it very difficult for individuals and their families to relocate and find housing once it is on their credit history and public record. It is only fair that the tenant receive adequate notification of the intention of filing and have time to take action to correct or remedy the renting issue at hand before it gets filed with the court system. As a member of the St. Louis Park community, I am proud that the city would consider such policy and I hope it moves forward to be enacted. •I feel this is between the landlord and tenet. There is a lease read and signed by tenet .This should be enough.If terms of lease are violated there is cause for eviction.I have rented in the past and always resolved issues with landlord,no problem. Don't feel this added policy is needed. •I feel that it should not be the role of local government to create barriers between landlords and renters. These types of requirements, if agreed to by both renters and landlords, should be apart of lease agreements. The city should not attempt to impose these types of requirements which will make financial dispute resolution more difficult. •As a former renter, I know that it can feel very insecure to be in a position where someone might evict you unexpectedly at any time, leaving you without a place to live. This will make it easier for people who face eviction to have time to either correct the problem or find a new accommodation before they are forced out of their home. Ideally, tenants would require this in contract negotiations; but renters are often unwilling to negotiate terms, and tenants are forced to accept the terms offered. This policy will help provide a basic level of housing reliability for tenants. I strongly encourage this policy. •That sounds fine to me, but be very clear of what's happening including a date of when the locks will be changed so there's no surprises. You could also attach resources of where they can get emergency help or shelter •If a rental property owner is not getting paid, they should not be forced to wait 14 days to start the eviction process. The landlord is incurring costs that entire time, and they should be permitted to reduce the amount of time they are going without payment as much as possible. •This seems a reasonable approach for both parties involved. It provides a chance for renters to remedy the situation and a backup for the landlords as well. •As a former renter, I believe tenants need much more protection than their landlords. I think this is a good addition, and furthermore, I would ask that a template or templates be created that the landlords have to use for the notice. There should be a mandated format that breaks down an itemized view of all potential or alleged late payments that the tenant can reference. •sounds reasonable •I do not believe there is a need to provide written notice before the eviction process is started. From what I have heard, the eviction process takes long enough. Renters know when rent is due and if they need an extension should be open with their landlords. It should be the landlord’s decision whether to grant an extension or not. The 14 day window Study session Meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 7 Title: Notice of Eviction of giving the tenant written notice is costing the landlord even more money on top of finding new tenants, getting the non-payers out, etc... in a $1500 a month house, that 2 weeks is costing the landlord $750 of potential rent. I do not support the proposed written notice policy, but am open to hearing counter arguments for the policy. •If this is about Crime Free Multi Housing, please remember the city wasn't asking for landlords to EVICT people. Regardless, I think it is ridiculous that government gets involved in such matters. The lease is between the landlord and tenant. It's a legally binding document. Doesn't the city council have more important concerns facing them. To me, this is as frivolous as the Pledge of Allegiance disaster. The landlord/tenant relationship is none of our business, unless it is causing a nuisance or criminal activity. Then, hopefully CFMH will be back in force and we do what's right for the greater good. OMG, I honestly can't even believe that this is a question up for community discussion! •I don't know what would be objectionable about this- except how does a landlord prove he/she delivered a document? Certified mail? •I'm sympathetic to people in hard times. Nevertheless if I had, say, a small rental place and did not get the rentals I myself could be in a hard spot. So, if a renter has knowingly been in arrears for a while already and there is documented communication about that, it seems unfair to give yet more time before a eviction process can be started. Just my thought. I loath predatory landlords. But I know a nice one, too.. •I think the proposed policy is a great idea. It protects renters who are in difficult situations with extenuating circumstances causing them to not even be aware of their late rate, or how much is due (for example, someone could lose their spouse... who typically handled rent payment... and be dealing with A LOT). The policy assures that there is clear communication to the renter and it gives them a chance to correct the issue. •I support the notice of eviction policy proposal. •I am in favor of this new eviction policy. I attended the study session as an observer and I am convinced that this will make a positive difference for renters by giving them the information and time needed to avoid eviction. •I am a home owner, but I've been a renter in the past. As a longtime resident of St Louis Park, I want to live in and support a city that affords the same dignity and respect to all its community members. Requiring rental property owners/managers to provide a notice to tenants prior to filing of an eviction action alleging a material breach of the lease for nonpayment of rent or other unpaid financial obligations is a way to extend dignity and respect to tenants. Please adopting this proposal. Thank you •I support this proposal •I think the tenant should have a month rather than 14 days. Sometimes all a person needs to get the rent money is payday at the end or first of the month. •I am very much in favor of implementing the proposed Notice of Eviction Policy! I appreciate the transparency and encouraged communication between landlord and tenant. Any possibilities to prevent eviction filings are a "win" in my mind! •I'm owner of a mortgage in SLP but have rented numerous times when younger. This proposal will do nothing more than expediate eviction rather than entice owners to work with tenants. Rent not received after the 5th of the month, if such a generous lease provides, would result in form letters being mailed on the 6th and landlords spending the ~$500 cumulative costs of going forward with an eviction, not to mention their intangibles such as taking care of repair issues of other customers (renters) of the landlord. Most landlords would rather keep tenants rather than kick them out. Renters enter into a legally Study session Meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 8 Title: Notice of Eviction binding contract that they get to keep a copy of. The proposed city law will cause more issues than problems solved, such as: 1) Increased rent to all renters to account for more unwarranted regulation and in severe cases, thousands of dollars in repairs after a renter further trashes a unit; 2) Patchwork of city laws that are best handled at the state, or perhaps county level; 3) Eviction process proceeds earlier, rather than delayed, which I assume is the intent; 4) Higher deposits or multi-month deposits to account for the added risk. Beyond renter protections already existing in law, renters have many community sources available, even talking with a landlord to see if they can make an arrangement. I suggest a few hours allocated from a high school civics curriculum for juniors or seniors that touches on renting or other common agreements as reality of life hits many swiftly when they become independent. •I recently helped a church friend/school parent move out of her St Louis Park apartment after 17 1/2 years of being an excellent tenant. I was shocked at how SELA (A large St. Louis Park based company) handled her situation and tormented her and her son in front of me. I was so shocked and in total disbelief they would not work with us to remedy the situation and that they held back letting her know her 60 day notice to leave was invalid until after she had moved out. First, I was surprised they could increase her rent with less than 60 days notice mid-contract. In New York, they call this harassment, so that tenants will move out and the landlords can re-rent and increase their rental income! I helped my friend clean and move out completely within 60 days of the rent increase letter so she would not have to pay the higher rent. When she received the rent increase letter, she told me, "she could not afford the increases any longer". Then, I was shocked to hear a Bob at SELA in St. Louis Park make a harassing eviction phone call to her (while in my home) to tell her she had been evicted on the 8th day of the following month after she had moved out. (He didn't even use his real name). When we were told she had to pay an additional month of rent in full because she didn't comply with a recent contract change that required a 60 day notice to vacate, we asked if she could move her son back in and we'd pay the rent. The next day they replied "no, you turned in your keys". That afternoon, we did a drive by and saw her carpet had been thrown out her sliding glass door/deck. They had already gutted her apartment. We tried to talk to the Mgmt office personnel together within an hour of the harassing eviction phone call, but they would not supply answers to our questions or show proof of the new 60 day notice to leave requirement. We do not know if she really has an eviction on her record or not to this day!! After all, how do they evict you, if you've already moved out? Sela management staff lied to us in our meetings and showed pictures of the apartment freezer stained after they had turned off the power to the refrigerator/freezer for multiple days and let it stain. We had our pictures that showed the apartment clean and empty