HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025/11/17 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular (2)AGENDA
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
6:00 p.m. Economic Development Authority meeting
1.Call to order
2.Approve agenda
3.Minutes.
a.Meeting minutes of October 20, 2025
4.Consent items.
a.Resolution authorizing decertification of 4900 Excelsior, Elmwood Apartment, Elmwood Village and
Wolfe Lake Commercial TIF Districts
b.Resolution approving amendment to redevelopment agreement with Project for Pride in Living for
an environmental response fund cleanup grant extension for Union Park Flats - Ward 2
c.Resolution approving subordination and assignment of redevelopment contract for The Shoreham -
Ward 1
5.Public hearings – none.
6.Regular business – none.
7.Communications and announcements – none.
8.Adjournment.
6:15 p.m. City council meeting – Council Chambers
1.Call to order
a.Roll call.
b.Pledge of Allegiance.
2.Approve agenda.
3.Presentations.
a.Proclamation observing Transgender Day of Remembrance
b.Proclamation observing 2025 Small Business Saturday
c.Proclamation observing ASK Day
4.Minutes.
a.Special study session minutes of October 13, 2025
b.City council meeting minutes of October 20, 2025
5.Consent items.
a.Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy
b.Resolution authorizing termination of a development contract for Gateway Assisted Living - Ward 4
Agenda EDA, city council and special study session meetings of November 17, 2025
c.Resolution approving amendment to redevelopment agreement with Project for Pride in Living for
an environmental response fund cleanup grant extension for Union Park Flats - Ward 2
d.Adoption of ordinance amendment to Appendix A - 2026 fee schedule adding cannabis/low-
potency hemp edibles related fees
e.Resolution authorizing final payment for 2025 Concrete Replacement project (4025-0003) - Wards
2 and 3
f.Approve professional services agreement for 2027 Pavement Management project (4027-1000) -
Wards 2 and 3
g.Resolution authorizing modification to parking restrictions on 16th Street - Ward 4
h.Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by
Broadway Street Development – Ward 3
6.Public hearings – none.
7.Regular business - none.
8.Communications and announcements – none.
9.Adjournment.
Following city council meeting – Special study session – Council Chambers
Discussion items
1.
First city council discussion of 2026 legislative agenda
Revised budget
Written report
Single-family rentals update
Members of the public can attend St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and city council meetings in person. At regular
city council meetings, members of the public may comment on any item on the agenda by attending the meeting in-person or by
submitting written comments to info@stlouisparkmn.gov by noon the day of the meeting. Official minutes of meetings are
available on the city website once approved.
Watch St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority or regular city council meetings live at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil or at
www.parktv.org, or on local cable (Comcast SD channel 14/HD channel 798). Recordings of the meetings are available to watch on
the city's YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/@slpcable, usually within 24 hours of the meeting’s end.
City council study sessions are not broadcast. Generally, it is not council practice to receive public comment during study sessions.
The council chambers are equipped with Hearing Loop equipment and headsets are available to borrow.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952.924.2505.
2.
4.
3.
Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds
Unofficial minutes
EDA meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Oct. 20, 2025
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: November 17, 2025
Minutes: 3a
1. Call to order.
President Budd called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
a. Roll call
Commissioners present: Margaret Rog, Lynette Dumalag, Tim Brausen, Yolanda Farris, Paul
Baudhuin, President Sue Budd
Commissioners absent: Nadia Mohamed
Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), deputy city manager (Ms. Walsh), finance director (Ms.
Cruver), community development director, interim building and energy director (Ms. Barton),
city attorney (Ms. Asani), economic development manager (Ms. Monson), planning manager
(Mr. Walther)
2. Approve agenda.
It was moved by Commissioner Baudhuin, seconded by Commissioner Dumalag, to approve the
EDA agenda as presented.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Mohamed absent).
3. Minutes.
a. EDA meeting minutes of Sept. 15, 2025
b. EDA meeting minutes of Oct 6, 2025
It was moved by Commissioner Rog, seconded by Commissioner Farris, to approve the EDA
meeting minutes of Sept. 15 and Oct. 6, 2025, as presented.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Mohamed absent).
4. Consent items.
a. EDA Resolution No. 25-25 authorizing grant application for a Metropolitan Council Tax
Base Revitalization Account grant for the Minnetonka Boulevard twin homes project –
Ward 1
b. EDA Resolution No. 25-26 authorizing a grant application for a Hennepin County
Environmental Response Fund grant for the Minnetonka Boulevard twin homes project
– Ward 1
c. EDA Resolution No. 25-27 authorizing a grant application for a Hennepin County
Economic development authority meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Meeting minutes of October 20, 2025
Environmental Response Fund grant for the Beltline Station Development project –
Ward 1
d. EDA Resolution No. 25-28 authorizing grant application for a Metropolitan Council Tax
Base Revitalization Account grant for the Beltline Station Development project – Ward 1
e. EDA Resolution No. 25-29 authorizing a grant application for the Minnesota
Department of Employment and Economic Development contamination cleanup and
investigation grant for Beltline Boulevard project – Ward 1
Commissioner Rog stated she is happy to see the grant applications being processed related to
housing developments.
It was moved by Commissioner Farris, seconded by Commissioner Baudhuin, to approve the
consent items as listed and to waive reading of all resolutions.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Mohamed absent).
5. Public hearings – none.
6. Regular business – none.
7. Communications and announcements – none.
8. Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 6:06 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, EDA secretary Sue Budd, EDA president
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: November 17, 2025
Consent agenda item: 4a
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing decertification of 4900 Excelsior, Elmwood Apartment, Elmwood
Village and Wolfe Lake Commercial TIF Districts
Recommended action: Motion to approve resolution decertifying the following Tax Increment
Financing (TIF) districts: 4900 Excelsior, Elmwood Apartments, Elmwood Village and Wolfe Lake
Commercial.
Policy consideration: Do the EDA commissioners support the required decertification of
Elmwood Village TIF district, as well as the decertification of TIF districts 4900 Excelsior,
Elmwood Apartments and Wolfe Lake Commercial?
Summary: In October 2025, after the preliminary levy was adopted, staff received two updates
that would impact taxes payable in 2026:
• Tax Increment Finance district Elmwood Village must be decertified in 2025, adding an
estimated $2.056 million to the net tax capacity of St. Louis Park.
• Additional TIF districts that are qualified to decertify, and if decertified by December
2025, can indeed be included in the calculation of taxes payable in 2026.
At the Oct. 20, 2025 study session, the council directed staff to decertify three eligible TIF
districts to lessen the tax impact burden on tax-payers. The TIF districts chosen for
decertification were 4900 Excelsior, Elmwood Apartments and Wolfe Lake Commercial. These
additional decertifications will add an estimated $1.050 million to the net tax capacity, bringing
the total additional net tax capacity for 2026 to $3.106 million. After the EDA’s approval,
finance staff will provide the documentation to Hennepin County by Dec. 1, 2025, for the
additional net tax capacity to be added to 2026 calculations.
Financial or budget considerations: The required decertification of the Elmwood Village TIF
district, in addition to the early decertification of TIF districts 4900 Excelsior, Elmwood
Apartments and Wolfe Lake Commercial, will reduce the estimated property tax impact on
residents for tax year 2026.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Tiffany Stephens, financial analyst
Reviewed by: Amelia Cruver, finance director
Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Economic development authority meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing decertification of 4900 Excelsior, Elmwood Apartment, Elmwood Village and Wolfe
Lake Commercial TIF Districts
EDA Resolution No. 25-______
Decertifying the Wolfe Lake, 4900 Excelsior, Elmwood Apartments
and Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing Districts
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “city”) and the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority (the “authority”) previously established the Wolfe Lake
Commercial Tax Increment Financing District (the “Wolfe Lake Commercial TIF district”), a
redevelopment district within Redevelopment Project No. 1 in the city, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.1794, as amended (the “TIF act”); and
Whereas, the city and the authority previously established the 4900 Excelsior Tax
Increment Financing District (the “4900 Excelsior TIF district”), a redevelopment district within
Redevelopment Project No. 1 in the city, pursuant to the TIF act; and
Whereas, the city and the authority previously established the Elmwood Apartments
Tax Increment Financing District (the “Elmwood Apartments TIF district”), a redevelopment
district within Redevelopment Project No. 1 in the city, pursuant to the TIF act; and
Whereas, the city and the authority previously established the Elmwood Village Tax
Increment Financing District (the “Elmwood Village TIF district”), a renewal and renovation
district within Redevelopment Project No. 1 in the city, pursuant to the TIF act; and
Whereas, the Wolfe Lake Commercial TIF district, 4900 Excelsior TIF district, Elmwood
Apartments TIF district and Elmwood Village TIF district (the “TIF districts”) are administered by
the authority; and
Whereas, it has been proposed that the authority decertify the TIF districts as of
December 31, 2025; and
Whereas, as of the date hereof, the projects have been completed, all obligations to
which tax increment from the TIF districts have been pledged have been paid in full or
defeased, and the authority has determined that it is in the best interests of the city to
terminate and decertify the TIF districts; and
Now therefore be it resolved by the board of commissioners of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority as follows:
1. The TIF districts shall be decertified as of December 31, 2025.
2. Authority staff are authorized and directed to deliver a copy of this resolution to the
Auditor/Treasurer of Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “county auditor/treasurer”) with
instructions to decertify the TIF districts as of December 31, 2025, it being the intent of the city
and authority that any tax increment derived from the TIF districts and collected after
December 31, 2025 should be redistributed by the county auditor/treasurer to the taxing
jurisdictions within the TIF districts pursuant to the TIF act.
Economic development authority meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Title: Resolution authorizing decertification of 4900 Excelsior, Elmwood Apartment, Elmwood Village and Wolfe
Lake Commercial TIF Districts
3. Authority staff are further directed to return any remaining tax increment in the
accounts established for the TIF districts after December 31, 2025, which is not eligible for
spending, as determined by authority staff, to the county auditor/treasurer for redistribution to
the taxing jurisdictions within the TIF districts.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority November 17, 2025:
Karen Barton, executive director Sue Budd, president
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, secretary
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: November 17, 2025
Consent agenda item: 4b
Executive summary
Title: Resolution approving amendment to redevelopment agreement with Project for Pride in
Living for an environmental response fund cleanup grant extension for Union Park Flats -
Ward 2
Recommended action: Motion to adopt EDA resolution approving an amendment to the
contract for private development between the EDA and Project for Pride in Living (PPL) allowing
for additional time to spend down proceeds of a Hennepin County environmental cleanup grant
for the Union Park Flats project.
Policy consideration: Does the EDA wish to approve the proposed amendment to the contract
for private development with Project for Pride in Living (PPL) to allow for additional time to
spend environmental cleanup grant proceeds previously awarded by Hennepin County?
Summary: The EDA and city council entered into a contract for private development with PPL
SLP LLC, an affiliate of Project for Pride in Living (PPL) (“redeveloper”), on May 1, 2023 and
approved an amended version of that contract on Oct. 2, 2023. Under the contract, the
redeveloper agreed to construct the proposed Union Park Flats development including 60 units
of affordable housing at 3700 Alabama. The project opened in December 2024 and is fully
leased.
One of the sources of funds for the project included an environmental response fund (ERF)
cleanup grant provided by Hennepin County which the city originally supported through a
resolution approved on Oct. 4, 2021. The development is completed and the redeveloper has
identified additional qualified costs for reimbursement through the ERF program. However, the
ERF grant originally expired on May 10, 2025, and must be extended for the redeveloper to
submit those costs to the city and to Hennepin County.
The amendment to the redevelopment agreement, which includes a copy of the ERF grant
agreement, would allow an extended term for the cleanup grant, and would authorize
acceptance of an amendment with Hennepin County to utilize the county’s updated terms for
the ERF grant.
Financial or budget considerations: This action is required to extend the terms of an existing
grant. It would not impact the amount of the grant, which is for $177,000.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Dean Porter-Nelson, redevelopment administrator
Reviewed by: Jennifer Monson, economic development manager
Karen Barton, community development director, EDA executive director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Economic development authority meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Resolution approving amendment to redevelopment agreement with Project for Pride in Living for an
environmental response fund cleanup grant extension for Union Park Flats - Ward 2
EDA Resolution No. 25-______
Resolution approving amendment to the contract for private
development for PPL Union Park Community Limited Partnership
Be it resolved by the board of commissioners (the “board of commissioners”) of the
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “authority”) as follows:
Section 1. Recitals; authorization.
1.01. The City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “city”) has heretofore created an
Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which is funded in part with pooled tax increment derived from
property within certain tax increment financing districts within the city as provided in Laws of
Minnesota 2022, First Special Session, Chapter 14, Article 9, Section 5. The city is authorized to
make loans from its Affordable Housing Trust Fund to provide funding for affordable housing
developments in the city.
1.02. To facilitate the development of certain property within the city, the authority, the
city, PPL Union Park Community Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the
“developer”), and PPL SLP LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company and the general partner of
the developer (the “general partner”), entered into a contract for private development on Oct. 18,
2023 (the “original agreement”) which provides for the construction by the developer of 60 units
of multifamily rental housing, approximately 70 underground parking stalls, and approximately 9
surface parking stalls (the “minimum improvements”) on certain property legally described and
provides a loan from the city in the principal amount of $650,000 (the “AHTF loan”) to the
developer from the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund to assist with the costs of the minimum
improvements.
1.03. In addition, to the AHTF loan, the authority also agreed to provide proceeds of
an environmental response fund grant in an amount not to exceed $177,000 (the “grant”)
made by Hennepin County through its Environment and Energy Department to the general
partner; and
1.04. Due to delays in the construction of the minimum improvements, Hennepin
County requested certain changes to its grant agreement (the “grant agreement”) with the
authority which require changes to the original agreement.
1.05. The parties have prepared a first amendment to contract for private
development (the “amendment”) to reflect the updated grant agreement.
Be it further resolved that the president and executive director are hereby authorized to
execute such agreements necessary to receive the grant and implement the project (the grant
agreement”) and to carry out, on behalf of the authority, the authority’s obligations thereunder
when all conditions precedent thereto have been satisfied; and
Economic development authority meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Title: Resolution approving amendment to redevelopment agreement with Project for Pride in Living for an
environmental response fund cleanup grant extension for Union Park Flats - Ward 2
Be it further resolved that the authority to approve, execute and deliver future amendments to
the grant agreement entered into by the authority is hereby delegated to the president and
executive director, subject to the following conditions: (a) extend deadlines, amend the project
budget and scope, or do not materially adversely affect the interests of the authority; and (b)
such amendments or consents do not contravene or violate any policy of the authority. The
execution of any instrument by president and executive director shall be conclusive evidence of
the approval of such instruments in accordance with the terms hereof. In the event of absence
or disability of the president and executive director any of the documents authorized by this
resolution to be executed may be executed without further act or authorization of the board by
any member of the board or any duly designated acting official, or by such other officer or
officers of the authority as, in the opinion of the city attorney, may act in their behalf.
Section 2. Development documents.
2.01. The board of commissioners hereby approves the amendment in substantially
the form presented to the board of commissioners, together with any related documents
necessary in connection therewith, including without limitation, all documents, exhibits,
certifications, or consents referenced in or attached to the amendment (collectively, the
“development documents”).
2.02. The board of commissioners hereby authorizes the president and executive
director, in their discretion and at such time, if any, as they may deem appropriate, to execute
the development documents on behalf of the authority, and to carry out, on behalf of the
authority, the authority’s obligations thereunder when all conditions precedent thereto have
been satisfied. The development documents shall be in substantially the form on file with the
authority and the approval hereby given to the development documents includes approval of
such additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate and such modifications
thereof, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and
approved by legal counsel to the authority and by the officers authorized herein to execute said
documents prior to their execution; and said officers are hereby authorized to approve said
changes on behalf of the authority. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officers
of the authority herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such
document in accordance with the terms hereof. This resolution shall not constitute an offer and
the development documents shall not be effective until the date of execution thereof as
provided herein.
2.03. In the event of absence or disability of the officers, any of the documents
authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed without further act or
authorization of the board of commissioners by any duly designated acting official, or by such
other officer or officers of the board of commissioners as, in the opinion of the city attorney,
may act in their behalf. Upon execution and delivery of the development documents, the
officers and employees of the board of commissioners are hereby authorized and directed to
take or cause to be taken such actions as may be necessary on behalf of the board of
commissioners to implement the development documents.
Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon approval.
Economic development authority meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Title: Resolution approving amendment to redevelopment agreement with Project for Pride in Living for an
environmental response fund cleanup grant extension for Union Park Flats - Ward 2
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority November 17, 2025:
Karen Barton, executive director Sue Budd, president
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: November 17, 2025
Consent agenda item: 4c
Executive summary
Title: Resolution approving subordination and assignment of redevelopment contract
for The Shoreham - Ward 1
Recommended action: Motion to adopt EDA resolution approving a subordination of the
redevelopment agreement for The Shoreham redevelopment to permanent financing,
associated with mortgage refinancing initiated by the redeveloper, known as “Shoreham
Apartments LLC,” which is an affiliate of the St. Louis Park-based Bader Development.
Policy consideration: Does the EDA wish to approve the subordination agreement as requested
by an affiliate of Bader development, for their Shoreham project – completed in 2017, allowing
them to refinance the existing mortgage on the project?
Summary: On Aug. 17, 2015 , the EDA approved the redevelopment agreement (the “contract”)
with the redeveloper related to the Shoreham building with 148 housing units including 20% of
the units affordable to residents at 50% of Area Median Income (AMI), and additional
commercial space. The project was completed in 2017, the full Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) obligations were completed and the TIF district has been decertified.
The redevelopment agreement and existing obligations to maintain 30 units of affordable
housing at or below 50% AMI will remain in place.
The redeveloper currently seeks to refinance their mortgage for The Shoreham and their
lender, Colliers Mortgage LLC, is requesting a subordination of the redevelopment agreement
as a condition of providing a refinance loan. The proposed subordination and assignment is
permitted under the development agreement and is similar to other subordination agreements
that the EDA has previously approved for other projects. The proposed subordination
agreement has been reviewed and approved by the EDA’s legal counsel, Kutak Rock LLP. The
subordination and assignment documents are available upon request from economic
development staff.
Financial or budget considerations: All costs associated with legal counsel’s review and
approval of the proposed subordination agreement and assignment are to be paid by the
developer.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Dean Porter-Nelson, redevelopment administrator
Reviewed by: Jennifer Monson, economic development manager; Karen Baron, community
development director and EDA executive director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Economic development authority meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: Resolution approving subordination and assignment of redevelopment contract for The Shoreham - Ward 1
EDA Resolution No. 25 -___
Approving a subordination agreement
(The Shoreham Apartments)
Be it resolved by the board of commissioners (the “board”) of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority (the “authority”) as follows:
Section 1. Recitals; authorization.
1.01. The authority entered into a contract for private redevelopment, dated
August 17, 2015, as amended (the “development contract”), with Shoreham Apartments LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company (the “developer”), pursuant to which the developer agreed
to construct an approximately 148-unit multifamily rental housing development and
functionally related facilities with approximately 20,000 square feet of commercial space and
approximately 202 parking spaces (the “project”) on land located in the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the “city”).
1.02. Under the development contract, the authority issued a tax increment
revenue note to the developer which has been fully paid.
1.03. In addition, the development contract requires that the project meet
certain affordability requirements as required by the city’s inclusionary housing policy.
1.04. In order to make the construction of the project feasible, the city issued its
Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (The Shoreham Project), Series 2015A (the “series 2015a
bonds”), in the original aggregate principal amount of $34,500,000; (ii) Variable Rate Demand
Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (The Shoreham Project), Series 2015B (the “Series 2015B
Bonds”), in the original aggregate principal amount of $3,800,000; and (iii) Taxable Variable
Rate Demand Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (The Shoreham Project), Series 2015C, in the
original aggregate principal amount of $400,000.
1.05. The city loaned the proceeds of the series 2015a bonds to the developer
pursuant to a loan agreement (the “loan agreement”) between the city and the developer.
Pursuant to an assignment of loan agreement, the city assigned and transferred to TCF
Investments Management, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (the “prior lender”), its right, title, and
interest in and to the loan agreement, except for certain reserved rights. In connection with
the series 2015a bonds, the city executed and delivered an assignment of subordination of
development contract, subordinating certain rights of the authority in the development
contract to the prior lender.
1.06. The developer is refinancing the series 2015a bonds with the proceeds of a
loan from Colliers Mortgage, LLC (the “senior lender”) in the approximate amount of
$29,705,000 (the “senior loan”) pursuant to a multifamily loan and security agreement
between the senior lender and the developer and secured by a multifamily note by the
developer to the senior lender and a multifamily deed of trust, assignment of rents, security
agreement and fixture filing (collectively, the “senior loan documents”).
1.07. There has been presented to this board a subordination agreement for
regulatory agreement (the “subordination agreement”) proposed to be entered into by the
authority, the senior lender and the developer subordinating the authority’s rights in the
development contract to the senior loan documents. The senior lender is requiring the
subordination agreement as a condition of providing financing to refinance the series 2015a
bonds.
Section 2. Approval of documents.
2.01. The board approves the subordination agreement in substantially the form
presented to the board, together with any related documents necessary in connection
therewith, including without limitation the authority’s agreement and consent to the
assignment and all other documents, exhibits, certifications, or consents referenced in or
attached to the subordination agreement (the “documents”).
2.02. The board hereby authorizes the president and executive director, in their
discretion and at such time, if any, as they may deem appropriate, to execute the documents
on behalf of the authority, and to carry out, on behalf of the authority, the authority’s
obligations thereunder when all conditions precedent thereto have been satisfied. The
documents shall be in substantially the form on file with the authority and the approval hereby
given to the documents includes approval of such additional details therein as may be
necessary and appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and additions
thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by legal counsel to the authority
and by the officers authorized herein to execute said documents prior to their execution; and
said officers are hereby authorized to approve said changes on behalf of the authority. The
execution of any instrument by the appropriate officers of the authority herein authorized shall
be conclusive evidence of the approval of such document in accordance with the terms hereof.
This resolution shall not constitute an offer and the documents shall not be effective until the
date of execution thereof as provided herein.
2.03. In the event of absence or disability of the officers, any of the documents
authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed without further act or
authorization of the board by any duly designated acting official, or by such other officer or
officers of the board as, in the opinion of the city attorney, may act in their behalf. Upon
execution and delivery of the documents, the officers and employees of the board are hereby
authorized and directed to take or cause to be taken such actions as may be necessary on
behalf of the board to implement the documents.
Economic development authority meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Title: Resolution approving subordination and assignment of redevelopment contract for The Shoreham - Ward 1
Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon approval.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the economic development
authority November 17, 2025:
Karen Barton, executive director Sue Budd, president
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, secretary
Economic development authority meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 4c) Page 4
Title: Resolution approving subordination and assignment of redevelopment contract for The Shoreham - Ward 1
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 17, 2025
Presentation: 3a
Executive summary
Title: Proclamation observing Transgender Day of Remembrance
Recommended action: Mayor to read the proclamation observing Nov. 20, 2025 as
Transgender Day of Remembrance.
Policy consideration: None.
Summary: Transgender Day of Remembrance is recognized annually on November 20 to honor
and remember the transgender and gender-expansive people whose lives have been lost to
transphobic violence. According to the Human Rights Campaign, transgender individuals face a
disproportionately higher level of violence, with transgender women of color accounting for
approximately four in five of all known violent killings. Further, three in four known victims of
transgender and gender-expansive violence will be misgendered in initial police or media
reports. Transgender Day of Remembrance provides an opportunity to build awareness about
the challenges that transgender and gender -expansive communities face and affirm our
commitment to stand against bigotry in our city.
Financial or budget considerations: None.
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.
Supporting documents: Resource page
Proclamation
Prepared by: Jocelyn I Hernandez Guitron, racial equity and inclusion specialist
LGBTQ+ employee resource group
Reviewed by: Pa Dao Yang, racial equity and inclusion director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Proclamation observing Transgender Day of Remembrance
Resource Page
In observance of Transgender Day of remembrance, the City of St. Louis Park invites you to:
• Learn about the history of transgender communities
o Transgender Day of Remembrance (TDOR) | GLAAD
o LGBTQIA + Communities in Minnesota | Minnesota Historical Society
• Understand the challenges faced by transgender people
o On policies restricting trans people, Americans have become more supportive |
Pew Research Center
o The Data — Trans Remembrance Project
o Overview: 2025 Executive Actions Impacting LGBTQ+ Health – HealthLGBTQ
o Minnesota Bills | Anti-trans legislation
• Connect with local organizations and events
o Transgender Day of Remembrance
o Resilience Program — Queermunity MN
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Title: Proclamation observing Transgender Day of Remembrance
Proclamation
"Transgender Day of Remembrance”
Whereas, Transgender Day of Remembrance is recognized internationally and annually
on November 20th to honor and remember the transgender and gender-expansive people
whose lives have been lost to transphobic violence; and
Whereas, anti-transgender directives and resulting legislation from the current
presidential administration have emboldened bigotry and discrimination that condones
violence against the transgender community and their families; and
Whereas, the 2025 Minnesota legislative session saw the introduction of 33 bills that
would negatively impact the rights of transgender people across areas of sports, education,
child custody, health care, and incarceration; with more being introduced across the nation;
and
Whereas, Transgender Day of Remembrance calls us to recognize the higher levels of
violence, harassment and discrimination transgender and gender -expansive communities face,
especially those who are transgender women and Black, Indigenous and people of color; and
Whereas, Transgender Day of Remembrance is also an opportunity to celebrate the
resilience and advocacy - known and unknown - of transgender individuals from all walks of life,
including our colleagues, neighbors and community leaders; and
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park has an active LGBTQ+ Employee Resource Group
committed to creating a safer and more inclusive workplace for LGBTQ+ employees and allies
and contributes to proclamations for the LGBTQ+ community ; and
Whereas, discrimination has no home in St. Louis Park and our city proudly stands for
human rights regardless of gender identity or sexuality in our schools, healthcare, sports,
workplaces and other community gathering spaces,
Now therefore, let it be known that the mayor and city council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, observe November 20th as Transgender Day of Remembrance in our
community.
In witness whereof, I set my hand and cause the
seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this
17th day of November 2025.
________________________________
Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 17, 2025
Presentation: 3b
Executive summary
Title: Proclamation observing 2025 Small Business Saturday
Recommended action: Mayor is asked to read proclamation designating Nov. 29, 2025, as Small
Business Saturday.
Policy consideration: Not applicable.
Summary: Founded by American Express in 2010, Small Business Saturday spotlights the
significance of supporting small, independently owned businesses across the country. Falling
between Black Friday and Cyber Monday, Small Business Saturday is a day dedicated to
supporting the diverse range of local businesses that provide goods and services, create jobs,
boost the economy, contribute to local organizations and keep communities thriving across the
country.
Since 2010, U.S. consumers reported spending over $201 billion at independent retailers and
restaurants on Small Business Saturday to the direct benefit of local economies. By promoting
Small Business Saturday, the city continues its long-standing tradition of recognizing local
businesses and all they contribute to enrich the economic and social fabric of St. Louis Park. As
our community approaches the holiday season, this proclamation further raises awareness of
the importance of the “shop local” movement.
In addition to this proclamation, this recognition will be promoted on the city’s website and
social media. The city is also producing a video encouraging residents to shop at small
businesses, which will be posted on social media.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Resource page, proclamation
Prepared by: Jase Pater, economic development specialist
Reviewed by: Jennifer Monson, economic development manager
Karen Barton, community development director/interim building & energy
director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Title: Proclamation observing 2025 Small Business Saturday
Resource page
To encourage community engagement in the shop local movement and Small Business Saturday
2025, the City of St. Louis Park invites you to:
• Explore the Westopolis website’s shopping options (formerly Discover St. Louis Park)
o Shopping – Westopolis (westopolis.org)
• Consider local retail in a variety of settings no matter where you are in Minnesota
o Shopping | Explore Minnesota
• Connect with small business resources available on the City of St. Louis Park’s website
o Small Business Resources | St. Louis Park, MN (stlouisparkmn.gov)
• Remember that dining in locally owned restaurants is a delicious way to support small
businesses all year long!
o Restaurants – Westopolis (westopolis.org)
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Title: Proclamation observing 2025 Small Business Saturday
Proclamation
“Small Business Saturday”
November 29, 2025
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park celebrates its local small businesses and the
contributions they make to its local economy and community; and
Whereas, St. Louis Park joins with advocacy groups and organizations across the country
to encourage consumers to “shop local” all year long; and
Whereas, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration, there are 34.8 million
small businesses in the United States and small businesses employ 59 million workers, which
accounts for nearly half of the entire American workforce; and
Whereas, more than $201 billion in consumer spending occurred at independent
retailers and restaurants on Small Business Saturday since its inception in 2010; and
Whereas, 68 cents of every dollar spent at a small business stays in the local community
and every dollar spent at small businesses creates an additional 48 cents in local business
activity as a result of employees and local businesses purchasing local goods and services; and
Whereas, the people of St. Louis Park are grateful to the independent businesses of the
city for the investments they make, the jobs they create and the generous contributions they
provide to further the quality of life in the city; and
Now therefore, let it be known that the mayor and city council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, hereby proclaim November 29, 2025, as Small Business Saturday and urge the
residents of our community to support small businesses and merchants on Small Business
Saturday and to “shop local” throughout the year.
Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the
Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be
affixed this 17th day of November, 2025.
_________________________________
Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 17, 2025
Presentation: 3c
Executive summary
Title: Proclamation observing ASK Day
Recommended action: The mayor is asked to read the proclamation observing ASK Day.
Policy consideration: None.
Summary: Summary: Staff received a request from Kristine Stapleton to bring awareness to the
intention and initiative of ASK Day, celebrated annually on June 21 and initiated by Brady
United (formerly A Million Moms). The mission of ASK Day is to encourage parents to take a
proactive stance against accidental violence involving unsecured and unsupervised firearms
within a home. With 4.6 million children living in homes with access to an unlocked or
unsupervised gun, the proclamation was requested to be brought to the city council as soon as
possible.
ASK Day is an annual reminder to parents, guardians, and caretakers to add one more question
when their child visits another home: "Is there an unlocked gun where my child plays?"
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: Resource page
Proclamation
Prepared by: Amanda Scott-Lerdal, deputy city clerk
Reviewed by: Pa Dao Yang, racial equity and inclusion director
Jacque Smith, communications and technology director
Bryan Kruelle, police chief
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Title: Proclamation observing ASK Day
Resources:
• Where to access a FREE gun safe lock
o Minneapolis – Lake Street Safety Center
o Hennepin County Attorney’s Office – gun lock partnerships with libraries
o Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs (MDVA): Veterans can email
SuicidePrevention.MDVA@state.mn.us to receive a free gun lock, requests are
kept confidential
o St. Louis Park Police Department: 3015 Raleigh Avenue South, free gun safe locks
are available at the service desk
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Title: Proclamation observing ASK Day
Proclamation
“ASK Day”
Whereas, the Brady United group is the oldest gun violence prevention group in the
nation with a history of bipartisan leadership and progress for five decades; and
Whereas, policy reform towards firearm security within the home saves lives with 64%
of Americans living in states with safe firearm storage laws, compared to 46% a decade ago;
and
Whereas, the St. Louis Park community is made safer through its access to free gun
locks at the local library and police department; and
Whereas, Whereas, every year, improperly stored or misused guns belonging to family
members are involved in unintentional shootings and suicides affecting children and teens; and
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park joined other cities in a coalition of mayors and city
officials to announce a united effort to bring forward ordinances designed to empower local
governments to protect their communities, especially children, from the public safety crisis
posed by gun violence; and
Whereas, conversations lead to prevention and ASK Day is celebrated each year on June
21 and St. Louis Park is encouraged to consider participating in the spirit of ASK Day every day;
and
Whereas, the ASK campaign encourages parents to add one more safety question to
conversations before their child visits other homes - “is there an unlocked gun in your home?” -
a simple question that could help save a child’s life,
Now therefore, let it be known that the mayor and city council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, hereby observe ASK Day in our community.
Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the
Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be
affixed this 17th day of November, 2025.
_________________________________
Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 17, 2025
Minutes: 4a
Unofficial minutes
City council study session
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Oct. 13, 2025
The meeting convened at 6:02 p.m.
Council Members present: Margaret Rog, Lynette Dumalag, Sue Budd, Tim Brausen, Yolanda
Farris, Mayor pro tem Paul Baudhuin
Council Members absent: Mayor Nadia Mohamed
Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), city attorney (Mr. Mattick), community development
director and interim building and energy director (Ms. Barton), economic development
manager (Ms. Monson), redevelopment administrator (Mr. Porter-Nelson), planning manager
(Mr. Walther), engineering director (Ms. Heiser), operations superintendent (Mr. Okey)
Discussion items
1. Prevailing wage discussion
Ms. Monson presented the staff report.
Ms. Monson noted the policy consideration: Does the city council wish to consider enacting
wage requirements for development projects in St. Louis Park?
Ms. Monson stated that in January 2025, staff provided an initial review in response to a
council-requested study session on a prevailing wage policy. That review offered background
information on prevailing wage requirements and scheduled the topic for discussion during the
Housing and Neighborhood-Oriented Development system. Several metro-area cities have
enacted prevailing wage ordinances in recent years, with approaches that vary widely in scope
and enforcement. As the council considers whether to adopt a prevailing wage ordinance or
policy in St. Louis Park, it will be important to clarify desired outcomes, carefully evaluate
potential impacts, and consider how different approaches align with the city’s strategic
priorities and goals.
Ms. Monson stated that if the city council directs staff to develop a prevailing wage ordinance,
the fiscal impact will depend on the scope and requirements of the ordinance. Additional staff
may need to be hired to implement, administer and enforce the ordinance. If contractors and
subcontractors are required to submit weekly certified payroll to the city, the purchase and
ongoing service costs for an electronic tracking system could cost up to $20,000 or more in the
first year and $5,000 to $20,000 annually thereafter. Such an ordinance or policy may increase
the number of requests and calculated need for public financial assistance to development
projects required to comply with the ordinance.
Ms. Monson stated additionally, if applied to city contracts, prevailing wage requirements are
estimated to increase overall project costs by 10–15%. Legal fees for ordinance development
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: Special study session of October 13, 2025
and enforcement may also be incurred. Due to these costs, implementation of any new policy
should be aligned with the budget process so that departments have the staff and resources
needed to meet the latest standards.
Council Member Brausen asked if all affordable housing projects would be subject to the
prevailing wage policy. Ms. Barton stated that the policy would apply to affordable housing
projects and noted projects that receive low-income housing tax credits are already federally
required to meet prevailing wage standards.
Council Member Rog asked if staff were aware that there are studies that show prevailing wage
has no impact on project costs in the estimated 10-30% increase for project costs. She asked
how staff arrived at their estimate. Ms. Barton stated that staff arrived at the estimated
increase of 10-30% through research and also by contacting other cities that have adopted
prevailing wage ordinances. Ms. Barton also noted that there was a wide range of cost
increases based on project size.
Council Member Rog clarified that the 10-30% increase estimate had come from organic
research by city staff, and Ms. Barton confirmed this.
Council Member Rog asked if there were particular types of projects that showed elevated
costs in comparison with others. Mr. Porter-Nelson stated that estimates depend on project
size and added that with larger projects, there could be significant impacts because a different
pool of contractors are involved. Smaller contractors would need to invest in tracking software
in order to be in compliance, incurring more upfront administrative costs.
Council Member Rog asked if a dollar threshold was used to differentiate between larger or
smaller projects in this research. Mr. Porter-Nelson stated that a set threshold was not
specified.
Council Member Budd asked if the federal Davis-Bacon Act guidelines state that projects of
fewer than eight units are exempted. Ms. Barton confirmed that is correct.
Mr. Porter-Nelson noted that if a city has a local prevailing wage ordinance, and a project was
exempted from the Davis-Bacon Act on the state and federal levels, the city will not necessarily
have to exempt the project.
Council Member Budd stated that the estimated 10-30% increase assumes that projects are not
aligning with federal and state requirements for project size. Ms. Barton stated that if projects
have to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act, they have to comply with prevailing wages already.
There would be additional impacts if the city had a local ordinance as well because of additional
monitoring and compliance.
Council Member Budd stated that other cities that have already adopted prevailing wage
policies do not have different reporting requirements for state and federal compliance. Ms.
Barton stated that differences lie in the methods each city uses to track, such as the use of a
payroll and construction site compliance LCP tracker system. She added that an LCP tracker is
not necessarily the same system as is used to track alignment with Davis-Bacon Act
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Title: Special study session of October 13, 2025
requirements. She stated that the method could be exempted through the policy, but if not in
place, there is an additional administrative cost because of tracking separate compliance.
Council Member Budd pointed out that if the city creates an ordinance around prevailing wage,
then it should be noted that if state and federal regulations already exist, the city will not add
additional requirements.
Council Member Budd asked if there was development that would not be affected by a
prevailing wage ordinance because they are already required to meet those requirements for
other levels of reporting. Ms. Barton confirmed that any projects that have low-income housing
tax credits in their development already comply with prevailing wage as its required by state
law.
Council Member Dumalag asked staff if they have information on development that must
comply with LIHTC and has also been found in violation of prevailing wage. Ms. Barton stated
that staff does not have data on this. Council Member Dumalag stated that she is aware that
some contractors are working with developers that have had LIHTC flagged for cities to
monitor. Regarding compliance, she questioned how robust the LIHTC monitoring program is
and if there might be issues if some of the developers use contractors in violation of LIHTC.
Council Member Rog asked whether with the adoption of a prevailing wage policy, if there is a
likelihood of greater efficiency and quicker product completion because of skilled labor. Ms.
Barton stated that this is included in the staff report and is one of the positive considerations
listed in the pros and cons.
Council Member Budd stated that another positive that resonates with her is not only ensuring
fair wages and benefits but ensuring legal wages and benefits. This is meaningful to her,
especially with concerns about low bidders in the affordable housing space.
Mayor pro tem Baudhuin referred to a list of pros and cons in the staff report and noted that it
was a list of outcomes that may or may not happen. He asked staff whether there were
narratives or specific situations where these listed outcomes have occurred in specific cities.
Ms. Barton stated that when talking to other cities, staff did not go into that level of detail
relating to the pros or cons listed.
Mr. Porter-Nelson noted specific anecdotes. He shared his own experience, having previously
worked for other cities. He recalled that the prevailing wage ordinance adds an extra layer to
the process and sometimes there was more back-and-forth with developers adding additional
time to the development process. He confirmed that the list of pros and cons was generated
from actual researched realities and the potential outcomes are not theoretical.
Mayor pro tem Baudhuin asked if any cities had reported that they regretted adopting a
prevailing wage ordinance, or if they reported they were glad that they had one in place. Mr.
Porter-Nelson stated that each city representative he spoke with noted that there are usually
positives, negatives, costs and benefits to any public decision.
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 4
Title: Special study session of October 13, 2025
Mayor pro tem Baudhuin asked why St. Louis Park would have to provide an incentive to follow
the clear legal path to fair wage practices. Mr. Mattick stated that if city funding is provided on
a project, the legal path is clear, such as Tax Increment Financing (TIF), where money is given to
the developer for financing. Mr. Mattick stated the city could not control contractor pay
practices if the city is not providing funding on the development in some way.
Mayor pro tem Baudhuin summarized that if the developer does not need any assistance from
the city in order for their project to move forward, the city cannot place prevailing wage
guidelines on their project. Mr. Mattick confirmed that providing money on the development
approval side is what allows the city to place prevailing wage guidelines on how the project
proceeds.
Council Member Brausen noted that he is exploring all the alternative approaches. Noting the
staff report, and where it states that a living wage will apply to service contracts, he asked how
many service contracts the city has with developers that are not paying a living wage at this
time. Ms. Barton stated that her staff has not examined this, and Ms. Keller stated that staff will
research this and report back to the city council.
Council Member Brausen asked what the cost to the city will be in order to get up to the
prevailing wage, specifically the cost to public works, and whether enough companies will bid
on projects to make it worth the work or if this decision will be an inflation trap. Ms. Heiser
stated that when there is state or federal aid involved, the city usually pays 10-15% more in
expenses, which is built into estimates and work related to bids. Superintendents must conduct
interviews for workers in the field and ensure that they are being paid in compliance with state
funding requirements. At the core, there are additional factors besides skilled labor that may
affect project efficiency – such as weather.
Mr. Okey stated that in contracts with the public works department he has noticed a trend
related to smaller companies bidding on projects. Over the past few years, fewer contractors
have been submitting bids for projects such as road-marking and crosswalks. He noted that
many smaller contracting companies have been bought out by larger corporations. It has been
difficult to find smaller companies to contract with.
Council Member Brausen stated his understanding is that smaller contractors may bid on
smaller jobs because there are fewer reporting requirements. Larger contractors would be
affected by prevailing wage requirements as their projects would be larger.
Council Member Rog also stated the council needs to consider the fact that the city has a
requirement to go with the lowest responsible bidder. This does not allow the city to choose to
award a bid to another contractor who might be paying their workers better by comparison.
Without a prevailing wage ordinance, there is no mechanism in place for choosing one
contractor over another based on pay practices.
Council Member Rog noted there are projects in the queue which are already subject to
prevailing wage laws. She asked what current projects are not subject to prevailing wage
requirements. Ms. Heiser stated the local street pavement project is an example of a project
currently underway but not subject to prevailing wage. The contractor finished the job a month
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 5
Title: Special study session of October 13, 2025
early and has also worked on contracts that were subject to prevailing wage for the state. Her
understanding is that contractors pay their workers the same wage no matter what the
reporting requirements are for the project they are working on, noting that she has not done
deeper research into this.
Ms. Barton added that Sherman Associates is an example of a developer who pays wages equal
to prevailing wage requirements.
Council Member Dumalag noted that developers will find ways to work as cost-effectively as
possible, depending on the requirements of their projects in different municipalities or even
different states across the nation.
Council Member Budd stated that the report brought up many questions related to prevailing
wage, adding that there is also information that seems contradictory depending on what data is
being compared. Council Member Budd stated she would like to get some industry expert
advice on prevailing wage before moving ahead.
Council Member Rog stated the council received information from some labor professionals in
the community. She asked if staff had also received this information, Ms. Barton noted that
staff had not and that it might be useful as it relates to research completed on prevailing wage.
Council Member Rog added that she is not ready to move forward yet on prevailing wage. She
stated that it is possible that monitoring developer and builder practices at the city level could
be better than it is at the state and federal level. The city is comfortable assuming additional
costs with climate-friendly alignment, DEI values and incentives for affordability. She stated
that it feels like it is the responsibility of the council to have alignment in prevailing wage policy
as well.
Council Member Rog stated that an additional percentage of cost on a limited number of
projects might fit well here. She would like a better sense of how many projects prevailing wage
would involve, as well as what types of projects.
Council Member Brausen stated that he would like more information on the parameters of a
limited threshold model as well as their impacts on projects with city financial assistance.
Ms. Keller stated that staff would review past projects within comparable thresholds and bring
this information back to the council.
Council Member Dumalag stated that she supports a prevailing wage policy. Council Member
Dumalag noted that the requirements around LIHTC projects are new. She noted that St. Louis
Park is largely developed and she has concerns excluding projects that have fewer than 20
units. Council Member Dumalag stated that in any situation where labor is involved, there is a
risk of exploitation. She stated she wants the same thresholds and requirements for all
contractors; people that comply with the law to be able to do work in the city.
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 6
Title: Special study session of October 13, 2025
Council Member Farris stated she is not ready to say she is for or against prevailing wage at this
time. She would like more information and added that the city will need to protect contractors
who do a good job on secure and stable housing.
Council Member Brausen stated he would like to further explore an ordinance with thresholds.
He added that he would also like to know how many contracts this will have an impact on and
would like to see the data on how much the costs will be.
Council Member Budd stated she is supportive of more information and would like to hear from
some experts, especially when looking at cost-effectiveness.
Council Member Dumalag suggested that the Human Rights Commission should review the
prevailing wage ordinance.
Council Member Rog suggested that the Planning Commission and Housing Authority should
also review a prevailing wage ordinance. Ms. Barton stated that staff can bring this back at
another study session for further discussion and can also bring in stakeholders to speak to the
council.
Mayor Pro Tem Baudhuin stated that in general, when the free market does not do the job of
paying overall fair wages, it increases dependency on government agencies and cities to
compensate. Because of this, he is in favor of the prevailing wage. Mayor Pro Tem Baudhuin
stated this is not only about the wages the workers make, but it is about the bonuses that the
executives make. Mayor pro tem Baudhuin stated there seems to be subtle blame to the
workers, making it seem as though they expect too much or that the city cannot afford to pay
workers that much. Mayor pro tem Baudhuin added that this is frustrating and stated he would
like further discussion with experts as well.
Council Member Budd asked if, with prevailing wage projects, the city interviews workers. Ms.
Heiser stated yes, that is correct and stated the staff report notes this.
Council Member Rog stated she would like to hear more from the experts and about costs and
ranges, as well as percentage increases. Ms. Barton stated that staff will put together cost
information for the city council.
Council Member Brausen stated he would like to hear from Minneapolis or St. Paul and their
experience with prevailing wage policy, also.
Ms. Keller stated that staff will bring back information to the council related to a prevailing
wage ordinance and added that the council will want to hear from stakeholders , as well as
have more information on what an ordinance could look like.
Ms. Keller added that staff will do an analysis and include the assumption of projects with more
than 8 units, with the threshold size of the project being $175,000. Ms. Keller stated that staff
will bring back information on whether an ordinance would have been in effect, and how many
projects would have been impacted.
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 7
Title: Special study session of October 13, 2025
2. Developer business practices
Mr. Walther presented the staff report.
In response to council members’ desire to better understand the flexibility and boundaries in
the formal decision-making processes in relation to development projects, staff prepared a
decision matrix detailing the council’s role when presented with certain land use and financial
assistance decisions.
Mr. Walther stated the matrix is intended to provide a framework for the council to better
understand their level of discretion in the decision-making process when development projects
come before them for consideration. This matrix was provided to the city council in a written
report on April 28, 2025, noting that a comprehensive discussion surrounding these decisions,
developer business practices and avenues to address council concerns relating to proposed
development projects would occur during the housing + neighborhood-oriented development
system later in the year.
Council Member Rog asked if the nuisance code is defined in the city code or by the council. Mr.
Walther read the general conditions for CUPs to the city council.
Council Member Rog stated that the code is subjective. Mr. Walther agreed and stated that
uses are usually conditional uses when hazards are involved. And nuisances that are defined
and measured with purely objective criteria are contained elsewhere in the city code and
handled entirely administratively. Zoning and CUPs can be a preventative tool to anticipate and
mitigate specific issues identified in the review process.
Mr. Walther further explained the council’s levels of discretion in planning and zoning
decisions.
Ms. Monson discussed various types of financial assistance and the timing and types of
decisions the council makes.
Council Member Rog noted that the city provided Sherman and Associates with significant
financial assistance and a lot of incentives after they presented the council with a project that
included a lovely façade to a parking ramp. Over the course of the development, Sherman and
Associates returned to the council and said they could no longer provide the façade due to
escalated costs.
Council Member Rog said she is now disappointed that the council provided financial assistance
for the project because it was later reduced. She felt confusion around the council’s ability to
make demands and stated she now feels regret about the project. Council Member Rog asked
what the council’s options are when TIF is offered and a developer later modifies the project.
Ms. Barton stated that at any point in the process, the city council has the opportunity to say no
and not provide tax increment financing (TIF). Ms. Barton added that if TIF is provided, the
council can say the project needs to adhere to its original plan. Ms. Barton added that the
developer can also make changes or refuse to do so, as well as to make a compromise.
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 8
Title: Special study session of October 13, 2025
Council Member Dumalag asked if the council could put restrictions on a project in the event
that a developer changes it.
Ms. Monson stated the council amended a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for
changes in the referenced Sherman and Associates project.
Ms. Barton stated that the council can also choose not to amend a PUD if desired.
Council Member Brausen stated the council made a business decision on the Sherman and
Associates project and it made sense because there were so many things the developer was
offering related to affordable housing in that space.
Mayor pro tem Baudhuin added that the council should exercise their authority to push back if
needed.
Ms. Barton stated the council also has the authority to allow or not allow funding through the
affordable housing trust fund, similar to TIF.
Communications/meeting check-in (verbal)
The meeting adjourned at 8:09 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Unofficial minutes
City council meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Oct. 20, 2025
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 17, 2025
Minutes: 4b
1. Call to order.
Mayor Mohamed called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.
a. Pledge of allegiance
b. Roll call
Council members present: Margaret Rog, Lynette Dumalag, Sue Budd, Tim Brausen, Yolanda
Farris, Mayor pro tem Paul Baudhuin
Council members absent: Mayor Nadia Mohamed
Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), deputy city manager (Ms. Walsh), finance director (Ms.
Cruver), community development director, interim building and energy director (Ms. Barton),
city attorney (Ms. Asani), financial analyst (Ms. Stephens), deputy finance director (Mr. Olson),
economic development manager (Ms. Monson), planning manager (Mr. Walther)
2. Approve agenda.
It was moved by Council Member Dumalag, seconded by Council Member Brausen, to approve
the agenda as presented.
The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Mohamed absent).
3. Presentations – none.
4. Minutes.
a. Minutes of Sept. 2, 2025, city council special study session
b. Minutes of Sept. 15, 2025, city council meeting
Council Member Rog requested a revision to page 5 of the September 15, 2025, minutes, to
state:
“Council Member Rog stated she has concerns about a potential 18% levy increase. She sees an
opportunity to reduce the tax burden on taxpayers for 2026, without any impact to staffing or
programs, taking a closer look at the EDA and potentially, the HRA levies. She stated the EDA
fund was implemented with the caveat that we look at it every year, and she feels this is a good
year to consider pausing until conditions improve both for developers and taxpayers.
She stated she also feels there may be wiggle room to reduce, not eliminate, the HRA levy
temporarily in 2026 as well, if it did not impact receiving matching funds from the state for
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: City council meeting minutes of October 20, 2025
housing. Council Member Rog reiterated that in her view, reducing the EDA and potentially HRA
levies could provide relief that would be palatable for staff and residents and not result in staff
layoffs or program cuts.”
It was moved by Council Member Budd, seconded by Council Member Farris, to approve the
Sept. 2 city council special study session meeting minutes as presented and the Sept. 15, 2025,
city council meeting minutes as amended.
The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Mohamed absent).
5. Consent items.
a. Adopt ordinance amending council member salaries (This item was removed from the
consent items and considered as a regular agenda item 7a.)
b. Adopt Ordinance No. 2697-25 amending chapter 8 subdivision XVI relating to
cannabinoid products
c. Adopt Ordinance No. 2698-25 amending chapter 34 of the city code related to grass
height
d. Adopt Ordinance No. 2699-25 amending chapter 8, section 8-326 exceptions for rental
licensing
e. Resolutions No. 25-126, 25-127, 25-128, 25-129, 25-130, and 25-131 approving 2026
budget and property owner service charges for Special Service Districts 1 - 6 and
district 4 extension
f. Resolution No. 25-132 authorizing parking restrictions along Raleigh Avenue and
35th Street - Ward 2
g. Resolution No. 25-133 authorizing final payment for Lamplighter Pond
Maintenance project (4022- 4001) - Ward 4
h. Resolution No. 25-134 authorizing the purchase of small evergreen trees in recognition
of the 2025 Evergreen Award winners
i. Resolution No. 25-135 authorizing the application for the Department of Natural
Resources Community Tree Planting grant
j. Resolution No. 25-136 authorizing a special assessment for sewer service line repair at
4721 Vallacher Avenue South - Ward 2
k. Resolution No. 25-137 authorizing a special assessment for sewer service line repair at
8011 34 ½ Street West - Ward 3
l. Resolution No. 25-138 approving amendments for a conduit revenue note issued for St.
Louis Park AH I, LLLP
m. Resolution No. 25-139 authorizing contract for school resource officer
Council Member Budd requested that consent item 5a be moved to regular business item 7a.
Mayor pro tem Baudhuin noted item 5m involves a one-year contract for a school resource
officer in St. Louis Park schools. He stated the reason this is a one-year contract is that the
school board would like to revisit this in the coming year.
It was moved by Council Member Brausen, seconded by Council Member Rog, to approve the
consent agenda items as revised and to move consent item 5a to regular business item 7a.
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Title: City council meeting minutes of October 20, 2025
The motion passed 6-0. (Mayor Mohamed absent).
6. Public hearings – none.
7. Regular business.
a. Ordinance No. 2700-25 amending council member salaries
Council Member Budd stated that the reason she requested to move this item to regular
business is to address why she will not support this ordinance.
Council Member Budd noted that while she supports the ordinance amendment in theory, she
feels the timing is not right, especially with commercial property values decreasing significantly.
