Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutweekly Notes- September 17th 2021 (002) CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS—WEEKLY NOTES for: September 17th, 2021 • TO: City Council Members& Staff (/ FROM: Eric Johnson City Administrator Zoning&Development Items: B. IJsc Limitations. Traffic patterns approved by the City cf 0ak Park 1. An application has been received a redevelopment of the Heights presume and the Brackeys and their successors,heirs and assigns agrce that uses to tie PARK DENTAL site—the three buildings at the site will see a allowed upon"The site"shall not include retail/restaurant or high volume traffic utilizations,but phased demolition and a new dental office/building built. This I shall be limited to general proeessionav'ousiness or,professional buildings or other uscs which is anticipated to be on the October Planning Commission Agenda. axe consistent with the existing zoning district now established for the area and which generate trip utilization rates contained within the ITE Trip Generation Reports,7°i Edition.2003,which 2. Staff will be having some early planning meetings with Bob would produce scss than 11.1 daily rate trip generations per 1,000 square root of gloss leasable Brackey related to his sites next to Americlnn and west of area(business occupiable area). 13rackeys,on behalf of themselves,their successors,heirs and Menards — possible memory-care facility or apartments — assigns,agree not to request°°r propose a use or utilisation on That site which would exceed the please note that access to 581h STREET is limited due to a 2004 . land-use restriction with limited VEHICLE ACCESS agreed to uipgene]ationStandardsprovided for herein. by Mr. Brackey when Menards did their expansion — See the INSET. 3. We hope STARBUCKS moves forward with their preferred plan (as of now)see the enclosed communication. The City does not desire to tell them what will or will not work, but rather take a limited position that any given plan appears reasonable—which it seems to be. 4. See enclosed code enforcement letters to three parcels—5680 Penfield and 14496 551h Street and 15417 561h Street. 5. The MSCWMO has provided a letter relating to the issue with the property south of 551h Street—STORMWATER DRAINAGE. Staff is still reviewing the response/issue summary however it would appear that the MSCWMO would rather have little to do with the dispute. COVID-19 Matters: • This is the Governor's - PORTAL https://mn.gov/covidl9—Many documents/Exec. Orders can be found. Washington County has initiated a County Dashboard containing more localized COVID-19 Impacts and rates LINK->> HERE. Other Items: • The City did receive inquiries about the SPEED LIMIT on Lookout Trail—these are planned to be re-posted at 30 MPH. Please see the enclosed response to two residents asking about it. Generally, it is an enforcement issue. In preparation of the 2022 Norell Ave project, staff is looking at the speed issues on 58th street as these may need some temporary adjustments during construction. • The County was provided a letter related to the City's 2018 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Amendment with a pubic hearing slated for 10/14 on the 581h street Extension. • A remined was sent to homes in the Village Area related to keeping garbage bins out of the street — we have received some complaints. See Enclosed. Mayor McComber Provided 1. Updates from the NLC-for 9/15/21 2. Update from SPAAR—Home sales information. "Weekly Notes"is an internal/inter-departmental memo limited in scope to share brief updates and information among City Departments,City Consultants and Elected Officials 1 of 18 regarding various topics. a. City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Oak Park Heights,NEN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 9/16/21 Mr. Keith Sturm ***also via email keith@upland.com*** Upland Real Estate Group, Inc. 50 South 6th Street, Suite 1418 Minneapolis, MN 55402 RE: Conditional Use Permit-Stacking of Vehicles 9-16-21 UPDATE Response Dear Mr. Sturm: Thank you for the three various plan submissions related to the site improvements that are intended to address the stacking issues discussed so far this year.The City is not able to advise to your which plan is preferred or ultimately most effective to prevent stacking issues onto the City's right-of-way as such responsibility always remains with the owner. That stated, if the preferred plan is CONCEPT"F"—show in the figure;the City has no significant objection or issues to that plan being installed. Considering the issues related to safety,the Clty does not