with no stain in the freezer the day we left. They lied again when they said they had hand delivered my friend a letter, which contents we were never even informed of.. My friend said she never received a letter at her door. So, who do you believe? My friend did not get her safety deposit back after leaving the place empty and clean and since then SELA staff will not answer our questions we submitted in a hand delivered (date stamped by their secretary) letter. Clearly, many tenants are being harassed and taken advantage of as rents increases and lower income tenants are being pushed out of our city. My friend raised her family here for over 17 years as a single parent and now her landlord, SELA has made her leave in disgrace for no damn reason! She works 6 days a week and 12 hours a day to pay her rent and this is how we treat our good residents, how sad. She is embarassed that I know about her situation and our friendship has dwindled because I have told her how Study session Meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 9 Title: Notice of Eviction serious the situation can be and have encouraged her to get a low income attorney and fix the situation. But she doesn't understand there is a problem situation because the landlord has not informed her of the eviction or put anything in writing and quite honestly, she doesn't have the daytime hours free from work to deal with it. This situation has torn apart her family as well, as her son attended these meetings with SELA. I am so embarrassed for St. Louis Park and how we are allowing landlords to treat and send off our apartment and rental property residents with evictions on their records. After noting my story on social media, others in St. Louis Park have told me that their apartment landlords have been just as nasty. Please at least mandate these landlords give proper 14 day advance U.S. Postal Service notice (with signature of receipt) for any notices of an Eviction situations pending to allow these people/families 14 days to get the help they need to resolve their situations with dignity with their landlords. Please also include information to inform them of the consequences of an eviction on their record and where they can get free low income assistance quickly) so they can see the importance in resolving these situations gracefully, before more people walk away wishing they had never lived in St. Louis Park. This situation should have been handled very differently if the Management had siply informed her she needed to give a full 60 day notice, but instead we have a possible eviction threatened on our residents. Until we the people and the City of St. Louis Park stand up to these landlords, the tenants haven't got a prayer in getting their safety deposits back, even when it was only $350. How sad. By the way, you may not get many renters/tenants responding to this request, because most of these people have left our community or are homeless because they do not have the ability to rent again for 7 years or so I learned at your earlier City Council working session meeting. As a community member with recent experience with this situation, I felt you should hear it from someone who felt what it was like to see how my friend was dealt with and not listened to from their landlord, the SELA staff in St. Louis Park. Even after we offered to pay the month's rent at the first meeting, they would not work with us. They had already started their remodeling! Other (not a renter, property owner or community member) •I have seen firsthand how failure by the landlord to notice tenants of an impending eviction action places the tenants in a crisis mode. They have no time in this situation to think through their rights, their best options and responses, or protections that they may be able to access. Typically, these residents are already dealing with other financial hardships and can simply feel paralyzed when yet another pile-on of such significance comes. I am also aware of mistakes that the landlord has made that wrongfully puts a good tenant into this situation. The landlord holds all the power under the current policy. We saw this at Meadowbrook when many residents - some of them families - were displaced with very little time to find appropriate housing. Not all were evictions, but some were. •I live at 3300 on the Park and our building is owned by the owners of the individual condo units. Personally I understand but do not like this plan as we have rental units within our owner occupied condo building.The renter would receive notice of eviction and this may lead to the renter become irritated about this notice which could put our building at risk to being damaged or damage within the unit that they are renting that could affect units around the unit that the tenants are living in; example they could move out and leave the water running or plug a toilet or do damage within the building that could cost all of us as owners of the building again due to the tenant getting this notice. I agree in possibly doing Study session Meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 10 Title: Notice of Eviction this in stand alone rental units such as houses that are not connected to other units but not to multiple-family dwellings. Rental Property Owner/Manager •Minnesota has one of the five lowest eviction rates in the country. According to Eviction Lab, our eviction rate has consistently been lower, and fallen faster and further, than the national rate from 2007 to 2016. A targeted approach in areas with higher rates of evictions makes more sense than upending a process that provides better outcomes for renters than 46 or 47 other states. •14 days seems like a long time to allow a tenant to go without payment and moving forward with eviction. A tenant could make payments on the 13th of every month and no legal action could be taken. In addition to waiting 2 weeks before submitting the eviction notice a landlord also has to take the tenant to court, which could take an additional 3-4 weeks. At that point the security deposit would only cover one months rent, then the landlord is losing money having the tenant stay in the property while waiting to be evicted. I think allow the landlord to state their own wording (I give the tenant 5 days before any action can be taken), otherwise 7 days seems much more appropriate. This proposal could push landlords to require 2 months of rent to ensure they can cover expenses if they have to wait 14 days before moving forward with any legal action. •I am a rental property owner of a single duplex. I think 14 days is too long for a small mom and pop owner such as myself. I am not a large property management company or corporation with huge cash reserves. As such I think this would place an unfair and undue burden on the property owner such myself. If I have to wait 14 days to file an eviction for unpaid rent then the eviction itself could take another 14-21 days putting me at 2 months unpaid rent. I think it’s good to give renters a chance to become current on rent however 14 days is too long. That tenant would then have to pay rent again in just 14-16 days after they corrected the delinquency. I would say 7 days is much more reasonable as it gives the tenant a full week to secure funds to resolve the delinquency and doesn’t put a small property owner in undue hardship either for delinquent funds. •Proof of providing the notification to the Tenant needs to be outlined in the policy: "The notice must be delivered personally or mailed to the residential tenant at the address of the leased premises." If you watch any of judge shows on TV, there is a lot of 'he said, she said' or 'I never received notification.' Having a policy with clear guidelines for proof of notification is required to protect both parties. For example, Certified Letter or signature of Tenant acknowledgement of receiving notification in person. •This policy seems redundant, and cumbersome. Every tenant knows if they don't pay their rent they'll be evicted. The state outlines the process for eviction, as well as the lease. Having to notify the tenant in person or by mails adds the added risk the tenant will say they never received the notice. If rent is not paid, the eviction process starts until it is paid. If it's not paid by then end of the eviction process, along with any back rent due, the eviction holds. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. •Why on earth would this be implemented when our leases are a binding legal contract with terms clearly spelled out? How about protecting the owners for their loss and for keeping up their end of the contract? This is stupid. Tenants know when they have not paid their bills or stopped paying. Then they act shocked that they can't stay for free. If an eviction has to be filed, it's because they themselves have not remedied their financial obligation which led to the filing of the eviction in the first place which they are clearly aware of. Why would Study session Meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 11 Title: Notice of Eviction you want to enable this? They should have some sense of responsibility and have to share some of the work load. Instead, propose that they should have to write us acknowledging they are not paying, go to eviction court and file for eviction on themselves and save the owner/management at least some of the work load already involved to this point. While we're at it have them get the home ready again and re-market. Sound silly? That's what I think about implementing this Notice of Eviction Policy. •You know the more difficult it is to evict the less likely I am going to be to take a chance on a tenant right? SLP is a desirable location. Landlords get multiple applicants for a decent unit. A policy like this just makes me tighten my screening standards, especially since my duplex is owner occupied. I would be coming home to an uncomfortable situation for an even longer period of time. Who wants that? •I work for a professional management company, and have been doing this for 18 years. 