HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026/04/27 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
APRIL 27, 2026
6:00 p.m. 2026 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization – Community Room
Action item
1. Reconvene the St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Following LBAE meeting - Study session – Community Room
Discussion item
1. Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railroad safety study
Written report
2. Development update Q2 2026
Members of the public can attend St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and city council meetings in person. At regular
city council meetings, members of the public may comment on any item on the agenda by attending the meeting in-person or by
submitting written comments to info@stlouisparkmn.gov by noon the day of the meeting. Official minutes of meetings are
available on the city website once approved.
Watch St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority or regular city council meetings live at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil or at
www.parktv.org, or on local cable (Comcast SD channel 14/HD channel 798). Recordings of the meetings are available to watch on
the city's YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/@slpcable, usually within 24 hours of the meeting’s end.
City council study sessions are not broadcast.
Generally, it is not council practice to receive public comment during study sessions.
The council chambers are equipped with Hearing Loop equipment and headsets are available to borrow.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952.924.2505.
Meeting: Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Meeting date: April 27, 2026
Action agenda item: 1
2026 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Reconvene – April 27, 2026
PROPOSED AGENDA
1. Reconvene the St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
2. Roll Call – Declaration of Quorum
3. Acknowledgement of Trained Members (Nadia Mohamed & Sue Budd)
4. Review of Properties in Appeal
A. Board Action – Not resolved, to be heard by the Local Board
B. Board Action – To be sustained, referral to the County Board
C. Board Action – To be sustained, (inspection refusal, non-response or withdrawal)
D. Board Action - Appellant & Assessing Staff are in Mutual Agreement
For appeals in groups a-b-c, it is suggested that the board review each parcel
individually, discuss as you will and make individual board rulings. For the mutual
agreement category, each parcel should be read into the record, and the board may
take one group action per DOR direction (April 2016).
5. Instruct Assessor to Complete Record of Changes for Submittal
6. Instruct Assessor to Inform Appellants of Board Action via Mail
7. Complete the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Certification Form
8. Adjourn if Board business is completed
Reconvene Meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: 2026 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
BACKGROUND for the 2026 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
All property owners are entitled to the right of appeal regarding their classification and market
value. The city is required by statute to conduct a Local Board of Appeal & Equalization meeting
to hear appeals or conduct an open book meeting. Owner options also include the County
Board of Appeal & Equalization and ultimately the Minnesota State Tax Court.
The focus for the board is: the property classification which is determined by use; and the
market value which is based on the characteristics of the real estate and market conditions as
of the date of the assessment (January 2, 2026). Minnesota statute requires all properties to be
assessed at full market value, fee simple. The dominant definitions of market value are:
MN Statute 272.03 – “Market value” means the usual selling price at the place where
the property to which the term is applied shall be at the time of assessment; being the
price which could be obtained at a private sale or an auction sale, if it is determined by
the assessor that the price from the auction sale represents an arm’s length transaction.
The price obtained at a forced sale shall not be considered.
Appraisal Institute – The most probable price, as of a specified date, in cash or in terms
equivalent to cash, or in other precisely revealed terms, for which the specified property
rights should sell after reasonable exposure in a competitive market under all conditions
requisite to a fair sale, with the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably,
and for self-interest, and assuming that neither is under undue duress. (The Appraisal of
Real Estate, 13th Edition, Appraisal Institute [2008], page 23)
The Board convened on April 13, 2026, at which meeting a total of thirteen (13) parcels were
recognized to be under appeal. The Board set the process and scheduled the reconvene
meeting as April 27, 2026, to review the merit of each case.
A few housekeeping observations are made for the reference of the board.
• One trained and certified Board member (Mohamed and/or Budd) must be present at
each meeting the Board is in session. Best practice is for multiple trained members.
• Timeline of the assessment: All valuations are set as of January 2, 2026, relative to
market activity in the preceding year. Value influences due to changing conditions have
been reviewed from the perspective of market reactions in setting the assessment.
• The time window for the board to conclude business is 20 days after convening.
• It is essential that the Board rules on each question before it and likewise that the Board
recognizes that it can reduce, sustain, or increase valuations as deemed necessary.
Reconvene Meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: 2026 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
• Important – DOR directive: “It is the board’s responsibility to hear all appeals presented
until the board adjourns. A property owner can present their appeal at the initial
meeting or at any of the reconvene meetings. The board must hear that appeal and
make a decision. The board cannot dismiss the property owner’s appeal, unless the
meeting is adjourned.” Assessing offices and the respective boards of appeal throughout
the state are therefore requested to accept appeals until final adjournment.
• At the writing of this Board packet, additional inquiries and appeals are incoming and
staff are endeavoring to respond in a timely fashion. All appeals incoming up to
reconvene will be added to the roster.
• Prior to adjourning, the board should instruct the assessor to submit a record of their
actions on the Department of Revenue required form.
• Finally, the Local Board of Appeal Certification Form must be signed at each meeting by
all Board members present.
Background to Valuation Methodologies: The modeling associated with the mass assessment
accommodates variations between neighborhoods, within neighborhoods and includes
consideration of location, age, style, size, finish materials, condition, updating, etc. depending
on the information available. Inspection, records update, valuation reviews and administrative
change orders have been made where necessary during the informal review process prior to
the Board.
The Board process differs from mass valuation modeling in that the assessing staff re-appraises
the subject property individually by direct comparison to market transactions. As part of the
review process, staff re-inspect each property to review the accuracy of attributes and
especially current condition which is a highly important variable. Next steps are staff engaging
the property owner in a candid conversation of the assessed value, local transactions and how
the transactions provide a fact-based market indication of the subject property value.
If staff conclude a reduction is warranted, this is disclosed to the owner in talking out the
questions to mutually resolve the valuation question. Likewise, if staff conclude the assessed
value is at market or slightly below, we inform the owner and discuss the market information.