Council Member Budd added that whatever budget the council approves, it will impact
residential homeowners at an escalated rate.
Council Member Budd stated in times when the federal government is cutting federal programs
that will impact a large number of residents in St. Louis Park, she thinks the city should tighten
its own belt and decline council member salary increases. She will vote against the increase.
Council Member Brausen pointed out that the proposed ordinance amendment was passed at
the first reading, and this is a small line item in the city’s overall budget. In previous discussion,
the majority of the council felt this action is really intended to encourage more people to seek
out city council seats. Council Member Brausen stated the council wants to open the field by
bringing council member pay closer to a livable wage, although it is less than what a part-time
worker makes at Target. Council Member Brausen noted that this ordinance amendment will
move council member salaries up to the $18 per hour range, without benefits.
Council Member Brausen stated this increase is appropriate. He noted that the optics are never
good because the council is the only body that can raise its own salaries, so it must be done
very publicly. Council Member Brausen noted that it is appropriate to take this action during
this budget cycle, stating it will have no significant impact on the average taxpayer. As impacts
are negligible, he will support the ordinance amendment.
Council Member Rog stated that she respects Council Member Budd’s position on salary
increases for council members. At the same time, she feels the increase is modest within the
context of the city budget, adding that there are many things in the city budget that the council
funds that are far more expensive.
Council Member Rog stated the timing of council member salary increases is right because it
has not been brought up in many years and they have now had the opportunity to go through a
detailed analysis. Council Member Rog stated she feels this is the right year to move forward
with council member salary increases, and she will support the ordinance amendment.
Council Member Dumalag thanked Council Member Budd for her statements. She added that
salary increases for council members are an important discussion even though it is awkward to
discuss in the public space. Council Member Dumalag added that serving the city can be very
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Title: City council meeting minutes of October 20, 2025
difficult and is a tough job where the council makes decisions and your neighbors can disagree
with those decisions.
Council Member Dumalag stated that if the city wants more people and more dialogue at the
dais, the council needs to make sure they are treating the position of council member as
seriously as it requires. This is a small salary increase to ensure that good quality people with
varying life experiences have an opportunity to run for council. Council Member Dumalag
stated this is why she will support council member salary increases.
Council Member Farris added she also respects Council Member Budd’s comments but noted
she also supports the minimal salary increases. Council Member Farris stated the council
deserves this increase and this will allow a pathway for others to be on the council.
Mayor pro tem Baudhuin added that it is good that council member salary increases are
discussed and approved publicly. He acknowledged that while the process can be awkward, the
city council is up-front about all they are doing.
It was moved by Council Member Rog, seconded by Council Member Brausen, to adopt
Ordinance No. 2700-25 amending council member salaries.
The motion passed (5-1) (Council Member Budd opposed, Mayor Mohamed absent).
8. Communications and announcements.
Ms. Keller stated that road construction on Minnetonka Boulevard is ending soon and will
reopen by November 2025. Ms. Keller also stated there is no council meeting on Oct. 27, 2025.
Council Member Rog stated there is a meeting with the public on Oct. 29, 2025, Lenox
Community Center, related to revamping the west side of Minnetonka Boulevard.
Council Member Brausen noted that Oct. 21, 2025, is the 30th anniversary celebration of the St.
Louis Park Friends of the Arts. The event will be at 6 p.m. at the West End, and all are invited to
join.
Council Member Budd stated the Jewish Film Festival will be hosted in St. Louis Park the last
week of October 2025 and encouraged residents to look for more information online.
9. Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 17, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5a
Executive summary
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy
Recommended action: Adopt the revised procedure for application to City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, for private activity revenue bond financing.
Policy consideration: Does the city council support updating the procedures for St. Louis Park,
Minnesota private activity revenue bond financing (also known as conduit bonds) to provide
affordable housing developments more flexibility with regard the timing of their application
submittals?
Summary: The procedure for private activity revenue bond financing was adopted in 1992 and
last amended administratively on April 1, 2019. A recent inquiry regarding an affordable
housing development called attention to inconsistencies between the policy guidelines and the
application forms. The inconsistencies made it unclear when the developer could apply. It also
revealed a potential conflict between the guidelines, application process and typical process
affordable housing developments go through to obtain financing.
To address the issues, staff propose amendments to the policy guidelines. The amendments
would provide more flexibility regarding the timing of when certain affordable housing
developments may apply.
The city council received a written report at the Nov. 3, 2025 special study session.
Financial or budget considerations: None.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion, Procedure for Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing –
redline copy
Prepared by: Sean Walther, planning manager/deputy community development director
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5a) Page 2
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy
Discussion
Background: Under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.152 to 469.1655 (the “Industrial Development Act”), the City of St. Louis Park has
authority to issue revenue bonds or notes to attract or promote economically sound industry
and commerce to the city and serve other public purposes.
Under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the “Housing Act”) the city is authorized to issue
housing revenue bonds to finance multi-family residential housing projects for low and
moderate income persons and elderly and disabled persons. Projects must be consistent with
the city's Housing Plan and must be embodied in a Housing Program as these terms are defined
in the Housing Act.
Private activity revenue bonds (conduit bonds) are municipal bonds issued by the city but on
behalf of a private entity, like a non-profit organization or for-profit company, to fund public
benefit projects such as hospitals, other health care facilities, affordable housing or
schools. The private entity is responsible for repaying the debt, not the city, meaning the bonds
are a special, limited obligation of the issuer and do not represent a general obligation debt or
liability of the city. The city’s taxing power is not pledged to the repayment of conduit bonds.
This financing method provides private entities with access to lower-cost, tax-exempt capital
for projects that align with the city's economic development or public interest goals.
Such financing for certain private activities may be of benefit to the city. The city considers
requests for tax exempt financing subject to locally adopted guidelines and uses them on a
selective basis to encourage certain development that offers a benefit to the city as a whole.
The procedures for private activity revenue bond financing were adopted in 1992. The policy
allows the city manager to amend non-policy requirements and procedures of the application
process when it is in the city’s best interests.
Present considerations: The Procedure for Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing was
adopted in 1992 and last amended administratively on April 1, 2019. A recent inquiry regarding
an affordable housing development called attention to inconsistencies between the policy
guidelines and the application forms. The inconsistencies made it unclear when the developer
could apply. It also revealed a potential conflict between the guidelines, application process and
typical process affordable housing developments go through to obtain conduit bond financing.
To address the issues, staff propose amendments to the policy guidelines. The amendments
modify qualifying projects to match Minnesota law and provide more flexibility regarding the
application timing for certain affordable housing developments.
Proposed amendments: The city and the EDA’s counsel for bonding activities, Gina Fiorini of
Kutak Rock LLP, reviewed the policy and suggested the amendments in the attachment. They
include three changes:
1. Timing flexibility for certain affordable housing developments to meet all the city’s
guidelines and allows them to apply for conduit bonds earlier in the process.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5a) Page 3
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy
2. Removal of references to preliminary resolutions. The procedure mentions a preliminary
resolution in several places where it may not make sense. These were removed in most
places and just said city council approval. In housing deals, there is generally preliminary
approval because a preliminary resolution needs to be adopted before applying for
allocation with Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB), but a nonprofit deal may
not have a preliminary resolution.
3. Revision of language to match state statute. The policy clearly contemplates two types
of bond issues. The first is housing and the second is industrial, healthcare and
commercial projects under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.152-1655. However,
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.152-1655 allows cities to issue bonds for a lot of other
types of projects operated by nonprofits including private and charter schools, food
shelves, recreational facilities, etc. As such, the language is being revised to match what
the statute allows. The city does not issue many conduit bonds, but the procedures
should clearly allow flexibility to issue bonds for projects that match the statutory
authority.
4. Added clarity about the parts of the procedures that may be amended by the city
manager.
Next steps
• The revised policy will be placed into effect immediately.
4896-4597-0026.1
PROCEDURE
FOR
APPLICATION TO
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
FOR
PRIVATE ACTIVITY REVENUE BOND FINANCING
Effective as of April 1, 2019November 17,_2025
Chief Financial Officer
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2216
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy Page 4
4896-4597-0026.1
PROCEDURE FOR APPLICATION
TO THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK FOR
PRIVATE ACTIVITY REVENUE BOND FINANCING
Table of Contents
Page
Part I General ..................................................................................................................... 1
Part II Guidelines ................................................................................................................. 2
Part III Miscellaneous Matters .............................................................................................. 5
Part IV Application for Tax-Exempt Financing
(Commercial, Industrial, or Health Care, and Other Uses) .......................................... 7
Part V Application for Tax-Exempt Financing
(Multi-Family Housing) ............................................................................................ 10
Part VI Addendum to Application ....................................................................................... 14
Part VII Indemnification Letter of Agreement ...................................................................... 15
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy Page 5
1 4896-4597-0026.1
PART I
GENERAL
Under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152
to 469.1655 (the “Industrial Development Act”), the City of St. Louis Park has authority to issue
industrial, commercial, and health care revenue bonds or notes to attract or promote economically
sound industry and commerce to the City.
Under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the “Housing Act”) the City is authorized to issue housing
revenue bonds to finance multi-family residential housing projects for low and moderate income
persons and elderly persons. Projects must be consistent with the City's Housing Plan and must be
embodied in a Housing Program as these terms are defined in the Housing Act.
The Council is aware that such financing for certain private activities may be of benefit to the City
and will consider requests for tax exempt financing subject to these Guidelines. The Council
considers tax exempt financing to be a privilege, not a right.
It is the judgment of the Council that tax exempt financing is to be used on a selective basis to
encourage certain development that offers a benefit to the City as a whole, including significant
employment and housing opportunities. It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate the
benefit to the City, both in writing and at the required public hearing. The applicant should
understand that although approval may have been granted by the City for the issuance of financing
for a similar project or a similar debt structure that is not a basis upon which approval will be
granted. Each application will be judged on the merits of the project as it relates to the public
purposes of the Housing Act or the Industrial Development Act and the benefit to the City at the
time the request for financing is being considered.
The Council authorizes the City Manager to modify the non-policy requirements and procedures
of the application process when such action is determined to be in the best interest of the City.
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy Page 6
2 4896-4597-0026.1
PART II
GUIDELINES
1. The Council will consider tax exempt financing for commercial, industrial, and health care
and other projects under the Industrial Development Act and housing projects under the
Housing Act. An applicant for tax exempt financing pursuant to the Industrial
Development Act must submit to the City the application contained in Part IV of these
Guidelines. An applicant for tax exempt financing, pursuant to the Housing Act, must
submit to the City the application contained in Part V of these Guidelines.
2. Projects must be compatible with the overall development plans and objectives of the City
and comply with the zoning and land use regulations of the City.
3. An Except for housing projects seeking an allocation of volume cap under Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 474A, an application will not be considered by the Council until tentative
City Code findings and requirements have been made with respect to zoning, building plans,
platting, streets, and utility services. The application must be accompanied by the
addendum contained in Part VI of these Guidelines and must provide information as to the
project's need for municipal services including, but not limited to, street improvements,
water and sewer services, and police and fire protection. For housing projects seeking an
allocation of volume cap under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474A, an application may be
submitted prior to all the City’s zoning, building plans, platting, streets, and utility services
requirements being met provided that such requirements must be met before closing on
the proposed financing.
4. The project must be a positive benefit to the City. The project must be of a nature that the
City wishes to attract, or an existing business which the City wishes to have expand within
the City, considering employment opportunities, services for city residents, incentive for
further development, impact on City services, and support for the industrial, commercial,
or health care operations or other projects currently located in the City. A housing project
must provide significant housing opportunities for low and moderate income persons or
the elderly.
5. The Council will, if requested, grant an applicant a pre-application review. The purpose of
the pre-application review is to inform applicants of the possibility of rejection or the
possible bases for such rejection. The fact that the project is not rejected at the pre-
application stage is not to be construed as approval of the project or as an indication that
the project will be approved upon formal request to the Council. Requests for tax exempt
financing may be rejected by the City whether or not the project was submitted to a pre-
application review and regardless of the outcome or recommendation of that pre-
application review.
A request for pre-application review must be in writing, addressed to the Chief Financial
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy Page 7
3 4896-4597-0026.1
Officer, and set forth the name of the project, the type of project intended and the name,
address and telephone number of the person who will be representing the applicant at the
pre-application review, together with such additional information as the applicant desires to
submit.
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy Page 8
4 4896-4597-0026.1
6. The applicant must select a qualified financial adviser or underwriter to assist the applicant
in preparing all necessary application documents and materials. The financial adviser will
submit a letter that establishes the financial feasibility of the project. Applications may, in
the alternative, include a signed letter from a responsible financial institution indicating that
the project is economically feasible and viable and stating that bonds can be successfully
sold for the project or that an individual who is a “qualified investor” or institution intends
to purchase all of the bonds.
The applicant must receive approval from the appropriate state agencies, secure financing
and commence construction within one year of the date of the resolution giving preliminary
approval to the project or the housing program. Upon application, the Council may approve
an extension of the preliminary approval.
The City will appoint bond counsel for the bond issue, which will normally be the City's
regularly retained bond counsel.
7. Pursuant to the Industrial Development Act and the Housing Act, consideration of an
application for tax exempt financing must be done at a public hearing held by the Council.
Modifications to the project after the public hearing and preliminary council approval
must be consistent with the scope of the project as proposed at the time of preliminary
approval.
8. The City shall be reimbursed and held harmless for and from any out-of-pocket expenses
related to the tax exempt financing including, but not limited to, legal fees, financial analyst
fees, bond counsel fees, the City’s expenses in connection with the application, and any
deposits or application fees required under state law in order to secure allocation of bonding
authority. The applicant must execute a letter to the City undertaking to pay all such
expenses. A form of the required letter is set forth as Part VII of these Guidelines. A non-
refundable application fee, in the amount of $2,500as established and amended
administratively by the City from time to time, must be included with the submission of the
application.
9. Prior to closing and delivery of the bonds for the project, the applicant must pay at closing,
an administrative fee in the amount of 1% of par amount of the bonds. If the administrative
fees required by this paragraph are in conflict with the provisions of the Internal Revenue
Code related to tax-exempt bonds and the regulations promulgated thereunder, the City
may consider alternative payment arrangements for the administrative fees to ensure
compliance with the Internal Revenue Code and regulations.
10. Applications for financing must be made on the forms attached to these Guidelines. In
addition, the applicant must furnish a description of the project, a plat plan, elevation of
proposed buildings, landscape, lighting, and site preparation, together with a brief
description of applicant and the proposed financing in such form as required at the time of
application.
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy Page 9
5 4896-4597-0026.1
11. The Council may, in its sole discretion, impose conditions exceeding those required under
the City building and land use codes and policies in respect to exterior building materials,
landscaping, signage lighting, and such other aspects as the Council may consider
appropriate on a case-by-case basis.
12. The Council may, in its sole discretion, withdraw its preliminaryany preliminary approval
of a project any time if in its judgment the purposes of the Act will not be served by going
forward with the project and its financing.
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy Page 10
6 4896-4597-0026.1
PART III
MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
1. Ratings. The City will give its most favorable consideration to proposed tax exempt bond
issues that have the same or higher rating as the City's obligations by Moody's Investment
Service or Standard & Poor's Corporation. Issues carrying lower ratings or non-rated issues
may be sold only to institutional or other investors on a private placement basis and must
be in denominations of at least $100,000. The Council may depart from this guideline when
in its judgment the project is of a level of merit and public purpose to justify the departure;
and in case of such a departure the Council must state its reasons therefor in the resolution
awarding the sale of the bonds.
2. Refundings. In the case of refundings of bonds for which the administrative fee listed in
paragraph 9 of Part II have been paid in full, no new administrative fees are required; but
the non-refundable application fee must be paid together with all City expenses in excess of
that fee.
In the case of refundings of bonds where no administrative fee has been paid, the
administrative fees listed in paragraph 9 of Part II must be paid. The application form is to
be appropriately modified.
3. Subsequent Proceedings. Where changes to the underlying documents or credit facilities of
outstanding bond issues are to be made and require Council action (including changes that
are a “deemed reissuance” under Internal Revenue Service regulations), no administrative
fee is charged but a non-refundable fee of $1,500 must be deposited with the City to cover
administrative costs. No formal application form is required.
4. Issue by Another Political Subdivision. The City will consider requests for tax exempt
financing of projects in the City by other political subdivisions. In these cases the non-
refundable application fee must be paid and all procedures through the approval of the
preliminary resolution followed. No administrative fee is charged.
5. City Contact. Initial contacts about tax-exempt financing are made by contacting:
Chief Financial Officer
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2216
6. Deadlines. The Council conducts all tax exempt financing matters at regularly scheduled
Council meetings held on the first and third Monday of each month. Documents for Council
consideration must be at the City office on the Monday of the week preceding the Council
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy Page 11
7 4896-4597-0026.1
meeting at which the matter is to be considered. In the case of a publicly offered bond issue,
the documents, when submitted, may specify a maximum price and maximum effective
interest rate if prices and rates have not yet been established. The applicant should expect
this process to take 60-90 days to complete.
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy Page 12
8 4896-4597-0026.1
PART IV
APPLICATION FOR
TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING
(Commercial, Industrial or Health Care, or
Other Facilities Allowed under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.152 through
469.1655)
1. APPLICANT
a. Business Name:
b. Business Address:
c. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, etc.):
d. Authorized Representative:
e. Principal contact person and telephone number:
2. PURPOSE OF REQUESTED FINANCING:
a. New Facility (describe):
b. Expansion (describe):
c. Refunding (attach explanatory letter)
d. Acquisition (describe)
3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS, ETC.:
4. ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS: (Not required for refunding)
Land $
Building
Equipment
Architectural, Engineering
Costs of Issuance
Capitalized Interest,
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy Page 13
9 4896-4597-0026.1
Other
Total Financing Requested $
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy Page 14
10 4896-4597-0026.1
5. AMOUNT OF FINANCING REQUESTED: $ ( % of project costs)
6. TYPE OF FINANCING PROPOSED:
Bonds Tax Exempt Mortgage
Expected Term of Financing Years
Security:
Mortgage
Letter of Credit
Guaranty (third party)
Guaranty (personal)
Unsecured
Other (specify)
7. BUSINESS PROFILE: (Not required for refunding)
a. Is the business located in the City of St. Louis Park now?
b. Number of employees in City:
1) Before this project:
2) After this project:
c. Approximate annual sales:
d. Length of time in business:
Length of time in business in City:
e. Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where?
8. NAMES OF:
a. Underwriter (name and contact person):
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy Page 15
11 4896-4597-0026.1
b. Borower’s Counsel:
c. Underwriter's Counsel:
9. WHAT IS YOUR ANTICIPATED TARGET DATE FOR (if applicable):
a. Construction start:
b. Construction completion:
10. Attachments:
a. Project description:
b. Initial application fee
c. Indemnification Letter of Agreement
I certify that the information provided above contains no misrepresentations, omissions or
concealments of material facts and that the information given is true and complete to the best of
my knowledge. I have been furnished a copy of the Procedure for Application to the City of St. Louis
Park for Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing and is aware of its content and agree to be bound
by its terms and the terms of the indemnification letter.
The applicant understands and acknowledges that the City of St. Louis Park is a governmental body
and is subject to the requirements of Minn. Stat. Chapter 13 (the “Minnesota Data Practices Act”).
Some of the data provided by the applicant to the City of St. Louis Park may be required to be
disclosed if requested pursuant to the Minnesota Data Practices Act.
Signature Date
Title
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy Page 16
12 4896-4597-0026.1
PART V
APPLICATION FOR TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING
(Multi-Family Housing)
APPLICANT
a. Business Name:
b. Business Address:
c. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, etc.):
d. Authorized Representative:
e. Principal contact person and telephone number:
2. PURPOSE OF REQUESTED FINANCING:
a. New Facility (describe):
b. Expansion (describe):
c. Refunding (attach explanatory letter)
d. Acquisition (describe)
3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS, ETC.:
4. ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS: (Not required for refunding)
Land $
Building
Equipment
Architectural, Engineering
Costs of Issuance
Capitalized Interest,
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy Page 17
13 4896-4597-0026.1
Other
Total Financing Requested $
5. AMOUNT OF FINANCING REQUESTED: $ ( % of project costs)
6. TYPE OF FINANCING PROPOSED:
Bonds Tax Exempt Mortgage
Expected Term of Financing Years
Security:
Mortgage
Letter of Credit
Guaranty (third party)
Guaranty (personal)
Unsecured
Other (specify)
PROJECT INFORMATION RENT UNITS
Efficiency $
One Bedroom $
Two Bedroom $
Three Bedroom $
Parking (included in rent/
not included in rent)
$
Laundry $
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy Page 18
14 4896-4597-0026.1
Utilities included in monthly rent:
OPERATING EXPENSES
% of Gross (Annual)
TOTAL PROJECT COST: $ DEVELOPER EQUITY: $
DEBT SERVICE: $ *HARD COSTS: $
LAND VALUE: $ SOFT COSTS: $
*(Hard Costs are all project costs the IRS has determined to be eligible items for depreciation.)
ANTICIPATED INTEREST RATES: AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE:
% -Year Amortization Schedule
If the project were convention-
ally financed, what interest
rate would you expect to pay?
%
SALES ASSUMPTION: DEPRECIATION METHOD:
How many years do you plan to Years:
hold the property before you
sell? Type:
years. At what percent do you
feel the value of the project Amount of Total Basis: $
will appreciate?
EQUIPMENT:
$ of project cost is for equipment (e.g., washers/dryers)
ANTICIPATED INCREASES: ANTICIPATED VACANCY RATE:
Revenue: % per year First Year: %
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy Page 19
15 4896-4597-0026.1
Expenses: % per year After First Year: %
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Anticipated construction commencement date:
Anticipated construction completion date:
Names of:
a. Underwriters (name and contact person):
b. Borrower’s Counsel:
c. Underwriter’s Counsel:
Attachments:
a. Project Description:
b. Initial application fee
c. Indemnification Letter of Agreement
I certify that the information provided above contains no misrepresentations, omissions or
concealments of material facts and that the information given is true and complete to the best of
my knowledge. I have been furnished a copy of the Procedure for Application to the City of St. Louis
Park for Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing and is aware of its content and agree to be bound
by its terms and the terms of the indemnification letter.
The applicant understands and acknowledges that the City of St. Louis Park is a governmental body
and is subject to the requirements of Minn. Stat. Chapter 13 (the “Minnesota Data Practices Act”).
Some of the data provided by the applicant to the City of St. Louis Park may be required to be
disclosed if requested pursuant to the Minnesota Data Practices Act.
Signature Date
Title
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy Page 20
16 4896-4597-0026.1
PART VI
ADDENDUM TO APPLICATIONS
The following items must be attached to each application:
APPENDIX A
A brief description of the organizational structure of Applicant, including parent subsidiary and
affiliate organizations (if applicant is other than an individual).
APPENDIX B
Statement of Applicant's business history, including any multi-family rental projects.
APPENDIX C
The name, address, and telephone number of:
1. The Applicant's legal counsel
2. The Applicant's accountant
3. The architect of the proposed Project
4. The engineer of the proposed Project
5. The general contractor of the proposed Project
APPENDIX D
1. Present ownership of the proposed Project site and Applicant's interest therein.
2. Present zoning comprehensive plan guiding of the Project site and a description of what city
land use approvals have been received or are needed for this project.
3. The projected number of new employees to be added to the Applicant's permanent work
force because of the Project (for Commercial, Industrial, Nonprofit, or Health Care only).
4. Other financing attempted or available to the Project including any interim financing.
5. Statement regarding whether or not this project has all required city approvals. If the project
does not have all of the required approvals, list the approvals still needed and a tentative time
schedule.
APPENDIX E
Indemnification Letter of Agreement.
APPENDIX F
Proforma Analysis of the Project
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy Page 21
17 4896-4597-0026.1
PART VII
INDEMNIFICATION LETTER OF AGREEMENT
The Mayor of the City of St. Louis Park
and Members of the City Council
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2216
RE: Application of for Tax Exempt Revenue Bond Financing by the City of St.
Louis Park
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
This letter of agreement is given by , a under the
laws of Minnesota ("Applicant") as required by the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota in connection
with its consideration of an application for tax exempt revenue bond financing for the project
described in the application.
Applicant agrees as follows:
1. Applicant agrees to pay or reimburse the City for any and all costs and expenses which the
City may incur in connection with its consideration of the project and the granting of tax
exempt revenue bond financing therefor, whether or not the project is preliminarily approved
by the City, whether or not the project is approved by the State of Minnesota, whether or not
revenue bond financing is finally approved by the City, whether or not the bonds are issued
and sold, and whether or not the project is carried to completion.
2. Applicant agrees to indemnify and hold the City, its officers, employees and agents harmless
against any and all losses, claims, damages, expenses or liabilities, including attorneys fees
incurred in their defense, to which the City, its officers, employees and agents may become
subject in connection with the City's consideration, issuance or sale of the bonds for
Applicant's project and the carrying out of the transactions contemplated by this agreement
and any resolutions adopted, or agreements executed by the City in connection with the
issuance of its bonds for this project.
3. Applicant hereby releases the City, its officers, agents and employees from any claims, causes
of action, losses, damages, or liabilities which it may have against the City, its officers, agents,
and employees or which it may incur in connection with: the City's consideration of the
application for industrial development revenue bond financing for Applicant's project; the
failure of the City, in its discretion, to issue tax-exempt revenue bonds for Applicant's project;
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy Page 22
18 4896-4597-0026.1
the issuance and sale of the bonds; the construction of the project; or any other matter or
thing of any type or nature whatsoever which may arise in connection with the foregoing.
4. Applicant is aware of the City's application and administrative fee structure for tax exempt
financing and agrees and covenants that all such fees will be paid in the amount and at the
times required.
Dated: (Applicant)
By
Its
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Adoption of revised Conduit Bond Policy Page 23
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 17, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5b
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing termination of a development contract for Gateway Assisted Living
– Ward 4
Recommended action: Adopt resolution approving request to terminate the development
contract for Gateway Assisted Living.
Summary: The city received a request to terminate a development contract for Gateway
Assisted Living located at 7115 Wayzata Blvd. The property is legally described as:
Lot 1 Block 1 Gateway Plaza, Hennepin County, Minnesota
The development contract was required as a condition of approval for a planned unit
development (PUD) to construct a three-story, 22-unit assisted living facility (Case File Nos. 11-
31-S, 11-32-PUD, 11-34-VAR). The requested planning applications were approved by
Resolution Nos. 12-033, 12-034 and 12-035. The City of St. Louis Park and Gateway Assisted
Living RE, LLC executed the development contract for the project on April 11, 2013.
The contract stated the developer’s responsibility to install the following public and site
improvements: (a) a new public sidewalk along the west side of Kentucky Ave. S., (b) two
benches for public use along the sidewalk, (c) stormwater improvements, (d) landscaping, and
(e) bicycle parking spaces. Along with these improvements, the contract required the developer
to pay park dedication fees in the amount of $33,000 and trail dedication fees in the amount of
$4,950 prior to release of the final plat.
The city may terminate a development contract after confirming compliance with all
requirements. The city issued a certificate of compliance on Jan. 22, 2015, certifying the
developer’s compliance with all requirements of the development contract related to the
subject property.
Staff recommend city council approve the request to terminate the development contract.
Financial or budget considerations: None.
Supporting documents: None.
Prepared by: Katelyn Champoux, associate planner
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5b) Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing termination of a development contract for Gateway Assisted Living – Ward 4
Resolution No. 25-___
Terminating the development contract for Gateway Assisted Living between the
City of St. Louis Park and Gateway Assisted Living RE, LLC for property located at
7115 Wayzata Blvd.
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park and Gateway Assisted Living RE, LCC executed a
development contract (the “contract”) dated April 11, 2013, as a condition of approval for a
planned unit development to construct a three-story, 22-unit assisted living facility; and
Whereas, the contract was recorded against the title to the property and assigned
Document No. A09938038; and
Whereas, the city may terminate a development contract after confirming compliance
with all contract requirements; and
Whereas, the city issued a certificate of compliance on January 22, 2015, certifying the
developer’s compliance with all requirements of the contract related to the subject property;
and
Whereas, the certificate of compliance was recorded against the title to the property
and assigned Document No. A10159453; and
Whereas, the contents of planning Case Files 11-31-S, 11-32-PUD and 11-34-VAR are
hereby entered into the record; and
Now, therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park that the
contract between the City of St. Louis Park and Gateway Assisted Living RE, LLC over the
following described property,
Lot 1 Block 1 Gateway Plaza, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
be terminated and appropriate action be taken to remove the contract, recorded as Document
No. A09938038 from the records at the Hennepin County Recorders Office. All cost associated
with the removal of the contract from the title to the property shall be borne by Gateway
Assisted Living RE, LLC.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council November 17, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 17, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5c
Executive summary
Title: Resolution approving amendment to redevelopment agreement with Project for Pride in
Living for an environmental response fund cleanup grant extension for Union Park Flats -
Ward 2
Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution approving an amendment to the contract
for private development between the city council and Project for Pride in Living (PPL) allowing
for additional time to spend down proceeds of a Hennepin County environmental cleanup grant
for the Union Park Flats project.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to approve the proposed amendment to the
contract for private development with Project for Pride in Living (PPL) to allow for additional
time to spend environmental cleanup grant proceeds previously awarded by Hennepin County.
Summary: The EDA and city council entered into a contract for private development with PPL
SLP LLC, an affiliate of Project for Pride in Living (PPL) (“redeveloper”), on May 1, 2023 and
approved an amended version of that contract on Oct. 2, 2023. Under the contract, the
redeveloper agreed to construct the proposed Union Park Flats development including 60 units
of affordable housing at 3700 Alabama. The project opened in December 2024 and is fully
leased.
One of the sources of funds for the project included an environmental response fund (ERF)
cleanup grant provided by Hennepin County which the city originally supported through a
resolution approved on Oct. 4, 2021. The development is completed and the redeveloper has
identified additional qualified costs for reimbursement through the ERF program. However, the
ERF grant originally expired on May 10, 2025, and must be extended for the redeveloper to
submit these costs to the city and to Hennepin County.
The amendment to the redevelopment agreement, which includes a copy of the ERF grant
agreement, would allow an extended term for the cleanup grant and would authorize
acceptance of an amendment with Hennepin County to utilize the county’s updated terms for
the ERF grant.
Financial or budget considerations: This action is required to extend the terms of an existing
grant. It would not impact the amount of the grant, which is for $177,000.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Dean Porter-Nelson, redevelopment administrator
Reviewed by: Jennifer Monson, economic development manager
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 2
Title: Resolution approving amendment to redevelopment agreement with Project for Pride in Living for an
environmental response fund cleanup grant extension for Union Park Flats - Ward 2
Resolution No. 25-______
Resolution approving amendment to the contract for private
development for PPL Union Park Community Limited Partnership
Be it resolved by the city council (the “city council”) of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the “city”) as follows:
Section 1. Recitals; authorization.
1.01. The city has heretofore created an Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which is funded
in part with pooled tax increment derived from property within certain tax increment financing
districts within the city as provided in Laws of Minnesota 2022, First Special Session, Chapter 14,
Article 9, Section 5. The city is authorized to make loans from its Affordable Housing Trust Fund to
provide funding for affordable housing developments in the city.
1.02. To facilitate the development of certain property within the city, the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority (the “authority”), the city, PPL Union Park Community Limited
Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the “developer”), and PPL SLP LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company and the general partner of the developer (the “general partner”), entered
into a contract for private development on Oct. 18, 2023 (the “original agreement”) which
provides for the construction by the developer of 60 units of multifamily rental housing,
approximately 70 underground parking stalls, and approximately 9 surface parking stalls (the
“minimum improvements”) on certain property legally described and provides a loan from the city
in the principal amount of $650,000 (the “AHTF loan”) to the developer from the city’s Affordable
Housing Trust Fund to assist with the costs of the minimum improvements.
1.03. In addition, to the AHTF loan, the authority also agreed to provide proceeds of
an environmental response fund grant in an amount not to exceed $177,000 (the “grant”)
made by Hennepin County through its Environment and Energy Department to the general
partner; and
1.04. Due to delays in the construction of the minimum improvements, Hennepin
County requested certain changes to its grant agreement (the “grant agreement”) with the
authority which require changes to the original agreement.
1.05. The parties have prepared a first amendment to contract for private
development (the “amendment”) to reflect the updated grant agreement.
Section 2. Development documents.
2.01. The city council hereby approves the amendment in substantially the form
presented to the city council, together with any related documents necessary in connection
therewith, including without limitation, all documents, exhibits, certifications, or consents
referenced in or attached to the amendment (collectively, the “development documents”).
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 3
Title: Resolution approving amendment to redevelopment agreement with Project for Pride in Living for an
environmental response fund cleanup grant extension for Union Park Flats - Ward 2
2.02. The city council hereby authorizes the mayor and city manager, in their
discretion and at such time, if any, as they may deem appropriate, to execute the development
documents on behalf of the city, and to carry out, on behalf of the city, the city’s obligations
thereunder when all conditions precedent thereto have been satisfied. The development
documents shall be in substantially the form on file with the city and the approval hereby given
to the development documents includes approval of such additional details therein as may be
necessary and appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and additions
thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by legal counsel to the city and by
the officers authorized herein to execute said documents prior to their execution; and said
officers are hereby authorized to approve said changes on behalf of the city. The execution of
any instrument by the appropriate officers of the city herein authorized shall be conclusive
evidence of the approval of such document in accordance with the terms hereof. This
resolution shall not constitute an offer and the development documents shall not be effective
until the date of execution thereof as provided herein.
2.03. In the event of absence or disability of the officers, any of the documents
authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed without further act or
authorization of the city council by any duly designated acting official, or by such other officer
or officers of the city council as, in the opinion of the city attorney, may act in their behalf.
Upon execution and delivery of the development documents, the officers and employees of the
city council are hereby authorized and directed to take or cause to be taken such actions as
may be necessary on behalf of the city council to implement the development documents.
Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon approval.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council November 17,
2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 17, 2025
Action agenda item: 5d
Executive summary
Title: Adoption of ordinance amendment to Appendix A - 2026 fee schedule adding
cannabis/low-potency hemp edibles related fees
Recommended action: Motion to approve second reading amending 2026 fee schedule adding
fees related to cannabis/low potency hemp edibles (LPHE) businesses.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to adopt an amendment to the 2026 fee
schedule to include fees related to cannabis/LPHE businesses?
Summary: On March 17, 2025 the city council approved an ordinance amending city code
chapter 8 establishing cannabis and lower-potency hemp retail registration and related 2025
fees. On Nov. 3, 2025, council approved a first reading of an ordinance amendment to Appendix
A – 2026 fee schedule adding cannabis/LPHE related fees.
At the Nov. 3, 2025, council meeting, a question was raised regarding the registration fees for
mezzo-businesses and micro-businesses, particularly given the difference in business size. The
State Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) has established the same registration fee for both
business types; however, the renewal licensing fees differ significantly—$2,000 for a micro-
business and $10,000 for a mezzo-business.
The maximum allowable registration fee is set by the OCM. These fees are planned to remain
the same from 2025 to 2026. This amendment will add the related cannabis/LPHE fees to
Appendix A - 2026 fee schedule.
Upon approval of the second reading of the ordinance, the ordinance amendment will become
effective on Jan. 1, 2026.
Financial or budget considerations: Annual revenue from registration fees is limited by the
maximum fees established by the state and the number of establishments permitted.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Ordinance, Summary for publication
Prepared by: Michael Pivec, property maintenance & licensing manager
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, interim building and energy director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5d) Page 2
Title: Adoption of ordinance amendment to Appendix A - 2026 fee schedule adding cannabis/low-potency hemp
edibles (LPHE) related fees
Ordinance No. ______-25
Amending St. Louis Park City Code
Appendix A – 2026 fee schedule
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
SECTION 1. The St. Louis Park City Code, Appendix A – 2026 fee schedule, Building & Energy
Department Section, is hereby amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
Business Registrations
Initial Cannabis Microbusiness $0
Renewal Cannabis Microbusiness $1000
Initial Cannabis Mezzobusiness $500
Renewal Cannabis Mezzobusiness $1000
Initial Cannabis Retailer $500,
Renewal Cannabis Retailer $1000
Initial Medical combination $500
Renewal Medical combination $1000
Initial Lower-Potency hemp edible retail $125
Renewal Lower-Potency hemp edible retail $125
Temporary Cannabis event $ 250
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2026
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council November 17,
2025:
___________________________________ _________________________________
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
____________________________________ _____________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren M. Mattick, city attorney
First Reading November 3, 2025
Second Reading November 17, 2025
Date of publication November 27, 2025
Date ordinance takes effect January 1, 2026
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5d) Page 3
Title: Adoption of ordinance amendment to Appendix A - 2026 fee schedule adding cannabis/low-potency hemp
edibles (LPHE) related fees
SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION
Ordinance No. ____-25
Amending St. Louis Park City Code Appendix A – 2026 fee schedule
This ordinance amends St. Louis Park City Code Appendix A – 2026 fee schedule adding
cannabis/LPHE related fees.
The ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2026.
Adopted by the city council November 17, 2025
Nadia Mohamed /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the city clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sun Sailor: November 27, 2025
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 17, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5e
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing final payment for 2025 Concrete Replacement project (4025-0003)
– Wards 2 and 3
Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution accepting work and authorizing final
payment in the amount of $13,574.96 for the 2025 Concrete Replacement project with Create
Construction LLC – City Contract No. 69-25.
Policy consideration: Not applicable.
Summary: On April 7, 2025, the city council awarded the bid for the concrete replacement
project. The project was advertised, bid and awarded to Create Construction LLC in the amount
of $224,905.00. This annual construction contract is for concrete repairs in the pavement
management area scheduled for mill and overlay the following year. It also addresses sidewalk
trip hazards, curb and gutter, and storm sewer catch basins at various locations in the city.
The contractor completed this work within the contract time allowed, and the final contract
amount, $227,627.75, is $2,722.75 (1.2%) more than the contract amount awarded. This is
within the planned contingency and there are adequate funds to cover these costs.
Financial or budget considerations: The cost of the work performed by the contractor under
Contract No. 69-25 has been calculated as follows:
Original contract (based on estimated quantities) $224,905.00
Quantity overruns +$2,722.75
Final contract cost $227,627.75
Previous payments -$214,052.79
Balance due $13,574.96
This project was included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2025. The work was paid for
using public works operations budget, stormwater utility and pavement management funds.
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: Resolution
Prepared by: Sarah Schweiger, engineering services manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing final payment for 2025 Concrete Replacement project (4025-0003) – Wards 2 and 3
Resolution No. 25-_____
Authorizing final payment and accepting work for
2025 Concrete Replacement project
City Project No. 4025-0003
Contract No. 69-25
Be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the city dated April 7, 2025, Create Construction LLC
has satisfactorily completed the 2025 Concrete Replacement project, as per Contract No.
69-25.
2. The engineering director has filed her recommendations for final acceptance of the work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The final contract cost
is $227,627.75.
4. The city manager is directed to make final payment in the amount of $13,574.96 on this
contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council November 17, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 17, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5f
Executive summary
Title: Approve professional services agreement for 2027 Pavement Management project (4027-
1000) - Wards 2 and 3
Recommended action: Motion to authorize execution of a contract with Short Elliott
Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) in the amount of $320,777 to provide preliminary and final design for
the 2027 Pavement Management project (4027-1000).
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to enter into a professional services contract
with Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. to complete design of this project?
Summary: Staff are preparing for the construction of the 2027 Pavement Management project.
A consultant is needed to complete the preliminary design, final design and construction plans
to move the project towards construction.
A request for proposal (RFP) was sent to six consulting firms. Staff received six (6) proposals. A
summary is shown below:
Consultant Bid amount
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. $ 320,777
Alliant Engineering, Inc. $ 342,645
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. $ 369,934
WSB & Associates, Inc. $ 382,991
Moore Engineering, Inc. $ 452,232
Bolton and Menk, Inc. $ 475,597
Staff evaluated each proposal and recommends that a contract be awarded to Short Elliott
Hendrickson Inc. for $320,777. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. was selected based on their
understanding of the project, qualifications and personnel experience, schedule and cost. Short
Elliott Hendrickson’s proposal understood the challenges of this project as it pertains to new
sidewalk installation, utility replacement and preservation of trees. Their project approach of a
creative sidewalk design to limit impacts is in alignment with city priorities to preserve trees,
reduce environmental impacts and make the city more walkable. Based on staff’s knowledge of
similar projects of this size, the cost submitted by Short Elliott Hendrickson is consistent and it’s
reasonable given the scope of the work.
Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city’s Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) for 2027. The project will be paid for using a combination of franchise fees, utility
funds and general obligation bonds.
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, project map
Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, project engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5f) Page 2
Title: Approve professional services agreement for 2027 Pavement Management project (4027-1000) - Wards 2
and 3
Discussion
Background: The city’s pavement management program (PMP) proactively addresses the
condition of the residential streets within the city. Many of these streets are now 50 years or
older; streets usually require reconstruction every 30 to 50 years. The city’s residential streets
have lasted this long because they were built well, are generally situated on good soils, utilize
curb and gutter for drainage, and have been well maintained.
The Pavement Management Project was developed in 2003 to extend pavement life and
enhance system-wide performance in a cost-effective and efficient way by providing the right
pavement strategy at the right time. Using pavement management software, staff document
street condition ratings and monitor their performance. Staff then evaluates the condition of
streets and selects cost-effective treatments to extend pavement life.
A citywide risk assessment of the city’s water system was completed in 2024. The purpose of
the study was to help develop watermain risk scores that assist staff in developing
rehabilitation and replacement plans that are based on:
• reducing the risk of interruption of water service;
• reducing consequences of water service interruption.
To select the street segments included in the 2027 project, staff used an overall replacement
approach. What this means is the street selection is based on watermain risk score, pipe age
and pavement condition. The goal is to replace an average of two miles of watermain annually.
In addition to the infrastructure replacement work, the council has provided directions to staff
to look at the Living Streets policy considerations and propose new sidewalks in accordance
with the new sidewalk planning framework as a part of transportation projects. Consistent with
this policy, staff will review the sidewalk network, stormwater runoff, traffic management and
street trees adjacent to street segments in the project.
Project scope: The 2027 project will be performed in Area 5 of the city’s eight pavement
management areas. It includes work in the Aquila, Cobblecrest and South Oak Hill
neighborhoods. The attached map identifies the street segments that have been selected for
rehabilitation.
The scope of the project includes the reconstruction of two and a half (2.5) miles of residential
streets and watermain. This includes pavement rehabilitation, watermain reconstruction, repair
of sanitary sewer as needed, repairing existing sidewalk/curb, fixing drainage issues, evaluation
of new sidewalk construction, and addressing safety concerns.
Present consideration: Staff are recommending approval of this professional services contract,
which covers preliminary design, final design and construction plans.
Final design for this project will require the development of preliminary layouts, 60 percent, 95
percent and final plans. Final design will include preparing detailed construction plans for the
project, including grading, paving, stormwater management, sanitary sewer, watermain,
SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan), signing and striping, sidewalks and all other
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5f) Page 3
Title: Approve professional services agreement for 2027 Pavement Management project (4027-1000) - Wards 2
and 3
information required to complete the plans for bidding. In addition, information on
construction cost estimates, construction limits and private utility relocations will need to be
assembled and incorporated into the final plans.
A request for proposal (RFP) was sent to six consulting firms. Staff received six (6) proposals.
The table below summarizes the cost submitted with each proposal.
Consultant Bid amount
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. $ 320,777
Alliant Engineering, Inc. $ 342,645
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. $ 369,934
WSB & Associates, Inc. $ 382,991
Moore Engineering, Inc. $ 452,232
Bolton and Menk, Inc. $ 475,597
Staff evaluated each proposal and recommended that a contract be awarded to Short Elliott
Hendrickson Inc. for $320,777. Short Elliott Hendrickson was selected based on their
understanding of the project, qualifications and personnel experience, schedule and cost. Short
Elliott Hendrickson’s proposal understood the challenges of this project as it pertains to new
sidewalk installation, utility replacement and preservation of trees. Their project approach of a
creative sidewalk design to limit impacts is in alignment with city priorities to preserve trees,
reduce environmental impacts and make the city more walkable. Based on staff’s knowledge of
similar projects of this size, the cost submitted by Short Elliott Hendrickson is consistent and it’s
reasonable given the scope of the work.
Financial or budget considerations:
The following table outlines the costs and funding sources for this project, as shown in the CIP.
CIP
Construction cost $ 7,120,000
Engineering and administration $ 1,068,000
Total $ 8,188,000
Funding Sources
Franchise fees $ 2,150,500
Water $ 3,944,500
Stormwater $ 655,500
Sanitary sewer $ 391,000
General obligation bonds (sidewalks) $ 1,046,500
Total $ 8,188,000
Next steps: Public engagement will occur throughout 2026 and include open houses,
interactive maps, in-person meetings and a public hearing. Staff are expecting to present the
final design to the city council for consideration in October or November of 2026. If the project
is approved by the council, construction is expected to start in May 2027.
2027 Pavement Management
29TH ST
W
28TH ST W
T
E
X
A
S
A
V
E
S
L AKE ST W
L
O
U
I
S
I
A
N
A
A
V
E
S
G
O
R
H
A
M
A
V
E
LOUISIANA CT
LIBR
A
R
Y
LN
WALKER ST
I
N
DE
PE
N
D
E
N
CE
AV
E
S
A
Q
U
I
L
A
A
VE
S
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
1
6
9
31ST ST W
34TH ST W
33RD ST W
T
A
F
T
A
V
E
S
35TH ST W
MINNETONKA BLVD
DIVISION ST
32 1/2 ST W
SU
N
S
E
T
R
I
D
G
E
R
D
SERVICE DR HIGHWAY 7
HIGHWAY 7
FLAG
A
V
E
S
37TH ST W
30 1/2 ST W
Y
U
K
O
N
A
V
E
S
X
Y
L
O
N
A
V
E
S
JO
R
D
A
N
A
V
E
S
E
N
S
I
G
N
A
V
E
S
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
AV
E
S
AQ UIL
A
LN
S
R
E
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
V
E
U
T
A
H
A
V
E
S
GET
T
YS
B
UR
G
AV
E
S
K
E
N
T
U
C
K
Y
A
V
E
S
34 1/2 ST W
36TH ST W
Q
U
E
B
E
C
Z
I
N
R
A
N
A
V
E
S
C
A
V
E
L
L
L
N
N
E
V
A
D
A
A
V
E
S
O
R
E
G
O
N
R
H
O
D
E
I
S
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
S
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
Q
U
IL
A
A
V
E
S
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
S
S
U
M
T
E
R
W
Y
O
M
I
N
G
A
V
E
S
D
E
C
A
T
U
R
A
V
E
S
EDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
R
NORTH
S
T
DE
CA
TU
R
L
N
PH
IL
L
I
P
S
PK
W
Y
TEXA TO NK A AV
E
CAMBRIDGE ST
HILLSBO
R
O
AV
E
S
C
A
V
E
L
L
A
V
E
S
B
O
O
N
E
A
V
E
S
OXFOR
D
S
T
A
V
E
S
A
V
E
S
A
V
E
S
A
V
E
S
36TH ST W
Texa-Tonka/Lake
Victoria Park
Texa-Tonka/Lake
Victoria Park
Ainsworth
Park
Ainsworth
Park
Aquila ParkAquila Park
Elie
Park
Elie
Park
Louisiana
Oaks
Louisiana
Oaks
Oak Hill ParkOak Hill Park
H A N N A N L A K E VICTORIA
LAKE
COBBLECRESTLAKE
Date: 9/16/2025
Pavement reconstruction and watermain replacement
Proposed sidewalks (one side of street)
Existing sidewalk
Existing trail
´0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5f)
Title: Approve professional services agreement for 2027 Pavement Management project (4027-1000) - Wards 2
and 3 Page 5
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 17, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5g
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing modification to parking restrictions on 16th Street - Ward 4
Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution rescinding Resolution No. 07-038 and
authorizing updated parking restrictions on 16th Street between Ford Road and Jordan Avenue.
Policy consideration: Does the city council support the changes to on-street parking restrictions
along 16th Street between Ford Road and Jordan Avenue?
Summary: The City of St. Louis Park received an inquiry regarding the existing “No Parking”
signage along the north side of 16th Street between Ford Road and Jordan Avenue. These
parking restrictions were originally implemented in 2007 as part of a street reconstruction
project. At that time, 16th Street was directly connected to southbound Trunk Highway 169,
and the restrictions were necessary to meet roadway width requirements and conditions tied
to state funding.
Since that time, 16th Street has been disconnected from Trunk Highway 169. The road now
carries a much lower traffic volume and is no longer tied to state funding. Considering these
changes, staff have reviewed the current parking configuration and recommend the following
adjustments to better serve adjacent properties:
Remove the “No Parking” signage on the north side of 16th Street, except for adjacent to 9700
and 9710 16th Street to maintain access for larger vehicles serving the city’s water station at
9701 16th Street. Parking is allowed on the south side of 16th Street and will remain
unchanged.
The city’s Traffic Committee supports these recommendations to allow on-street parking in the
areas listed above. Adjacent residents were notified of the proposed changes. One objection
was received, expressing concern that allowing parking could create a safety hazard for
pedestrians who may step out between parked vehicles. While pedestrian safety is always a
priority, this segment of 16th Street functions similarly to other residential streets throughout
the community and does not warrant special consideration beyond standard safety practices.
Financial or budget considerations: The cost of modifying the traffic controls is estimated to be
$500 and will come out of the general operating budget.
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: Resolution No. 07-038 to be rescinded; Resolution; Location map
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, assistant city engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5g) Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing modification to parking restrictions on 16th Street - Ward 4
Resolution No. 25-___
Authorizing parking restrictions along
16th Street between Ford Road and Jordan Avenue
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park received a request to remove on-street parking
restrictions along the north side of 16th Street between Ford Road and Jordan Avneue; and
Whereas, parking restrictions were installed along the north side of 16th Street in 2007
per resolution 07-038 to meet requirements of the state aid funding; and
Whereas, 16th Street is no longer connected to Trunk Highway 169 and has been
removed from the city’s Municipal State Aid system; and
Whereas, 16th Street meets requirements to allow on-street parking on both sides of
the road; and
Whereas, engineering staff recommend removing parking prohibitions along 16th Street
between Ford Road and Jordan Avenue with the expectation of adjacent to 9700 and 9710 16th
Street to maintain access for larger vehicles serving the city’s water station at 9701 16th Street;
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that
Resolution No. 07-038 is rescinded, and
It is further resolved, by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the
engineering director is authorized to:
• Install “No Parking” signage on the north side of 16th Street adjacent to 9700 and
9710 16th Street.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council November 17, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Proposed changes to 16th Street parking restrictions
F
O
R
D
R
D
F
O
R
D
R
D
L
A
N
C
A
S
T
E
R
A
V
E
L
A
N
C
A
S
T
E
R
A
V
E
16TH ST
W
16TH ST
W
M
E
L
R
O
S
E
A
V
E
S
M
E
L
R
O
S
E
A
V
E
S
KIL
M
E
R
A
V
E
KIL
M
E
R
A
V
E
J
O
R
D
A
N
A
V
E
S
J
O
R
D
A
N
A
V
E
S
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
1
6
9
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
1
6
9
1ϰϯ1
1ϰϯϰ
ϵϴϮϬ
ϵϴϯϬ
ϵϱϮϬ
1ϰϰ1
1ϰϯϱ
1ϰϮϱ 1ϰϮ1
ϵϴ11
161Ϯ
ϵ6Ϭ1
ϵ61Ϭ
ϵ6Ϯ1ϵϳϮ1
1ϰϯϬ
1ϰϰϬ
161Ϭ
ϵϳ11 ϵϱϬ6
16Ϯϰ
16ϯϬ
16ϮϬ
161ϰ
16Ϭϱ
1ϴϬϬ
ϵϴ1Ϭ
ϵϳϮϬ
ϵϳϬϬ
16Ϭϰ
ϵ611
ϵϳϬ1
1611
1ϰϯϯ
16ϯ1
1ϰ1ϰ
1ϰϮϬ
ϵϱ1Ϯ
1ϰϮϰ
ϵϴϬϬ
ϵϳ1Ϭ
16Ϭϳ
ϵϴϯ1
ϵϴϮ1
16ϬϬ
16Ϭ6
161ϴ
161ϱ
16Ϯ1
16Ϯϱ
0 200 400100
Feet Date: 10/13/2025
Existing No Parking signage to be removed
No parking to remain
!!!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!
CitLJ coƵncil meeting of Eovemďer 1ϳ͕ ϮϬϮϱ ;/tem Eo͘ ϱgͿ
ditle͗ ResolƵtion aƵthorinjing modification to parking restrictions on 16th Street Ͳ tard ϰ Page ϯ
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 17, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5h
Executive summary
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway
7 by Broadway Street Development – Ward 3
Recommended Actions:
1. Motion to adopt a resolution supporting Broadway Street Development’s bond application
to the Minnesota Department of Management and Budget (MMB), requesting allocation of
multifamily housing revenue bonds for a redevelopment project at 8800 Hwy 7.
2. Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing a letter supporting preservation of Qualified
Census Tract (QCT) status for the property at 8800 Hwy 7.
Policy Consideration: Does the city council support allowing Broadway Street Development to
pursue tax-exempt conduit bond financing for a proposed 208-unit affordable housing project at
8800 Hwy 7, the site of the former Bremer Bank branch?
Summary: Broadway Street Development requests the city council adopt a resolution supporting
an application to MMB of up to $45 million in multifamily housing conduit revenue bonds. The
bonds would fund construction of a 208-unit affordable housing building at 8800 Hwy 7. The
redeveloper also requests a city letter supporting preservation of the QCT containing the site.
Maintaining QCT status increases access to Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and a larger
bond allocation.
This request represents the first step in the process to secure a bond allocation from MMB. The
project may require multiple application rounds and may or may not move forward in 2026. If
MMB allocates bonds, the city council will consider additional actions related to bonding, land use
and zoning. The current actions do not obligate city council to approve the proposed
development. The project will still undergo the standard development review process.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Preserving QCT status and potentially issuing bonds in 2026 or
2027 would not affect the city’s debt capacity. The bonds would not constitute a general or moral
obligation of the city and would not be backed by city taxing powers or assets. The redeveloper
has paid a $2,500 administrative fee to the city prior to seeking MMB bond allocation and will pass
an additional deposit related to the bonds through the city to MMB at no cost to the city. If the
financing proceeds, the developer will pay an additional administrative fee equal to 1% of the
outstanding bond principal.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing
and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion, maps, resolutions; Broadway Street Development overview
Prepared by: Dean Porter-Nelson, redevelopment administrator;
Tiffany Stephens, financial analyst
Reviewed by: Jennifer Monson, economic development manager;
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h) Page 2
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3
Discussion
Background: Broadway Street Development, a local affordable housing developer based out of St.
Paul, Minnesota, has a purchase agreement for the former Bremer Bank office building at 8800
State Highway 7. The redeveloper plans to demolish the existing building and parking lot and
construct a seven-story, 208-unit all-affordable apartment building.
The project is in the early planning stages. The redeveloper is finalizing the site plan and unit mix,
which will require future consideration by the city council related to planning and land use
approvals.
Broadway Street Development (formerly LS Black) was established in 2020 with a mission to
develop high-quality real estate projects focusing on affordable housing development. In 2025,
Broadway Street Development won Best Affordable Project – Minneapolis, and Best Mixed-Use
Project at the Minnesota Real Estate Journal Awards. More information on Broadway Street
Development is included as an attachment to this staff report.
Present considerations:
Application to MMB for tax-exempt conduit bonds: The redeveloper requests that the city council
adopt a resolution supporting an application to MMB for approximately $45 million in multifamily
housing conduit revenue bonds. The bonds would fund construction of a 208-unit affordable
housing building at 8800 State Highway 7 (formerly, the Bremer Bank site).
City staff and the Economic Development Authority’s (EDA) bond counsel have reviewed and
confirmed that the application is complete and consistent with the city’s amended conduit bond
policy.
As noted in the Nov. 3, 2025 written report on conduit bonding, most projects require multiple
MMB application rounds before receiving a bond allocation. Supporting this application signals the
city’s willingness to allow the project to pursue a viable financing path, enabling development of
208 new affordable units adjacent to city parkland and Minnehaha Creek.
If MMB allocates bonds, city council will be asked to consider additional actions related to
bonding, land use, and zoning. The current actions do not obligate city council to approve the
proposed development, and the project will still undergo the standard development review
process.
Qualified Census Tract (QCT) Status: The redeveloper also requests a letter of support from the
City of St. Louis Park to preserve the QCT status for its project for up to two years.
The proposed project is located within the only QCT in St. Louis Park. QCTs represent areas with
higher concentrations of low- to moderate-income households. Being in a QCT increases the
amount of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and tax-exempt bonds available to a project,
which are critical to financial feasibility.
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h) Page 3
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3
In 2026, updated federal census data will remove this QCT from St. Louis Park. However, a project
may preserve its QCT status beyond that point if two conditions are met:
1. The project receives a letter of support from the local municipality affirming preservation
of QCT status; and
2. The project submits a completed bond application to Minnesota Housing or Minnesota
Management and Budget (MMB).
3.
If both conditions are satisfied, the project will retain eligibility for the higher LIHTC and bond
allocations through 2026 and 2027, even after the official QCT designation is removed.
The two maps attached to this report illustrate QCT boundaries in St. Louis Park for 2025 and
2026. In 2025, Census Tract 223.02—where the project is located—is designated as a QCT. Census
Tract 232.02, directly to the south in Hopkins, is also designated as QCTs. No QCTs are designated
for St. Louis Park in 2026.
It is important to note that QCT status preservation applies only to specific projects that have
submitted a bond application to MMB or a LIHTC application to Minnesota Housing. Therefore, the
city cannot preserve QCT status for any other project sites within Census Tracts 223.02.
Next Steps: Pending approval by the city council, the two requested actions would allow the
project to advance to the next step in the development process. These actions demonstrate the
city’s continued commitment to affordable housing without committing or obligating the city to
future project approvals.
The next steps in the process would include:
• Issuance of the QCT preservation letter to the developer, as authorized by the city council.
• Staff would assist the developer in applying for a bond allocation from MMB for the
January 2026 lottery round, and, if needed, subsequent rounds.
• If MMB awards bonds in 2026 or a future year, they could be issued by the City of St. Louis
Park following additional city council approvals related to land use and zoning.
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h) Page 4
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h) Page 5
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h) Page 6
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3
Resolution No. 25 -___
Granting preliminary approval to the issuance of conduit revenue bonds
for the benefit of LSBD St. Louis Park Boone, LLC , to finance the costs of
a multifamily rental housing facility under Minnesota Statutes, chapter
462C, as amended; calling for a public hearing; establishing compliance
with certain reimbursement regulations under the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended; and taking other actions in connection
therewith
Be it resolved by the city council (the “city council”) of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
(the “city”) as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The city is a home rule charter city and political subdivision duly organized and
existing under its charter and the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota (the “state”).
1.02. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 462C, as amended (the “housing act”), the
city is authorized to carry out the public purposes described in the housing act by issuing conduit
revenue bonds or other obligations to finance or refinance multifamily rental housing
developments located within the city.
1.03 LSBD St. Louis Park Boone, LLC (or another entity to be formed by or affiliated with
Broadway Street Development, LLC, the “borrower”), has proposed that the city issue its taxable
or tax-exempt revenue bonds, pursuant to the housing act, in an aggregate principal amount not
to exceed $45,000,000, in one or more series at one time or from time to time (the “bonds”).
1.04. The proceeds of the bonds are proposed to be loaned by the city to the borrower to
be applied by the borrower to (i) finance the acquisition, construction, and equipping of an
approximately 208-unit multifamily rental housing development and facilities functionally related
and subordinate thereto to be located at or about 8800 Highway 7 in the city (the “project”); (ii)
fund one or more reserve funds to secure the timely payment of the bonds, if necessary; (iii) pay
interest on the bonds during the construction of the project, if necessary; and (iv) pay certain costs
of issuing the bonds.
1.05. As a condition to the issuance of the bonds, the city must prepare and adopt a
housing program providing the information required by section 462C.03, subdivision 1a of the
housing act (the “housing program”) and under section 462C.04, subdivision 2, of the housing act,
a public hearing must be held on the housing program after one publication of notice in a
newspaper circulating generally in the city, at least 10 days before the hearing.
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h) Page 7
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3
1.06. Under section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
“code”), prior to the issuance of the bonds a public hearing duly noticed must be held by the city
council.
1.07. Under section 146 of the code, the bonds must receive an allocation of the bonding
authority of the state. An application for such an allocation must be made pursuant to the
requirements of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 474A, as amended (the “allocation act”), and
preliminary approval of the issuance of the bonds by the city council is sufficient to authorize the
submission of an application to the office of Minnesota Management and Budget for an allocation
of bonding authority with respect to the bonds to finance the project.
1.08. The borrower has represented that the project will constitute a “100 percent LIHTC
project” within the meaning of section 474a.02, subdivision 32, of the allocation act.
Section 2. Preliminary findings. Based on representations made by the borrower to the
city to date, the city council hereby makes the following preliminary findings, determinations, and
declarations:
(a) The project consists of the acquisition, construction, and equipping of a multifamily
rental housing development designed and intended to be used for rental occupancy. The project
furthers the purposes set forth in the housing act and the project constitutes a “multifamily
housing development” within the meaning of section 462C.02, subdivision 5 of the housing act.
(b) The proceeds of the bonds will be loaned to the borrower and the proceeds of the
loan will be applied to: (i) the acquisition, construction, and equipping of the project; (ii) the
funding of one or more reserve funds to secure the timely payment of the bonds, if necessary;
(iii) the payment of interest on the bonds during the construction of the project, if necessary; and
(iv) the payment of the costs of issuing the bonds. The city will enter into one or more loan
agreements (or other revenue agreement) with the borrower requiring loan repayments from the
borrower in amounts sufficient to repay the loan when due and requiring the borrower to pay all
costs of maintaining and insuring the project, including taxes thereon.
(c) In preliminarily authorizing the issuance of the bonds and the financing of the
acquisition, construction, and equipping of the project and related costs, the city’s purpose is to
further the policies of the housing act.
(d) The bonds will be special, limited obligations of the city payable solely from the
revenues pledged to the payment thereof under the loan agreements (or other revenue
agreement) referred to above, and will not be a general or moral obligation of the city and will not
be secured by or payable from revenues derived from any exercise of the taxing powers of the
city.
Section 3. Public hearing. The city council will conduct a public hearing on the housing
program, the project, and the issuance of the bonds by the city at a regular or special meeting on a
date to be determined by the city staff in order to meet publication requirements in accordance
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h) Page 8
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3
with applicable law. Notice of such hearing (the “public notice”) will be published as required by
section 462C.04, subdivision 2 of the housing act and section 147(f) of the code. The city clerk is
hereby authorized and directed to publish the public notice, in substantially the form attached
hereto as Exhibit A, in the Sun Sailor, the official newspaper and a newspaper of general circulation
in the city, in accordance with applicable law. The public notice will provide a general, functional
description of the project, as well as the maximum aggregate face amount of the bonds to be
issued for the purposes referenced above, the identity of the initial owner, operator, or manager
of the project, and the location of the project. The public notice is authorized to be published on a
date at least 10 days before the meeting of the city council at which the public hearing will take
place. At the public hearing reasonable opportunity will be provided for interested individuals to
express their views, both orally and in writing, on the project, the housing program and the
proposed issuance of the bonds.
Section 4. Housing program. Kutak Rock LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, acting as bond
counsel to the city (“bond counsel”), shall prepare a draft housing program to authorize the
issuance by the city of up to approximately $45,000,000 in revenue bonds in one or more series, at
one time or from time to time, to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of the
project by the borrower. City staff is hereby authorized to review and approve the housing
program.
Section 5. Submission of an application for an allocation of bonding authority. The city
council hereby authorizes the submission of an application for allocation of bonding authority
pursuant to section 146 of the code and the allocation act in accordance with the requirements of
the allocation act. The mayor, city manager, finance director and city staff and bond counsel are
hereby authorized and directed to take all actions, in cooperation with the borrower, as are
necessary to submit an application for an allocation of bonding authority to Minnesota
Management and Budget.
Section 6. Preliminary approval. The city council hereby provides preliminary approval
to the issuance of the bonds in the approximate aggregate principal amount of up to $45,000,000
to finance all or a portion of the costs of the project pursuant to the housing program of the city,
subject to: (i) a public hearing as required by the housing act and section 147(f) of the code;
(ii) receipt of an allocation of the bonding authority from the state; (iii) final approval by the city
council following the preparation of bond documents; and (iv) final determination by the city
council that the financing of the project and the issuance of bonds are in the best interests of the
city.
Section 7. Reimbursement of costs under the code.
7.01. The United States Department of the Treasury has promulgated regulations
governing the use of the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds, all or a portion of which are to be used to
reimburse the city or the borrower for project expenditures paid prior to the date of issuance of
such bonds. Those regulations (Treasury Regulations, section 1.150-2) (the “regulations”) require
that the city adopt a statement of official intent to reimburse an original expenditure not later
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h) Page 9
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3
than 60 days after payment of the original expenditure. The regulations also generally require that
the bonds be issued and the reimbursement allocation made from the proceeds of the bonds
occur within 18 months after the later of: (i) the date the expenditure is paid; or (ii) the date the
project is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more than 3 years after the date the
expenditure is paid. The regulations generally permit reimbursement of capital expenditures and
costs of issuance of the bonds.
7.02. To the extent any portion of the proceeds of the bonds will be applied to
expenditures with respect to the project, the city reasonably expects to reimburse the borrower
for the expenditures made for costs of the project from the proceeds of the bonds after the date
of payment of all or a portion of such expenditures. All reimbursed expenditures shall be capital
expenditures, costs of issuance of the bonds, or other expenditures eligible for reimbursement
under section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the regulations and also qualifying expenditures under the housing
act.
7.03. Based on representations by the borrower, other than (i) expenditures to be paid or
reimbursed from sources other than the bonds, (ii) expenditures permitted to be reimbursed
under prior regulations pursuant to the transitional provision contained in section 1.150-
2(j)(2)(i)(B) of the regulations, (iii) expenditures constituting preliminary expenditures within the
meaning of section 1.150-2(f)(2) of the regulations, or (iv) expenditures in a “de minimus” amount
(as defined in section 1.150-2(f)(1) of the regulations), no expenditures with respect to the project
to be reimbursed with the proceeds of the bonds have been made by the borrower more than 60
days before the date of adoption of this resolution of the city.
7.04. Based on representations by the borrower, as of the date hereof, there are no
funds of the borrower reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside (or
reasonably expected to be reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside), to
provide permanent financing for the expenditures related to the project to be financed from
proceeds of the bonds, other than pursuant to the issuance of the bonds. This resolution,
therefore, is determined to be consistent with the budgetary and financial circumstances of the
borrower as they exist or are reasonably foreseeable on the date hereof.
Section 8. Costs. The borrower will pay the administrative fees of the city and pay, or,
upon demand, reimburse the city for payment of, any and all costs incurred by the city in
connection with the project and the issuance of the bonds, whether or not the bonds are issued.
Section 9. Commitment conditional. The adoption of this resolution does not
constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the city will issue the bonds as requested by the
borrower and approval of the bonds is contingent, among other things on the conditions described
in section 6 hereof. If, as a result of information made available to or obtained by the city during
its review of the project, it appears that the project or the issuance of bonds to finance or
refinance the costs thereof is not in the public interest or is inconsistent with the purposes of the
housing act, the city reserves the right to decline to give final approval to the issuance of the
bonds. The city also retains the right, in its sole discretion, to withdraw from participation and
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h) Page 10
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3
accordingly not issue the bonds should the city council, at any time prior to the issuance thereof,
determine that it is in the best interests of the city not to issue the bonds or should the parties to
the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the
documents for the transaction.
Section 10. Effective date. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after
its passage.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council November 17, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h) Page 11
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3
Exhibit A
Notice of public hearing
Notice of public hearing on a housing program for a multifamily rental housing project and the
issuance of conduit revenue bonds for the benefit of LSBD St. Louis Park Boone, LLC
Notice is hereby given that the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the
“city”) will conduct a public hearing on Monday, ___________, 2026 at or after 6:15 p.m., at city
hall, located at 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard in the city, on (i) a proposal by LSBD St. Louis Park
Boone, LLC , or another affiliate, successor, or entity affiliated therewith (collectively, the
“borrower”), that the city finance the acquisition, construction, and equipping of an approximately
208-unit multifamily rental housing development and facilities functionally related and subordinate
thereto to be located at or about 8800 Highway 7 in the city (the “project”), by the issuance of
conduit revenue bonds or other obligations, in one or more series at one time or from time to
time (the “bonds”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 462C, as amended (the “housing
act”); and (ii) the adoption of a housing program for the bonds.
The borrower proposes to use the proceeds of the bonds to (i) finance all or a portion of
the costs of the project; (ii) fund one or more reserve funds to secure the timely payment of the
bonds, if necessary; (iii) pay interest on the bonds during the construction of the project, if
necessary; and (iv) pay certain costs of issuing the bonds. The project will be owned and operated
by the borrower.
The estimated maximum aggregate principal amount of the bonds to be issued to finance
the project is $45,000,000.
The bonds or other obligations if and when issued will not constitute a charge, lien or
encumbrance upon any property of the city, and will be payable solely from revenues of the
project, and will not be backed by the full faith and credit of the city but will be payable solely
from sums paid by the borrower pursuant to a revenue agreement.
On the date of or on a date following the public hearing, the city council will consider a
resolution approving a housing program prepared in accordance with the requirements of the
housing act and granting approval to the issuance of the bonds. A copy of the housing program will
be on file at city hall, Monday through Friday during the city’s normal business hours until the date
of the public hearing.
At the time and place fixed for the public hearing, the city council will give all persons who
appear or submit comments in writing to the city council prior to the hearing, an opportunity to
express their views with respect to the proposal. In addition, interested persons may file written
comments respecting the proposal with the city to the attention of the city manager, at or prior to
said public hearing.
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h) Page 12
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3
Dated: ____________, 2026
By order of the city council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota
/s/ Melissa Kennedy
City Clerk
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h) Page 13
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3
Resolution No. 25 - ___
Approving the form and execution of a QCT preservation letter for a
multifamily housing project to be undertaken by LSBD St. Louis Park
Boone, LLC
Be it resolved by the city council (the “city council”) of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
(the “city”) as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The city is a home rule charter city and political subdivision duly organized and
existing under its charter and the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota.
1.02. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 462C, as amended (the “housing act”), the
city is authorized to carry out the public purposes described in the housing act by providing for the
issuance of revenue bonds or other obligations to finance multifamily housing developments
located within the city.
1.03. LSBD St. Louis Park Boone, LLC (or another entity to be formed by or affiliated with
Broadway Street Development, LLC, the “borrower”), has proposed that the city, pursuant to the
housing act, issue its conduit revenue bonds or other obligations (the “bonds”), the proceeds of
which will be loaned by the city to the borrower, and the borrower will apply the proceeds of such
loan to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of a multifamily rental housing
development and facilities functionally related and subordinate thereto to be located at 8800
Highway 7 in the city (the “project”).
1.04. The borrower has represented to the city that the project is expected to qualify for
low-income housing credits (“LIHTC”) under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the “code”), based on the proposed issuance of the bonds by the city and the loan of
the proceeds thereof to the borrower, and the borrower’s use of such proceeds to acquire and
construct the project.
1.05. For purposes of calculating the LIHTC, in the case of buildings located in areas
designated as “Qualified Census Tract” (“QCTs”), eligible basis may be increased up to thirty
percent (30%) from what it would otherwise be.
1.06. The borrower has further represented to the city that the project is located in an
area that is designated as a QCT in 2025 for purposes of the LIHTC under section 42 of the code,
but will not be designated a QCT in 2026.
1.07. As provided in a notice of the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development published at 89 Federal Register 73113 (Sept. 9, 2024) (the “HUD notice”), the QCT
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h) Page 14
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3
designation may be preserved for 730 days (2 years) if the borrower submits a complete bond
application to the city, and a complete bond application means that no more than de minimis
clarification of the application is required for the city to make a decision about the issuance of
bonds requested in the application.
1.08. The borrower submitted, and the city received, a bond application (the “bond
application”), for the project and the issuance of the bonds by the city to finance the acquisition
and construction of the project, and the borrower has requested that the city execute and deliver
a letter, the form of which is on file with the city, for purposes of having the area in which the
project will be constructed, continue to be treated as a QCT from and after January 1, 2026 under
section 42 of the code in accordance with the HUD notice (the “QCT preservation letter”).
Section 2. Based on representations made by the borrower to the city to date, the city
council hereby makes the following preliminary findings, determinations, and declarations:
(a) The city has received and reviewed the bond application and has determined that
no more than de minimis clarifications to the bond application (if any) would be required for the
city to make a final decision to issue the bonds that are requested in the bond application, and, as
such, the bond application is complete for purposes of section 42 of the code.
(b) The city council hereby authorizes the execution and delivery of the QCT
preservation letter by the city manager of the city, or her designee, in substantially the form now
on file with the city which is hereby approved, with such necessary and appropriate variations,
omissions, and insertions as are approved by Kutak Rock LLP, bond counsel to the city (“bond
counsel”), as do not materially adversely change the substance thereof with respect to the city,
and as the city manager, in her discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the city
manager shall be conclusive evidence of such determination.
Section 3. The adoption of this resolution does not constitute a guaranty or firm
commitment that the city will issue the bonds as requested by the borrower in the bond
application. If, as a result of information made available to or obtained by the city during its review
of the project, it appears that the project or the issuance of the bonds to finance the costs thereof
is not in the public interest or is inconsistent with the purposes of the housing act, the city
reserves the right to decline to give preliminary and final approval to the issuance of the bonds.
The city retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation and accordingly not
to issue the bonds should the city at any time prior to issuance thereof determine that it is in the
best interests of the city not to issue the bonds or should the parties to the transaction be unable
to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for this bond
financing transaction.
Section 4. The borrower shall pay to the city any and all costs incurred by the city in
connection with the QCT preservation letter, the bonds or the financing of the project, whether or
not the financing of the project is carried to completion, and whether or not the bonds, if
approved by the city, or operative instruments are executed and delivered.
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h) Page 15
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3
Section 5. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council November 17, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
A GROWING DEVELOPMENT FIRM
Redefining
Affordable
Living
550 Broadway St. | St. Paul, MN 55101
BROADWAYSTREETDEVELOPMENT.COM
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h)
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3 Page 16
Since its inception in April of 2020, the Broadway
Street Development (BSD) team has been doing its part
to help solve the affordable housing crisis in the United
States. Willy Boulay and Mike Hudson both bring years
of experience in multifamily development from large
national development firms. They are primarily
responsible for project sourcing, entitlements, design
oversight, financing, construction management, and
asset management. Their partner, Sterling Black, brings
decades of experience in the construction industry, as
well as an entrepreneurial mindset that has helped him
build several successful businesses. This combination
of skills makes Broadway Street Development well
positioned to deliver attractive affordable housing
projects to the market, both efficiently and thoughtfully.
Broadway Street Development takes a long-term approach
to development and anticipates holding its assets for
more than 15 years. Because of this long-term investment
strategy, the Broadway Street Development team pays
close attention to design and uses durable, high quality,
and low maintenance products and methods to ensure
their projects last the test of time. This strategy also leads
to an emphasis on collaboration with cities and state
agencies to ensure that the projects thrive and are
additive to the communities in which they are located. All
of these factors lead to projects that give residents a
superior experience, which is the ultimate goal of the
team.
COM PA NYOVERVIEW
1BROADWAYSTREETDEVELOPMENT.COM
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h)
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3 Page 17
VISION
Our vision at BSD is to become a
well-respected real estate developer that
provides resident-focused, high-quality
housing and is a dependable partner to
everyone with which we work.
MISSION
The mission of BSD is to develop high-quality
real estate projects focusing on affordable
multifamily acquisitions, rehabilitations, and
new construction projects. We're on our way to
becoming a well-known player in specifically
targeted markets throughout the country with
approximately 1,000 units owned and under
development, with an eye for future growth.
GET TOKNOW US
2BROADWAYSTREETDEVELOPMENT.COM
CORE VALUES
Direct.
We hit problems head on and
proactively communicate.
Hungry.
We have a passion for success and work
tirelessly to accomplish our goals.
Grounded.
We seek out the best and brightest
development partners, and we respect
their talent and expertise.
Spirited.
We take our work seriously, but refuse to
take ourselves too seriously, and we
always celebrate the little things.
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h)
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3 Page 18
REFERENCES
FINANCING
Cody Langeness
Ready Capital
3600 American Blvd W, Suite 410
Minneapolis, MN 55431
cody.langeness@readycapital.com
608-215-6333
Craig Theis
Colliers Securities
90 S 7th St, Ste 4300
Minneapolis, MN 55402
craig.theis@colliers.com
612-376-4135
Darrick Metz
WNC
2340 Lexington Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55113
dmetz@wnc.com
651-634-0557
LEGAL
John Stern
Winthrop & Weinstine
225 S 6th St, Ste 3500
Minneapolis, MN 55402
jstern@winthrop.com
612-604-6588
Josh Meyer
Kutak Rock
1650 Farnam St
Omaha, NE 68102
joshua.meyer@kutakrock.com
402-346-6000
MANAGEMENT
Jamie Luehrs
Roers Companies
110 Cheshire Lane, Ste 120
Minnetonka, MN 55305
jamie@corelivingcos.com
763-285-8799
ARCHITECTURE
Christine Pecard
ESG Architecture & Design
500 Washington Ave S, Ste 1080
Minneapolis, MN 55415
christine.pecard@esgarch.com
612-373-4677
Evan Jacobsen
Tushie Montgomery Architects
7645 Lyndale Ave S, #100
Minneapolis, MN 55423
evanj@tmiarchitects.com
612-389-9489
TITLE
Mark Anderson
First American Title
800 Boylston St, Ste 2820
Boston, MA 02199
mwanderson@firstam.com
617-772-9228
3BROADWAYSTREETDEVELOPMENT.COM
ŝƚLJAĐŽƵŶĐŝůAŵĞĞƚŝŶŐAŽĨAEŽǀĞŵďĞƌAϭϳ͕AϮϬϮϱA;/ƚĞŵAEŽ͘AϱŚͿAdŝƚůĞ͗AZĞƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶƐAƌĞůĂƚĞĚAƚŽAŵƵůƚŝĨĂŵŝůLJAŚŽƵƐŝŶŐAďŽŶĚƐAĨŽƌAƉƌŽũĞĐƚAƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚAĂƚAϴϴϬϬA^ƚĂƚĞA,ŝŐŚǁĂLJAϳAďLJAƌŽĂĚǁĂLJA
^ƚƌĞĞƚAĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚAʹAtĂƌĚAϯ WĂŐĞAϭϵ
Located in the heart of the Bottineau neighborhood
of Northeast Minneapolis, Canvas Apartments
turned a long-vacant contaminated site into a
vibrant, productive place for neighbors to live and
work that's inspired by its history as a grain elevator.
Name: Canvas Apartments
Location: 2301 California Street NE
Minneapolis, MN 55418
Type:: Section 42 New Construction
Architect: ESG Architecture & Design
Gross SF: 280,000
Units: 160 (1, 2, and 3 bedroom
apartment homes)
Mixed Use: 23,000 sf of ground floor
production space
Affordability: 100% Affordable between
30-80% AMI
TDC: $71,250,000
Closed: November 2022
Status: Opened Spring 2024
4BROADWAYSTREETDEVELOPMENT.COM
PROJECTS: COMPLETED
VISIT CANVASMPLS.COM ›
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h)
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3 Page 20
The Balsam on Broadway, located at 540 Broadway
Street, is a project that brings 128 affordable
apartment units and approximately 5,200 SF of
office space (our future company headquarters) to
the Dayton’s Bluff neighborhood of St. Paul,
adjacent to Downtown and Lowertown with
amazing views of the skyline. It closed in May 2023
and opened in December 2024.
Name: The Balsam on Broadway
Location: 540 Broadway Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Type:: Section 42 New Construction
Architect: Tushie Montgomery
Gross SF: 227,000
Units: 128 (1, 2, and 3 bedroom
apartment homes)
Mixed Use: 5,200 sf office space
(levels 1 & 2)
Affordability: 100% Affordable between
30-80% AMI
TDC: $70,500,000
Closed: May 2023
Status: Opened December 2024
PROJECTS: COMPLETED
VISIT BALSAMONBROADWAY.COM ›
5BROADWAYSTREETDEVELOPMENT.COM
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h)
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3 Page 21
6BROADWAYSTREETDEVELOPMENT.COM
The Preserve at Mustang Creek, located at 1401
County Road 118, will bring 252 affordable
apartment homes to the east side of Round
Rock,TX, a northern suburb of Austin. The site is
located within a rapidly growing area of the city
and has excellent access and visibility off TX-130. It
closed in August 2023 and is currently under
construction, with a phased opening beginning in
late 2024 and finishing in late summer/fall 2025.
Name: The Preserve at Mustang Creek
Location: 1401 County Road 118
Round Rock, TX 78634
Type:: Section 42 New Construction
Architect: Merriman Anderson Architects
Gross SF: 300,000
Units: 252 (1, 2, 3, and 4 bedroom
apartment homes)
Affordability: 100% Affordable between
30% and 60% AMI
TDC: $88,500,000
Closed: August 2023
Status: Phased opening beginning in
spring 2025, finishing in late 2025
PROJECTS: UNDER CONSTRUCTION
VISIT PRESERVEMUSTANGCREEK.COM ›
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h)
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3 Page 22
Situated just off I-94 on Manning Ave in
Woodbury, MN, The Meadows at Prairie Ridge will
deliver 237 high-quality affordable homes nestled
between thousands of job opportunities and with
direct access to a city park, including new walking
trails connecting to the greater neighborhood.
With full amenities and a 1.6 acre courtyard, the
project will redefine suburban affordable living.
The project’s financing closed and construction
began in May 2025. Construction is expected to be
complete in Spring 2027.
Name: The Meadows at Prairie Ridge
Location: 580 Manning Ave S,
Woodbury, MN 55129
Type:: Section 42 New Construction
Architect: ESG Architecture & Design
Gross SF: 410,835
Units: 237 (1, 2 and 3
bedroom apartment homes)
Affordability: 100% Affordable between
50-70% AMI
TDC: $92,000,000
Closed: May 2025
Status: Construction complete in
Spring 2027
PROJECTS: UNDER CONSTRUCTION
5BROADWAYSTREETDEVELOPMENT.COM
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h)
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3 Page 23
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
PAST PROJECT EXPERIENCE
PROJECT NAME
Canvas Apartments
The Balsam on Broadway
The Preserve at Mustang Creek
The Meadows at Prairie Ridge
TOTALS
PROJECT NAME
Crossroad Commons
Timbers at Hickory Tree
Woodway Village
Signature at Southern Oaks
Signature at Trinity River
Stoneridge Apartments
Highland Hills Apartments
Preserve at Highland Ridge
Landings of Lexington
Bren Road Station
Preserve at Shady Oak
Traditions Bloomington
Beckley Townhomes
Legends of Woodbury
RiverEast Apartments
Epic Apartments
Lakecrest Village
Della Vita Apartments
Legends of Apple Valley
Bluffs at Cherry Hills
Pine Tree Apartments
Cortland Estates
Sawyer Estates
Vista Linda Apartments
ADDRESS
2301 California Street NE, Minneapolis, MN
540 Broadway Street St. Paul, MN
1401 County Road 118 Round Rock, TX
580 Manning Ave S, Woodbury, MN
ADDRESS
8407 E Parmer Lane Austin, TX
3401 Hickory Tree Road Balch Springs, TX
4600 Nuckols Crossing Rd Austin, TX
3303 Southern Oaks Blvd Dallas, TX
220 Stoneport Drive Dallas, TX
16701 N Heatherwilde Dallas, TX
3131 Simpson Stuart Rd Dallas, TX
3474 Dickerson Pike Nashville, TN
9400 Lexington Avenue Lexington, MN
11001 Bren Road East Minnetonka, MN
10987 Bren Road East Minnetonka, MN
901 Valley View Circle Bloomington, IL
801 Beckleymeade Ave Dallas, TX
570 Settlers Ridge Pkwy Woodbury, MN
3201 Renner Drive Council Bluffs, IA
1420 New Bellevue Ave, Daytona Beach, FL
9393 Tidwell Road Houston, TX
4200 Mahogany Run Winter Haven, FL
14050 Granite Avenue Apple Valley, MN
6510 N 107th Plaza Omaha, NE
10351 Hamilton Plaza Omaha, NE
230 McMillan Court Cortland, IL
4201 Sawyer Circle St. Cloud, FL
6332 Entrada de Milagro Santa Fe, NM
YEAR
2022
2023
2023
2025
4
YEAR
2020
2019
2019
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2017
2017
2017
2017
2017
2017
2016
2016
2016
2015
2015
2015
PROJECT TYPE
S42 New Construction
S42 New Construction
S42 New Construction
S42 New Construction
PROJECT TYPE
S42 New Construction
S42 New Construction
S42 Acquisition/Rehab
S42 Acquisition
S42 Acquisition
S42 Acquisition
S42 Acquisition
S42 New Construction
S42 New Construction
S42 New Construction
S42 New Construction
S42 Acquisition
S42 Acquisition/Rehab
S42 New Construction
S42 Acquisition/Rehab
Acquisition/Rehab
S42 Acquisition/Rehab
Acquisition/Rehab
S42 New Construction
S42 New Construction
S42 Acquisition/Rehab
S42 New Construction
S42 Acquisition/Rehab
S42 New Construction
TDC
$71,250,000
$70,500,000
$88,500,000
$92,000,000
$322,250,000
TDC
$64,000,000
$52,400,000
$35,000,000
$23,000,000
$22,000,000
$18,000,000
$17,000,000
$64,000,000
$45,000,000
$78,000,000
$68,000,000
$27,900,000
$11,000,000
$57,250,000
$13,000,000
$14,400,000
$30,000,000
$28,300,000
$38,000,000
$24,000,000
$23,000,000
$5,500,000
$28,700,000
$8,650,000
UNITS
160
128
252
237
777
UNITS
216
216
160
256
236
256
250
261
180
262
220
416
100
216
120
128
224
2798
163
196
198
96
192
109
7BROADWAYSTREETDEVELOPMENT.COM
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h)
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3 Page 24
8BROADWAYSTREETDEVELOPMENT.COM
As the owner of Broadway Street Development, Sterling has been a leading
member of the firm for more than 25 years, working in a variety of roles
from president to estimator. As project executive, Sterling will work directly
with the team during the preconstruction phase to establish and monitor
the success of the project. He will support the team and ensure the right
resources are available on the project to guarantee process, quality, and
effective solutions are being properly executed. Sterling enjoys working on
unique projects, where his outside the box thinking can be leveraged to
bring new, innovative solutions to overcome complex challenges.
EXPERIENCE
30+ years of Industry Experience
Innovative thinker, thoughtful, collaborative
Team player, overseeing
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
MNSCU St. Paul College Link Structure and Trades Area Remodel; St. Paul, MN
MNSCU St. Paul College Minnesota Transportation/Applied Technology Renovation;
St. Paul, MN
United States Army Corps. of Engineers - Armed Forces Reserve Center;
St. Joseph, MN
Richfield High School Addition & Renovation; Richfield, MN
Richfield Dual Language Renovation; Richfield, MN
Minnesota Air National Guard 133rd Air Wing Starbase; St. Paul, MN
Otsego Elementary School; Otsego, MN
Minnesota Air National Guard Camp Lakamaga; Marine on St Croix, MN
MNSCU Inver Hills Community College; Inver Grove Heights, MN
Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board Webber Pool Bathhouse; Minneapolis, MN
Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board Webber Natural Filtration Swimming Pool;
Minneapolis, MN
Science Museum of Minnesota Science House; St. Paul, MN
State of Minnesota Jackson Street Roundhouse Historical Renovation; St. Paul, MN
STERLINGBLACK
EDUCATION
University of Notre Dame
BS Civil Engineering
LEED® AP
AFFILIATIONS
Saint Paul Builders Exchange
Board
Member Association of
General Contractors
Saint Paul Building Owners
and Managers Association
White Bear Lake Rotary
PRESIDENT
ŝƚLJAĐŽƵŶĐŝůAŵĞĞƚŝŶŐAŽĨAEŽǀĞŵďĞƌAϭϳ͕AϮϬϮϱA;/ƚĞŵAEŽ͘AϱŚͿAdŝƚůĞ͗AZĞƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶƐAƌĞůĂƚĞĚAƚŽAŵƵůƚŝĨĂŵŝůLJAŚŽƵƐŝŶŐAďŽŶĚƐAĨŽƌAƉƌŽũĞĐƚAƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚAĂƚAϴϴϬϬA^ƚĂƚĞA,ŝŐŚǁĂLJAϳAďLJAƌŽĂĚǁĂLJA
^ƚƌĞĞƚAĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚAʹAtĂƌĚAϯ WĂŐĞAϮϱ
As developer and vice president, Willy brings extensive development
experience to Broadway Street Development. Willy has successfully
closed a total of 15 projects representing approximately 3,000 apartment
units and $500 million in total development cost, representing
acquisitions, rehabilitations, and new construction projects in Minnesota,
Texas, Tennessee, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, and New Mexico. Willy works to
see the full picture of each and every decision made on a project to try to
find the best solution for all stakeholders; he likes to attack problems
head-on and make the long, complicated process of real estate
development fun for all involved.
AFFILIATIONS
Urban Land Institute
Co-Chair, Young Leaders Group MN,2018-2020)
National Housing & Rehabilitation Association
EDUCATION
Northwestern University
Bachelor of Arts; Environmental Science & Political Science
University of Minnesota – Twin Cities
Humphrey School of Public Affairs
Master of Public Policy; Economic Development and Sustainability
WILLYBOULAY
VICE PRESIDENT
9BROADWAYSTREETDEVELOPMENT.COM
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h)
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3 Page 26
10BROADWAYSTREETDEVELOPMENT.COM 10BROADWAYSTREETDEVELOPMENT.COM
MIKEHUDSON
VICE PRESIDENT
Mike brings diverse real estate experience to Broadway Street
Development, having closed approximately 2,000 apartment units
in his career so far, including projects in Minnesota, Texas, Florida,
Nevada, and Illinois. With experience both in the affordable and
luxury multifamily housing and mixed-use environments, Mike has
a keen sense of the market and the customer being served. He brings
thoughtfulness to each aspect of any given project, from design,
financing, negotiation, and more — making sure, as owners, the right
decisions are being made for our residents, communities, financing
partners, and for the projects' long term success.
AFFILIATIONS
Urban Land Institute
National Housing & Rehabilitation Association
Real Estate Alumni Network; Marquette University
EDUCATION
Marquette University
Bachelor of Science; Finance & Real Estate
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h)
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3 Page 27
PHONE: 651-583-5518
BROADWAYSTREETDEVELOPMENT.COM
City council meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 5h)
Title: Resolutions related to multifamily housing bonds for project proposed at 8800 State Highway 7 by Broadway
Street Development – Ward 3 Page 28
Meeting: Special study session
Meeting date: November 17, 2025
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds
Recommended action: City council and city manager review the proposed agenda topic and
determine next steps.
Policy consideration: Does the city council want to move forward with additional consideration
related to neighborhood grant funds?
Summary: Council Members Rog, Baudhuin and Budd submitted a proposed agenda topic
proposal related to neighborhood grant funds. City staff reviewed the proposal in consultation
with the city attorney and provided a high-level analysis of the request. The next step is for the
council to decide, as a group, if they want to schedule a future study session discussion on the
proposed topic during the community and civic engagement system.
Financial or budget considerations: The staff analysis includes information on program
spending. Funds are allocated in the 2026 budget to support the adopted grant program.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Topic proposal and staff analysis
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City Council
Study Session Topic Proposal
Request Form
Date:
Prepared by:
Proposed agenda topic:
Brief description of topic (no more than 200 words):
How does this topic align with the council's strategic priorities?
If it does not, why should the council consider the topic?:
If approved, would an advisory board/commission review this proposal? If so, select up to two of the options below:
☐ESC ☐PRAC ☐PAC ☐HRC ☐CTAC ☐NONE
** Please email completed forms to Kim Keller and Melissa Kennedy.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 2
City Council
Study Session Topic Proposal
Staff Analysis
Date: 11/4/2025
Prepared by:
Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Amelia Cruver, finance director
Pat Coleman, community engagement coordinator
Soren Mattick, attorney
Proposed agenda topic: Neighborhood program spending
Staff analysis of request: (Please provide a high-level review of the proposed topic.
Focus on key points, facts, impact, legal and/or future considerations .)
Council members are proposing a study session to discuss a possible path forward that
provides neighborhood groups with more flexibility in how they spend city grant funds.
In February 2025, the council adopted a program that excludes spending on social
events and entertainment as well as meals that are not essential to completing city
business. This program was created and recommended by staff to meet the goal of the
neighborhood program while being compliant with public purpose regulations on public
funds.
Program eligibility and public purpose compliance: Program staff, in close consultation
with finance and our attorney, have established clear criteria to ensure the spending of
taxpayer dollars adheres public purpose, as well as legal findings from the attorney
general and state auditor. All spending in the neighborhood grant program is now
guided by a formal public purpose analysis, which requires that:
1. The expenditure must be for a public purpose; and
2. There must be a legal authority for the expenditure.
Staff, with review from the city’s attorney, found the following activities eligible through
public purpose analysis. Food can be purchased for these events:
• A neighborhood’s annual meeting
• National Night Out (NNO) events
• Community cleanups and beautification
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 3
• History/equity events
• Health and wellness events/activities
• An annual neighborhood-wide event – with connection to the city/government
• Communication and outreach materials
Neighborhoods have the most flexibility in using these program funds specifically for
NNO events. This is due to a carve-out for law enforcement engagement defined in the
state statute. The entertainment items mentioned in the study session request are
eligible for reimbursement through the program when associated with NNO events.
Based on this analysis, staff have determined the following examples of food purchases
and entertainment to be ineligible expenses:
- Food and social: happy hours, food for progressive dinners at private homes,
coffee and donuts for winter planter making, juice boxes and snacks for bike
parades.
- Entertainment: winter planter making, sleigh rides, sledding events, pumpkin
carving and materials for obstacle courses.
Background and compliance history: The fiscal year 2023 audit, presented in the
summer of 2024, included a finding under Minnesota legal compliance for spending city
funds on a holiday social event, and meals for staff and their guests at a recognition
event and for contributing funds to a nonprofit organization without council
authorization. On the recommendation of our external auditors, staff began extensive
training and review of practices to ensure legal compliance.
Staff communicated the necessary spending adjustments and underlying analysis to the
council. In February 2025, the council official approved a neighborhood program, along
with a funding allocation and formula. Details regarding public purpose and spending
eligibility were discussed during this session.
Here are the following reports, presentations and additional public purpose analysis that
have been provided to the council:
- 2/18/25 neighborhood funding program study session report
- (attached) Brooklyn Park example
Attorney perspective: I have never viewed the discussion regarding neighborhood
spending as a binary question of whether the City can or cannot spend on items such as
food or entertainment. The key issue is whether the City—through the Council or staff—
can justify such expenditures as serving a valid public purpose, as required by law.
Conventional guidance suggests that food-related expenses are particularly nuanced.
The available analysis pertains to expenditures for the City Council, employees, and their
spouses and, if the analysis is extrapolated from, allowable expenditures are limited. I
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 4
am, however, not aware of any explicit guidance on providing food at neighborhood
events, outside of specific situations (such as NNO).
I should also state that, prior to the recent work on this issue, I was not aware that the
city was funding neighborhood associations and the previous guidance for the program
was not run through my office during my tenure.
With the above said, here is my perspective:
1) City spending must either have direct statutory authority or satisfy the public
purpose expenditure test. One area of concern has been the City’s practice of
allocating funds to neighborhood groups. I am not aware of any specific
statutory authority that governs these groups, and as such, creating and funding
them raises questions. While I understand that neighborhood engagement is
part of the “SLP way” and a key factor in our community’s success, it remains a
practice that should be viewed with caution from a legal standpoint.
2) Staff is currently acting in accordance with the direction provided by the City
Council. Existing policies cannot be modified unless a majority of the Council
provides new direction. Additionally, the Council may wish to discuss how
detailed or prescriptive it intends to be regarding spending decisions at the
neighborhood level.
3) If the Council wishes to broaden what neighborhood groups can spend funds
on—such as food, inflatable attractions, or live entertainment (examples that
have been raised)—it must first conduct an analysis establishing how those
expenditures serve a valid public purpose. It would not be sufficient simply to
direct staff to allow these expenses without that analysis.
4) This analysis cannot start with the end in mind. The adopted program guidelines
are based on the analysis staff completed, which I reviewed prior to them
bringing it to council. Conventional wisdom and analysis would suggest that the
current policy threads the needle nicely on what is included and what is
excluded. Any expansion of eligible expenditures should follow a careful,
objective analysis of public purpose—not one driven by desired outcomes.
Additional neighborhood spending data: In a recent Before the Weekend the council
was provided some neighborhood program data that was requested by a council
member. Staff would like to share some additional analysis with that data.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 5
Staff is providing this data to the council to show the spending for the program as a
whole. The awarded amounts have been vetted by staff and determined to be eligible
based on their proposals. The average amount of funds awarded each year is
significantly higher than the average amount of funds spent each year. This shows that
on average neighborhoods are spending 44% of the funds they are awarded. Even with
program changes, this trend has remained consistent throughout this seven-year period.
Additionally, the average number of neighborhoods that participate in the program on
an annual basis across this seven-year period is 16.5 out of 35. Participation was higher
in 2019 and 2021, with 23 neighborhoods in 2019 and 22 neighborhoods in 2021.
Each neighborhood operates differently and that flexibility is a great value to this
program. Each neighborhood gets to choose how they engage, what activities and what
events they carry out. Staff are looking at the program as a whole to ensure that
resources are being spent fairly and equitably across the city. This approach will impact
neighborhoods across the city differently but ensures that there are resources for each
neighborhood if they choose to access them. There is opportunity within the program
for neighborhood groups to continue to access and spend funds on eligible activities.
Attached is the underlying data, titled “Neighborhood Grant Funds Update – 10.22.25”.
Resources required: (Include relevant information such as cost, staffing, capacity)
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 6
In addition to this analysis, staff have already put time and capacity into creating public
purpose expenditure materials for council and could provide them as part of the council
discussion. An overview of this has been included as an attachment (“City Council Study
Session Topic Proposal Part II – Public Purpose”).
Should the council choose to discuss changes to the adopted grant program, the
resources required would be staff time to participate in possible future discussions.
Other dependencies: (Include relevant information that could impact this proposal,
such as: other agencies/jurisdictions, a pending policy discussion or action by council on
related item, additional research that may be required to answer pending questions )
None identified.
Projected timeline: (Given current business levels and capacity, what is the projected
timeline for staff to be able to work on and implement? If this was to be done now,
what would the impact be on other projects and/or standard line of business?)
If council wishes to take up this topic, staff recommend including it as part of the
community and civic engagement system in early 2026. Timing of this item being
discussed by council is also dependent on when the city attorney can be present.
Recommended disposition: (select one)
Study session discussion
Council action at regular meeting
Written report
Include with another item already planned/scheduled
Meeting with requesting councilmember(s)
Handle offline
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 7
Requested 2025 Awarded 2025 Spent 2025 Requested 2024 Awarded 2024 Spent 2024 Requested 2023 Awarded 2023 Spent 2023
Amhurst
Aquila
Birchwood 1,418.05$ 1,400.00$ 511.40$ 3,000.00$ 2,998.00$ 1,249.94$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 2,239.11$
Blackstone 750.00$ 750.00$ 375.75$ 1,620.00$ 1,620.00$ 412.00$
Bronx Park 670.00$ 1,400.00$
Brooklawns 1,500.00$ 1,400.00$ 1,234.15$ 1,650.00$ 1,500.00$ 1,242.77$ 1,500.00$ 1,400.00$ 1,122.43$
Brookside 1,060.00$ 1,400.00$ 822.94$ 2,700.00$ 2,000.00$ 732.05$ 1,975.00$ 1,975.00$ 345.00$
Browndale 1,150.00$ 1,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 1,591.00$
Cedar Manor 3,000.00$ 2,525.00$ 300.00$
Cedarhurst
Cobblecrest
Creekside 850.00$ 1,000.00$ 630.00$ 2,805.00$ 2,280.00$ 815.54$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 171.28$
Crestview
Eliot
Eliot View
Elmwood 150.00$ 1,400.00$ 150.00$ 3,000.00$ 2,800.00$ 14.00$ 737.00$
Fern Hill 300.00$ 1,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 676.88$ 1,487.62$ 1,487.62$ 978.00$
Kilmer Pond
Lake Forest 1,950.00$ 1,450.00$ 618.56$ 3,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 1,254.48$
Lenox 200.00$ 200.00$ -$
Meadowbrook
Minikahda Oaks 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 210.54$ 3,000.00$ 2,900.00$ 1,855.27$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,079.00$
Minikahda Vista 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 2,900.00$ 2,400.00$ 1,502.42$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ $ 2,604.05
Minnehaha 2,165.00$ 1,500.00$ 1,398.28$ 2,800.00$ 2,800.00$ 743.00$
Pennsylvania Park
Oak Hill 700.00$ 1,400.00$ 351.40$ 1,560.00$ 1,560.00$ 1,093.00$
Shelard Park
Sorenson 51.00$ 1,400.00$ 51.00$ 412.00$
South Oak Hil
Texa Tonka
Trianlge
Westdale
Westwood Hills 3,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 1,872.00$
Willow Park
Wolfe Park 2,694.26$ 2,695.00$ 587.00$
Grand Total 9,849.05$ 14,800.00$ 4,961.43$ 31,680.00$ 27,838.00$ 11,574.46$ 35,576.88$ 34,002.62$ 17,447.35$
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 8
Amhurst
Aquila
Birchwood
Blackstone
Bronx Park
Brooklawns
Brookside
Browndale
Cedar Manor
Cedarhurst
Cobblecrest
Creekside
Crestview
Eliot
Eliot View
Elmwood
Fern Hill
Kilmer Pond
Lake Forest
Lenox
Meadowbrook
Minikahda Oaks
Minikahda Vista
Minnehaha
Pennsylvania Park
Oak Hill
Shelard Park
Sorenson
South Oak Hil
Texa Tonka
Trianlge
Westdale
Westwood Hills
Willow Park
Wolfe Park
Grand Total
Requested 2022 Awarded 2022 Spent 2022 Requested 2021 Awarded 2021 Spent 2021 Requested 2019 Awarded 2019 Spent 2019
1,650.00$ 1,650.00$ 1,100.00$ 1,100.00$ 1,886.69$
2,900.00$ 2,900.00$ 2,193.66$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 1,630.00$ 2,950.00$ 2,950.00$ 2,759.82$
2,350.00$ 2,350.00$ 407.00$ 2,010.00$ 2,010.00$ 364.00$ 2,580.00$ 2,580.00$ 1,619.35$
1,700.00$ 1,600.00$ 1,600.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 953.23$
1,510.00$ 1,700.00$ 606.00$ 1,580.00$ 1,580.00$ 1,210.00$ 1,020.00$ 1,020.00$ 596.03$
1,925.00$ 1,510.00$ 407.00$ 2,225.00$ 2,225.00$ 1,173.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 674.06$
2,900.00$ 2,162.00$ 2,950.00$ 2,950.00$ 912.00$ 2,950.00$ 2,950.00$ 3,175.20$
2,950.00$ 660.00$ 2,750.00$ 2,750.00$ 1,268.00$ 2,950.00$ 2,950.00$ 1,028.02$
1,900.00$ 1,900.00$ 76.00$ 1,750.00$ 1,750.00$ 166.00$ 1,750.00$ 1,750.00$ 79.12$
2,900.00$ 2,900.00$ 1,210.46$ 2,700.00$ 2,700.00$ 1,449.00$ 2,035.00$ 2,035.00$ 391.21$
1,205.00$ 1,205.00$ -$ 1,025.00$ 1,025.00$ 149.00$ 1,025.00$ 1,025.00$ 627.34$
1,650.00$ 1,650.00$ 254.00$ 1,650.00$ 1,650.00$ 112.00$ 1,400.00$ 1,400.00$ 505.00$
2,900.00$ 2,900.00$ 1,892.00$ 2,950.00$ 2,950.00$ 1,260.00$ 2,950.00$ 2,950.00$ 1,199.16$
181.00$
1,040.00$ 1,040.00$ 935.00$ 935.00$ 909.00$
1,100.00$ 1,100.00$ 97.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 354.00$ 1,390.00$ 1,390.00$ 822.92$
2,950.00$ 2,950.00$ 637.00$ 2,200.00$ 2,200.00$ 334.00$ 2,300.00$ 2,300.00$ 211.73$
2,225.00$ 2,225.00$ 787.00$ 2,225.00$ 2,225.00$ 133.00$ 1,725.00$ 1,725.00$ 1,484.73$
2,400.00$ 2,400.00$ 1,176.00$ 2,450.00$ 2,450.00$ 2,219.00$ 2,450.00$ 2,450.00$ 1,669.45$
2,400.00$ 2,400.00$ 407.00$ 2,450.00$ 2,450.00$ 639.00$ 2,450.00$ 2,450.00$ 1,031.42$
525.00$ 525.00$ 1,275.00$ 1,275.00$ 310.00$
2,900.00$ 2,900.00$ 365.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,450.00$ 2,450.00$ 878.98$
2,400.00$ 2,400.00$ 2,202.00$ 2,250.00$ 2,250.00$ 2,548.00$ 2,030.00$ 2,030.00$ 1,869.31$
1,700.00$ 1,700.00$ 1,850.00$ 1,850.00$ 533.00$ 2,450.00$ 2,450.00$ 902.58$
44,865.00$ 37,090.00$ 15,720.12$ 46,330.00$ 46,330.00$ 16,453.00$ 47,165.00$ 47,165.00$ 25,584.35$
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 9
City Council
Study Session Topic Proposal
Staff Analysis
Date: Aug 11, 2025
Prepared by: Kim Keller; Amelia Cruver
Proposed agenda topic: Public Purpose Expenditure Workshop
Staff analysis of request: (Please provide a high-level review of the proposed topic. Focus on key
points, facts, impact, legal and/or future considerations.)