18 of those years, I've managed real estate in St. Louis Park. What you are proposing is something professional management companies already do. We provide notices of late rent, make payment arrangements, and if we are getting no cooperation, then we will file for an eviction. Is this something we like to do? No. Why? It costs a lot of money to file an unlawful detainer action, it's a process that takes time, and often our owners get stuck with the bill. Our residents sign a lease, which is a legal binding contract. The terms of what is expected of them and of the management company are very clear. It is the resident's responsibility to read this important document and understand the terms and what the consequences are if they fail to hold up their end of the deal. Why are you, as a city, interfering and "holding their hand" to make it better? You are not. You are enabling people in society who fail to understand that they need to be held accountable for their actions. You lease a space. You need to pay for that space. Remember this....Renters are adults. Renters are signing a legal binding document. Renters need to be held accountable for their actions and treated just like everyone else in society. Do you think if I fail to pay my mortgage payment, the city of Morris, MN is going to come to my aid and make sure my banker doesn't kick me out of my home? No. Now if this policy is meant for slumlords that write the terms of their agreement on a napkin and don't have a standard MHA lease, go after those people. With policies like this, you aren't making things better for those professional management companies that do care and do their job correctly. •This proposal appears to offer renters more time to prepare for potential eviction due to non payment of rent by weakening the current State Statue wich allows a landlord to immediately file an unlawful detainer against a renter if rent is not paid in full on the date it is due. I believe however this proposal for 14 days written notice before eviction will not serve the purpose that you may intend. In fact, I believe it will have the unintended effect of creating unnecessary and additional stress to renters who are late in rent payments. Since a landlord’s revenue and therefore business is dependent on collecting rent, timely and effective communication to renters when rent isn’t paid is not a new or innovative idea. Most leases have a grace period of 1-5days to account for holidays and weekends. Most landlords spend the first two weeks of each month in collections of rent and only after those two weeks are they generally taking action to begin eviction. The reason for this naturally occurring delay is due to the the costs of filing which amount to approximately $325 plus cost of service and if necessary cost for Sheriffs to physically evict. And that is just to get the apartment back from the renter not paying to live there. That process alone is dependent on court calendar and sheriffs availability. An overall timeframe that i have personally experienced for this is 1-2months. Not to mention if money still is owed the Study session Meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 12 Title: Notice of Eviction landlord must then bring a separate action and pay additional fees in Conciliation Court to get a judgement filed for money still owed. Landlords will look for ways to avoid turning a 1- 2month process into a 1.5-2.5month process. All of the above reasons are both expensive and time consuming enough that it is MUCH easier to call, text, write letter, negotiate payment plans, and generally do whatever is reasonable to work with the tenants to get the rent paid before spending the time, money and efforts to file eviction. In short Landlords that file evictions are already doing so after a couple weeks of communication and then only as a last resort. By adding this proposed 14 day written notice you are only going to speed up the threat of eviction rather than slow down the actual eviction because landlords will not willingly add an additional 14 days to the process after spending the same amount of time in collections/negotiations with the tenants. Rather, landlords will likely remove grace periods from leases for all renters and IMMEDIATELY send the 14 day letter threatening eviction to everyone who’s one day late simply to preserve their right to evict in as timely manner as possible. Right now most landlords have a gentle reminder letter that goes out after the 3-5th day grace period and that works for most of those who are late. This new proposal by will simply force Landlords to replace a reminder letters with an eviction notices causing unnecessary and additional stress to the renters who are late. This issue of non payment of rent is nothing new and many of those who find themselves in that situation are on years long waiting lists for public assistance. This provision will not be a solution to the problem but rather will force landlords immediately rather than eventually to raise the level of rent collections and immediately tender the threat of eviction. •I own two rentals in SLP, a sfh and a sfh under CUP for commercial use. I think the policy as outlined is completely appropriate. If people are in trouble, blind-siding them is no help to anyone. •As a long time property owner in St. Louis Park, we are vehemently opposed to these regulations. We spend excessive amounts of time working with tenants, and cooperating, and trying to make rental payments work, but when they do not, we need to be able to uphold our legal contract (the lease), and move them out. This is a business, and we cannot have someone stay, without paying. Similarly, Target does not allow people to steal, occasionally. Or allow them to take something, use it, and bring it back. That is theft. I am very strongly opposed to this regulation and think it is a great overreach of power and will foster a negative relationship between the property owners and the city. This is wrong and does not consider your property owners, who are investing in your city. •I live in St. Louis Park, but manage rental property in other cities. I would suggest that you check with the MN attorney general, who already has laws for our state in place. There is a MN Landlords & Tenants Rights & Responsibilities book that specifies what actions need to be taken for an eviction. Evictions are expensive and most owners/landlords see them as their last resort to collect past due rent. Minnesota also puts out recommendations to Landlords & Tenants regarding Minnesota law. I live in St. Louis Park, but manage rental property in other cities. I would suggest that you check with the MN attorney general, who already has laws for our state in place. There is a MN Landlords & Tenants Rights & Responsibilities book that specifies what actions need to be taken for an eviction. Evictions are expensive and most owners/landlords see them as their last resort to collect past due rent. Minnesota also puts out recommendations to Landlords & Tenants regarding Minnesota law. 1. Promptly inform tenant in writing of anything which might lead to eviction. {We inform by mail, e-mail, text, & leave a letter at their door.} By law we only need to do one of these Study session Meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 13 Title: Notice of Eviction things. 2. We give them a timeline in writing of when we will file eviction if they don't pay. 3. We document all correspondence & payments from the tenant. One we decide to file an eviction; The tenant must be served at least seven days before the court hearing...again Minnesota law! Some of what the court requires: Eviction Complaint, Affidavit of Personal Service, Affidavit of Mail, Affidavit of Not Found, Affidavit of Posting, and Affidavit of Plaintive. Proper service is very important to the court, and if their rules are not followed - the plaintive must start the process over again. 90% of all evictions in Minnesota are for non-payment of rent. This past year during an eviction, we tried to give a young woman an opportunity to make payments on past due rent. She never did try to make up the payments (which were to be spread over 2 months), and we had the sheriff remove her. I would suggest that you do not re-write what Minnesota law requires, because that is all they will look at in court. Evictions are expensive - a last resort. If one has been filed there is usually a valid reason. •As the manager of a 34 unit Section 42 Tax Credit/Affordable town home community in St. Louis Park, I am fully supportive of making sure tenants are fully informed of their balance and working with them to avoid eviction action and the repercussions of this legal action. However; I believe a required 14 days is too long of a window. Once you start the eviction process it takes a while for paperwork to be filed and processed, to wait for the scheduled court date, etc. This delay will, on many occasions, draw this process out into the following month which adds another month of rent to the tenant's balance and thus makes it even harder for them to get caught up. I think this needs to be taken into account when considering time restrictions. •The standard lease agreement states rent is due on the 1st of the month but there is a grace period of 4 days before the resident is charged a late fee. My company and others that I have worked for send a late rent notice to the resident and then a notice of intent to evict for non payment. We file the UD's on the 10th of the month and the court date is usually set withing 14 days - 20 days. It used to be set within 7 - 14 days, but the courts are backed up. If the resident appears in court and does not have the money to pay the rent, the judge often gives them an additional 7 days before the writ is issued. In the scenario you are proposing, the landlord would need to wait 14 days before they can begin the process, which means the court date will be set at the end of the month at the earliest, or the beginning of the following month and the judge can grants a 7 day stay. This means the landlord is without rent for a minimum of two months which is an unfair financial burdern. to the owner. Mortgages and utilities need to be paid the month they are due. I do not have an issue with notifying the resident of the pending eviction as we already give them two notices before filing. My issue is the 14 days potentially puts the owner in situation of losing two months rent before they can begin leasing it to another resident. •I am an attorney that has represented landlords for over 40 years. I was consulted when the city of St. Louis Park and Hopkins first passed your rental licensing ordinances and have done training for both cities. The proposed 14-day notice is a very bad idea for many reasons. The reasons include: • It is rare that a landlord does not give a courtesy late notice between the 3rd and the 5th of the month. Typically another notice is given warning that an eviction will be filed. Landlords do not want to incur the costs of eviction. It is the exception not the rule. • I do work for clients with multi-state portfolios. Some states have a three- day, pay or quit notice. 