believe a CUP Amendment necessary as there will not be a material loss of parking,does not seek new curbing-cuts to the right of way, preserves the trash enclosure and that the initial CUP requires adjustments should the current layout not work.We would ask that the landscaping lost be replaced elsewhere on the property. Please vet this plan further with your tenants, be sure drainage is workable and that final wayfinding on the property is clear and workable—even in the winter-otherwise,the City has no objections and we look forward to seeing it installed. Accordingly, please let me know if you have any questions, �— 7 _ Sincerely, T Eric Johnson City Administrator CC: Chief of Police,S. Hansen -- Julie Hultman, Building Official NEAL AVENUE NCRTa OA{PA�''-G HE QCT—T5 — MA�KE? I?F2'�E UP�.^." Ei'T 114 ExN e T'F' G..Gl15T�C .0a' 2of18 CITY OF DAIS PARIS HEIGHTS F. 14168 Oak Park Boulevard North • Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Phone:651/439-4439 Fax: 651/439-0574 September 10, 2021 Joseph & Krstina Strub 14496 55th St. N. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Re: Campaign Banners on Fence @ 14496 55th St. N. Dear Joseph & Kristina: The City has received a call regarding 2020 campaign banners placed upon the fence at your address. Per Minnesota Statute 211B.045, the campaign sign posting period for the 2020 election period was June 28, 2020 through November 15, 2020. City Ordinance 401.15.G.5.a follows the same time window as State Statue for campaign signage. Please remove the campaign banners from display at your fence no later than Thursday, September 23, 2021. Thank you for your anticipated compliance. Sincerely, PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT C��- Julie Itman Builds g Official c: Eric Johnson, City Administrator 3of18 Tree City U.S.A. CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS 14166 Oak Park Boulevard No+rh pal, Parh Ht.1�hls. '11% 5.5082 Phone: 651 439-41A9 NN: 651'139-0_)" r CERTIFIED MAIL September 13, 2021 Mr. Joshua Seim Mr.Joshua Seim &/or Current Occupant 1875 Myrtle St. W. 5680 Penfield Ave. N. Stillwater, MN 55082 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Re: Step 1 Notice of Violation - 5680 Penfield Ave. N., Oak Park Heights Dear Mr. Seim: This letter serves as the City's request for Ordinance Compliance. The above-referenced property once again has a large quantity of rubbish stored to the exterior at both the garage side and the east side of the home. There are vehicles and a trailer parked upon the yard area; it appears the van parked upon the driveway is not operable as it does not appear to have been moved recently; and the grass needs to be mowed. We have spoken about the need for items to be stored to the interior or disposed of and have discussed the need for vehicles/trailers to be parked upon the driveway,within the garage or to an approved parking pad, and have also discussed the need for ongoing lawn maintenance. While some progress was made earlier this Spring, the yard area is once again in violation of City Ordinance City Nuisance Ordinance 1109.03.E, H & I with regard to rubbish and lawn maintenance. (Ordinance 1109 enclosed) and 401.15.F.7, which does not allow for outdoor storage, including storage of inoperable vehicles. 401.15.F.7-Use of Required Area. Required accessory off-street parking spaces in any district shall not be utilized for open storage, sale or rental of good, repair work, storage of inoperable vehicles and/or storage of snow. Compliance abatement is requested and shall be accomplished b 1. Mowing the yard area; 2. Removing inoperable vehicles from the driveway or placing them into operational condition; 3. Removing the vehicles and trailers from the yard area and placing them fully upon the driveway, to the interior of the garage or removing them from the property; and 4. Removing all outdoor rubbish accumulation. Trailers placed on the driveway shall not be used as a regular outdoor storage collection site; however, it is recognized that short term collection placement to trailers may occur from time to time. 4of18 Tree City U.S.A. Oak Park Heights City Fall Clean up is scheduled for Saturday, October 2"d. 1 encourage you to utilize the event for the removal of stockpiled rubbish accumulation. This letter directs that you take the necessary steps to fully address items 1 - 4 above no later than Thursday,-October 14 2021. Compliance verification will be made. Specifically: 1. Mow the yard. 2. Remove inoperable vehicles from the driveway. Either place them to the garage or remove them from the property. 