In cases where staff revaluation does not result in a conclusion satisfactory to the appellant, the
board process is outlined. Additional questions are very common for those owners who desire
to appear before the Board. As such, the Local Board depends on active participation from all
parties involved including the property owner, assessing staff and the board members. All
property owners are requested to state their basis of appeal, their opinion of the market value
and informed that they may present information in written form and by testimony supporting
their opinion of value and/or classification.
Reconvene Meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Title: 2026 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Focal Points for the Board – Agenda as Indicated on Cover Sheet, decisions on:
A. Board Action – Appeals to be heard by the board. As this packet is being prepared, there
are new and open cases in this category. Status is dictated by timing for inspection, file
work-up and discussion with the appellant. When there is dispute regarding the valuation
or classification, it is requested that the Board hear and decide the merits of the case.
We inform the owner that the Board allows five to ten minutes for their presentation
followed by a three to five-minute presentation by the assessing staff. The Board may
adjust these time allowances as needed.
B. Board Action – Appeals moving to County Board. These are commonly a mixture of
scheduling difficulty and timeline to arrange the inspection/re-valuation work-up. In
these instances, it is important to recognize the appeal and preserve their right and
eligibility to move onward to the County Board.
C. Board Action – Inspection refusal, non-responsive or withdrawal. These are cases where
an appeal has been activated and subsequent communications have not succeeded. The
Board is reminded that some cases end up in this category almost every year.
D. Board Action – Resolved, board approval. These are cases where staff and the appellant
have engaged in revaluation review and talked the question out to mutual agreement. It
is requested that staff read each parcel action into the meeting record, after which the
Board may take one action to affirm the mutual agreements.
As noted previously, the Minnesota Department of Revenue has directed boards to accept
appeals made after the convene meeting (mailed notification, published and posted per legal
requirements). The late additions are highlighted in yellow on the reconvene roster. Should
there be additional appeals in the time between this board packet and the date of reconvene,
we will be requesting their addition to the roster with proviso that we may not have completed
the review due to time constraints.
Following your decisions, each property owner will be notified via letter of the Board action and
to remind them that they are eligible to appeal to the County Board. The County Board of
Appeal and Equalization is scheduled for June 15, 2026. An application is requested by the
County no later than May 20, 2026. To appear before the County Board, all appellants must first
have appealed to the St. Louis Park Board of Appeal and Equalization. Property owners may
also appeal directly to the Minnesota State Tax Court.
Thank you for serving on the Board.
Reconvene Meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Title: 2026 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Tab Summary
Background & Focal Points for the Board
Tab 1: Roster of All Appeals for Board Action – At Time of Packet Assembly
(the final roster update will be handed out to the Board at the meeting)
Reference 2026 Appealed Assessing Owner Board
Name Property Address Property ID #2025 Value Classification 2026 Value Revaluation Indicated Action
Jeremy Martineau - Sheriff Sale Certificate 2200 Nevada Ave S #208 08-117-21-21-0296 $140,300 X - Condominium $131,700 Pending Appeal
Darla Hoffer 3024 Sumter Ave S 17-117-21-22-0023 $363,000 R - Residential $386,400 Pending Appeal
Arnik Rodriguez 2804 Colorado Ave S 09-117-21-33-0002 $399,900 R - Residential $406,500 Sustain To County
Alexandra Asche & Logan Asche 1424 Maryland Ave S 05-117-21-31-0061 $290,600 R - Residential $338,200 $321,000 Mutually Agreed
Kerrie Adams 1841 Pennsylvania Ave S 05-117-21-34-0126 $406,100 R - Residential $456,400 $435,300 Mutually Agreed
Luke Halverson & Emma Burmester 4534 Vallacher Ave 07-028-24-12-0058 $488,800 R - Residential $489,000 $443,000 Mutually Agreed
Michael Wald & Meghan Wald 3912 Monterey Ave S 07-028-24-12-0092 $872,400 R - Residential $966,000 $900,000 Mutually Agreed
Coral Kari & Michael Kari 4270 Ottawa Ave S 07-028-24-31-0141 $586,600 R - Residential $544,300 $490,000 Mutually Agreed
Diane Kontar & S Khatri et al 4500 44th St W 07-028-24-34-0020 $668,500 R - Residential $688,600 $649,600 Mutually Agreed
William Coughlin & Kerri Coughlin 2728 Edgewood Ave S 08-117-21-41-0144 $398,000 R - Residential $404,600 $375,000 Mutually Agreed
Alexandra Asche & Logan Asche 3028 Dakota Ave S 17-117-21-11-0021 $356,700 R - Residential $362,500 $337,000 Mutually Agreed
Andrew Dorsey 9017 31st St W 18-117-21-21-0071 $514,000 R - Residential $484,300 $441,400 Mutually Agreed
Amy DuChene 9009 Minnehaha Cir S 18-117-21-31-0019 $612,300 R - Residential $587,200 $525,000 Mutually Agreed
Shannon Westlund & Daniel Westlund 7833 Cambridge St 20-117-21-22-0136 $465,300 R - Residential $519,900 $517,000 Mutually Agreed
James Engelking Jr & Elizabeth Engelking 4157 Brookside Ave 21-117-21-31-0216 $677,200 R - Residential $728,100 Sustain Mutually Agreed
David Oman & Tamar Oman 2544 Huntington Ave S 31-029-24-14-0054 $1,399,600 R - Residential $1,370,800 $1,125,000 Mutually Agreed
Sidney Usem & Mia Usem 4806 27th St W 31-029-24-31-0014 $672,200 R - Residential $668,800 $625,000 Mutually Agreed
Deborah Rosenberg & Darren Charloff 2725 Monterey Ave S 31-029-24-42-0026 $595,400 R - Residential $570,300 $550,000 Mutually Agreed
Appeals logged after Convene Meeting
Roster - City of St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal & Equalization - Reconvene April 27, 2026
Reconvene Meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2026 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 6
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: April 27, 2026
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railroad safety study
Recommended action: None currently. The purpose of this study session discussion is to
provide council with the findings of the recently completed railroad safety study and discuss
next steps.