Finance staff is happy to provide guidance, in conjunction with our external auditor and the city
attorney, on public purpose expenditure. We have sought to do this in recent months and years
through the attached training materials and policies and through various trainings and
conversations with the council as a whole as well as individual members.
Staff’s analysis on public purpose is rooted in legal standards, case law, our attorney’s opinion
and our auditor’s findings. In some areas, there is more flexibility in what qualifies as a public
purpose and, in others, there is not. The analysis below seeks to unpack that distinction. While
staff will always work to recognize the value of community events and internal engagement,
often times the analysis does not provide room for “compromise” from the perspective of
financial support.
In addition to one-on-one conversations and Before the Weekend messaging, in the last two
years council has discussed public purpose at the following sessions:
• 2023 Council retreat: March 9 and 10, 2023 (presentation attached)
• 2023 Audit: Aug 19, 2024
• Neighborhood association program establishment: Feb. 18, 2025
• 2024 Financial Audit: July 14, 2025
Staff recommends further building out council onboarding to ensure that examples given are
relevant to members and community. Staff would welcome receiving any examples council
members suggest for inclusion.
Below is an analysis of what the public purpose doctrine is, what sources we reference when
implementing the doctrine, and some examples of exceptions. To be responsive to the specific
council request for a study session topic, this analysis is focused on food, social events, and
other examples listed in the request. If council has additional questions, staff is always available
to give advice. In the future, staff plan on folding this education into council onboarding.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 10
According to the Minnesota State Constitution and state statute, all city expenditures must:
• Meet Public Purpose Expenditure Doctrine;
• Have specific or implied statutory or charter authority; and
• Be properly approved.
These requirements apply to all funds that come through the city. This includes:
• Operating, Special Purpose, and Capital Funds
• Fee Revenue
• Grant Funds
• Donations
Per the Minnesota Supreme Court, “Public Purpose” means the activity (expenditure) in
question meets ALL the following:
• The activity will benefit the community as a body; and
• The activity directly relates to the functions of government; and
• The activity does not have, as its primary objective, the benefit of a private interest (a
person, a business, or a non-profit)
In some circumstances, the city is able to set up programs with clear city-wide benefits that may
also have a benefit to a private entity or person. Examples of this in St. Louis Park include rental
assistance and Access to Fun. In all allowable programs the other criteria must continue to be
met, the program must be operated by the appropriate city department, and a legal review and
adoption by city council is necessary.
In addition, the attorney general has found that “even if a local government unit routinely
approves certain expenditures, it does not necessarily satisfy a public purpose if the expenditure
is not supported by statutory authority, or if the expenditure is for the benefit of private
individuals.”
Meals and entertainment
The OSA and attorney general has found that regardless of individual city priorities, and
regardless of how commendable the purpose of an event may be, public funds cannot be
expended on an event that is primarily social in nature. Furthermore, any spending on meals or
entertainment must prove that the spending or activity was necessary and related to the work
of government.
Our personnel policies reflect this reality and spending on employee meals is also required to
meet this bar. Meeting over lunch to discuss city work does not meet this purpose because even
though the focus is government work, it is not necessary, as staff are expected to plan to pay for
their own lunch when they are working from the office or at home. Trainings that begin during
the work day and extend into the evening hours or that last several hours and are away from
their normal workstation may qualify under these policies. Cities also have statutory authority to
fund a “recognition program” for staff as long as it is once a year, listed in personnel policies,
and stays within a reasonable budget. (Minn. Stat. § 15.46) (Office of the State Auditor,
Statement of Position: Employee Recognition Programs and Events (pdf), Feb. 2014)
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 11
In addition, both the LMC and the OSA have released summary documents to help cities comply
with public purpose:
• Public Purpose Expenditures - League of Minnesota Cities (lmc.org)
• Statement of Position - Public Expenditures: Donations and Dues
Exceptions
There are specific statutory exceptions that allow for public funds to pay or meals or
entertainment activities. The following is an excerpt form the OSA’s statement of position, the
full document is linked above:
Here are some examples of specific, statutorily authorized appropriations:
• Artistic Organizations. A county, city or town may appropriate money to support
artistic organizations.
• Historical Causes. A town or city may appropriate annually a specified amount to a
county historical society so long as the society is affiliated with, and approved by,
the Minnesota Historical Society. Cities have express authority to commemorate
important and outstanding events in city history, and to appropriate money to
collect, preserve and distribute its history data for future generations. The Attorney
General’s Office recognizes that a city can advance money to a nonprofit to sponsor
a centennial celebration.
• Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. A county may appropriate money for maintenance
and support of the local society for the prevention of cruelty to animals.
• Food Shelves. Cities and counties may donate funds in the form of grants to food
shelves providing food to the needy without charge.
• Senior/Youth Centers. A county, city or town may appropriate money to support the
facilities, programs, and services of a public or private, not-for-profit senior citizen
center or youth center.
• Public Recreation Programs. Counties, cities, towns and school districts may spend
funds to operate programs of public recreation, recreational facilities, and
playgrounds. These programs may be conducted independently or with any
nonprofit organization.
• Promotion. A city or urban town may appropriate up to $50,000 annually to an
incorporated development society or organization of this State, for promoting,
advertising, improving, or developing the economic and agricultural resources of the
city or urban town. A city may appropriate money to advertise the city and its
resources and advantages. Similarly, a county may appropriate funds to a similar
entity for promoting, advertising, improving or developing the economic and
agricultural resources of the county. The county statute does not contain an annual
spending limit.
• Employee Recognition. Towns may spend funds to recognize volunteers, service
efforts, and retiring town officers. Counties and cities may spend funds for
preventive health and employee recognition services.
• Community Celebrations. Towns may spend funds to host or support a community
celebration. Cities or towns may spend funds on Memorial Day observances, and
may appropriate money for county or district fairs, centennial and historical
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 12
celebrations. Statutory cities may spend funds to provide free musical
entertainment. The authority to purchase fireworks seems to be implied.
Not listed in the above quotation is an important statute authorizing spending on National Night
out and improving relationships between communities and law enforcement. This statute allows
for broad authority to fund National Night Out events, including food and refreshments. (Sec.
471.198 MN Statutes.)
City-run programs
City-run recreation programs may be a point of confusion for neighborhoods who have applied
for city funds to do similar activities in their own neighborhoods so this section is meant to shed
light on what the city is authorized to do around recreation.
The LMC guide to public purpose summarizes city authority to operate parks and recreation
programs:
All cities, towns, counties, and school districts may spend money to operate public recreational
facilities and programs of public recreation and playgrounds. The statutes also permit all cities to
spend funds available to it for awards and trophies as part of these programs.
In operating these programs and parks, the city may enter contracts with service providers to
accomplish their goals. Contracts and payments must follow city financial policies which are
themselves based on state statute and require departments to solicit multiple quotes, select the
lowest responsible bidder, and require insurance from the business or non-profit they contract
with.
Resources required: (Include relevant information such as cost, staffing, capacity)
Staff would be able to put together an additional session on public purpose expenditures, if
council can provide a policy question to discuss. Without this additional direction, we are
worried that we will not be able to meet expectations. Given the legal considerations of this
topic, we would schedule this for a time when city attorney Soren Mattick can attend.
Other dependencies: (Include relevant information that could impact this proposal, such as:
other agencies/jurisdictions, a pending policy discussion or action by council on related item,
additional research that may be required to answer pending questions)
If the requesting council members would like to pursue this study session, we would respectfully
ask that specific content and questions be communicated before the concept is presented to
council so that staff can be prepared for the discussion.
Projected timeline: (Given current business levels and capacity, what is the projected timeline
for staff to be able to work on and implement? If this was to be done now, what would the
impact be on other projects and/or standard line of business?)
Staff recommends that this topic be more fully covered as part of council onboarding (which is
available to all council members). If a separate study session is desired before the end of 2025,
we would need to carve out time in the tentative council agenda.
Recommended disposition: (select one)
Study session discussion
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 13
Council action at regular meeting
Written report
Include with another item already planned/scheduled: Staff recommends further
building out public purpose into council onboarding, ensuring an interactive session
Meeting with requesting councilmember(s)
Handle offline
X
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 14
PUBLIC RELEASE OF
INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
1999 - 2001
CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK
July 17, 2002
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 15
i
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Index
I. Minnesota Public Purpose Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
II. City Expenditure Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A. City Purchasing Cards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. Use of Petty Cash for Employee Expense Reimbursements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
III. Gifts to Private Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
IV. Golf Tournaments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A. Business Appreciation Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
B. Other City Golf Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
V. Expenditures for Meals/Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A. Alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
B. City-Purchased Employee Meals/Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2. Staff-on-Staff Meals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3. City Staff Meals with City Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4. Meals Prior to City Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5. Staff Meetings/Gatherings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
a. Quarterly Manager’s Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
b. Food at Staff Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
c. Other Food and Products - No Purpose Provided . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
C. Meals for/with Non-City Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
D. Other Questionable Meals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
E. City Coding of Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
F. Lack of Limits on Meal Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
G. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 16
ii
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Index
VI. Employee Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
A. Employee Gifts, Employee Celebrations, and Employee Recognition
Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1. Gifts to City Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2. Miscellaneous Employee Celebrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3. The City’s Annual Recognition Event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
B. Annual Employee Picnic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
C. Annual Holiday Party . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
D. Spring Clean-Up Breakfast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
E. Shape-Up Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
F. Make-A-Difference Day Campaigns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
VII. Chamber of Commerce Dues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
VIII. Come Home To The Park, A Non-Profit Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
IX. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 17
JUDITH H. DUTCHER
STATE AUDITOR
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR
SUITE 400
525 PARK STREET
SAINT PAUL, MN 55103-2139
(651) 296-2551 (Voice)
(651) 296-4755 (Fax)
stateauditor@osa.state.mn.us (E-mail)
1-800-627-3529 (Relay Service)
1 According to the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year
ended December 31, 2000, the City is the fourth largest city in the St.
Paul/Minneapolis metropolitan area and the sixth largest city in the State of
Minnesota.
2 The City selected the Council/Manager form of government in 1966. The City
became a charter city in 1969. The City’s current Home Rule Charter was
adopted on October 9, 1969.
3 City Charter § 7.05. The City Charter also designates the City Manager as the
City’s chief accounting officer. City Charter § 8.12. The City’s most recent City
Manager was appointed by the City Council in December 1995 and resigned
effective May 31, 2002.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
PUBLIC RELEASE OF
INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
1999 - 2001
CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK
July 17, 2002
INTRODUCTION
TheSpecial Investigations DivisionoftheOfficeoftheStateAuditor(hereinafter“OSA”)received
concerns regarding the City of Brooklyn Park (hereinafter “City”).
1 Specifically, concerns were
raised regarding the City’s expenditure of public funds for holiday parties, employee events, golf
tournaments, employee gifts, and meetings at which food and/or beverages were provided.
BACKGROUND
The City is a home rule charter city.2 The City Charter designates the City Manager as the City’s
chief purchasing agent, and authorizes the City Manager to make or let contracts for the purchase
of merchandise, materials or equipment in the manner provided by state law for cities of its class,
after first obtaining the approval of the City Council.3 The City’s Charter also provides:
No disbursement of city funds shall be made unless authorized by the City Manager and
Director of Finance. Disbursements must specify the fund from which it is made. No
disbursement shall be made until the claim to which it relates has been supported by an
itemized bill, payroll, or timesheet approved and signed bythe responsible cityofficer who
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 18
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 2
4 City Charter § 8.10.
5 City Charter § 8.01.
6 City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended December 31,
2000 at 22. The seven departments are: Finance and Administrative Services (58
employees), Planning and Development (17 employees), Engineering and
Building Inspections (30 employees), Police (130 employees), Fire (11
employees), Operations and Maintenance (75 employees), and Recreation and
Parks (47 employees). The number of employees indicated in parentheses is the
number of employees listed on a 2002 employee telephone directory provided to
the OSA by the City. In addition, 12 employees are listed as part of the City’s
Administration. The City has also created an Economic Development Authority
(hereinafter “EDA”). The City employees working for the EDA are part of the
Planning and Development Department.
7 See City Purchasing Manual § 30.10 (May 1, 1996). For the majority of
purchases, each City department negotiates directly with its vendors and processes
the requests for payment. Given the City Charter’s language, the OSA questions
whether the City Manager and the Director of Finance have the authority under
the City Charter to assign or delegate their disbursement authority.
vouches for its correctness and reasonableness. The City may by ordinance make further
regulations for the safekeeping and disbursement of the funds of the city.4
In addition, the City Charter provides that the City Council has full authority over the financial
affairs of the City, and must provide for the safekeeping and disbursement of public monies.5
During 1999 through 2001, the OSA’s period of review, the City Manager delegated purchasing
authority to the director in each of the City’s seven departments.
6 Thus, the City maintained a
“decentralized” system of purchasing.7
In order to determine whether the City’s expenditures satisfied Minnesota law, the OSA requested
that the City identify disbursements related to holiday parties, employee events, golf tournaments,
employee gifts, and meetings at which food and/or beverages were provided by the City. In April
of 2002, the OSA received the final documentation required for its review.
Based upon the OSA’s investigation,it appears that the Cityexpended public funds for meals, gifts
and events contrary to Minnesota law. The OSA has identified $199,569.36 in questionable
expenditures during the OSA’s period of review.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 19
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 3
8 Tousley v. Leach, 180 Minn. 293, 296, 230 N.W. 788, 789 (1930).
9 Id.
10 Op. Att’y Gen. 59a-22 (December 4, 1934).
11 Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 184, 89 N.W.2d 635, 643 (1958).
12 Id.
13 See Burns v. Essling, 156 Minn. 171, 174, 194 N.W. 404 (1923).
14 Op. Att’y Gen. 59a-22 (November 23, 1966).
15 Op. Att’y Gen. 107-a-3 (January 22, 1980) (expenditures from a hospital which
had been self-sufficient for several years were still required to satisfy a public
purpose because the hospital had been established with public funds).
16 Minn. Stat. § 15.17, subd. 1 (2000).
I. MINNESOTA PUBLIC PURPOSE DOCTRINE
The public purpose doctrine is based on the Minnesota State Constitution, Art. X § 1. Pursuant to
the doctrine, public entities mayonlyspend public funds “[i]f the purposeis a public one for which
tax money may be used, and there is authority to make the expenditure, and the use is
genuine . . . .”
8 Thus, for an expenditure of a public entity to be proper, the public entity must first
havetheauthoritytomaketheexpenditure.9 As explained in a Minnesota Attorney General Opinion,
publicfundscannot beexpended,regardless ofhowdesirableorcommendablethepurposemaybe,
unless there is statutory or charter authority to do so.10
Second, the expenditure must be made for a public purpose.
11 The courts have generally construed
“publicpurpose”tomean“suchanactivityaswillserveasabenefittothecommunityasabodyand
which, at the same time, is directly related to the functions of government.”12 The benefit that the
public receives from the expenditure of public funds cannot be merely incidental.
13 According to
the Minnesota AttorneyGeneral, anybenefit which results from an employee social function is too
remote and speculative in nature to justify the expenditure as being for a public purpose.
14
Furthermore, the public purpose requirement applies to funds of governmental entities derived not
only from taxation, but from other sources as well.15
Minnesota law also states that “[a]ll officers and agencies of . . . cities . . . shall make and preserve
all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities.”
16 The chief
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 20
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 4
17 Minn. Stat. § 15.17, subd. 2 (2000). The City’s chief administrative officer is the
City Manager. City Charter § 7.01.
18 Minn. Stat.§ 471.382 (2002).
19 See City Resolution #1998-248. The Resolution authorized the City to enter a
purchasing card arrangement with Norwest Bank and its successors or assigns.
20 See City’s Purchasing Card Program administrative report (August 2001) and
City’s Purchasing Card System User Manual (December 1998) at 1.
21 See City’s Purchasing Card System User Manual (December 1998) at 1.
administrative officer is responsible for the preservation of the records, which include written or
printed books, papers, letters, contracts, documents, computer-based data, and other records made
or received pursuant to law or in connection with the transaction of public business.
17 Therefore, a
city must maintain documentation to establish that all city expenditures served a public purpose.
II. CITY EXPENDITURE PROCEDURES
ManyoftheCityexpendituresreviewedbytheOSAwereincurredbyemployeesthroughtheCity’s
purchasing card and petty cash systems. The OSA determined that the City’s procedures for
handling City purchasing card and petty cash expenditures during the OSA’s period of review did
not provide the City with an adequate basis to ensure proper use of public funds.
A. City Purchasing Cards
Prior to May 2001, cities did not have specific statutory authority to use credit cards. The 2001
Minnesota Legislature enacted Minn. Stat. § 471.382 which authorizes the use of credit cards by
cities, but restricts their use to purchases made for the city. The statute does not provide for a city
credit card to be used to purchase personal items. Furthermore, if a city officer or employee makes
or directs a purchase for the city that is not authorized by the city council, the officer or employee
becomespersonallyliablefortheamountofthepurchase.18 The statute also requires that credit card
use be consistent with other state law and city policy.
The use of “purchasing cards” was approved by the City Council on September 14, 1998.
19 The
City’s purchasing cards, also known as procurement cards, are a credit card based system used by
the City to purchase items and services. The City represented that such a system would reduce
paperwork and simplify the purchasing process.
20 The purchasing card concept, similar to a credit
card, delegates the authority, responsibility and capability to make purchases directly to the
cardholder.21
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 21
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 5
22 Excluding employees in the City’s Police Department, it appears that
approximately one-half of all remaining City employees had City purchasing cards
as of March 2001. At the June 4, July 2, and August 20, 2001 work sessions, the
City Council discussed the use of purchasing cards by City employees. The City
expressed concern with the number of cardholders and the dollar limits placed on
the purchasing cards. According to a City Department of Administration report,
the number of cardholders as of August 2001 was 126 employees. The report also
indicated that the City Manager was attempting to reduce the number of cards by
an additional 20 cards.
23 Beginning in February 2001, the claims lists presented to the City Council contain
a brief description of individual purchasing card expenditures.
As of March 2001, 146 Cityemployees were authorized to use Citypurchasing cards.
22 According
totheCity’sPurchasingCardSystemUserManual,cardholdersreceiveacopyoftheirstatement of
account each week. The cardholders are to review the weekly statement of account for accuracy
(including the accuracy of City accounting codes), obtain departmental signature(s), attach the
originalreceipts,andreturnthestatementtoAccountsPayablewithinfiveworkingdaysofreceiving
the statement.
TheOSAreviewedallpurchasingcardtransactionscompletedbytheCityfrom1999through2001.
The OSA observed several procedures that do not provide the City with adequate assurance that
purchasing card expenditures complywith Minnesota law. For example, during the OSA’s period
of review, the OSA observed:
• TheemployeewhomadethepurchasewithaCitypurchasingcardwas,at times,the
same employee who approved the expenditure;
• The City did not consistently obtain an itemized receipt from employees who used
a City purchasing card;
• The City did not consistently obtain a list of attendees at, or a stated purpose for,
meals purchased with a City purchasing card; and
• The claims lists presented to the City Council during 1999 and 2000 described the
purchasingcardtransactionsassimply“transactionsthru[date],”therebyprecluding
meaningful City Council review of purchasing card expenditures.23
As set forth below, the OSA found numerous instances in which purchasing card expenditures
appear to violate Minnesota law.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 22
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 6
24 The minutes of City Council work sessions reflect that during 2001 the City
discussed whether certain City disbursements had a public purpose. The City
Council adopted, on February 11, 2002, after the OSA’s investigation had begun,
Standing Executive Policy #12 entitled “Public Purpose Expenditures.” The OSA
also notes that, on March 18, 2002, the City Council considered, but did not
adopt, a proposal to add a public purpose expenditure section to the City Charter.
The OSA recommends that the City review Standing Executive Policy # 12 in
light of this Report.
25 See City’s Purchasing Manual §§ 1.20, 35.0 (travel) and 40.0 (petty cash) (May 1,
1996); City’s Purchasing Manual §§ 1.20, 35.0 (travel) and 40.0 (petty cash)
(April 2001).
26 Under the 2001 policy, reimbursements from petty cash for safety shoes may
exceed $50.00.
27 See Minn. Stat. § 412.271, subd. 5 (2000). If a city charter is silent on a matter
that is addressed in Chapter 412, and general law doesn’t prohibit a charter from
addressing the matter or provide that the charter prevails, then a charter city may
apply the general law on the matter. Minn. Stat. § 410.33 (2000).
The OSA observed that the City addressed many of these procedures during 2001, after questions
about the purchasing card procedures were raised by the City Council.
24 As set forth more fully in
this Report, the OSA recommends that the City continue to review and modify its purchasing card
procedures to safeguard the public monies entrusted to it.
B. Use of Petty Cash for Employee Expense Reimbursements
TheCityhadanemployeereimbursementpolicyineffectduringtheOSA’speriodofreview.25 The
OSA was informed that employees were encouraged to use the City’s purchasing cards for work-
related expenses. However, if the purchasing cards were not used, the employees were to submit
their work-related expenses, up to $50.00, to one of four pettycash funds maintained bythe Cityat
the CityHall in Customer Service, the CommunityActivityCenter, the Police Department and the
City’sHistorical Farm.
26 The OSA was also informed that the use of petty cash for reimbursements
has fallen significantly since the City began to use purchasing cards.
The City Charter is silent on the establishment of petty cash funds. However, Minnesota law
authorizes cities to establish imprest cash funds,
27 commonly known as petty cash funds. Imprest
cash funds may be used for the payment in cash of any proper claim against the city which is
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 23
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 7
28 Minn. Stat. § 412.271, subd. 5 (2000).
29 Id.
30 For both local mileage and business meal reimbursements, the City’s 1996 policy
required an employee to complete an “Employee Expense Report” form which
requested additional information from the employee, and required the employee to
declare that the claim was just and correct and that no part of it had been paid.
See City’s Purchasing Manual §§ 1.20(e), 35.10 (mileage) and 35.20 (business
meals) (May 1, 1996). Under the City’s 2001 policy, the employee is required to
complete “appropriate forms” for reimbursements.See City’s Purchasing Manual
§ 1.20(e) (April 2001). The OSA observed that the Employee Expense Report
form was not consistently used during the OSA’s period of review.
31 The form used in 2001 expanded the “description” portion of the form to include:
for a meeting or seminar, the attendees, location, purpose and date; and for
mileage claims, the date, purpose, and number of miles claimed. The expanded
form also requires that original receipts be attached to the form.
32 See City’s Purchasing Manual § 40.10 (April 2001); City’s Purchasing Manual
§ 40.10 (May 1, 1996).
33 26 C.F.R. § 1.62-2 (C)(5) (2000).
impractical to pay in any other manner.
28 The law specifically prohibits the use of such funds for
“personal expenses” of a city officer or employee.29
During 1999 and 2000, City employees completed a “Petty Cash Voucher” form to receive
reimbursement in cash. The form sought the following information: description, account number
and amount.
30 During 2001, the City appears to have implemented a new “Petty Cash Voucher”
form that requested additional information from the employee about the expense.
31 Both of the
“PettyCashVoucher”formsusedbytheCityduringtheOSA’speriodofreviewhadsignaturelines
for the employee and the department head. Receipts were often attached to the “Petty Cash
Voucher” forms. The reimbursements from several of these forms were tallied on a “Requisition”
form which was then submitted to the City’s Finance Department at least once per month to
replenish the petty cash fund.32
Generally, employee expenses that are reimbursed, including meal reimbursements for non-overnight
meals, must be included in the employee’s gross income, reported on form W-2, and subject to
income tax withholding and FICA/FUTA taxes.
33 The OSA was informed that the City does not
distinguish between taxable and nontaxable reimbursements.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 24
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 8
34 See Minn. Stat. § 412.271, subd. 5 (2000).
35 For example, when claims are submitted by department heads or supervisors, no
second signature appeared to be required.
36 For example, receipts from restaurants were often reimbursed through petty cash
with simply “meeting expense” or “business lunch” as the justification for the
reimbursement. The OSA’s review disclosed that the Community Activity Center
and Historical Farm petty cash funds were rarely used for reimbursement of such
expenses.
TheOSAreviewedtheCity’spettycashreimbursementsfor1999through2001. The OSA observed
several procedures that do not provide the City with adequate assurance that petty cash
reimbursements complywithMinnesotaandfederal law. For example, during the OSA’s period of
review, the OSA observed:
• TheCity’suseofthepettycashfundsforreimbursementofpersonal mealandtravel
expenses of City employees and officers is inconsistent with Minnesota law;34
• The employee who made the petty cash reimbursement request was, at times, the
same employee who approved the expenditure;35
• The Police Department’s petty cash voucher forms did not consistently contain a
department head’s signature;
• The City did not consistently obtain a list of attendees, a stated purpose, and an
itemized receipt for meals reimbursed through the City’s petty cash;36
• Mileagereimbursementsdidnotconsistentlyindicatethetravellocationor distance,
but simply a reimbursement amount for “mileage”;
• Telephone expenses were sometimes reimbursed without an itemization describing
the telephone calls made;
• The claims lists presented to the CityCouncil during 1999 and 2000 described each
petty cash reimbursement as simply “replenish petty cash,” thereby precluding
meaningful City Council review of petty cash reimbursements; and
• TheCitydidnotmaintainarecordofreimbursementsthatshouldhavebeenincluded
in employees’ gross income for tax purposes.
As set forth below, the OSA found numerous instances in which reimbursements from petty cash
appear to violate Minnesota law.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 25
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 9
37 $38.90 (46%) of the $83.85 was for delivery and expedited delivery charges.
38 According to the City’s Purchasing Card System User Manual, the only person
entitled to use a purchasing card is the person whose name appears on the face of
the card.
39 The OSA has been informed that Mr. Anderson is no longer employed by the
City.
III. GIFTS TO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
During its review, the OSA found that the City purchased gifts for private individuals from the
catalogue company Harry and David in the amount of $527.15. The gifts included the following:
• On March 31, 1999, a “Deluxe Good for You Tower/Treats” was ordered for Mr. Daniel
Rooke,withthemessage“ThankYouforYourHelpandGoodWork,It’sMuchAppreciated
Mark Anderson and Staff.” The cost to the City was $83.85.
37 Mr. Rooke is identified in
City records as the City’s insurance broker. The gift was ordered using Mr. Mark E.
Anderson’s City purchasing card.
38 Mr. Anderson is the City’s former Human Resources
Director, who also approved the expenditure.39
• On November 17, 1999, three “All-Occasion Bear Creek Banquets” were ordered with a
requested arrival date of “Thanksgiving.” The OSA was unable to determine who received
the items, or anymessage which accompanied the items, because those lines on the invoice
had been blacked out. $202.66 of City money was expended on the order. The gifts were
purchased using Mr. Mark Anderson’s Citypurchasing card. Mr. Anderson also approved
the expenditure.
• OnDecember17,1999,four“GiantTripleTreats”wereorderedwitharequestedarrivaldate
of “Christmas,” in the amount of $194.75, using Mr. Mark Anderson’s City purchasing card.
The“GiantTripleTreats”weresenttoMr.Daniel Rooke,Mr.RickMorley, Mr.Jim Sarych
and Mr. Mark Anderson. The OSA was informed that Mr. Morley and Mr. Sarych are
consultants for the City. The “Giant Triple Treat” for Mr. Anderson was sent to Mr.
Anderson’s home address. A handwritten notation on the invoice states “Vendor & Staff
Recognition.” The expenditure was approved by Mr. Mark Anderson.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 26
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 10
40 Additional Harry and David gift purchases for City employees are included in the
“Employee Gift” section of this Report. The OSA also found a City expenditure
of $82.65 on December 2, 1999 for “paper, envelopes, etc., for vendor holiday
letters of appreciation.”
41 Generally there is not authority for the City to enter into partnerships with
attendees of the Business Appreciation events.
• OnAugust21,2000,a“TowerofTreats”costingtheCity$45.89waspurchasedforMr.Dan
Rooke,withthemessage“Thanksforallyourwork. Get better soon.” The gift was ordered
using Mr. Thomas Suppes’ City purchasing card. Mr. Suppes is the City’s Loss Control
Coordinator in the Finance and Administrative Services Department. The gift was signed:
“Tom Suppes & the City of Brooklyn Park.” The expenditure was approved by Mr. Mark
Anderson.
The OSA questions the authority of the City to be sending gifts to private individuals such as
consultants or City employees.40 The OSA recommends that the City stop providing gifts to
individuals,absentspecificstatutoryauthoritytodoso. In order to secure internal controls, the OSA
further recommends that any person making purchases on behalf of the City be prohibited from
approving their own expenditures. Finally, the OSA recommends that the City consider seeking
reimbursement from Mr. Mark Anderson for the purchase he may have sent to himself at City
expense.
IV. GOLF TOURNAMENTS
Itwasalleged,andtheOSAfound,that theCityexpendedpublicfundsforCityemployeestoattend
golf tournaments.
A. Business Appreciation Events
InAugustof1999,2000and2001,theCityheldaBusinessAppreciationeventatEdinburgh,aCity-
owned golf course. The City informed the OSA that the events were held to thank City business
partners for their partnership.
41 According to the City’s Deputy Director of Community
Development, the events provided the City an opportunity to showcase past developments and to
promote new developments in the City.
Eachyear,theCity’sDeputyDirectorofCommunityDevelopment invitedpeopletoplaygolfat no
charge to the participant. For example, the brochure for the 2001 event invited participants as
follows:
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 27
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 11
42 Employees attending the events were not required to use vacation-time and were
provided a meal purchased by the City.
43 CLIC is the City’s Citizen Long Range Improvement Committee comprised of 15
citizens.
• Please join us in celebrating our many partners working with us to make Brooklyn
Park a place where businesses want to be.
• So grab your golf bag, your hat, leave your worries at the office and come on out to
an exciting day of golf in sunny, warm and wonderful Brooklyn Park. We will
supplythefantasticgolfcourse,thecamaraderieandthegreatfood. You supply your
dazzling golfing expertise and your exuberant personality.
• If you are unable to attend, please designate another representative from your
company.
City employees were assigned to play golf in each golf foursome, and the Mayor was available
during the day. Other City employees staffed the events.42
The OSA was provided lists of Business Appreciation event participants for 1999, 2000 and 2001.
According to the lists, it appears that the following people participated in the events:
BUSINESS APPRECIATION EVENT PARTICIPANTS
1999 2000 2001
Golf Dinner Golf Dinner Golf Dinner
Event Only Event Only Event Only
Brooklyn Park
Employees
and Officials 16 5 18 8 17 10
Representatives from
Other Cities 3 5 1
Local Colleges/Schools 1 4 1 4 1
CLIC43 1 1 1
Met Council 1 1 1
Hennepin County 1 1
MN Legislature 1
Others 70 4 72 5 82 5
TOTALS 94 9 101 14 107 16
______________________________________________________________________________
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 28
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 12
44 Examples of other participants included representatives from organizations
considering construction of a facility in the City, representatives from companies
working on projects in the City, and representatives from companies that had
recently completed projects in the City.
45 Participation gifts appear to have been golf caddy packs in 1999, golf shoe bags in
2000, and travel secretaries in 2001.
46 The City informed the OSA that City employees were not eligible to win the
prizes.
47 The OSA noted receipts for additional expenditures of City funds for Business
Appreciation Day events. However, the OSA could not determine whether the
additional expenditures were “gifts” or used for valid City purposes.
Included amongthose who attended all or part of the events at the Cityof Brooklyn Park’s expense
were individuals from law firms and financial institutions. According to the City, the City’s
attorneys, consultants, brokers and lending partners were invited as a “second level of marketing”
to promote their relationships with the City to the businesses attending the events.44
Box lunches, participation gifts, dinner and a cash bar were provided to the participants bythe City
during the events.45 Prizes were awarded from drawings and for various golf skills.
46 While most
oftheexpenditures forthe events were charged to the EDA, theOSAfoundsomeexpenditures that
were charged to the City. The OSA noted the following public expenditures for the Business
Appreciation events held during the OSA’s period of review:47
BUSINESS APPRECIATION EVENT EXPENDITURES
1999 - 2001
Date Vendor Amount Total
1999
03-26-99 Paperdirect Inc.$198.60
08-13-99 Benchwarmer Bob’s Gift Certificate 15.00
08-13-99 Chili’s Gift Certificate 20.00
08-13-99 Baker’s Square Gift Certificate 15.00
08-13-99 Applebee’s Gift Certificate 20.00
08-13-99 Leeann Chin Gift Certificate 15.00
08-16-99 Perkins Gift Certificate 15.00
08-19-99* Edinburgh Certificates 32.00
09-07-99 Sampson Miller Advertising (golf caddy pack) 1,039.78
09-07-99 Caribou Coffee Gift Certificate 15.00
09-13-99 Lancer at Edinburgh 14,727.39
$16,112.77
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 29
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 13
BUSINESS APPRECIATION EVENT EXPENDITURES (continued)
Date Vendor Amount Total
2000
06-07-00 Paperdirect Inc.$106.91
06-21-00 Paperdirect Inc.97.90
06-21-00 Paperdirect Inc.58.93
08-02-00 Sampson Miller Advertising (golf shoe bags) 1,172.79
08-02-00 Lancer at Edinburgh 9,600.00
08-07-00 Mail Boxes Etc.57.51
08-09-00 Benchwarmer Bob’s Gift Certificate 15.00
08-09-00 Baker’s Square Gift Certificate 15.00
08-09-00 Applebee’s Gift Certificate 15.00
08-09-00 Caribou Coffee Gift Certificate 15.00
08-09-00 Chili’s Gift Certificate 15.00
08-09-00 Perkins Gift Certificate 15.00
08-09-00 Leeann Chin Gift Certificate 15.00
08-09-00 Cub Foods 12.78
08-10-00* Blondie’s Sports Grill & Bar Gift Certificate 15.00
08-10-00* Edinburgh Certificate 164.00
08-14-00 Lancer at Edinburgh 7,464.48
$18,855.30
2001
02-07-01 Lancer at Edinburgh $3,750.00
04-25-01 Paperdirect Inc.138.90
04-26-01 Paperdirect Inc.45.98
05-02-01 Paperdirect Inc.241.85
07-26-01 Lancer at Edinburgh 11,250.00
07-31-01 Golf Galaxy 41.50
08-01-01 OfficeMax 21.25
08-03-01 Latitude Map and Travel 56.45
08-03-01 Sampson Miller Advertising (travel secretary) 1,016.41
08-05-01 Benchwarmer Bob’s Gift Certificate 15.00
08-05-01 Baker’s Square Gift Certificate 20.00
08-05-01 Perkins Gift Certificate 15.00
08-06-01 Applebee’s Gift Certificate 15.00
08-06-01 Leeann Chin Gift Certificate 15.00
08-06-01 Chili’s Gift Certificate 15.00
08-06-01 Caribou Coffee Gift Certificate 15.00
08-07-01 Menard’s 107.35
08-07-01 Blondie’s Sports Grill Gift Certificate 15.00
08-09-01* Lancer at Edinburgh 1,007.34
08-09-01* Edinburgh Certificate 165.00
$17,967.03
TOTAL: $52,935.10
* Date of the event used since actual date of the expenditure was not provided to the OSA.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 30
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 14
48 Minn. Stat. § 469.096, subd. 7 (2000).
49 See,e.g., Ops. Att’y Gen. 59-A-3 (May 21, 1948) and 59a-22 (December 4, 1934).
50 See, e.g., Ops. Att’y Gen. 107-a-3 (January 22, 1980) and 270-D (August 12,
1977) (prohibiting retroactive pay increases or bonuses to public employees).
51 Op. Att’y Gen. 107-a-3 (January 22, 1980).
Under Minnesota law, funds controlled by an EDA are public money.
48 Public funds cannot be
gifted away by public employees or officials.
49 Nor may public entities give gifts to their
employees.50 According to the Minnesota Attorney General, implicit in these determinations is “the
assumptionthat agiftofpublicfundstoanindividual necessarilyserves aprivateratherthanpublic
purpose.”51 Similarly, the OSA knows of no authority that would permit a city to provide gifts,
prizes,greenfeesandmealstoCityvendorswhohavebeenfullypaidfortheirservicesthroughprior
contractual arrangements,ortoprospectivevendorswhohavenotprovidedanyservicestotheCity.
The City contends that its Business Appreciation events are authorized methods for the City to
promote economic development within the City. While cities have many tools available to further
thelaudablegoalofeconomicdevelopment,theCity’sBusinessAppreciationeventsresultedinCity
taxpayer funding of a day of free golf and meals that benefitted only a select few.
Furthermore, the discretion afforded the City’s Deputy Director of Community Development
regarding who to invite to the events creates the impression of favored treatment for those vendors
who were invited. The events are not open to every business that may wish to expand in the City.
Those not invited to participate in the events may feel they operate at a disadvantage in competing
forCitycontractsanddevelopmentopportunities,havingbeenexcludedfromthedayofgolfshared
by the City and its invited vendors.
TheCitypointstoMinn.Stat.§469.101,subd.16,asauthorityfortheBusinessAppreciationevents.
The statute provides:
Tofurtheranauthorizedpurpose,an[EDA]may(1)joinanofficial,industrial,commercial,
or trade association, or other organization concerned with the purpose, (2) have a reception
ofofficialswhomaycontributetoadvancingthecityanditseconomicdevelopment,and(3)
carryout otherpublicrelations activities to promotethecityandits economicdevelopment.
Activities under this subdivision have a public purpose.
The OSA does not believe that this statute authorizes the City or the EDA to expend public funds
for box lunches, participation gifts, prizes, golfand dinner duringthe City’s Business Appreciation
Days.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 31
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 15
52 Under the rule of ejusdem generis, where words of a specific and limited meaning
are followed by words of a generic or general meaning, the latter are to be
construed as applicable only to things of a like nature to those designated by the
former.See State v. End, 232 Minn. 266, 45 N.W.2d 378 (1950). The word
“other” in such context is to be read as “other such like,” and not of a quality
superior to, or different from, those specifically enumerated.Rhone v. Loomis,
74 Minn. 200, 77 N.W. 31 (1898).
53 See Minn. Stat. § 469.101, subd. 16 (2000). Furthermore, the OSA questions how
the various gift certificates given away at the events serve as an enticement for
future economic development within the City. A $15.00 or $20.00 restaurant gift
certificate is too nominal in value to serve as an effective inducement for future
development within the City. However, the aggregate cost to taxpayers for these
gifts is significant.
54 See, e.g., Ops. Att’y Gen. 107-a-3 (January 22, 1980) and 270-D (August 12,
1977).
First, the statute authorizes an EDA, not a City, in furtherance of an authorized purpose, to hold
receptions and other public relations activities. In addition to $52,935.10 in EDA expenditures for
the events, the OSA found that the City expended City funds rather than EDA funds on the events
becausetheCitypaidCityemployeestoattendandstafftheevents. The City also lost revenue when
it closed the golf course to the general public during the events.
Second, the size and scope of the City’s annual Business Appreciation events exceed the scope of
a“reception”or“otherpublicrelationsactivities”thatanEDAisauthorizedtohostunderMinnesota
law.52 The statute’s limited grant of authority, permitting an EDA to host a “reception” and to carry
outotherpublicrelationsactivities,doesnotpermitanEDAtogiveaway,attaxpayerexpense,gifts,
meals and green fees to thank selected vendors for participating in contracts with the City.
53 The
expenditures incurred constitute gifts prohibited under the reasoning of the Attorney General’s
opinionsbecausetheeventsareprimarilygratuitousandsocial innatureandthevendorparticipants
had already been compensated for services at a previously agreed-upon rate.54
Finally, the City’s attempt to classify its Business Appreciation events as authorized “receptions”
or “other public relations activities”provides no limits on how a Citymight expend taxpayer funds
on potential, current and former vendors and developers. The statute authorizes “a reception of
officials who may contribute to advancing the city and its economic development.” The law does
notauthorizepublicexpenditurestothankthosewhoarealreadyengagedindevelopmentwithinthe
City. It does not authorize public expenditures for attorneys, brokers or representatives of other
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 32
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 16
55 The City informed the OSA that the Minnesota Golf Course Superintendent
Association participation fee expenditures came from the Recreation and Parks
Department budget and were most likely approved at the department level. All of
the other golf event participation fee expenditures were EDA expenditures.
56 City records appear to indicate that the City made partial payments on January 20
and February 8, 1999, for the same City employee to participate in the 1999
Minnesota Golf Course Superintendent Association golf tournament.
57 The North Hennepin Chamber of Commerce includes the Cities of Brooklyn Park,
Maple Grove and Osseo as members.
cities who may well be using the EDA-funded events to market their own services rather than
advancing the City’s economic development. It does not authorize an afternoon of socializing at a
City-owned golf course prior to a “reception.” It does not authorize lunch and dinner for invited
guests at taxpayers’ expense.
Cities/EDAs have a wide range of tools available to them to encourage economic development.
While the OSA recognizes that public funds may lawfully be expended in pursuit of economic
development, the City’s expenditure of $52,935.10 for a select few to spend a day at the City golf
course at public expense exceeds the authority given to cities or EDAs to pursue such goals.
B. Other City Golf Expenditures
The City paid $6,914.00 in City expenditures for City employees, officials and private individuals
to play golf at various locations:
OTHER CITY GOLF EXPENDITURES
ATTENDEES
Date of Elected City
Payment Paid To Officials Staff Others Amount
01-20-99 MN Golf Course Superintendent Ass’n
55 --56 $ 20.00
02-08-99 MN Golf Course Superintendent Ass’n 1 $ 75.00
05-13-99 North Hennepin Chamber of Commerce
57 4 $ 620.00
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 33
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 17
58 In 1999, the City paid participation fees of $945.00 for six City department heads,
who were also Come Home to the Park (hereinafter “CHTTP”) Board members,
and for the Deputy Director of Community Development to attend the Dick Koop
Classic (hereinafter “DKC”). The participation fees from 1999 through 2001 for
the DKC covered the cost of box lunches, green fees and dinner for participants.
CHTTP, a non-profit organization, is discussed further in Section VIII of this
Report.
59 The North Metro Mayors Association is a “coalition of 19 North Metro cities
working jointly to address their region issues.” The City stated that the City
Manager determined which City employees would participate in the North Metro
Mayors Association golf events.
60 The five City staff members who attended the DKC were also CHTTP Board
members.
61 The OSA was informed that the charges were for a round of golf and two carts.
One of the private individuals was an accountant, and the second was the
Executive Director of the North Hennepin Chamber of Commerce.
62 The golf participation fee was $85.00 per person. It appears that the City paid
$30.00 for the Mayor to attend the dinner only.
OTHER CITY GOLF EXPENDITURES (continued)
ATTENDEES
Date of Elected City
Payment Paid To Officials Staff Others Amount
05-13-99 Brooklyn Community Chamber of Commerce
58 7 $ 945.00
07-27-99 North Metro Mayors Association
59 3 5 $ 625.00
03-30-00 North Hennepin Chamber of Commerce 4 $ 580.00
05-09-00 Come Home to the Park
60 5 $ 675.00
05-12-00 Edinburgh 2 2 $ 199.00
61
07-01-00 North Metro Mayors Association 2 4 $ 455.0062
09-01-00 North Metro Mayors Association 1 $ 85.00
09-14-00 MN Golf Course Superintendent Ass’n 4 $ 380.00
09-29-00 North Metro Mayors Association 1 $ 85.00
03-26-01 North Hennepin Chamber of Commerce 4 $ 660.00
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 34
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 18
63 In 2001, the City paid participation fees of $700.00 for five City staff members
who were also CHTTP Board members to attend the DKC. The City also paid the
$140.00 participation fee for a City Council member to attend the DKC.
64 The City confirmed that the EDA paid $135.00 for green fees and dinner to the
Hospitality Political Action Committee for one person in June 2001. To equal the
$200.00 participation fee, the OSA found that the City also donated $65.00 in gift
certificates for the Edinburgh Pro Shop to be used as prizes.
65 Minn. Stat. § 471.96, subd. 1 (2000) (emphasis added). The Minnesota Attorney
General’s Office has determined that this statute does not give a city the authority
to pay dues to a local chamber of commerce. Letter of June 27, 1997 from
Assistant Attorney General Kenneth E. Raschke, Jr., to Staples City Attorney
regarding Staples Chamber of Commerce membership.
66 Minn. Stat. § 471.96, subd. 1 (2000) (emphases added).
OTHER CITY GOLF EXPENDITURES (continued)
ATTENDEES
Date of Elected City
Payment Paid To Officials Staff Others Amount
05-21-01 Come Home to the Park
63 1 5 $ 840.00
06-12-01 Hospitality Political Action Committee
64 1 $ 200.00
08-16-01 North Metro Mayors Association 4 $ 360.00
08-30-01 North Metro Mayors Association 1 $ 110.00
TOTAL: $6,914.00
The governing bodies of cities are authorized to appropriate necessary funds to provide city
membership in county, regional, state, and national associations of a civic, educational, or
governmental nature which have as their purpose the betterment and improvement of municipal
governmental operations.
65 Cities “are also authorized to participate through duly designated
representatives in the meetings and activities of such associations,” and the governing bodies of
cities“areauthorizedtoappropriate necessary fundstodefraythe actualandnecessary expensesof
such representatives in connection therewith.”66
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 35
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 19
67 Op. Att’y Gen. 63a-2 (May 6, 1965) (emphasis added).
68 Op. Att’y Gen. 63a-2 (May 6, 1965).
69 Id.
70 See, e.g., Ops. Att’y Gen. 107-a-3 (January 22, 1980) and 270-D (August 12,
1977) (prohibiting retroactive pay increases or bonuses to public employees).
71 Op. Att’y Gen. 63a-2 (May 6, 1965).
72 Id.
73 See State ex rel. Johnson v. Smith, 84 Minn. 295, 87 N.W. 775 (Minn. 1901).
In examining this authority, the Minnesota Attorney General noted that Minnesota law has a
fundamental prerequisite that the expenses are necessary expenses.67 When an event is hosted by
anorganizationotherthanthecity, whenattendanceat theevent is necessarilybeneficial tothecity,
and when such benefits cannot be derived other than at the event itself, the Attorney General has
determined that “the propriety of such expenditures may become a factual determination vesting
within the discretion of the city council in the exercise of its sound and honest judgment.”
68
However,theAttorneyGeneralalsonotedthat entertainment expenditures arenot properlypayable
for public employees.69
The OSA is aware of no authority for the City to expend public funds to send City employees or
officials to golf outings. Such expenditures primarily appear to be prohibited entertainment
expenditures. Furthermore, public entities cannot give gifts to their employees or private
individuals.70
The OSA recommends that the City discontinue expending public funds for employees, elected
officials, and private individuals to play golf.
V. EXPENDITURES FOR MEALS/FOOD
It was alleged that some City expenditures for meals and food did not have a public purpose.
Generally, cityemployees maybe reimbursed onlyfor necessarymeal expenses.
71 Whether a meal
isnecessarydependsuponthenecessityforholdingaparticularmeetingduringmealtimeratherthan
at some other time, and upon the benefits derived from providing food during a meeting.
72
Furthermore, even if a local government unit routinely approves certain expenditures, it does not
necessarily satisfy a public purpose if the expenditure is not supported by statutory authority, or if
the expenditure is for the benefit of private individuals.73
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 36
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 20
74 See City’s Purchasing Manual § 35.20 (May 1, 1996). The City amended this
policy in April of 2001. The only change that appeared in the amended policy is
in the last sentence, which requires completion of “appropriate forms” instead of
an “Employee Expense Report.” City’s Purchasing Manual § 35.20 (April 2001).
75 See Section II of this Report for further discussion of the City’s petty cash and
purchasing card procedures.
76 See City Charter § 8.10; Minn. Stat. § 15.17 (2000) (public officers “shall make
and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their
official activities”).
The City’s purchasing policy during the OSA’s period of review addressed City expenditures for
business meals:
ThereareoccasionswhenaCityemployeemaybereimbursedforthecostofamealorother
fooditems. This commonly occurs when there is a business meeting that goes through lunch,
or a council meeting that starts right after the end of normal working hours, or a training
session that lasts the entire day. The appropriateness of the expenditure should be
determinedbytheDepartmentHeadinrelationtotheirbudgetandotherpolicies,suchasthe
Gift Acceptance policywhich does not allow a Cityemployee to receive a free meal from a
vendor or other interested party. . . . An appropriate Employee Expense Report shall be
completed and approved for reimbursement.74
The City’s policyprovides minimal internal control procedures to provide the Citywith reasonable
assurances that Cityexpenditures are proper. Further, the City’s policy offers minimal guidance to
employees and supervisors in determining when, and to what extent, reimbursement for the cost of
a meal or other food item is warranted.
The majority of the City’s meal and food purchases appear to have been made with the City’s
purchasingcardsortohavebeenreimbursedtoemployeesthroughpettycash.75 Therefore, the OSA
reviewed the documentation provided by City employees to the City for City purchasing card and
pettycash expenditures for meals and food from 1999 through 2001. The OSA has concluded that
certain explanations provided byCityemployees for the meal and food expenditures do not satisfy
a public purposeor even theminimal standards set forthintheCity’sbusiness meal reimbursement
policy that was in effect at the time of the expenditures. In addition, the OSA’s investigation
revealed that insufficient documentation was submitted to the City at the time some expenditures
were approved or paid, failing to provide a full and adequate description of the expenditures, as
required by City Charter and statute.76
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 37
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 21
77 MacTavish’s is located in the clubhouse at the City’s Edinburgh golf course. The
City received a non-itemized receipt as supporting documentation for this City
purchasing card expenditure. The OSA obtained the itemized receipt directly
from MacTavish’s.
78 The City received a non-itemized receipt as supporting documentation for this
City purchasing card expenditure. The OSA obtained the itemized receipt directly
from MacTavish’s.
79 Each employee provided the City with an itemized receipt reflecting purchase of
the wine when reimbursement was authorized from petty cash.
A. Alcohol
The purchase of alcohol by employees at City expense does not serve a public purpose. The OSA
found City expenditures for alcoholic beverages:
• The Citypaid for alcoholicbeverages on August 19, 1999, according to an itemized
receipt that the OSA obtained from MacTavish’s Grill and Pub (hereinafter
“MacTavish’s”).77 The purchasing card expenditure totaled $29.53 for four beers,
one O’Douls, one Dewers, and one Southern Comfort. The non-itemized receipt
submitted to the City does not identify the attendees, and states that the purpose of
the expenditure was “Charter & M. Grove re: Master Plan.” The time reflected on
thenon-itemizedreceiptis9:51p.m.Theemployeewhousedhispurchasingcardfor
this expenditure also approved the expenditure.
• The City paid $54.61 for wine, beer and an appetizer at MacTavish’s, according to
a September 14, 1999 itemized receipt obtained by the OSA.
78 The non-itemized
receipt submitted to the Citydoes not identifya purpose for the expenditure nor the
attendees. The time reflected on the non-itemized receipt is 10:11 p.m.
• Twoglasses ofwinewerepaidforbythe Cityin additiontotwoemployees’dinners
onOctober21,1999, at the Timber Lodge SteakhouseinDuluth,Minnesota,during
a conference.79
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 38
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 22
80 The OSA obtained an itemized receipt directly from Champps - Maple Grove.
81 The OSA obtained the itemized receipt directly from Pickwick Tavern. The City
documentation for the purchase card expenditure included only the total amount
paid, a listing of the five individuals attending the Pickwick Tavern, and a note
that the purpose of the expenditure was dinner while attending a conference in
Duluth.
82 The OSA found that in 2001, the City began to require employees to provide
itemized receipts. For the reasons discussed in this section of this Report, the City
is encouraged to enforce that policy.
