The City Council will consider historic Rock Island Park options after reviewing MnDOT report.
Background: MnDOT has designated Rock Island Park’s two land parcels as ‘surplus’ and wants to relinquish ownership. After meeting with MnDOT, city staff delivered an initial report to council on Nov. 22nd, 2021. It included background and potential land uses (listed below) to determine if the council would like more info before discussing.
Next steps
After the City receives MnDOT’s environmental and historical review (anticipated in early 2022), the staff will add this item to a council study session.
At that time, council will receive a report that includes all emails of support from residents. Many fans of this historic park have showed support through Restore Lilac Way’s email campaign.) Due to the uncertainty with MnDOT’s review schedule they have not put this item on an agenda.
If the City decides to request this property, they need to send a letter to MnDOT requesting the land, which would be conveyed at no cost. MnDOT would then send the City an official offer letter, giving the City six months to accept.
Restore Lilac Way correction: MnDOT has not formally offered the park to the City of St. Louis Park. They have offered the opportunity to send a letter to MnDOT requesting the land. Community efforts to save Rock Island Park encourages the City to do that, and keep this historic rock garden and open space.
A ‘sister park’ to restored Lilac Park and its beehive, there is a growing community effort to save this historic Lilac Way park.
Rock Island Park features a curved stone bench, pond, waterfall wall and island near 28th & Toledo in SLP.
Staff have identified several potential paths forward.
1. City use the land for a public purpose.
- The land would be city-owned and not transferrable.
- Potential public purpose could be (but may not be limited to): streets, sidewalks, trails, utility, park, etc.
- Other public purposes could be discussed with MnDOT Metro staff. Ultimately the “public purpose” would have to be agreed upon by both parties.
- There would be no cost to the city if the land were released for a public purpose.
2. City use the land for a private purpose.
- The city would be given an opportunity to purchase the land for Fair Market Value without it going to a public land sale.
- The city could sell the land to a second party, with some risk. The title would still have some reference to public purpose; however, there is a way to remove this from the title.
- They have not established a fair market value for the land.
3. The land would go to a public land sale. If this occurs:
- The city could still bid on the land.
- If the city were the successful bidder, there would be no reference to public purpose on the title, eliminating risk.
- They have not established a fair market value for the land.
4. The city could choose not to pursue ownership of the land and allow it to be sold through a public land sale.
- The city could still influence the land use through the city’s normal comp plan and zoning controls.
- Comprehensive plan and zoning controls could be placed on the site either before or after MNDOT releases/ sells the land.