Policy consideration: Does the council support pursuing implementation of the railroad safety
study findings in any of the subzones included in the report?
Summary: To respond to community concerns about overnight train horn noise along the
Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) rail line, staff and the consulting firm SRF Consulting Group
presented an overview at the March 17, 2025 study session. The presentation explained why
trains are required to sound their horns at at-grade crossings and outlined the steps necessary
to reduce horn frequency while maintaining required safety standards.
The city council authorized staff to partner with SRF Consulting Group to complete a railroad
safety study. The study provides an initial evaluation of the costs, feasibility and timeline for
implementing a quiet zone along the CPKC railroad. It focuses exclusively on the CPKC rail line
shown on the attached map, which runs north–south through the city about one‑half mile west
of Highway 100.
The CPKC rail line includes 16 crossings within St. Louis Park, along with four in Edina and two in
Golden Valley, that warrant consideration given their close relationship to the St. Louis Park
crossings.
Quiet zone eligibility requires that at‑grade crossings meet Federal Rail Administration
minimum infrastructure standards and maintain risk scores below national averages.
Financial or budget considerations: The estimated cost to upgrade all railroad crossings along
the CPKC line to quiet zone standards is $9,597,000. At this time, no funding sources have been
identified to complete the improvements outlined in the study. Further work is needed to
explore funding strategies and evaluate whether these improvements could be incorporated
into the Capital Improvements Projects (CIP).
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing safe, reliable and well-
maintained infrastructure and neighborhoods that connect people and places with an emphasis
on walking, biking and transit.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Quiet Zone - Subzone map
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, assistant city engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railroad safety study
Discussion
Background: St. Louis Park has a long history with freight rail trains transporting goods through
the community. Three railroads traverse the city: Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BNSF), Twin
Cities and Western (TC&W) and the Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC).
Trains are required by the federal government to sound their locomotive horns at all at-grade
railroad crossings. The horns are sounded regardless of the time of day. Overnight sounding of
horns has resulted in concerns from the community. Federal regulations have a process for
communities to partner with the railroad to greatly reduce the frequency of train horns,
referred to as whistle quiet zones, while maintaining safety compliance. More information on
the background of train horns can be found in the study session report from March 17, 2025.
Since the presentation in March 2025, CPKC has adjusted its operating schedule multiple
times—at some points running trains during the day and at other times overnight. These
changes reflect the railroad’s business needs and broader market conditions. It is our
understanding that trains are once again operating portions of their schedule overnight.
Present considerations: For an at-grade rail crossing to be eligible for a quiet zone, the crossing
must include the following minimum required crossing infrastructure:
• flashing lights
• two-quadrant vehicle gates
• constant warning time (CWT) detection
• power out indicators
The physical infrastructure listed above assumes improvements to the crossing surface,
pavement markings, signage and other best practices are also updated at each crossing.
In addition to the minimum required crossing infrastructure, Supplemental Safety Measure
(SSM) and Alternative Safe Measures (ASM) can be considered to help reduce the risk factor of
the crossing below national averages and are included, when applicable, in the recommended
improvements identified at each crossing.
• SSMs are Federal Railroad Administration-approved safety improvements that can
replace the need for train horns at crossings. Acceptable SSMs include raised concrete
medians, four‑quadrant gates, channelization delineators, one‑way streets and street
closures.
• ASMs are safety improvements that require Federal Railroad Administration approval.
Examples include three‑quadrant gates, raised concrete medians under 60 feet,
photo/programmed enforcement and other geometric enhancements.
Evaluation: The study team conducted field visits to examine the existing characteristics and
infrastructure at each crossing. The team included representatives from CPKC Rail, the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA), Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), the cities of
St. Louis Park and Edina, and the consulting team.
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railroad safety study
Edina was included as part of the study team because they were simultaneously conducting a
similar railroad crossing and quiet‑zone assessment within their community.
Within the study area, the following crossings were evaluated:
• 14 at‑grade crossings
• Two (2) pedestrian/ bicycle crossings
• Four (4) at‑grade crossings in Edina
This study did not include the two at‑grade crossings at Laurel Avenue and Golden Hills Drive in
Golden Valley. Should the city pursue a quiet zone, Golden Valley staff will need to be involved
in assessing these crossings. When this study was conducted, Golden Valley had not initiated its
own review of the corridor.
More information on why staff from Edina and/or Golden Valley would be involved in this study
is in the sections below.
Rail crossing findings: Approximately half of the St. Louis Park crossings do not meet the
minimum required crossing infrastructure of flashing lights, two-quadrant vehicle gates,
constant warning time detection, power out indicators to be eligible for implementation of a
quiet zone.
The analysis indicates that many of the crossings require upgrades to meet Federal Railroad
Administration minimum requirements. A quiet zone must be at least half a mile in length,
consist of at least one public at-grade railroad crossing and include adjacent crossings within a
quarter mile. Since several of these crossings are located outside the city, coordination with the
City of Edina and the City of Golden Valley will be necessary if St. Louis Park wishes its entire
portion of the CPKC line be whistle quiet eligible.
During the field visit, there were discussions about closing one of the low‑volume crossing
“pairs”, such as 28th/29th Street or 41st/42nd Street. These crossings do not currently have the
minimum required infrastructure for a quiet zone, would be costly to upgrade and carry low
traffic volumes that could be redirected to adjacent streets.
An approach could be to permanently close 29th Street and 42nd Street while keeping 28th and
41st Streets open, as they carry higher traffic volumes and include sidewalks. Any closure would
likely apply to all modes, including pedestrians and bicyclists. Should the city pursue this, the
cost to become whistle-quiet-ready will be lowered. As a tradeoff, the city should consider that
crossing closed forever.