14 days is an unreasonably long period. It will result in landlords Study session Meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 14 Title: Notice of Eviction needing and wanting to give a notice of eviction on the 2nd of the month to avoid losing rent for multiple months. • As a lawyer, I can assure you that each one of my clients will, if this law is passed, start giving a notice of “default” on the 2nd or 3rd of the month. The notice will become standard, it won’t be that informative to tenants. • For your smaller landlords, details of this requirement is likely to lead to multiple months of rent loss and significant financial hardship. • The requirements that the notice must be “delivered personally or mailed”, is contrary to the practice of many landlords delivering written notices to the unit. Many tenants request and prefer that notices be given electronically. • As cities start adding individual requirements to rental housing, beyond the previously, fairly standard, crime-free provisions, the cost of doing business, and the risks of rent loss and cases being dismissed from housing court on technicalities, increase. These actions greatly increase the cost of doing business for landlords. Those costs get passed on to tenants. • The impact of this requirement will lead to tenants having a full two months where rent would be past due, before an eviction action for nonpayment of rent would be heard in housing court. • Our firm files as many as 150 evictions a month. Lawyers are required for many eviction actions. I can assure you that our clients, professional landlords and property management firms for the most part, have given the notice 1, 2, or more reasonably detailed notices and warnings, with an increasingly severe tone, as rent is late. There is simply no “major problem” that requires the city to step in and fix when it comes to giving residents “fair warning” that you really have to pay the rent when it is owed under your lease. •Greetings, I am not in favor of this policy change. My philosophy is to over communicate to tenants when the rent is late. I have experienced renters who are gaming the system and do everything they can to stay as long as possible without paying. The new policy helps them stay longer before legal action can be taken. I've been managing rental properties for 25 years. Thanks for the opportunity to be heard. •While I understand the want to give tenants a longer notice for eviction, I believe this can create an adversarial relationship between tenants/owners & managers. I manage properties in Minneapolis as well. Most owners/managers , including myself, strive to have a conversation with any past dues tenants. Depending on if/when tenants get back, this conversation typically goes until mid-month. So we are waiting until mid-month before any action. If there is no communication from tenants or a "payment plan" cannot be established, we then have to explain to them that we may file for eviction in the coming days. We give them notice that we will file by a certain date. If it were to come to an eviction, it typically takes the courts 2 weeks to meet and then 1-2 weeks after to contact the sheriff if it comes to that. That puts the time line out to about 1.5 months after non- payment. Then, we can hopefully turn and rent the apartment as soon as possible. Forcing owners/managers to give 14 day notice, will force many to push this timeline up. We would rather have a conversation with our tenants and then take action using the courts. In order to reduce loss, we will need to give notice of an eviction much sooner. Thus reducing the period of having a "conversation". •Hello, I am writing today to comment on the current proposal to lengthen the notice of eviction to 14 days in St. Louis Park. I wanted to voice our concern as a professional management company that has policies in place to both do business consistently/fairly, but to also give a resident who may have to pay rent late a decent amount of time to do so. My concern is that the current proposal may increase the likelihood that residents may feel it appropriate to pay late. Rent is contractually obligated by a certain date, but they are Study session Meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 15 Title: Notice of Eviction given a grace period to pay without a late fee. If after those efforts we are still unable to file eviction due to nonpayment of rent for another two weeks, it may inadvertently send a message that our notices are without merit. It may also cause undue financial burden on the site itself. Contrary to popular belief, landlords (big or small) rely on rental revenue every month to pay mortgages and other expenses to keep communities running smoothly and reputably. While we understand and empathize with the intent behind the proposal, we feel strongly that our current grace periods partnered with our contract signed by both parties cover the communication and expectations for rental payments. In addition, only five other states currently host statutes similar to this proposal. All five of these actually have higher eviction rates than Minnesota. Currently, Minnesota has one of the lowest eviction rates in the country. This proposal presents the opportunity for some landlords, not all of course, but some...to start expediting the eviction process, removing grace periods and any leniency already set, and potentially harming tenant rights in the future. Please reconsider this proposal. Thank you for your time, Abbie Runia, Operations Manager, The Excelsior Group •As a manager of several multi-family communities across the Twin Cities, I see a 14-day notice to evict as causing undue financial burden to property owners and having unintended negative effects to renters. Residents agree on the lease they sign that rent is due on the 1st, and are usually afforded a grace period before a late fee is assessed. Requiring a 14 day notice would cause property managers to do away with grace periods so that they may send out these eviction notices sooner, in order to get court dates within the current month of eviction. Eliminating grace periods would have the unintended affect of increasing late fees charged to residents. It is also already common industry practice to withhold filing evictions until after the 10th of the month to avoid associated legal costs and increased vacancy. Requiring a longer notice period would increase notices of eviction each month as they would be sent out much earlier to a larger number of residents. There are also instances where a resident pays via check, and the payment NSFs. The property is not notified by the bank until up to 2-3 weeks after the payment is submitted. This would then add 14 days to that process, thus delaying court dates until the middle of the following month, in effect not allowing for an eviction to be fully processed for up to 2 months. This would cause undue financial burden to the owner, and potentially cause them to limit payment options for residents. An increased notice period would increase the number of eviction notices, decrease the grace period allowed, increase late fees charged to residents, and unduly complicate the eviction process for owners. •I'm writing to provide feedback on the proposed legislation for the 14-day notice for eviction actions. I think this is legislation that will actually have an adverse impact on both the renter, as well as the property owner. In my 25 years in property management, time and time again, I've experienced where, if a resident is two months behind on rent, it becomes increasingly more difficult for them to catch up. In addition, emergency assistance and community agencies that provide rental assistance on an emergency basis typically require proof of the notice of eviction or a copy of the eviction action prior to providing assistance. They also, typically, lack the resources to provide payment for two months of rent or their policies will not allow them to pay for multiple months of rent for one household. The second stakeholder that will be negatively impacted by this legislation is the property owner. With the decreased ability for residents to pay and catch-up for multiple months of rent outstanding, this will result in an increase in collection actions, which will impact the resident, and bad debt write offs, which impact the property owner. Study session Meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 16 Title: Notice of Eviction I encourage you to review this proposal understanding the adverse impact it will have within the community, which I'm confident is not the intent. Thank you. •To Whom It May Concern, Please carefully consider this proposal's impact on smaller landlords in the Plymouth area. As a landlord myself, eviction is never a thing that we want to do, it is costly for the landlord and heartbreaking to say the least. We do the best we can at the time of lease signing to clearly explain when rent is due and what the consequences of not paying rent can be, including eviction. Our rent is due on the 1st and we give a grace period until the 5th of the month to pay. After the 5th has passed we send a notice to the resident's door that is a 3-day notice to pay or quit. If they fail to pay at that time, we send a 24 hour notice to pay or quit, and if payment is not received or the resident does not vacate we file evictions on the 12th of the month. We try our best to be accommodating to our residents. We do not want to file on someone as it creates a burden for the resident and for us as it relates to legal fees and future bad debt. With the eviction process taking 20 to 30 days, if you pass a requirement for us to give a 14 day notice, this will inevitably