• The City paid $48.11 for alcoholic beverages and an appetizer at Champps - Maple
GroveonNovember17,1999,ata“MapleGrovemtg”attendedbyfouremployees.80
Thetimereflectedonthenon-itemizedreceiptsubmittedtotheCityis9:41p.m. The
employee who used his purchasing card for this expenditure also approved the
expenditure.
• The City paid $68.00 for a “Deck the Boulevard meeting” at MacTavish’s on
November 22, 1999, attended by City employees and others. The itemized receipt
submitted to the City by the employee to support the purchase card expenditure
shows that the expenditure included payment for eight alcoholic beverages and five
appetizers. The time reflected on the itemized receipt is 6:49 p.m.
• During a conference in Duluth, the Citypaid for dinner, wine and beer for three city
employees,thewifeofoneoftheCityemployees,andaCityofWoodburyemployee
onSeptember21,2000,at Pickwick Tavern, totaling$135.44.
81 The employee who
used his purchasing card for this expenditure also approved the expenditure.
Forbothpurchasecardexpendituresandpettycashreimbursements,theCityacceptednon-itemized
receipts for meal expenditures during the OSA’s period of review.
82 While non-itemized receipts
providedocumentationthattheexpensewasincurred,theydonotprovidesufficientdocumentation
that theexpensewas legitimateandshouldbereimbursed. The non-itemized receipts do not reflect
what was purchased or the number of items purchased. By obtaining the itemized receipt directly
fromthevendor,theOSAlearnedthattheCitypaidforalcoholinthreeoftheexampleslistedabove.
Thus, there may be additional City expenditures for alcoholic beverages, but the lack of
documentationprevents theOSAandtheCityfrom determiningthe extent of Cityexpenditures for
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 39
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 23
83 For example, the employee submitting the Pickwick Tavern purchasing card
expenditure to the City informed the City that there were five attendees at the
meal, including the wife of a City employee and a City of Woodbury employee.
By comparing the itemized receipt which the OSA obtained directly from the
Pickwick Tavern with the number of attendees at the meal, the OSA concluded
that the City paid for the meals of all five attendees. In addition, the OSA found
one instance where it appears an employee was reimbursed twice from petty cash
for the same meal expense, once submitting an itemized receipt, and once
submitting a non-itemized receipt. The OSA recommends that the City consider
seeking reimbursement where appropriate.
84 One of the tables ($150.00) was coded by the City as “4200 - operating supplies”
for the Recreation and Parks Department.
alcoholic beverages. Similarly, the lack of itemized receipts precludes the City and the OSA from
determining for whom meals were purchased.83
B. City-Purchased Employee Meals/Food
Duringitsreview,theOSAfound$23,389.71inquestionableCityexpendituresformealsandfood.
The majority of those questionable expenditures occurred in 1999 and 2000.
1. Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast
TheOSAfound$467.00inCityexpendituresfor employees to attend the Mayor’s Prayer Breakfasts.
According to the flyers for the 1999 event, this event is hosted by the Mayor and is “designed as a
timeofprayerforourCity, StateandNation,itsleaders,andasatimeofrededicationofindividuals
toGod.” In 1999, it appears that the City paid for ten people, including the City Manager, the Police
Chief,andtheCity’sFinanceDirector,toattendtheevent($15.00perperson,foratotalof$150.00).
In 2000, it appears that the City paid for two tables ($150.00 per table of ten, for a total cost of
$300.00) at the event.
84 In 2001, the City informed the OSA that only $17.00 was paid by the City
foroneindividualtoattendtheevent. The City informed the OSA that it is the City’s understanding
that additional Cityemployees attended the 2001 event, but paid their own fees due to the scrutiny
that City expenditures were receiving in 2001.
The OSA recommends that the City require City staff who wish to attend the Mayor’s Prayer
Breakfast to pay their own fees for the event.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 40
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 24
85 Op. Att’y Gen. 63a-2 (May 6, 1965).
86 Id.
87 It appears the City’s business meal policy was violated because documentation
that the meal was part of an all-day training session or a business meeting that
goes through lunch was not created and submitted to the City contemporaneously
with the reimbursement request or purchase card expenditure authorization.
88 All locations of the meals are in Brooklyn Park unless otherwise noted. The chart
also excludes meals for the Recreation and Park Department for which the OSA
could not determine if the meals were part of an activity program.
2. Staff-on-Staff Meals
According to the Minnesota Attorney General, “[e]ntertainment expenses are not properly
payable . . . and to the same degree, officials holding luncheon meetings among themselves are not
compensable since neither are necessary expenditures.”
85 Absent evidence that it is necessary for
meetings to be held over meal times rather than at other times, public funds may not be properly
expendedforemployeemeals.86 Stated another way, public employees who work together generally
cannot go to lunch and charge their employer, even if they conduct business while eating.
During its review, the OSA found instances where employees had lunch together at City expense.
Manyof the meals paid for bythe Citywere for employee staff meetings. Other employee meals at
Cityexpenselistedastheirpurposesuchcommonworkmattersasstaffevaluationsorthediscussion
of current projects. Some of the documentation submitted by the employee in support of the
expenditure provided no explanation for the purpose of the meeting. Furthermore, no evidence of
a necessity for routine work duties to occur over a meal was provided.87
From the documentation providedtotheOSA,it was often difficult to ascertain who was present at
City-fundedmealsandwhetherallattendeeswereCityemployees. However, Attachment 1 reflects
$6,254.93inexpenditureswhentheCitypaidforemployees’meals,itappearsnooneotherthanthe
City employees were present, and the expenditures do not appear to be for meals purchased while
an employee was away from the City or participating in a training program.88
In addition to the staff-on-staff meals that the OSA has identified in Attachment 1, the OSA found
instances in which the City expended public funds for meals purchased for employees in
appreciation for work performed. Those additional staff-on-staff meals are discussed in the
employee recognition section of this Report.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 41
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 25
89 For example, in February 2001, the claims lists presented to the City Council
began to provide the City Council with a brief description of individual
purchasing card expenditures. The minutes of June, July and August 2001 City
Council working sessions reflect that the City discussed whether certain City
expenditures had a public purpose. On February 11, 2002, after the OSA’s
investigation had begun, the City Council adopted Standing Executive Policy #12
entitled “Public Purpose Expenditures.” As previously noted, the OSA
recommends that the City review Standing Executive Policy #12 in light of this
Report.
90 Op. Att’y Gen. 63a-2 (May 6, 1965).
91 Id.(The Attorney General questioned the rationale which would compel a
meeting to be held at noon rather than some other time, and the necessary benefit
derived from eating while meeting, or meeting while eating, as distinguished from
just meeting.)
As reflected in Attachment 1, the number of staff-on-staff meals dropped in 2001 when the City
Council began to question whether certain City expenditures had a public purpose.
89 Indeed, the
OSA identified no questionable staff-on-staff meals from July through December 2001.
3. City Staff Meals with City Officials
The Minnesota Attorney General has specifically been asked to determine whether a city may
properly pay for the meals of its officials.
90 The Attorney General considered the lack of statutory
authorization, the lack of charter reference, the lack of council approval, and the absence of any
evidenceof“necessary” expenditures,anddeterminedthatacitymaynotproperlypayforthemeals
of its officials.
91 Furthermore, the City adopted City Resolution No. 2002-18 on January 14, 2002,
which states that it has been the policy of the City Council that business expenses incurred by
members of the City Council are not reimbursed unless the activity is specifically directed and
approved by the City Council as a body.
Duringits review,andas reflectedinAttachment 2, the OSA found that the Citypaid $1,016.25for
meals that City staff had with the Mayor, City Council members, and Planning Commission
members. Although the City’s documentation does not clearly identify whether the City paid for one
meal or two, the dollar amount of some of the expenditures appears to suggest that, on several
occasions, the City paid for meals for some of its officials.
Under the reasoning of the Attorney General’s opinions, there does not appear to be any necessity
for the City to pay for the meals of City staff members or City officials at such meetings. Absent
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 42
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 26
92 City’s Purchasing Manual § 35.20 (May 1, 1996); City’s Purchasing Manual
§ 35.20 (April 2001).
93 Id.
94 The OSA notes that not all City employees who appear before the City Council
have the City pay for their evening meals. For example, the OSA did not find any
evidence that the City purchased meals for the City Manager prior to evening City
meetings.
evidence of a necessity to meet over a meal, the expenditures for meals for City staff and City
officialsappeartobeimproper. Furthermore, the meals for City officials do not appear to have been
specificallydirectedandapprovedbytheCityCouncilasabody,asrequiredbyCityResolutionNo.
2002-18.
4. Meals Prior To City Meetings
The OSA also found that the Citypaidforcertainemployees’meals prior to CityCouncil and EDA
meetings scheduled in the evening. The limited information contained on the supporting receipts
maintainedbytheCitymakes it difficult toidentifyall Cityexpenditures forsuchmeals. However,
the OSA did identify at least $1,474.45 in such expenditures, as reflected in Attachment 3.
According to City Council meeting minutes, City Council meetings generally begin at 7:30 p.m.,
preceded by an open forum from 7:15 - 7:30 p.m. The OSA was informed that EDA meetings
generally begin at 7:00 p.m.
The City’s policypermits reimbursement for employee meals when a council meeting “starts right
after the end of normal working hours.”
92 Furthermore, according to the City’s policy, the
appropriateness of such expenditures “should be determined bythe Department Head in relation to
their budget and other policies.”
93 Thus, according to City policy, the department heads who eat
City-funded meals prior to evening meetings are the same individuals who determine the
appropriateness of such expenditures.94
The EDA and City Council meetings are not held over meal times. Under the Attorney General’s
reasoning, it does not appear that public funds should be expended for an employee’s meal simply
because the employee will attend an evening meeting. In addition, the City’s policy which allows
the person making the expenditure to determine the appropriateness of the expenditure fails to
segregate duties and does not provide the City with adequate internal controls.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 43
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 27
95 In addition to the expenditures reflected in Attachment 4, City expenditures for
the quarterly manager’s meeting also included fees for guest performers/speakers.
96 For example, the City informed the OSA that the Cattle Company expenditure
reflected in Attachment 4 was for a City Manager meeting with an individual
Council member to discuss City issues and concerns. However, a handwritten
notation on the Cattle Company receipt indicates that the expenditure was for a
gift certificate for the 3rd quarterly manager’s meeting.
97 Door prizes at staff meetings would appear to be employee gifts prohibited by the
reasoning of the Minnesota Attorney General.See, e.g., Op. Att’y Gen. 107-a-3
(January 22, 1980).
5. Staff Meetings/Gatherings
Inadditiontostaff-on-staffmeals at local restaurants,theOSAfoundthat,duringtheOSA’s period
of review, food appears to have been routinely served at City expense at many employee staff
meetings and at other gatherings involving City employees.
a. Quarterly Manager’s Meeting
TheCityManagerheldquarterlymanager’smeetingstowhichallCityemployeeswereinvited. The
OSA was informed that the meetings, hosted by various City departments, consisted of an
approximately30minutepresentationbytheCityManagerregardingCityissues,followedbyabrief
program.
DuringtheOSA’s periodofreview, the City appears to have paid $1,768.59 in connection with the
quarterly manager’s meeting, as reflected in Attachment 4. The expenditures included food, gift
certificates, tuxedo rentals, and door prizes.95
The OSA is concerned that the expenses for the same event have different expenditure codes and
could not be readily identified by the City.96 While most of the quarterly manager’s meeting
expenditures were coded as “4200 - operating supplies,” two door prizes were coded as Police
Department “7400 - miscellaneous expenses,” and a gift certificate was coded as “8600 - meeting
and travel expenses.”
TheOSAknowsofnoauthorityfortheCitytopurchasedoorprizesorgiftcertificatesforemployee
staff meetings.97 Similarly, expenditures identified in Attachment 4 for food and entertainment
items, such as tuxedos, do not appear to have a public purpose.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 44
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 28
98 The chart excludes food purchased by the City as part of training programs or for
Recreation and Park Department activity programs.
99 The OSA was not provided with complete electronic data for 2001 City
expenditures.
100 This chart excludes food purchased for “training” or for Recreation and Park
Department activity programs.
b. Food at Staff Meetings
In addition to the food served at the quarterly manager’s meetings, the OSA found that food was
frequentlyserved, at City expense, at routine staff meetings. These expenditures appear to serve a
private,ratherthanapublicfunction. Attachment 5 reflects $2,994.57 in food purchases by the City
for gatherings that appear to be employee staff meetings.98
The OSA was informed that the City has an open account at Jack’s Bakery. The OSA found that
some City purchases from Jack’s Bakery were made with City purchasing cards, some were
reimbursedfrompettycash,andsomewerechargedtotheCity’sopenaccount. The OSA found that
the City expended at least $3,785.48 at Jack’s Bakery in 1999, and $4,440.21 in 2000.99
c. Other Food and Products - No Purpose Provided
The OSA also observed evidence of expenditures in 1999 and 2000 for beverages, food and paper
products (such as napkins and tablecloths) which contained no explanation regarding why the
products were being purchased at City expense. Generally, such expenditures stopped after April
2001 when the City began to review employee expenditures more closely. Without a detailed
explanation for the expenditure, the City and the OSA were unable to determine whether the
expenditures served a public or a private interest. The OSA found that the City purchased, with no
explanation at the time of the expenditure, $2,472.81 in food and other products, as reflected in
Attachment 6.100
TheOSAisconcernedthat,during1999and2000,itappearstohavebecomecommonplaceforCity
employeestobilltheCityforfoodconsumedbyemployeeswhowereattendingmeetingsduringthe
workday. For example, included in Attachment 6 are City reimbursements from petty cash for the
following “meeting” expenses:
• $10.97 from Starbucks Coffee in Maple Grove at 8:48 a.m. on August 11,
1999, for four drinks; and
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 45
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 29
• $7.35 from Caribou Coffee in Brooklyn Park at 10:48 a.m. on August 17,
1999, for three drinks.
The City received insufficient documentation to establish that such expenditures served public rather
than private interests.
C. Meals for/with Non-City Employees
InadditiontopurchasingmealsforCityemployeesandofficials,itappearsthat theCityusedpublic
money to purchase meals for consultants, independent auditors, and other members of the public who
were not City employees or officials.
In some instances, the OSA was unable to determine whether the Cityexpended moneyfor its own
employees, as well as private individuals, because an itemized receipt did not accompany every
expenditure. Attachment 7 reflects meal expenditures totaling $3,048.05 for which the OSA was
abletoidentityatleastonenon-Cityemployeeatthemeal,anditappearsthattheCitymayhavepaid
for the meals of non-City employees in addition to meals for City employees.
The OSA is unaware of anyauthoritywhich would allow public money to be gifted to members of
thepublic,suchasCityvendors,intheformofCity-purchasedmeals. Furthermore, while it appears
that City employees who had meals with non-City personnel in 2001 more often had the City pay
only for the employees’ meals, the OSA still questions the necessity of such expenditures.
D. Other Questionable Meals
In 1999 and 2000, the receipts provided by City employees as documentation supporting City
expendituresformealsdidnotconsistentlyidentifywhoattendedthemealorwhatpurposethemeal
served. This was true even though the forms used by the City for purchasing card transactions
required documentation regarding attendees and the purpose for all expenditures coded as
conferences, meetings, or travel.
The OSA found $1,779.59 in City expenditures for “business meals” for which the identity of the
attendees andthepurposeofthemeal werenot providedtotheCity. The expenditures are reflected
in Attachment 8.
The OSA also found $2,113.47 in City expenditures for “business meals” for which the names or
initials of at least some attendees were listed, but the OSA was unable to determine the identity of
all the people present at the meal. The expenditures are reflected in Attachment 9.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 46
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 30
101 The City’s expenditures for food at City staff meetings is discussed in Section
V.B. of this Report.
102 The OSA notes that in 2001, the City began to code its expenditures more
accurately.
When the purpose of the meeting is not provided, the City is unable to determine that the meal
served a public purpose. When the attendees are not identified, the City is unable to determine for
whom theCitypurchasedmeals. The City failed to obtain sufficient detail on these expenditures to
audit and allow payment of the claims. As a result, the public and the OSA are unable to ascertain
the merit of these expenditures.
E. City Coding of Expenditures
The OSA’s review of City expenditures was hindered because of the City’s expenditure coding
practices. For example, four people ate at Don Pablos during a training session on November 19,
1999. The expenditure was coded “4200 - operating supplies” by the City. Similarly, the OSA noted
that some departments within the Cityroutinelycoded food expenditures for routine staff meetings
as “operating supplies,” rather than as “meeting expenses.”
101 Prior to 2001, for example, most
expenditures from Jack’s BakerypurchasedwithCityfunds bythe Police and Fire Departments for
routine staff meetings appear to be coded “4200 - operating supplies,” however, the expenditures
wereforfoodservedatstaffmeetings,accordingtothewrittendescriptionscontainedonthereceipts
reviewed by the OSA.
The OSA recommends that the City seek to have expenditure codes accurately reflect the purpose
of the expenditure.
102 Meals and food purchased for meetings should be coded by the City as
“meetingexpenses,”not as “operatingsupplies.” More importantly, the OSA recommends that the
various departments within the Citycode similar expenditures similarly. Only by consistently and
accuratelycodingexpenditurescantheCitygainknowledgeregardinghowtaxpayerfundsarebeing
expended.
F. Lack of Limits on Meal Expenditures
The OSA notes that the Cityhas not set a limit on the cost of employee meals. The OSA noted the
following:
• The City spent $53.44 at John Barley Corn in Rochester, Minnesota, for an
August 30, 1999 “business dinner for IBM meeting in Rochester” for which the
receipt lists only one person, an employee, in attendance;
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 47
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 31
103 The City did not receive an itemized receipt for the expenditure.
104 See Minn. Stat. § 15.17, subd. 1 (2000).See also City Charter § 8.10.
105 The City Charter requires that no disbursement of City funds shall be made until
the claim to which it relates has been supported by an itemized bill, payroll or
timesheet. City Charter § 8.10.
• The City spent $35.50 at Kincaid’s for two employees’ lunch during a training
session in Bloomington on February 9, 2000; and
• The City spent $65.30 at Capt. Daniel Packer Inne in Mystic, Connecticut, on
June 13, 2000, for meals for two employees attending a conference.103
TheOSAalsonotedthatsomeexpendituresforCity-purchasedmeals included tips comprising more
than 20% of the cost of the meal.
G. Recommendations
The OSA recommends that the City review its expenditures to insure that all expenditures are
“necessary” and serve a public purpose. In addition, the OSA recommends that the City make and
preserve all records necessary for a full and accurate understanding of City expenditures.104
To assist the Cityin determining whether expenditures serve a public rather than a private interest,
the OSA recommends that the City require City employees purchasing meals with City funds to
provide the following information in writing:
• An itemized receipt supporting the expenditure;
105
• Who was present at the meal;
• For whom the City purchased a meal; and
• The necessity of the meal, including the necessity of holding a meeting over meal-
time if the meal was purchased as part of a meeting.
The OSA also recommends that the City:
• Implement a review process for all expenditures that excludes the purchaser from
approving the purchase;
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 48
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 32
106 See Minn. Stat. § 471.38, subd. 1 (2000) (claim shall not be allowed until the
person claiming payment signs a declaration to the effect that such claim is just
and correct and that no part of it has been paid).
107 See 26 C.F.R. § 1.62-2 (C)(5) (2000) and discussion in Section II.B. of this
Report.
108 Op. Att’y Gen. 59a-22 (November 23, 1966).
109 Id.
110 Op. Att’y Gen. 59A-22 (January 8, 1957), quoting 15 McQuillin, Municipal
Corporations, 3rd ed., Sec. 39.22.
• Require claimants to sign a declaration that the claim is just and correct and that no
part of it has been paid;106
• Stop paying for employee meals simply because the employee will be attending a
meeting later in the evening;
• Continue its recent effort to code City expenditures more accurately;
• End its practice of providing food at routine staff meetings;
• Consider imposing dollar limits on the amounts that an employee may spend on a
meal that is purchased with City funds;
• Comply with City Resolution No. 2002-18 and Minnesota law as clarified in the
Attorney General opinions regarding meals for City staff and officials; and
• Comply with federal tax regulations and include in an employee’s gross income, as
reported on Form W-2, appropriate reimbursements.107
VI. EMPLOYEE EVENTS
The Minnesota Attorney General has concluded that a municipality does not have the authority to
use public funds to pay the expenses of a Christmas party for city employees where the party is
primarilysocialinnatureandforthesolebenefitofthecityemployees.108 According to the Attorney
General, any public benefit which results from the proposed social function is too remote and
speculative in nature to justify the expenditure as being for a public purpose.109 Similarly, the
Attorney General has quoted: “Without express authority, a municipal corporation may not
appropriate the public revenue for celebrations, entertainments, etc. Such power cannot be
implied.”110 Thus, unless specific authority provides otherwise, employee social functions should
not be paid for with public funds.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 49
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 33
111 See,e.g., Ops. Att’y Gen. 59-A-3 (May 21, 1948) and 59a-22 (December 4, 1934).
112 See, e.g., Ops. Att’y Gen. 107-a-3 (January 22, 1980) and 270-D (August 12,
1977) (prohibiting retroactive pay increases or bonuses to public employees).
113 Op. Att’y Gen. 107-a-3 (January 22, 1980).
114 Id.
115 Id.
116 See Ops. Att’y Gen. 359b (October 24, 1989) and 161b-12 (January 24, 1989).
117 The gift certificates appear to be in addition to awards and gifts given to
employees at the City’s annual employee recognition events, which are discussed
in Part 3 of this Section.
A. Employee Gifts, Employee Celebrations, and Employee Recognition Events
Publicfundscannotbegiftedawaybypublicemployeesorofficials.111 Nor may public entities give
gifts to their employees.
112 According to the Minnesota Attorney General, implicit in these
determinations is “the assumption that a gift of public funds to an individual necessarily serves a
private rather than public purpose.”113
TheAttorneyGeneralhasalsoopinedthatpublicentitiescannotpayyear-endbonusestoemployees
for performance of past services.
114 According to the Attorney General, such services could not be
considerationforabonusbecause,whenthebonuswasapproved,theserviceshadalreadybeenfully
paid at a previously agreed-upon rate.
115 Therefore, bonus or incentive programs need to be set up
in advance, based upon objective criteria. The Attorney General has also concluded that in-kind
benefits need specific statutory authority in order to be provided to public employees.116
The OSA determined that the City expended public funds to reward employees for work that was
already part of their job duties, and for which the employees had received compensation from the
City.
1. Gifts to City Employees
The OSA identified at least $4,933.04 in expenditures that could be construed as gifts prohibited
under the reasoning of the Attorney General’s opinions. The OSA found that the City purchased
“give-aways” for attendance at employee meetings. The City purchased gift certificates for
employees.117 The City purchased holiday greeting cards, birthday cards, sympathy cards and
flowers. The expenditures are reflected in Attachment 10.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 50
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 34
118 The other two employee-related events are the annual employee picnic and the
annual Spring Clean-Up Day, discussed in Sections VI.B. and VI.D. of this
Report.
The OSA’s review also disclosed instances where employees were taken to lunch at the City’s
expense as a reward for “a job well done.” Staff appreciation and recognition meals, totaling
$1,107.23 and reflected in Attachment 11, are gifts for services already fully paid by the City at a
previouslyagreed-upon rate. Furthermore, a comparison of expenditures reflected in Attachments
10 and 11 reveals that some employees who were given gift certificates were also taken to lunch.
2. Miscellaneous Employee Celebrations
The OSA’s reviewdisclosed$2,882.43inCityexpenditures foravarietyofemployee celebrations,
including birthday, employee departure and retirement parties, as reflected in Attachment 12.
Theseexpendituresappeartobeforeventsthatareprimarilysocialinnature. While employees may
wish to recognize special events in the lives of fellow employees, the OSA recommends that such
expenditures be made with employee funds, not with City funds.
3. The City’s Annual Recognition Event
According to the City’s November 8, 2000 policy on “Employee-Related Activities/Events,” the
annualemployeerecognitioncelebrationisoneofthreeannualCityeventsheldsolelyforemployees
and Council members.
118 According to the policy, other City employee events are encouraged but
“must not use public funds.”
AccordingtotheCity’sEmployeeRecognitionProgramPolicyestablishedonJanuary25,1989,the
City provides awards to its employees based on longevityof service. Under the policy, employees
receive the following awards:
5 years Pin with number of years of service
10 years Gift, not to exceed $25.00
15 years Gift, not to exceed $35.00
20 years Gift, not to exceed $75.00
25 years Gift, not to exceed $125.00, and recipient may invite spouse or guest to
attend the employee recognition luncheon.
City information provided to the OSA indicated that the annual recognition event was held from
11:30a.m.to1:00p.m.at theCity’sCommunityActivityCenteronApril 7, 1999,March22,2000,
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 51
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 35
119 See Ops. Att’y Gen. 359b (October 24, 1989) and 161b-12 (January 24, 1989).
120 Letter of February 6, 1998 from Assistant Attorney General Kenneth E. Raschke,
Jr., to Champlin City Attorney regarding employee recognition program.
Addressing the question of whether a city, pursuant to its employment policy
which was understood to be part of its employment agreement, can hold an annual
employee appreciation dinner at public expense for all employees, or award
recognition gifts for those employees with five to 25+ years of service, the
Attorney General’s Office concluded: “Thus, while an agreed upon monetary
bonus might be provided as part of a salary plan to employees who meet
performance or longevity standards, we are at a loss to locate authority for
expenditures of funds for in kind awards or social occasions of the type
described.” The Attorney General’s Office also questioned a city’s authority to
expend any public funds for award recognition gifts for employees based on years
of service.
121 The City indicated that $421.50 was expended in 2000 for “15 year pins.” This
amount is included in the 2000 amount for “awards/gifts.”
and March 14, 2001. The City informed the OSA that approximately 240 employees attended each
event over theirlunch hours. The invitations sent to employees offer all employees complimentary
luncheons, entertainment, and door prizes.
The Attorney General has determined that “in kind” benefits for public employees require explicit
statutory authority.
119 The Attorney General’s Office has also stated that it is unaware of any
authority for the expenditure of public funds for annual employee appreciation dinners,
120 and the
OSA knows of no authority for a city to provide a meal at such an event for an employee’s spouse
or guest.
The OSA was not provided with complete supporting documentation regarding City expenditures
for the annual employee recognition events. However, the City did provide the OSA with a chart
summarizing the City’s expenditures for the events. According to the City’s summary, which the
OSAwasunabletoindependentlyverify,theCityexpendedatotalof$23,856.32forthe1999,2000,
and 2001 recognition events. According to the City’s summary, $15,373.65 of that amount was
expended for awards and gifts:
1999 2000 2001 Total
Awards/gifts $3,506.15 $4,776.50
121 $7,091.00 $15,373.65
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 52
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 36
122 The City budgeted $7,950.00 in 1999, $8,300.00 in 2000, and $11,700.00 in 2001
for its employee recognition luncheons. In all three years, the expenditures for the
events were coded as “operating supplies” (4200).
123 From the receipts provided by the City to the OSA, it appears that the 2000 “wrap-
up lunch” was held at TGI Friday’s, and cost $103.91, not the $85.00 reported by
the City in its summary chart. The OSA also found that the City paid $104.26 for
nine people to have lunch at the Ground Round in Maple Grove on February 14,
2001 for the stated purpose of “Employee Recognition Luncheon
meeting/supplies pick up.”
Although the City’s Employee Recognition Program Policy set dollar limits for longevity awards,
itappearsfromCitydocumentationthat theCityexceededthelimits set inthePolicy. For example,
items and gift certificates exceeding $200.00 were purchased, and, in one instance, a $300.00 gift
certificate appears to have been provided to an employee who should have had an award limit of
$125.00 under the City’s Policy.
In addition to the $15,373.65 that the City reported to the OSA it spent on “awards/gifts” for the
annual employee recognition events, the City reported to the OSA an additional $8,482.67 in
expenditures for the events, as set forth below:
ANNUAL EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION EVENTS
(CITY’S SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES
IN ADDITION TO “AWARDS/GIFTS”)122
1999 2000 2001 Total
Food $1,584.00 $1,608.00 $1,680.00 $4,872.00
Video Production 300.00 330.00 330.00 960.00
Pop 187.00 92.00 ------ 279.00
Entertainment 600.00 ------------ 600.00
Decorations 200.00 184.00 120.00 504.00
Gift Certificates 240.00 340.00 240.00 820.00
Mooner Plaque 60.00 ------------60.00
Wrap-Up Lunch 52.67 85.00
123 ------ 137.67
Misc.50.00 60.00 ------ 110.00
Target Cards for Staff ------------ 140.00 140.00
TOTAL:$3,273.67 $2,699.00 $2,510.00 $8,482.67
These expenditures, totaling $8,482.67, are questionable. It appears that the $820.00 in “gift
certificates” identified bythe Cityfor the events are in addition to the longevity awards authorized
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 53
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 37
in the City’s Employee Recognition Program Policy. The OSA was informed that employees who
could not attend the event were provided box lunches. In 2001, fourteen employees who “covered
telephones” and did not attend the event were each given $10.00 gift certificates from Target. As
event expenditures, the OSA noted the rental of a Darth Vader costume, the inclusion of “door
prizes,” and an expenditure for a “Mooner of the Year” award.
The employee recognition events appear primarily social in nature. The door prizes and gift
certificatesappeartoserveprivate,insteadofpublicpurposes. The City’s expenditures for a “wrap-
up” luncheon following each event do not appear to meet the public purpose requirements for a
“business lunch” because there was no necessityfor employees to meet over mealtime to complete
any “wrap-up” activities from the events.
All expenditures of City funds must have both authority and a public purpose. The OSA
recommends that the City review its Employee Recognition Program Policy to comply with
Minnesota law, consistent with the guidance provided by the Attorney General.
B. Annual Employee Picnic
TheOSAreviewedtheexpendituresfortheCity’sannualemployee picnics from 1999 through 2001.
According to City records provided to the OSA, the City expended public funds of approximately
the following amounts for the annual employee picnics:
City Employee
Date Expenditures Contributions Difference
October 1999 $ 353.51 $ 353.51 $ 0.00
August 2000 $2,151.87 $ 0.00 $2,151.87
June 2001 $2,315.64 $ 0.00 $2,315.64
TOTALS:$4,821.02 $ 353.51 $4,467.51
TheCityprovideddocumentationindicatingthatemployeespaid$2.00eachforthe1999picnic,and
the employees’ Sunshine Club reimbursed the Cityfor the remainingexpenditures, so there was no
costtotheCityforthisevent. The Sunshine Club raises funds voluntarily contributed by employees
throughpayrolldeductions. The purpose of the Sunshine Club is “to send a card, flowers, or similar
gesture on behalfof all cityemployees to all employees in the event of: the death of an employee’s
immediatefamily member, household member or spouse; an employee’s hospitalization or extended
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 54
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 38
124 City Employee-Related Activities/Events Sunshine Club Funding Election Form.
125 Dinner was catered and cost $12.75 per person.
126 The City provided the OSA with records indicating employee contributions of
$1,275.00, and a record of refunds totaling $60.00.
illness; birth/adoptionofachildbyanemployee.”
124 While the Sunshine Club is a method to allow
employees to recognize events in the lives of fellow employees, the City has no authority to serve
as the fiscal agent for the Sunshine Club.
The OSA received a copy of the invitation used for the 2000 annual employee picnic. It was held
at theCity’sHistorical Farm from 11:30a.m. to 1:30 p.m. City records indicate that approximately
207 employees attended the event. In addition to a meal, the City provided for “rodeo inflatable
horse racing” to entertain employees during the Western-theme event.
ItappearsthattheCityexpendedatleast$4,467.51ofpublicfundsforannualemployeepicnicsfrom
1999through 2001. The general public was not invited to these events. Instead, these expenditures
were for the benefit of City employees. Regardless of how desirable or commendable the purpose
may be, public funds cannot be expended on an event that is primarily social in nature. The OSA
recommends that the City discontinue expending public funds for employee social events.
C. Annual Holiday Party
According to City records provided to the OSA, the City expended public funds of at least the
following amounts for annual employee holiday parties:
City Employee
Date Expenditures Contributions Difference
December 17, 1998 $ 808.21 $ 0.00 $ 808.21
January 13, 2000 $1,273.14 $ 0.00 $1,273.14
January 19, 2001 $1,711.81 $1,215.00 $ 496.81
TOTALS:$3,793.16 $1,215.00 $2,578.16
The City indicated that it did not charge employees to attend the holiday parties held in December
1998 and January 2000. The OSA was informed that the City charged $15.00 for attendees at the
January2001 holiday party.
125 However, City records indicate that employee contributions for the
partytotaledonly$1,215.00,withCityexpendituresof$1,711.81.126 As such, it appears that the City
expended at least $2,578.16 of public funds for these three annual employee holiday parties.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 55
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 39
127 The invitations were sent out with employee paychecks.
128 Op. Att’y Gen. 59a-22 (November 23, 1966).
TheCityprovidedtheOSAwithacopyoftheinvitationusedbytheCityforthe2001event.127 The
event for City employees and their guests was held on a Friday night in the City’s Community
ActivityCenter from 5:30 to 10:00 p.m. It consisted of a social hour, dinner, a 30-minute program,
karaoke and dancing. A cash bar was available. Door prizes, such as three $20.00 cash prizes
awarded to employees who played a trivia game, were purchased with City funds.
In addition to annual holiday parties for all City employees, City records indicate that, from 1999
through 2001, certain City departments expended at least an additional $1,699.87 of public funds
for intra-departmental holiday parties, as reflected in Attachment 13. The City did not provide the
OSA with any record of employee contributions for these events.
According to the Attorney General, public expenditures for employee holiday parties do not serve
a public purpose.
128 The OSA recommends that the City discontinue expending public funds for
employee social events.
D. Spring Clean-Up Breakfast
City records provided to the OSA indicate that the City expended at least $1,132.88 for annual
SpringClean-UpBreakfasteventsinMayof1999,2000and 2001. According to the invitations for
the events, breakfast was prepared by department directors and their assistants, and served at the
City’s CommunityActivityCenter from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. The events were free to City employees.
According to the invitations:
Awards and prizes for Shape-Up Challenge participants will take place at 8:30 a.m.,
followingwhich it will betimetoroll upoursleeves withenergyandenthusiasm andget on
withthebusinessofspringcleaningourworkenvironment;i.e.goingthroughfiles–storing
orshredding–polishing,sprucing,scrubbing,vacuuming,throwing, and doing whatever else
it takes for this annual clean up.
According to City records provided to the OSA, the City expended public funds of at least the
following amounts for Spring Clean-Up Breakfasts:
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 56
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 40
City
Date Expenditures
1999 $ 318.97
2000 $ 355.48
2001 $ 458.43
TOTAL:$1,132.88
City expenditures for these breakfasts do not appear to have a public purpose. The OSA
recommends that the City discontinue expending public funds for employee social events.
E. Shape-Up Challenge
CityrecordsindicatethattheCityexpendedpublicfundsforeventsassociatedwithitsannualShape-
Up Challenge. According to the City, the Shape-Up Challenge is an eight-week event to promote
health and wellness. Participating City employees are divided into teams, and prizes are awarded
totheteamsattheannual SpringClean-UpBreakfast. For example, in 2000, two $10.00 Target gift
certificates were purchased by the City for the captains of the two winning teams. In addition, six
$5.00Caribougiftcertificatesandten$1.00DairyQueencertificateswerepurchasedbytheCityfor
the event.
According to City records provided to the OSA, the City expended public funds of at least the
following amounts for the annual Shape-Up Challenge events:
City Employee
Date Expenditures Contributions Difference
1999 $262.93 $ 0.00 $262.93
2000 $190.78 $53.00 $137.78
2001 $141.22 $ 0.00 $141.22
TOTALS: $594.93 $53.00 $541.93
TheCityinformedtheOSAthat employeescontributed$1.00eachforthecostoftheannual Shape-
Up Challenge events. However, the City did not provide the OSA with any receipts for employee
contributions for the events in 1999 and 2001, and receipts for only$53.00 for the 2000 event were
providedtotheOSA. As such, it appears that the City expended at least $541.93 of public funds for
annual Shape-Up Challenge events from 1999 through 2001.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 57
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 41
129 According to the Request for Council Action prepared for the 2000 event, the
recipients of the City’s annual campaign included the United Way, Community
Health Charities, and employee activities for the annual Make-A-Difference Day
campaign.
130 For example, the employee who was the fastest in putting on a frozen T-shirt was
a “survivor.” Another individual activity had employees race to clothing (hula
shirts, sun glasses, hats, visors, and “other fun things”), dress in the clothing, and
race back to the starting point. Team activities included such activities as water
balloon tosses and nailing Jello to a piece of wood.
The OSA is not aware of any authority for the City to expend public funds as it did for its annual
Shape-Up Challenge events. The OSA recommends that the City not expend City funds on such
events.
F. Make-A-Difference Day Campaigns
City records provided to the OSA indicate that, during the OSA’s period of review, the City
expended at least $1,540.58 of public funds for annual Make-A-Difference Day events.
According to the City, the City’s annual Make-A-Difference Daycampaign encourages “a spirit of
camaraderie, cooperation and a sense of communitybyencouraging employees to voluntarilygive
back to the broader community.”129 However, the OSA’s review disclosed that the City expended
public funds to purchasefood, cakes, beverages and prizes forevents heldforCityemployees. The
City acknowledged that expenses for the campaigns and employee events may have exceeded the
employee contributions and donations.
For example, in 2000, the City invited employees to attend a “Tribal Feast Luncheon” from 11:30
a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on City property. Employees were charged $2.00 each. In addition to lunch, the
City’s invitation for the event indicated the following:
Spectators are needed to cheer and encourage SURVIVOR competitors as they compete in
a variety of entertaining events and process of elimination. The result will be only two
employee tribemates will continue to the next plateau of Challenge No. 3 toward becoming
the ultimate, single SURVIVOR!
Theeventincludedteamactivitiesconsistingofcooperativeandcompetitivegames,andindividual
challenges consisting of races.
130 The City provided “one day of vacation” and a gift certificate for
onenightattheNorthlandInn(costingtheCity$163.16)asprizesfortheevent. While the City told
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 58
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 42
131 In connection with a teen Recreation and Parks Department program, it appears
that four Brooklyn Park teens were invited to participate in the event.
132 City records indicate that contributions and donations for the 2001 campaign
included $100.00 from the CHTTP organization, $100.00 from Creative Carton,
$50.00 from Medical Arts, and $1,388.00 of proceeds from an auction. The City
also indicated that it has received donations from Walmart, however the City did
not provide the OSA with any documentation regarding such donations for 1999
through 2001.
theOSAthat theYear2000campaign consisted of a drive to collect items neededbyteens,nothing
on the invitation for the employee event reflected the teen collection drive.131
From the information provided to the OSA, it appears that City expenditures, as well as employee
contributions and donations, for the 1999, 2000 and 2001 Make-A-Difference Day campaigns
included the following amounts:
Employee
City Contributions
Year Expenditures and Donations132 Difference
1999 $ 907.59 $ 382.50 $ 525.09
2000 $ 957.01 $ 120.00 $ 837.01
2001 $1,816.48 $1,638.00 $ 178.48
TOTALS: $3,681.08 $2,140.50 $1,540.58
As such, it appears that the Cityexpended at least $1,540.58 of public funds for Cityemployees to
celebratetheannual Make-A-DifferenceDaycampaignsfortheyears1999,2000and2001. Again,
regardless of how desirable or commendable the purpose of an event may be, public funds cannot
be expended on an event that is primarilysocial in nature. The OSA recommends that the City not
expend City funds on such employee events.
VII. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DUES
Citiesareauthorizedtoappropriatefundsto provide city membership in county, regional, state, and
nationalassociationsofacivic,educational,orgovernmentalnaturewhichhaveastheirpurposethe
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 59
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 43
133 Minn. Stat. § 471.96, subd. 1 (2000).
134 Letter of June 27, 1997 from Assistant Attorney General Kenneth E. Raschke, Jr.,
to Staples City Attorney regarding Staples Chamber of Commerce membership.
135 See CHTTP’s Articles of Incorporation, corporate Bylaws, and Minnesota
Secretary of State records. According to the CHTTP Board of Directors meeting
minutes, CHTTP is not a tax-exempt 501c(3) organization.
136 See CHTTP’s Statement of Intent, Article III, section 1 of Amendments to the
Bylaws of CHTTP. The OSA was informed that CHTTP is involved in
coordinating events including Make-A-Difference Day, Tater Daze, a campaign
for the City to receive All-American City designation, and various fund raisers
such as the Dick Koop Classic golf tournament.
137 See CHTTP’s Articles of Incorporation.
betterment and improvement of municipal governmental operations.
133 However, the Attorney
General has determined that a city is not authorized to be a member or pay membership dues of a
local chamber of commerce.134
During the OSA’s period of review, the City paid approximately $2,280.00 in dues to the North
Hennepin Chamber of Commerce and $975.00 in dues to the Brooklyn Community Chamber of
Commerce. Consistent with the reasoning of the Attorney General, it appears that such dues, totaling
$3,255.00, are not authorized City expenditures. The OSA recommends that the City discontinue
expending public funds for local chamber of commerce dues.
VIII. COME HOME TO THE PARK, A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION
DuringtheOSA’sreview,theOSAobservedtheexpenditureofCityfundsforeventsconnectedwith
Come Home to the Park (hereinafter “CHTTP”), a non-profit, publically supported corporation
formedonAugust5,1993,“toinspireandrecognizethegoodthingsthatenhancetheimage,quality
of life and pride in [the City]” and to make distributions to other tax-exempt organizations.135
According to the City, CHTTP was intended to be a public-private partnership focused on “feel
good”events toenhancetheCity’simage.
136 CHTTP’s Articles of Incorporation list City offices as
theorganization’sbusinessaddress.137 The CHTTP Board of Directors consists of thirteen members,
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 60
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 44
138 No more than two directors from City staff may be from any one department.
CHTTP’s Articles of Incorporation. The seven non-City staff directors must be
selected from the following areas of interest in the City: church, school, business,
multi-family, real estate, social service, community organization, and residents.
Id. The OSA has been informed that the size of the Board has recently been
increased, and the CHTTP Board of Directors meeting minutes reflect discussion
regarding reorganization of the Board.
139 The City’s Director of Finance and Administrative Services is the elected
treasurer of CHTTP.
140 According to CHTTP’s Treasurer, the CHTTP Board did not take action regarding
the transfer of CHTTP funds to the City’s special revenue account, and no
reference to the transfer appears in the CHTTP minutes. However, the CHTTP’s
Treasurer told the OSA that he informed the CHTTP Board that he would be
making the transfer. He also informed the OSA that he is currently authorized to
make expenditures on behalf of CHTTP from the City’s CHTTP special revenue
fund by virtue of his position with the City.
141 According to the minutes of the June 4, 2001 City Council work session, the
City’s financial support for CHTTP was “a 20-hour per week staff person and
supplies, which comes from EDA funds ($25,000) as well as funds from fund
raising.”
with six directors selected from City staff.138
PriortoFebruary2002,CHTTPmaintaineditsowncheckingaccountandtaxidentificationnumber.
According to CHTTP’s Bylaws, CHTTP’s Treasurer mayissue checks and disburse CHTTP funds
as ordered by the CHTTP Board.
139 CHTTP’s Treasurer closed CHTTP’s checking account on
February4,2002,andtransferredtheaccountbalanceof$17,753.63toaspecialrevenuefundwithin
the City that he controlled as the City’s Director of Finance and Administrative Services.140
During the OSA’s period of review, the City contributed $25,000 each year from its Economic
DevelopmentAuthority(hereinafter“EDA”)fundstopayforaCityemployeeintheCityManager’s
office to work on CHTTP projects for approximately 30 hours per week.
141 In addition to public
funds for the City employee’s time, the OSA discovered that the City had a general fund account
entitled“ComeHometothePark.” From January 1, 1999 through August 31, 2001, $7,549.93 was
expendedfromthisaccount. The OSA also found $632.17 in City expenditures on behalf of CHTTP
from other City accounts. Examples of City expenditures on behalf of CHTTP are reflected in
Attachment 14.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 61
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 45
142 According to CHTTP’s Treasurer, CHTTP made payments to schools and scout
troops in recognition of service projects conducted by the organizations.
However, the Minnesota Attorney General has specifically opined that cities
cannot make donations to the Boy Scouts. Ops. Att’y Gen. 59-A-3 (May 21,
1948) and (September 28, 1933). The OSA also found no provision in the City’s
Charter authorizing such expenditures.
143 The expenditures listed in this chart appear to have been made from the CHTTP
checking account.
The OSA reviewed the check register for the checking account maintained by CHTTP prior to
February 4, 2002. A listing of some CHTTP expenditures during the OSA’s period of review are
contained in Attachment 15. While the CHTTP checkbook entries do not provide sufficient
descriptions to determine the purpose of the expenditures, some of CHTTP’s expenditures would
not be authorized expenditures of public funds by a city.142
TheOSAalsoreviewedCityrecordsfortheannual DickKoopClassicgolftournament(hereinafter
“DKC”). The DKC is a fund-raising event organized by CHTTP and held at the City-owned
Edinburgh USA Golf Course (“Edinburgh”). The City informed the OSA that the DKC is held to
“show off” the City and Edinburgh.
According to records provided to the OSA, the 1999, 2000, and 2001 DKC golf events included
CHTTP expenditures, revenues, and net incomes of the following amounts:
CHTTP
Event Date Expenditures143 Revenues Net Income
May 24, 1999 $16,392.00 $24,457.00 $ 8,065.00
May 22, 2000 $11,306.26 $19,673.00 $ 8,366.74
May 21, 2001 $16,633.13 $23,530.00 $ 6,896.87
TOTALS: $44,331.39 $67,660.00 $23,328.61
BasedoninformationprovidedtotheOSA,thenetincomefromthe1999,2000and2001DKCgolf
events was distributed between the Brooklyn Community Chamber of Commerce (hereinafter
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 62
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 46
144 According to CHTTP’s Treasurer, distributions to the BCCC were reduced from
50 percent in 1999 to 25 percent in 2000 due to the increased role in planning the
DKC golf event by the City employee(s) who worked on CHTTP events. From
the information provided to the OSA, it appears that 50 percent of the profits from
the 2001 DKC golf event were again distributed to the BCCC. CHTTP’s
Treasurer informed the OSA that proceeds from the 2002 DKC golf event were
not shared with the BCCC.
145 City expenditures for golf participation fees for City employees and officials are
discussed in Section IV of this Report.
146 Minnesota law allows a home rule or statutory city to appropriate not more than
$50,000 annually out of the city’s general revenue fund to be paid to any
incorporated development society or organization of this state for promoting,
advertising, improving, or developing the economic and agricultural resources of
the city. Minn. Stat. § 469.191 (2000); see also Minn. Stat.§§ 461.189 (city may
appropriate money to advertise city and its resources and advantages) and 465.719
(2000) (city-sponsored organizations). CHTTP does not appear to be a
development organization. Nor does CHTTP appear to have been created to
promote, advertise, improve or develop the economic and agricultural resources of
the city.
“BCCC”) and CHTTP as follows:144
Event Date BCCC CHTTP
May 24, 1999 $ 4,025.00 $ 4,040.00
May 22, 2000 $ 2,091.68 $ 6,275.06
May 21, 2001 $ 3,448.43 $ 3,448.44
TOTALS: $ 9,565.11 $13,763.50
In addition to Citystaff time spent organizingthe DKC, Cityrecords indicate that the Cityincurred
City expenditures of at least $2,460.00 for participation fees in the DKC golf events for City
employees.145
The OSA is not aware of any authority permitting the City to expend public funds on CHTTP
activities.146 In general, the Attorney General has drawn a distinction between statutory authorization
to appropriate and use money for a purpose, and authorization to contribute money to a body
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 63
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 47
147 See, e.g., Op. Att’y Gen. 59-A-3 (January 15, 1959); Letter of June 27, 1997 from
Assistant Attorney General Kenneth E. Raschke, Jr., to Staples City Attorney
regarding Staples Chamber of Commerce membership.
generally committed to advancing a purpose.
147 The City has no authority to staff CHTTP events,
payCHTTP expenses, or assist in CHTTP fund-raisers, especiallywhen CHTTP expends funds in
ways that a city may not lawfully expend public funds.
The OSA recommends that the City treat CHTTP as a private entity, refrain from giving it the use
of public monies, staff and office space, and ensure that all transactions between the City and
CHTTParearms-lengthcontractualarrangements whereby the City receives services commensurate
with the consideration it pays. The OSA also recommends that the City operate appropriate City
functions through a City department organized for such purposes, rather than through a nonprofit
organization. The OSA recommends that the City expend public funds, including the funds in the
CHTTP special revenue fund, only for public purposes for which the City has authority.
CONCLUSION
The OSA’s investigation revealed $199,569.36 in questionable City expenditures. While the City
appears to have taken steps in 2001 to prevent the use of City funds for private rather than public
purposes,theOSArecommendsthattheCityimplementproceduresandcontrolsthatwillcurtailthe
improper spending of City funds.
Any questions regarding this Investigative Report may be directed to Ms. Nancy J. Bode, Special
Investigations Division, at (651) 297-5853.
/s/ Judith H. Dutcher
Judith H. Dutcher
State Auditor
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 64
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Attachment Index
Attachment 1: Staff-On-Staff Meals
Attachment 2: City Staff Meals With City Officials
Attachment 3: Meals Prior To City Meetings
Attachment 4: Expenses For Quarterly Manager’s Meetings
Attachment 5: Food At Staff Meetings
Attachment 6: Food And Products With No Explanation
Attachment 7: Meals For/With Non-City Employees
Attachment 8: City-Purchased Meals With No Further Explanation
Attachment 9: Meals For Which The OSA Cannot Determine The Identity of All The
People
Attachment 10: Miscellaneous Employee Gifts
Attachment 11: Employee Appreciation/Recognition Meals
Attachment 12: Employee Celebrations
Attachment 13: Intra-Department Holiday Parties
Attachment 14: Examples of City CHTTP Expenses
Attachment 15: Examples of CHTTP Expenditures
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 65
ATTACHMENT 1
STAFF-ON-STAFF MEALS
Date Amount Location Description Department No. of
Employees
02-04-99 $85.01 Champps - Maple
Grove
Governance lunch meeting Finance 8
02-24-99 $32.00 Olive Garden Offsite planning meeting Finance
HR Division
3
02-24-99 $43.00 MacTavish’s EDA job interview Finance 4
02-25-99 $23.00 Applebee’s None (6:18 p.m.)Finance 2
03-11-99 $16.33 Petty Cash
vendor unknown
Meeting/firefighters Fire Unknown
03-22-99 $22.50 Benchwarmer Bob’s None (7:21 p.m.)Finance 2
03-24-99 $36.62 Panda Garden Buffet District Chief meeting (7:07 p.m.) Fire 2
04-13-99 $106.50 MacTavish’s City Mgr/directors staff meeting Admin. 8
04-27-99 $81.41 The Landing Directors staff meeting Admin. Unknown
05-12-99 $19.49 Chili’s Chiefs meeting Fire Unknown
05-14-99 $80.22 Cattle Company Policy review committee Fire 4
05-14-99 $69.25 Minnetonka Mist
(Spring Park)
CDMI Quarterly Meeting EDA 7
05-18-99 $65.00 Cattle Company
(Fridley)
Weekly staff meeting over lunch Police 6
05-19-99 $17.97 Applebee’s Meeting with Chief Deputy/Operations Fire 2
05-21-99 $12.00 Subway HR planning meeting Finance
HR Division
Unknown
06-07-99 $28.06 MacTavish’s Senior management team meeting Fire 4
06-17-99 $36.42 Perkins Staff meeting off-site Police 5
06-18-99 $23.01 Benchwarmer Bob’s Business Lunch Rec & Park 2
07-01-99 $49.53 MacTavish’s None EDA 5
07-07-99 $20.00 MacTavish’s Administrative luncheon meeting Police 2
07-23-99 $43.00 MacTavish’s DHC negotiations Finance 4
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 66
Date Amount Location Description Department No. of
Employees
07-28-99 $30.00 MacTavish’s Review software computer option Rec & Park 3
07-30-99 $19.57 Applebee’s Discuss performance, job duties Finance
ITS Division
2
08-25-99 $48.94 MacTavish’s Clubhouse renovation EDA 5
08-27-99 $18.33 Applebee’s Discuss job review Finance
ITS Division
2
08-30-99 $17.25 Olive Garden Discussed internet projects Finance
ITS Division
2
09-01-99 $38.03 Applebee’s Cabling Project - business dinner Finance
ITS Division 5
09-10-99 $57.00 Don Pablos (Maple
Grove)
Utility staff & [3 employees]Finance Unknown
09-23-99 $158.45 Northland Inn Policy Governance Team luncheon Admin. Unknown
10-04-99 $31.48 Godfather’s Pizza Lunch for firefighters - fire prevention Fire Unknown
10-04-99 $44.20 Godfather’s Pizza Lunch for firefighters - fire prevention
week
Fire Unknown
10-12-99 $27.34 Papa John’s Luncheon during survey co. interviews Admin. 4
10-29-99 $21.56 Carbone’s Pizza “Lunch MPCA, leg. Staff mtg.”EDA 3
10-29-99 $21.32 MacTavish’s Edinburgh staff meeting Rec & Park 4
11-01-99 $20.00 Benchwarmer Bob’s Employee review meeting Rec & Park 2
11-01-99 $32.40 Festival Foods Lunch for Directors’ budget meeting Admin. 7
11-02-99 $28.05 TGI Fridays Discussed topics for ITS retreat Finance
ITS Division
3
11-12-99 $30.00 MacTavish’s “Lunch meeting ‘working’ to discuss
selection of architect/eng servs consultant
after completion of interview by
interview and selection committee.”