Identifying quiet zones: The distance between adjacent crossings creates an opportunity to
group the corridor into five smaller subzones. This provides the city with flexibility to
implement quiet zone improvements in selected subzones rather than establishing a single
quiet zone across the entire community. The subzones are shown on the Subzone map as:
• Subzone A
o Includes one crossing in St. Louis Park at Wayzata Boulevard and two crossings in
Golden Valley at Laural Avenue and Golden Hills Drive.
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Title: Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railroad safety study
• Subzone B
o Is completely within St. Louis Park near Cedar Lake Road.
• Subzone C
o Is completely within St. Louis Park from 28th Street to just south of Minnetonka
Boulevard.
• Subzone D
o Is completely within St. Louis Park from just south of Minnetonka Boulevard to
the Twin Cities and Western Railroad (TC&W) south of Highway 7.
• Subzone E
o Includes seven crossings in St. Louis Park from TC&W Railroad to the Edina
border and four crossings in Edina ending near Grandview Square.
Implementation considerations: The five subzones (A–E) vary in the amount of coordination,
funding and construction needed for implementation. To reflect these differences, the level of
effort and anticipated timelines are organized into near‑term, mid‑term and long‑term
groupings.
• Near-term: Subzones completely within St. Louis Park with low barriers to completion
have the potential to be implemented in 24 to 36 months. During the site visit, staff
identified minor physical improvements that are not required but would make sense to
complete.
• Mid-term: Subzones completely within St. Louis Park requiring significant funding and
physical improvements have the potential to be implemented in three to six years if
funding is identified.
• Long-term: Subzones that are dependent on integration with an adjacent community,
require significant funding and physical improvement from the City of St. Louis Park and
the neighboring community, have the potential to be implemented in six to twelve years
assuming the neighboring city also updates its crossings.
Table 1 outlines the level of effort associated with each subzone. Establishing a quiet zone
requires an administrative review and approval process that generally takes a minimum of two
years. This does not include the time needed to secure funding or complete construction of the
necessary upgrades.
Estimated costs: Table 1 provides planning-level cost estimates for implementing each
subzone. These figures are subject to change based on factors such as the year of construction
and any regulatory updates that may apply when the work proceeds. Closing the crossings at
29th Street and/or 42nd Street could lower overall project costs.
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Title: Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railroad safety study
Table 1
Subzone Planning level cost estimate Level of effort
Subzone A $1,470,000 (plus costs for Golden Valley) Long- term
Subzone B $1,307,000 Mid to long- term
Subzone C $2,630,000 Mid to long- term
Subzone D $190,000 Near- term
Subzone E $4,000,000 (plus costs for Edina) Long- term
Total $9,597,000 (plus costs for Golden Valley and Edina)
Funding: The costs in Table 1 above include engineering, administration, right of way and
contingency. At this time, no funding sources have been identified to complete the crossing
improvements. Further work is needed to explore funding strategies and evaluate whether
these improvements could be incorporated into the CIP.
Additionally, any improvements in Golden Valley and Edina would require those communities
to determine appropriate funding mechanisms and establish timelines for implementing the
recommended actions.
Staff have been communicating with Golden Valley and Edina to understand their positions on
potential improvements within their communities. Edina currently lists this as an “unfunded
project” and is considering its inclusion in their CIP. Golden Valley is still completing its study
and has not yet identified next steps.
Coordination with other projects: The findings from the railroad crossing study will help in
developing the city’s long-range CIP. For example, the 2028 Pavement Management project
includes roadway reconstruction on 41st Street, Brookside Avenue and Yosemite Avenue,
where railroad crossing upgrades have been identified but are not yet funded. The estimated
cost for these upgrades is $1,400,000.
Next steps: The railroad safety study indicates that many crossings require upgrades to meet
FRA minimum requirements, however, the corridor is relatively safe and needs only limited
risk‑reduction treatments. The city is well-positioned to establish quiet zones within portions of
St. Louis Park but will need to coordinate with Edina and Golden Valley to implement a quiet
zone across the entire city.
Because quiet‑zone studies are typically valid for only five to ten years, the analysis will need to
be updated if implementation occurs later in the planning horizon.
The decision on when to proceed will depend on the city’s priorities, balancing the desire to
reduce train horn noise with budget constraints and community impacts. Should the council
direct staff to pursue implementation of the improvements in any of the subzones, further
work is needed to explore funding strategies and evaluate whether these improvements could
be incorporated into the CIP.
\ Subzones
A
-B
-c
-D
\-E
r
I
• �
Railway Network Pedestrian Crossing At-Grade Crossing
r
iUl �
"O "'
U) � 2 et: E :, U)
"O et:
ill :::;
Cl)., � "' "O"" >., z
.,, � r--fr-Ij ' �1
� <( -1!! :.1: Ill a. E
U) ll "-C "' � "' :::;
"' :c
W 26th St I' r\W27th St I ,_ �' W 28TH ST
w 281h s,r 'a542 31s;.U)
U) U) ., U) ., � U) ., U) ., � � ., lcn +� � ., ., > • .g .� � � -"' <(-u >,:g_ ·e "' � :, ., 0 I� 0 c Cl) .I:. E � 8 ., a; "' "' :!'1 :c 1cc�----, W 31st St C "'
<c,\ .Ao1° 0"''/ , . -
I / BRUNSWICK PED, CROSSING i690986E w 1thSt Hamilton St.,___ --
U)
BRUNSWICK PED CROSSING -690988T
W 41ST STREET ja5 '42 431._ I W42 ND ST�� 854244T
\I \ IBROOKSIDE AVE
1 • J \ �
.(
\ � U)
-"O a::: ., -"" "'
lSRF
•
Hopkins
••
Edina • • ' �
'
\ -,Annaway Djil �
\ \ ,,. ...