harm residents as they will end up owing an additional month's rent, and it will harm landlords as they lose an additional month's rent, and can potentially cause further problems in the event the eviction is not due to non-payment. It could harm other residents in the event the eviction is due to a breach of the lease, putting other residents safety at risk for 2 weeks longer than necessary. I hope you consider the full impact to the residents and landlords of passing this law. •I have been an owner for nearly 30 years. I go to great extents to avoid evictions all together. With that said, usually a couple times a year I am forced to file an eviction despite all efforts. The goal for most owners/managers is to get the person out that month. Typically, rent is due on the first with a grace period of 4 days. On the 5th we are contacting our non payers by phone, text, in person. It is very urgent. We want these people to get paid promptly so they can avoid an eviction. In order to get a non payer out that month, we need to file on the 10th of the month. Much later than that and we won't get a court date and therefore, they will go into the following month. I can count on one hand and not fill my hand, in the last 30 years, how many people paid their rent after the 15th of the month and then two weeks later they were able to pay the next month on time. It very very seldomly happens. If someone is in our pending eviction file, I personally reach out and try to problem solve the situation. Between the resident and I we come up with options that avoid an eviction. These situations, are what I call "lose least" situations. There really isn't a win. The manager is out the rent for the month and maybe the following month and the resident can't pay. If the resident can't pay this months rent, they won't be able to pay next month and if we don't move quickly we will bury them in debt. Typically the best option is the resident moves quickly and allows us to try to quickly re rent the apartment, thus reducing the financial liability the renter has. By giving 14 days notice, the unintended consequence is that 1. Isn't enough time in the current month for them to leave and thus they owe a second month they can't pay 2. You will see landlords adjust and disallow, a grace period. Rent will be due on the 1st, no grace period penalizing the good renters 3. With no grace period, the same evictions will be filed, just earlier and with less contact with the non payer, thus resulting in more evictions overall. •Hubby rents out a house in a different city. It's a long game (appreciation at sale later rather than any significant monthly profit now) so if the rent doesn't get paid, the mortgage doesn't get paid. Period. If that city enacted this, it would force him to IMMEDIATELY send notice as soon as rent was a day late, versus maybe waiting until the 3rd or 4th to call, the Study session Meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 17 Title: Notice of Eviction 10th to write a letter, or the 15th or 20th to start any formal proceedings. That would torpedo a positive renter/landlord relationship and would almost certainly lead to a higher rate of evictions (at this point he has never had to evict anybody). I find it hard to believe (even in the scenario of the death of a partner who usually handled rent payments) that anybody is ever legitimately surprised by an eviction-for-failure-to-pay-rent proceeding. They may have a hard luck story explaining Why the rent was late, but I don't buy that people just forget that they ever had such an obligation. So I don't see how this notice Alerts them to anything. All it does is buy them additional time at the cost of somebody else (their landlord) and gives the city another new department to fund at public cost, all in order to accomplish the same thing that the county already has processes and notifications for. •In my thirty years of owning rental properties, I am puzzled by why you are duplicating the MN State law? In a case of a violent troublesome tenant making life hell for other tenants, I will seek all legal rights in Housing Court for immediate eviction. I had a place trashed in eighteen month for $5000 worth of damages. Giving them additional two weeks to further damage the unit is rewarding them for bad behavior. Plus, I had to put in storage all their personal affects that was left behind. PS: They never came back to claim their stuff. •I've been a responsible landlord for 32 years. Please understand what an investor needs when a tenant cannot pay rent. We must avoid losing a months rent an time is the most valuable asset. If we are forced to wait 14 days, some tenants will take the full 14 days, if they still do not pay, the landlord must file for eviction and a court date is usually 14 (or more) days. A lost month is already gone and the process of finding a new reliable tenant that must be screened and the time it takes for moving, cleaning, carpet shampooing, painting, etc can easily take another month. Landlords have mortgages, association fees ($266/unit), taxes and families to feed just as any other citizen. Please do not pass the 14 day eviction notice requirement. This may cause many landlords to go bankrupt, default on their mortgage payments, or be forced to sell at a loss. If you have never been a landlord, you need to put yourself in the shoes of a person who risks so much to be able to keep a property livable. •Hello, I am writing today to comment on the current proposal to lengthen the notice of eviction to 14 days in St. Louis Park. I wanted to voice our concern as a professional management company that has policies in place to both do business consistently/fairly, but to also give a resident who may have to pay rent late a decent amount of time to do so. My concern is that the current proposal may increase the likelihood that residents may feel it appropriate to pay late. Rent is contractually obligated by a certain date, but they are given a grace period to pay without a late fee. If after those efforts we are still unable to file eviction due to nonpayment of rent for another two weeks, it may inadvertently send a message that our notices are without merit. It may also cause undue financial burden on the site itself. Contrary to popular belief, landlords (big or small) rely on rental revenue every month to pay mortgages and other expenses to keep communities running smoothly and reputably. While we understand and empathize with the intent behind the proposal, we feel strongly that our current grace periods partnered with our contract signed by both parties cover the communication and expectations for rental payments. In addition, only five other states currently host statutes similar to this proposal. All five of these actually have higher eviction rates than Minnesota. Currently, Minnesota has one of the lowest eviction rates in the country. This proposal presents the opportunity for some landlords, not all of course, but some...to start expediting the eviction process, removing grace periods Study session Meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 18 Title: Notice of Eviction and any leniency already set, and potentially harming tenant rights in the future. Please reconsider this proposal. Thank you for your time, VP of Development, The Excelsior Group. •E-mail notification to tenant should be allowed under the proposed ordinance. Many tenants these days do not rely on regular U.S. Postal service for notification. In this period of mobile information we need to keep up with the times. At a minimum allow for e-mail along with mail. •Thank you for the opportunity to provide thoughts on the proposed 14-day eviction notice ordinance. As one of the largest apartment managers in St. Louis Park, we wanted to share our perspective on how we currently avoid evictions. - We work hard to prevent evictions. They present a lose-lose situation for everyone involved. Currently, we call residents who have not paid rent by the 4th of each month. We also alert residents about past due accounts on the 6th and 9th of the month. Our communication states that “If you fail to pay the total due of $XX, we will file an Unlawful Detainer and you will be responsible for all court costs and filing fees. An Unlawful Detainer is the first step in an Eviction action. It is a matter of public record and could seriously affect your credit standing and your ability to rent in the future. This is an avoidable outcome and we urge your prompt attention to this matter.” - We also allow each resident to enter into a “Promise to Pay” agreement up to two times per year. This agreement allows a resident to delay their rent payment to the 15th of the month. Our goal here is to extend the rent payment deadline for the resident to either find rental assistance, receive their next paycheck, or move out before eviction is filed. Again, this is only offered twice per year. This ordinance would impact our business practices. - Our goal as a business, and a community member is not to displace anyone from their home. However, we are a for-profit business that relies on timely rent payments from our residents for us to be able to continue to provide services to them. Sometimes, this means we need to file an eviction to reduce the losses from unpaid rent. Removing our ability to file an eviction prior to the 15th of the month when we know rent payment will not be received means a potential court date in the following month. This increases the amount due by the resident, and in our experience, will not result if a favorable outcome for them. - We understand that as a larger landlord, we have more resources to continue business when we do not receive timely rent payments. However, the city is full of small landlords that do not have the same resources. By limiting this proposal from 14 days to 7 days, it would allow landlords to still offer tenants the luxury of time to find a way to pay rent and allow landlords the ability to recover their unit through eviction, should rent not be paid. Again, this is never our goal. •Our company has rental housing in St. Louis Park. We currently send a minimum of 2 notices to a resident before filing an eviction action. We send the first when the rent is "late" (the 4th of the month) that states the day that we intend to file