3. Remove all vehicles& trailers from the yard area. 4. Remove all outdoor rubbish accumulations. This includes any to the yard and driveway areas, placed in trailers or vehicles. The outdoor storage and lawn maintenance are ongoing items. You need to be consistent in keeping the outside area free of rubbish accumulation and the lawn maintained. Vehicles need to be on the driveway or upon an approved parking pad, in operable condition or removed from the property. No vehicles or trailers shall be parked upon the yard area Your prompt attention is demanded. Please contact me immediately with any questions or to discuss the situation. Sincerely, PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT Jul' ultman Bu Idi g Official Enclosure c: Eric Johnson, City Administrator 5of18 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Email:jhultman@cityofoakparkheights.com Direct:651„351.16 Phone:651.439.4439 September 13, 2021 Genella Jemelka Estate and/or Current Occupant - 15417 56th St. N. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Re: Step 1 Notice of Violation —OPH Nuisance Ordinance 1109—Tall Grass 15417 56th St. N., Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 To Whom It May Concern: This letter serves as the City's request for Ordinance compliance. The yard area, at the above- referenced address, is presently overgrown and does not appear n cut recently. The current condition of the yard area is considered a public nu sance per eCtyeNuisance Ordinance 1109.03.H. (enclosed). This letter serves as the City's request that the yard be mowed and weeds attended to, no later than Thursday, October 14 2021 and that the yard continue to be maintained on a regular basis. Additionally, please contact Assistant City Administrator, Jennifer Pinski, with regard to the status of the home occupancy and where the utility statements for the property should be addressed. Your prompt attention is appreciated. Kindly contact me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT Ju 'e Hultman Building Official Enclosure 6of18 MIDDLE • 1 MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION 4 5 5 H a y w a r d A v e n u e N O a k d a l e M N 5 5 1 2 8 °ak Pe H"gnt. P h o n e 6 5 1 . 3 3 0 . 8 2 2 0 x 2 2 f a x 6 5 1 . 3 3 0 . 7 7 4 7 www . m s c w m o . o r g MEMORANDUMBlyt— MSCW TO: Middle St. Croix WMO Board of Managers �w'a"' FROM: Matt Downing, Administrator L.-°°aa DATE: August 27th, 2021 Lak 6t. ash et Mary's RE: 6a.) Baytown—Oak Park Heights Drainage Dispute Review Summary At the August 12th regular meeting of the MSCWMO, the Board of Managers directed staff to summarize the process revolving around a drainage dispute located at 5440 Oakgreen Ave N, Baytown Township and offer recommendations for further action. A summary of events is as follows: • The board was made aware of the issue at the February 11th meeting. There was some discussion on the topic and an acknowledgment that the managers from the two communities had dialogue on the subject. The board took no action and decided to remain neutral unless there was a formal request to become involved from one of the affected parties. • On February 18th MSCWMO staff was made aware of a letter sent to the property owner from OPH summarizing their investigation of the issue to date. • At the March 11th MSCWMO Board meeting, a similar discussion to the previous meeting occurred. It was reiterated that MSCWMO will take no action until a formal request to do so was made. • On March 23rd MSCWMO staff was made aware of a February 23rd memo to Baytown Township Supervisor Fellegy from the Baytown Township engineer. The memo stated that TKDA would perform investigation on the issue. MSCWMO staff advised the Town Chair for Baytown that this could be brought to the MSCWMO Managers but no request was being made. Baytown opted to wait and prepare a formal request. • A formal request from Baytown was received on May 12th. The request was for all information related to MSCWMO permits issued/reviews conducted, and any drainage easements. An assertion was made that it is MSCWMO's responsibility to review and permit any changes to drainage. • At the May 13th meeting the request was presented and discussed. It was clarified by staff that MSCWMO has no permitting authority, and did not conduct a review on any of the properties in dispute, as all of the work was performed prior to 2015 when the WMO assumed project review responsibilities and updated rules to be enforced by the member communities. The board directed staff to spend some time reviewing information but would prefer to identify solutions. There was also a request to tour the area with representation