�
/ (1) Interlachen Blvd ,:;') "' & "' _, '-
1
I YOSEMITE AVE SO 854246G
BROOKSIDE TERRACE 'oivi�on SI 8542j,8V •a,
I � -""
.(
0 -a, � �
Northwood Dr
( ( l I
Crossings Overview Map
St. Louis Park Quiet Zone Assessment
City of Saint Louis Park
•• 8542451 -PRIVATE ROAD I/J 1 854247Nlt"'
'r
W 49th'St 854249C
l
\/
'I
W28th St
�
en U)Ia,I a, i �, C C. ·-a. a. 0
..-1 :::2: --, W40th St __J
J
l a, � :(l E ,z I . <'5 '?, Morningside Rd \"" ---� 'to � (1)
(j)
� <( � W,SOth St � a, � � "' ""\_ "O "O
\.. � 0
L )
U) ., � "O 0 " t1 -.!:
)
:i;: �. ,::.
:, :, :P.-�-...c: ,: C '(1) ., 1(/) a 38th StW TW 39th St
W42nd St
l
a, ><(, X � � :c 0.25
W38th St
�� r----i---t-1 -l-�rW.�41st St
� U) C a, -� � .I:. 'E u "''-J &l .......... U) a, � ,.J---
U)
J't---rr--(/).-(/)-(1)1-:-7 §;WS1stSt a, �
LJ.J I t t W 52nd St _ n " � 0.5 I Miles 1_JVV�::;t
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 1)
Title: Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railroad safety study Page 6
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: April 27, 2026
Written report: 2
Executive summary
Title: Development update Q2 2026
Recommended action: None. The attached report summarizes the status of major
development projects occurring in St. Louis Park.
Policy consideration: Not applicable. Contact staff with any questions.
Summary: The attached report is meant to keep the Economic Development Authority
(EDA)/city council informed on a quarterly basis as to the metrics, construction status and
tentative schedule of major development projects in the city. For clarity:
•Proposed developments: are those that are working through the planning entitlement
process such as platting, PUDs, variances and have not yet been approved.
•Approved developments: are those whose planning applications have been approved
by the city council and have not yet commenced construction, but whose financial
assistance agreements may or may not yet have been approved.
•Under construction: are those that just started or are actively being constructed.
•Completed developments: are those that have received their final certificates of
occupancy.
More detailed information can be found on the interactive development dashboard on the
city’s website. The dashboard provides project metrics for all major developments or additions
that have been approved, under construction or completed within the city since 2010. The
dashboard includes website links, market rate and affordable unit counts by bedroom size,
parking information, bike facilities, electric vehicle charging stations and more.
Additionally, developments receiving financial assistance from the EDA/city are required to
track diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) goals related to business enterprises and workforce
hiring goals. The current goal status for projects under construction is also included in the
update.
Financial or budget considerations: Development activity affects the city’s total tax capacity as
reflected in the city’s annual budget and long-range financial plan, with new developments
generating new property tax revenue. It also plays a significant role in the retention of the city’s
AAA bond rating.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a range of quality,
affordable and attainable housing options.
Supporting documents: Major developments in St. Louis Park – 2nd Quarter 2026, DEI report
and development gameboard graphic
Prepared by: Dean Porter-Nelson, redevelopment administrator
Reviewed by: Jennifer Monson, economic development manager; Sean Walther, deputy
community development director; Karen Barton, community development
director & EDA executive director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Major Developments in St. Louis Park
2nd Quarter 2026
Multifamily housing development summary
2024-2026 YTD
Total Market rate Affordable
Proposed units 260 203 57
Approved units 207 199 8
Units under construction 602 475 127
Recently completed units (last two years) 624 316 308
All units* 1,693 1,193 500
Total Development Costs (TDC)* $492.3 million
*Cumulative unit totals include projects for 2024 – first quarter 2026. For projects completed prior to
2024 please see the Development Dashboard on the city’s web site.
**Total estimated TDC of all projects. Projects with unknown TDC excluded; actual totals are higher.
For additional information please see Development Projects on the city’s web site.
Proposed developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Wooddale Station
Redevelopment
5802 - 5950 36th Street
W
Sentinel Management
Company
Sentinel Management Company proposes to purchase and
redevelop the EDA-owned lot located at 5950 36th St. W., as
well as the neighboring property, into a mixed-use, mixed-
income transit-oriented development. Sentinel proposes a
five and six-story building with approximately 260 residential
units of which approximately 21% will be affordable between
30%-60% AMI, 7,000 to 10,000 square feet of ground floor
commercial space, and a public plaza. The project would meet
the city’s green building policy and exceed the inclusionary
housing policy.
Estimated total development cost: TBD
Sentinel
Management
company signed a
preliminary
development
agreement in
March 2026 and is
working with staff
on the details of its
design and is
preparing to
submit a financial
assistance
application.
Construction
commencement
TBD.
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 2)
Title: Development update Q2 2026 Page 2
Proposed developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Shops at West End
Office Development
The owner of the Shops at West End, Hempel Real Estate, is
exploring the possibility of redeveloping a vacant corner of
the Shops to have ground floor commercial, with four to six
stories of office space above.
Estimated total development cost: TBD
An AUAR update
was approved by
the city council on
Oct. 6, 2025.
Construction
commencement is
TBD.
Approved developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Parkway on 5
5430 Minnetonka
Boulevard
Sela Group &
Affiliates
Development of a 33-unit, three-story apartment building with
a mix of underground and surface parking at the northwest
corner of Minnetonka Boulevard and Highway 100. The project
includes a public trail to the east of the site within the
Minnesota Department of Transportation's right-of-way.
Estimated total development cost: TBD
The city council
approved the
requested
application on
Feb. 2, 2026.
Construction
commencement is
TBD.
Minnetonka
Boulevard
redevelopment
5707 – 5639
Minnetonka Boulevard
GMHC & Homes
Within Reach
Affordable Housing
Land Trust
Construction of four twin homes (eight-units), providing eight
permanently affordable homeownership opportunities on four
vacant Economic Development Authority-owned lots.
Estimated total development cost: $8 million
Construction
commencement
anticipated Q2
2026.
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 2)
Title: Development update Q2 2026 Page 3
Approved developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Knollwood Chipotle
Lindsay Knollwood 2,
LLC Construction of a Chipotle restaurant at the northwest corner
of Highway 7 and Aquila Avenue South, with a drive-thru lane
for pick up orders only.
Estimated total development cost: TBD
The project
required a
conditional use
permit which was
approved on Oct.
6, 2025.
This project is
currently under
construction and
anticipates
opening in mid-
July 2026.
Park Place East
5775 Wayzata
Boulevard
GW Properties
Proposed construction of two retail buildings in the southeast
corner of the parking lot at 5775 Wayzata Boulevard. The new
buildings will contain four fast-casual restaurants.
Estimated total development cost: TBD
Planning
entitlements
approved in
December 2023
and June 2024.
Building permits
are submitted and
construction
commencement is
TBD.
2625 Louisiana
Avenue
2625 Louisiana
Avenue
Web Development
LLC
Largely vacant parcel adjacent to North Cedar Lake Regional
Trail to be redeveloped as a 57-unit, four-story, mixed-use
market-rate building with approximately 4,000 square feet of
ground floor commercial space, with underground and surface
parking. Project includes public path connecting Louisiana Ave .
to the Regional Trail.
Estimated total development cost: TBD
Planning
entitlements
approved 2022
and reapproved
2024.
Construction
commencement
TBD.
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 2)
Title: Development update Q2 2026 Page 4
Approved developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Achromatic 6013
6013 and 6019 Cedar
Lake Road
Joshua Aaron Proposed is the redevelopment of two single-family homes and
the construction of a 36 unit, three-story building with one
level of below grade parking.
Estimated total construction costs: TBD
Planning
entitlements
approved
March 2024.
Construction
commencement
TBD.
Parkway Residences
W 31st St. between
Inglewood Avenue &
Glenhurst Avenue
Sela Group &
Affiliates
Multi-phase redevelopment includes four, multi-family
buildings with 211 units. The affordable housing includes 24
rehabilitated units made available to households earning up to
50% AMI and six new units made available to households
earning up to 60% AMI.
Phase III: Eleven-story, 73-unit apartment building.
Estimated development cost: $36.2 million.
Estimated total development cost (all phases): $91.4 million.
Phase III
commencement is
TBD.
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 2)
Title: Development update Q2 2026 Page 5
Under construction
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Terasă
5401 Gamble Drive
Hempel Real Estate Redevelopment of the northwest office tower within the
West End Office Towers complex and construction of up to a
six-story, 222-unit mixed-use building with approximately
20,000 square feet of commercial space, potentially including
a grocer, restaurant and coffee shop. Development will
include affordable housing units (20% of total), made
available to households earning up to 50% AMI.
Estimated total development cost: $93.7 million.
Construction
started Q1 2026
with completion
anticipated prior to
Q3 2028.
Beltline Boulevard
Station Site
SE quadrant of CSAH
25 & Beltline
Boulevard
Sherman Associates
Major mixed-use, mixed income, transit-oriented,
multi-phase development adjacent to
Southwest Light Rail Transit Beltline Boulevard Station.
Building 1 includes:
•Seven-story mixed-use building with six levels of
market rate housing (152 units) and 20,000 square
feet of neighborhood commercial space.
•A 592-stall parking ramp, which will include 268 park
& ride stalls, 326 residential stalls and approximately
1,850 square feet of commercial space.
•Estimated development cost: $55.7 million.
•Estimated development cost of public ramp: $11.1
million.
Construction
schedule:
Dewatering,
underground
utilities, and grading
are complete
Footings and
foundations for
Building 1, Building
3 and ramp are
complete; and
framing and
construction are
underway.
Site preparation and
the construction of
the foundation for
Building 2 is also
underway.
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 2)
Title: Development update Q2 2026 Page 6
Under construction
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Building 2 includes:
•Four-story all affordable apartment building with 82
units, 39 units will be available to households earning
up to 60% AMI, 23 units will be available to
households earning up to 50% AMI, and 20 units will
be available to households earning up to 30% AMI.
The project includes twenty-two three bedroom units,
and 44 units two bedrooms units
•Estimated development cost: $28.4 million.
Building 3 includes:
•Five-story market rate apartment building with 146
units.
Estimated development cost: $53.5 million.
Altogether, the multi-phase redevelopment will have
380 apartment units of which 82 (21%) would be affordable.
Estimated total development cost: $148.7 million.
Construction
completion for all
phases is
anticipated by Q1
2027, with Buildings
1 and 3 and the
ramp opening
sooner.
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 2)
Title: Development update Q2 2026 Page 7
Recently completed developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Union Park Flats
3700 Alabama Avenue &
6027 37th Street W.
PPL (Project for Pride in
Living)
Redevelopment of the north portion of the Union
Congregational Church property with a three story, 60-unit
affordable apartment building on the north half of the
property. All unit rents have limits ranging between 30%-60%
AMI. Union Congregational Church plans to remain on the
south portion of the property.
Total development cost: $28.7 million.
Completed
December 2024.
Mera
(formerly 9920
Wayzata)
9808 & 9920 Wayzata
Boulevard
Bigos Management
Redevelopment of former Santorini’s restaurant property at
northwest quadrant of I-394 & US 169.
Six-story, 233-unit, mixed income apartment building with
20% (47) of the units available to households earning up to
50% AMI.
Approximate total development cost: $68.6 million.
Completed
August 2024.
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 2)
Title: Development update Q2 2026 Page 8
Recently completed developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Zelia on Seven
(formerly Via Sol)
SE quadrant Hwy. 7 &
Wooddale Avenue
5855 Hwy. 7
Owned and managed by
Bigos Management
Mixed-income, transit-oriented development including a five-
story, 217-unit apartment bulding (130 market rate units, 22
units affordable to households earning up to 50% AMI, and 65
units affordable to households earning up to 60% AMI, solar
panels which will be installed spring 2025 (producing 220AC
kW, 275 DC kW and 300,000 KwH total generation) and one-
acre urban forest.
Approximate total development cost: $88.4 million.
Completed
May 2024.
Arbor Court
3801 Wooddale Avenue
S.
Real Estate Equities LLC Redevelopment of former Aldersgate Church property
adjacent to Burlington Coat/Micro Center and Highway 100.
All affordable housing development includes 114-units, with
205 parking stalls, of which 117 stalls would be underground.
•5 units affordable to households earning up to 30% AMI
•5 units affordable to households earning up to 50% AMI
•104 units affordable to households earning up to 60%
AMI
Total development cost $38.3 million.
Completed
March 2024.
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 2)
Title: Development update Q2 2026 Page 9
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Hiring Goals
Report – April 2026
Terasă Development
Terasă Development
QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ACTUAL GOALS
Total number of business enterprises contracted in
development 4
Percentage of women-owned business enterprises in
development 0% 6%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI owned business enterprises
in development 0% 13%
Percentage of total development dollars paid to
women-owned business enterprises in development 0% 6%
Percentage of total development dollars paid to
BIPOC/AAPI owned business enterprises in
development
0% 13%
Total number of construction workers contracted in
development 4
Percentage of women workforce in development 0% 20%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI workforce in development 0% 32%
Percentage of total construction hours for women
workforce in development 0% 20%
Percentage of total construction hours for BIPOC/AAPI
workforce in development 0% 32%
Total number of employees at business organization 85
Percentage of women employed by business
organization 38.8% 10%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI persons employed by
business organization 15.3% 13%
*The BIPOC/AAPI workforce demographic data is self-reported and likely does not fully capture
Hispanic/Latinx individuals.
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 2)
Title: Development update Q2 2026 Page 10
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Hiring Goals
Report – April 2026
Beltline Station Building #1 – Mixed Use Building
Beltline Station #1
QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ACTUAL GOALS
Total number of business enterprises contracted in
development 32
Percentage of women-owned business enterprises in
development 12.5% 6%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI owned business enterprises
in development 0% 13%
Percentage of total development dollars paid to
women-owned business enterprises in development 4.8% 6%
Percentage of total development dollars paid to
BIPOC/AAPI owned business enterprises in
development
0.0% 13%
Total number of construction workers contracted in
development 195
Percentage of women workforce in development 4.6% 20%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI workforce in development 8.7% 32%
Percentage of total construction hours for women
workforce in development 5.9% 20%
Percentage of total construction hours for BIPOC/AAPI
workforce in development 3.5% 32%
Total number of employees at business organization 530
Percentage of women employed by business
organization 30.9% 10%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI persons employed by
business organization 31.5% 13%
*The BIPOC/AAPI workforce demographic data is self-reported and likely does not fully capture
Hispanic/Latinx individuals.
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 2)
Title: Development update Q2 2026 Page 11
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Hiring Goals
Report – April 2026
Beltline Station Building #2 – Affordable Housing
Beltline Station #2
QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ACTUAL GOALS
Total number of business enterprises contracted in
development 31
Percentage of women-owned business enterprises in
development 13% 6%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI owned business
enterprises in development 0% 13%
Percentage of total development dollars paid to
women-owned business enterprises in development 0% 6%
Percentage of total development dollars paid to
BIPOC/AAPI owned business enterprises in
development
0% 13%
Total number of construction workers contracted in
development 42
Percentage of women workforce in development 5% 20%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI workforce in development 12% 32%
Percentage of total construction hours for women
workforce in development 7.7% 20%
Percentage of total construction hours for
BIPOC/AAPI workforce in development 13.8% 32%
Total number of employees at business organization 530
Percentage of women employed by business
organization 30.9% 10%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI persons employed by
business organization 31.5% 13%
*The BIPOC/AAPI workforce demographic data is self-reported and likely does not fully capture
Hispanic/Latinx individuals.
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 2)
Title: Development update Q2 2026 Page 12
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Hiring Goals
Report – April 2026
Beltline Station Building #3 – Market Rate Housing
Beltline Station #3
QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ACTUAL GOALS
Total number of business enterprises contracted in
development 40
Percentage of women-owned business enterprises in
development 10% 6%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI owned business
enterprises in development 2.5% 13%
Percentage of total development dollars paid to
women-owned business enterprises in development 4.8% 6%
Percentage of total development dollars paid to
BIPOC/AAPI owned business enterprises in
development
0.4% 13%
Total number of construction workers contracted in
development 397
Percentage of women workforce in development 1.8% 20%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI workforce in development 10.1% 32%
Percentage of total construction hours for women
workforce in development 1.2% 20%
Percentage of total construction hours for BIPOC/AAPI
workforce in development 9.8% 32%
Total number of employees at business organization 530
Percentage of women employed by business
organization 30.9% 10%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI persons employed by
business organization 31.5% 13%
*The BIPOC/AAPI workforce demographic data is self-reported and likely does not fully capture
Hispanic/Latinx individuals.
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 2)
Title: Development update Q2 2026 Page 13
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Hiring Goals
Report – April 2026
Beltline Station Sitework – for all buildings and the parking ramp
Beltline Station Sitework
QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ACTUAL GOALS
Total number of business enterprises contracted in
development 7
Percentage of women-owned business enterprises in
development 0% 6%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI owned business enterprises in
development 0% 13%
Percentage of total development dollars paid to women-
owned business enterprises in development 0.00% 6%
Percentage of total development dollars paid to BIPOC/AAPI
owned business enterprises in development 0.00% 13%
Total number of construction workers contracted in
development 162
Percentage of women workforce in development 1% 20%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI workforce in development 15.1% 32%
Percentage of total construction hours for women
workforce in development 0.2% 20%
Percentage of total construction hours for BIPOC/AAPI
workforce in development 13.7% 32%
Total number of employees at business organization 530
Percentage of women employed by business organization 30.9% 10%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI persons employed by business
organization 31.5% 13%
*The BIPOC/AAPI workforce demographic data is self-reported and likely does not fully capture
Hispanic/Latinx individuals.