an eviction action if the rent is not paid (typically around the 10th of the month). We send another notice 24-48 hours prior to the eviction being filed. Typically we also send an email and/or call them on the phone just in case they are on vacation or otherwise out of their home for that period. Our intent is not to evict our residents but to have open dialog to see how to get the rent paid. Having to wait 14 days to file an eviction action after notifying the resident will mean more rent being owed as we likely won't be able to get a court date until the following month and sheriff's moves likely the month after that. I think what will happen is that we would end up changing when our rent is considered "late" and notify the resident on say the 2nd of the month that we intend to file an eviction action on the 16th. I think that this will cause more harm than good for the resident as no one likes to receive those types of Study session Meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 19 Title: Notice of Eviction notices especially when maybe they just need a couple more days to pay their rent. This proposed plan just doesn't make sense for either the landlord or tenant. •Dear City of St. Louis Park, Thank you for your notice, and also for accepting comments and inputs on this pending policy. The State laws regarding notice and eviction are very clear, and have many decades of experience already baked in as to the rights and responsibilities of both tenants and landlords. Such laws are clear, and have established court precedent, and to any extent that the city feels they are inadequate, it would be in the interest of the entire state to communicate such feelings of inadequacy to the state representatives, and not to implement unilateral policy and only in your city. With regards to a 14 day notice, this is excessive, and in fact only delays the renters payment and adds significant risk and cost to the landlord. There is already an allowance by the court for the renter to pay missing rent all the way up to the actual court hearing. It can take several weeks to file and receive a court hearing, and have sheriff process service and so an eviction already can take as a minimum 3-4 weeks. Your proposed city ordinance would simply delay an already established process, and add costs to landlords who would simply have to raise screening criteria, raise rents to compensate for this potential occasional loss, charge higher security deposits, and add an additional burden on those very property owners who wish to lease their properties in light of the substantial hosing availability and affordability crises we are currently in. This crises evolved from the 2008 crash, and cities did little or nothing from 2008 thru 2015 to stimulate building and investment during a time when no homes were being built. Hence the result of the current shortage. We respectfully ask that the city confer with state representatives, MMHA, NARPM, and other management organizations to determine if a problem first exists (as no landlord is going to automatically evict a tenant for a single late rent payment - that is crazy to think that this ordinance will fix that). Delaying the move out of the tenant will also add additional cost and burden to a tenant who can no longer afford the home they are in. Hence your proposed law will hurt the very good faith tenants who cannot pay, and need to find affordable alternatives for their personal housing. The rental of homes is an at risk activity, it represents an extension of credit (monthly payments for a contracted term), and requires both parties (landlord and tenant) to mutually agree on terms, to respect the contracts that are signed, and to entrust a multi- hundred thousand dollar asset (which also has a mortgage that must be paid on time) to a tenant. As such the landlord is very much just as at risk as is the tenant you seek to protect at the expense of the landlord. Thank you again for reaching out! •The 14 day pre-notice requirement, while perhaps well intended, is misguided not to mention preempted by state law. Chapter 504B clearly spells out the procedural process for evictions in the State of Minnesota. Evictions are done either at designated housing courts (Hennepin or Ramsey County) or District Courts. We do not have municipals courts. The argument of preemption is further supported by the fact that 504B.275 calls for the state Attorney General to prepare a public statement outlining the significant legal rights and obligations for landlord and residents, which would include evictions. This AG obligation further signals that this is the state's sandbox, specifically when it comes to legal proceedings such as an eviction. "The attorney general shall prepare and make available to the public a statement which summarizes the significant legal rights and obligations of landlords and residential tenants of rental dwelling units. The statement shall include descriptions of the significant provisions of this chapter...." "The attorney general shall annually revise the statement provided in this section as necessary to ensure that it continues accurately to describe the statutory and case law governing the rights and duties Study session Meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 20 Title: Notice of Eviction of landlords and residential tenants of rental dwelling units. After preparing the statement for the first time and after each annual revision of the statement, the attorney general shall hold a public meeting to discuss the statement and receive comments on its contents before it is issued. When preparing the statement and evaluating public comment, the attorney general shall be guided by the legislature's intent that the statement be brief, accurate, and complete in identifying significant legal rights and obligations, and written using words with common, everyday meanings." •The ordinance would place a burden on the landlord. You may think all landlords are rich, that is not true. Many struggle with their landlord business as tenant rights and protections have severely added to the costs to run the business and provide the service. More than that, the rules have swung so far in favor of the tenants, that the tenants are able to hold onto the valuable asset (the home) without paying rent to the point of them being “professional tenants,” tenants who take advantage of the rules to live in a home for free. They do this on purpose. My experience has been they also do more damage than a typical tenant, a lot more damage. So a landlord often gets no rent and lots of damage. This ordinance would place a burden on the landlord. The tenant gets extra “free time” in the rental unit and the landlord pays for it. Here is an example with a rental at $1,500 a month rent. That breaks down to $50 a day ($1,500/30 days is $50 rent a day). With your proposed ordinance that means 14 extra days with no income, $700 more lost, against incoming expenses/bills that do not stop. If the tenant has a ligament issue, they can get free help to resolve it from the Home Line’s Tenant hotline (This is free attorney help). It is easy to google and been around for a long time. A business owner should not have to keep a non- paying customer, or have to pay for them, as no one, including the City, reimburses the landlord for lost rent. This would cause financial/mental stress and other hardships on the landlord. If anything the ordinance should be written the other way around. If the tenant believes they will be missing a rent payment (or be short) they should be required to provide written notice to the landlord (again, do not think all these landlord-business owners are rich, they are not) 14 days in advance of the due date with a plan of payment. Finally, a free service from the State of Minneasota already addresses this issue for all Minnesotan Renters: HOME Line's Tenant hotline is a free hotline available for any Minnesota renter. We can be reached at our free number (612)728-5767 or by emailing an attorney directly through our website at Homelinemn.org HOME Line Tenant Hotline | LawHelp Minnesota https://www.lawhelpmn.org › loon › services › home-line-tenant- hotline Renter/tenant •I definitely am in favor of this proposed notice of eviction. As a renter who had to deal with a difficult landlord in the past, I would have appreciated more laws to both hold landlords accountable, and protect tenants. Housing is a basic need and unfortunately, one that is often unmet due to the lack of affordable options. It is imperative for the health of our community that people be given the chance to maintain their housing as best as they can without the fear of being suddenly evicted. More problems arise when people are quickly forced to leave their place of residence including negative impacts on their health. It seems like the least that a landlord could do, if a tenant has become delinquent on rent payments or other financial fees, is to give a short grace period for them to try their best to find a solution. Study session Meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 21 Title: Notice of Eviction •The proposed policy seems to strike a good balance between protecting tenants and ensuring landlords/property owners/managers have adequate and timely recourse for non- payment. •The notice should be delivered in person, and renter should sign/date one copy so there is record of them getting the notice. Otherwise, I think it is fine and fair. •This policy seems entirely fair to me. •I agree with the policy. I do think if possible to have the letter written in the language the tenant speaks if possible or provide interpretation. Many renters don’t speak or understand much English. I would have also thought this was common practice already. •I agree with the proposal. It lets the renter know exactly what the problem is and how to remedy it. Study session Meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 22 Title: Notice of Eviction Minnesota Multi Housing Association Notice of Eviction Comments More Adversarial Landlord-Tenant Relations. Evictions are expensive and disruptive, and it is in the best interest of all parties to avoid them. Most landlords provide flexibility to comply with the lease when possible. This includes grace periods or soft notices encouraging tenants