O & M 3
11-12-99 $27.23 TGI Fridays Development meeting EDA 3
11-15-99 $34.49 Northland Inn Performance review EDA 2
11-15-99 $45.00 Papa John’s Pizza Staff dinner - detention Police Unknown
11-15-99 $15.07 Festival Foods Staff dinner - detention Police Unknown
11-18-99 $48.11 Champps - Maple
Grove
Maple Grove Mtg. (9:41p.m.) EDA 3
11-19-99 $23.00 Unknown
(no receipt)
Pizza for ITS Finance
ITS Division
Unknown
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 67
Date Amount Location Description Department No. of
Employees
12-01-99 $35.31 Jake’s Sports Cafe
(Crystal)
Internship evaluation and youth
development collaborative lunch mtg.
Rec & Park 2 employees,
1 intern
12-06-99 $10.93 Subway Dinner for late night staff Finance
ITS Division
3
12-07-99 $60.00 Papa John’s Customer service staff Y2K planning
meeting
Finance 10
12-09-99 $154.40 MacTavish’s Municipal safety committee Finance 13
12-09-99 $101.73 Outback (Coon
Rapids)
Dinner meeting inspectors Fire 5
12-13-99 $20.79 MacTavish’s City Manager & Fire Chief (6:46 p.m.) Admin. 2
12-16-99 $20.00 Papa John’s Pizza, server problems, Y2K Finance
ITS Division
Unknown
12-16-99 $33.46 MacTavish’s “Brwn Ent. Dist. Plan” EDA 3
12-20-99 $17.54 MacTavish’s Lunch for 2: semi annual review - Fire
Chief & City Manager
Admin. 2
12-21-99 $68.94 Carbone’s Housing & development meeting Comm. Dev. 11
12-22-99 $34.00 Champps - Maple
Grove
“Dev meeting” EDA 3
12-30-99 $19.00 MacTavish’s Lancer renovation EDA 2
12-30-99 $38.00 Unknown
(no receipt)
Pizza - After Hours, Y2K Preparation Admin. 4
12-31-99 $32.00 Davanni’s Y2K lunch Finance 4
12-31-99 $37.31 Applebee’s Dinner Finance 3
12-31-99 $115.39 Festival Foods “Personnel lunch who worked 12/31 for
Y2K”
O & M Unknown
1-07-00 $32.96 Gardens of Salonica
(MPLS)
“Y2K Party”EDA 3
01-12-00 $6.34 Mactavish’s “Prop. Steering Committee lunch”
(1:58 p.m.)
Comm. Dev. 1
01-12-00 $27.00 MacTavish’s Staff lunch - review Council presentation Rec & Park 3
01-12-00 $19.52 MacTavish’s District chief meeting Fire 2
01-20-00 $20.19 Applebee’s ITS/HR issues Finance
ITS Division
2
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 68
1 It appears this expenditure was twice submitted to and reimbursed from petty cash.
2 Amount on Chili’s receipt submitted to the City is $17.94.
Date Amount Location Description Department No. of
Employees
01-24-00 $22.48 Champps - Maple
Grove
Lunch meeting to discuss employee
retention strategy and Fire Dep’t
volunteer recruitment plans
Admin. 2
01-26-00 $23.14 MacTavish’s Lunch at a Park Dep’t meeting Rec & Park 2
01-28-00 $31.00 MacTavish’s “Working lunch meeting” Rec & Park 4
02-02-00 $24.19 MacTavish’s None Rec & Park 3
02-02-00 $13.39 Leeann Chin Lunch meeting Finance Unknown
02-03-00 $20.00 Chili’s
1 Performance evaluation/pre-budget
meeting
Comm. Dev. 2
02-04-00 $13.12 Golden Dragon Project update and performance
evaluation
Comm. Dev. 2
02-14-00 $12.79 MacTavish’s Re: weed inspections EDA 2
02-14-00 $43.29 Benchwarmer Bob’s Lunch for fire tech interview panel Fire 6
02-21-00 $17.88 Bakers Square Legislation EDA 2
02-22-00 $24.97 Doolittles Air Cafe
(Coon Rapids)
Historical development (11:24 a.m.) EDA
2
02-23-00 $30.00 Benchwarmer Bob’s Planning meeting for O & M event O & M 4
02-23-00 $40.59 MacTavish’s “Leg. Present., Legislation”EDA 4
02-26-00 $38.12 Perkins Meeting, (7:26 a.m.)Fire 4
02-28-00 $24.39 MacTavish’s None Admin. 3
02-29-00 $24.02 50's Grill Recruitment, strategic planning for
staffing
Finance
HR Division
2
02-29-00 $19.53 Applebee’s Business lunch Finance
ITS Division
2
03-02-00 $19.22 Don Pablo’s Employee’s performance review EDA 2
03-16-00 $12.92 Keys-Brooklyn Blvd “Business lunch”Rec & Park 2
03-20-00 $18.24 Chili’s
2 “Dev Pers”EDA 2
03-20-00 $22.49 MacTavish’s Employee’s performance review EDA 2
04-05-00 $22.30 Bakers Square Lunch meeting re: farm tours, birthday
parties, etc
Rec & Park 3
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 69
Date Amount Location Description Department No. of
Employees
04-06-00 $150.34 MacTavish’s Meeting/summary following Realtor’s
Forum with staff
EDA Unknown
04-10-00 $20.90 Red Lobster (Blaine) Employee’s performance review EDA 2
04-11-00 $15.70 Applebee’s Intranet/internet project meeting Finance
ITS Division
2
04-13-00 $18.72 Don Pablo’s Employee’s performance review EDA 2
04-13-00 $26.11 No receipt Dinner for ITS staff when working late Finance
ITS Division
Unknown
04-17-00 $17.72 MacTavish’s Mtg. re:financial consultant EDA 2
04-18-00 $17.31 Subway “Food for late night” (6:02 p.m.) Finance
ITS Division
Unknown
04-19-00 $32.74 Champps - Maple
Grove
Re: dep’t reorganization & personnel
issues
EDA 2
04-26-00 $33.00 MacTavish’s “Fin. Advis. Interv.” EDA 3
04-27-00 $21.90 JP Mulligans
(Plymouth)
Employee’s performance review EDA 2
04-27-00 $20.84 MacTavish’s Golf project analysis meeting Rec & Park 2
04-28-00 $27.73 Perkins District chief meeting Fire 3
05-03-00 $231.78 Northland Inn Team meeting - all staff EDA Unknown
05-06-00 $51.54 Key’s Chiefs breakfast meeting Fire Unknown
05-09-00 $25.23 Perkins District chief meeting Fire 3
05-11-00 $27.54 Champps - Maple
Grove
Performance evaluation/planning meeting Finance 2
05-26-00 $61.32 Tequilaberrys (Coon
Rapids)
“Adm” staff meeting Fire 6
06-01-00 $24.00 MacTavish’s Updates, budgets, staff reports EDA 2
06-08-00 $20.00 Carbone’s TH 610 Meeting EDA 5
06-09-00 $20.00 TGI Fridays The Village EDA 2
06-23-00 $24.61 Champps - Maple
Grove
Re: transition EDA 2
06-27-00 $38.94 Applebee’s Lunch for staff after election training Admin. Unknown
06-28-00 $42.43 MacTavish’s Planning meeting HR staff Finance
HR Division
4
06-29-00 $24.71 Godfathers Pizza Interview luncheon Finance 5
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 70
3 The same individual was present at both Applebee’s and MacTavish’s on
July 20, 2000.
Date Amount Location Description Department No. of
Employees
07-05-00 $21.11 Bakers Square Development meeting EDA 2
07-10-00 $32.30 MacTavish’s “Hsg interview questions”EDA 3
07-11-00 $10.50 Carbone’s None EDA 2
07-19-00 $34.47 Papa John’s Staff meeting at Zanewood Rec. Center Rec & Park 11
07-19-00 $40.00 MacTavish’s Intern evaluation lunch Rec & Park 2 employees,
1 intern
07-20-00 $20.94 Applebee’s Legal interview &
personnel issues
EDA. 2
07-20-00 $18.59 MacTavish’s Legal services interviews EDA 2
3
07-21-00 $55.81 MacTavish’s Legal services RFP review team -
working lunch
Admin. Unknown
07-27-00 $54.24 MacTavish’s Clubhouse renovations & storage space
study
EDA 6
08-02-00 $72.73 MacTavish’s “ITS staff working lunch” Finance
ITS Division
7
08-07-00 $51.81 Lancer Budget lunch meeting Finance 8
08-07-00 $19.24 MacTavish’s Development meeting EDA 2
08-08-00 $56.93 MacTavish’s Budget lunch meeting Finance 8
08-16-00 $15.40 Applebee’s “Business lunch re: historical farm
planning”
Rec & Park 2
08-16-00 $27.22 Benchwarmer Bob’s Internship final evaluation luncheon Rec & Park 2 employees,
1 intern
08-24-00 $20.00 Red Lobster (Blaine) Business lunch Finance
ITS Division
2
08-25-00 $32.00 MacTavish’s None (12:27 a.m.)EDA 6 employees
08-28-00 $145.75 TGI Friday’s None EDA 11
08-28-00 $44.49 Chuck E. Cheese Staff meeting on summer program
evaluations
Rec & Park 6
08-30-00 $18.00 No receipt Pizza for employees who worked at night
on computer upgrades
Finance
ITS Division
Unknown
08-31-00 $23.35 Benchwarmer Bob’s “Dir./CDMI”EDA 2
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 71
Date Amount Location Description Department No. of
Employees
09-12-00 $132.63 Domino’s Pizza Park maintenance projects-summer
ballfield re-cap meeting
Rec & Park 19
09-13-00 $26.00 Angenios “Staff meeting for Dep. Registrar
9/13/00-5:15 p.m.
Finance Unknown
09-21-00 $23.13 Champps - Maple
Grove
EDA meeting EDA 2
09-25-00 $23.16 MacTavish’s Lunches for HR Spec interviews Finance
HR Division
3
10-05-00 $29.98 MacTavish’s Intern Review Meeting Rec & Park 2 employees,
1 intern
10-11-00 $65.13 MacTavish’s District chiefs meeting Fire 4
10-13-00 $52.18 Chili’s Illegible EDA 5
10-23-00 $45.07 MacTavish’s HR lunch meeting Finance
HR Division
4
11-07-00 $75.87 Godfather’s Pizza “End of Season Maint./staff meeting” Edinburgh
Admin.
Unknown
11-11-00 $24.92 Perkins “Lunch - worked on Saturday” Finance
ITS Division
2
11-16-00 $24.14 Carbone’s Pizza “Lunch mtg. - auditor interviews” Finance 4
12-08-00 $27.61 Applebee’s “En route to order new folder-inserter
machine”
Finance 3
12-21-00 $57.46 Pizza Hut “CAC all staff meeting-pizza was for
lunch/dinner”
Rec & Park 18
12-30-00 $61.95 Bakers Square Chiefs meeting Fire 7
01-02-01 $22.59 MacTavish’s None Admin. 2
01-04-01 $34.42 Chef Sam’s
Enterprises
Station Officers meeting Fire 3
01-05-01 $34.58 Monte Carlo Bar Development mtg. Village North. EDA 2
01-11-01 $26.68 Kelly’s Restaurant Meeting on MFIRS Conversion Business
List
Fire 6
01-17-01 $18.27 Chili’s Illegible EDA 2
01-18-01 $15.00 Don Pablos Building inspection organization
meeting-Maple Grove
O & M 2
01-18-01 $49.62 MacTavish’s Fairview Medical EDA 3
01-22-01 $21.00 MacTavish’s Workplace issues Finance 2
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 72
Date Amount Location Description Department No. of
Employees
02-02-01 $19.00 MacTavish’s Joint issues Finance 2
02-09-01 $52.78 Red Lobster (Blaine) Wellness program meeting City of
Fridley
Finance 5
02-12-01 $41.05 MacTavish’s Lunch while attending lawsuit settlement
conference
Police 4
03-02-01 $23.00 Chili’s Performance evaluation O & M 2
03-05-01 $20.00 Chili’s Performance evaluation O & M 2
03-20-01 $26.30 MacTavish’s Meeting staff Admin. 2
04-11-01 $38.48 Don Pablos Employee’s performance review and
recognition
Finance 3
04-30-01 $45.00 Unknown Pizza/pop/tip - 2nd annual quarterly
detention meeting
Police 7
05-08-01 $10.50 Carbone’s Meeting with Director Admin. 2
06-22-01 $38.33 MacTavish’s Clubhouse remodeling Finance 3
06-27-01 $69.09 MacTavish’s Lunch during all day City facility security
audit
Police 6
Total $6,254.93
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 73
1 All but three of the meals were on the City Manager’s purchasing card.
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY STAFF MEALS WITH CITY OFFICIALS1
Date Amount Location Description
01-06-99 $75.23 MacTavish’s Meyer Orientation*
03-21-99 $35.69 Monte Carlo Bar Monthly meeting w/ Sharon Feess*
04-08-99 $17.71 MacTavish’s Lunch w/ Mayor Arbogast
04-28-99 $17.24 Perkins Breakfast with Joe Enge*
04-28-99 $22.25 Atrium Catering Sharon Feess
05-07-99 $7.32 Perkins Breakfast meeting w/ Lisa Eder*
07-09-99 $44.96 Nicollet Island Inn Sharon Feess
07-27-99 $20.71 Perkins Joe Enge
08-26-99 $26.33 Atrium Catering Sharon Feess
09-10-99 $14.48 Caribou Coffee Meeting w/ Planning Commission Chair Pistilli
11-23-99 $22.26 MacTavish’s Monthly lunch w/ Sharon Feess
12-13-99 $20.79 MacTavish’s Meeting w/ Mayor Arbogast
12-21-99 $24.66 MacTavish’s Sharon Feess meeting
01-21-00 $20.40 MacTavish’s Sharon Feess
01-25-00 $12.33 MacTavish’s Joe Enge
02-22-00 $24.13 MacTavish’s Meeting w/ Mayor
02-29-00 $18.39 MacTavish’s Meeting w/ Joe Enge
03-03-00 $25.41 MacTavish’s Sharon Feess
03-28-00 $15.85 MacTavish’s Joe Enge
04-27-00 $23.60 Applebee’s Luncheon meeting w/ Sharon Feess
05-03-00 $16.32 MacTavish’s Luncheon meeting w/ Joe Enge
05-23-00 $14.98 MacTavish’s Joe Enge
05-26-00 $23.13 MacTavish’s Sharon Feess
06-23-00 $29.56 TGI Friday’s Sharon Feess
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 74
2 The original charge on the City’s purchase card was $51.67, but the City’s file indicates that $6.50
was reimbursed by the City Manager on December 28, 2000. The non-itemized receipt submitted
to the City indicates a time of 1:10 p.m.
Date Amount Location Description
06-28-00 $16.05 MacTavish’s Joe Enge
07-31-00 $23.64 Kieran’s Irish Pub Joe Enge - wrap-up**
08-02-00 $37.75 Northland Inn Grace - wrap-up**
08-14-00 $24.26 MacTavish’s Sharon Feess**
08-25-00 $22.53 Applebee’s Sharon Feess
09-26-00 $14.46 MacTavish’s Joe Enge
10-27-00 $45.59 Jax Café Lunch meeting with Sharon Feess
11-30-00 $27.76 MacTavish’s Sharon Feess
12-15-00 $45.17 Jax Café Sharon Feess2
01-03-01 $88.55 MacTavish’s Pistelli Orientation*
01-26-01 $47.29 Nicollet Island Inn Feess monthly meeting
03-23-01 $35.06 The Lexington Meeting Council Member
04-25-01 $14.41 Bakers Square Council Member meeting
Total $1,016.25
*Lisa Eder, Joe Enge, Sharon Feess, and Jeanette Meyer were City Council members at the time of
the expenditures. It appears that in 1999, Tony Pistilli was the Planning Commission Chair, and in
2001, Mr. Pistilli became a City Council member.
** These three meals were on the former Director of Community Development’s purchasing card.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 75
1 Employees as reflected on documents provided to the City.
ATTACHMENT 3
MEALS PRIOR TO CITY MEETINGS
Date Amount Location Description Employees1 Time on
receipt
03-11-99 $9.80 Chili’s CLIC Committee GA 6:39 p.m.
04-14-99 $14.50 Applebee’s Charter Commission GA 6:49 p.m.
05-13-99 $15.50 Benchwarmer Bob’s CLIC meeting GA Unknown
06-21-99 $10.60 Applebee’s Council work session GA 6:35 p.m.
06-28-99 $40.15 MacTavish’s Prior to EDA meeting
GA/EDA clubhouse
GA, DAS,
others unknown
6:22 p.m.
07-22-99 $10.60 Applebee’s CLIC meeting GA 6:45 p.m.
09-07-99 $33.53 MacTavish’s EDA Budget GA, DAS 6:07 p.m.
09-09-99 $14.75 Benchwarmer Bob’s Volunteer Fire Relief GA 6:21 p.m.
10-07-99 $49.76 MacTavish’s Village North/EDA DAS, SC, SK, MM,
other unknown
6:00 p.m.
10-14-99 $25.25 MacTavish’s Preparation for CLIC meeting GA, MD 6:24 p.m.
11-04-99 $157.12 MacTavish’s Business dinner prior to EDA
meeting
DAS, GA, KL, JSH,
MM, SK, BZ, DC,
AN, JA, CP
6:25 p.m.
11-15-99 $24.50 Applebee’s Council work session GA, DC 6:50 p.m.
11-17-99 $68.40 Hops of Maple Grove “Int mtg w. Maple Grove” GA, DAS, DC, HB 6:19 p.m.
11-18-99 $14.00 Applebee’s CLIC meeting GA 6:12 p.m.
12-01-99 $19.51 Mama G’s (Maple
Grove)
Maple Grove development -
joint Maple Grove & Brooklyn
Park Council mtg
HB, DAS Illegible
12-09-99 $35.97 MacTavish’s EDA meeting DAS, AN, SK 6:15 p.m.
12-13-99 $21.00 Applebee’s Budget approval GA, MH 6:37 p.m.
01-10-00 $14.50 TGI Friday’s Council meeting GA 6:15 p.m.
01-18-00 $33.00 MacTavish’s Council work session GA, MB, LSJ 6:34 p.m.
01-24-00 $23.36 MacTavish’s EDA meeting DAS, HB 6:08 p.m.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 76
Date Amount Location Description Employees Time on
receipt
01-26-00 $36.42 MacTavish’s Cunningham Group SK, SC, HB 6:24 p.m.
02-10-00 $8.00 Golden Dragon CLIC meeting GA 6:05 p.m.
02-14-00 $19.00 Applebee’s Council meeting GA, HB 5:49 p.m.
02-24-00 $35.84 MacTavish’s EDA / CLIC GA, DAS, SK, SC 6:22 p.m.
02-28-00 $40.70 MacTavish’s Council & EDA meetings DAS, HB, SC 6:21 p.m.
03-02-00 $20.82 MacTavish’s EDA meeting DAS, SC 6:11 p.m.
03-20-00 $31.00 Benchwarmer Bob’s No explanation GA, SC, HB 5:45 p.m.
03-27-00 $24.50 MacTavish’s Council matters GA, DC 6:14 p.m.
05-01-00 $27.50 MacTavish’s Council meeting GA, DD 6:25 p.m.
05-04-00 $30.67 MacTavish’s CHP Program DAS, GA 6:39 p.m.
05-08-00 $37.03 MacTavish’s EDA special meeting GA, DAS, SC 6:05 p.m.
05-15-00 $31.30 MacTavish’s Council workshop DAS, SK, SC 6:13 p.m.
06-15-00 $15.50 MacTavish’s EDA meeting SC, SK, GA 6:03 p.m.
06-26-00 $42.00 MacTavish’s Council meeting - EDA issues SC, SK, DD, GA 6:05 p.m.
08-21-00 $19.45 MacTavish’s Council - Budget SK, SC 6:37 p.m.
08-28-00 $51.70 MacTavish’s Council meeting DAS, GA, LS 7:14 p.m.
09-05-00 $22.00 Applebee’s 2001 Budget presentation GA, DD 6:17 p.m.
09-11-00 $22.94 MacTavish’s Budget & levy information GA, DD 5:53 p.m.
10-02-00 $23.00 MacTavish’s Discuss presentation of budget
to Council
DD, MO 6:08 p.m.
10-19-00 $7.74 Leeann Chin Prepare for volunteer Fire Relief
Association board meeting
GA 5:13 p.m.
10-23-00 $18.00 MacTavish’s Council agenda & EDA GA, HB 5:47 p.m.
10-26-00 $20.50 Chili’s CLIC agenda GA, DC 6:09 p.m.
11-27-00 $31.50 MacTavish’s Council agenda GA, HB, DD 6:45 p.m.
12-18-00 $33.00 MacTavish’s Council meeting GA, SC, DD 5:46 p.m.
01-08-01 $30.35 Leeann Chin EDA meeting & Council
meeting, agenda issues
GA, HB, SK, SC 5:05 p.m.
01-25-01 $7.74 Leeann Chin CLIC meeting GA 5:24 p.m.
02-20-01 $34.50 MacTavish’s Council work session and retreat GA, SC, DC 6:21 p.m.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 77
Date Amount Location Description Employees Time on
receipt
05-03-01 $21.52 Leeann Chin Council retreat on Economic
Development
HB, GA, DD 6:20 p.m.
05-10-01 $18.00 Applebee’s CLIC budget presentation DD, GA 6:29 p.m.
05-14-01 $4.99 KFC Council meeting DD 5:33 p.m.
06-18-01 $4.99 KFC Council meeting DD 6:48 p.m.
12-17-01 $66.45 Leeann Chin Dinners prior to work session
(11 meals)
None listed 4:59 p.m.
Total $1,474.45
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 78
ATTACHMENT 4
EXPENSES FOR QUARTERLY MANAGER’S MEETINGS
Date Amount Location Description
01-07-99 $14.45 Paper Warehouse Table covers, napkins, plates, cups , forks*
01-07-99 $18.99 Target Door prizes for 1st quarterly meeting (ties and “neckerchief”)*
01-13-99 $55.73 Jack’s Bakery 13 dozen assorted bars*
04-13-99 $16.08 Cub Foods Punch, pop & ice*
04-13-99 $38.30 Gentle Ben’s Car Wash “Full Book”*
04-13-99 $18.64 Paper Warehouse Napkins, cups*
04-14-99 $57.35 Jack’s Bakery 13 dozen assorted bars *
06-30-99 $29.45 Idea Art Manager’s quarterly meeting items*
06-30-99 $86.46 Litin Paper Company Paper & plastic tableware and “theme” products*
07-12-99 $7.39 Cub Foods Pop and mileage*
07-12-99 $119.89 Sam’s Club Direct Root beer, chips, trail mix, beef jerky*
07-13-99 $60.00 Cattle Company (Fridley) Gift certificate for 3
rd quarterly meeting
10-05-99 $349.65 Knight’s Formal Wear Seven tuxes for quarterly meeting*
10-13-99 $69.88 Jack’s Bakery 16 dozen assorted bars *
01-04-00 $82.72 Baudville Candy for quarterly meeting*
01-12-00 $106.50 Caribou Coffee Quarterly meeting*
01-14-00 $39.81 4 stores Items for quarterly meeting ($9.40 Festival Food; $4.41
Walgreens; $15.45 Walmart; $10.55 Total)*
04-10-00 $16.03 Paper Warehouse Paper products for 2
nd quarterly meeting*
04-11-00 $9.52 Cub Foods Punch and pop *
04-12-00 $43.20 Jack’s Bakery 10 dozen assorted bars - quarterly meeting*
08-15-00 $10.00 Jack’s Bakery Gift certificate for door prize at quarterly meeting
08-15-00 $6.36 Paper Warehouse Napkins for quarterly meeting
08-15-00 $10.00 Caribou Coffee Gift certificate for door prize at quarterly meeting
08-16-00 $13.93 Festival Foods Juice
08-16-00 $75.87 Jack’s Bakery 12 dozen assorted sweets
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 79
Date Amount Location Description
09-06-00 $36.46 Festival Foods Juice and fruit*
09-06-00 $31.57 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen assorted sweets - supplies for quarterly meeting*
10-02-00 $42.42 Sam’s Club Direct Supplies for quarterly mtg*
10-11-00 $68.91 Jack’s Bakery 13 dozen cupcakes*
01-09-01 $44.92 Cub Foods Supplies for quarterly meeting*
01-10-01 $83.65 Jack’s Bakery 12 dozen assorted sweets*
04-10-01 $8.97 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen assorted cookies*
04-18-01 $12.93 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen assorted bars*
04-30-01 $21.77 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen assorted sweets
09-11-01 $10.55 Cub Foods Supplies
09-12-01 $50.24 Jack’s Bakery 18 dozen assorted cookies*
Total $1,768.59
*Indicates item coded as “4200 or 4201 - operating supplies.”
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 80
ATTACHMENT 5
FOOD AT STAFF MEETINGS
Date Amount Location Description Department
01-06-99 $12.80 Jack’s Bakery Refreshments for Supervisors meeting Police
01-12-99 $5.92 Jack’s Bakery Policy Governance meeting Police
01-14-99 $12.14 Jack’s Bakery 2 dozen assorted sweets for property manager meeting Comm. Dev.
01-20-99 $12.80 Jack’s Bakery Refreshments for Supervisor meeting Police
01-21-99 $8.64 Jack’s Bakery 18 cupcakes for Supervisor meeting Police
02-04-99 $12.62 Dairy Queen Food for Supervisor staff meeting (dilly bars) Police
02-09-99 $6.68 Jack’s Bakery Staff meeting - assorted items Rec & Park
02-10-99 $3.75 Jack’s Bakery 1 ½ dozen cookies for Executive Limitation Policy meeting Police
02-17-99 $13.07 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen assorted bars for Finance Department meeting Finance
02-18-99 $8.64 Festival Foods Supervisor meeting refreshments (bakery items)Police
02-24-99 $2.49 Jack’s Bakery 1 dozen assorted cookies for Policy Governance meeting Police
02-25-99 $6.78 Jack’s Bakery 1 dozen assorted sweets for Policy Governance meeting Police
02-26-99 $6.78 Jack’s Bakery 1 dozen assorted sweets for Governance meeting Police
03-04-99 $21.01 Dairy Queen Refreshments for meeting (dilly bars, ice cream
sandwiches, etc.)
Police
03-12-99 $8.00 Jack’s Bakery 1 dozen assorted sweets for Governance B Team meeting Police
03-19-99 $9.72 Festival Foods Supervisor meeting Police
04-01-99 $12.62 Dairy Queen Refreshments for staff meeting (dilly bars)Police
04-08-99 $12.14 Jack’s Bakery 2 dozen assorted sweets for property manager meeting Comm. Dev.
04-16-99 $6.78 Jack’s Bakery 1 dozen items for Governance meeting Police
04-20-99 $9.89 Jack’s Bakery Boston Creme Torte project for “Giving” meeting Admin.
04-20-99 $106.50 Lancer at Edinburgh City manager/directors staff meeting (8 continental
breakfasts, whiteboard & flip chart)
Admin
04-21-99 $13.07 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen bars - Department meeting Finance
04-22-99 $9.78 Jack’s Bakery 2 dozen sweets for Supervisor meeting Police
04-26-99 $16.46 Unknown (no receipt) Refreshments for clerical staff meeting Police
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 81
1 No description was contained on the receipt provided to the City for this expenditure. The
description was provided to the OSA by the City in response to OSA inquiries.
Date Amount Location Description Department
04-29-99 $13.90 Jack’s Bakery Supplies for quarterly staff meeting Rec & Park
05-14-99 $7.12 Jack’s Bakery 1 dozen sweets for Governance meeting Police
05-20-99 $5.88 Jack’s Bakery 14 bagels/rolls - Policy Governance Police
05-20-99 $14.39 Jack’s Bakery Cake for Supervisor staff meeting Police
06-16-99 $12.80 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen bars - Finance Department meeting Finance
06-17-99 $11.50 Jack’s Bakery 2 ½ dozen assorted bars for Supervisors meeting Police
06-22-99 $15.51 Jack’s Bakery Bagels/rolls-staff meeting Rec & Park
06-23-99 $5.83 Jack’s Bakery Assorted rolls - staff meeting Police
07-01-99 $7.98 Festival Foods Refreshments for staff meeting (cookies)Police
07-21-99 $13.20 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen assorted bars - Department meeting Finance
07-30-99 $11.70 Jack’s Bakery Cake for O & M meeting O & M
08-04-99 $6.05 Jack’s Bakery Treats for staff meeting Police
08-05-99 $59.64 Domino’s Pizza Lunch meeting with office support staff to review program
brochures1
Rec & Park
08-05-99 $13.34 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen items - treats for Supervisor meeting Police
08-17-99 $7.44 Jack’s Bakery Rolls-Department head meeting Rec & Park
08-18-99 $8.10 Perkins Staff meeting refreshments (bakery items)Police
08-19-99 $14.65 Jack’s Bakery Cookies and cake for Supervisor meeting Police
08-25-99 $7.47 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen cookies - Department meeting Finance
09-02-99 $13.07 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen bars - Supervisor meeting Police
09-02-99 $12.80 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen bars - Supervisor meeting Police
09-14-99 $13.49 Jack’s Bakery Torte - “employee event at noon” CAC-
Maintenance
09-16-99 $9.86 Jack’s Bakery Supervisors’ meeting refreshments Police
09-20-99 $5.00 No receipt Refreshments for City Manager meeting in Police training
room on 9-15-99
Police
09-27-99 $33.61 Jack’s Bakery 30 dozen cookies for Department meeting Police
09-28-99 $33.61 Jack’s Bakery 30 dozen cookies for Department meeting Police
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 82
Date Amount Location Description Department
10-01-99 $10.29 Jack’s Bakery Refreshments for “claim review meeting” Finance -
HR Division
10-06-99 $4.42 Jack’s Bakery 6 assorted sweets - refreshments for staff meeting Police
10-07-99 $12.62 Dairy Queen Supervisors’ meeting (dilly bars)Police
10-21-99 $11.97 Cub Foods Refreshments - Supervisors’ meeting (cupcakes)Police
10-28-99 $8.80 Jack’s Bakery FTO meeting Police
10-28-99 $43.60 Jack’s Bakery Annual snowplow meeting O & M
12-01-99 $7.69 Jack’s Bakery 1 dozen assorted sweets - staff meeting Police
12-02-99 $20.08 Dairy Queen Refreshments for staff meeting Police
12-21-99 $3.98 Rick’s Super Valu Donuts for Directors’ meeting (2 items)EDA
01-04-00 $11.16 Festival Foods Supplies for meeting - Department Directors (4 bakery
items)
Rec & Park
01-19-00 $10.80 Jack’s Bakery 2 ½ dozen bars for Finance Department Finance
01-19-00 $7.47 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen assorted cookies for FTO meeting Police
01-28-00 $23.75 Jack’s Bakery Rolls & coffee cups for GIS meeting Comm. Dev.
02-08-00 $9.37 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen assorted cookies “Millenium Comm. Task Force” Admin.
02-16-00 $10.80 Jack’s Bakery 2 ½ dozen assorted bars Finance Department meeting Finance
02-17-00 $12.80 Jack’s Bakery Refreshments for Supervisors meeting Police
02-18-00 $11.16 Jack’s Bakery 4 dozen cookies for meeting Police
02-28-00 $7.08 Jack’s Bakery Staff meeting expenses Finance
03-01-00 $16.54 Panera Bread Snacks for Department staff meeting Rec & Park
03-01-00 $13.60 Dairy Queen Dairy Queen treats for staff (18 treats)O & M
03-15-00 $10.80 Jack’s Bakery 2 ½ dozen assorted bars for Finance Department meeting Finance
03-16-00 $10.53 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen assorted bars for Supervisors meeting Police
03-21-00 $40.63 Carbone’s Pizza “Staff working lunch”Comm. Dev.
03-22-00 $10.04 Jack’s Bakery 4 dozen assorted cookies for FTO meeting Police
03-23-00 $13.06 Festival Foods Monthly planning meeting (8 employees)Rec & Park
03-28-00 $11.83 Jack’s Bakery Director meeting Admin.
04-05-00 $5.40 Perkins Refreshments for Lead meeting (bakery items)Police
04-06-00 $9.53 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen brownies & cookies Supervisor meeting Police
04-20-00 $16.76 Dunkin Donuts “Staff Mtg. Supplies/Refresh.” Rec & Park
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 83
Date Amount Location Description Department
04-25-00 $6.55 Festival Foods Department director meeting EDA
04-26-00 $34.20 Cub Foods Pop & water for Loss Control Meeting Finance -
HR Division
04-26-00 $50.58 Jack’s Bakery 8 dozen assorted items for Safety meetings in April Finance -
HR Division
04-26-00 $13.45 Jack’s Bakery 5 dozen cookies for Safety meetings in April Finance -
HR Division
05-02-00 $10.04 Jack’s Bakery 4 dozen cookies for meeting Police
05-03-00 $57.84 Papa John’s “All of licensing” (4:21 p.m.)Finance
05-03-00 $47.46 Domino’s Pizza “Staff meeting - review of summer brochure”Rec & Park
05-04-00 $13.07 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen assorted bars for Finance Finance
05-04-00 $9.68 Festival Foods Refreshments for staff meeting Police
05-08-00 $7.69 Jack’s Bakery “Treats for Misc. Loss Control/Safety meetings”Finance -
HR Division
05-09-00 $9.29 Jack’s Bakery “Treats for Misc. Loss Control/Safety meetings”Finance -
HR Division
05-16-00 $12.28 Jack’s Bakery “Development Mtg. EDA, HSC, Planning”EDA
05-18-00 $12.52 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen assorted sweets refreshments for Supervisor
meeting
Police
05-18-00 $9.32 Jack’s Bakery “Treats for Misc. Loss Control/Safety meetings”Finance -
HR Division
05-31-00 $10.04 Jack’s Bakery 4 dozen assorted cookies - Refreshments for FTO meeting Police
06-06-00 $92.07 Lancer at Edinburgh Pop, cookies, coffee - Supervisors meeting Rec & Park
06-08-00 $10.62 Jack’s Bakery Donuts, rolls, and muffins - Safety meeting in June Finance -
HR Division
06-09-00 $31.12 Jack’s Bakery Yearly operations presentation & review to bring
employees up to date
O & M
06-13-00 $94.04 Davanni’s “Staff in-house catch-up day on DMV work” (9 employees) Finance
06-14-00 $17.05 Jack’s Bakery 30 assorted rolls - Safety meeting in June Finance -
HR Division
06-15-00 $13.01 Jack’s Bakery 4 dozen cookies & brownies Supervisor meeting Police
06-20-00 $6.08 Jack’s Bakery “Development meeting -Staff and SRR consultants” EDA
06-20-00 $27.85 Cub Foods Meeting treats and beverages Finance -
HR Division
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 84
Date Amount Location Description Department
06-20-00 $15.41 Jack’s Bakery 2 dozen assorted rolls, & 2 cinnamon twists - Safety
meeting in June
Finance -
HR Division
06-21-00 $10.80 Jack’s Bakery 2 ½ dozen assorted bars - Department meeting Finance
06-29-00 $68.15 Cub Foods “Meeting supplies (treats etc.) for ITS prioritization
meeting”
Finance -
HR Division
07-07-00 $19.56 Unknown (no receipt) Refreshments for Supervisors’ meeting Police
07-12-00 $10.04 Jack’s Bakery Refreshments for FTO meeting Police
07-17-00 $9.80 Osseo Bakery Finance Division meeting (Date on receipt is 01-14-00) Finance
07-20-00 $13.34 Jack’s Bakery Refreshments for Supervisors meeting Police
08-16-00 $9.83 Jack’s Bakery Staff meeting EDA
08-16-00 $9.96 Jack’s Bakery Park Advisory Commission meeting - refreshments Rec & Park
08-17-00 $15.90 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen assorted donuts for Supervisor meeting Police
08-21-00 $10.00 Jack’s Bakery Meeting supplies “(Comp. Study)” (pastries and cookie) Finance -
HR Division
08-22-00 $43.24 Carbone’s Pizza Imaging meeting (7 employees)Comm. Dev.
09-07-00 $13.01 Jack’s Bakery Refreshments for Supervisor meeting Police
09-14-00 $10.85 Jack’s Bakery 2 ½ dozen assorted bars for Finance Department meeting Finance
10-04-00 $9.12 Jack’s Bakery YMCA Feasibility meeting EDA
10-05-00 $47.89 Papa John’s “After hours employee staff meeting”Rec & Park
10-05-00 $15.49 Rainbow Foods Cake for staff meeting-Maintenance Rec & Park
10-18-00 $11.16 Jack’s Bakery 2 ½ dozen bars - Finance Department meeting Finance
10-23-00 $32.64 Jack’s Bakery 13 dozen assorted cookies-annual Department meeting Police
10-24-00 $32.64 Jack’s Bakery 13 dozen assorted cookies - Department meeting Police
10-25-00 $9.57 Jack’s Bakery Development meeting EDA
10-26-00 $59.14 Jack’s Bakery Hearing conservation Finance -
HR Division
11-01-00 $9.30 Jack’s Bakery Directors meeting - refreshments Admin.
11-02-00 $30.83 Papa John’s Staff meeting Comm. Dev.
11-02-00 $9.99 Jack’s Bakery 2 ½ dozen brownies - Supervisors meeting Police
11-15-00 $10.96 Jack’s Bakery 2 ½ dozen assorted bars/brownies -Finance Department
meeting
Finance
11-21-00 $9.39 Jack’s Bakery Rolls - Department Head meeting Rec & Park
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 85
Date Amount Location Description Department
11-28-00 $13.94 Jack’s Bakery Hearing Conservation Teaming Finance -
HR Division
12-06-00 $9.18 Jack’s Bakery EDA/HRA Staff EDA
12-07-00 $13.97 Byerly’s Refreshments for Staff meeting Police
12-12-00 $37.22 Caribou Coffee Staff meeting (9 employees) (receipt indicates consumed at
Caribou - 6 in party at 2:55 p.m.)
Rec & Park
12-13-00 $9.71 Jack’s Bakery 7 employees EDA
01-04-01 $8.88 Jack’s Bakery Refreshments for Supervisors meeting Police
01-17-01 $10.53 Jack’s Bakery Refreshments for Finance Department meeting Finance
01-17-01 $5.63 Jack’s Bakery Staff meeting EDA
01-23-01 $13.99 Jack’s Bakery Staff meeting Admin.
01-26-01 $9.94 Jack’s Bakery Refreshments for O & M meeting O & M
01-31-01 $8.07 Citgo - Speedy Market Pop for detention quarterly meeting Police
01-31-01 $16.50 Jack’s Bakery Refreshment - Staff quarterly meeting Rec & Park
01-31-01 $4.77 Mobil Oil Refreshments for Department quarterly meeting Rec & Park
02-06-01 $42.29 Jack’s Bakery Cake for O & M Department meeting O & M
02-06-01 $20.96 Jack’s Bakery Meeting on 2001 projects, all Park Maintenance employees O & M
02-08-01 $12.64 Jack’s Bakery Municipal Safety Committee Finance
02-13-01 $10.90 Jack’s Bakery Rolls-Department heads & City Manager Rec & Park
02-15-01 $55.95 Papa John’s Lunch for staff meeting Rec & Park
02-16-01 $19.59 Festival Foods Meeting supplies/City staff Comm. Dev.
02-21-01 $10.80 Jack’s Bakery Finance Department meeting Finance
02-25-01 $19.89 Rainbow Foods Station #2 meeting Fire
02-25-01 $81.79 Papa John’s Pizza Station #2 meeting Fire
03-01-01 $11.38 Jack’s Bakery Refreshments for Supervisors meeting Police
03-05-01 $19.79 Jack’s Bakery Cake for staff meeting Rec & Park
03-08-01 $10.53 Jack’s Bakery Safety committee meeting Finance
03-16-01 $4.50 Jack’s Bakery Refreshments for City safety committee meeting Police
03-19-01 $2.00 Pop Machine Soda for Radio feasibility meeting Police
03-19-01 $9.30 Osseo Bakery Refreshments for Supervisors meeting Police
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 86
Date Amount Location Description Department
03-19-01 $70.71 Carbone’s Pizza “Staff mtg lunch to go over spring/summer brochure-all
office & recreation staff in attendance”
Rec & Park
03-21-01 $10.80 Jack’s Bakery Refreshments for Finance 3/21 meeting Finance
03-21-01 $42.79 County Market Staff meeting O & M
03-22-01 $11.98 Festival Foods Cookies-Image campaign staff summit Admin.
03-22-01 $25.56 Caribou Coffee Image discussion with directors Admin.
05-03-01 $19.98 Jack’s Bakery Municipal safety meeting treats Finance
05-03-01 $8.97 Jack’s Bakery Refreshments for monthly Supervisors meeting Police
05-16-01 $10.75 Jack’s Bakery Refreshments for 5/16 Finance Department meeting Finance
05-25-01 $8.88 Jack’s Bakery Refreshments for POS and card access project meetings Finance
ITS Division
06-13-01 $7.56 Jack’s Bakery Assorted bars for Safety committee meeting Finance
06-20-01 $10.80 Jack’s Bakery Refreshments for Department meeting Finance
07-12-01 $8.40 Jack’s Bakery Refreshments for “July/Safety MSC mtg.”Finance
08-09-01 $13.61 Cub Foods Safety committee meeting Finance
10-02-01 $12.78 Caribou Coffee Annual Housing Retreat (9 employees)EDA
12-20-01 $8.92 Danish Pastery Rolls for EDA meeting EDA
Total $2,994.57
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 87
ATTACHMENT 6
FOOD AND PRODUCTS WITH NO EXPLANATION
Date Amount Location Description Department
01-11-99 $18.97 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen assorted rolls & doughnuts Fire
01-20-99 $13.07 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen assorted bars Finance
01-20-99 $13.18 Festival Foods None Admin.
01-22-99 $10.50 Festival Foods Bakery items and orange juice Admin
01-28-99 $125.27 Cub Foods Drinks and plant Finance -
HR Division
01-29-99 $15.62 Jack’s Bakery 1 beehive, 1 ½ dozen asst. sweets CAC
01-29-99 $9.15 Jack’s Bakery 1 ½ dozen assorted sweets Comm. Dev.
02-01-99 $17.93 Jack’s Bakery 8 dozen cookies - meeting expenses Mayor/Council
02-01-99 $24.63 Jack’s Bakery 4 dozen assorted items Fire
02-12-99 $12.14 Jack’s Bakery 2 dozen assorted sweets O & M
02-12-99 $14.86 Jack’s Bakery 6 dozen assorted cookies Comm. Dev.
02-23-99 $9.33 Festival Foods None Admin.
03-17-99 $7.47 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen assorted cookies Finance
03-22-99 $8.51 Jack’s Bakery 17 bakery items O & M
03-23-99 $16.35 Rainbow Foods Chips, dip, cookies Fire
04-01-99 $18.24 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen assorted sweets O & M
04-10-99 $40.68 Einstein Brothers Bagel None EDA
05-06-99 $41.50 Bruegger’s Bagels Bagels Admin.
05-06-99 $34.94 Rainbow Food Cream cheese Admin.
05-11-99 $17.84 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen assorted sweets O & M
05-13-99 $12.14 Jack’s Bakery 2 dozen assorted sweets - meeting Comm. Dev.
05-19-99 $10.89 Jack’s Bakery 2 ½ dozen assorted bars Finance
05-21-99 $12.32 Jack’s Bakery Meeting expense-assorted pastries Finance
06-16-99 $12.76 Cub Foods Lemonade and drinks Comm. Dev.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 88
Date Amount Location Description Department
06-22-99 $8.46 Jack’s Bakery 1 dozen assorted sweets Finance
ITS Division
06-23-99 $10.32 Festival Foods Grocery items and drinks Comm. Dev.
06-30-99 $7.26 Jack’s Bakery 14 bakery items Finance
ITS Division
07-07-99 $4.30 Jack’s Bakery 6 assorted sweets for meeting Police
07-08-99 $12.14 Jack’s Bakery 2 dozen assorted sweets - meeting Comm. Dev.
07-13-99 $3.47 Jack’s Bakery ½ dozen assorted donuts Finance
ITS Division
07-14-99 $5.22 Jack’s Bakery Bagel, donut & cream cheese Finance
ITS Division
07-19-99 $180.57 Festival Foods Drinks and deli Mayor/Council
07-21-99 $27.78 Unknown “MSC donuts”Finance
HR Division
07-22-99 $14.94 Jack’s Bakery 7 dozen assorted cookies Comm. Dev.
07-24-99 $12.35 Jack’s Bakery 2 dozen assorted sweets Comm. Dev.
08-10-99 $4.80 Jack’s Bakery 10 donuts Finance
ITS Division
08-11-99 $10.97 Starbucks (Maple Grove) Four coffees Comm. Dev.
08-11-99 $24.55 Jack’s Bakery 4 dozen assorted sweets O & M
08-17-99 $5.34 Jack’s Bakery 9 assorted. sweets Finance
ITS Division
08-17-99 $7.35 Caribou Coffee 3 coffees Comm. Dev.
08-24-99 $5.17 Jack’s Bakery 5 rolls, 4 donuts Finance
ITS Division
08-25-99 $4.52 Jack’s Bakery 8 assorted donuts & rolls Finance
ITS Division
09-02-99 $12.10 Jack’s Bakery 5 dozen assorted cookies - meeting Comm. Dev.
09-08-99 $16.59 Panera Bread 11 assorted bakery items Finance
09-09-99 $8.32 Jack’s Bakery 10 assorted items - meeting O & M
09-13-99 $6.32 Jack’s Bakery 2 dozen assorted bars - meeting refreshments Police
09-15-99 $9.68 Jack’s Bakery 2 dozen assorted bars Finance
09-17-99 $12.58 Jack’s Bakery 2 dozen assorted sweets Comm. Dev.
09-23-99 $12.27 Jack’s Bakery 16 assorted donuts and rolls Public Utilities
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 89
Date Amount Location Description Department
10-14-99 $12.15 Jack’s Bakery 2 dozen assorted sweets Comm. Dev.
10-20-99 $7.44 Jack’s Bakery 1 dozen assorted sweets for meeting Police
10-21-99 $13.06 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen assorted sweets Finance
10-26-99 $5.69 Jack’s Bakery 1 doz assorted sweets treats for meeting Police
11-15-99 $8.31 Cub Foods Cider Admin.
11-15-99 $18.09 Jack’s Bakery 30 assorted bars Police
11-17-99 $13.20 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen assorted bars Finance
11-17-99 $7.47 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen assorted cookies Police
11-18-99 $12.14 Jack’s Bakery 2 dozen assorted rolls and donuts Comm. Dev.
11-19-99 $16.99 Byerly’s Bakery Comm. Dev.
11-22-99 $13.87 Jack’s Bakery Breakfast meeting EDA
11-23-99 $12.14 Jack’s Bakery 2 dozen assorted sweets Police
11-24-99 $12.14 Jack’s Bakery 2 dozen assorted sweets Police
12-03-99 $8.91 Jack’s Bakery 12 assorted sweets Finance
ITS Division
12-08-99 $9.15 Jack’s Bakery 18 assorted sweets Finance
ITS Division
12-15-99 $10.53 Jack’s Bakery 2 ½ dozen assorted bars Finance
12-17-99 $9.57 Rainbow Foods Meeting expenses Comm. Dev.
12-17-99 $26.68 Festival Foods Meeting expenses Comm. Dev.
12-29-99 $86.47 Simeks None Police
01-05-00 $7.41 Jack’s Bakery 9 assorted sweets - refreshments for meeting Police
01-05-00 $4.60 Jack’s Bakery Meeting expense - rolls Finance
HR Division
01-07-00 $6.66 Jack’s Bakery Meeting expense - rolls Finance
HR Division
01-11-00 $6.78 Jack’s Bakery Meeting expense - rolls Finance
HR Division
01-13-00 $10.22 Jack’s Bakery Meeting expense - rolls Finance
HR Division
01-20-00 $34.79 Festival Foods Country chicken, pot roast, baby wipes Police
02-01-00 $12.82 Jack’s Bakery Refreshment for meeting Police
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 90
Date Amount Location Description Department
02-10-00 $11.01 Jack’s Bakery Meeting expense - rolls Finance
HR Division
02-11-00 $4.08 Jack’s Bakery Meeting expense - rolls Finance
HR Division
02-18-00 $8.80 Jack’s Bakery 1 dozen assorted sweets Finance
ITS Division
03-06-00 $7.58 Jack’s Bakery 1 dozen rolls & donuts Finance
ITS Division
03-07-00 $15.38 Panera Assorted bakery items Rec & Park
03-09-00 $12.65 Jack’s Bakery 2 dozen assorted sweets Comm. Dev.
03-11-00 $6.83 Jack’s Bakery 10 assorted sweets Finance
ITS Division
03-13-00 $26.31 Cub Foods Chocolate chip cookies and snack mix Finance
ITS Division
03-14-00 $20.00 Cub Foods Chocolate chip cookies Finance
ITS Division
03-18-00 $6.60 Jack’s Bakery 9 assorted rolls & donuts Finance -
ITS Division
03-20-00 $18.14 Jack’s Bakery 4 dozen assorted bars Admin
03-21-00 $25.29 Jack’s Bakery 4 dozen assorted sweets O & M
04-18-00 $10.80 Jack’s Bakery 2 ½ dozen assorted bars meeting Finance
04-25-00 $158.15 Fanny Farmer None Police
04-28-00 $12.99 Jack’s Bakery 24 assorted bagel and muffins Police
05-09-00 $7.08 Jack’s Bakery 1 dozen assorted sweets Park & Rec
05-09-00 $6.57 Jack’s Bakery 2 dozen assorted cookies Comm. Dev.
05-11-00 $14.87 Jack’s Bakery 2 ½ dozen assorted rolls, muffins & bagels Comm. Dev.
05-11-00 $0.60 Jack’s Bakery “CC”Comm. Dev.
05-16-00 $12.21 Festival Foods Cupcakes, snacks Admin.
05-16-00 $7.50 Jack’s Bakery 2 ½ dozen assorted cookies Comm. Dev.
05-17-00 $10.98 Jack’s Bakery 2 ½ dozen assorted bars Finance
05-18-00 $9.01 Jack’s Bakery None EDA
05-25-00 $8.38 Jack’s Bakery 1 dozen assorted sweets Police
06-08-00 $12.65 Jack’s Bakery 2 dozen. assorted sweets Comm. Dev.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 91
Date Amount Location Description Department
06-27-00 $15.35 Jack’s Bakery 2 ½ dozen assorted sweets Finance
06-28-00 $12.16 Jack’s Bakery 4 dozen assorted cookies Comm. Dev.
06-30-00 $6.99 Dunkin Donuts Meeting expense Public Utilities
07-08-00 $63.90 Caribou Coffee None Comm. Dev.
07-11-00 $15.99 Byerly’s Patriotic Pie - meeting supplies Finance
07-18-00 $10.80 Jack’s Bakery 2 ½ dozen assorted brownies & bars Finance
08-17-00 $3.12 Jack’s Bakery 1 dozen cookies Comm. Dev.
08-23-00 $8.49 Jack’s Bakery None Finance
HR Division
08-29-00 $19.88 Jack’s Bakery Meeting rolls Rec & Park
08-29-00 $34.70 Festival Foods None Comm. Dev.
09-21-00 $9.44 Jack’s Bakery Assorted croissants Finance
ITS Division
09-25-00 $9.08 Jack’s Bakery 9 rolls Finance
ITS Division
09-26-00 $9.08 Jack’s Bakery 9 assorted rolls Finance
ITS Division
09-26-00 $5.83 Cub Foods Orange juice, donuts Admin.