from all three entities. • On May 24th OPH staff asked their city engineer, Stantec, to provide the WMO with the modeling that was conducted by OPH on the drainage. • On June 8th MSCWMO staff requested an update from Stantec on the data request. Hydrologic and hydraulic analysis files were received later that day. Issues related to being able to open and review the files were resolved on June 10th • MSCWMO completed a review of the analysis and asked some clarification questions regarding the input parameters on June 30th • On August 6th MSCWMO staff met with the property owner and toured the site. The stormwater basin in OPH was verified to be present via LIDAR and a visual confirmation. Storage values were not calculated at that time. The property owner was asked for grading plans and building permits but Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization Member Communities Afton, Bayport, Baytown, Lakeland, Lakeland Shores, Lake St. Croix Beach, Oak Park Heights, St. Mary's Point, Stillwater, ft West Lakeland 7of18 was unable to supply them. Other materials related to OPH work orders were received from the property owner. • MSCWMO staff requested follow up from the June 30th inquiry regarding the analysis on August 6th • At the August 12th meeting, the property owner and Manager Fellegy restated the request for action from the MSCWMO. The board directed staff to summarize the work done, request follow up on outstanding items and prepare recommendations for further action. • On August 13th, OPH staff directed Stantec to respond to the June 30th inquiry from MSCWMO. A response was received later that day. MSCWMO staff were satisfied with some of the responses and analysis corrections, but still have concern on the validity of the assumed parameters that correlate to runoff volumes. There was also no progress on securing an as-built of the stormwater basin in OPH for comparison to current conditions. • On August 13th, MSCWMO staff requested the building and grading permits that were issued by Baytown for the construction of the home at the property, as well as any supporting materials provided in the permit application. Upon review of all of the information provided through this process. MSCWMO staff have noted the following concerns: • MSCWMO review of the models prepared by Stantec resulted in 4 areas of concern: o Culvert entrance and loss coefficients were initially missing. Stantec noted this comment and re-ran the model after correcting this. o Modeling utilized trapezoidal channels as opposed to a broad crest weir to represent overtopping at culverts. Both methods are technically acceptable and would likely only result in minor differences in discharge rates. o A request was made for an as-built of the stormwater basin in OPH for comparison to current conditions, at this time one has not been located. o The runoff input parameter for each drainage area(known as the Curve Number)was developed from NRCS GIS Engineering tools. This methodology resulted in the highly impervious housing development having a similar CN value as the fallow field located on the subject property. MSCWMO staff disagrees with this and does not concur that the runoff volumes are comparable between the two areas. We have suggested that a different methodology be used to more accurately identify the CN values. No response has been received. • A site visit by MSCWMO staff noted the following issues on the subject property: o Significant increases of impervious surface and grading have occurred on the subject property. There were no stormwater management facilities noted to mitigate the impacts of this increase. Had the project been completed in compliance with the performance standards of the 2015 Watershed Management Plan rate and volume control standards would have necessitated stormwater management facilities. o There have been changes made to the drainage system that likely resulted in increased velocity, potentially adding to the erosion issues noted. Staff have prepared the following recommendations for Board consideration: • Managers from the affected communities should abstain from discussion or action items related to this subject. There are potential conflict of interest concerns and looming legal action between the affected parties. • MSCWMO could provide technical assistance to the subject property for improvements to the drainage system and on-site stormwater management. 8of18 • MSCWMO could conduct outreach and subsequent implementation of stormwater retrofits in the neighborhood north of the property. Curb-cut raingardens would be feasible in many locations in the catchment, installation of these would reduce the load placed on the stormwater system owned by OPH and reduce the volume of water entering the subject property. Likely partners on this effort would be the City of OPH, the Washington Conservation District and the individual homeowners. 9of18 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 September 14, 2021 TO: Beth Nelson/Jerry Brown - BOTH VIA EMAIL FROM: Eric Johnson, City Administrator RE: Inquiry of Speed Limit Signs— Lookout Trail - Short Update The City has had some inquiries about what appropriate speed is to be posted on the newly reconstructed Lookout Trail. Here is a short response—but it will be 30 MPH: • It would appear that the speed was posted at 30 MPH prior to the current project. This speed— at least presumably was set under State Commissioner guidance generally found under MN Stat. 169.14 and which still remains the prevailing method on most roads in the State— being under their auspices. • However, in reviewing the 2019 update - MN Stat. 169.14 5.h.with our City Engineer and Chief of Police, the City at least some latitude to consider a given speed, but we still conclude that a limit below 30 MPH would be difficult to justify given the required parameters and conditions such as- number of driveways on the roadway, existing crash data and national urban speed limit guidance. Frustratingly, it would be conceivable that more formally collected data could even suggest a "higher" speed. So, the 30 MPH is perhaps a good compromise to start. • Knowing that even if the speed limit was lowered to 25 MPH, "frequent violators" would similarly ignore such posting as well. Thus, it really ends up being an issue of enforcement of whatever speed is posted. So, at least for starters... we will try the 30 MPH posting as it was the previous State-Defined posting and thus at least- likely legally defensible in court relative to that posting process. • When the project is complete,you will begin to see the City's "Speed Trailer" located on the roadway and which will also be collecting speed and volume data. In addition, each patrol shift will be required to log certain amount of enforcement time on Lookout Trail. It is hoped this would address most concerns—and 30 MPH will mean 30 MPH. • Lastly, if there is a particular time of day that you would note is more prone to "violations" please let the City know and we can likely adjust enforcement times. MORE DATA FOUND HERE: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/speed/ or MN STAT 169.14 5h—(a 2019 Statute change) Subd.5h. Speed limits on tiny streets. A cttc mai estabhsh speed limits for cit-streets under ttie cih'sjurisdiction other than the limits provided in subdivision?«ithout conducting an engineering and traffic investigation.This subdi�Ysion does not apply to town roads;county highways,or trunk highways in the cin•.A city that establishes speed limits pursuant to this section must implement speed limit changes in a consistent and understandable manner.The citta must erect appropriate signs to display the speed limit.A cit"that uses the authority under this subdivision must develop procedures to set speed limits based on the city's safety,engineering.and traffic analysis.At a minimum,the safeh, engineering,and traffic analysis must consider national urban speed limit guidance and studies,local traffic crashes,and methods to effectively communicate the change to the public. 10 of 18 i City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 9-15-21 TO: Jennifer Wagenius, Deputy County Admin. ***VIA EMAIL ONLY: Jennifer.Wagenius(u)co.washington.mn.us*** RE: City of Oak Park Heights—COMP PLAN—2018—Clarification. Dear Jennifer: I felt the need to again clarify an issue related to the Frontage Road matter and hopefully you can impress upon others in the County organization as to the items below: The City notes a position is being taken by the County (statements made by County Staff and Commissioners) that the City's 2018 Comprehensive Plan absolutely includes a Frontage Road connection and implicitly supports the County's desires for its road plans. This would be a wholly inaccurate conclusion. As I have personally explained to Public Works Staff and expressed at our meeting in August 2020, that the City's Comprehensive Plan does not unilaterally represent a connection of 58th street from Memorial Ave to Manning Ave. Rather... • The City's 2018 Plan only contextualizes a "Possible Extension" from SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS I EXTENSIONS perspective that the City may consider this as part of its own"future annexation" The Land Use Plan rndu:atea pxGssrWe annexatan of itxa area south of Highway 38 at into our City.It does not outline support for ANY connection—nor does it outline Manning Avenue. If the annexation occurs,the City woutd consider the extension of 58" Streel to Manning to complete this eas6'west corndur The extension would also include support for a specific roadway type, size or length—much less the County's hicYCle and pedestrian trails to Manrrnxt Acqu5itan of right-of-way as part of specific concepts. The excerpt from the Plan(see insets)is quite specific as to d®s coop�m vrithin the existing city limits at writ he necessary for future completion of it being contingent on City Annexation as is the representation of a "Possible Extension". f III np"iykr. r with the given proposed end-land use and annexation proposal into C • We also know an such extension would have been deeply evaluated y py OPH should It ever had occurred and which seem unlikely moving forward. -i Y lrj • The City, like all entities duty-bound by statute to submit a Plan, is _®_�,;,,,. + r' obliged to make such note in its 2018 submission to the MET COUNCIL about its transportation systems—despite the realities that ��'a;,, salh street it had been not much more than vague discussion with the previous I- �k owners and when such lands were in Lake Elmo and/or STW ; u° Township—all of which realities have dramatically changed. e We have advised the County as to these facts on a few occasions, unfortunately, it appears to not be correctly acknowledged and is continued to be inaccurately messaged that (paraphrased) "...City's Plan shows a `connection'..." and is being used to advance the County's perspectives for its roadway plans.Again,this is a wholly incorrect interpretation of what the City's Plan actually says or was intended in 2018. 1 am not sure how many more times I can clarify this, but one more time could not hurt... Moving forward,the City expects to holding a public hearing on this matter in the near future to consider language to delete this element as it only appears to be causing misinterpretation by others and that any chances of annexation to OPH are unlikely. Please let me know if you have any questions...Thank you again for your time in reading this. Eric Johnson City Administrator 11 of 18 4kCity of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd.N•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 September 17, 2021 Dear City Resident: On occasion, the City has noted trash and recycling containers have been placed into the street area/driving lane. This can cause traffic disruptions and possibly dangerous swerving, and can cause problems for the street sweepers and snow plows. As a reminder,please make sure garbage and recycling containers are placed on your driveway or in the grassy area of the boulevard adjacent to your driveway instead of in the street. Here are some more tips for placement of garbage and recycling containers: • Place your carts at the curb Wednesday night or by 6:00 a.m. on Thursday. • The wheels on the carts should face the home. The front of each container has a metal bar that needs to face the street and be accessed by the garbage truck. • Containers should be approximately two feet apart and two feet away from mailboxes and vehicles to allow for the ; mechanical arm on the garbage truck to reach between the containers. • Place your carts on a level surface, and make sure nothing is between your carts and the street. Additionally,please retrieve your containers soon after collection.Empty containers are vulnerable to winds and could cause a hazard if knocked into the roadway. The City appreciates your help in this matter to keep our roadways as safe as possible. Thank you, 1 Jennifer Pinski Assistant City Administrator 12 of 18 Eric Johnson From: Mary Mccomber <marymccomber@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 8:24 AM To: Eric Johnson Subject: Fwd: ICYMI: Municipal Employee Vaccine Mandate Considerations For weekly notes -----Original Message----- From: National League of Cities (NLC) <membership@nlc.org> To: marymccomber@aol.com Sent: Wed, Sep 15, 2021 8:05 am Subject: ICYMI: Municipal Employee Vaccine Mandate Considerations Access your weekly N LC member roundup! L NATIONAL Member • • up September1 • - -• • i J 4r 5 � z A From the Event: Municipal Employee Vaccine Mandates The National League of Cities hosted a conversation on legal and policy considerations surrounding municipal employee vaccine mandates. Hear from experts as they discuss examples of municipal employee vaccine mandates, the legality of such policies, implementation considerations including collective bargaining and more. Upcoming i 13 of 18 Mayoral Roundtable: The American Rescue a Plan Thursday, Sept. 16 -3:OOPM ET re Mayor Regina Romero and Mayor Frank Scott Jr. discuss how ARPA is helping their cities rebuild. REGISTER HERE > Y Webinar: Public Health AmeriCorps ApThursday, Sept. 16 -3:OOPM ET Learn more about how to apply for federal funding for Public ` ! Health AmeriCorps. RI REGISTER HERE > Stemming the Tide of Evictions and t Foreclosures in the COVID-19 Era Thursday, Sept. 23 -2:OOPM ET Come learn about HomeFree-USA and their experience with preventing residential evictions and foreclosures. REGISTER HERE > How Cities Can Use ARPA to Advance Digital Inclusion Wednesday, Sept. 29 -2:OOPM ET Experts discuss how ARPA intersects and impacts digital inclusion programs across the country. REGISTER HERE > Partnerships to Accelerate Electric Vehicle Access and Adoption Wednesday, Sept. 30 -2:OOPM ET Hear from a panel of electric company representatives, who will share best practices, case studies, and perspectives. M REGISTER HERE > 2 14 of 18 View All Events NLC is looking for leaders like you! Local 1 National MORE APPLICATIONSNLC LEADERSHIP OPEN THROUGH Partnering with Cities: From the Event: Leveraging ARPA Funds for Implementing CDC Mask Early Childhood Success Guidance ARPA funds provide an opportunity for NLC hosted a conversation on cross-government collaboration to make an impact by addressing the economic implementing the latest guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and and social disparities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, beginning with our Prevention (CDC) on mask wearing. youngest residents. Hear from state league experts as they share practical steps and reflections on how localities are implementing this guidance. 3 15 of 18 r I NLC ARPA Factsheet: Drinking Water Infrastructure Water and sewer infrastructure investments marked one of the six ways that ARPA funds could be used for recovery and to address climate change impacts. NLC1 NLC is the GO-TO RESOURCE for local leaders on all things po'covery and res , Thanks for reading the latest articles and events from the NLC, where local leaders and their staff go to learn and grow. 'Til next time! Sincerely, Alejandra Piers-Torres Midwest Member Engagement Manager, NLC 4 16 of 18 piers-torres@nlc.org i F Helpful NLC Links: Articles Upcoming Events Resources &Training 91 Advocacy COVID-19 Relief Resources Member Solution Partners If this message is not displaying properly, please view in browser. NLCNATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CITIES STRONG,T66ETHIER You may opt out of email communications from NLC at any time. Update your communication preferences or unsubscribe. This message was intended for: marymccomber@aol.com. Manage preferences here. 660 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 450, Washington, DC 20001 Privacy Policy I ©2021 NLC, All Rights Reserved Powered by Higher Logic 5 17 of 18 Local Market Update - August 2021 * n A RESEARCH TOOL PROVIDED BY THE SAINT PAUL AREA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORSO s p a a r - 12.5% - 62.5% + 2.2% Change in Change in Change in Oak Park Heights New Listings Closed Sales Median Sales Price August Year to Date 2020 2021 + 2020 2021 + New Listings 8 7 -12.5% 54 49 -9.3% Closed Sales 8 3 -62.5% 45 38 -15.6% Median Sales Price` $284,800 $291,000 +2.2% $275,550 $288,000 +4.5% Average Sales Price' $290,387 $292,000 +0.6% $294,407 $314,878 +7.0% Price Per Square Foot` $161 $221 +36.7% $167 $189 +12.7% Percent of Original List Price Received" 95.0% 99.0% +4.2% 98.4% 103.0% +4.7% Days on Market Until Sale 19 15 -21.1% 56 19 -66.1% Inventory of Homes for Sale 9 6 -33.3% -- -- Months Supply of Inventory 1.5 1.1 -26.7% -- Does not account for seller concessions. i Activity for one month can sometimes look extreme due to small sample size. August ■2020 .2021 Year to Date 02020 ili2021 8 8 54 7 49 45 38 3 IW -12.5% -62.5% -9.3% -15.6% New Listings Closed Sales New Listings Closed Sales Change in Median Sales Price from Prior Year (6-Month Average)" 16-County Twin Cities Region Oak Park Heights +80% +60% +40% +20% 0% -20% -40% -60% 1-2008 1-2009 1-2010 1-2011 1-2012 1-2013 1-2014 1-2015 1-2016 1-2017 1-2018 1-2019 1-2020 1-2021 "Each dot represents the change in median sales price from the prior year using a 6-month weighted average. This means that each of the 6 months used in a dot are proportioned according to their share of sales during that period. 18 of 18 Current as of September 9,2021.All data from NorthstarMLS. i Powered by ShowingTime.