to pay rent and honor the lease. A delay limits a landlord’s ability to offer informal resolutions to tenants. If an eviction action is necessary, a notice period of any duration means a multi-month delay in re-renting the unit (the current process takes 20 to 30 days to regain possession). As a result, in order to preserve stability and limit potential loss, a landlord will send the required hard notice immediately following initial nonpayment or lease violation. Once a notice is sent, the landlord has no choice but to file the eviction action if noncompliance continues. Failure to file would send a message that the notice is meaningless. This will certainly heighten tensions, harden relationships, and lead to more evictions while increasing financial strain on the property. Tenant Has Right to Redeem Possession. Flexibility is not only in the landlord’s interest because of the financial and intangible costs of an eviction, it’s also because the tenant can redeem possession at any point prior to entry of judgment. If a tenant redeems by becoming current on rent owed and paying court costs, the disruption of the eviction filing and cost of legal representation was for nothing. Rewards Bad Actors, Traps Landlords. This proposal rewards bad actors who destabilize buildings by repeatedly not paying rent and engaging in behavior that is destructive to all other residents. The bill provides an unlimited ability to pay rent late every month. It may force other residents of the building to live with someone who is damaging property or harassing them for an extra two weeks. The waiting period also sets a trap for landlords when one tenant is harassing or discriminating against another. A recent federal court decision interpreted the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to require landlords to act against the offending tenant in this scenario. If an eviction is necessary to end the harassment, forcing a landlord to wait 14 days or longer creates a liability trap for the landlord from which they cannot escape. Makes Minnesota An Outlier. No state imposes the same restrictions. Only four states (ME, RI, TN, VT) have a 14-day opportunity to cure nonpayment and breach of lease. All four have exceptions for misconduct, damage or criminal activity. All four have higher eviction rates than Minnesota. Minnesota has one of the five lowest eviction rates in the country. According to Eviction Lab, our eviction rate has consistently been lower, and fallen faster and further, than the national rate from 2007 to 2016. A targeted approach in areas with higher rates of evictions makes more sense than upending a process that provides better outcomes for renters than 46 or 47 other states. ROBIN ANN WILLIAMS SHAREHOLDER T 612.376.1631 F 612.746.1231 RAWILLIAMS@BASSFORD.COM December 31, 2019 VIA EMAIL Mayor Jake Spano jspano@stlouispark.org Dear Mayor Spano: This law firm represents StuartCo, the management agent for Park Glen Apartments in St. Louis Park. We write to provide input about the proposed St. Louis Park ordinance by which housing providers will be required to provide 14-days’ notice before filing an eviction action based on nonpayment of rent. Park Glen, a complex with 290 apartments, is moderately priced housing. In the last three years, it has filed two eviction actions against residents. Park Glen prides itself on working with its residents to resolve disputes and sees housing court as a final remedy, to be used only when informal efforts fail. We are concerned that the proposed ordinance will strip away the flexibility that Park Glen and other housing providers in St. Louis Park use to address nonpayment situations. We believe the ordinance could have the following unintended consequences. First, we anticipate that many St. Louis Park housing providers will change their late-fee practices. Right now, many landlords provide a 3- to 5-day grace period for residents to pay rent. Late fees are not incurred until the 4th or 6th day of the month. If St. Louis Park landlords are required to provide notice of a 14-day opportunity to cure, many landlords will require rent payments no later than the 1st day of the month, with no grace period, so that the 14-day notice can be served on the 2nd day, and late fees will be charged on the 2nd day as well. We believe that more residents will pay late fees as a result, and many landlords will charge the statutorily allowed 8% for those late payments. Second, a 14-day right to cure period, even if it begins on the 2nd day of the month, could allow residents to pay their rent one month late. During busy times at Hennepin County Housing Court, hearings for eviction actions are not scheduled until 14 to 17 days after an eviction action is filed. If a landlord is not able to file a nonpayment eviction action until the 16th day of the month, it is entirely conceivable that the court hearing will occur either the last week of the month, allowing a resident to pay and cure and begin another cycle of late payments, or even the following month. Landlords need flexibility to address how nonpayment individually affects them. Some landlords have sufficient cashflow to float units for a couple of months when those residents have not paid Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Title: Notice of Eviction Page 23 Mayor Jake Spano December 31, 2019 Page 2 rent, but small to mid-sized housing providers in particular could be especially hard hit if they must go two months without receiving rent before a resident is evicted. It is important to note that, even after the court returns possession of the unit to the landlord at the end of an eviction action, it can take an additional 1 to 2 weeks to execute the writ of recovery, and there is often additional time needed to turn the unit before it can be re-rented to a new resident. Third, we are concerned that the ordinance generally will cause housing providers to implement more strict procedures that are not to the advantage of residents. Presently, landlords may hold off on filing eviction actions until the 10th or 11th day of the month to see if residents will pay. Landlords don’t like filing eviction actions because they are expensive and harmful to residents’ rental records. If landlords know that they must issue a 14-day notice prior to filing an eviction action, they are likely to give very little slack to residents who have not paid their rent by the 1st day of the month and are not likely to hold off on filing evictions after the 14 days. Finally, on a more global basis, we are concerned about the constitutionality of the proposed ordinance. First, an argument exists that a local ordinance cannot preempt eviction action procedure dictated by Minnesota state law. Second, the proposed ordinance may infringe on the judiciary’s inherent authority to make rules regarding court filings, thus presenting a potential separation-of-powers challenge. After the city of Minneapolis passed its ordinance prohibiting housing providers from discriminating on the basis of Section 8 assistance, the city was plunged into years’ long litigation that presently sits before the Minnesota Supreme Court. This ordinance could cost the city untold sums in attorneys’ fees to the city, and we respectfully suggest that those monies are better spent providing services to the citizens of St. Louis Park. We thank you for your consideration of these comments. Very truly yours, Robin Ann Williams RAW:mr cc: Steve Hallfin shallfin@stlouispark.org Thom Miller tmiller@stlouispark.org Margaret Rog mrog@stlouispark.org Anne Mavity amavity@stlouispark.org Rachel Harris rharris@stlouispark.org Tim Brausen tbrausen@stlouispark.org Tom Harmening tharmening@stlouispark.org Lisa Moe lmoe@stuartco.com Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Title: Notice of Eviction Page 24 January 22, 2020 To whom it may concern: HOME Line and Volunteer Lawyers Network (VLN) were provided an opportunity to review and comment on a 12/31/19 letter to the city of St. Louis Park from attorney Robin Ann Williams, on behalf of the rental housing management agent StuartCo. The letter was in response to the city considering enactment of a 14-day pre-eviction filing notice for rental properties in St. Louis Park. Recognizing that there is not yet a proposed ordinance drafted, HOME Line and VLN support the underlying principle of such a policy because of the frequent number of clients we advise who are impacted by hasty eviction filings over small amounts of rent, as well as because of recent local research on evictions that demonstrate how common such practices are in Minnesota. Below we provide general context for the need for the policy, and then we respond 1 to objections in the 12/31/19 letter. Minnesota is, in fact, one of a small number of states that do not require landlords to provide any pre-eviction filing notice to tenants for non-payment of rent cases. This leaves Minnesota tenants with an inordinately fast eviction procedure which does not favor tenant stability. We 2 also know that the vast majority of evictions in Minnesota are for non-payment of rent. Because rental vacancies are at historic lows, many tenants pay a significant portion of their family income towards rent. This leaves tenants at risk when unexpected financial emergencies occur, such as sickness, job loss, vehicle repair or a death in the family. The law currently permits tenants to be evicted for non-payment of rent the day after rent is due with no notice or opportunity to cure. Additionally, once an eviction is filed, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the case, tenant screening agencies begin reporting that eviction. So, even evictions that are filed and withdrawn leave a lasting impact on a tenants’ records which makes finding affordable, safe and healthy housing extremely difficult. 