10-06-00 $4.76 Jack’s Bakery 7 assorted sweets Finance
ITS Division
10-12-00 $3.40 Great Harvest 2 rolls Finance
HR Division
10-18-00 $4.84 Jack’s Bakery Miscellaneous treats Finance
HR Division
10-26-00 $48.63 Jack’s Bakery None O & M
10-26-00 $22.36 Jack’s Bakery 3 dozen large pumpkin no sugar cookies Rec & Park
10-30-00 $6.96 Jack’s Bakery Miscellaneous bakery items Finance
ITS Division
11-04-00 $28.88 Target Candy bars Finance
HR Division
11-06-00 $14.05 Jack’s Bakery None Admin.
11-07-00 $14.05 Jack’s Bakery None Admin
11-09-00 $11.80 Jack’s Bakery None Finance
HR Division
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 92
Date Amount Location Description Department
11-14-00 $27.74 Cub Foods Cupcakes & juice Police
11-15-00 $16.70 Jack’s Bakery Meeting refreshments EDA
11-17-00 $13.28 Cub Foods Drinks Finance
HR Division
11-17-00 $10.04 Jack’s Bakery 4 dozen assorted cookies - refreshments for
meeting
Police
11-20-00 $50.04 Rainbow Foods Miscellaneous items Comm. Dev.
12-05-00 $7.75 Jack’s Bakery None Admin.
12-13-00 $28.08 Jack’s Bakery 5 dozen assorted cookies & 5 dozen assorted
Christmas items
EDA
12-18-00 $5.44 Jack’s Bakery None Finance
HR Division
12-19-00 $8.96 Cub Foods Orange juice Admin.
01-03-01 $27.92 Cub Foods Pop Secret Fire
01-04-01 $10.52 Jack’s Bakery 18 assorted rolls and donuts Admin.
01-10-01 $23.01 Jack’s Bakery None EDA
01-11-01 $11.23 Jack’s Bakery 15 assorted sweets Finance
ITS Division
01-11-01 $17.00 Jack’s Bakery None Finance
HR Division
01-25-01 $14.76 Jack’s Bakery 2 dozen assorted sweets Police
01-31-01 $16.41 Jack’s Bakery 2 dozen assorted rolls and donuts, 1croissant Finance
ITS Division
04-13-01 $31.99 Jack’s Bakery Cake Rec & Park
Total $2,472.81
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 93
ATTACHMENT 7
MEALS FOR/WITH NON-CITY EMPLOYEES
Date Amount Vendor Purpose Department Attendees
01-27-99 $22.00 Northland Inn Lunch w/Dave Looby Admin. 1 employee,
1 non-City
04-20-99 $22.00 MacTavish’s Auditors, Hagerty & Andrews Finance 2 employees,
others non-City
06-08-99 $21.85 Unknown
(no receipt)
Meeting with Gary Gengel, attorney with
Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly concerning
salt storage building. construction
O & M Unknown
06-10-99 $27.66 Pizza (carry-out) Lunch expense-2 pizzas
door-to-door canvassing
Fire 1 non -City,
no other names
listed
06-17-99 $19.42 Perkins “Dan Rooke (Younghahl) insurance
renewal”
Finance 1 employee,
1 non-City
06-22-99 $20.00 MacTavish’s “Lunch Robb Johnson Duke to discuss
construction issues and donation to Deck the
Boulevard”
EDA 1 employee,
1 non-City
07-09-99 $46.65 MacTavish’s City Manager, Mayor & representatives of
Target office project
Admin. 1 employee,
Mayor, others
non-City
07-16-99 $26.31 TGI Fridays “Lunch to discuss strategy for City image
&All-American City 1999 & 2000 efforts
with Mary A. Milla, media senior trainer
(illegible)”
Admin. Unknown
07-20-99 $76.00 MacTavish’s Meeting Expense EDA 3 employees,
3 non-City,
3 unknown
07-21-99 $9.38 Unknown
(no receipt)
Lunch Dan Rooke Finance
HR Division
1 employee,
1 non-City
08-05-99 $17.27 MacTavish’s Noon Lunch Meeting with Glenn Baron of
Lancer attended by Mike Basset and Don
Berry to discuss new contract issues.
Rec & Park 2 employees,
1 non-City
08-16-99 $20.79 Champps -
Maplewood
Lunch expense City Official from the City of
Newport to discuss developing a
neighborhood resource center
Rec & Park 1 employee,
1 non-City
09-22-99 $24.00 Unknown
(no receipt)
“Lunch with VB Bank rep. to discuss area
growth and banking opportunities”
EDA 1 employee,
1 non-City
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 94
Date Amount Vendor Purpose Department Attendees
11-01-99 $34.67 MacTavish’s Workshop meeting with W. Schreiber
(5:55 p.m.)
EDA 3 employees,
1 non-City
11-02-99 $20.00 MacTavish’s Lunch-Dave Looby to discuss Business
Subsidy Policy-Clubhouse
EDA 1 employee,
1 non-City
11-04-99 $14.10 Perkins “Amcon/Clark Dev. meeting” (Plymouth) EDA 1 employee,
1 non-City
11-18-99 $54.02 MacTavish’s “Opat, SC, SK, DC re: 81 corridor”EDA 3 employees,
1 non-City
11-22-99 $19.13 MacTavish’s Lunch with Robb Johnson EDA 1 employee,
1 non-City
11-23-99 $78.96 MacTavish’s “Kelm & Associates regarding legislation,
lobbying/EDA”
EDA Unknown
12-02-99 $41.06 MacTavish’s “BPAA meeting/staff & community
relations” newly elected President of BPAA
Rec & Park 2 employees,
1 intern,
1 non-City
12-08-99 $40.00 Champps
(New Brighton)
“SK, SC, S. Inman, MulRuff”EDA 2 employees,
2 non-City
12-09-99 $13.40 Keys - Brooklyn
Park
Meeting with T. Spears regarding gambling
and community service issues
Admin. 1 employee,
1 non-City
12-10-99 $65.00 Nicklow’s
(Crystal)
Meeting with Hennepin Recycling Group
Board of Directors; Jerry Dulgar, Anne
Norris, Jim Glasoe, Dan Donahue
O & M Unknown
01-04-00 $20.00 TGI Fridays Development meeting Stacie & Sid Inman EDA 1 employee,
1 non-City
01-14-00 $21.00 MacTavish’s Consulting agreements input, Cliff Hoffman,
Greg Andrews
Finance 1 employee,
1 non-City
01-21-00 $15.87 Chili’s Stacie, Sid Inman, the Village development
meeting
EDA 1 employee,
1 non-City
02-03-00 $32.33 MacTavish’s Entertainment District EDA 2 employees,
1 non-City
02-03-00 $17.78 MacTavish’s “Tim McShane re 610, Ryan”EDA 1 employee,
1 non-City
02-25-00 $39.00 MacTavish’s Pre Audit meeting Finance 2 employees,
2 non-City
02-25-00 $8.16 Burger King Dan Rooke - lunch Finance
HR Division
1 employee,
1 non-City
03-14-00 $41.07 MacTavish’s “Development Meeting SC, AN, Ryan” EDA 2 employees,
1 non-City
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 95
Date Amount Vendor Purpose Department Attendees
03-15-00 $42.52 MacTavish’s “Lt. promotion board lunch”Police 1 employee,
3 non-city
03-16-00 $33.65 MacTavish’s Mayor and Todd Paulson - Met Council Admin. 1 employee,
Mayor, 1 non-
City
03-23-00 $29.61 Lancer at
Edinburgh
Box lunches for interview panel for Assistant
Finance Director position on 3/24/00
Finance 3 employees,
1 non-City
03-24-00 $32.54 MacTavish’s Curt Boganey, Linda St. John, Lee Skavager Admin. 2 employees,
1 non-City
03-31-00 $42.21 Northland Inn Dan Rooke - lunch Finance
HR Division
1 employee,
1 non-City
04-06-00 $20.31 MacTavish’s Brooklyn Chamber Director Admin. 1 employee,
1 non-City
04-13-00 $18.92 MacTavish’s Meeting with Kevin Frazell - League of
Minnesota Cities staff
Admin. 1 employee,
1 non-City
04-19-00 $21.91 MacTavish’s Business lunch regarding entertainment
district ideas. Attendees: Linda St. John,
David Sherman
Rec &Park 1 employee,
1 non-City
05-03-00 $30.78 MacTavish’s Meeting. with compensation study consultant Finance - HR
Division
1 employee,
1 non-City
05-12-00 $20.67 MacTavish’s Chamber - Gary Depalm, Dave Looby, S.
Clark
EDA 1 employee,
2 non-City
05-17-00 $52.27 MacTavish’s Claims management meeting. 3 employees,
Dan Rooke, & Bob Weisbrod, LMCTT
Branch Manager
Finance - HR
Division
3 employees,
2 non-City
05-30-00 $28.72 Ruby Tuesdays Entertainment District Development Meeting
John Cok, City of Champlin, SC, HB
EDA 2 employees,
1 non-City
06-09-00 $18.37 Perkins
(Plymouth)
“Clark, AmCon Const., Development
Meeting”
EDA 1 employee,
others non-City
06-12-00 $13.79 Leeann Chin Lunch with Dan Rooke regarding Insurance
Renewal
Finance - HR
Division
1 employee,
1 non-City
06-15-00 $12.95 Leeann Chin Lunch meeting with consultant Finance 1 employee,
1 non-City
06-15-00 $44.30 MacTavish’s “Development Meeting RIA”EDA 2 employees,
2 non-City
06-21-00 $36.17 Modern Café Lunch meeting on State Legislation EDA 3 employees,
1 non-City
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 96
Date Amount Vendor Purpose Department Attendees
06-21-00 $58.00 MacTavish’s Preparation for two arbitration cases Police 4 employees,
1 non-City
06-22-00 $20.98 MacTavish’s Sid Inman regarding EDA budgets EDA 1 employee,
1 non-City
06-27-00 $32.00 MacTavish’s Meeting with landscape architect “to discuss
master plan for Oak Grove Park”
Rec & Park 2 employees,
1 non-City
07-06-00 $51.86 MacTavish’s “Moodys Meeting: - Ehlers (Inman, Ruff),
Deblon, Andrews, Clark”
EDA 3 employees,
2 non-City
07-06-00 $7.54 Burger King Dan Rooke - lunch Finance
HR Division
1 employee,
1 non-City
07-10-00 $22.58 MacTavish’s Meeting with S. Vargas, County Executive
regarding County/City cooperation
Admin. 1 employee,
1 non-City
07-10-00 $33.74 MacTavish’s Lunch meeting-grievance arbitration- M.
Anderson, consultant, police staff
Finance 1 employee,
1 non-City,
others unknown
07-26-00 $23.00 Unknown (no
receipt)
Lunch with Bill Ramsey Comm. Dev. 1 employee,
1 non-City
07-27-00 $15.07 Perkins Meeting with Joe Straass regarding NMMA Admin. 1 employee,
1 non-City
08-02-00 $13.07 Subway Lunch with Dan Rooke/Steve Lawrence -
insurance
Finance
HR Division
1 employee,
2 non-City
08-03-00 $9.66 Leeann Chin Lunch with consultant, Mark A. & Marianne
Oyaas
Finance 1 employee,
1 non-City
08-24-00 $40.00 Unknown (not on
receipt)
Lunch Meeting - labor relations Finance 4 employees,
1 non-City
09-07-00 $13.29 Taco Bell Lunch with Steve Lawrence/Jon Watson -
insurance
Finance
HR Division
1 employee,
2 non-City
09-08-00 $26.31 Perkins Village Development Meeting - Scott,
Stacie, Rob (illegible)
EDA 2 employees,
1 non-City
09-13-00 $32.76 Chili’s A meeting with Sunny Fuller, Planning
Commissioner, Scott Clark, Stacie Kvilvang
regarding Village North
EDA 2 employees,
1 non-City
09-19-00 $29.75 Carbonne’s Pizza Subject Legislation EDA 3 employees,
4 non-City
09-20-00 $33.55 Northland Inn Business luncheon - MRPA Awards meeting
with Jon Gueban to develop yearly goals
Rec & Park 1 employee,
1 non-City
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 97
1 The itemized receipt obtained by the OSA for this expenditure reveals alcohol.
Date Amount Vendor Purpose Department Attendees
09-21-00 $135.44 Pickwich Tavern
(Duluth)
Dinner while attending a conference1 Comm. Dev. 3 employees,
2 non-City
09-27-00 $20.00 Unknown (no
receipt)
“Meet with NSP/lunch meeting”Comm. Dev. 1 employee,
1 non-City
10-16-00 $20.00 MacTavish’s Grant coordination meeting/lunch session Rec & Park 2 employees,
1 non-City
10-16-00 $25.79 Godfathers Pizza Compensation study meeting with
consultants & city employees
Admin. 2 employees,
other non-City
10-24-00 $38.81 Northland Inn Lunch with Dan Rooke, the Insurance
Broker. The meeting was to discuss
insurance renewal and schedules
Finance
HR Division
1 employee,
1 non-City
11-06-00 $31.00 TGI Friday’s
(Plymouth)
Meeting with Hennepin Parks on Regional
Trail
Rec & Park Unknown
11-06-00 $28.98 Leeann Chin Preparation for Council work session on
compensation
Finance 3 employees,
1 non-City
11-06-00 $11.06 MacTavish’s Lunch meeting with consultant Marianne
Oyaas
Finance
HR Division
1 employee,
1 non-City
11-07-00 $23.92 MacTavish’s Lunch meeting with consultant Marianne
Oyaas
Finance
HR Division
1 employee,
1 non-City
11-08-00 $36.10 MacTavish’s Curt Boganey, Greg Andrews, Marianne
Oyaas, Mark Anderson - compensation study
Finance 3 employees,
1 non-City
11-08-00 $23.65 MacTavish’s David Looby, Scott Clark-Chamber business EDA 1 employee,
1 non-City
11-17-00 $29.51 MacTavish’s Development meeting EDA 2 employees,
1 non-City
12-13-00 $30.05 MacTavish’s “S/A FBI for LEEDS meeting”Police Unknown
01-08-01 $20.38 Hideaway Café Legislation agenda SK, MA, SC, - Tucker
Carlson
EDA 3 employees,
1 non-City
01-22-01 $22.20 Benchwarmer
Bob’s
Development meeting EDA 2 employees,
1 non-City,
others illegible
01-24-01 $13.43 Perkins Development meeting EDA 1 employee,
1 non-City
01-25-01 $70.26 Festival Foods Osseo School Assistant Superintendent
Hennepin County Sheriffs Investigators were
assisting on an investigation involving a
school employee.
Police Unknown
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 98
Date Amount Vendor Purpose Department Attendees
02-01-01 $9.98 Leeann Chin Lunch meeting with consultant Finance 1 employee,
1 non-City
02-02-01 $15.98 MacTavish’s Take-out meals for meeting with
compensation study consultant: Mark A. &
Marianne Oyaas”
Finance
HR Division
1 employee,
1 non-City
02-12-01 $20.20 Applebee’s Lunch meeting with (illegible) district chief Fire 1 employee,
1 non-City
02-15-01 $14.65 Perkins Development meeting - Amcon EDA 1 employee,
1 non-City
02-20-01 $15.70 Leeann Chin Historical Farm Insurance - Dan Rooke Finance 1 employee,
1 non-City
03-01-01 $29.36 Unknown LCA contribution meeting EDA 4 employees,
2 non-City
03-05-01 $67.76 MacTavish’s Business meeting-Golf Shop computer
system
Rec & Park 5 employees,
1 non-City
03-06-01 $23.91 MacTavish’s Lunch with Golf TRAC consultant Rec & Park 2 employees,
others unknown
03-07-01 $48.67 MacTavish’s Discuss Web TRAC Finance
ITS Division
3 employees,
1 non-City
03-08-01 $56.93 MacTavish’s Lunch with Vermont Systems trainer Rec & Park 4 employees,
1 non-City
03-27-01 $14.43 Leeann Chin Lunch-Dan Rooke, Park and Rec Issues,
Historical Farm contracts
Finance 1 employee,
1 non-City
04-05-01 $38.00 MacTavish’s Development of Next Stage
(Sid Inman)
EDA 3 employees,
1 non-City
04-17-01 $20.00 Unknown Lunch for 2 employees, Jim Holmes and S.
Inman-Legislation-The Village
EDA 2 employees,
2 non-City
04-24-01 $21.49 Perkins Meeting and appreciation lunch for Paul
Zunker-AED Vendor
Finance 1 employee,
1 non-City
05-21-01 $16.02 Leeann Chin Lunch with Dan Rooke, Insurance renewal. Finance 1 employee,
1 non-City
06-13-01 $7.21 Burger King Insurance renewal - Dan Rooke Admin. 1 employee,
1 non-City
06-19-01 $60.00 MacTavish’s P.C. Steering Committee EDA 2 employees,
4 non-City
08-07-01 $51.28 Hooligan’s
(Maple Grove)
Meeting development -
The Village
EDA 2 employees,
1 non-City,
1 unknown
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 99
Date Amount Vendor Purpose Department Attendees
08-17-01 $24.99 MacTavish’s Lunch with Hennepin County Commissioner
Mike Opat
Police 1 employee,
1 non-City
11-29-01 $19.18 MacTavish’s Discussion of future development
plans/business and economic development
for City 610 corridor
EDA 1 employee,
1 non-City
Total $3,048.05
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 100
ATTACHMENT 8
CITY-PURCHASED MEALS WITH NO FURTHER EXPLANATION
Date Amount Location Description Code* Department
01-06-99 $15.92 Unknown “Business lunch”8600 Rec & Park
01-12-99 $32.00 Benchwarmer Bob’s “Lunch mtg. expense” 8600 Finance
ITS Division
01-19-99 $55.73 Carbone’s Pizzeria “Food meeting”8600 Admin.
01-20-99 $29.00 Red Lobster “Meeting Expense” 8600 Finance
HR Division
02-05-99 $49.67 Champps - Maple Grove None 4201 Finance
HR Division
02-10-99 $18.18 Unknown “Meeting luncheon” 8600 Comm. Dev.
02-18-99 $23.69 Perkins (Minnetonka)“Meeting Exp.”8600 Fire
03-16-99 $18.19 50s Grill “Meeting expense” 8600 Comm. Dev.
03-17-99 $14.79 MacTavish’s None 8600 Rec & Park
03-18-99 $23.00 Chili’s “Lunch mtg.”8600 EDA
03-23-99 $31.79 Subway “Dinner meeting”8600 Fire
03-25-99 $14.30 Perkins “Mtng. expense”8600 Finance
03-30-99 $18.21 Applebee’s None 8600 Rec & Park
03-31-99 $40.00 Champps - Maple Grove None 4201 Finance
HR Division
04-05-99 $59.31 MacTavish’s None 8600 EDA
04-08-99 $137.89 MacTavish’s None 8600 EDA
04-09-99 $43.88 Benchwarmer Bob’s None 6301 Finance
04-09-99 $21.92 MacTavish’s None 8600 EDA
04-12-99 $21.60 MacTavish’s None 8600 EDA
04-13-99 $20.52 MacTavish’s “Lunch mtg.”8600 EDA
04-14-99 $20.54 MacTavish’s None 8600 EDA
04-21-99 $71.30 La Casita Mexican Restaurant “Luncheon"8600 EDA
04-27-99 $21.00 MacTavish’s None 8600 Finance
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 101
1 Itemized receipt obtained by the OSA from MacTavish’s reflects alcohol.
Date Amount Location Description Code* Department
04-28-99 $25.00 Lancer at Edinburgh None 8600 Rec & Park
04-30-99 $70.00 Champps-Maple Grove None 8600 Finance
HR Division
05-05-99 $29.24 MacTavish’s None 8600 Rec & Park
06-22-99 $20.00 MacTavish’s “Lunch mtg.”8600 EDA
06-25-99 $20.53 Chili’s “Meeting supplies” 8600 Comm. Dev.
07-13-99 $26.89 Unknown “Business lunch”8600 Rec & Park
07-15-99 $34.85 Carbone’s Pizzeria “Bus. lunch”8600 Rec & Park
07-29-99 $34.36 Godfather’s Pizza “Meeting expense” 8600 Finance
08-11-99 $25.84 MacTavish’s “Mtg. expense”8600 Comm. Dev.
08-19-99 $15.25 Unknown (4 meals) “Meeting expense” 8600 Finance
09-01-99 $6.78 Subway (2 meals)“Business lunch”8600 EDA
09-14-99 $54.61 MacTavish’s (10:11 p.m.) None
1 8600 EDA
09-22-99 $56.11 Olive Garden None 8600 Finance
HR Division
10-25-99 $10.00 MacTavish’s (1 meal)“Lunch mtg.”8600 EDA
10-27-99 $75.50 Caribou Coffee None 4200 Finance
10-28-99 $4.80 Unknown (no receipt)“Meetings/lunch”8600 Comm. Dev.
10-29-99 $7.77 Unknown (no receipt)“Meetings/lunch”8600 Comm. Dev.
11-02-99 $12.00 Benchwarmer Bob’s “Lunch mtg.”8600 EDA
11-19-99 $55.24 Don Pablos None 4200 Finance
HR Division
12-15-99 $34.00 Angeno’s Pizza None 4200 Finance
12-16-99 $21.59 Chili’s “Mtg.”8600 Comm. Dev.
12-20-99 $88.82 Lancer Catering (12 box lunches) None 4200 Comm. Dev.
01-10-00 $40.92 Delisi’s Italian Restaurant “PJT# Giving”4200 Admin.
01-13-00 $14.25 Caribou Coffee “Mtg.”4200 Comm. Dev.
02-02-00 $35.94 Scoreboard Pizza Pizza and Pop for meeting 8600 Finance
03-06-00 $11.17 Panera Bread “Business lunch”8600 Rec & Park
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 102
Date Amount Location Description Code* Department
05-16-00 $30.78 MacTavish’s None 8600 Rec & Park
06-29-00 $24.00 Carbone’s Pizzeria “Pizzas for Lunch mtg.” 8600 Comm. Dev.
06-30-00 $17.24 Davanni’s Pizza “Mtng. Lunch”8600 Finance
11-02-00 $12.67 MacTavish’s None 8600 Admin.
11-06-00 $11.01 Perkins None 8600 Admin.
01-31-01 $50.00 Pizza Hut “Food-meeting”4200 Admin.
Total $1,779.59
*Accounting codes used by the City are:
4200 and 4201 Operating supplies
6300 and 6301 Advertising
7400 Miscellaneous other charges
8600 Meeting and travel expense
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 103
1 The itemized receipt obtained by the OSA for this expenditure reveals alcohol.
2 The itemized receipt maintained by the City for this expenditure reveals alcohol and appetizers.
ATTACHMENT 9
MEALS FOR WHICH THE OSA CANNOT
DETERMINE THE IDENTITY OF ALL THE PEOPLE
Date Amount Location Description Department Attendees
06-10-99 $22.00 Papa John’s Property managers meeting lunch Comm. Dev. No names listed
07-07-99 $25.29 Benchwarmer
Bob’s
Business lunch to discuss direction O & M No names listed
07-13-99 $61.19 Papa John’s
(Brooklyn
Center)
“The Village Task Force Mtg.”
(10:24 p.m.) (Date on receipt is
04-21-00)
Comm. Dev. No names listed
08-19-99 $29.53 MacTavish’s “Charter & M. Grove re: Master Plan”
(9:51 p.m.)1
EDA No names listed
08-31-99 $33.27 TGI Fridays Summer Blossom Judges lunch EDA No names listed
10-11-99 $37.52 Champps -
Maple Grove
Maranatha Senior Housing Project EDA 2 employees,
others illegible
10-13-99 $118.53 Leeann Chin “Mtg expense-open house”O & M No names listed
11-06-99 $86.47 50's Grill Youth Nights Advisory Team planning
lunch after attending super summit for
youth
Rec & Park 2 employees,
7 unable to ID
11-08-99 $208.41 Lancer at
Edinburgh
Golf Course discussion Comm. Dev. No names listed
(12 people)
11-22-99 $68.00 MacTavish’s Deck the Boulevard Meeting
(6:49 p.m.)2
EDA 5 employees,
others unable to
ID
11-22-99 $23.00 Unknown Lunch meeting - the Village EDA No names listed
12-29-99 $33.65 MacTavish’s Meeting with City managers regarding task
force issues
Admin. No names listed
01-03-00 $22.00 MacTavish’s “CRR re Redw./Village”EDA No names listed
01-18-00 $23.70 MacTavish’s Food for meeting w/local city managers
regarding ICMA task force
Admin. No names listed
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 104
3 It appears this expenditure was twice submitted to and reimbursed from petty cash.
Date Amount Location Description Department Attendees
02-03-00 $20.00 Chili’s
3 Lunch meeting with Don Kind regarding
Engineering Division performance
Comm. Dev. Unable to ID
02-07-00 $17.46 MacTavish’s “Brad Hoffman re: Chamber, Nelson” EDA Unable to ID
02-22-00 $29.31 The Golden
Dragon
Working lunch while preparing for a
disciplinary arbitration
Police No names listed
03-02-00 $14.62 Perkins
(Plymouth)
Development Meeting - SC, JW EDA 1 employee,
1 unable to ID
03-09-00 $20.09 Unknown pizza Staffing committee meeting Fire 1 employee
5 unable to ID
04-24-00 $21.05 MacTavish’s Human Resource Commission Admin. No names listed
04-28-00 $26.42 Champps -
Maple Grove
Development meeting, Stacie, Liz Paige EDA 1 employee,
1 unable to ID
05-18-00 $56.92 Northland Inn Illegible EDA 2 employees,
2 illegible
07-06-00 $34.07 MacTavish’s The Village/Shingle Creek EDA 2 employees,
2 unable to ID
07-10-00 $29.34 Benchwarmer
Bob’s
Teen planning meeting - Paul Courseneau,
Kate LeRoy, Roxanne Palm
Rec & Park 2 employees,
1 unable to ID
07-12-00 $134.75 MacTavish’s Illegible EDA Approximately
15 illegible
names
07-13-00 $42.17 MacTavish’s Summer Blossom, Will, Carol, Theresa &
Dorothy Adair
EDA 3 employees,
1 unable to ID
07-17-00 $24.88 Chili’s Enrichment camp planning meeting - Jan
D., Tracy V., Jamie C., Kristen J.
Rec & Park 2 employees,
2 unable to ID
07-21-00 $19.00 The Golden
Dragon
To discuss Honey Computer system: Gary
Lang, Steve Lawrence, John Phillipi
O & M 2 employees,
1 unable to ID
07-24-00 $24.52 Atrium Catering “CP RE Code Enforcement”EDA No names listed
08-23-00 $60.40 Ciatti’s Italian
Restaurant
Arbitration hearing lunch Finance
HR Division
No names listed
10-03-00 $34.98 Chili’s Bill Wenk, Jason Aarsvold, Stacie Kvilvang
- the Village
EDA 2 employees,
1 unable to ID
10-16-00 $30.29 Northland Inn Meeting with Ramsey regarding
Community Development Restructuring
Admin. 1 employee,
1 unable to ID
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 105
Date Amount Location Description Department Attendees
11-09-00 $71.74 Shelly’s
Woodroast
Meeting with Waste Management - Tour of
Facilities-St. Louis Park & St. Paul
Contractor Representatives. &
Administration recycling staff
O & M No names listed
11-15-00 $40.17 MacTavish’s Discuss opportunities for future Women’s
Senior Golf Tournament at Edinburgh Pro
Tour
Rec & Park 3 employees,
1 unable to ID
12-07-00 $72.64 Domino’s Pizza Grant Meeting Rec & Park No names listed
12-20-00 $18.99 Pizza-Unknown Investigation Team Finance
HR Division
No names listed
01-19-01 $214.83 Lancer at
Edinburgh
Development meeting Admin. No names listed
02-05-01 $45.66 TGI Fridays To discuss donation of land along river Comm. Dev. 2 employees,
2 unable to ID
04-12-01 $137.42 MacTavish’s Real Estate Forum debriefing EDA 12 employees,
1 unable to ID
07-03-01 $57.34 MacTavish’s Meeting regarding Eder Park Apartments EDA 3 employees,
2 unable to ID
08-28-01 $21.85 MacTavish’s “Lunch mtg with: St., Scott Clark and
developer. Purpose: future planning
concepts”
Rec & Park 2 employees,
No other names
listed
Total $2,113.47
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 106
1 All purpose explanations were taken from information on the invoice, or from notes written by
employees.
2 There is no explanation for this expenditure. However, it appears that it may have been for gift
certificates because it is the same amount, and purchased on the same day, as the gift certificates
from Rainbow Foods.
ATTACHMENT 10
MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEE GIFTS
Date Amount Vendor Purpose1 Department
01-25-99 $51.87 G. Neil Companies Birthday cards Police
01-25-99 $295.00 Gift Certificate Center Co. $250.00 premier choice gift cert.
(Recipient unknown)
Finance
HR Division
01-28-99 $12.35 Robin Lee’s Hallmark Cards for office sympathy, get well Rec & Park
03-16-99 $45.77 Michaels 23 Bunny Mugs Finance
HR Division
04-06-99 $40.00 Rainbow Foods Gift certificates Finance
HR Division
04-06-99 $40.00 Cub Foods No explanation2 Finance
HR Division
04-11-99 $125.00 Target Five $25.00 gift certificates for part-time
licensing clerks
Finance
04-22-99 $40.00 Home Place Two $20.00 Gift certificates Finance
HR Division
06-25-99 $39.40 Judy’s Cottage Florist City Clerk plant from City Council Mayor/Council
06-25-99 $38.40 Judy’s Cottage Florist Sympathy flowers-employee’s mother O & M
07-26-99 $330.00 Gift Certificate Center Co. 3 Gift Certificates
($50, $100, & $150)
Finance
HR Division.
09-14-99 $11.77 Robin Lee’s Hallmark Sympathy Cards Fire
09-16-99 $2.66 Robin Lee’s Hallmark Sympathy Card EDA
10-04-99 $315.00 Mall of America Six $50.00 Gift Certificates Finance
10-13-99 $39.91 Bachmans Plant arrangement from Department to
[Employee’s] family
Rec & Park
10-25-99 $20.18 Barnes & Noble Supplies & giveaways for 10/27/99 supervisor’s
meeting
Finance
HR Division
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 107
3 The Hallmark invoice stated that the expenditures is for “Xmas Box CDS.” A handwritten
notation stated that the expenditure is for “Holiday Greeting Cards.”
4 At least five out of six employees given the gift certificates were also taken to lunch on February 4,
2000, for a “Y2K Celebration.”
5 The same employee was taken to lunch on May 2, 2000, “after all the research done on the new
copier.”
Date Amount Vendor Purpose Department
10-27-99 $10.00 Target Gift Certificate Finance
HR Division
10-27-99 $53.44 Walmart Supplies & giveaways for 10/27/99 supervisor’s
meeting
Finance
HR Division
12-09-99 $79.61 Robin Lee’s Hallmark Holiday Greeting Cards
3 O & M
12-10-99 $50.91 Robin Lee’s Hallmark Holiday Greeting Cards Rec & Park
12-20-99 $15.92 Robin Lee’s Hallmark Holiday Greeting Cards Comm. Dev.
01-11-00 $23.08 Current “Misc. cards for Admin.”Admin.
01-28-00 $660.00 Gift Certificate Center Co. Six $100.00 gift certificates
4 Finance
02-08-00 $59.25 Potpourri Floral Co. [Employee] accident Rec & Park
03-14-00 $45.00 Target Three gift certificates
($25.00, $10.00, and $10.00)
Finance
ITS Division
04-12-00 $55.00 Gift Certificate Center Co. Gift Certificate for employee
5 Finance
04-26-00 $110.00 Gift Certificate Center Co. $100.00 Gift Certificate for employee Finance
ITS Division
04-27-00 $330.00 Gift Certificate Center Co. Three $100.00 gift certificates for employees Finance
HR Division
05-03-00 $23.42 Linder’s Flower Mart [Employee] Farewell Plant Finance
05-10-00 $20.00 Target Two $10.00 Gift Certificates (Recipients
unknown)
Admin.
07-25-00 $400.00 Target Twenty $20.00 gift cards “Counselor
Appreciation-Safety Camp”
Fire
08-10-00 $100.00 Target Five $20.00 gift cards “Safety Camp for
helpers”
Fire
08-11-00 $139.99 G-Neil Attitude 24x30 wood frame (“employee
recognition”)
Admin.
08-25-00 $17.20 Target Eight Cards Comm. Dev.
08-29-00 $3.73 Snyder Drug Greeting Card Comm. Dev.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 108
6 These gifts are in addition to the gifts discussed in Section III of this Report. According to City
documents, no receipt was requested for this expenditure, so the OSA is unable to determine to
whom the gifts were sent.
Date Amount Vendor Purpose Department
08-31-00 $120.00 Gift Certificate Center Co. $100.00 Gift Certificate for an employee Finance
HR Division
09-14-00 $25.07 Mobil Pop & chips for O & M guys delivering supplies
for primary election
Admin.
09-15-00 $31.90 Dairy Queen Buster Bars for O & M staff that helped
w/delivering of election materials
Admin.
10-11-00 $100.00 Lancer at Edinburgh “Gift certificates/supplies for programs” Rec & Park
11-08-00 $47.55 Dairy Queen Treats for O & M Personnel Admin.
11-13-00 $194.15 Baudville Team key chains Rec & Park/
Admin.
11-28-00 $140.00 Applebees “I wanted to take (election) staff members out to
lunch and discuss after election activities. This
was also to be a thank you for their hard work.
Time didn’t allow this to happen so I purchased
gift certificates and mailed them as a thank you.”
(One $100.00 and one $40.00 gift certificate)
Admin.
12-01-00 $291.75 Harry & David “Recognition items for HR personnel - Annual
Practice”6
Finance
HR Division
12-13-00 $31.84 Robin Lee’s Hallmark Cards/Communications - Golf Course Admin. Golf Course
Admin.
01-17-01 $20.00 Cash prizes
Petty cash reimbursement
Two $10.00 Cash Prizes for Survey on MS
office
Finance
ITS Division
02-09-01 $73.70 Paper Direct “Paper for City managers 2001 Holiday letter to
employees. Purchased early due to a 50% off
sale.”
Admin.
02-12-01 $23.01 KMart Valentine candy for employees Admin.
04-25-01 $167.74 Fanny Farmer Employee Recognition Candy for 29 clerical
staff members
Police
06-01-01 $6.32 Robin Lee’s Hallmark 3 greeting cards Admin.
11-15-01 $16.15 Robin Lee’s Hallmark Cards to have available for “Get Well” &
“Sympathy”
Mayor/Council
Total $4,933.04
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 109
ATTACHMENT 11
EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION/RECOGNITION MEALS
Date Amount Vendor Purpose Department
03-01-99 $87.00 Champps-Maple Grove Budget Appreciation Luncheon Finance
05-17-99 $170.00 Champps-Maple Grove Finance Departrment Appreciation Luncheon Finance
08-24-99 $95.82 Champps-Maple Grove Policy Governance Council-Thank You Luncheon Admin.
12-17-99 $76.00 Leeann Chin ITS Appreciation Finance
02-09-00 $32.60 Carbonne’s Pizza Employee Recognition Luncheon Finance
HR Division
05-02-00 $20.34 Chilis “Treated [employee] to lunch after all the research
done on the new copier”
Finance
05-19-00 $60.13 Don Pablos Staff Recognition Lunch Finance
HR Division
05-23-00 $40.00 History Theatre Staff Recognition*Rec & Park
05-24-00 $50.00 Saint Paul Hotel Staff Recognition*Rec & Park
06-01-00 $27.00 Godfather’s Pizza “All ITS Staff: Recognize Efforts for VIRUS
Breakouts”
Finance
ITS Division
08-10-00 $36.38 Cub Foods “MSC Recognition”Finance
HR Division
08-28-00 $66.02 Olive Garden Human Resource Recognition-HR staff Finance
HR Division
08-29-00 $29.86 MacTavish’s Employee Recognition-HR staff and “other various
staff”
Finance
HR Division
12-21-00 $113.79 MacTavish’s Safety Committee Staff Recognition Finance
HR Division
02-05-01 $17.88 Cub Foods Recognition for water main break Admin
05-15-01 $184.41 Houlihans Finance Appreciation Lunch Finance
Total $1,107.23
* OSA was unable to determine if the expenditures were for meals or gift certificates.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 110
ATTACHMENT 12
EMPLOYEE CELEBRATIONS
Date Amount Location Description Department
01-14-99 $11.99 Jack’s Bakery Cake: good luck to employee Police
01-28-99 $54.88 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee retirement Finance
HR Division
01-28-99 $43.49 Paper Warehouse Paper Supplies - Employee party Finance
HR Division
01-28-99 $37.98 Cub Foods Employee retirement party
plant, crackers
Finance
HR Division
02-03-99 $161.20 Litin Paper
Company
Birthday, decor, theme, gift package, etc.Finance
HR Division
02-08-99 $40.49 Jack’s Bakery Cake: officer’s swearing-in ceremony Police
02-10-99 $4.28 Paper Warehouse Employee Departure Comm. Dev.
02-10-99 $5.85 Cub Foods Employee Departure Comm. Dev.
03-15-99 $12.78 Unknown Vases for employee lunch Admin.
03-31-99 $40.49 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee retirement Police
03-30-99 $19.32 Festival Foods Employee retirement Police
04-12-99 $41.39 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee recognition luncheon Mayor/Council
04-20-99 $7.19 Paper Warehouse Napkin & Wine glasses Admin.
04-20-99 $7.65 Rainbow Foods Meirs Sparkling Chablis & Burgundy Admin.
04-29-99 $41.39 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee retirement Fire
05-25-99 $41.39 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee retirement O & M
06-01-99 $25.19 Jack’s Bakery Cake: officer’s swearing-in ceremony Police
06-03-99 $59.39 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee last day O & M
06-11-99 $38.69 Jack’s Bakery Cake for 2 officers’ promotions Police
06-18-99 $21.29 Jack’s Bakery 3 ½ dozen sweets for employee birthday Finance
06-30-99 $38.69 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee departure Police
07-27-99 $26.62 Jack’s Bakery Cookies for employee Finance
08-20-99 $23.39 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee departure Police
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 111
1 At least five of the six employees were also given $100 gift certificates purchased on January 28,
2000.
Date Amount Location Description Department
08-25-99 $23.39 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee departure Police
09-16-99 $43.19 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee’s last day O & M
10-22-99 $23.39 Jack’s Bakery Cake: “Best Wishes” to employee Comm. Dev.
11-10-99 $36.89 Jack’s Bakery Cake: 3 officers’ swearing-in Police
11-23-99 $36.76 Rainbow Foods Employee going away luncheon Police
12-06-99 $23.39 Jack’s Bakery Cake: officer swearing -in Police
12-28-99 $9.97 Paper Warehouse Champagne glasses for New Year’s Eve workers Admin.
01-06-00 $22.23 Walgreens Employee party Rec & Park
02-04-00 $38.69 Jack’s Bakery Sheet cake for employee Comm. Dev.
02-04-00 $101.41 The Olive Garden Y2K Celebration
1 (8 employees)Finance
ITS Division
02-04-00 $27.72 Festival Foods Supplies for employee last day Comm. Dev.
02-08-00 $50.52 Paper Warehouse No explanation (“Over the Hill” party items) O & M
02-09-00 $41.39 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee birthday O & M
02-14-00 $23.39 Jack’s Bakery Cake: swearing-in Police
02-15-00 $14.39 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee departure Police
03-02-00 $23.39 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee departure Police
03-15-00 $13.58 Festival Foods Card, grocery and floral items for employee
certification recognition
Admin.
03-21-00 $16.65 Paper Warehouse Employee going away party Finance
03-21-00 $3.86 Cub Foods Employee going away party Finance
03-23-00 $52.19 Jack’s Bakery Cake: “Good Luck [Employee]”Finance
04-05-00 $25.19 Jack’s Bakery Cake: officer swearing -in Police
04-06-00 $48.59 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee retirement O & M
04-12-00 $17.40 Osseo Bakery Employee farewell treats Finance
04-14-00 $43.04 Cub Foods Employee’s first day Finance
HR Division
04-25-00 $22.53 Cub Foods Employee party Finance
ITS Division
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 112
Date Amount Location Description Department
04-28-00 $56.69 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee departure Finance
ITS Division
04-28-00 $39.59 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee promotion Police
05-25-00 $37.79 Jack’s Bakery Cake for awards program Police
07-13-00 $24.29 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee birthday O & M
07-21-00 $25.19 Jack’s Bakery Cake: for O & M O & M
07-25-00 $35.09 Jack’s Bakery Cake: welcome for employees Finance
ITS Division
08-29-00 $46.87 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee departure Comm. Dev.
08-31-00 $19.09 Festival Foods Punch: employee party EDA
08-31-00 $33.86 Paper Warehouse Employee party EDA
09-06-00 $47.30 Cub Foods Employee party supplies Finance
HR Division
09-12-00 $25.29 Jack’s Bakery Treats for employee departure Finance
09-12-00 $42.29 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee final day O & M
09-28-00 $42.29 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee retirement O & M
10-30-00 $15.29 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee departure Police
11-16-00 $44.09 Jack’s Bakery Cake: 5 officers’ swearing-in Police
12-11-00 $24.78 Jack’s Bakery Cake and candles Admin.
12-19-00 $15.29 Jack’s Bakery Cake: “Congratulations ITS Reunion 2002"Finance
ITS Division
01-31-01 $21.60 Osseo Bakery Employee recognition Finance
02-16-01 $37.79 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee departure Comm. Dev.
02-19-01 $81.37 Paper Warehouse Party supplies for employee departure Finance
HR Division
02-21-01 $54.89 Jack’s Bakery Employee cake Finance
HR Division
02-21-01 $12.39 Cub Foods Employee farewell party supplies Finance
HR Division
03-30-01 $25.73 Jack’s Bakery Treats for employee departure Finance
05-22-01 $33.68 Rainbow Foods Farewell party for employee O & M
05-23-01 $32.93 Paper Warehouse Plates/forks/cups etc. for farewell party for employee O & M
05-23-01 $52.19 Jack’s Bakery Employee-Final day of employment O & M
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 113
Date Amount Location Description Department
05-30-01 $63.84 Jack’s Bakery 5 dozen cookies and cake: five officers swearing-in Police
06-22-01 $33.29 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee departure Comm. Dev.
06-26-01 $14.90 Office Max Award frame for employee departure Mayor/Council
06-27-01 $25.96 Jack’s Bakery Assorted donuts for driver recognition Admin.
07-05-01 $9.72 Wal Mart Supplies for employee party “Recognition of
outgoing employee”
Mayor/Council
07-12-01 $29.28 Paper Warehouse Supplies for employee retirement party Mayor/Council
08-02-01 $25.05 Rainbow Foods Supplies for employee departure Comm. Dev.
08-02-01 $42.99 Jack’s Bakery Cake: employee farewell Comm. Dev.
08-02-01 $16.45 Party City Supplies for employee departure Comm. Dev.
08-17-01 $23.36 Jack’s Bakery 4 dozen cupcakes-employee farewell Comm. Dev.
10-12-01 $22.79 Paper Warehouse Employee recognition Mayor/Council
10-12-01 $7.70 Target Employee recognition Mayor/Council
11-13-01 $51.29 Jack’s Bakery Cake: 4 officers’ swearing-in Police
Total $2,882.43
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 114
1 Although a handwritten notation submitted with the approval of this expenditure indicates that the
expenditure is for “supplies and materials for various training,” the itemized receipt only reflects
items such as balloons and holiday-theme party products.
ATTACHMENT 13
INTRA-DEPARTMENT HOLIDAY PARTIES
Department Date Vendor Amount Subtotal by
Department
Finance 12-18-99 Target $100.00
11-29-00 Paper Warehouse
1 $80.83
12-07-00 Creative You Inc.$13.79
12-07-00 Paperdirect Inc.$5.00
12-18-00 Creative You Inc.$11.18
12-18-00 Petty Cash $50.00
12-20-00 Paper Warehouse $15.06
12-21-00 Jack’s Bakery $27.46 $303.32
O & M 12-14-99 Forster’s $1,170.21
12-20-99 Northland Inn $70.00 $1,240.21
Police 12-21-00 Festival Foods $58.59 $58.59
Recreation and Parks 12-27-00 Festival Foods $53.26
12-27-00 Target $25.37
12-28-00 Paper Warehouse $19.12 $97.75
Total $1,699.87 $1,699.87
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 115
1 When available, descriptions were taken from notations contained on receipts maintained by the
City. For certain expenditures in the chart, no description for the use of the funds was provided;
however, the OSA included these expenditures in the chart if the City coded the expenditures to
the City’s CHTTP account codes 101-02-02-414 (general fund; Administration Department; City
Manager; CHTTP) or 101-02-04-414 (general fund; Administration Department; Communications;
CHTTP).
* Expenditures marked with an asterisk were coded to account codes 101-02-02-414 and 101-02-04-
414.
ATTACHMENT 14
EXAMPLES OF CITY CHTTP EXPENSES
Date Amount Vendor Description1
03/04/1999 $12.80 Jack’s Bakery CHHTP Board Meeting
05/06/1999 $80.51 Broadway Awards Plaque - D Koop*
06/11/1999 $20.13 MacTavish’s Lee Skavenger lunch - CHTTP
06/18/1999 $17.76 Target CHTTP pictures - golf tournament*
09/22/1999 $70.00 Network Solutions URL for Come Home to the Park
11/03/1999 $20.00 Caribou Coffee CHTTP Summit
11/03/1999 $7.87 Festival Foods CHTTP Summit
11/18/1999 $16.67 Festival Foods Cookies*
12/07/1999 $22.09 Festival Foods Cookies, cake, snacks, ice tea, water*
01/18/2000 $5.88 Festival Foods Cookies*
02/03/2000 $6.48 Festival Foods Cookies*
03/08/2000 $18.08 Bakers Square Met with Come Home to the Park President Sunny
Fuller to discuss Quarterly Meeting*
03/15/2000 $10.05 Snyder Drug CHTTP Quarterly Meeting*
03/16/2000 $24.39 Paper Warehouse Tablecloths, napkins-CHTTP Quarterly Meeting*
06/08/2000 $448.37 Sporting Goods, Inc CHTTP/BPTM mugs
06/21/2000 $49.84 Cub Foods Pop, cookies, donut, snacks*
06/22/2000 $708.73 Sampson Miller The Original Koozie*
06/29/2000 $159.43 Angeno's Pizza CHTTP Quarterly Meeting*
07/03/2000 $21.43 Petty Cash-Finance HOT FUN (McDonald’s)*
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 116
2 This expenditure appears to be for the annual CHTTP Board meeting/retreat held each November.
See $20.00 expenditure to Caribou Coffee on November 3, 1999, and $25.56 expenditure to
Caribou Coffee on November 28, 2001.See also $31.24 expenditure to Festival Foods on
November 1, 2000, for the CHTTP retreat.
07/25/2000 $360.00 Sets Design Inc.CHTTP Shirts*
08/01/2000 $78.28 Trophies by Linda Name Tags - CHTTP*
08/01/2000 $31.31 Carbone's Pizza CHTTP Meeting
08/03/2000 $21.69 MacTavish’s “Sunny Fuller-CHTTP, PC”
08/23/2000 $39.77 Angeno's Pizza -
Maple Grove
Pizza party for CHTTP Board Members and Tater Daze
float prize winner*
09/21/2000 $207.00 Angeno's Pizza CHTTP Meeting*
09/21/2000 $39.40 Festival Foods CHTTP Quarterly Meeting*
10/31/2000 $21.19 Jack's Bakery “Order picked up by Sunny Fuller, Pres. of CHTTP”*
11/01/2000 $31.24 Festival Foods For CHTTP retreat*
11/02/2000 $43.20 Caribou Coffee No description for use of funds2*
12/27/2000 $126.38 Kohls Department Store Men’s clothing*
03/15/2001 $136.51 Stordahl, Lisa Mileage/CHTTP*
03/22/2001 $34.12 Cub Foods Beverages/CHTTP Quarterly Meeting*
03/22/2001 $31.84 Paper Warehouse CHTTP Quarterly Meeting Supplies*
07/19/2001 $139.40 Kohls Department Store CHTTP Shirts/resale*
10/23/2001 $16.21 Paper Warehouse CHTTP Quarterly Meeting Expense*
11/27/2001 $22.39 Jack’s Bakery CHTTP Yearly Board Retreat*
11/28/2001 $25.56 Caribou Coffee CHTTP Yearly Board Retreat*
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 117
ATTACHMENT 15
EXAMPLES OF CHTTP EXPENDITURES
Check
Number Date Description of Transaction Amount
1039 02-02-99 Monroe Elementary $ 500.00
1040 02-02-99 Odyssey Charter School 250.00
1041 02-02-99 Living World Christian Ctr 250.00
1042 02-02-99 City of Brooklyn Park 100.00
1043 02-02-99 Edgewood Elementary 100.00
1044 02-02-99 Brooklyn Park Lions 100.00
1045 02-02-99 Park Ctr HS Honor Society 100.00
1046 02-02-99 Early Childhood Family 100.00
1048 07-15-99 Brooklyn Chamber 2,300.00
1049 08-11-99 City of Brooklyn Park 2,000.00
1050 10-18-99 Fair Oaks School 50.00
1052 10-18-99 Palmer Lake School 50.00
1053 10-18-99 Park Brook School 50.00
1054 10-18-99 Riverview Elementary 50.00
1055 10-18-99 Weaver Lake Elementary 50.00
1056 10-18-99 Crestview Elementary 50.00
1057 12-29-99 Monroe Elementary 500.00
1058 12-29-99 City of Brooklyn Park 250.00
1059 12-29-99 Huntington Place 250.00
1061 12-29-99 B.P. Women of Today 100.00
1062 12-29-99 B.P. Lions 100.00
1064 12-29-99 Waterford Quilting Group 100.00
1066 12-29-99 MOM’s Club of B.P. 100.00
1067 12-29-99 Riverview United Meth 100.00
1074 03-30-00 City of Brooklyn Park 51.48
1076 06-15-00 Lancer @ Edinburgh 10,795.45
1079 07-31-00 Brooklyn Chamber 2,091.68
1080 09-19-00 Lyndale Neighborhood 112.50
1081 12-11-00 Mpls Community College 1,100.00
1082 01-02-01 Willow Lane 500.00
1083 01-02-01 Monroe Elementary 250.00
1086 01-02-01 Palmer Lake 100.00
1087 01-02-01 Crestview 100.00
1089 01-02-01 Huntington Place 100.00
1090 01-02-01 City of Brooklyn Park 100.00
1091 01-02-01 Brooklyn Park MOM’s 50.00
1092 01-02-01 Troop 2025 50.00
1094 01-02-01 Brooklyn Park Seniors 50.00
1097 01-02-01 Riverview United Methodist 50.00
1099 01-02-01 BP Women of Today 50.00
1100 01-02-01 Troop 2118 50.00
1103 02-08-01 City of Brooklyn Park 822.98
1105 03-16-01 Cub Foods 51.03
1106 03-22-01 Atrium Catering 521.85
1109 06-13-01 Edinburgh USA 16,031.83
1111 07-06-01 Sam’s Club Direct 119.19
1112 07-30-01 Brooklyn Comm Chamber 3,448.43
1115 10-25-01 Mpls Elks 350.00
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 118
Oak Hill – Debbie Dukatz
The criteria around what can be funded is definitely an issue. It's difficult to even come up with
event ideas within those confines. We also have an issue with neighborhood engagement (or
lack thereof) … The funding limitations (and lack of volunteers) is weakening the program for
the Oak Hill neighborhood. There are a few of us that have put in a lot of time and money to
cover events due to lack of funding and we're over it. That is why I couldn't get an yone to help
plan and host our Halloween party. Unless something changes, I suspect our association will
dissolve in 2026.
Westwood Hills – Malisa Leiser
Our neighborhood association met last week and discussed the challenges we're facing, such as
limitations to how the money can be spent, the grant application process, the requirement of
neighborhood bylaws and completed W-9 forms to be reimbursed, events cannot be held on
private property, etc. Our association feels these items are too cumbersome for citizens that
are volunteering their time and effort, and these new rules are taking the fun out of putting
together community events….Due to these challenges, Westwood Hills has not hosted any
events this year and are currently deciding if it's worth the effort to register for a grant for next
year.
Sorenson – Rob McGarry
It’s a pretty big change that food isn't allowed anymore. Pretty much all of the events that we
used to host were centered around food including our hot dog summer social. Not having that
has pushed us back to the drawing board.
Browndale - Chris Bjorling
The restrictions and added hurdles have certainly made it more challenging. The way it was
explained to us is that they were essentially matching the rules state auditors have placed on
cities when it comes to what they consider "reimbursable" and there wa sn't really a say in the
matter. It was also communicated that events primarily social in nature, which typically tend to
have a food aspect tied to it, are not something that would be supported through the
Neighborhood Grant program. Both of these changes were certainly unfortunate to see and
have caused challenges by the volunteers looking to build strong community bonds within our
neighborhoods.
Birchwood – David Mills
In the years since I joined the Birchwood Neighborhood Association in 2022 , the city has made
it increasingly difficult to use the funds allocated to the neighborhood program, often charging
us fees for services the city used to provide neighborhoods for free and changing the rules
around how funds may be spent on nearly an annual basis. It has become burdensome to plan
events that the city deems “purely social” when we must figure out how to fund things like food
at these events. Food is an important part of any event that we put on and “purely social”
events are important to fostering new friendships and a deeper sense of community.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 119
Testimonials provided to Council Member Rog
Brooklawns – Lisa Pannel
The change in grant program isn't the only reason the neighborhood has been less active, but is
part of it.
Here's my list of reasons (my opinion)
- less support through grants
- turnover in leadership
- more complexity working with the city
- less support through city printing
Less support through grants: Because of the changes, we have scaled back our events to focus
on the National Night Out event...The reduced grant money from the city means we have funds
to cover that event (and keep it at the scope it is - with a bouncy castle etc), and don't have
money to cover other events. ..I thought it was very fair that the neighborhoods had to match
the grants funds (that was the old rule), and I understand that there are limited funds, but the
availability of grant money for more than just the block party was a good incentive to
brainstorm how we could make the neighborhood more cohesive through activities.
Leadership changes: The people who organized [kid activities] had kids who aged out of the
events, and no one else picked those up. They didn't take a lot of grant money but … created
one less barrier to a volunteer.
More complexity: .. the new form has a lot of questions. I also found the process more
complicated than in the past - many questions to answer that seemed irrelevant to the task…
Less support through printing: Another change… is that the city no longer supports
neighborhoods by printing flyers, etc. … it means we have been doing fewer flyers and I think
that has really impacted neighborhood event participation … the city [also] used to print
our neighborhood directory … which gives neighbors a way to reach out to neighbors…I've been
getting cost estimates for printing the new directory and they all come in at just over $400
(about $2 a copy) … I expect the city could print it for a much lower cost than the estimates I
am getting, and it would be helpful even if we could get it printed at a lower cost.
Fern Hill – Bob Kuznetz
There were two main changes this year that have been detrimental. One was the base funding
structure…Fern Hill has a higher socio-economic standing than some other neighborhoods, so
we could request only $1000, instead of the $3000 we were eligible for prior to this year .. that
severely curtailed the programming we could do. Even though there was money left in the
pool, this strategy pulled significant funding from active neighborhood associations. It didn’t
provide new funding to inactive neighborhoods; it simply left more money unused.
The other major problem was with the grant fund restrictions …The city felt that social events
such as get-togethers could still be held without providing food or entertainment, so would not
reimburse those expenses…In the past three years, the Fern Hill Annual Get-Togethers had up
to 175 attendees … We provided light snacks and hired a local solo guitarist/singer to perform
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 120
while people talked and played games…the music and snacks we provided in the last three
years were instrumental in drawing 175 neighborhood residents. This year, we drew only 40.
A social gathering such as our Annual Get-Together is the prototypical neighborhood
association activity – it draws residents from across the neighborhood who talk with each
other, city staff, and local politicians. Light food and simple entertainment are key draws as
evidenced by the more than 75% drop in attendance between last year and this.
While the allocation formula and eligible funding categories are the main problems, the new
requirement for the neighborhood association (or its officers) to pay taxes on funds received
has also made operations more difficult… we’re less willing to do what we have done in the
past. It is my hope that the new city council will reconsider the value that neighborhood
associations bring to the city and will make it possible once again for us to do what we know is
best for our neighborhoods.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consider proposed study session topic: neighborhood grant funds Page 121
Meeting: Special study session
Meeting date: November 17, 2025
Discussion item: 2
Executive summary
Title: First city council discussion of 2026 legislative agenda
Recommended action: None.
Policy consideration:
1. Does the city council support the inclusion and revision of staff-initiated policy positions
listed under the “New and changed positions” section of this report to the 2026
legislative position document?
2. Does the city council want to add any of the council-initiated policy positions under the
“New and changed positions” section of this report to the 2026 legislative position
document?
3. Does the city council support the recommended draft 2026 legislative priorities?
Summary: The primary purpose of the legislative positions document is to guide the
government relations work of the city. The document can also be used by the public to
understand the positions the city takes and will advocate for. For this reason, legislative
positions are written generally to include the long-term positions of the city on issues while
remaining inclusive of the changing nature of specific legislation or programming that is
proposed by elected officials. The positions also include specific law changes suggested by staff
to better complete the work the city is required to perform.
The draft 2026 legislative positions are attached to this report. Substantive changes or
additions from 2025 are italicized, recommended priority positions for the 2026 session are
indicated with “*” and positions that align with the League of Minnesota Cities are indicated
with “‡”.
Following the study session, staff will finalize the document based on council discussion and
direction.
A small subset of positions is selected each year to be the St. Louis Park specific legislative
priorities for that session. These positions are selected based on specificity to St. Louis Park
needs, likelihood to gain traction in the upcoming session, and other contextual factors. A study
session with the local delegation of elected leaders for St. Louis Park is scheduled for Dec. 1,
2025, to communicate the city’s priorities and policy positions prior to Minnesota’s 95th
legislative session which will convene on Feb. 17, 2026.
Financial or budget considerations: None.
Strategic priority consideration: All.
Supporting documents: DRAFT 2026 legislative positions
Prepared by: Clancy Ferris, legislative & grants analyst
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: First city council discussion of 2026 legislative agenda
Discussion
Background: The city’s legislative positions are detailed in the full document attached to this
report. Each year, a few of these items are selected as priorities.
Present considerations: Each year, the city council reviews the list of positions and priorities.
During that review, city staff will highlight issues that affect our ability to adequately provide
services to residents.
New and changed positions:
New issues and those with significant changes are positions on:
• Assessing services – new
• Adult use cannabis - revised to reflect legislation and updated LMC language
• Clean Slate Act revisions – new
• Housing policy – revised to reflect updated LMC language
• Housing TIF district modifications – revised to include income averaging
• Plug-in solar – new
• Property tax rebate program revisions – new
• Public health insurance – revised to reinclude the Healthcare for All plan
• State and county cost participation policies – new
• State funding of essential resident services – new
• Support public, educational, and governmental programming – new
All of these are reflected in the DRAFT 2026 legislative positions document.
Council members submitted the following additional policy topics for consideration. Staff has
drafted potential position language for council to review.
• Gun safety: Supports amendments to the Citizens Personal Protection Act to allow cities
to prohibit firearms in city-owned buildings, facilities, and parks. Also, supports
clarifying the Act to state that a permit holder, under the terms of a permit, is allowed
to carry a pistol-length firearm, but not a semiautomatic military-style assault weapon.
• Road safety: Support measures to reduce road accidents and fatalities caused by
speeding, including expanding legislation passed in 2024 addressing the Intelligent
Speed Assistance (ISA), or other pilot programs to experiment with different
technologies
• Corporate climate accountability: Support measures to hold corporations responsible
for climate impacts, including waste and emission reductions.
Any or all of these could be added to the final list of 2026 legislative positions document.
Recommended 2026 priorities: For the 2026 legislative session, themes most likely to find
common ground and traction center on policy changes, external momentum, and coalition
approaches. Since this is a “policy year” at the state legislature, positions centered on
establishing new funding sources have not been emphasized. Staff has worked closely with our
lobbyists to identify positions that both connect with these themes and have a significant St.
Louis Park impact.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: First city council discussion of 2026 legislative agenda
There are many positions on which the city feels strongly that are not identified as potential
2026 priorities. Instead, staff recommends a subset of positions. The priorities are items that
the city is uniquely positioned to take the lead on and are items that we ask our delegation to
carry for us.
The recommended 2026 priorities, categorized by general city function are:
• General government:
o Assessing services
o Paid Family and Medical Leave
• Housing:
o Group home licensing and registration
o Housing policy
o Housing TIF district modifications
• Public safety:
o Emergency medical services
o Light rail and public safety
Staff has also identified two priority capital investment projects:
• Oxford and Louisiana area infrastructure investment: planned improvements include
repairs to sidewalks, water and sewer facilities and upgrades to related to traffic and
pedestrian safety.
• Wayzata Boulevard/Zarthan Avenue/16th Street corridor project: planned improvements
include replacement or repair of streets and sidewalks, repairs to water and sewer
facilities, and upgrades related to traffic and pedestrian safety.
Staff will continue to research additional positions and consider updated priorities as they
emerge throughout the year.
At the study session on Nov. 17, 2025, staff will guide council through a facilitated conversation.
The city council will meet with our lobbying team and hear a short summary from them on
what to expect in the upcoming legislative session. Staff will then present to council the
recommended positions and priorities for consideration.
Next steps: Following the study session, staff will update the attached draft legislative
positions, including priorities, based on council discussion and direction.
A study session with elected leaders is scheduled for Dec. 1, 2025, to communicate city
priorities to representatives. Minnesota’s 95th legislative session will convene on Feb. 17, 2026.
Strategic Priorities
The St. Louis Park City Council adopted the following strategic priorities in 2018. These priorities
guide long-range planning as well as daily decisions and activities.
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.
•Continue to lead in environmental stewardship.
•Providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood-oriented development.
•Providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city
comfortably, safely and reliably.
•Creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement
Page 4Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: First city council discussion of 2026 legislative agenda
2
*New position in 2026 ‡League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) position
Capital Investment Projects
Increase access, replace aging infrastructure, promote climate preparedness and enhance
pedestrian and bicycle connectivity.
a)Oxford/Louisiana Area Infrastructure Investment
The planned public improvements for the Oxford/Louisiana area include construction
and repair of aging sidewalks; critical repairs to water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer
facilities; general improvements or upgrades related to traffic and pedestrian safety,
including replacement of streetlights, striping, and signs; replacement or repair of
pavement and curb; roundabout construction; stormwater quality improvements and
flood storage.
This investment creates connections for all users to affordable housing, job centers,
transit, and healthcare.
Page 5Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: First city council discussion of 2026 legislative agenda
3
*New position in 2026 ‡League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) position
b)Wayzata Boulevard/ Zarthan Avenue/ 16th Street corridor project
The planned public improvements for this project include replacement or repair of
pavement, curb, and sidewalks; critical repairs to water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer
facilities; installation of a multi-use trail; general improvements or upgrades related to
traffic and pedestrian safety; intersection upgrades including roundabout construction
and signal replacement; stormwater quality improvements.
This project improves connections for all users to affordable housing, commercial land
uses, and job centers.
Page 6Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: First city council discussion of 2026 legislative agenda
4
*New position in 2026 ‡League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) position
St. Louis Park Priority Positions
A small subset of positions is selected each year to be the St. Louis Park specific legislative
priorities for that session. They are included on pages 4 and 5 of this document.
Assessing services*
Support a legislative proposal that provides
cities which offer their own assessing
services the ability to either 1) recoup
assessment costs from the county, for the
work performed by those cities or 2) not be
levied by the county for those specific
services
Emergency medical services‡
Support a solution for EMS services that
balances the needs of residents and
providers statewide. Support allowing local
units of government to designate which
licensed provider may serve their
communities and to determine the
appropriate level of service.
Current regulations do not require
ambulance services to disclose important
data points that would ensure a community
is receiving quality services.
Group home licensing and
registration‡
Support a repeal of the legislation passed in
2024 that prohibited all cities from
subjecting state licensed group assisted
living facilities licensed under Minn. Stat. §
144G and Minn. Stat. § 245D.02 with six or
fewer residents from any city-imposed life
safety rental licensing requirements.
The Legislature should recognize the
importance of city rental licensing
requirements that ensure minimum life
safety standards and hold providers
accountable and protect residents.
Housing policy‡
Support legislation that expands housing
opportunities (“missing middle” housing)
across the state that helps to ensure all
communities are planning for and able to
accommodate a variety of housing types by
supporting policies that allow local
leadership on zoning and land use changes
that are sensitive to individual community
needs and housing goals including
incentive-based approaches and options
that can be tailored to each individual
community.
Any proposed state framework addressing
local zoning and land use authority must
allow cities to retain local decision-making
authority over how they apply a framework
to their own communities.
Additionally, a framework must tie policy to
overall production while also requiring
affordability and provide scalability and
options that recognize regional differences.
The legislature should oppose policies that
seek to impose one-size-fits-all rigid zoning
and land use framework on cities.
Page 7Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: First city council discussion of 2026 legislative agenda
5
*New position in 2026 ‡League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) position
Housing TIF District Modifications‡
Support expanding authority for all cities to
transfer unobligated pooled increment from
a TIF district to support a local housing trust
fund for any eligible expenditure under
Minn. Stat. § 462C.16 and expand TIF
flexibility to allow for housing TIF districts to
include income averaging and allow for
rental and homeownership units for
incomes higher than the existing 20-50 and
40-60 income limitations.
Light rail and public safety
Support legislation allocating funding to
local jurisdictions for staffing and
equipment to support public safety
measures related to the light rail.
Paid Family and Medical Leave‡
Support legislation that would:
a) With respect to ESST, amend Minn. Stat.
§ 181.9445, subd. 5 to incorporate a well-
defined “public employee” definition, not to
include unique positions in which there is
not a formal employer-employee
relationship such as paid appointed
advisory, committee, or commission
members, election judges, or other non-
traditional positions.
b) Minimize legal mandates to incentivize
employers to establish and/or continue to
provide more generous paid leave benefits
to employees. Specifically, eliminate the
expansion of mandated benefits to paid
leave previously negotiated in good faith
and/or adopted in personnel policies in
excess of what is legally required.
c) Provide funding that pays the full costs of
any mandated employment-related
expenditures.
d) Avoid and eliminate expensive and time-
consuming duplicative legal protections and
processes for public employees, including
those that preclude promotional
probationary periods.
e) Eliminate contradictory existing laws
regarding public employment.
Page 8Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: First city council discussion of 2026 legislative agenda
6
*New position in 2026 ‡League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) position
Climate, Energy, and Buildings
The City of St. Louis Park supports innovative strategies in the pursuit of a more sustainable
climate worldwide, including the adoption of near-term emission reduction targets as described
in the city’s Climate Action Plan.
Amend state health code
Support legislation that reduces barriers for
businesses to use refillable containers for
food and beverages to reduce single-use
packaging waste.
Building performance standards‡
Support legislation to enact Building
Performance Standards (BPS) for large
existing buildings.
BPS will establish required energy and/or
carbon targets as well as a timeline to meet
targets and resources to help building
owners comply.
Compost use
Support the adoption of a food waste
compost requirement in MNDOT specs.
Legislation would support markets for
compost use by providing a uniform
standard to be used in city, county and state
projects and close the circle between food
waste collection, composting and compost
use.
Construction codes‡
Oppose legislation that would reduce
current minimum building code and energy
code standards or limit future adoptions of
improved energy conservation standards.
Construction and demolition debris
diversion
Support legislation that would include a
diversion/recycling incentive and funding
mechanism for materials coming from
buildings being demolished or
reconstructed. Increase fees on
construction and demolition waste disposal
to fund reuse and recycling of building
materials.
Environment and sustainability‡
Support the adoption of ambitious policies
and the creation of innovative programs to
reach the goals of the state’s Climate Action
Framework and the St. Louis Park Climate
Action Plan.
E-bike rebate program
Support funding for a future e-bike rebate
program and creating an additional
program with greater rebates for cargo e-
bikes, which are more suitable for replacing
vehicle trips that require hauling.
The 2023 legislative session created a new
e-bike rebate program which expired in
2025.
Fee-for-service programs‡
Oppose legislation that would eliminate
local government ability to establish the
amount of fee-for-service permitting,
licensing, and inspection service delivery
Plug-in solar*
Support changes to building code, solar and
interconnection permitting, and other
regulations to allow the use of plug-in
(balcony style) solar photovoltaic systems.
Page 9Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: First city council discussion of 2026 legislative agenda
7
*New position in 2026 ‡League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) position
Reallocate solid waste management
tax
Support legislation that would eliminate the
diversion of solid waste management tax
revenue to the general fund for other
purposes and provide to local government
for recycling programs as originally
intended, through increasing SCORE
recycling grants.
Residential fire sprinklers
Oppose legislation that prohibits future
adoption of residential fire sprinkler codes.
Previous unsuccessful legislative efforts
have attempted to prevent the state
building code from requiring residential fire
sprinkler systems, which poses safety risk.
Right to cooling
Support legislation to ensure renters have a
right to cooling.
Pairing this legislation with additional
funding for the state’s energy assistance
program, as well as funds to ensure
installed cooling systems are as energy
efficient as possible, is needed to ensure
this legislation does not have adverse
consequences.
Smart salting‡
Support the creation of incentives for
private salt applicators to reduce the
volume of salt they apply to improve the
effectives of salt application while reducing
chloride pollution in waterways.
Truth in labeling‡
Support legislation that would reduce the
amount of misinformation on product labels
and disclosure through city collection
system.
Undergrounding power funding
Support funding for undergrounding power
lines to harden against effects of climate
change, including both more frequent and
intense rainstorms and warmer winters
icing lines.
Urban forest management‡
Support establishing ongoing funding for
the ReLEAF program (Statute 88.82) with at
least $15 million per year that is usable for
urban forest management on public and
private property and wood waste utilization.
Urban forests are facing numerous threats
from Dutch elm disease, oak wilt, drought,
storms and emerald ash borer. Related costs
put pressure on city budgets.
Page 10Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: First city council discussion of 2026 legislative agenda
8
*New position in 2026 ‡League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) position
Economic Development
The City of St. Louis Park supports a thriving local economy of small and large businesses and
strives to create a place where people can live, work, and play.
Cashless Businesses
Support legislation that requires businesses
to accept cash as a payment method.
Individuals without bank accounts
(unbanked) and those who do not utilize
their bank accounts (underbanked) often
rely on using cash to make purchases.
Businesses that do not accept cash
“cashless businesses” limit the ability of
unbanked individuals to make
purchases, leading to the unintended
consequence of their exclusion from the
local marketplace and further
marginalization. Payment access for
unbanked and underbanked populations is a
racial equity and inclusion issue as it
disproportionately impacts people of color,
immigrants and other marginalized
communities.
DEED program funding‡
Support the continued annual funding of
DEED programs at stable, sustainable or
increased levels, as well as tools to invest in
underserved areas of the state that would
allow all regions to better prosper.
Equal Access to Broadband Act‡
Support the Equal Access to Broadband Act
(HF 974 and SF 2046) which aims to
modernize local franchising laws. The bills
would allow local franchising authorities to
franchise broadband, helping to ensure
more equitable broadband deployment
across the state.
By granting cities broadband franchising
authority, the legislation would:
•Require broadband providers to
meet buildout requirements in
underserved areas.
•Ensure cities receive reasonable
compensation for the use of public
rights-of-way.
•Support community media efforts,
similar to the authority cities already
have under the Minnesota Cable
Act.
•Improve city control over public
rights-of-way and help fund access
television.
Support public, educational, and
governmental programming*
HF 1740 would provide funding from the
Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund to support
public, educational, and governmental
programming (PEG) in cities.
Under HF 1740, funding would be allocated
to a key League of Minnesota Cities partner,
the Minnesota Association of Community
Telecommunications Administrators
(MACTA) to support PEG programming, and
community and civic engagement efforts.
Page 11Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: First city council discussion of 2026 legislative agenda
10
*New position in 2026 ‡League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) position
General Government
The City of St. Louis Park supports good
governance in the form of legal authority to
help residents to thrive.
Adult use cannabis‡
Support a regulatory framework that
maintains or expands local control and
removing the fee-cap for local service.
a)Any legislation considered should be
responsive to the needs of cities as
they arise from the implementation
of this industry.
b)Legislation should restore the Local
Government Cannabis Aid fund to
ensure adequate funding for local
governments to implement the law
and respond to challenges resulting
from the cannabis industry. Cities
should be able to recover costs from
assisting businesses and
implementing the law through fees
or other revenue sources.
c)Legislation should increase, and at a
minimum maintain, any discretion
and local control granted to cities in
current legislation.
d)The city opposes any proposals to
diminish local control related to the
cannabis industry.
Aircraft Noise
Support evaluating the effects of
consolidated flight tracks because of RNAV
on departures.
Assessing services*
Support a legislative proposal that provides
cities which offer their own assessing
services the ability to either 1) recoup
assessment costs from the county, for the
work performed by those cities, or 2) not be
levied by the county for those specific
services
Cable franchising authority‡
Support local franchising authority.
Municipal cable franchising is key to
providing uniform quality, access and
pricing to city residents.
Earned sick and safe time‡
Support legislative clarification on the
application of these rules for unique and
limited city positions including seasonal
employees.
The 2023 legislature enacted a law requiring
all employers to provide employees one
hour of sick and safe time for every 30
hours worked.
Employer mandates‡
Oppose any employer mandates that
diminish the inherent managerial rights as
they pertain to collective bargaining.
Limiting public employers from determining
the number of personnel hired could hinder
the city’s crisis response and subjects cities
to risk if they are unable to meet bargained
terms due to external challenges such as a
competitive labor market.
Healthcare for all‡
Support the Minnesota Health Plan as well
as continued expansion of the state’s public
health insurance program MinnesotaCare,
allowing all Minnesotans to buy in to the
program.
The 2023 legislative session expanded
Minnesota’s state-funded health insurance
Page 12Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: First city council discussion of 2026 legislative agenda
11
*New position in 2026 ‡League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) position
program to let residents with incomes
above 200% of the federal poverty level
enroll as well as undocumented
Minnesotans. The 2025 legislative session
removed eligibility for undocumented
Minnesotans.
Levy limits‡
Oppose levy limits or other proposed
restrictions for local government budgets.
Many local factors impact the annual
decision-making around the property tax
levy, including other non-tax revenue
forecasts, infrastructure needs and changes
to the local tax base and tax increment
financing districts. Local control over the tax
levy is a key tool in the city's toolbox for
achieving long-term financial stability.
Local control‡
Support local control as a principle that
applies to many issues.
Local governments must have sufficient
authority and flexibility to meet the
challenges of governing and providing
residents with public services.
Safeguard public code employees‡
Support League of Minnesota Cities’ policy
related to assaults on code compliance
officials and inspectors.
Because of the nature of their job, code
enforcement officials can be subjected to
verbal assaults, threats and physical
violence. Under current law, an assault on a
code enforcement official not enumerated
in Minn. Stat. § 609.2231, subd. 6, while
performing official business can only be
charged as fifth degree assault, a
misdemeanor, unless it results in substantial
bodily harm. All code enforcement officials
should be afforded the same protections
under Minnesota Statutes, and the
legislature should amend the statute to
expand the employees covered by the
statute
State funding of essential resident
services*
Support state funding of essential
residential services to lessen or mitigate the
impacts of federal policies
Paid Family and Medical Leave‡
Support legislation that would:
a)With respect to ESST, amend Minn.
Stat. § 181.9445, subd. 5 to
incorporate a well-defined “public
employee” definition, not to include
unique positions in which there is
not a formal employer-employee
relationship such as paid appointed
advisory, committee, or commission
members, election judges, or other
non-traditional positions.
b)Minimize legal mandates to
incentivize employers to establish
and/or continue to provide more
generous paid leave benefits to
employees. Specifically, eliminate
the expansion of mandated benefits
to paid leave previously negotiated
in good faith and/or adopted in
personnel policies in excess of what
is legally required.
c)Provide funding that pays the full
costs of any mandated employment-
related expenditures.
d)Avoid and eliminate expensive and
time-consuming duplicative legal
protections and processes for public
Page 13Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: First city council discussion of 2026 legislative agenda
12
*New position in 2026 ‡League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) position
employees, including those that
preclude promotional probationary
periods.
e)Eliminate contradictory existing laws
regarding public employment.
Wireless Provider Franchising
Authority‡
Support the exercise of local franchising
authority.
Municipal wireless provider franchising is
key to providing uniform quality, access and
pricing to city residents.
Page 14Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: First city council discussion of 2026 legislative agenda
13
*New position in 2026 ‡League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) position
Housing
The City of St. Louis Park supports housing for all residents in the city including policies that
build and maintain housing and aid in associated costs.
Community land trust 4d tax
classification‡
Support the current .75 class-rate reduction
for community land trust properties and
support efforts by the Minnesota
Community Land Trust Coalition and other
housing preservation stakeholders to
develop property tax valuation
modifications to lower property taxes for
qualifying low-income sales-price-restricted
properties enrolled in CLT.
Corporate ownership of single-family
homes
Support additional research on the impacts
of home ownership by corporate entities
and tools to address and limit impacts from
corporate ownership of single-family houses
and encourage increased access to
homeownership through programs and
resources for Minnesota families to build
equity and wealth that allows cities to
ensure a balanced housing stock between
rental and ownership opportunities.
Group home licensing and
registration‡
Support a repeal of the legislation passed in
2024 that prohibited all cities from
subjecting state licensed group assisted
living facilities licensed under Minn. Stat. §
144G and Minn. Stat. § 245D.02 with six or
fewer residents from any city-imposed life
safety rental licensing requirements.
The Legislature should recognize the
importance of city rental licensing
requirements that ensure minimum life
safety standards and hold providers
accountable and protect residents.
Housing policy‡
Support legislation that expands housing
opportunities (“missing middle” housing)
across the state that helps to ensure all
communities are planning for and able to
accommodate a variety of housing types by
supporting policies that allow local
leadership on zoning and land use changes
that are sensitive to individual community
needs and housing goals including
incentive-based approaches and options
that can be tailored to each individual
community.
Any proposed state framework addressing
local zoning and land use authority must
allow cities to retain local decision-making
authority over how they apply a framework
to their own communities.
Additionally, a framework must tie policy to
overall production while also requiring
affordability and provide scalability and
options that recognize regional differences.
The legislature should oppose policies that
seek to impose one-size-fits-all rigid zoning
and land use framework on cities.
Page 15Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: First city council discussion of 2026 legislative agenda
14
*New position in 2026 ‡League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) position
Housing TIF District Modifications‡
Support expanding authority for all cities to
transfer unobligated pooled increment from
a TIF district to support a local housing trust
fund for any eligible expenditure under
Minn. Stat. § 462C.16 and expand TIF
flexibility to allow for housing TIF districts to
include income averaging and allow for
rental and homeownership units for
incomes higher than the existing 20-50 and
40-60 income limitations.
Property tax rebate program
revisions*
Support providing additional direct property
tax relief through an expansion of the
Homestead Credit Refund program, the
renter’s income tax credit, the targeting
program or other programs that provide
property tax relief directly from the state to
taxpayers.
The city also supports the conversion of the
renters’ credit to an income tax credit using
adjusted gross income and would also
support similar changes to the homestead
credit refund and targeting program.
Prohibition on discrimination
Support legislation that prohibits
discrimination against source of income for
renters receiving rental assistance.
Currently, rental property owners can legally
refuse to rent to people based solely on the
source of income to pay their rent, leaving
many households that receive various types
of rental assistance unable to find housing.
Rental rehab loan program
Support legislation making resources and
methods available to maintain and improve
existing affordable homes, including publicly
subsidized deeply affordable, and housing
stock that is aging such as naturally
occurring (unsubsidized) affordable housing.
Support voucher acceptance
Support additional funding for the housing
choice voucher programs and other rental
assistance programs and financial, tax
and/or other incentives for rental property
owners to participate in these programs.
TOD Housing fund
Support legislation to increase the ability of
traditional economic development tools,
including tax increment financing, tax
abatement, and special service districts, to
address the needs of transit-oriented
development.
Page 16Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: First city council discussion of 2026 legislative agenda
15
*New position in 2026 ‡League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) position
Public Safety
The City of St. Louis Park supports public safety policies and rules that help our front-line
workers and ensure equitable and safe outcomes for residents.
Clean Slate Act revisions*
The City of St. Louis Park supports the intent
of the Clean Slate Act and strives to
maintain trust and transparency with the
community. The City of St. Louis Park
supports the review of the initial
implementation of the Act and the
legislature making changes as necessary to
balance the benefit to individuals in
providing automatic expungements, and the
interests of the public and public safety, and
use of law enforcement resources.
The MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension
(BCA) should provide additional training and
resources to law enforcement agencies to
ensure a streamlined implementation
across the state. The BCA should solicit
feedback from local law enforcement
agencies and use responses to evaluate the
efficacy of their systems and procedures.
Criminal background checks
Support preventing individuals who are not
legally able to purchase a gun from doing so
without background checks at gun shows,
online, or in private transactions.
Emergency medical services‡
Support a solution for EMS services that
balances the needs of residents and
providers statewide. Support allowing local
units of government to designate which
licensed provider may serve their
communities and to determine the
appropriate level of service.
Current regulations do not require
ambulance services to disclose important
data points that would ensure a community
is receiving quality services.
Expansion of legal fireworks‡
Oppose legislation that expands fireworks in
Minnesota.
Fireworks can cause serious injuries and
fires. The legal sale of consumer fireworks
undermines fire prevention efforts, and
their sale and use increase local public
safety enforcement, emergency response
and fire-suppression costs.
Fire mutual aid‡
Support passage of a statute to provide
uniform provisions when fire departments
assist each other.
These provisions should include statutory
definitions and clarifications for:
a)Who is in command of the mutual
aid scene.
b)Who will cover the firefighters for
worker's compensation.
c)How liability and property claims will
be handled.
d)Who will pay for expendable
supplies such as foam.
e)When fire departments will charge
each other for these services.
f)The ability for fire departments to
opt out by having a separate written
agreement.
Page 17Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: First city council discussion of 2026 legislative agenda
16
*New position in 2026 ‡League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) position
Gun violence protective orders
Support allowing law enforcement in
certain cases to temporarily remove any
firearms in an individual's possession and to
prohibit new firearm purchases for the
duration of the order.
Health insurance coverage for
disabled public safety officers‡
Support this mandate being fully funded by
the state in perpetuity.
In 2023, a bill passed reinstating full funding
to reimburse employers for the cost of
continued health insurance for duty
disabled peace officers and firefighters, but
this is one-time funding that is expected to
run out in approximately three years.
Light rail and public safety
Support legislation allocating funding to
local jurisdictions for staffing and
equipment to support public safety
measures related to the light rail.
Mandated law enforcement training‡
Support continuing the Peace Officer
Standards and Training (POST) Board
training reimbursement allocation to local
agencies. Current funding sunset in 2024.
National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) standards‡
Support permanent and ongoing state
funding to assist fire departments statewide
to improve emergency response and work
toward industry standards. Opposes any
attempt to mandate standards for minimum
staffing levels of fire, specialized or EMS
vehicles controlled by units of local
government. Also opposes any attempt to
adopt a standard dictating or affecting the
response time of any fire, specialized or
EMS vehicle.
If mandated, the NFPA standards would
force local governments to shift dollars from
fire prevention programs to fire suppression
activities, potentially increasing the risk of
fire and the danger to local firefighters.
Public safety aid‡
Support legislation that increases aid for
public safety.
Race data collected on Minnesota
Driver’s licenses and state
identification
Support the Minnesota Department of
Public Safety to require individuals self-
identify their race when applying for a
driver's license or state identification.
This anonymized, aggregated data would be
shared with the Office of Traffic Safety for
research, analysis and reporting to monitor
traffic stop disparities.
Page 18Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: First city council discussion of 2026 legislative agenda
17
*New position in 2026 ‡League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) position
Transportation and Infrastructure
The City of St. Louis Park supports providing a variety of options for people to make their way
around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably.
Metro Green Line extension
Support the continued work and completion
of the Metro Green Line Extension Project
to provide businesses, residents and visitors
with multiple transportation options.
Railway safety‡
Support accountability, safety and funding
of accident prevention, as well as new rules
around railway safety.
Railways connect local and regional
economies to the global marketplace and
generate billions of dollars in economic
activity. Recent high-profile freight train
derailments, however, have highlighted
safety concerns in an industry that travels
through thousands of communities,
including St. Louis Park.
State and county cost participation
policies*
The state and county should have
responsibility for the installation,
replacement, and ongoing maintenance for
infrastructure within their right-of-way
including multimodal facilities such as trails
and sidewalks.
Transit financing‡
Support stable and growing revenue
sources to fund the operating budget for all
regional transit providers now and into the
future.
Transportation funding‡
Support sufficient and stable statewide
transportation funding, for all modes of
travel and local control to serve long-term
needs.
A comprehensive transportation system is a
vital component for meeting the physical,
social and economic needs of our state and
metropolitan region.
Underground infrastructure funding‡
Support creating funding for underground
infrastructure replacement.
Page 19Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: First city council discussion of 2026 legislative agenda
Meeting: Special study session
Meeting date: November 17, 2025
Discussion item: 3
Executive summary
Title: Revised budget
Recommended action: No formal action at this time, for discussion purposes only.
Policy consideration:
1. Does the city council support a revised comprehensive city levy of $53,723,150, an
increase of 7.49% reduced from the preliminary increase of 8.02%?
2. Does the city council support the recommended additions to the Capital Improvement
Plan to make critical repairs to city hall and the aquatic center and the plan to fund
them through one-time transfers from the General Fund?
Summary: On Sept. 15, 2025, the council approved a preliminary levy of 8.02% while also
instructing city staff to find ways to reduce the tax burden on residential homeowners. This
report includes the newest updates to the estimated 2026 property tax impact on residents,
the updated proposed 2026 budget including a reduction in the levy to 7.49%, as well as a
proposed spending plan for emerging critical maintenance items discovered at both city hall
and the aquatic park. Finalized calculations from the County, the lowered levy and the
additional tax capacity added from decertified TIF districts lowers the tax increase on median
homeowners to a projected 8.6%. This equates to a $154 dollar increase in the city's portion of
the property tax levy.
Financial or budget considerations: 2026 proposed budget and long-range financial plan
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Amelia Cruver, finance director
Tiffany Stephens, financial analyst
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Revised budget
Discussion
Background:
2026 Budget Roadmap
Date Topic Issues and Decision Points
June 16,
2025
Base Budget and Context • 2024 Actual versus Budget
• 2025 decisions with trailing budgetary impacts
• 2026 revenue projections
• Personnel expense projections and Paid Family
and Medical Leave
• Employee Benefits Fund
• Internal Service funds change
July 14,
2025
2024 Certified Annual
Financial Report and Audit
• 2024 financial performance
• 2024 fund balances
• Audit findings and corrective action plans
Aug. 11,
2025
Operating Budget
Proposal
• New proposals for the 2026 operating budget and
levy implications
Sept. 2,
2025
Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) and Final Levy
• Revised CIP 2026 – 2030 and budget implications
• Complete levy recommendation
• Projected levy impact by property type and
quartile
• Fee adoption
Sept. 15,
2025
Levy adoption • Maximum Levy adoption
Oct. 20,
2025
Tax Increment Financing
(TIF) Management Plan
update
• TIF district performance
• TIF district recommended transfers and
decertification, if any
Mid-
November
2025
Truth in taxation property
tax notices sent out by the
county
• Residents receive an estimate of their 2026 tax bill
and information on the public hearing in
December 2025
Nov. 17,
2025
City council report and
discussion: Revised 2026
budget
• Revisions to the budget and adjustments to the
levy, as needed. In November 2025, the levy can
only go down from the maximum set in
September 2025
• Review the 2030-2034 CIP
Dec. 1,
2025
City council report and
public hearing: Truth in
Taxation
• Residents share feedback on the proposed 2026
budget
Dec. 15,
2025
City council report,
discussion and vote:
Budget adoption
• City council adopts the 2026 budget and CIP
On Sept. 15, 2025, the city council approved the preliminary levy of 8.02%. At the time of the
approval, strong concerns were raised with the potential impact of the property tax levy
increase on residents and staff were directed to continue to look for opportunities to reduce
the property tax levy and mitigate to taxpayer impact.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Revised budget
On Oct. 20, 2025, the city council discussed the 2026 TIF management plan. In the report and
discussion, council members weighed the potential next steps for several TIF districts that have
completed their financial obligations and can be decertified. Options for these districts in 2026
include:
• Decertifying, which increases the cities tax capacity and decreases residents’ property
taxes.
• Leaving the district open to collect tax increment from the City, County and School
district for the purpose of transferring the funds to the cities Affordable Housing Trust
Fund.
Council directed staff to take a balanced approach, decertifying some districts to provide tax
relief and holding some districts open to capture more revenue for the city’s affordable housing
priorities. Additionally, the large Elmwood TIF district had met its obligations and reached its
pooling limits, making decertification necessary.
Present considerations:
Property Tax Impacts
In September 2025, city staff used preliminary data to estimate the city property tax impact on
individual homeowners of an 8% levy increase. At the time, staff estimated a large impact of
around 18% for the median residential home. Since then, staff has refined numbers to
accurately incorporate the effect of fiscal disparities and the impact of TIF district
decertifications.
Using final, approved figures from the county, staff can confirm that the median homeowner
will see an increase in the city’s portion of the levy close to 8.6% rather than 18%. This is due to
multiple factors:
• Staff calculated the initial high estimate before fiscal disparities were finalized and
factored in. While the city of St. Louis Park remains a top ten net contributor to fiscal
disparities, meaning we help support communities without a strong commercial
industrial base, the data available in September 2025 for estimating 2026 taxes was not
an “apples to apples” comparison with the 2025 tax rates. This led to the preliminary
estimates of tax bill increases being higher than they will be in taxes payable 2026.
• As discussed with the council, decertification of four TIF districts will also bring the city
tax estimates down by increasing the tax capacity of the city and providing more value
to spread the levy out over.
• Each year, staff revise the budget data in October and November, entering actual rates
for health insurance (and, new this year, Minnesota Paid Family and Medical Leave),
correcting for errors and ensuring no duplication exists to verify the data and levy
before final adoption. Additionally, staff look for additional budget needs and reductions
(outlined in detail later in this report). A handful of revisions were made that lowered
spending in the general fund, allowing for the city to reduce the final levy increase to
7.49%, which will also lower property tax bills for residents and property taxpayers.
As a result of all this work, the estimated impact on a median priced home is 8.6% for the city
portion of property taxes. In addition, the assessing staff have received county Truth in Taxation
estimates to understand the total property tax change residents will experience, including the
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Revised budget
county and school district levies. At that time, total property taxes, inclusive of all levies across
county-city-school district, were projected to rise by approximately 7.2%.
The Truth in Taxation estimates are based on the preliminary levy and before TIF decertification
decisions were made. The estimates do include fiscal disparities, however. This all means that
actual bills will be lower than the amount projected due to the increase in city-wide tax capacity
and decrease in the levy proposed in this report.
Emerging budget needs and budget adjustments
To support data-driven planning and budgeting practices pertaining to infrastructure,
specifically city facilities, staff have begun performing facilities condition assessments (FCAs) on
the seven main city facilities (police department, city hall, both fire stations, municipal service
center, the rec center and Westwood Hills Nature Center). The findings from the FCAs will help
provide direction on what components of a facility need the most attention to reduce/avoid
significant disruption to everyday operation due to infrastructure failure. To date, FCAs have
been completed on the police station (2024) and, in the fall of 2025, on city hall. In 2026, FCAs
are planned for the remaining five main city facilities (both fire stations, municipal service
center, the rec center and Westwood Hill Nature Center). In addition, staff have planned FCAs
for six water treatment plants, four well houses and all of the park buildings.
City Hall
The results from the FCA completed on the police facility in 2024 did not identify any
infrastructure in the critical category; items needing immediate attention. The FCA completed
on city hall in the fall 2025 has identified the following list of items that fall into the critical
category; needing immediate attention to avoid significant impact to everyday operation.
• Electrical equipment/switchgear
• HVAC (AHUs, MUAs, VAVs, controls)
• Fire suppression in sensitive areas (server/technology areas)
• City council chamber’s main door security
• Hazardous material abatement
The main electrical switch gear that serves the entire city hall facility is original, dating to 1963.
Replacement parts for this equipment are extremely difficult to find, and in some cases are not
available at all. Failure of this equipment could result in power outages to essential parts of the
building. The replacement of this equipment throughout the building was the highest priority
identified in the FCA.
Similar to the electrical equipment, the main HVAC equipment for city hall is original to 1963.
The age of this equipment, along with the many modifications made within city hall over the
past 60+ years, has resulted in ineffective and inefficient operations of the HVAC equipment.
Replacement of all the HVAC equipment and controls will provide better control of building
climate and improved efficiency.
The building currently has a pre-action fire suppression system for the main server room and
main document storage area. There are other areas within city hall that house critical
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: Revised budget
data/communication infrastructure (such as servers) and significant communication and
technology equipment (for Park TV and broadcasting) that do not currently have pre-action fire
suppression installed in their areas. Replacing and/or enhancing the fire suppression system in
these areas to a pre-action or dry system is strongly recommended to avoid the potential for
significant impacts from a wet system failure.
The existing glass entry doors to council chambers lack the ability to be secured or locked. The
inability to secure or lock this space presents concerns for securing the space for protection of
content and equipment. Further concerns include not being able to secure or lock the space for
security of persons in chambers.
Given the age of the building and the past practices of using building materials that are today
deemed hazardous, there is a strong likelihood that abatement of hazardous materials will be
necessary with the above-mentioned improvements.
Based on the items in the city hall FCA identified as being in critical condition, staff is
recommending the allocation of $1,125,000 in the 2026 CIP to address these essential items. In
concert with this improvement, the windows for city hall will also be replaced. The replacement
of the windows is already accounted for in the 2025 and 2026 CIP.
Other areas identified in the FCA that do not require immediate attention that will be added to
future year capital projects include the repair/replacement of the retaining walls throughout
the city hall campus, addressing known areas of erosion and addressing the entrance ramp to
city hall from Minnetonka Blvd.
Aquatic Center
At the April 14, 2025 study session, staff presented council with the results of a facility
condition assessment performed on the aquatics center. The St. Louis Park Aquatic Park is
currently 28 years old. It is in good condition due in large part to ongoing, regular maintenance.
The expected life span is 25-30 years for outdoor aquatic facilities such as the city’s aquatic
park. The city needs to make improvements now on some critical operational components to
assure continued uninterrupted operation as well as plan a complete replacement in the near
future (2035). Staff applied for congressional spending which was not successful.
Staff is suggesting the reallocation of $275,000 in the 2025 CIP fund for the replacement of the
aquatic park pool gutter stones and an allocation of $75,000 in the 2026 CIP ($350,000 total) to
address the urgent need for replacement of the electrical equipment that services the aquatic
park. This equipment is currently located inside of the aquatic park pump room. As a result of
this equipment being housed inside of a corrosive environment (exposure of pool chemicals), it
is past its useful life and needs replacement. It should also be relocated. Building codes have
been updated since the aquatic park was built and placement of electrical/mechanical controls
inside of pool pump rooms is no longer permissible. If approved, this work would be performed
and completed prior to opening for the 2026 aquatic park season.
For 2027, staff will be requesting $1.51M in CIP funding for the replacement of the pool
surface, concrete and deck drain repair/replacement, locker room/restroom ADA
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Title: Revised budget
improvements and site grading repairs. These repairs will help the pool last for approximately
seven to ten years.
The pool surface (white plaster) is the first layer of the operational shell for the pool vessel.
Over time, this surface wears away, cracks, fails and becomes an operational challenge to
maintain. This surface was last replaced in 2015. The pool deck concrete and associated deck
drains are from the original construction in 1996. There are areas throughout the pool deck
concrete with cracks due to settling and associated drains that need repair/replacement. The
aquatic park locker rooms and bathrooms are in need of current standard ADA improvements
as well as modernization to support today’s standards for design (additional family changing
rooms, unisex bathrooms). Site landscaping and grading has deteriorated over the past 28
years. Repair and replacement of the current landscaping and grading is needed to assure
proper site drainage and security around the perimeter fencing.
Total NEW
Spending
FY2026 FY2027 Total
City Hall $1,125,000 $0 $1,125,000
Aquatic Park $75,000 $1,510,000 $1,585,000
Total $1,200,000 $1,510,000 $2,710,000
Funding emerging building needs
On Oct. 20, 2025, the city council directed staff to decertify four TIF districts and hold three
eligible districts open in 2026 during the annual TIF management plan discussion; 11 additional
TIF districts are still active as well. These decisions will result in additional one-time funds for
general use from returned TIF in the decertified districts, one-time funds for the Affordable
Housing Trust Fund (AHTF), and a permanent increase in the city's tax capacity.
TIF
2026 Decertification
(Tax Capacity added)
Returned
Increment in
2026
Estimated transfer
to AHTF in 2026
Elmwood Village $2,056,519 $1,631,105 n/a
4900 Excelsior $652,874 n/a n/a
Aquila Commons n/a n/a $204,868
Elmwood Apartments $208,480 $14,431 n/a
Mill City n/a n/a $645,222
Wolfe Lake
Commercial $189,268 n/a n/a
Zarthan Ave/16th
Street (CSM) n/a n/a $565,832
Total $3,107,141 $1,645,536 $1,415,922
In addition to the $1.645 million in returned increment listed above, the city also expects to
receive around a million dollars of “excess tax” increment. This is a payment the city receives
when the property tax rates for the TIF parcels are higher than the initial agreement sets them
at. The excess tax is sent to the city as property tax revenues. Last year, the city received
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 3) Page 7
Title: Revised budget
around $1M and that is what is driving the estimate for 2026. Many factors are used to
determine the amount of excess TIF a city receives so it is not feasible to forecast this revenue
stream with accuracy more than a year into the future. Staff are recommending using the
projected revenue for 2026 to address gaps in the Capital Improvement Plan.
The additional revenue for the AHTF will be used to support the city’s housing programs and
future major housing developments. Additional General Fund resources can be used to fund
one-time expenditures, and staff are recommending transferring these funds to the Municipal
Building and Infrastructure Fund and Park Improvement Fund to support the critical
maintenance identified in this report. The table below shows the recommended use for the
additional one-time revenues related to TIF decision making. Note that the transfer to the Park
Improvement fund is $100,000 less than the new project costs. The remainder of the funding
for these projects will come from the unobligated fund balance in the Park Improvement Fund.
Additional Sources 2026
Returned Increment from closed districts $1,614,000
Excess Tax Increment $1,000,000
Total $2,614,000
Recommended Uses 2026
Transfer to Municipal Building Fund for City Hall Maintenance $1,125,000
Transfer to Park Improvement Fund for Aquatic Center Maintenance $1,485,000
Total $2,610,000
Other budget adjustments
• With the 2025 season wrapping up at the aquatic park, finance staff were able to
complete a deep dive into the revenue trend for the park. From 2022 – 2024 the park
averaged an annual revenue of almost $800,000; the revenue for 2025 came in $85,000
above the original revenue estimates for 2026. These figures left staff confident that an
increase for the fiscal year 2026 budget of $50,000 (over the original budget of
$593,225) was in order and on point with the ongoing trends. By increasing the aquatic
park expected revenue by $50,000, this in turn drives down the levy.
• The preliminary budget includes assumptions for salary adjustments for all open
contracts and for non-union employees. As contracts close and more data on
comparison city salary ranges is obtained in the fall, these projections are finalized. This
year the recommendation for general salary adjustments for non-union employees is a
3.5% increase based on market conditions. This is in line with historical trends and
included in the revised 2026 budget. In the past three years’ budgets the annual
adjustments have been between 3-3.5%. Each year, Human Resources works with a
consultant that provides a recommendation for salary adjustments, and the city’s
recommendation is included in a report to council on the last meeting of the year. That
process will continue this year on Dec. 15, 2025.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 3) Page 8
Title: Revised budget
• When final rates were entered for health insurance, workers comp and MN Paid Family
Leave, staff were able to do a much deeper dive into actual calculations and corrected
some formulas that were projecting too high a budget for parts of the benefits
expenses.
• On Sept. 2, 2025, the city council authorized an additional $50,000 in 2026 funds to
supplement the city’s Climate Investment Fund, which pays for climate action program
incentives including Climate Champions, Climate Champions solar bonus, and a portion
of the tree treatment program. If approved, these funds will be shared across a number
of divisions and programs:
o Natural resources: New fall tree sale
o Water resources: Rainwater Rewards program expansion to fund 15-20 rain
gardens that the city would not be able to fund otherwise
o Sustainability: Solar bonus program expansion
All of this together leads to a reduction in the projected levy of $265,000. This allows for the
general fund levy increase to be lowered to 7.49% from 8.02%.
Next steps: On Nov. 12, 2025, Truth in Taxation notices were sent to all property owners in
Hennepin County. On Dec. 1, 2025, the city will host its required Truth in Taxation public
hearing to collect feedback on the proposed budget and levy increase. On Dec. 15, 2025, the
city council will adopt the 2026 levy and Capital Improvement Plan.
Meeting: Special study session
Meeting date: November 17, 2025
Written report: 4
Executive summary
Title: Single-family rentals update
Recommended action: No formal action required.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to consider imposing rental density caps on
single-family rental houses?
Summary: In response to concerns that the number of investor owned single-family houses had
been increasing across the metro area, the council discussed single-family rentals and
consideration of rental density caps at a Nov. 28, 2022 study session. As a result of that
discussion, the council directed staff to monitor the number of single-family non-owner-
occupied licenses in St. Louis Park and provide a report to the council annually.
Rental license data is tracked in the annual housing activity report. This report provides
information on the status of single-family non-owner-occupied licenses (rental licenses) in St.
Louis Park. A rental license is required for any non-owner-occupied unit, including vacant units,
and properties that are not owner-occupied for at least six months per year. There are currently
937 non-owner-occupied rental licenses in St. Louis Park including 37 single-family public
housing units owned and operated by the St. Louis Park Housing Authority and 55 relative
homestead single-family homes that will no longer be required to have a rental license
beginning Jan. 1, 2026. There were 936 non-owner-occupied single-family houses in 2024.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Marney Olson, housing manager
Reviewed by: Michael Pivec, property maintenance and licensing manager
Karen Barton, community development director/interim building & energy
director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Page 2 Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 4)
Title: Single-family rentals update
Discussion
Background: The council discussed single-family rentals and consideration of rental density
caps at a Nov. 28, 2022 study session as concern had grown over an increase of investor
ownership of single-family houses across the metro. The city council directed staff to monitor
the number of single-family non-owner-occupied licenses in St. Louis Park and provide a report
to the council annually. Staff track license data in the annual housing activity report.
Single-family rentals in St. Louis Park: Currently, a non-owner-occupied license (rental license)
is required for any non-owner-occupied unit, including relative homesteaded properties, vacant
units, and properties that are not owner-occupied for at least six months per year.
As of Nov. 5, 2025, there are 937 single-family non-owner-occupied licenses in St. Louis Park
including 37 single-family public housing units owned and operated by the St. Louis Park
Housing Authority and 55 relative homestead single-family homes that will no longer be
required to have a rental license beginning Jan. 1, 2026. This represents 8.1% of the total
number of single-family houses in St. Louis Park. Over the past ten years the number of single-
family non-owner-occupied licenses has fluctuated between 814 and 937 as shown in the chart
below.
The number of single-family rental licenses may change by the end of the year as rental license
renewals are sent out. In 2024, the number of single-family non-owner occupied licenses
decreased from 942 to 936 from the 2024 single-family rental report in November to year-end.
Many factors contribute to the number of non-owner-occupied single-family homes at any
given time, including interest rates and current market conditions. Given these factors, the
number of rental licenses could increase, plateau or decrease over the coming year. Although,
due to relative-homestead exemptions to rental licensing beginning in 2026, it is anticipated
the city will see a decrease in the total number of single-family rentals in 2026.
851
899
855 850
814 828
871
849
900
936 937
740
760
780
800
820
840
860
880
900
920
940
960
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Single-family non-owner occupied licenses
Page 3
Investor owned single-family homes: The city does not track investor-owned single-family
properties. However, the Minneapolis Federal Reserve tracks investor-owned properties
throughout the seven county metro area using non-homesteaded properties as a proxy for
investor-owned single-family rentals. The percentage of investor-owned homes in St. Louis Park
based on 2024 data from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve’s tool shows St. Louis Park is
consistent with the investor-owned home rates in Hennepin County as shown in the table
below.
Investor-owned properties by number of properties owned
City 2 properties 5 properties 10 properties
St. Louis Park 3.8% 2.3% 2.1%
Hennepin County 3.7% 2.5% 2.2%
Staff Recommendation:
Given that there has been a negligible increase in the number of single-family rentals from 2024
to 2025, the total number of single-family rentals represents less than 10% of the total number
of single-family homes (8.1%), and single-family rentals provide a needed housing option for
many families, staff recommends continuing to monitor the number of single-family rentals at
this time. Staff will provide this data in the 2025 housing activity report in early 2026 to capture
final year-end data.
Next steps: Staff will continue to monitor the number of single-family rental licenses and will
provide this information annually in the housing activity report.
Special study session meeting of November 17, 2025 (Item No. 4)
Title: Single-family rentals update