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 2)
Title: Development update Q2 2026 Page 14
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Hiring Goals
Report – April 2026
Terasă Development
Terasă Development
QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ACTUAL GOALS
Total number of business enterprises contracted in
development 4
Percentage of women-owned business enterprises in
development 0% 6%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI owned business enterprises
in development 0% 13%
Percentage of total development dollars paid to
women-owned business enterprises in development 0% 6%
Percentage of total development dollars paid to
BIPOC/AAPI owned business enterprises in
development
0% 13%
Total number of construction workers contracted in
development 4
Percentage of women workforce in development 0% 20%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI workforce in development 0% 32%
Percentage of total construction hours for women
workforce in development 0% 20%
Percentage of total construction hours for BIPOC/AAPI
workforce in development 0% 32%
Total number of employees at business organization 85
Percentage of women employed by business
organization 38.8% 10%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI persons employed by
business organization 15.3% 13%
*The BIPOC/AAPI workforce demographic data is self-reported and likely does not fully capture
Hispanic/Latinx individuals.
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 2)
Title: Development update Q2 2026 Page 15
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Hiring Goals
Report – April 2026
Beltline Station Building #1 – Mixed Use Building
Beltline Station #1
QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ACTUAL GOALS
Total number of business enterprises contracted in
development 32
Percentage of women-owned business enterprises in
development 12.5% 6%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI owned business enterprises
in development 0% 13%
Percentage of total development dollars paid to
women-owned business enterprises in development 4.8% 6%
Percentage of total development dollars paid to
BIPOC/AAPI owned business enterprises in
development
0.0% 13%
Total number of construction workers contracted in
development 195
Percentage of women workforce in development 4.6% 20%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI workforce in development 8.7% 32%
Percentage of total construction hours for women
workforce in development 5.9% 20%
Percentage of total construction hours for BIPOC/AAPI
workforce in development 3.5% 32%
Total number of employees at business organization 530
Percentage of women employed by business
organization 30.9% 10%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI persons employed by
business organization 31.5% 13%
*The BIPOC/AAPI workforce demographic data is self-reported and likely does not fully capture
Hispanic/Latinx individuals.
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 2)
Title: Development update Q2 2026 Page 16
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Hiring Goals
Report – April 2026
Beltline Station Building #2 – Affordable Housing
Beltline Station #2
QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ACTUAL GOALS
Total number of business enterprises contracted in
development 31
Percentage of women-owned business enterprises in
development 13% 6%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI owned business
enterprises in development 0% 13%
Percentage of total development dollars paid to
women-owned business enterprises in development 0% 6%
Percentage of total development dollars paid to
BIPOC/AAPI owned business enterprises in
development
0% 13%
Total number of construction workers contracted in
development 42
Percentage of women workforce in development 5% 20%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI workforce in development 12% 32%
Percentage of total construction hours for women
workforce in development 7.7% 20%
Percentage of total construction hours for
BIPOC/AAPI workforce in development 13.8% 32%
Total number of employees at business organization 530
Percentage of women employed by business
organization 30.9% 10%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI persons employed by
business organization 31.5% 13%
*The BIPOC/AAPI workforce demographic data is self-reported and likely does not fully capture
Hispanic/Latinx individuals.
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 2)
Title: Development update Q2 2026 Page 17
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Hiring Goals
Report – April 2026
Beltline Station Building #3 – Market Rate Housing
Beltline Station #3
QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ACTUAL GOALS
Total number of business enterprises contracted in
development 40
Percentage of women-owned business enterprises in
development 10% 6%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI owned business
enterprises in development 2.5% 13%
Percentage of total development dollars paid to
women-owned business enterprises in development 4.8% 6%
Percentage of total development dollars paid to
BIPOC/AAPI owned business enterprises in
development
0.4% 13%
Total number of construction workers contracted in
development 397
Percentage of women workforce in development 1.8% 20%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI workforce in development 10.1% 32%
Percentage of total construction hours for women
workforce in development 1.2% 20%
Percentage of total construction hours for BIPOC/AAPI
workforce in development 9.8% 32%
Total number of employees at business organization 530
Percentage of women employed by business
organization 30.9% 10%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI persons employed by
business organization 31.5% 13%
*The BIPOC/AAPI workforce demographic data is self-reported and likely does not fully capture
Hispanic/Latinx individuals.
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 2)
Title: Development update Q2 2026 Page 18
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Hiring Goals
Report – April 2026
Beltline Station Sitework – for all buildings and the parking ramp
Beltline Station Sitework
QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ACTUAL GOALS
Total number of business enterprises contracted in
development 7
Percentage of women-owned business enterprises in
development 0% 6%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI owned business enterprises in
development 0% 13%
Percentage of total development dollars paid to women-
owned business enterprises in development 0.00% 6%
Percentage of total development dollars paid to BIPOC/AAPI
owned business enterprises in development 0.00% 13%
Total number of construction workers contracted in
development 162
Percentage of women workforce in development 1% 20%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI workforce in development 15.1% 32%
Percentage of total construction hours for women
workforce in development 0.2% 20%
Percentage of total construction hours for BIPOC/AAPI
workforce in development 13.7% 32%
Total number of employees at business organization 530
Percentage of women employed by business organization 30.9% 10%
Percentage of BIPOC/AAPI persons employed by business
organization 31.5% 13%
*The BIPOC/AAPI workforce demographic data is self-reported and likely does not fully capture
Hispanic/Latinx individuals.
Study session meeting of April 27, 2026 (Item No. 2)
Title: Development update Q2 2026 Page 19
Beltline Station – all
phases (B1, B2, B3, ramp)
Wooddale Station
Redevelopment
Minnetonka Blvd.
Twin homes
Terasa Development
2625 Louisiana Ave.
Achromatic 6013
Parkway
Residences Phase III
Parkway on 5
Study session meeting of
April 27, 2026 (Item No. 2)
Title: Development update
Q2 2026
Page 20