1 See the following research studies: 1)Evictions in Minneapolis - 2016 (http://innovateminneapolis.com/reducing-evictions/) 2)Evictions in Greater Minnesota - 2018 (https://homelinemn.org/5709/evictions-in-greater-minnesota-report/) 3)Evictions in Brooklyn Park - 2018 (https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/200081) 4)Evictions in Saint Paul - 2019 (https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/201646) 5)The Illusion of Choice: Evictions and Profit in North Minneapolis - 2019 (http://evictions.cura.umn.edu/) 2 See 50-state comparative chart: https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-nevada/despite-changes-nevada-eviction-law-still-favors-landlor ds-1697301/ Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Title: Notice of Eviction Page 25 The 12/31/19 letter is on behalf of a landlord who self-reports filing 2 evictions in the last 3 years. This suggests to us that this landlord is not the intended focus of the policy, as it appears they have a business practice that involves ample communication and negotiation with tenants to avoid eviction actions altogether; even less so for evictions filed very quickly after rent is due. The first objection raised in the letter relates to the timing of late fees--that St. Louis Park landlords will change their practices to reduce grace periods prior to charging late fees. Late fees and a pre-eviction notice are separate issues. A landlord could provide the required 14-day notice on the 2nd of the month (when rent is due on the 1st) and then charge a late fee on the 5th day of the month (for example) without slowing anything down. If there is some concern as to how this works logistically, it could be addressed clearly in the language of the proposed ordinance. The second objection is that a 14-day notice effectively allows tenants to pay rent a month late. Depending on how busy the court calendar for evictions is at any particular time, this objection might be true. Ideally, court calendars for eviction would be significantly reduced on a broader basis, but that change is outside of the purview of the St. Louis Park city council. It is, however, up to the city council whether or not they think it is appropriate public policy to allow the consequence of one month of overdue rent to lead to a forced move-out and possible homelessness, or if some of that consequence should be reassigned via a new ordinance. There is no other type of overdue bill that can cause homelessness and long-term harmful impacts on housing access when only late by a month. And again, it appears that according to this landlord, it would affect them about twice every three years on a complex with 290 units. Further, it is very unlikely for tenants to operate in such a manner, because by waiting for an eviction action to be filed it basically increases their rent by several hundred dollars each time (to redeem in court they must pay filing fees, service of process fees, etc.). A moderate delay in payment is better than zero payment (the alternative if the tenant is evicted) and an empty unit which could mean zero payment for another month. Additionally, instituting a 14-day notice is equitable because it parallels the timeline tenants must follow prior to filing a court case against their landlord. For example, if a landlord violates a lease by failing to make necessary repairs, the tenant must offer a written notice allowing the landlord 14 days to fix the problem before filing a Rent Escrow case in court. The third objection is about the timing of eviction filings. We are confused by the argument presented. The letter states that some landlords already hold off until the 10th or 11th to file evictions, to see if tenants will pay. We agree this is true and recognize that it is a valuable business practice. This ordinance would simply give tenants in those situations a few more days, and would require other landlords to actually provide a notice, because we know there are those who do not already. An additional benefit of the notice is that it provides a more formal declaration that the tenant may need to qualify for emergency financial assistance so that they can apply for such funds and acquire them (or a commitment to receive the funds) to pay their Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Title: Notice of Eviction Page 26 rent. Further, we believe it is questionable to assume that landlords who were previously willing to give some slack would suddenly choose to not do so simply because an ordinance is adopted to make such flexibility a requirement. The purpose of this ordinance is to address landlords that do not give tenants adequate (or any) notice and opportunity to cure before filing an eviction. As previously stated, landlords are under no obligation to provide any notice prior to filing an eviction for non-payment of rent. And, an eviction filing results in both immediate and long-term consequences to the tenant, making it significantly more difficult for tenants to find rental housing in the future. Lastly, the letter appears to threaten a lawsuit against the city. We do not know if the threat is real, but such a lawsuit would have little possibility of success. There is simply no preemption issue related to this topic. HOME Line staff has previously shared legal research and analysis about this issue with city staff and are happy to discuss in more detail. It bears reminding that there are already a variety of pre-eviction notice laws that cover certain types of housing in St. Louis Park and elsewhere in Minnesota. There has not been clear evidence of exceptionally harmful impacts for the landlords who operate those forms of housing. In summary, we think the premise that landlords will lose money because of the proposed policy is misguided. When a formal notice helps a tenant correct a mistake or find financial assistance, everybody wins. The landlord and tenant save money by avoiding the costs of an eviction. And even if it does cost a landlord slightly more in some cases, the substantial benefit to society it provides is worth it. Housing stability directly affects families; children are able to attend school more regularly and wage earners benefit from decreased work absence and greater ability to focus on job performance. There is also increasing evidence of the detrimental effect of housing instability on health. Finally, we know that housing stability builds stronger, more close-knit neighborhoods and communities. Signed, Eric Hauge, Executive Director, HOME Line Muria Kruger, Housing Program Manager and Resource Attorney, Volunteer Lawyers Network Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Title: Notice of Eviction Page 27 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: January 27, 2020 Written report: 8 Executive summary Title: Permit for phone art from Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Recommended action: Please provide staff with any questions or feedback on the request to permit the phone art. A resolution for council consideration is proposed to be included in the Feb. 3, 2020 agenda. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to continue the phone art on the Highway 100 sound wall at Toledo Avenue and County Road 25 Service Drive? Summary: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has asked the city to apply for a permit to allow the art on the inside portion of the sound wall in the northeast corner Highways 100 and 7 along Toledo Avenue (please see attached photo of the installation and map showing the location). The art consists of several older-style telephones that have been posted on the inside of the noise wall at a height of 15-20, as shown in the attached photograph. An application with a city council resolution of approval is required. Staff has been working with the artist and sent letters to surrounding neighbors for input. The responses received from neighbors have all been positive and in favor of keeping the phone art in place. Minimal maintenance will be needed for this art, and it will primarily include monitoring the area for debris near the installation. Parks superintendent Rick Beane will be the contact person for the maintenance. The art is expected to have an approximate lifespan of 4 years and could be in place longer. If the resolution is approved by the city council in February, staff will complete the application form and submit it to MnDOT. Next steps: Staff will request the council approve a resolution for the art at its Feb. 3, 2020 meeting. 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: Photo of phone art installation and location map Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, principal planner Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Phone art on interior noise wall along Highway 100 Highway 100 Location of phone art Study session meeting of January 27, 2020 (Item No. 8) Title: Permit for phone art from Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)Page 2 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: January 27, 2020 Written report: 9 Executive summary Title: Community survey update Recommended action: Staff recommends further research on a community survey tool and timeline during the upcoming year. Policy consideration: None at this time. Summary: Local governments utilize community surveys to measure residents’ opinion on the quality of life of a community and to get feedback on city services. A representative from the National Research Center presented information on the National Citizen Survey at the Dec. 9, 2019 study session. The original recommendation was to conduct a community survey during the spring of 2020. Based on council feedback at the study session staff is recommending further study and discussion this year on undertaking a community survey in order to: • Ensure the proper tool is being used to seek resident feedback. • Provide a timeline that works best for residents as 2020 is a busy year with census efforts and the primary election in the late winter and spring and the presidential election in the fall. Staff will reevaluate a community survey tool and develop a potential timeline before bringing this back to the council for consideration. Financial or budget considerations: Funds are included in the 2020 budget for a community survey. Strategic priority consideration: • St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all. • St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. • St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. • St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. • St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Study session November 25, 2019 (report) Study session December 9, 2019 (discussion) Prepared by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager