HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026/06/01 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
JUNE 1, 2026
6:00 p.m. Economic Development Authority meeting – Council Chambers
1.Call to order.
2.Approve agenda.
3.Minutes.
a.EDA meeting minutes of May 4, 2026
4.Consent items.
a.Approve EDA disbursements
b.Resolution approving Two Percent Loan Program modifications and agreement with
NextStage
c.Resolution approving ATD Holdings notice of default - Ward 3
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 the 250th anniversary of the United States of America
b.Proclamation observing Immigrant Heritage Month
c.Proclamation observing LGBTQ+ Pride Month
4.Minutes.
a.City council meeting minutes of May 18, 2026
b.Special study session meeting minutes of May 18, 2026
5.Consent items.
a.Approve city disbursements
b.Resolution accepting donations to the city to support the Access to Fun scholarship program -
first quarter
Agenda EDA, city council and special study session meetings of June 1, 2026
c.Resolution approving 2025 calendar year financial transfers to/out other funds
d.Resolution approving presale of 2026 debt issuance
e.Resolution electing not to waive the statutory tort limits for liability insurance
f.Resolution approving 2026-2028 LELS Local #623 Deputy Police Chief labor agreement
g.Approve temporary seasonal premises amendment for liquor establishment
h.Approve Change Orders No. 1 and 2 for the Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue Improvements
Project – Phase 2 (4024-1100) – Ward 4
6. Public hearings – none.
7. Regular business.
a.Approve preliminary layout for Hennepin County Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project
phase 2 (4028-7000) Wards 1 and 3
8. Communications and announcements – none.
9. Adjournment.
Following city council meeting – Special study session – Community Room
Discussion item
1. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission annual meeting with council
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: Economic development authority
Meeting date: June 1, 2026
Minutes: 3a
Unofficial minutes
EDA meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
May 4, 2026
1. Call to order.
President Farris called the meeting to order at 6:11 p.m.
a. Roll call
Commissioners present: Daniel Bashore, Jim Engelking, Sue Budd, Nadia Mohamed, Tim
Brausen, Paul Baudhuin, President Yolanda Farris
Commissioners absent: none
Staff present: city manager (Ms. Keller), city attorney (Mr. Mattick), engineering project
manager (Mr. Elgaard), deputy engineering director (Mr. Sullivan), community engagement
coordinator (Mr. Coleman)
2. Approve agenda.
It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Mohamed, to approve the
agenda as presented.
The motion passed 7 – 0.
3. Minutes.
a. EDA meeting minutes of April 6, 2026
It was moved by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Bashore, to approve the EDA
meeting minutes of April 6, 2026, as presented.
The motion passed 7 – 0.
4. Consent items.
a. Approve EDA disbursements
b. EDA Resolution No. 26-12 approving sub-grant agreement related to Tax Base
Revitalization Account grant for Beltline Station development - Ward 1
c. EDA Resolution No. 26-13 approving transfer of 4300 36 1/2 Street from the EDA to the
city - Ward 2
Commissioner Brausen noted that consent item 4c involved a property the EDA had acquired
for potential affordable commercial development. After approximately a year and a half of
Economic development authority meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Meeting minutes of May 4, 2026
study, the city concluded the investment required was not cost-effective and decided to return
the property to the private market via transfer to the city and subsequent sale.
It was moved by Commissioner Baudhuin, seconded by Commissioner Brausen to approve
consent items as listed and to waive reading of all resolutions.
The motion passed 7 – 0.
5. Public hearings – none.
6. Regular business – none.
7. Communications and announcements – none.
8. Adjournment.
The EDA meeting adjourned at 6:14 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Yolanda Farris, president
These minutes were created with the assistance of a generative AI transcript service, then edited
and finalized by a city staff person.
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: June 1, 2026
Consent agenda item: 4a
Executive summary
Title: Approve EDA disbursements
Recommended action: Motion to approve EDA disbursement claims for the period of April 29 -
May 26, 2026.
Policy consideration: Does the EDA approve the disbursements listed for the period ending
May 26, 2026?
Summary: The finance division prepares this report monthly for the EDA to review and approve.
The attached report shows both EDA disbursements paid by physical check and those by wire
transfer or Automated Clearing House (ACH) when applicable.
Financial or budget considerations: Review and approval of disbursements by the EDA is
required and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal stewardship.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: EDA disbursement summary
Prepared by: Estela Mulugeta, accounting specialist
Reviewed by: Joe Olson, deputy finance director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
PAYEE NAME BUSINESS UNIT OBJECT ACCOUNT Total
BELTLINE MIXED USE LLC Development - EDA G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv $1,771,768.05
BELTLINE MIXED USE LLC Total $1,771,768.05
CAMPBELL KNUTSON,P.A.EDA - 4300 36 1/2 G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv $2,590.38
CAMPBELL KNUTSON,P.A. Total $2,590.38
CENTERPOINT ENERGY EDA - 4300 36 1/2 G&A Heating Gas Utility $647.68
CENTERPOINT ENERGY Total $647.68
EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC Development - EDA G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv $800.00
EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC Total $800.00
HENNEPIN COUNTY ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE Development - EDA G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv $20,000.00
HENNEPIN COUNTY ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE Total $20,000.00
XCEL ENERGY EDA - 4300 36 1/2 G&A Electric Utility $215.00
XCEL ENERGY Total $215.00
Grand Total $1,796,021.11
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
EDA Payment Summary
4/26/26-5/26/26
Economic Development Authority meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approve EDA disbursements Page 2
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: June 1, 2026
Consent agenda item: 4b
Executive summary
Title: Resolution approving Two Percent Loan Program modifications and agreement with
NextStage
Recommended action: Motion to adopt EDA resolution approving modifications to the EDA’s
Two Percent Loan Program and approving a professional services agreement with NextStage to
administer the loan program.
Policy consideration: Does the EDA wish to approve the amended and restated Two Percent
Loan Program and to approve a new professional services agreement with NextStage through
Dec. 31, 2027, for administration of the Two Percent Loan Program?
Summary: The Economic Development Authority (EDA) established the Two Percent Loan
Program in 2019 to spur business investment in the city. The program has been amended
periodically to meet the current needs of the city. The program is currently administered by the
Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developments (MCCD) who also provided technical
assistance to the city’s small business community. To date, the city has awarded eight loans
under this program. Per the program guidelines, loan amounts may range from $5,000 to
$25,000 for grease traps or $10,000 to $74,999 for other eligible expenses.
Beginning in 2026, small business technical assistance for St. Louis Park businesses is provided
by NextStage, a Minnesota nonprofit. Hennepin County contracts directly with NextStage to
provide these services to St. Louis Park as an extension of the city’s annual Elevate Hennepin
agreement. In addition, NextStage administers several county loan programs and provides loan
administration services for other Twin Cities communities.
To align technical assistance with administration of the city’s loan program, staff recommend
entering into a professional services agreement with NextStage through Dec. 31, 2027, to
administer the Two Percent Loan Program. Staff and NextStage also recommend updating the
program to require NextStage to serve as an active, equal partner in all loan awards except
grease trap loans, while giving the city a larger role in loan underwriting and approval. It is
anticipated the proposed changes will reduce financial risks to the EDA and will better support
business vitality and growth.
Financial or budget considerations: The EDA budgets $225,000 annually from the development
fund to provide loans under this program. NextStage will charge each borrower an origination
fee equal to 1% of the principal amount as fee for service.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a city that delivers reliable
services, uses city resources responsibly, operates transparently and builds strong relationships
with residents.
Supporting documents: Discussion, EDA resolution, Two Percent Loan Program guidelines
Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, planning and economic development manager
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, deputy community development director
Karen Barton, EDA executive director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Economic development authority meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Resolution approving Two Percent Loan Program modifications and agreement with NextStage
Discussion
Background: The EDA established the Two Percent Loan Program in 2019 to spur business
investment in the city. The program was most recently amended and restated in June 2024 to
provide loans to help cover the costs of installing fat, oil and/or grease interceptors so
businesses could more easily comply with a newly adopted city ordinance.
The Two Percent Loan Program is currently administered by the MCCD. MCCD also provided
technical assistance to the city’s small business community. To date, the EDA and MCCD have
issued eight loans under the Two Percent Loan program ranging from $55,000 to $74,999. The
loan program requires an outside matching loan, and the matching loan can either come from
MCCD or an outside bank.
Not requiring a local match from the loan administration agency has raised concerns for staff
and EDA legal counsel as we address a loan default involving an EDA-issued loan that utilized
matching funds from an outside bank.
Present considerations: At the request of city staff, Hennepin County amended the city’s
Elevate Hennepin Contract and switched providers from MCCD to NextStage, a Minnesota
nonprofit, to provide more robust technical assistance services to the St. Louis Park business
community. NextStage administers several of the county’s loan programs and provides loan
administration to other twin cities communities.
Elevate Hennepin is a no-cost business support initiative from Hennepin County and partnering
cities that provide entrepreneurs and small businesses with expert consulting, resources and
tools to start, grow or sustain their businesses.
To better align the city’s technical assistance program with administration of the Two Percent
Loan Program, staff recommend entering into a professional services agreement with
NextStage to administer the EDA’s Two Percent Loan Program through Dec. 31, 2027. This
creates a direct link between a technical business advisor and the city’s loan program, helping
to make connections and close financial gaps in business deals that further the city’s strategic
priorities.
To reduce risks associated with this loan program, staff and NextStage recommend the EDA
update the program guidelines to require NextStage to be an active, equal partner in all loan
awards, except grease trap loans, which are currently exempt from the matching loan
requirement. The EDA will also have a larger role in loan underwriting and approval review.
Per the updated guidelines, the EDA and NextStage will provide matching loans and will share a
priority position on all collateral and guarantees. Loan payments will be applied equally to both
parties. This incentivizes NextStage, as the loan administrator, to ensure payments are made in
a timely manner, and for NextStage to promptly work with the borrower to rectify default
situations
Additionally, the EDA will provide preliminary approval to proceed with a loan and will have a
greater role in NextStage’s process for vetting borrower’s repayment capacity, including
attendance at the loan committee’s review meeting.
Economic development authority meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Title: Resolution approving Two Percent Loan Program modifications and agreement with NextStage
Next steps: Upon approval of the amendments to the Two Percent Loan Program and approval
of the professional service agreement with NextStage, NextStage will immediately assume
administration and collection of all issued Two Percent loans.
Economic development authority meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Title: Resolution approving Two Percent Loan Program modifications and agreement with NextStage
EDA Resolution No. 26-___
Relating to the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority’s
Two Percent Loan Program and approving modified guidelines and
a professional services agreement with NextStage to administer
loans under such program
Whereas, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “authority”)
established the Two Percent Loan Program (the “program”) and adopted program guidelines on
March 25, 2019, as amended on May 20, 2024 (collectively, the “existing guidelines”), pursuant
to which the authority provides low interest loans to businesses and property owners
improving, renovating, or expanding their buildings (including the installation of grease traps)
and purchasing property within the city of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “city”) to further
enhance the city’s economic success, vibrancy and historic character; and
Whereas, the program has been administered by the Metropolitan Consortium of
Community Developers, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (“MCCD”), pursuant to an amended
and restated professional services agreement, dated June 4, 2024 (the “MCCD services
agreement”), between the authority and MCCD; and
Whereas, the authority has determined to terminate the MCCD services agreement;
and
Whereas, NextStage, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (“NextStage”) has submitted a
proposal to the authority to perform the services of consultant to administer the program; and
Whereas, the authority has determined to modify the existing guidelines for the
program; and
Whereas, there have been prepared and presented to the board of commissioners of
the authority (the “board”) forms of the updated guidelines for the program (the “guidelines”)
and a professional services agreement (the “NextStage services agreement”) between the
authority and NextStage setting forth the terms and understanding of the authority and
NextStage with respect to the administration of the program; and
Now therefore be it resolved by the board of commissioners of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority as follows:
1. The board approves the guidelines and the NextStage services agreement in
substantially the forms presented to the board, together with any related documents necessary
in connection therewith, including without limitation all documents, exhibits, certifications, or
consents, referenced in or attached to the guidelines and the NextStage services agreement
(collectively, the “documents”).
Economic development authority meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4b) Page 5
Title: Resolution approving Two Percent Loan Program modifications and agreement with NextStage
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The board hereby delegates to the executive director and authority staff the
authority to administer the program in accordance with the guidelines, including without
limitation processing and approving applications and executing loan documents.
5. The board hereby authorizes staff of the authority to take actions to terminate
the MCCD services agreement under the terms of the MCCD services agreement.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority June 1, 2026:
Karen Barton, executive director Yolanda Farris, president
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, secretary
St. Louis Park Community Development Department • 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park MN 55416
www.stlouisparkmn .gov Phone: 952.924.2575 TYY: 952.924.2518
St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority
Two Percent Loan Program
Established May 2019
Amended June 3, 2024 by EDA Resolution No. 24-10
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park MN 55416
Economic Development Authority meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Resolution approving Two Percent Loan Program modifications and agreement with NextStage Page 6
Table of contents
2% loan program guidelines
I The program Page 1
II How the program works (terms and conditions) Page 1
III Eligible applicants Page 2
IV Eligible activities, costs Page 2
V Ineligible activities Page 3
VI Loan terms and conditions Page 4
VII Guidelines for application, approval and servicing Page 5
VIII Right of refusal Page 7
IX Post approval process Page 7
X Delinquency and Default Page 9
XI Recaptured funds Page 10
Economic Development Authority meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Resolution approving Two Percent Loan Program modifications and agreement with NextStage Page 7
1
Two percent loan program
I.The program
The Two Percent (2%) Loan Program provides low interest loans to businesses and property
owners improving, renovating, or expanding their buildings and purchasing property within St.
Louis Park. The program aims to provide a flexible gap funding tool to enable businesses in
the city to complete projects they may not be able to fully fund from conventional sources so
as to further enhance the city’s economic success, vibrancy and historic character.
This program is designed to accomplish the following:
•Fill collateral and Loan to Value gaps to enable investment and improvement projects to
move forward.
•Incentivizing businesses to make further investments and improvements to business
properties.
•Encourage building/property repairs, improvements, and expansions by providing
financing at reduced cost.
•Enable businesses to grow and become more successful.
•Foster a greater sense of place within the city.
•Attract additional businesses, patrons and visitors.
•Diversify the city’s commercial business offerings and provide additional employment
opportunities.
•Fulfill the strategic directions outlined in St. Louis Park’s Vision 4.0.
II.How the program works (terms and conditions)
•NextStage, a non-profit small business lender provides at least 50% of the loan at the
lender’s rate considering loan type, term and risk factors. If the loan is provided solely for
a Grease Trap Project (as defined below), the EDA shall provide 100% of the principal loan
funds; neither NextStage nor a private lender shall provide principal funds for the loan.
•St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (EDA) provides up to half of the loan
principal, or an amount not to exceed $74,999, at two percent interest. The minimum loan
amount is $10,000. For loans only for Grease Trap Projects, the EDA provides 100% of the
loan principal; the minimum loan amount for Grease Trap Projects is $5,000 and the
maximum loan amount for Grease Trap Projects is $25,000.
•All work financed by the loan must comply with all state and local laws and regulations
pertaining to licensing, permits, building codes, zoning and environmental requirements.
•Loan term is set by NextStage, and can be for up to 10 years.
•Applicants must repay the loan and be an acceptable credit risk.
•Applicants agree to meet with a NextStage business advisor for ongoing business
counseling at least twice a year for the first three years of the loan term and annually for
the remainder of the loan term.1
1 This requirement does not apply for loans that are only for Grease Trap Projects.
Economic Development Authority meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Resolution approving Two Percent Loan Program modifications and agreement with NextStage Page 8
2
III.Eligible applicants
•All businesses located within the City of St. Louis Park.
•The applicant may be individual owners, partnerships, corporations, tenant operators,
non-profit organizations (on a case by case basis).
•In the case where the leaseholder is the applicant, written permission of the property
owner is required for physical alterations to the building along with a valid lease that
covers the term of the loan.
IV.Eligible activities; costs
The following activities and costs are eligible for financing under this Program:
•Purchase and/or renovation of a building
•Building construction. Construction of a new building and/or an addition to an existing
building
•Lighting
•Windows
•Walls, ceilings, floors
•Roofing
•Plumbing
•Electrical
•Mechanical Systems and air conditioning
•Sustainable building improvements such as energy efficient windows and doors, HVAC and
renewable energy equipment as well as low flow plumbing fixtures,
•All work on the front and sides of business buildings facing public streets
•Masonry repairs and other façade improvements
•Repairing or replacing of cornices, entrances, doors, windows, decorative details and
awnings
•Sign removal, repairing or replacement
•Architectural design services for plans and specifications
•Parking lots, including lighting, surfacing and landscaping
•Building identification/signage
•Handicap access improvements
•Streetscape costs not financed by special assessment
•Other items that are viewed necessary to complement the exterior of the building
•Purchase of machinery and equipment. Purchase of major items of machinery and
equipment independent of land and buildings (These items must be defined to have a
useful life of at least 10 years.)
•Leasehold improvements. Loan funds may be used for certain leasehold improvements
provided the lease is equal to, or greater than, the term of the loan
•Grease Trap Projects: Installation of a fat, oil and/or grease interceptor system (a “Grease
Trap”) at a restaurant, as required by Minnesota Rules, Part 4714 of the Minnesota
Plumbing Code, to prevent blockages and obstructions to the sewer system.
Economic Development Authority meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Resolution approving Two Percent Loan Program modifications and agreement with NextStage Page 9
3
Grease Trap Projects: An applicant may apply for a loan for only a Grease Trap Project, or
may include a Grease Trap Project in a larger loan application that includes other eligible loan
activities. If the eligible loan activities include, but are not limited to, a Grease Trap Project,
then the normal 2% loan guidelines apply. If the loan is for a stand-alone Grease Trap Project,
the following conditions apply to the loan:
•Minimum loan amount of $5,000;
•Maximum loan amount of $25,000;
•EDA provides 100% of loan funds; no matching funds are required; The loan
term is set by the EDA; and
•NextStage will act as the loan servicer.
* Exterior façade and streetscape activities shall follow the recommendations of the design
guidelines that have been adopted for the area the property is located in.
V.Ineligible applicants, activities and costs
The following applicants, projects, activities, and costs are ineligible for financing through the
2% Loan Fund.
A.Ineligible applicants: Applications from the following entities will not be considered for
financing:
•Home-based businesses
•Auto repair and gas stations
•Check cashing businesses
•Gambling organizations
•Gun shops
•Pay day loan businesses
•Off sale liquor stores
•Pawn shops
•Sexually oriented businesses
•Speculative real estate
•Tattoo parlors
•Tobacco shops, vapor shops or hookah lounges
•Warehouses
B.Ineligible activities: Applications to finance the following activities will not be considered
for financing:
•Any work started prior to loan closing.
•Any work on a building being repaired on a speculative basis where the property
owner is not, or does not plan to be, a primary occupant and/or no tenant has been
secured.
•Activities that place extraordinary demands on city services.
•Activities that are inconsistent with St. Louis Park Vision 3.0 including those considered
Economic Development Authority meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Resolution approving Two Percent Loan Program modifications and agreement with NextStage Page 10
4
to create environmental concerns in the opinion of the local, state, or federal
governments due to the type of operation or processes involved in the business
operation.
•Activities that continue and/or expand nonconforming uses.
•Any activity deemed illegal by federal, state, or local law or ordinance.
•Activity that is not performed by a licensed contractor. Work performed by the
business owner is not eligible.
C.Ineligible costs: Ineligible costs include, but are not limited to, developer fees,
management fees, financing costs, franchise fees, debt repayment or consolidation,
moving costs, refinancing, operating costs, working capital, work completed prior to loan
closing, or rent payments.
VI.Loan terms and conditions
Loans provided under the 2% Loan Program shall be subject to the following terms and
conditions.
A.Maximum and minimum loan amounts for eligible projects:
1.Maximum loan amount. The maximum loan available from the Program for each
eligible project is limited to $74,999 or 50% of total project cost, whichever is less. The
maximum loan amount for loans for Grease Trap Projects only is $25,000.
2.Minimum loan amount. The minimum loan amount available from the loan fund for
each eligible project is $10,000. The minimum loan amount for loans for Grease Trap
Projects only is $5,000.
B.Interest rate: NextStage financed portion of the loan will be determined at the time of the
loan application and funding. Interest rates will fluctuate with the Prime rate, and will be
subject to other factors (collateral, borrower credit/strength, etc.). The St. Louis Park EDA’s
loan interest rate is fixed at two percent for the term of the loan.
C.Term: The loan term is set by Next Stage and can be for up to 10 years. For Grease Trap
Projects only, the term of the loan is set by the EDA.
1.Balance due upon sale. All balances will be due and payable if and when the loan
recipient sells or otherwise transfers any or part or his/her interest in the property or
fails to meet any of the guidelines established within this document before the
maturity date of the loan or relocates any part or all of the business outside the City of
St. Louis Park.
2.Should the business cease operations, reduce services, or significantly alter the
improvements funded through this loan within one year of the date the loan
agreement is signed, repayment to the EDA for the entire loan amount will be
required.
3.EDA loans made to a tenant without ownership interest in the property shall be
Economic Development Authority meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Resolution approving Two Percent Loan Program modifications and agreement with NextStage Page 11
5
payable in full upon expiration or termination of their lease to the premises, or
cessation of operations in those facilities.
D.Equity participation: Total Financing for the purpose of acquiring fixed assets - including
real property, equipment and leasehold improvements- shall not exceed 90% of total
acquisition cost. This requirement does not apply to loans provided for Grease Trap
Projects only
E.Collateral requirements: All loan agreements will be secured by one or more of the
following determined on a case by case basis by the EDA and NextStage;
1.a promissory note,
2.mortgage, or
3.security agreement as required by the EDA.
F.Letters of commitment: Letters of commitment from all funding sources, if applicable,
must be submitted for the application to be deemed complete.
G.Personal guaranty: Personal guaranties of persons with an ownership interest of 20% or
greater are required. Personal guaranties of persons with ownership interest between 5%
to 19% may be required by the EDA but are discretionary.
H.Loan repayments: Loan payments must begin within one month of funding of the loan.
The EDA may make exceptions to this rule on a case-by-case basis.
I.Loan prepayment: Prepayments in whole or in part are permitted at any time. Prepayment
shall be in equal to the principal amount to be repaid plus accrued interest to the date of
prepayment.
J.Notice of award or denial: Applicants will be notified by the EDA in writing not more than
fourteen (14) business days after final action has been taken on their 2% Loan fund
application.
K.Loan closing documents: The EDA will close in conjunction with NextStage loan closing and
NextStage will facility loan closing.
L. Post-closing amendments and modifications: Requests for amendments and modifications
following award, closing or disbursement of funds to the underwriting of the original
request require EDA and NextStage approval, and shall be initiated through NextStage.
M.Loan denial: The EDA will not make a loan if it determines the loan amount would place an
undue burden on the financial resources of the borrower or the borrower cannot
demonstrate adequate financial capacity to repay the loan or the EDA determines that
making the loan is not in the best interest of the city or EDA.
Economic Development Authority meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Resolution approving Two Percent Loan Program modifications and agreement with NextStage Page 12
6
N.Business subsidy: EDA loans of $74,999 or above are subject to the provision of the
Business Subsidy Act.
VII. Guidelines for application approval and servicing
NextStage will administer the 2% Loan Program. Loans will be made with a minimum 50%
participation from NextStage, unless the loan is for a Grease Trap Project. The process for
application approval and servicing follows:
A. All applicants shall first contact NextStage to obtain information about the 2% Loan
Program and discuss the project.
B.The applicant shall work with NextStage to determine if proposed project and associated
costs meet eligibility guidelines for EDA Funding under the 2% program.
C.The NextStage shall meet with EDA staff to discuss the project, confirm eligibility, and
obtain applicable application forms. EDA staff shall provide preliminary approval to
proceed to formal application submission.
D.The applicant shall complete and submit respective application forms, and other
requested documents and materials deemed necessary to evaluate the request for
funding to NextStage.
E.At closing the applicant shall pay an origination fee of 1.0% on the portion of loan funds
provided by the EDA, payable to NextStage in addition to any origination and/or other
loan fees charged by NextStage.
F.NextStage will administer the program and serve as underwriter for the 2% Loan
Program. The application will be reviewed by the NextStage and EDA staff to determine
conformity to all city and EDA policies and ordinances and to consider the following:
1.The availability and applicability of other governmental grants and/or loan
programs.
2.Whether the proposed project will result in conformance with building and zoning
codes.
3.Whether it is desirous and in the best interests of the public to provide funding for
the project.
G.NextStage will review each application for completeness and determine its consistency
with the goals of the 2% loan program as enumerated above.
H.In the event there is ambiguity of an application’s conformance with the program’s
guidelines, the proposed application will be brought to the EDA for further discussion.
Economic Development Authority meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Resolution approving Two Percent Loan Program modifications and agreement with NextStage Page 13
7
I.NextStage and EDA staff will evaluate the project application in terms of the following:
1.Project Design: Evaluation of project design will include review of proposed activities,
timelines and a capacity to implement.
2.Financial Feasibility: Availability of funds, private involvement, financial packaging and
cost effectiveness.
•Appropriate ratio of private funds to EDA funds.
•Sufficient cash flow to cover proposed debt service as demonstrated by
financial statements and projections.
•Ability to demonstrate sufficient collateral, pledge of assets, outside guarantor or
other secondary source for repayment in the event of default.
•Letter of Commitment from applicant pledging to complete the project during
proposed project duration, if the loan application is approved.
•Letter of Commitment from other financing sources stating terms and
conditions of their participation in the project if applicable.
•Project compliance with all city codes and policies.
•All other information as required in the application and/or additional information
as may be requested by the EDA and NextStage.
3.NextStage will recommend the approval, denial, or request a resubmission to EDA
staff. A recommendation from NextStage will be forwarded to the EDA staff for final
action.
VIII.Right of r efusal
The EDA may deny any project, at the sole discretion of the EDA and will deny financing for any
project which, in its opinion, conflicts with or does not conform to the guidelines established in
this document.
IX.Post-approval process
A.Approval: If approved, the applicant will be sent a written commitment letter that will
outline the terms and conditions of the loan approval. A copy of the commitment letter
will be signed by the borrowers and guarantors signifying acceptance of the terms and
conditions of the loan proposal and the conditions for funding. Upon the return of the
executed commitment letter, EDA staff will begin the loan closing process with the EDA’s
legal counsel.
B.Closing: NextStage’s legal counsel will prepare documentation. NextStage will coordinate
the closing with the borrower or the borrower’s counsel.
C.Loan Servicing: NextStage shall service both the EDA and matching loans for this program.
The EDA 2% and matching NextStage loans shall share a priority position on all collateral,
pledged assets and guarantees, and will apply all regular principal payments, pre-
payments, and recoveries on an equal/pro-rated basis. When servicing EDA loans,
NextStage will comply with loan program requirements and in accordance with prudent
Economic Development Authority meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Resolution approving Two Percent Loan Program modifications and agreement with NextStage Page 14
8
and commercially reasonable lending standards.
NextStage is responsible for routine servicing including receipt and review of the
borrower's or operating company's financial statements on an annual or more frequent
basis and monitoring the status of the borrower and 2% loan collateral.
NextStage will respond to borrower requests for loan modifications following approval
of the EDA.
For any 2% loan that is more than three months past due- and for any program
borrower for whom NextStage intends to initiate default or collection proceedings-
NextStage will promptly notify the EDA that the loan should be placed in liquidation
unless the 2% loan has an EDA approved deferment or is in compliance with an EDA-
approved plan to allow the borrower to catch up on delinquent loan payments.
NextStage will work with the EDA and borrower to cure defaults and initiate workouts.
1.Monitoring: NextStage staff will monitor loans for compliance with the accepted terms
and conditions including job creation statistics and wage and benefit levels.
NextStage is responsible for monitoring that the borrower maintains all required
insurance coverages and has paid all taxes when due.
NextStage is responsible for filing renewals and extensions of security interests on
collateral for the 2% loan, as required.
2.Reports: NextStage will provide quarterly portfolio reports to the EDA.
3.Records: Computer files and conventional paper files will be maintained for the
purpose of documenting, tracking, and monitoring program and loan activities and will
be maintained by the EDA and NextStage staff
a.Program records: The following program information will be maintained in the
project file, including but not limited to:
i.Environmental report;
ii.Eligibility determination records;
iii.Property inspection report;
iv.Progress reports;
v.Credit Memo;
vi.Correspondence;
vii.Loan documents; and
viii.Executed loan agreement and security documents including evidence of
any mortgage recorded with Hennepin County and a filed UCC with the
Minnesota Secretary of State in connection with any security agreement
Economic Development Authority meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Resolution approving Two Percent Loan Program modifications and agreement with NextStage Page 15
9
b.Financial records: The following financial information will be maintained in each
Loan file, including but not limited to:
i.Copy of the executed loan agreement and loan documents;
ii.Disbursement data;
iii.Progress reports;
iv.Repayment data.
4.Record retention: All program and financial records, supporting documents, statistical
records, environmental review records and other records pertinent to the 2% loan
program shall be maintained for a period of at least six (6) years from the final project
report and project closeout date.
X.Delinquency and Default
The following is the notification procedure for delinquent loans:
A.The city finance department is responsible for the timely posting of all loan repayments.
B.Thirty (30) day notice: Upon thirty (30) days delinquency, NextStage will notify the
economic development manager of the delinquency and shall send the borrower a
delinquency notice requesting payment within fifteen (15) days. A copy of the letter shall
be forwarded to the EDA Executive Director.
C.Forty-five (45) day notice: If payment has not been received by the 45th day a second
delinquency notice will be sent to the borrower by NextStage requesting payment within
fifteen (15) days. A copy of the letter shall be forwarded to the economic development
manager and EDA Executive Director.
D.Sixty (60) day notice: If payment has not been received by the 60th day, NextStage will
attempt to contact the borrower by telephone to address the delinquency. NextStage shall
also send a notice of default to borrower via certified mail requesting immediate payment
and advising the borrower the delinquency will be placed on the EDA agenda for
discussion at an upcoming meeting.
E.Ninety (90) day notice: If no repayment plan is submitted by the borrower, or if there is no
attempt by the borrower to negotiate the amount due, NextStage will contact the EDA
Executive Director \ prior to sending a 90 day letter calling due the loan in full.
F.Negotiation: Throughout this process, every attempt will be made to preserve the
company, the jobs, and the loan funds.
G.The EDA may take all actions it deems appropriate to attempt to collect on loans in
default.
Economic Development Authority meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Resolution approving Two Percent Loan Program modifications and agreement with NextStage Page 16
10
XI.Recaptured funds
Loan repayments shall be deposited into the city’s Development Fund. These recaptured funds
are available to other applicants for utilization as gap financing for certain approved economic
development projects. The 2% Loan Program shall be administered by a financial management
system in compliance with all state and federal requirements.
All Program guidelines are subject to change without notice.
Economic Development Authority meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Resolution approving Two Percent Loan Program modifications and agreement with NextStage Page 17
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: June 1, 2026
Consent agenda item: 4c
Executive summary
Title: Resolution approving ATD Holdings notice of default - Ward 3
Recommended action: Motion to adopt EDA resolution to file a lawsuit against ATD Holdings,
LLC for default on the Two Percent Loan issued by the EDA.
Policy consideration: Should the EDA file a lawsuit against ATD Holdings, LLC for the default on
the Two Percent Loan?
Summary: In March 2019, the Economic Development Authority (EDA) adopted the Two
Percent Loan Program in partnership with the Minnesota Consortium of Community Developers
(MCCD) to provide low-interest loans to businesses and property owners for building
improvements, renovations, expansions and property acquisition in St. Louis Park. The program
was designed to make investment more affordable for small businesses and encourage
business growth and reinvestment in the community.
ATD Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, applied for and was approved for a
$74,999 loan through the Two Percent Loan Program in April 2024. The loan was intended to
fund a portion of the costs associated with improving and equipping the property located at
6727 Walker Street, St. Louis Park.
Monthly principal and interest payments of $2,148.19 to MCCD were scheduled to begin on
Sept. 15, 2024. ATD Holdings, LLC has failed to make any of the required payments. The EDA
and MCCD have made numerous attempts to contact ATD Holdings, LLC regarding the
outstanding balance; those efforts have been unsuccessful and the loan remains unpaid.
Staff and Kutak Rock, the EDA’s legal counsel, recommend the EDA approve the proposed
resolution which authorizes the EDA to pursue legal action against ATD Holdings, LLC to recover
the outstanding loan funds.
Financial or budget considerations: Approximately $15,000 - $25,000 for legal fees associated
with the lawsuit.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a city that delivers reliable
services, uses city resources responsibly, operates transparently and builds strong relationships
with residents.
Supporting documents: EDA resolution
Prepared by: Jase Pater, economic development specialist
Reviewed by: Jennifer Monson, planning and economic development manager
Sean Walther, deputy community development director
Karen Barton, EDA executive director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Economic development authority meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: Resolution approving ATD Holdings notice of default - Ward 3
EDA Resolution No. 26-___
Relating to filing lawsuit against ATD Holdings, LLC
Whereas, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and the Minnesota
Consortium of Community Developments have attempted without success, efforts to collect
Two Percent Loan payment from ATD Holdings, LLC; and
Whereas, ATD Holdings, LLC applied for and was approved for a $74,999 loan through
the Two Percent Loan Program in April 2024 and have failed to make the required payments,
Now therefore be it resolved by the board of commissioners of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority as follows:
1. The board hereby authorizes staff of the authority to take the necessary legal
actions against ATD Holdings, LLC for the unpaid loan.
2. The Economic Development Authority’s legal counsel, Kutak Rock, 60 South Sixth
Street, Suite 300, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, is directed to proceed with the
necessary legal action related to the unpaid loan.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority June 1, 2026:
Karen Barton, executive director Yolanda Farris, president
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, secretary
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: June 1, 2026
Presentation: 3a
Executive summary
Title: Proclamation observing the 250th anniversary of the United States of America
Recommended action: Mayor to read proclamation observing the 250th anniversary of the
United States of America.
Policy consideration: None.
Summary: This milestone event is an opportunity to honor the aspirations expressed at the
nation’s founding and reflect on how those ideals have inspired generations to work toward a
more just and inclusive society. As we observe this anniversary, we recognize the importance of
rededicating ourselves to the shared work of building a community and nation where every
person feels belonging, safety and opportunity.
Residents can honor the 250th anniversary of the United States of America and the 140th
anniversary of the origins of St. Louis Park with events throughout the summer, including the
fireworks celebration on July 3, 2026, and many others. Find information on the city website,
social media, in city publications and through the St. Louis Park Historical Society.
Financial or budget considerations: None; all activities are planned as part of existing events.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being an inclusive, equitable and
vibrant city where everyone feels safe and experiences a strong sense of belonging.
Supporting documents: Resource page, Proclamation
Prepared by: Amanda Scott-Lerdal, deputy city clerk
Reviewed by: Jacque Smith, communications and technology director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Proclamation observing the 250th anniversary of the United States of America
Resource page
Honoring the nation’s 250th anniversary can balance celebrating its founding ideals with
thoughtful acknowledgement of the struggles, challenges and diverse experiences that have
shaped the nation’s story. This includes acknowledging the system of settler colonialism that
contributed to the exclusion, erasure and continued marginalization of Indigenous Peoples
through broken treaties, policies of land removal and laws that criminalized Indigenous culture,
language, religion and ways of life. It also includes an acknowledgement that much of the built
infrastructure throughout the United States and Minnesota is a result of the forced labor of
enslaved Black people through a system of chattel slavery. The United States has benefited
from the labor and contributions of Black people, Indigenous people, People of color and
immigrants. By acknowledging these realities, we can fully reflect on the 250 years of the
United States, with all its struggles, mistakes, accomplishments and moments of celebration.
Residents can honor and reflect on the 250th anniversary of the United States of America and
the 140th anniversary of the origins of St. Louis Park in the following ways:
• Attend community events:
o Find city-hosted events on the city’s website and social media; in the Park
Perspective and the Parks & Recreation catalog.
o Attend the annual fireworks celebration July 3, 2026 from 7 – 10:30 p.m. at
Aquila Park
o Share your memories of St. Louis Park with the St. Louis Park Historical Society in
advance of the city’s 150th anniversary in 2036. Email slphistory@gmail.com for
more information.
• Learn more about recognition of the 250th anniversary of the United States of America:
o The Federal Register: Year of Celebration and Rededication, 2026
o Congressional Celebration of Anniversaries of the Declaration of Independence
o The Minnesota Historical Society: America 250 Resources
o Explore Minnesota: How to Celebrate America 250 in Minnesota | Explore
Minnesota
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Title: Proclamation observing the 250th anniversary of the United States of America
Proclamation observing the
250th anniversary of the United States of America
Whereas, the year 2026 marks the 250th anniversary of the United States of America,
commemorating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776; and
Whereas, this anniversary is an opportunity to reflect upon our nation’s democratic
ideals of liberty, representative government and equality while also thoughtfully acknowledging
the struggles, challenges and diverse experiences that have shaped the nation’s story; and
Whereas, the 250th anniversary is also an occasion to recognize the ongoing work
necessary to strengthen our democracy for future generations and in pursuit of “a more perfect
Union;” and
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park celebrates this national milestone alongside our own
local history, inviting residents to take part in community-wide summer events — including
Parktacular, concerts, cultural gatherings, and the annual fireworks celebration — and to share
stories with the St. Louis Park Historical Society; and
Whereas, these celebrations highlight both our pride in community and our collective
responsibility to ensure that the next chapters of our city and country reflect the democratic
ideals of liberty, representative government and equality for all people,
Now therefore, let it be known that the mayor and city council of the City of St. Louis
Park do hereby recognize the United States of America’s 250th anniversary and encourage all
residents to engage in learning, reflection and community events this summer.
Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the
Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be
affixed this 1st day of June, 2026.
_________________________________
Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: June 1, 2026
Presentation: 3b
Executive summary
Title: Proclamation observing Immigrant Heritage Month
Recommended action: Mayor to read proclamation observing Immigrant Heritage Month in St.
Louis Park.
Policy consideration: None.
Summary: Immigrant Heritage Month has been observed annually since 2014 as an opportunity
for Americans to recognize how closely immigration is entwined with the past and present of
the United States. More than the physical movement of people, the history of immigration in
the United States includes the movement of culture, language, religion and overall ways of life;
calling upon the message inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
St. Louis Park is committed to being a city where everyone experiences a strong sense of
belonging, including immigrants. Our city is a member of Welcoming America and works to
engage all residents in helping advance belonging throughout our city.
Financial or budget considerations: None.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being an inclusive, equitable and
vibrant city where everyone feels safe and experiences a strong sense of belonging.
Supporting documents: Resource page
Proclamation
Prepared by: Jocelyn I Hernandez Guitron, racial equity and inclusion specialist
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Title: Proclamation observing Immigrant Heritage Month
Resource page
In observance of Immigrant Heritage Month, the City of St. Louis Park invites you to:
• Connect with community resources
o Community Resources | St. Louis Park, MN
• Learn about immigrants, their experiences and their journeys
o Key findings about U.S. immigrants | Pew Research Center
o Housing, Jobs and the Local Economy: Operation Metro Surge’s Long-term
Impacts to People and Prosperity in Minnesota - McKnight Foundation
• Understand the challenges immigrants face
o KFF/New York Times 2025 Survey of Immigrants: Worries and Experiences Amid
Increased Immigration Enforcement | KFF
o During ICE surge Minnesota immigrants share their stories from hiding | MPR
News
o Minneapolis immigrants grapple with economic impact of ICE crackdown : NPR
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Title: Proclamation observing Immigrant Heritage Month
Proclamation Observing
"Immigrant Heritage Month”
Whereas, Minnesota has a long history of being a landing place for migrants from across
the world. In the 1890s, 40% of Minnesotans were born outside of the United States and by
1896, official voting instructions were offered in nine different languages to include the Czech,
English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Polish and Swedish communities; and
Whereas, immigrants are our family members, neighbors, colleagues, business owners,
doctors, teachers, community leaders and more, contributing to what makes our state and city
a great place to live and work; and
Whereas, our community came together to support and protect immigrants during
heightened federal immigration enforcement where immigrants faced targeted harassment
and many feared leaving their homes. Neighbors stepped up and coordinated grocery pickup,
transportation for children and overall support for people and businesses; and
Whereas, Immigrant Heritage Month is ever more relevant as migrants are criminalized
and dehumanized by federal level policies that have caused fear and persecution within our
schools, workplaces and community towards citizens and non-citizens because of the way they
look, the language they speak, and their national origin or ancestry; and
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park encourages our community to learn about
immigration and do their part to build a community where immigrants have respect, dignity
and safety,
Now therefore, let it be known that the mayor and city council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, observe June 1st as Immigrant Heritage Month 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
1st day of June 2026.
_________________________________
Nadia Mohamed
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: June 1, 2026
Presentation: 3c
Executive summary
Title: Proclamation observing LGBTQ+ Pride Month
Recommended action: Mayor to read proclamation recognizing June 2026 as Pride Month.
Policy consideration: None
Summary: Pride Month is observed annually in June to recognize the LGBTQ+ (Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Transgender and Queer+) community and their history, contributions and
achievements. Pride Month provides an opportunity to advance and deepen the St. Louis Park
community’s commitment to fight against discrimination and injustice everywhere.
June is the anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall Inn Riot, which led to the gay liberation
movement and the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement in the United States. The first Pride
marches were held to commemorate this historic moment the following June in 1970 in four
cities in the United States: New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago.
President Bill Clinton officially declared June as “Gay and Lesbian Pride Month” in 1999.
President Barack Obama expanded the official recognition in 2011 to include the many
identities across the LGBTQ+ community. President Joe Biden recognized Pride Month in 2021
and the celebration of LGBTQ+ culture and identity has since grown into a global celebration.
The City of St. Louis Park first recognized Pride Month by proclamation in 2023.
Financial or budget considerations: None.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being an inclusive, equitable and
vibrant city where everyone feels safe and experiences a strong sense of belonging.
Supporting documents: Resource page
Proclamation
Prepared by: Jocelyn I. Hernandez Guitron, racial equity and inclusion specialist; LGBTQ+
Employee Resource Group
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Title: Proclamation observing LGBTQ+ Pride Month
Resource page
In Pride month, the City of St. Louis Park invites you to:
• Learn about the history of LGBTQ+ communities in our state
o LGBTQ History in Minneapolis | Meet Minneapolis
o Over the Rainbow: Queer and Trans History in Minnesota | MNopedia
o Glossary of Terms - Human Rights Campaign (hrc.org)
• Consider supporting or attending an event or exhibit that highlights Pride and LGBTQ+
communities
o Golden Valley Pride Festival
o Hopkins Pride Festival
o Upcoming Events – Twin Cities Pride
o Events — Queermunity MN
• Connect with LGBTQ+ organizations in Minnesota
o OutFront Minnesota
o Twin Cities Pride (tcpride.org)
o Minnesota Council on LGBTQIA2S+ Minnesotans
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Title: Proclamation observing LGBTQ+ Pride Month
Proclamation
“Pride Month 2026”
Whereas, LGBTQ+ communities exist as an integral part of the diversity that makes St.
Louis Park a great place to experience life; and
Whereas, discrimination has no home in St. Louis Park and our city proudly stands for
human rights regardless of gender identity or sexuality; and
Whereas, this month celebrates the diverse stories and resilience of Americans with
varying sexual orientations and gender identities such as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender,
Queer, Intersex, Asexual, Two Spirit, Pansexual and many intersecting identities; and
Whereas, LGBTQ+ community members from all walks of life have helped create a more
just and inclusive community for all and have strengthened our community and supported each
other during hardship, including impacts from Operation Metro Surge; and
Whereas, Pride Month is an opportunity to learn about how the LGBTQ+ community
continues to experience higher rates of poverty, violence, harassment and discrimination; and
Whereas, Pride is celebrated by those who are out, those not yet out, and the people
who love and support them because everyone’s pride belongs in St. Louis Park; and
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park reaffirms our commitment to challenge sexism,
phobias and prejudice amid efforts to undermine LGBTQ+ rights; and
Whereas, St. Louis Park strives to be a community where our LGBTQ+ community
members feel safe and experience a strong sense of belonging,
Now therefore, let it be known that the mayor and city council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, hereby honor June 2026 as Pride month in our community.
Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the
Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be
affixed this 1st day of June 2026.
________________________________
Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: June 1, 2026
Minutes: 4a
Unofficial minutes
City council meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
May 18, 2026
1. Call to order.
Mayor pro tem Farris called the meeting to order at 6:21 p.m.
a. Pledge of Allegiance.
Scout Troop 282 led the Pledge of Allegiance.
b. Roll call.
Council members present: Daniel Bashore, Jim Engelking, Sue Budd, Tim Brausen, Paul
Baudhuin, Mayor pro tem Yolanda Farris
Council member absent: Mayor Nadia Mohamed
Staff present: city manager (Ms. Keller), deputy city manager (Ms. Walsh)
2. Approve agenda.
It was moved by Council Member Baudhuin, seconded by Council Member Brausen, to approve
the agenda as presented.
The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Mohamed absent).
3. Presentations
a. Proclamation honoring William E. Davies
Mayor pro tem Farris read the proclamation, which recognized William E. Davies for his
contributions to the St. Louis Park community and highlighted his achievement as an inaugural
recipient of the Vietnam Veterans “Service Beyond Service Award” in 2026. The proclamation
recognized his military service with the U.S. Army, during which Mr. Davies earned the Bronze
Star and the Army Commendation Medal for Meritorious Service. The proclamation also
recognized his decades of community involvement with the St. Louis Park Rotary, American
Legion Post 282, Voiture 1281, District 5059, the St. Louis Park Senior Center, the St. Louis Park
Football Association for Youth, the St. Louis Park Little League and VFW Post 435.
Mr. Davies addressed the council and acknowledged his wife Kay and friends in attendance,
including members of the American Legion. He shared that his name was submitted by a fellow
legion member for the “Service Beyond Service” Award. Mr. Davies received notice of the
award on March 12, 2026, and was invited to attend the award ceremony at the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., which he was unable to attend due to health
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: City council meeting minutes of May 18, 2026
challenges. He noted he was one of 49 recipients selected nationwide and the only recipient
from Minnesota in the award's inaugural year.
Council Member Brausen expressed gratitude for Mr. Davies' service and noted the city was
fortunate to have residents of his caliber.
Council Member Baudhuin thanked Mr. Davies for his service and reflected on the complexity
of the Vietnam War, noting the clear commitment and humility of those who served.
Mayor pro tem Farris expressed her admiration for Mr. Davies' service and ongoing
contributions to the community.
Ms. Keller shared that she has known Mr. Davies through the St. Louis Park Rotary for
approximately five years and considers him a friend. She emphasized that as the inaugural year
of the award, Mr. Davies is among only 49 recipients ever recognized. She highlighted the reach
of his community service and noted that whether they know Mr. Davies or not, many St. Louis
Park residents have been impacted by his contributions.
b. Recognition of donations
4. Minutes.
a. Study session meeting minutes of April 27, 2026
b. City council meeting minutes of May 4, 2026
c. Special study session meeting minutes of May 4, 2026
It was moved by Council Member Budd, seconded by Council Member Engelking to approve the
April 27, 2026 study session; May 4, 2026, city council and special study session meeting
minutes as presented.
The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Mohamed absent).
5. Consent Items
a. Resolution No. 26-071 accepting donation to the city for the fire department
b. Resolutions No. 26-072, 26-073, 26-074, 26-075, 26-076 and 26-077 authorizing intent
to reimburse with bond proceeds for 2026 debt-issued projects
c. Approve professional services agreement for 2028 Surface Water Management Plan
update
d. Resolution No. 26-078 approving 2026 -2028 LELS Local #482 Police Lieutenant labor
agreement
e. Resolution No. 26-079 to amend final plat of Minnetonka Boulevard Twin Homes
subdivision - Ward 1
f. Approve temporary seasonal premises amendment for liquor establishment
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Title: City council meeting minutes of May 18, 2026
Council Member Brausen noted that the donation in item 5a consisted of nearly $59,000 in
smoke detectors to the fire department. He shared that the fire department offers to install
smoke detectors in residents' homes as part of their safety programs.
Mayor pro tem Farris confirmed that the fire department does make home visits for detector
installation.
Council Member Baudhuin highlighted item 5e and expressed enthusiasm for the Minnetonka
Boulevard Twin Homes project as it moves forward.
Council Member Brausen noted item 5d and commended the human resources department for
maintaining productive labor agreement relationships. He also recognized the police
lieutenants for having reached the new employment agreement with the city.
It was moved by Council Member Budd, seconded by Council Member Bashore, to approve the
consent items as listed; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Mohamed absent).
6. Public hearings - none.
7. Regular business – none.
8. Communications and announcements – none.
Mayor pro tem Farris announced that the city council retreat previously scheduled to follow the
city council meeting this evening was being rescheduled to a future date.
Ms. Keller announced that the city is engaging residents of the Aquila and Texa-Tonka
neighborhoods through an online survey to better understand how they are experiencing the
impacts of climate change. Residents of these neighborhoods were encouraged to complete the
survey and to contact city sustainability staff for a link.
Ms. Keller also announced that the state legislature passed a bonding bill including $5,100,000
for the Oxford/Louisiana area investment project. She noted this is part of a $16,000,000
project scheduled for construction in 2029 and 2030 near the hospital. The project is focused
on critical infrastructure, transportation safety, flood mitigation and neighborhood
connectivity.
She credited the legislative delegation, council lobbying efforts and city staff for securing the
funding.
9. Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 6:39 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor
These minutes were created with the assistance of a generative AI transcript service, then edited
and finalized by a city staff person.
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: June 1, 2026
Minutes: 4b
Unofficial minutes
Special study session meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
May 18, 2026
The meeting convened at 5:15 p.m.
Council Members present: Daniel Bashore, Jim Engelking, Tim Brausen, Paul Baudhuin, Sue
Budd, Mayor pro tem Yolanda Farris
Council Members absent: Mayor Nadia Mohamed
Staff present: city manager (Ms. Keller), redevelopment administrator (Mr. Porter-Nelson),
planning and economic development manager (Ms. Monson), deputy community development
director (Sean Walther), communications and technology director (Ms. Smith), public works
director (Mr. Hall), financial analyst (Ms. Stephens)
Guests: Nawal Noor, Noor Companies; Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers; Kori Shingles, PCL Construction;
Cathy Capone Bennett, Twin Cities Housing Alliance; Richard Kolodziejski, Northern Midwest
Regional Council of Carpenters
Discussion Item
1. Prevailing wage policy panel discussion
Mr. Porter-Nelson presented the staff report. He outlined the two policy considerations before
the council: whether adopting a prevailing wage policy furthered the city's strategic priorities,
and whether the council wanted staff to prepare the policy for adoption. He explained that
prevailing wage sets minimum hourly compensation standards for construction laborers based
on trade-specific schedules covering wages and fringe benefits, and that Minnesota's
Department of Labor and Industry sets those rates by county. Projects in St. Louis Park subject
to state or federal funding already use Hennepin County wage schedules.
Mr. Porter-Nelson stated that the council previously directed staff to draft a policy applying
prevailing wage to capital improvements or private developments receiving more than
$250,000 in city investment. The draft policy included exceptions for: projects already subject
to state or federal prevailing wage requirements, apprentices (consistent with state law),
housing improvement areas, and developments with 10 or fewer units on a single site.
Compliance would be overseen by a city-designated officer, with certified payroll tracking
required, at least one random annual project audit and a public complaint process.
Mr. Porter-Nelson summarized anticipated cost impacts as ranging from 5% to 15% per project
depending on the contractor and project type. He noted that the policy could reduce the
number of city-supported capital improvements or increase costs if project volume was
maintained, potentially requiring additional tax revenue, utility rate adjustments or expanded
tax increment financing (TIF) assistance.
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Special study session meeting minutes of May 18, 2026
Mr. Porter-Nelson also presented the racial equity and inclusion impact analysis (REIA), which
identified a potential reduction in participation by women- and BIPOC-owned firms due to
administrative burden. He noted that a review of five buildings across two active developments
in St. Louis Park showed 0% to 8% women workforce participation and 4% to 15% BIPOC
participation, meaning the primary beneficiaries of the policy as currently structured would be
the majority-male, majority-white construction workforce on those projects.
Ms. Monson introduced the panel. Ms. Monson reported that prevailing wage policies are
uncommon among individual cities in the Twin Cities metro and that only Minneapolis, St. Paul,
West St. Paul, Bloomington, Brooklyn Park and Richfield had adopted them. She noted that
Bloomington and Brooklyn Park adopted theirs in 2024 and had not yet seen mixed-use or
mixed-income projects advance under those policies.
Ms. Capone Bennett stated that adding a prevailing wage requirement on top of existing cost-
generating policies - including inclusionary zoning, green building requirements and tree
preservation - made it harder for private and emerging developers to make projects financially
viable. She noted that some developers had already declined to pursue projects in cities with
prevailing wage policies because the numbers did not work, and that she had heard from St.
Louis Park developers who were already challenged to make market-rate projects feasible even
with TIF and affordable housing trust fund assistance.
Ms. Kvilvang stated that increased project costs resulting from prevailing wage requirements
would ultimately be borne by St. Louis Park taxpayers, since developers would seek additional
public assistance to fill the gap. She noted that prior to the city's inclusionary housing policy, TIF
district terms averaged four years or less, but had since grown to an average of 10 to 15 years,
and that adding prevailing wage could push those terms to 20 years or the full 26-year
maximum. She also noted that some cities with prevailing wage policies, including Bloomington
and West St. Paul, were seeking exemptions for redevelopment projects due to cost challenges.
Mr. Kolodziejski stated that prevailing wage had a positive deterrent effect on labor brokers in
cities where it had been adopted. He disputed the commonly cited figure that prevailing wage
increases costs by 20%, noting that more than 70% of studies on the subject showed that claim
to be inaccurate. He argued that significantly lower bids on construction projects were typically
the result of wage theft, off-the-books cash payment, failure to pay workers' compensation and
exploitation of workers. He stated these were not genuine cost efficiencies. He cited a recent
$1.2 million settlement in the City of Eagan involving wage theft and a related criminal guilty
plea as an example of the ongoing problem. When prevailing wage was applied to low-income
housing tax credit projects at the state level, the use of labor brokers dropped almost
immediately.
Ms. Kvilvang stated that workers were the primary beneficiaries of prevailing wage but noted
that a large proportion of workers on multifamily developments in the city were already union
and therefore already meeting prevailing wage standards. She cautioned that a prevailing wage
policy alone would not necessarily stop wage theft.
Mr. Kolodziejski reiterated that the broader community benefited when construction workers
were paid fair wages, as those workers paid taxes and participated in the local economy. He
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Title: Special study session meeting minutes of May 18, 2026
stated that the prevailing wage rate in Minnesota for carpenters applied equally to multifamily
and commercial work.
Ms. Capone Bennett agreed with points raised by both Ms. Kvilvang and Mr. Kolodziejski but
emphasized that the compliance burden fell disproportionately on smaller and emerging
developers who lacked established systems to meet reporting requirements.
Ms. Shingles noted that as a large national contractor, PCL had the internal infrastructure to
manage prevailing wage compliance, but that smaller and minority- or women-owned
subcontractors frequently did not. She stated that in her role as PCL's community engagement
and diversity, equity and inclusion manager, she had personally assisted small contractors with
their paperwork because they lacked the staff capacity to do so. She suggested the council
consider what other tools, such as contractor selection criteria, might address wage theft
concerns without imposing a blanket policy.
Ms. Kvilvang stated that low-income housing tax credit projects already carried prevailing wage
requirements, and that the resulting costs had driven per-unit construction costs to
approximately $500,000. She also noted that some developers were declining grants from the
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) and county sources
because the prevailing wage requirements attached to those grants made the math
unworkable.
Ms. Noor spoke from the perspective of a private development and construction firm. She
stated that tax credit affordable housing projects were delivering units at $500,000 to $700,000
per unit compared to $230,000 to $250,000 for market-rate units, with prevailing wage
representing approximately 30% to 40% of that cost differential. She noted that subcontractors
treated prevailing wage projects as carrying additional paperwork burden, including certified
payroll, LCP Tracker reporting and Department of Labor compliance, which added legal
complexity and expense. She also cautioned that applying prevailing wage to economic
development projects involving small businesses could make simple façade improvements or
restaurant expansions three times more expensive than anticipated.
Ms. Noor suggested the council consider alternative tools such as contractor pre-qualification
based on compliance history rather than imposing a blanket cost requirement.
Mr. Kolodziejski stated that the Fair Contracting Foundation of Minnesota was the primary
third-party organization tracking prevailing wage compliance, and that his organization had
maintained its own database of contractor and subcontractor activity on construction sites
across the Twin Cities for 15 years. He described the Building Dignity and Respect Program as a
worker-led model originating from advocacy for farm workers.
Ms. Shingles stated she was not familiar with the Building Dignity and Respect Program and
raised the question of who would bear the cost of engaging a third-party compliance
organization, noting it would be more burdensome for smaller contractors than for large firms.
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Title: Special study session meeting minutes of May 18, 2026
Ms. Capone Bennett stated that TIF was one of the most flexible tools available to the city and
that attaching prevailing wage to TIF-funded projects reduced that flexibility, particularly for
market-rate projects that included inclusionary zoning components.
Ms. Shingles thanked the council for approaching the issue thoughtfully and with diverse
perspectives and reiterated that other measures in the contractor selection process might be as
or more effective than a prevailing wage policy.
Ms. Kvilvang noted that the policy placed a cost burden on one sector while workers in other
fields received no similar benefit.
Ms. Noor stated that the region was well-served by large union contractors who already paid at
or above prevailing wage, and that the segment most affected by a city prevailing wage policy
would be market-rate multifamily developers, small economic development projects and
affordable housing projects — the very projects the city sought to encourage. She suggested
the council evaluate whether the additional cost was proportionate to the benefit. Ms. Noor
offered alternative tools such as best-value contractor selection criteria with points awarded to
diverse or locally established firms to address underlying concerns.
Mr. Kolodziejski stated that the real costs of not having a prevailing wage policy included wage
theft, lack of tax contributions from exploited workers, law enforcement involvement and harm
to workers who could not spend money locally. His position was that certified payroll
requirements were reasonable for any business and that prevailing wage created a better city
overall despite the acknowledged barriers.
Ms. Shingles asked Mr. Kolodziejski whether a prevailing wage policy addressed the root cause
of exploitation or only a symptom. She suggested the council examine deeper structural
solutions alongside any policy.
Mr. Kolodziejski offered that when prevailing wage was applied to tax credit projects, the use of
labor brokers declined almost immediately, demonstrating a direct causal effect.
Ms. Noor added that wage theft enforcement, including criminal prosecution, was a more
direct tool than cost-adding policy requirements, and suggested that contractor pre-
qualification based on compliance history could achieve similar goals without increasing project
costs.
Council Member Baudhuin asked whether a prevailing wage policy could be used as leverage to
increase participation by BIPOC and women workers, and whether any city had pursued such an
approach. Ms. Noor stated that affirmative action quota-based requirements were under legal
challenge following federal executive action in January 2025 and advised against that approach.
She suggested instead a best-value contractor selection process that awarded points to small,
diverse or women-owned businesses as a legally defensible alternative.
Council Member Baudhuin also asked whether data existed on the percentage of St. Louis Park
residents working in the construction trades, so the council could assess how many local
residents would directly benefit from a prevailing wage policy.
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4b) Page 5
Title: Special study session meeting minutes of May 18, 2026
Mr. Kolodziejski stated his organization could look into that question.
Ms. Noor stated that based on her experience, most construction trade workers tended to live
outside the metro area rather than in cities like St. Louis Park.
Mr. Kolodziejski noted that among carpenters and laborers specifically, women and BIPOC
membership had reached 37.63% in the Twin Cities market and that the union had members
living in St. Louis Park but acknowledged that carpenters and laborers represented only a
fraction of all trades involved in a typical construction project.
Council Member Bashore stated he was open to hearing what other tools existed to prevent
wage theft and exploitation. He noted that in the absence of explicit alternatives, he was
generally inclined to support moving forward while agreeing with Council Member Baudhuin’s
suggestion for further study session discussion.
Council Member Budd stated she believed adopting a prevailing wage policy furthered the city's
strategic priorities. She cited prior instances in St. Louis Park where workers on mixed-income
developments had been employed illegally, noting that those situations had prompted protests,
and that the council had also faced feedback about a major developer with a history of labor
violations. She stated that federal, state and many other entities already required prevailing
wage and did so because it represented good governance, not because it raised taxes.
Council Member Baudhuin stated he was not prepared to decide firmly in either direction. He
did not want the policy to die at the study session stage and asked that the draft policy receive
further council discussion before any vote on adoption. He stated he was willing to indicate
support for preparing the policy for adoption on the condition that a dedicated policy
discussion occur first.
Council Member Brausen stated he was concerned about long-term costs to residents, citing
budget pressures and the desire to keep taxes and utility fees low. He was willing to continue
discussion but wanted to explore whether labor brokers could be regulated separately. He
stated he was undecided on prevailing wage.
Council Member Engelking stated that the staff report indicated many contractors on city
projects paid livable wages but not prevailing wages. He noted that a livable wage as calculated
by MIT for Hennepin County was still low enough that a worker building an apartment in St.
Louis Park could qualify for a 60% Area Media Income subsidized unit in that same building. He
stated he did not want to redevelop the city on the backs of labor and expressed strong support
for both policy considerations.
Mayor pro tem Farris stated she was not comfortable adopting a prevailing wage policy at this
time, citing the existing high cost of living in St. Louis Park and the impact on seniors and lower-
income residents. She expressed openness to further discussion.
Ms. Keller summarized the council's direction as a strong desire to continue the conversation at
a future study session. She noted specific topics to bring back: what other tools exist to address
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 4b) Page 6
Title: Special study session meeting minutes of May 18, 2026
wage theft, what percentage of St. Louis Park residents work in the construction trades and
whether labor brokers could be regulated.
Council Member Budd requested that staff obtain and share with the council the research cited
by Mr. Kolodziejski showing that prevailing wage does not significantly increase costs. Mr.
Kolodziejski agreed to provide that material to staff.
Council Member Bashore requested that staff seek perspectives from Bloomington and
Brooklyn Park on the impacts of their prevailing wage policies, noting he was not convinced
that the absence of mixed-use development in those cities was directly caused by the policy.
Ms. Monson acknowledged that staff have already reached out to other cities that have
prevailing wage policies but that staff from other cities were not interested in participating in a
public panel discussion, but that council members or staff could reach out to these cities
informally to gain more perspective on this question. Ms. Kvilvang noted she was currently
advising on a project in Brooklyn Park where prevailing wage had extended the required TIF
assistance from a five-year tax abatement to an 18-year district and offered that as a concrete
example of cost impact.
Written Reports
2. Climate Leadership and Natural Spaces system kick-off
3. Solid waste program update
4. Construction & demolition waste reduction
5. Update on the Climate Action Plan amendment
6. Climate action annual report
7. Connected infrastructure system wrap-up
8. Wooddale Station redevelopment update - Ward 2
9. Revisiting proclamation guidelines
The meeting adjourned at 6:17 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor
These minutes were created with the assistance of a generative AI transcript service, then edited
and finalized by a city staff person.
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: June 1, 2026
Consent agenda item: 5a
Executive summary
Title: Approve city disbursements
Recommended action: Motion to approve city disbursement claims for the period of April 29 -
May 26, 2026.
Policy consideration: Does the city council approve city disbursements for the period ending
May 26, 2026?
Summary: The finance department prepares this report monthly for the city council to review
and approve. The attached report shows both city disbursements paid by physical check and
those by wire transfer or Automated Clearing House (ACH) when applicable.
Financial or budget considerations: Review and approval of the information by council is
required by the city charter and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal
stewardship.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Disbursement summary
Prepared by: Estela Mulugeta, accounting specialist
Reviewed by: Joe Olson, deputy finance director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
PAYEE NAME BUSINESS UNIT OBJECT ACCOUNT Total
ACROSS THE STREET PRODUCTIONS Fire Department G&A Training & Conf Regist Fees 1,940.00
ACROSS THE STREET PRODUCTIONS Total 1,940.00
ADVANCED ENG & ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS Water G&A Capital Outlay 6,749.45
Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 34.25
ADVANCED ENG & ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS Total 6,783.70
ALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC Park Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 5,460.00
ALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC Total 5,460.00
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 92.87
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES Total 92.87
ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS Police E-911 Restriction G&A Software License <=12 months 296.00
ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS Total 296.00
ARC DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC Technology G&A Short Term Lease/Rentals Pay 328.04
ARC DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC Total 328.04
ASCENTEK INC General Fund BS Inventory 7,835.13
Vehicle Maintenance G&A Recycling Utility 195.00
ASCENTEK INC Total 8,030.13
ASPEN MILLS Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 3,630.70
ASPEN MILLS Total 3,630.70
AXON ENTERPRISE, INC.Technology G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 41,570.99
AXON ENTERPRISE, INC. Total 41,570.99
BAY WEST LLC Water Reilly G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 3,608.75
BAY WEST LLC Total 3,608.75
BLAINE AREA PET HOSPITAL P.A Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 35.04
BLAINE AREA PET HOSPITAL P.A Total 35.04
BOLTON & MENK INC Franchise Fees G&A Capital Outlay 270.60
Sewer G&A Capital Outlay 30.75
Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,260.00
Storm Water Utility G&A Capital Outlay 5,726.70
Water G&A Capital Outlay 264.45
BOLTON & MENK INC Total 7,552.50
BORDER STATES ELECTRIC- MPL Public Works G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 19.00
BORDER STATES ELECTRIC- MPL Total 19.00
BOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 2,290.71
Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 207.10
BOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC Total 2,497.81
BUILDING CONTROLS & SOLUTIONS Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 159.67
Refunds/Reimbursements (159.67)
Repairs, Maint, Serv on Tech 1,116.02
BUILDING CONTROLS & SOLUTIONS Total 1,116.02
BUSINESS ESSENTIALS Comm & Marketing G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 286.48
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
Council Payment Summary
4/26/26-5/26/26
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approve city disbursements Page 2
BUSINESS ESSENTIALS Total 286.48
CAMPBELL KNUTSON,P.A.City Clerk's Office G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 18,414.36
MSA Capital G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,554.25
Water G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 38.36
CAMPBELL KNUTSON,P.A. Total 20,006.97
CANON FINANCIAL Technology G&A Short Term Lease/Rentals Pay 3,848.00
CANON FINANCIAL Total 3,848.00
CAR WASH PARTNERS, INC.Vehicle Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 582.40
CAR WASH PARTNERS, INC. Total 582.40
CBIZ BENEFITS & INSURANCE SERVICES INC Employee Benefits G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,109.50
CBIZ BENEFITS & INSURANCE SERVICES INC Total 1,109.50
CDW GOVERNMENT INC IT G&A Telephone Communications 63.63
Technology G&A Capitalized Tech Hardware 1,592.47
CDW GOVERNMENT INC Total 1,656.10
CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Affordable H Trust G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 71,575.00
Housing Rehab G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,700.00
CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Total 73,275.00
CENTERPOINT ENERGY Facilties Maintenance G&A Heating Gas Utility 6,376.00
Park Maintenance G&A Heating Gas Utility 5,416.10
Sewer G&A Heating Gas Utility 447.31
Water G&A Heating Gas Utility 4,884.03
Water Reilly G&A Heating Gas Utility 289.83
CENTERPOINT ENERGY Total 17,413.27
CENTRAL PENSION FUND Employee Benefits BS Other Retirement Benefit Payab 10,830.00
CENTRAL PENSION FUND Total 10,830.00
CENTURY LINK Technology G&A Other Communications 326.78
CENTURY LINK Total 326.78
CINTAS CORPORATION Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 382.51
Park Maintenance G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 159.50
Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 30.12
Operations Supplies & Mat 355.14
Public Works G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 77.54
Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 234.00
Operations Supplies & Mat 66.18
Vehicle Maintenance G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 134.40
Operations Supplies & Mat 209.85
Water G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 127.36
CINTAS CORPORATION Total 1,776.60
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS RECEIVABLES Police G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,800.00
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS RECEIVABLES Total 1,800.00
COLICH & ASSOCIATES Adminstrative Operations G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 16,073.99
COLICH & ASSOCIATES Total 16,073.99
COMCAST Comm & Marketing G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 195.78
Fire Department G&A Electric Utility 102.84
Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 30.03
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approve city disbursements Page 3
COMCAST Total 328.65
COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA Public Works G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 9,269.06
COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA Total 9,269.06
CORE & MAIN LP Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 5,425.12
CORE & MAIN LP Total 5,425.12
COREMARK General Fund BS Inventory 94.06
COREMARK Total 94.06
CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 119.00
CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER Total 119.00
CUMMINS SALES AND SERVICE Facilties Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 179.47
Sewer G&A Repairs and Maintenance 3,029.51
CUMMINS SALES AND SERVICE Total 3,208.98
DEANS PROFESSIONAL PLUMBING Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 208.00
DEANS PROFESSIONAL PLUMBING Total 208.00
DELEGARD TOOL CO Vehicle Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 225.08
DELEGARD TOOL CO Total 225.08
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY Building and Energy G&A Due to Other Govts (DTOG)7,505.74
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY Total 7,505.74
DO-GOOD.BIZ INC Comm & Marketing G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,119.78
Postage, Delivery, Publishing 8,154.72
Fire Department G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 392.50
REI G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 294.78
Sustainability G&A Postage, Delivery, Publishing 160.00
DO-GOOD.BIZ INC Total 10,121.78
ECM PUBLISHERS INC City Clerk's Office G&A Postage, Delivery, Publishing 432.50
City Council G&A Postage, Delivery, Publishing 102.00
ECM PUBLISHERS INC Total 534.50
EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC General Fund BS Escrows - General 800.00
Hwy 7 Business Center TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 465.00
Park Commons TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 3,565.00
Rise on 7 TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 2,740.00
EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC Total 7,570.00
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE General Fund BS Inventory 2,047.44
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE Total 2,047.44
EMERGENCY TECHNICAL DECON Fire Department G&A Repairs and Maintenance 118.00
EMERGENCY TECHNICAL DECON Total 118.00
ENTERPRISE FM TRUST Vehicle Maintenance G&A Short Term Lease/Rentals Pay 2,766.76
ENTERPRISE FM TRUST Total 2,766.76
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO General Fund BS Inventory 602.07
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO Total 602.07
FAUL PSYCHOLOGICAL PLLC Human Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 5,875.00
FAUL PSYCHOLOGICAL PLLC Total 5,875.00
FERGUSON WATERWORKS Water G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 2,644.66
Operations Supplies & Mat 1,895.71
FERGUSON WATERWORKS Total 4,540.37
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approve city disbursements Page 4
FERRELLGAS Vehicle Maintenance G&A Vehicle Fuels 20.61
FERRELLGAS Total 20.61
FIDELIS SAFETY SOLUTIONS Fire Department G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 375.00
FIDELIS SAFETY SOLUTIONS Total 375.00
FIRE SAFETY USA INC General Fund BS Inventory 2,794.47
FIRE SAFETY USA INC Total 2,794.47
FRATTALLONES Organized Rec G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 2.78
FRATTALLONES Total 2.78
FRIEDERICH NIKKI Organized Rec G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 108.75
FRIEDERICH NIKKI Total 108.75
GRAINGER INC.Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 209.53
GRAINGER INC. Total 209.53
HAWKINS INC Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 37,506.42
HAWKINS INC Total 37,506.42
HENNEPIN COUNTY Greensboro HIA G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 6.00
Water G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 6.00
Bridgewalk HIA G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 6.00
HENNEPIN COUNTY Total 18.00
HENNEPIN COUNTY ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE Fire Department G&A Radio Communications 3,037.40
Park Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 21,137.57
Solid Waste Utility 905.31
Police G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 34,543.15
Radio Communications 4,796.80
Public Works G&A Radio Communications 269.82
Sewer G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 5,209.14
Radio Communications 269.82
Storm Water Utility G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 10,418.28
Radio Communications 269.82
Water G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 5,209.14
Radio Communications 269.82
HENNEPIN COUNTY ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE Total 86,336.07
HOTSY MINNESOTA Vehicle Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 413.30
HOTSY MINNESOTA Total 413.30
I & S GROUP INC Sewer G&A Capital Outlay 430.00
I & S GROUP INC Total 430.00
I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 Employee Benefits BS Union Dues Payable 1,750.00
I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 Total 1,750.00
IMPACT POWER TO CONNECT Sewer G&A Postage, Delivery, Publishing 934.75
Solid Waste G&A Postage, Delivery, Publishing 934.76
Storm Water Utility G&A Postage, Delivery, Publishing 934.76
Water G&A Postage, Delivery, Publishing 934.76
IMPACT POWER TO CONNECT Total 3,739.03
IMPERIAL DADE Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 92.05
Repairs and Maintenance 541.28
IMPERIAL DADE Total 633.33
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approve city disbursements Page 5
INGCO INTERNATIONAL Comm & Marketing G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 343.10
INGCO INTERNATIONAL Total 343.10
INVOICE CLOUD INC Water G&A Misc Expenditures 1,566.60
INVOICE CLOUD INC Total 1,566.60
ISI SPORTS INDUSTRY Rec Center Gen Division G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 33.00
ISI SPORTS INDUSTRY Total 33.00
I-STATE TRUCK CENTER General Fund BS Inventory 360.33
I-STATE TRUCK CENTER Total 360.33
J & F REDDY RENTS Park Maintenance G&A Short Term Lease/Rentals Pay 146.07
J & F REDDY RENTS Total 146.07
J.P SCHMITZ CONSTRUCTION CO LLC Water G&A Repairs and Maintenance 49,421.00
J.P SCHMITZ CONSTRUCTION CO LLC Total 49,421.00
JAYTECH, INC.Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,300.33
JAYTECH, INC. Total 1,300.33
JOHNSON PAPER & SUPPLY CO.Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,523.85
JOHNSON PAPER & SUPPLY CO. Total 1,523.85
JPS HOMES, LLC.Water G&A Utility Refund 390.09
JPS HOMES, LLC. Total 390.09
KFI ENGINEERS Municipal Building & Infra G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 6,289.00
KFI ENGINEERS Total 6,289.00
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC Franchise Fees G&A Capital Outlay 9,385.73
MSA Capital G&A Capital Outlay 30,883.88
Sewer G&A Capital Outlay 335.20
Storm Water Utility G&A Capital Outlay 1,843.63
Water G&A Capital Outlay 5,195.67
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC Total 47,644.11
KINGS III EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS LLC Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 167.42
KINGS III EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS LLC Total 167.42
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES INC Employee Benefits BS Union Dues Payable 4,532.28
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES INC Total 4,532.28
LAWSON PRODUCTS INC Vehicle Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 846.18
LAWSON PRODUCTS INC Total 846.18
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE TRUST Employee Benefits G&A Benefits - Worker Comp 179,849.00
Property Casualty G&A Property Insurance 8,748.85
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE TRUST Total 188,597.85
LEFEVERE JOSEPH Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 420.00
LEFEVERE JOSEPH Total 420.00
LEGEND TECHNICAL SERVICES Water Reilly G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,770.00
LEGEND TECHNICAL SERVICES Total 1,770.00
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS LLC IT G&A Telephone Communications 2,153.90
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS LLC Total 2,153.90
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS Police G&A Software License <=12 months 666.67
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS Total 666.67
LIFE SUPPORT INNOVATIONS Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,172.10
LIFE SUPPORT INNOVATIONS Total 1,172.10
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approve city disbursements Page 6
LOFFLER Technology G&A Short Term Lease/Rentals Pay 1,646.58
LOFFLER Total 1,646.58
LOFFLER COMPANIES INC Technology G&A Short Term Lease/Rentals Pay 313.02
LOFFLER COMPANIES INC Total 313.02
LOGIS Technology G&A Capitalized Tech Software 45.00
Computers/Tech Services 4,775.43
Software G&A Computers/Tech Services 198,382.34
LOGIS Total 203,202.77
M G INCENTIVES Human Resources G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 620.52
M G INCENTIVES Total 620.52
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO Public Works G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,852.18
Vehicle Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 1,261.93
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO Total 3,114.11
MALIK PRAKSHI Cable TV G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 18.19
MALIK PRAKSHI Total 18.19
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY OF GAINSVILLE, INC General Fund BS Inventory 21,752.43
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY OF GAINSVILLE, INC Total 21,752.43
MARIE RIDGEWAY LICSW LLC Police G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,500.00
MARIE RIDGEWAY LICSW LLC Total 1,500.00
MAURER JUSTIN Employee Benefits G&A 6111 5,250.00
MAURER JUSTIN Total 5,250.00
MESSERLI & KRAMER Employee Benefits BS Wage Garnishments Payable 28.29
MESSERLI & KRAMER Total 28.29
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Sewer G&A Water Utility 474,319.79
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Total 474,319.79
MGX EQUIPMENT SERVICES, LLC Vehicles & Equipment G&A Vehicles/Machinery Purch 10,537.00
MGX EQUIPMENT SERVICES, LLC Total 10,537.00
MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CTR Employee Benefits BS Wage Garnishments Payable 1,576.03
MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CTR Total 1,576.03
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 410.85
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Total 410.85
MOMENTUM ADVOCACY LLP Adminstrative Operations G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 8,240.00
MOMENTUM ADVOCACY LLP Total 8,240.00
MR CUTTING EDGE Rec Center Gen Division G&A Repairs and Maintenance 146.00
MR CUTTING EDGE Total 146.00
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO General Fund BS Inventory 6,469.92
Vehicle Maintenance G&A Vehicle Tires 198.63
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO Total 6,668.55
NEWPUBLICA Sustainability G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 5,360.00
NEWPUBLICA Total 5,360.00
NOVACARE REHABILITATION Human Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 185.00
NOVACARE REHABILITATION Total 185.00
OELRICH JETHRO Assessing G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 27.55
OELRICH JETHRO Total 27.55
OFFICE OF MNIT SERVICES IT G&A Capitalized Tech Software 1,158.35
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approve city disbursements Page 7
OFFICE OF MNIT SERVICES Total 1,158.35
ON SITE SANITATION Organized Rec G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 8,128.94
Park Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 134.00
Westwood G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 96.57
ON SITE SANITATION Total 8,359.51
O'REILLY FIRST CALL Vehicle Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 10.63
O'REILLY FIRST CALL Total 10.63
OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY OF THE NORTHLAND Facilties Maintenance G&A Repairs, Maint, Serv on Tech 9,415.00
OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY OF THE NORTHLAND Total 9,415.00
OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY INC Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 959.57
OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY INC Total 959.57
PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES INC Water Reilly G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 677.00
PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES INC Total 677.00
PEPPER BALL Police G&A Training & Conf Regist Fees 1,950.00
PEPPER BALL Total 1,950.00
PMA ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC CITY POOLED INVESTMENTS Misc Expenditures 8,273.71
PMA ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC Total 8,273.71
PRECISE MRM, LLC.Park Maintenance G&A Repairs, Maint, Serv on Tech 1,242.00
PRECISE MRM, LLC. Total 1,242.00
PREMIUM WATERS Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 265.29
PREMIUM WATERS Total 265.29
REPUBLIC SERVICES Facilties Maintenance G&A Solid Waste Utility 11,850.91
Rec Center Gen Division G&A Solid Waste Utility 10,464.31
Solid Waste G&A Organics Utility Expense 162,827.98
REPUBLIC SERVICES Total 185,143.20
ROBERT B HILL CO Rec Center Gen Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 519.48
ROBERT B HILL CO Total 519.48
ROSEVILLE MIDWAY FORD General Fund BS Inventory 345.90
Vehicles & Equipment G&A Vehicles/Machinery Purch 108,956.96
ROSEVILLE MIDWAY FORD Total 109,302.86
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC Vehicle Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 93.00
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC Total 93.00
SETS DESIGN INC.Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 195.00
SETS DESIGN INC. Total 195.00
SHADYWOOD TREE EXPERTS & LANDSCAPING Natural Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 6,986.00
SHADYWOOD TREE EXPERTS & LANDSCAPING Total 6,986.00
SHAPCO PRINTING INC Aquatic Division G&A Postage, Delivery, Publishing 856.55
Comm & Marketing G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,796.81
Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 731.00
SHAPCO PRINTING INC Total 3,384.36
SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, INC.Street Capital G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 4,803.00
SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, INC. Total 4,803.00
SIGNATURE MECHANICAL INC Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 4,170.80
SIGNATURE MECHANICAL INC Total 4,170.80
SLP FF ASSOC IAFF LOCAL #993 Employee Benefits BS Union Dues Payable 3,223.07
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approve city disbursements Page 8
SLP FF ASSOC IAFF LOCAL #993 Total 3,223.07
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC Engineering G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 2,247.87
Sewer G&A Capital Outlay 660.00
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC Total 2,907.87
ST LOUIS PARK SUNRISE ROTARY Adminstrative Operations G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 150.00
ST LOUIS PARK SUNRISE ROTARY Total 150.00
STERICYCLE, INC.City Clerk's Office G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 49.84
Community Development G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 93.80
Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 77.40
Finance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 28.49
Fire Department G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 319.37
Police G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 179.78
Public Works G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 51.81
STERICYCLE, INC. Total 800.49
STRATUS BUILDING SOLUTIONS OF ST. PAUL Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 5,450.00
Park Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 4,200.00
Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 2,850.00
STRATUS BUILDING SOLUTIONS OF ST. PAUL Total 12,500.00
STREICHER'S Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 9,263.69
STREICHER'S Total 9,263.69
SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE General Fund BS Inventory 236.00
SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE Total 236.00
SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC Water Reilly G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 11,406.28
SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC Total 11,406.28
SUSTAINABLE RESOURCES CENTER Affordable H Trust G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 4,902.45
SUSTAINABLE RESOURCES CENTER Total 4,902.45
SYSCO-MINNESOTA INC Rec Center Gen Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,385.33
SYSCO-MINNESOTA INC Total 1,385.33
TENNANT SALES AND SERVICE CO.Facilties Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 406.34
Rec Center Gen Division G&A Repairs and Maintenance 569.10
TENNANT SALES AND SERVICE CO. Total 975.44
TERMINAL SUPPLY CO Vehicle Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 526.18
TERMINAL SUPPLY CO Total 526.18
TERMINIX COMMERCIAL Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,418.30
Park Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 185.80
Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 146.72
TERMINIX COMMERCIAL Total 1,750.82
THE MPX GROUP Comm & Marketing G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 132.00
THE MPX GROUP Total 132.00
THE SIGN PRODUCERS INC Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 73.00
THE SIGN PRODUCERS INC Total 73.00
T-MOBILE USA INC Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 780.00
T-MOBILE USA INC Total 780.00
TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY Park Maintenance G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 85.91
Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 13.20
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approve city disbursements Page 9
TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY Total 99.11
TOTAL MECHANICAL SERVICES, INC.Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 4,673.10
Repairs and Maintenance 5,933.28
TOTAL MECHANICAL SERVICES, INC. Total 10,606.38
TRASH CONTRACORS LLC Solid Waste G&A Yard Waste Utility 85,329.09
TRASH CONTRACORS LLC Total 85,329.09
TREE TRUST Natural Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 4,426.20
TREE TRUST Total 4,426.20
TRI-STATE BOBCAT General Fund BS Inventory 541.46
TRI-STATE BOBCAT Total 541.46
TYSLEY TAYLOR Adminstrative Operations G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 300.00
TYSLEY TAYLOR Total 300.00
VALLEY-RICH CO INC Water G&A Repairs and Maintenance 7,619.49
VALLEY-RICH CO INC Total 7,619.49
VETERAN ELECTRIC Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 875.00
Park Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 530.00
Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 3,461.00
VETERAN ELECTRIC Total 4,866.00
WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC Water G&A Repairs and Maintenance 557.14
WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC Total 557.14
WM CORPORATE SERVICES INC Park Maintenance G&A Solid Waste Utility 1,544.28
WM CORPORATE SERVICES INC Total 1,544.28
WOLD ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS Municipal Building & Infra G&A Capital Outlay 27,760.00
WOLD ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS Total 27,760.00
WSB ASSOC INC Franchise Fees G&A Capital Outlay 819.49
Sewer G&A Capital Outlay 93.13
Storm Water Utility G&A Capital Outlay 149.00
Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 595.50
Water G&A Capital Outlay 800.88
WSB ASSOC INC Total 2,458.00
XCEL ENERGY Facilties Maintenance G&A Electric Utility 15,730.73
Park Maintenance G&A Electric Utility 5,787.30
Public Works G&A Electric Utility 23,108.98
Rec Center Gen Division G&A Electric Utility 17,351.26
Sewer G&A Electric Utility 4,874.60
Storm Water Utility G&A Electric Utility 860.45
Water G&A Electric Utility 244.80
Water Reilly G&A Electric Utility 1,656.66
XCEL ENERGY Total 69,614.78
YOUNG ENV. CONSULTING GROUP, LLC.Storm Water Utility G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 2,106.25
YOUNG ENV. CONSULTING GROUP, LLC. Total 2,106.25
ZIEGLER INC General Fund BS Inventory 17.19
ZIEGLER INC Total 17.19
ZIRING EMILY Sustainability G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 23.98
ZIRING EMILY Total 23.98
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approve city disbursements Page 10
BATTERIES PLUS BULBS General Fund BS Inventory 21.95
BATTERIES PLUS BULBS Total 21.95
CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC General Fund BS Inventory 132.30
Vehicles & Equipment G&A Vehicles/Machinery Purch 6,552.48
CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC Total 6,684.78
CUSHMAN MOTOR CO INC General Fund BS Inventory 123.83
CUSHMAN MOTOR CO INC Total 123.83
HAVERDINK NOAH General Fund BS Escrows - Security 2,000.00
HAVERDINK NOAH Total 2,000.00
OLEVITCH SANFORD & LAURA General Fund BS Escrows - Security 1,500.00
OLEVITCH SANFORD & LAURA Total 1,500.00
RAMSEY COMPONENTS INC General Fund BS Escrows - General 5,000.00
RAMSEY COMPONENTS INC Total 5,000.00
SAFERYAN RAFAEL General Fund BS Escrows - Security 5,000.00
SAFERYAN RAFAEL Total 5,000.00
VOLK MARGARITA General Fund BS Escrows - Security 300.00
VOLK MARGARITA Total 300.00
WAYTEK INC General Fund BS Inventory 37.84
WAYTEK INC Total 37.84
WEBB RICHARD General Fund BS Escrows - Security 2,500.00
WEBB RICHARD Total 2,500.00
ADVOCATES FOR HEALTH Public Saftey Aid G&A Repairs, Maint, Serv on Tech 2,400.00
ADVOCATES FOR HEALTH Total 2,400.00
ROGERS LISA A Adminstrative Operations G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 2,745.00
ROGERS LISA A Total 2,745.00
BJORLING CHRISTOPHER REI G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 991.92
BJORLING CHRISTOPHER Total 991.92
CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK REI G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,000.00
CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK Total 1,000.00
OVERDRESSED REI G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 4,000.00
OVERDRESSED Total 4,000.00
CHUX Human Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 420.25
Organized Rec G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,011.50
CHUX Total 1,431.75
MINNESOTA STATE OF Human Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 125.00
MINNESOTA STATE OF Total 125.00
SAFEASSURE CONSULTANTS INC Human Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 15,210.45
SAFEASSURE CONSULTANTS INC Total 15,210.45
GETTY IMAGES Comm & Marketing G&A Software License <=12 months 3,675.00
GETTY IMAGES Total 3,675.00
GRANICUS LLC Comm & Marketing G&A Software License <=12 months 7,406.77
GRANICUS LLC Total 7,406.77
BLUE NET, INC.IT G&A Telephone Communications 75.00
Technology G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 225.00
BLUE NET, INC. Total 300.00
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approve city disbursements Page 11
FINEPOINT TECHNOLOGY LLC IT G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,552.50
FINEPOINT TECHNOLOGY LLC Total 1,552.50
MASTER TECHNOLOGY GROUP IT G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 310.00
MASTER TECHNOLOGY GROUP Total 310.00
SENSAPHONE IT G&A Telephone Communications 299.40
SENSAPHONE Total 299.40
VERIZON IT G&A Telephone Communications 19,978.16
VERIZON Total 19,978.16
MRUFF STRATEGIES LLC Finance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 3,250.00
MRUFF STRATEGIES LLC Total 3,250.00
SZE LINDA Finance G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 18.13
SZE LINDA Total 18.13
NELSON ANGELA Community Development G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 10.88
NELSON ANGELA Total 10.88
COLE PAPERS Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 352.04
COLE PAPERS Total 352.04
IDEAL COMMERCIAL INTERIORS LLC Facilties Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 352.80
IDEAL COMMERCIAL INTERIORS LLC Total 352.80
LOCKGUARD LOCKSMITHS Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 117.50
Repairs and Maintenance 264.00
Rec Center Gen Division G&A Repairs and Maintenance 2,805.00
LOCKGUARD LOCKSMITHS Total 3,186.50
NORTHLAND MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS INC Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 544.00
Repairs, Maint, Serv on Tech 2,883.79
NORTHLAND MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS INC Total 3,427.79
SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 4,275.08
SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP Total 4,275.08
SPS COMPANIES INC Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 207.58
Park Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 246.40
SPS COMPANIES INC Total 453.98
AT&T Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 175.00
AT&T Total 175.00
BUDGET SIGN Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 66.50
BUDGET SIGN Total 66.50
CM2 SUPPLY Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 35.00
Rec Center Gen Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 22.50
CM2 SUPPLY Total 57.50
CORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE Police G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 12,500.00
CORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE Total 12,500.00
EISEL BRADLEY Police G&A In-State Travel 234.84
EISEL BRADLEY Total 234.84
EVIDENCE SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED Police G&A Training & Conf Regist Fees 875.00
EVIDENCE SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED Total 875.00
KAMPA, MARK Police G&A Training & Conf Regist Fees 175.00
KAMPA, MARK Total 175.00
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approve city disbursements Page 12
LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES INC Police G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 14,086.86
LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES INC Total 14,086.86
LAW ENFORCEMENT TARGETS INC Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 886.35
LAW ENFORCEMENT TARGETS INC Total 886.35
M-THEORY MARTIAL ARTS Police G&A Training & Conf Regist Fees 15,000.00
M-THEORY MARTIAL ARTS Total 15,000.00
NADEM, SIAR Police G&A In-State Travel 67.00
NADEM, SIAR Total 67.00
PERSONNEL EVALUATION INC Police G&A Training & Conf Regist Fees 563.65
PERSONNEL EVALUATION INC Total 563.65
PRECISION DRIVING CENTER Police G&A Training & Conf Regist Fees 1,285.00
PRECISION DRIVING CENTER Total 1,285.00
VINCENT PROMOTIONS LLC Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 3,138.75
VINCENT PROMOTIONS LLC Total 3,138.75
VOLCANIC BIKES Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 10,200.00
VOLCANIC BIKES Total 10,200.00
TALKPOINT TECHNOLOGIES INC Police E-911 Restriction G&A Technology Supplies 188.85
TALKPOINT TECHNOLOGIES INC Total 188.85
WASHINGTON COUNTY Police E-911 Restriction G&A Software License <=12 months 4,827.98
WASHINGTON COUNTY Total 4,827.98
CONWAY SHIELD Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 4,236.12
CONWAY SHIELD Total 4,236.12
DAMA METAL PRODUCTS, INC.Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 375.00
DAMA METAL PRODUCTS, INC. Total 375.00
DECOTEAU WILL Fire Department G&A Out-of-State Travel 2,006.34
DECOTEAU WILL Total 2,006.34
DUAX JACOB Fire Department G&A Out-of-State Travel 161.00
DUAX JACOB Total 161.00
KWIATKOWSKI KIEL A Fire Department G&A Out-of-State Travel 161.00
KWIATKOWSKI KIEL A Total 161.00
MINNCOR INDUSTRIES Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 185.60
MINNCOR INDUSTRIES Total 185.60
MN FIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION BOARD Fire Department G&A Training & Conf Regist Fees 284.00
MN FIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION BOARD Total 284.00
RASMUSSEN SUSAN Fire Department G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 29.29
RASMUSSEN SUSAN Total 29.29
READY WATT ELECTRIC Fire Department G&A Repairs and Maintenance 3,810.00
READY WATT ELECTRIC Total 3,810.00
WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP INC Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 862.62
WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP INC Total 862.62
B&D PLUMBING, HEATING & AC Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 194.00
B&D PLUMBING, HEATING & AC Total 194.00
FOR LIFE HOME DEVELOPMENT LLC Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 2,935.00
FOR LIFE HOME DEVELOPMENT LLC Total 2,935.00
HOME EXPRESS DELIVERY SERVICE LLC Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 85.00
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approve city disbursements Page 13
HOME EXPRESS DELIVERY SERVICE LLC Total 85.00
JOHNSON CONTROLS SECURRITY SOLUTIONS Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 40.63
JOHNSON CONTROLS SECURRITY SOLUTIONS Total 40.63
MIDBROD ELECTRIC INC Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 82.00
MIDBROD ELECTRIC INC Total 82.00
MIDWEST FENCE & MFG. CO.Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 44.00
MIDWEST FENCE & MFG. CO. Total 44.00
MIDWEST MAINTENANCE AND MECHANICAL Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 26.00
MIDWEST MAINTENANCE AND MECHANICAL Total 26.00
Minneapolis Golf Club Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 45.00
Minneapolis Golf Club Total 45.00
NORTH CONSTRUCTION & RESTORATION LLC Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 2,485.00
NORTH CONSTRUCTION & RESTORATION LLC Total 2,485.00
RAMBERG CAITLYN Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 85.00
RAMBERG CAITLYN Total 85.00
SAINDON KAYLIN Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 167.00
SAINDON KAYLIN Total 167.00
SECOR ISAAC Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 45.00
SECOR ISAAC Total 45.00
SHUBEE Building and Energy G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 220.80
SHUBEE Total 220.80
SPIMA ELECTRIC, INC Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 233.01
SPIMA ELECTRIC, INC Total 233.01
USDN Sustainability G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 1,750.00
USDN Total 1,750.00
FRONTIER PRECISION INC Engineering G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 930.70
FRONTIER PRECISION INC Total 930.70
CITY OF SAINT PAUL Public Works G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 2,943.53
CITY OF SAINT PAUL Total 2,943.53
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO Public Works G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,167.02
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO Total 1,167.02
KILLMER ELECTRIC CO INC Public Works G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 5,424.75
KILLMER ELECTRIC CO INC Total 5,424.75
LEOTEK ELECTRONICS USA LLC Public Works G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 6,250.00
LEOTEK ELECTRONICS USA LLC Total 6,250.00
MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS Public Works G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 157.25
Water G&A Capital Outlay 2,332.48
Operations Supplies & Mat 1,974.33
MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS Total 4,464.06
NORTH AMERICAN SAFETY INC Park Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 824.40
Public Works G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,546.53
NORTH AMERICAN SAFETY INC Total 2,370.93
SKB ENVIRONMENTAL INC Public Works G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 706.55
SKB ENVIRONMENTAL INC Total 706.55
TRAFFIC CONTROL CORP Public Works G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 2,270.00
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approve city disbursements Page 14
TRAFFIC CONTROL CORP Total 2,270.00
TREEBIZ LLC Park Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 4,161.66
Public Works G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 4,161.67
Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 4,161.67
TREEBIZ LLC Total 12,485.00
WM MUELLER & SONS INC Public Works G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 3,863.86
Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 3,730.08
WM MUELLER & SONS INC Total 7,593.94
BEMEL SPENCER Climate Investment G&A Climate Grant Disbursement 732.50
BEMEL SPENCER Total 732.50
HIRASUNA DONALD Climate Investment G&A Climate Grant Disbursement 3,000.00
HIRASUNA DONALD Total 3,000.00
HUGHES MICHAEL Climate Investment G&A Climate Grant Disbursement 400.00
HUGHES MICHAEL Total 400.00
MARRUJO WILLIAM Climate Investment G&A Climate Grant Disbursement 832.50
MARRUJO WILLIAM Total 832.50
METRO BLOOMS Climate Investment G&A Climate Grant Disbursement 7,446.00
METRO BLOOMS Total 7,446.00
ALPHA VIDEO AND AUDIO INC Cable TV G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 3,309.41
ALPHA VIDEO AND AUDIO INC Total 3,309.41
ALBERTSSON HANSEN ARCHITECTURE LTD Housing Rehab G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 300.00
ALBERTSSON HANSEN ARCHITECTURE LTD Total 300.00
CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES SSD 1 G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,742.08
CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES Total 1,742.08
BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS Park Improvement G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 64,579.31
Operations Supplies & Mat 8,531.75
Other Capital Expenditures 55,858.69
BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS Total 128,969.75
SCHUMACHER'S Park Improvement G&A Other Fees 1,388.46
SCHUMACHER'S Total 1,388.46
VINELAND TREE CARE Street Capital G&A Capital Outlay 9,677.14
Street Capital BS Retainage Payable 100.41
VINELAND TREE CARE Total 9,777.55
SAFETY SIGNS Sewer G&A Capital Outlay 0.26
Storm Water Utility G&A Capital Outlay 5.54
Street Capital G&A Capital Outlay 72.78
Water G&A Capital Outlay 11.42
SAFETY SIGNS Total 90.00
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING INC Franchise Fees G&A Capital Outlay 4,231.50
Storm Water Utility G&A Capital Outlay 2,278.50
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING INC Total 6,510.00
BECKMANN ROBERT & CHRIS Water G&A Utility Refund 0.99
BECKMANN ROBERT & CHRIS Total 0.99
BIANCA SPALJ Water G&A Utility Refund 259.54
BIANCA SPALJ Total 259.54
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approve city disbursements Page 15
BLACKWELL SUZANNE Water G&A Utility Refund 105.85
BLACKWELL SUZANNE Total 105.85
BRINK-TUSEN AMANDA Water G&A Utility Refund 101.82
BRINK-TUSEN AMANDA Total 101.82
CALIBRATIONS AND CONTROLS INC Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,350.00
CALIBRATIONS AND CONTROLS INC Total 1,350.00
CHARLOTTE SULLIVAN TRUST Water G&A Utility Refund 309.29
CHARLOTTE SULLIVAN TRUST Total 309.29
COLE NATHAN Water G&A Utility Refund 61.01
COLE NATHAN Total 61.01
DOENGES MELISSA Water G&A Utility Refund 6.83
DOENGES MELISSA Total 6.83
EBERT BRIAN & LORI Water G&A Utility Refund 115.67
EBERT BRIAN & LORI Total 115.67
ERIKSON ROY Water G&A Utility Refund 238.05
ERIKSON ROY Total 238.05
ESTATE OF MARILYN SUSSMAN Water G&A Utility Refund 107.36
ESTATE OF MARILYN SUSSMAN Total 107.36
ESTATE OF MARVIN L BLACKMAN Water G&A Utility Refund 110.91
ESTATE OF MARVIN L BLACKMAN Total 110.91
FOLDES STEVEN Water G&A Utility Refund 152.74
FOLDES STEVEN Total 152.74
FREDENBURG ROSS Water G&A Utility Refund 197.36
FREDENBURG ROSS Total 197.36
GILLES DANIEL Water G&A Utility Refund 407.29
GILLES DANIEL Total 407.29
GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC Water G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 7,226.60
GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC Total 7,226.60
GRANQUIST BRIAN Water G&A Utility Refund 191.46
GRANQUIST BRIAN Total 191.46
HAGER MADISON Water G&A Utility Refund 4.12
HAGER MADISON Total 4.12
HECK ALICIA Water G&A Utility Refund 466.96
HECK ALICIA Total 466.96
HELMEKE BRADLEY Water G&A Utility Refund 37.26
HELMEKE BRADLEY Total 37.26
HOOK KENNETH Water G&A Utility Refund 111.25
HOOK KENNETH Total 111.25
IDEAL SERVICE INC Water G&A Repairs and Maintenance 2,067.00
IDEAL SERVICE INC Total 2,067.00
JENSEN BENJAMIN Water G&A Utility Refund 451.55
JENSEN BENJAMIN Total 451.55
JENSEN DANE Water G&A Utility Refund 16.40
JENSEN DANE Total 16.40
JERRICK DAVID Water G&A Utility Refund 39.45
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approve city disbursements Page 16
JERRICK DAVID Total 39.45
JOHNSON KEITH AND SARAH Water G&A Utility Refund 908.19
JOHNSON KEITH AND SARAH Total 908.19
JOHNSON NANCY Water G&A Utility Refund 442.79
JOHNSON NANCY Total 442.79
KLEIN UNDERGROUND LLC Water G&A Repairs and Maintenance 14,777.88
KLEIN UNDERGROUND LLC Total 14,777.88
KLEVEN KAREN Water G&A Utility Refund 137.30
KLEVEN KAREN Total 137.30
KONFRST REBEKAH Water G&A Utility Refund 161.51
KONFRST REBEKAH Total 161.51
KORTERRA, INC.Sewer G&A Software License <=12 months 2,456.66
Storm Water Utility G&A Software License <=12 months 2,456.67
Water G&A Software License <=12 months 2,456.67
KORTERRA, INC. Total 7,370.00
LAPP GENEVIEVE Water G&A Utility Refund 34.21
LAPP GENEVIEVE Total 34.21
LEIN RILEY Water G&A Utility Refund 269.94
LEIN RILEY Total 269.94
LINDILIEN JANE Water G&A Utility Refund 256.40
LINDILIEN JANE Total 256.40
MANAGED SERVICES INC Water G&A Repairs and Maintenance 415.00
MANAGED SERVICES INC Total 415.00
MARXEN ELLIOTT Water G&A Utility Refund 120.05
MARXEN ELLIOTT Total 120.05
MCPHERSON HERSCHEL Water G&A Utility Refund 880.90
MCPHERSON HERSCHEL Total 880.90
MUHLBAUER, RYAN Water G&A Utility Refund 61.40
MUHLBAUER, RYAN Total 61.40
NAUHA SUSAN Water G&A Utility Refund 6.78
NAUHA SUSAN Total 6.78
NEILL KATHERINE Water G&A Utility Refund 102.29
NEILL KATHERINE Total 102.29
NELSON DAVID Water G&A Utility Refund 105.90
NELSON DAVID Total 105.90
NEWSTROM RICHARD Water G&A Utility Refund 68.65
NEWSTROM RICHARD Total 68.65
NIERENGARTEN LEIGH Water G&A Utility Refund 87.33
NIERENGARTEN LEIGH Total 87.33
O'DAY CAITLIN Water G&A Utility Refund 524.89
O'DAY CAITLIN Total 524.89
OLSON GRACE CHARPENTIER Water G&A Utility Refund 119.93
OLSON GRACE CHARPENTIER Total 119.93
ORTMAN ELINOR Water G&A Utility Refund 280.07
ORTMAN ELINOR Total 280.07
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approve city disbursements Page 17
PALASHEWSKI ZAKIA Water G&A Utility Refund 85.46
PALASHEWSKI ZAKIA Total 85.46
PAUL JUDY Water G&A Utility Refund 158.99
PAUL JUDY Total 158.99
POSS ALLISON Water G&A Utility Refund 122.71
POSS ALLISON Total 122.71
REALTY PROS LLC Water G&A Utility Refund 103.28
REALTY PROS LLC Total 103.28
ROSENHAMER BRENDA Water G&A Utility Refund 130.29
ROSENHAMER BRENDA Total 130.29
SAFE-FAST INC Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,285.20
SAFE-FAST INC Total 1,285.20
SCHEIG WILLIAM Water G&A Utility Refund 476.98
SCHEIG WILLIAM Total 476.98
SCHEPMAN HEATHER Water G&A Utility Refund 253.35
SCHEPMAN HEATHER Total 253.35
SCHMIDT JAESON Water G&A Utility Refund 21.57
SCHMIDT JAESON Total 21.57
SENEVIRATNE SHEREEN Water G&A Utility Refund 91.50
SENEVIRATNE SHEREEN Total 91.50
SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP Water G&A Capital Outlay 4,879.35
SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP Total 4,879.35
SIEGEL MARTIN Water G&A Utility Refund 78.48
SIEGEL MARTIN Total 78.48
SILVERMAN JULIE Water G&A Utility Refund 305.87
SILVERMAN JULIE Total 305.87
SMITH CHAIM Water G&A Utility Refund 299.57
SMITH CHAIM Total 299.57
SOLOMON LOISCLAIRE Water G&A Utility Refund 395.97
SOLOMON LOISCLAIRE Total 395.97
STEDMAN, GRETCHEN Water G&A Utility Refund 66.41
STEDMAN, GRETCHEN Total 66.41
STOPPERAN COLTON Water G&A Utility Refund 15.42
STOPPERAN COLTON Total 15.42
THE GARLAND COMPANY, INC Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 451.56
THE GARLAND COMPANY, INC Total 451.56
THOMAS DAVE Water G&A Utility Refund 85.41
THOMAS DAVE Total 85.41
THOMPSON ROSS Water G&A Utility Refund 123.73
THOMPSON ROSS Total 123.73
WALDON GUS Water G&A Utility Refund 36.89
WALDON GUS Total 36.89
WESTWOOD SHOPPING CENTER Water G&A Utility Refund 42.12
WESTWOOD SHOPPING CENTER Total 42.12
WH LLC Water G&A Utility Refund 437.90
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approve city disbursements Page 18
WH LLC Total 437.90
WIDMER CONSTRUCTION LLC Water G&A Repairs and Maintenance 5,960.00
WIDMER CONSTRUCTION LLC Total 5,960.00
BUCKINGHAM TRUCKING LLC Solid Waste G&A Recycling Utility 234,662.35
Refunds/Reimbursements (2,803.85)
Solid Waste Utility 399,810.90
BUCKINGHAM TRUCKING LLC Total 631,669.40
POTTER LAURA Storm Water Utility BS Escrows - General 1,500.00
POTTER LAURA Total 1,500.00
BARE MCKINSEY Storm Water Utility G&A Rainwater Rewards to Resident 50.00
BARE MCKINSEY Total 50.00
HOLMBERG ALEX Storm Water Utility G&A Rainwater Rewards to Resident 50.00
HOLMBERG ALEX Total 50.00
SCHRAM COURTNEY Storm Water Utility G&A Rainwater Rewards to Resident 50.00
SCHRAM COURTNEY Total 50.00
CBIZ INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC. Employee Benefits G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,227.25
CBIZ INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC. Total 1,227.25
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSN Employee Benefits G&A Misc Expenditures 2,781.01
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSN Total 2,781.01
NORDSTROM ARCHITECTURAL SHEET METAL AND Property Casualty G&A Property Insurance 2,205.00
NORDSTROM ARCHITECTURAL SHEET METAL AND Total 2,205.00
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY DMV Vehicles & Equipment G&A Vehicles/Machinery Purch 15,621.82
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY DMV Total 15,621.82
FLEET VEHICLE SOURCE INC Vehicles & Equipment G&A Vehicles/Machinery Purch 142,348.00
FLEET VEHICLE SOURCE INC Total 142,348.00
NORTH COUNTRY CHEVROLET GMC Vehicles & Equipment G&A Vehicles/Machinery Purch 40,480.90
NORTH COUNTRY CHEVROLET GMC Total 40,480.90
NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC Vehicles & Equipment G&A Vehicles/Machinery Purch 1,292.01
NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC Total 1,292.01
ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION Vehicles & Equipment G&A Other Cap Equip Purchased 62,997.87
ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION Total 62,997.87
COUGHLIN, JUDY Organized Rec G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,410.80
COUGHLIN, JUDY Total 1,410.80
GRIMCO INC Organized Rec G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 541.28
GRIMCO INC Total 541.28
WEST, JASON Organized Rec G&A Out-of-State Travel 473.00
WEST, JASON Total 473.00
WHEN I WORK INC Aquatic Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 2,052.00
Organized Rec G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 2,052.00
WHEN I WORK INC Total 4,104.00
GERTEN GREENHOUSES-446133 Park Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 6,082.90
GERTEN GREENHOUSES-446133 Total 6,082.90
HINTON CHANDELLE Park Maintenance G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 220.00
HINTON CHANDELLE Total 220.00
LAWNAGAIN OUTDOOR LLC Park Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 177.04
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approve city disbursements Page 19
LAWNAGAIN OUTDOOR LLC Total 177.04
SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC Park Maintenance G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 1,499.97
SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC Total 1,499.97
WACONIA ROLL-OFF SERVICE Park Maintenance G&A Solid Waste Utility 490.00
WACONIA ROLL-OFF SERVICE Total 490.00
MINNESOTA NATIVE LANDSCAPES Natural Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 14,160.00
MINNESOTA NATIVE LANDSCAPES Total 14,160.00
WILSONS NURSERY INC Natural Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 11,626.38
WILSONS NURSERY INC Total 11,626.38
LIFLAND CARRIE Westwood G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 342.50
LIFLAND CARRIE Total 342.50
NATURE-BASED THERAPEUTIC SERVICES Aquatic Division G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 30.00
Westwood G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 72.00
NATURE-BASED THERAPEUTIC SERVICES Total 102.00
SCHWAB, SARAH Rec Center Gen Division G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 50.00
SCHWAB, SARAH Total 50.00
STATE CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS Rec Center Gen Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 465.79
STATE CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS Total 465.79
VALPAK FRANCHISE OPERATIONS INC Aquatic Division G&A Postage, Delivery, Publishing 1,539.18
VALPAK FRANCHISE OPERATIONS INC Total 1,539.18
GUARDIAN FLEET SAFETY Vehicle Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 1,535.70
GUARDIAN FLEET SAFETY Total 1,535.70
DUNN AND SEMINGTON, LLC ROC Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,635.00
DUNN AND SEMINGTON, LLC Total 1,635.00
Grand Total 3,498,702.78
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approve city disbursements Page 20
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: June 1, 2026
Consent agenda item: 5b
Executive summary
Title: Resolution accepting donations to the city to support the Access to Fun scholarship
program – first quarter
Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution accepting donations totaling $1,386.41 to
the city to support the Access to Fun program.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to accept the donations with restrictions on
their use?
Summary: State statute requires city council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is
necessary in order to make sure the city council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the
use of each donation prior to it being expensed.
Individually listed in Exhibit A, 114 individuals graciously donated an amount of $1,386.41 to
the city. These donations to the city are for the Access to Fun program, which provides financial
assistance for activities to individuals who are experiencing financial hardship. The Access to
Fun donation program was added in 2023 and allows individuals an opportunity to donate an
amount of their choice towards the financial assistance program.
The city recognizes the importance of recreation, and the health and wellness benefits it
provides to people of all ages and offers financial assistance to participate in our recreation
programs. Here is how the program works:
• A family member who lives, works or attends school in St. Louis Park can receive a
maximum of $200 in fee assistance per calendar year and must pay the first 50% of the
activity/program fee.
• Eligibility is based on family size and household income. The program uses the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development income limits for state, federal and local
programs to determine eligibility.
• Special circumstances will be considered if your income exceeds the guidelines or if there
are other extenuating circumstances.
Financial or budget considerations: These donations will be used to provide individuals
financial assistance to participate in parks and recreation programs.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a city that delivers reliable
services, uses city resources responsibly, operates transparently and builds strong relationships
with residents.
Supporting documents: Resolution, Exhibit A
Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, administrative coordinator
Reviewed by: Nikki Friederich, recreation superintendent
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Page 2
Title: Resolution accepting donations to the city to support the Access to Fun scholarship program – first quarter
Resolution No. 26-___
Approving acceptance of donations in the amount of $1,386.41 to the
City of St. Louis Park for the Access to Fun financial assistance program
Be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota as follows:
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is required by state statute to authorize acceptance
of any donations; and
Whereas, the city council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the
donor; and
Whereas, the donation from 114 individuals is given to the city in the total amount
of $1,386.41 to support the Access to Fun financial assistance program,
Now therefore be it resolved, by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park that the gift
is hereby accepted with thanks and appreciation.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council June 1, 2026:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Page 3
Title: Resolution accepting donations to the city to support the Access to Fun scholarship program – first quarter
EXHIBIT A
Donor name Donated amount
Abby Magnus-Lawson $ 5.00
Alex W. Jones $ 10.00
Alexis Taplin $ 10.00
Alison Elizabeth Sharpe-Havill $ 10.00
Alyssa Kennedy $ 10.00
Amy Lyon $ 10.00
Andrea Dye $ 5.00
Annetta P. Wilson $ 5.00
Annie Nolte-Henning $ 10.00
Anthony James $ 100.00
Ashley Catherine Repp $ 2.00
Ashley Schumacher $ 1.00
Barb Roy Hatch $ 5.00
BethAnne Nelson Stolp $ 10.00
Bonnie Theis $ 10.00
Brittany Lomicka $ 100.00
Caitlin Singh $ 20.00
Catherine Lapiska $ 20.00
Clare Goeppner $ 5.00
David Willis Beal $ 10.00
Denise Schepers $ 5.00
Dolma Tsering $ 2.00
Ed Bulliner $ 10.00
Elaine Reise $ 5.00
Ellen Kretz $ 20.00
Emily Anleu $ 6.00
Emily Benz $ 10.00
Emily Rose Herbst $ 5.00
Emily Torell $ 5.00
Emma Clabo $ 2.00
Erik Williams $ 1.00
Erin Gonzalez-Bardzinski $ 10.00
Erin Vork $ 60.00
Felix Brown $ 10.00
Hannah Storm $ 5.00
Jac Coverdale $ 5.00
Jack Chan $ 2.00
Jana Mjor $ 6.00
Jenni Frances Ebert $ 20.00
Jennifer E. Nash $ 24.00
Jon A. Lee $ 5.00
Karen Jean Wettig O'Neill $ 10.00
Karin A. Henningson $ 10.00
Kat Weeden $ 5.00
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Page 4
Title: Resolution accepting donations to the city to support the Access to Fun scholarship program – first quarter
Kate Ann Currie $ 5.00
Kate Yonash $ 1.00
Katherine Arnold $ 10.00
Katherine Davis $ 20.00
Katherine Davis Mize $ 12.00
Katie Hamre $ 5.00
Katie Hiatt Mattila $ 15.00
Katie McMurray $ 5.00
Kelsey Ruedy $ 10.00
Kersten Crate $ 10.00
Kierst Finsand $ 5.00
Krista Machtmes $ 10.00
Kristin Dorn $ 10.00
Laura Ednie Kuipers $ 5.00
Leah Brandmarker $ 6.00
Lee Funke $ 10.00
Lely Beitner $ 10.00
Leslie Yunis $ 1.00
Lianna McLernon $ 5.00
Lily Gilbreath $ 5.00
Linda Jo Hammersten $ 10.00
Lisa K. Burger $ 5.00
Liz Oswood $ 5.00
Madeline Champa $ 1.00
Maggie Shea $ 5.00
Maren K. Anderson $ 10.00
Margaret Flaget-Greener $ 10.00
Margaret T. Schmidt $ 4.00
Maria Romer $ 18.00
Mayura Noordyke $ 5.00
Megan Brooks $ 50.00
Megan Corrick $ 10.00
Megan Ness $ 5.00
Michael Gurevich $ 3.71
Michael James Morrow $ 20.00
Michelle Coleman $ 25.00
Mindy Bolton $ 10.00
Monica Ann Goutsos $ 2.00
Natasha Olson $ 2.00
Nathan Bahr $ 10.00
Nichole Ramalingam $ 6.00
Nick Bishop $ 20.00
Paige Monacelli $ 4.00
Rachel Dachenbach $ 25.00
Rachel Svihel $ 0.70
Rachelle Haroldson $ 50.00
Rebecca Weisenberger $ 20.00
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Page 5
Title: Resolution accepting donations to the city to support the Access to Fun scholarship program – first quarter
Romina Aguado $ 6.00
Sam Batistich $ 10.00
Sandy Nevinski $ 5.00
Sara Pokorny $ 5.00
Sarah Goff-Dupont $ 5.00
Sarah Jane Geistfeld $ 5.00
Sarah Keyzer $ 10.00
Sean Michael Griffin $ 10.00
Shaina Ashare $ 5.00
Shannon Whicker $ 50.00
shira Tabbouche $ 5.00
Shivan Nelson $ 6.00
Sonja Marie Johansen $ 10.00
Sonya Padron $ 5.00
Susan N. Pedrelli $ 50.00
Taylor Williams $ 20.00
Tom G. Musick $ 5.00
Tom Glaser $ 10.00
Tracey Hulstein $ 2.00
Tyler Savat $ 25.00
Walker Bosch $ 20.00
Will Lee $ 10.00
William Rodman $ 10.00
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: June 1, 2026
Consent agenda item: 5c
Executive summary
Title: Resolution approving 2025 calendar year financial transfers to/out other funds
Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution approving 2025 calendar year financial
transfers to/out other fund transfers.
Policy consideration: Does city council approve the 2025 calendar year-end interfund
permanent transfers?
Summary: Annually, a governing body must give authority to make permanent interfund
transfers between city funds. The city’s annual audit for Dec. 31, 2025, annual comprehensive
financial report (ACFR) is concluding with a required submission date to the government
finance officer’s association (GFOA) and office of the state auditor (OSA) on June 30, 2026.
This staff report’s Discussion details the interfund permanent transfers included in this
resolution.
Financial or budget considerations: This resolution affects the 2025 financial statements and all
future budgeted years.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion, Resolution, Exhibit A
Prepared by: Joe Olson, deputy finance director
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Page 2
Title: Resolution approving 2025 calendar year financial transfers to/out other funds
Discussion
Background: Annually, a governing body must give authority to make permanent interfund
transfers between city funds. The city’s annual audit for Dec. 31, 2025 annual comprehensive
financial report (ACFR) is concluding with a required submission date to the government
finance officer’s association (GFOA) and office of the state auditor (OSA) on June 30, 2026.
Below is a detailed listed of all transfers included in the resolution. A table is included as well in
Exhibit A of the attached resolution.
• General fund transfers in $10,369 out from the housing rehabilitation fund to support
overhead expenses
• General fund transfers in $36,717 out from the EDA development fund to support
overhead expenses
• General fund transfers in $2,508,488 out from the city’s enterprise funds, $786,856
water fund, $269,594 solid waste fund, $395,072 storm water fund, and $1,056,966
sewer for general overhead services
• General fund transfers in $3,261,182.88 out from the Special Assessment Cost Recovery
Fund (f.k.a Permanent Improvement Revolving), moving funds to support city-wide
operations and repurposing the PIR fund as a cost recovery special revenue fund from a
capital fund
• General fund transfers in $371,266 out from the Property Causality Internal Service
Fund, transfer to support city-wide operations as well it is determined that the Property
Causality fund had too much cash and investments in the fund
• Development EDA transfers in $966,923.44 out from Redevelopment District (Duke
West End TIF district sub-fund), pooled TIF used related to the Beltline and Terasa
Development projects
• Development EDA transfers in $18,221.10 out from the Capital Fund (Beltline SWLRT
sub-fund), closing subfund as spending for Beltline occurs in the EDA fund and not the
capital subfund
• Debt Service (Bridgewalk HIA debt service sub-fund) transfers in $366,723.33 out from
housing rehabilitation fund to cover debt service expenditures
• Debt Service (2019C taxable GO HIA refunding debt service sub-fund) transfers in
$293,318.33 out from housing rehabilitation fund to cover debt service expenditures
• Debt Service (2012A taxable GO HIA debt service sub-fund) transfers in $88,209.12 out
from housing rehabilitation fund to cover debt service expenditures
• Internal Service Fund (Municipal buildings & Infrastructure fund) transfers in $579,602
out from the General fund to support Capital Improvement Plan Spending
• Internal Service Fund (Employee Benefits fund) transfers in $280,712 out from the city’s
general fund related to personal expenditures
• Internal Service Fund (Vehicle & Equipment) transfers in $2,009,553.54 out from the
General fund to fund capital vehicle and equipment spending
• Internal Service Fund (Vehicle & Equipment) transfers in $68,374.10 out from the Opioid
fund related to past spending on a vehicle for Opioid operations
• Internal Service Fund (Technology) transfers in $1,001,640.50 out from the General fund
to fund city-wide technology spending
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Page 3
Title: Resolution approving 2025 calendar year financial transfers to/out other funds
• Special Service District (SSD #1 sub-fund) transfers in $28,700.00 from the General fund
• Affordable housing trust fund transfers in $2,535,000 from following Redevelopment
Districts related to allowable transfers out of TIF to AHTF in 2025, $775,000 4900
Excelsior TIF District, $600,000 CSM TIF District, $695,000 Mill City TIF District, $250,000
from Wolfe Lake TIF District, $215,000 Aquila Commons TIF District
• Capital fund transfers in $1,634,432.50 out from the EDA Development fund related to
shifting land held for resale to the City. Once the land held for resale is sold, the
proceeds will be transferred to the EDA
• Transfer between Debt Service sub-funds: 2010C general obligation refunding debt
service fund transfers in $5,818.92 out from general obligation bond reserve debt
service fund to cover debt service expenditures
• Transfer between Capital sub-funds: $160,277 from the MSA sub fund to the Street
Capital sub fund to align capital project spending with revenue received
Next steps: The 2025 audit will be presented to the council and finance staff in the coming
months by our auditors, Redpath. In December 2026, the 2027 budget resolution will include a
transfer table as a part of budget adoption.
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Page 4
Title: Resolution approving 2025 calendar year financial transfers to/out other funds
Resolution No. 26-___
Approving 2025 calendar year financial transfers to/out other funds
Whereas, the city approved the following permanent interfund transfers for calendar
year 2025 as shown in Exhibit A;
• General fund transfers in $10,369 out from the housing rehabilitation fund to support
overhead expenses
• General fund transfers in $36,717 out from the EDA development fund to support
overhead expenses
• General fund transfers in $2,508,488 out from the city’s enterprise funds, $786,856
water fund, $269,594 solid waste fund, $395,072 storm water fund, and $1,056,966
sewer for general overhead services
• General fund transfers in $3,261,182.88 out from the Special Assessment Cost Recovery
Fund (f.k.a Permanent Improvement Revolving), moving funds to support city-wide
operations and repurposing the PIR fund as a cost recovery special revenue fund from a
capital fund
• General fund transfers in $371,266 out from the Property Causality Internal Service
Fund, transfer to support city-wide operations as well it is determined that the Property
Causality fund had too much cash and investments in the fund
• Development EDA transfers in $966,923.44 out from Redevelopment District (Duke
West End TIF district sub-fund), pooled TIF used related to the Beltline and Terasa
Development projects
• Development EDA transfers in $18,221.10 out from the Capital Fund (Beltline SWLRT
sub-fund), closing subfund as spending for Beltline occurs in the EDA fund and not the
capital subfund
• Debt Service (Bridgewalk HIA debt service sub-fund) transfers in $366,723.33 out from
housing rehabilitation fund to cover debt service expenditures
• Debt Service (2019C taxable GO HIA refunding debt service sub-fund) transfers in
$293,318.33 out from housing rehabilitation fund to cover debt service expenditures
• Debt Service (2012A taxable GO HIA debt service sub-fund) transfers in $88,209.12 out
from housing rehabilitation fund to cover debt service expenditures
• Internal Service Fund (Municipal buildings & Infrastructure fund) transfers in $579,602
out from the General fund to support Capital Improvement Plan Spending
• Internal Service Fund (Employee Benefits fund) transfers in $280,712 out from the city’s
general fund related to personal expenditures
• Internal Service Fund (Vehicle & Equipment) transfers in $2,009,553.54 out from the
General fund to fund capital vehicle and equipment spending
• Internal Service Fund (Vehicle & Equipment) transfers in $68,374.10 out from the Opioid
fund related to past spending on a vehicle for Opioid operations
• Internal Service Fund (Technology) transfers in $1,001,640.50 out from the General fund
to fund city-wide technology spending
• Special Service District (SSD #1 sub-fund) transfers in $28,700.00 from the General fund
• Affordable housing trust fund transfers in $2,535,000 from following Redevelopment
Districts related to allowable transfers out of TIF to AHTF in 2025, $775,000 4900
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Page 5
Title: Resolution approving 2025 calendar year financial transfers to/out other funds
Excelsior TIF District, $600,000 CSM TIF District, $695,000 Mill City TIF District, $250,000
from Wolfe Lake TIF District, $215,000 Aquila Commons TIF District
• Capital fund transfers in $1,634,432.50 out from the EDA Development fund related to
shifting land held for resale to the City. Once the land held for resale is sold, the
proceeds will be transferred to the EDA
• Transfer between Debt Service sub-funds: 2010C general obligation refunding debt
service fund transfers in $5,818.92 out from general obligation bond reserve debt
service fund to cover debt service expenditures
• Transfer between Capital sub-funds: $160,277 from the MSA sub fund to the Street
Capital sub fund to align capital project spending with revenue received
Now therefore be it resolved by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the 2025
calendar year financial transfers in/out be approved for the completion of the city’s annual
audit and annual comprehensive financial report for December 31, 2025.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council June 1, 2026:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Fund
General EDA - Development Debt Service Capital
Internal Service Funds -
Municipal Buildings &
Infrastructure
Internal Service Funds -
Health Benefit
Internal Service Funds -
Vehicle & Equipment
Internal Service Funds -
Technology
Nonmajor
Governmental - Special
Service District 1
Nonmajor
Governmental - AHTF Totals
Transfers out:
General - - - - 579,602 280,712 2,009,554 1,001,641 28,700 - 3,900,208
Housing Rehabilitation 10,369 - 748,251 - - - - - - - 758,620
Redevelopment District - 966,923 - - - - - - - 2,535,000 3,501,923
EDA - Development 36,717 - - 1,634,433 - - - - - - 1,671,150
Capital - 18,221 - - - - - - - - 18,221
Nonmajor Governmental - Opioid F - -- - - - 68,374 - - - 68,374
Nonmajor Governmental - SA Recov 3,261,183 - - - - - - - - - 3,261,183
Internal Service Funds - Property Ca 371,266 - - - - - - - - - 371,266
Water 786,856 - - - - - - - - - 786,856
Sewer 1,056,966 - - - - - - - - - 1,056,966
Storm Water 395,072 - - - - - - - - - 395,072
Solid Waste 269,594 - - - - - - - - - 269,594
Total transfers in 6,188,023 985,145 748,251 1,634,433 579,602 280,712 2,077,928 1,001,641 28,700 2,535,000 16,059,433
Transfer Out Between Sub-Funds:
Capital 160,277 160,277
Debt Service 5,819 5,819
Total (In/Out)16,225,529
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
Final 2025 Calender Year Transfers
December 31st, 2025
Transfers in
Generally, transfers are used to (1) move revenues from the fund that collects them to the fund that the budget requires to expend them, (2) move receipts restricted to debt service from the funds collecting the receipts to a debt service fund in accordance with bond documents, (3) move funds in accordance with the City’s adopted capital
improvement plan to support project costs, and (4) use unrestricted revenues collected in the General Fund to finance various programs accounted for in other funds in accordance with City policy.
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5c)
Title: Resolution approving 2025 calendar year financial transfers to/out other funds Page 6
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: June 1, 2026
Consent agenda item: 5d
Executive summary
Title: Resolution approving presale of 2026 debt issuance
Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the presale of 2026 General
Obligation Bond of $9,930,000 of which $7,365,000 is funded through future ad valorem dollars
and $2,565,000 funded with future water utility revenue.
Policy consideration: Does the city council approve issuing General Obligation Bond in the
amount of $9,930,000 for construction, water utility costs and police department facility
updates associated with capital improvement projects?
Summary: As part of the 2026 budget process, several projects were approved for funding, in
whole or in part, through bond proceeds. Following further refinement of project cost
estimates, the decisions and developments outlined below have affected the projected need
for bond financing. The city currently has greater bonding capacity available in Fiscal Year 2026
due to the overall timing and volume of capital improvement projects, particularly when
compared to the more constrained borrowing outlook anticipated in 2028 and 2029. In
addition, the Connect the Park trail construction project, estimated at approximately $430,000,
has already been deferred due to competing capital priorities within the area. Advancing
completion of the project in 2026 would now better align with organizational goals and project
timing considerations. These discussions also prompted consideration of other high-priority
capital needs that may be advantageous to finance earlier, given the anticipated constraints
associated with larger project demands in the coming years.
The bond issuance includes funding for Pavement Management projects for 2026 and 2027,
Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue Phase II street construction work, Connect the Park
construction work, as well as work on the police department facility improvements.
Financial or budget considerations: The bonds will be paid back using both ad valorem tax
dollars and utility fee revenue in the estimated annual amount of $700k from future property
tax revenue and $300k from future water utility revenue.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Resolution, Pre-sale report from Ehlers Public Finance Advisors
Prepared by: Tiffany Stephens, interim deputy finance director/financial analyst
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5d) Page 2
Title: Resolution approving presale of 2026 debt issuance
Resolution No. 26-___
Providing for the issuance and sale of General Obligation Bonds, Series 2026A, in
the approximate aggregate principal amount of $9,930,000
Whereas, pursuant to Section 6.15 of the charter (the “charter”) of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota (the “city”) and Minnesota Statutes, chapter 475, as amended (the “municipal
bonding act”), the city is authorized to issue general obligation bonds for any purpose
permitted by state law upon a vote of at least six (6) members of the city council; and
Whereas, the city has determined to undertake various capital projects, including the
improvement and reconstruction of Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue (Phase 2),
improvements to sidewalks, bike trails and trails relating to the city’s Connect the Park project
(4025), road improvement and reconstruction in connection with the city’s pavement
management programs (4026 and 4027), and improvements, renovations and upgrades to the
city’s police department facility (collectively, the “capital projects”); and
Whereas, the city proposes to issue general obligation bonds in the approximate
aggregate principal amount of $7,365,000, pursuant to the city charter and the municipal
bonding act to provide financing for the capital projects; and
Whereas, the city engineer has recommended the construction of various
improvements to the city’s water system, including not limited to watermain and utility
improvements associated with the Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue (Phase 2) project
(the “utility improvements”), pursuant to the municipal bonding act and Minnesota Statutes,
chapter 444, as amended (collectively, the “utility revenue act”); and
Whereas, the city proposes to issue general obligation bonds in the approximate
aggregate principal amount of $2,565,000, pursuant to the utility revenue act to provide
financing for the utility improvements; and
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
1. The city council finds it necessary and expedient to the sound financial
management of the affairs of the city that the city issue its General Obligation Bonds,
Series 2026A (the “bonds”), in the approximate aggregate principal amount of $9,930,000,
pursuant to the city charter, the municipal bonding act, and the utility revenue act (collectively,
the “act”), in order to provide financing for the capital projects and the utility improvements.
2. The city is authorized by Section 475.60, subdivision 2(9) of the act to negotiate
the sale of the bonds, it being determined that the city has retained an independent municipal
advisor in connection with such sale.
3. Ehlers and Associates, Inc., the municipal advisor to the city (the “municipal
advisor”), is authorized and directed to negotiate the sale of the bonds. The city council will
meet at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, July 6, 2026, or such other date selected by the city manager, to
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5d) Page 3
Title: Resolution approving presale of 2026 debt issuance
consider proposals on the bonds and take any other appropriate action with respect to the
bonds.
4. The law firm of Kutak Rock LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, as bond counsel for the
city (“bond counsel”), is authorized to act as bond counsel and to assist in the preparation and
review of necessary documents, certificates and instruments relating to the bonds. The officers,
employees and agents of the city are hereby authorized to assist bond counsel in the
preparation of such documents, certificates, and instruments.
5. In the resolution awarding the sale of the bonds, the city council will set forth
the covenants and undertakings required by the act.
6. In connection with the sale of the bonds, the officers or employees of the city
are authorized and directed to cooperate with the municipal advisor and participate in the
preparation of an official statement for the bonds and to deliver it on behalf of the city upon its
completion.
7. The Internal Revenue Service has issued Treas. Reg. § 1.150-2 (the
“reimbursement regulations”) providing that proceeds of tax-exempt bonds used to reimburse
prior expenditures will not be deemed spent unless certain requirements are met; the city
expects to incur certain expenditures with respect to the capital projects and the utility
improvements that may be financed temporarily from sources other than bonds, and
reimbursed from the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds. The city hereby declares its intent to
reimburse certain costs of the capital projects and the utility improvements from proceeds of
the bonds (the “declaration”) in an amount not to exceed $9,930,000. All reimbursed
expenditures will be capital expenditures, costs of issuance of the bonds, or other expenditures
eligible for reimbursement under Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the reimbursement regulations. This
declaration is an expression of the reasonable expectations of the city based on the facts and
circumstances known to the city as of the date hereof. The anticipated original expenditures for
the capital projects and the principal amount of the bonds described herein are consistent with
the city’s budgetary and financial circumstances. No sources other than proceeds of the bonds
to be issued by the city are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-
term basis, or otherwise set aside pursuant to the city’s budget or financial policies to pay such
expenditures. This declaration is intended to constitute a declaration of official intent for
purposes of the reimbursement regulations.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5d) Page 4
Title: Resolution approving presale of 2026 debt issuance
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by city council
member ______________, and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken
thereon, the following city council members voted in favor thereof:
And the following city council members voted in opposition:
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council June 1, 2026:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
June 1, 2026
PRE-SALE REPORT FOR
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
$9,930,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2026A
Prepared by:
Ehlers
3001 Broadway Street, Suite 320
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Advisors:
Stacie Kvilvang, Senior Municipal Advisor
Jason Aarsvold, Senior Municipal Advisor
Keith Dahl, Senior Municipal Advisor
BUILDING COMMUNITIES. IT’S WHAT WE DO.
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5d)
Title: Resolution approving presale of 2026 debt issuance Page 5
Presale Report
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
June 1, 2026
Page 1
Proposed Issue:
$9,930,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2026A
Purposes:
The proposed issue includes financing for the following purposes:
To finance Phase II of the Cedar Lake and Louisiana road and utility reconstruction, the 2026
pavement management and Connect the Park projects and to finance improvements to the
Police Department Facility.
• Street Reconstruction (Cedar Lake and Louisiana) & Pavement Management -
$5,900,000. Debt service will be paid from ad valorem property taxes.
• Connect the Park - $440,000. Debt service will be paid from ad valorem property
taxes.
• Police Department Facility - $1,000,000 - Debt service will be paid from ad
valorem property taxes.
• Utility Improvements - $2,565,000. Debt service will be paid from water utility
revenues.
Authority:
The Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters:
• 444
• 475
• City Charter
Chapter 444 allows cities to issue debt without limitation as long as debt service is expected
to be paid from water and sewer revenues.
The Bonds count against the Net Debt Limit of 3% of the estimated market value of taxable
property in the City, which is currently $2992.413 million. Including this Bond issue, the City
has $40.680 million in outstanding debt that counts against this limit. This leaves
approximately $258 million in unused debt limit for the City.
The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which its full faith, credit and taxing
powers are pledged.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DEBT
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5d)
Title: Resolution approving presale of 2026 debt issuance Page 6
Presale Report
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
June 1, 2026
Page 2
Term/Call Feature:
The Bonds are being issued for a term of 16 years for all purposes except the utility and
Connect the Park portions which are being issued for a 10-year term. Principal on the Bonds
will be due on February 1 in the years 2028 through 2042. Interest will be due every six months
beginning August 1, 2027.
The Bonds will be subject to prepayment at the discretion of the City on February 1, 2035 or
any date thereafter.
Bank Qualification:
Because the City is expecting to issue no more than $10,000,000 in tax exempt debt during
the calendar year, the City will be able to designate the Bonds as “bank qualified” obligations.
Bank qualified status broadens the market for the Bonds, which can result in lower interest
rates.
Rating:
The City’s most recent bond issues were rated by S&P Global Ratings. The current rating on
those bonds is “AAA”/Stable outlook. The City will request a new rating for the Bonds.
If the winning bidder on the Bonds elects to purchase bond insurance, the rating for the issue
may be higher than the City's bond rating in the event that the bond rating of the insurer is
higher than that of the City.
Basis for Recommendation:
Based on your objectives, financial situation and need, risk tolerance, liquidity needs,
experience with the issuance of Bonds and long-term financial capacity, as well as the tax
status considerations related to the Bonds and the structure, timing and other similar matters
related to the Bonds, we are recommending the issuance of Bonds as a suitable option.
Method of Sale/Placement:
We are recommending the Bonds be issued as municipal securities and offered through a
competitive underwriting process. You will solicit competitive bids, which we will compile on
your behalf, for the purchase of the Bonds from underwriters and banks.
An allowance for discount bidding will be incorporated in the terms of the issue. The discount
is treated as an interest item and provides the underwriter with all or a portion of their
compensation in the transaction.
If the Bonds are purchased at a price greater than the minimum bid amount (maximum
discount), the unused allowance may be used to reduce your borrowing amount.
Premium Pricing:
In some cases, investors in municipal bonds prefer “premium” pricing structures. A premium
is achieved when the coupon for any maturity (the interest rate paid by the issuer) exceeds
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5d)
Title: Resolution approving presale of 2026 debt issuance Page 7
Presale Report
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
June 1, 2026
Page 3
the yield to the investor, resulting in a price paid that is greater than the face value of the
bonds. The sum of the amounts paid in excess of face value is considered “reoffering
premium.” The amount of the premium varies, but it is not uncommon to see premiums for
new issues in the range of 2.00% to 10.00% of the face amount of the issue. This means that
an issuer with a $2,000,000 offering may receive bids that result in proceeds of $2,040,000
to $2,200,000.
For this issue of Bonds we have been directed to review any premium received with staff on
the day of sale to determine if they will retain the premium or use it to reduce the size of the
Bonds. The resulting adjustments may slightly change the true interest cost of the issue, either
up or down.
The amount of premium can be restricted in the bid specifications. Restrictions on premium
may result in fewer bids, but may also eliminate large adjustments on the day of sale and
unintended impacts with respect to debt service payment. Ehlers will identify appropriate
premium restrictions for the Bonds intended to achieve the City’s objectives for this financing.
Review of Existing Debt:
We have reviewed all outstanding indebtedness for the City and find that there are no
refunding opportunities at this time.
We will continue to monitor the market and the call dates for the City’s outstanding debt and
will alert you to any future refunding opportunities.
Continuing Disclosure:
Because the City has more than $10,000,000 in outstanding debt subject to a continuing
disclosure undertaking (including this issue) and this issue does not meet an available
exemption from continuing disclosure, the City will be agreeing to provide certain updated
Annual Financial Information and its Audited Financial Statement annually, as well as
providing notices of the occurrence of certain reportable events to the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board (the “MSRB”), as required by rules of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). The City is already obligated to provide such reports for its existing
bonds, and has contracted with Ehlers to prepare and file the reports.
Arbitrage Monitoring:
The City must ensure compliance with certain sections of the Internal Revenue Code and
Treasury Regulations (“Arbitrage Rules”) throughout the life of the issue to maintain the tax-
exempt status of the Bonds. These Arbitrage Rules apply to amounts held in construction,
escrow, reserve, debt service account(s), etc., along with related investment income on each
fund/account.
IRS audits will verify compliance with rebate, yield restriction and records retention
requirements within the Arbitrage Rules. The City’s specific arbitrage responsibilities will be
detailed in the Tax Certificate (the “Tax Compliance Document”) prepared by your Bond
Attorney and provided at closing.
The Bonds may qualify for one or more exception(s) to the Arbitrage Rules by meeting 1)
small issuer exception, 2) spend down requirements, 3) bona fide debt service fund limits, 4)
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5d)
Title: Resolution approving presale of 2026 debt issuance Page 8
Presale Report
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
June 1, 2026
Page 4
reasonable reserve requirements, 5) expenditure within an available period limitations, 6)
investments yield restrictions, 7) de minimis rules, or; 8) borrower limited requirements.
An Ehlers arbitrage expert will contact the City within 30 days after the sale date to review
the City’s specific responsibilities for the Bonds. The City is currently receiving arbitrage
services from Ehlers in relation to the Bonds.
Investment of Bond Proceeds:
Ehlers can assist the City in developing a strategy to invest your Bond proceeds until the
funds are needed to pay project costs.
Other Service Providers:
This debt issuance will require the engagement of other public finance service providers. This
section identifies those other service providers, so Ehlers can coordinate their engagement
on your behalf. Where you have previously used a particular firm to provide a service, we have
assumed that you will continue that relationship. For services you have not previously
required, we have identified a service provider. Fees charged by these service providers will
be paid from proceeds of the obligation, unless you notify us that you wish to pay them from
other sources. Our pre-sale bond sizing includes a good faith estimate of these fees, but the
final fees may vary. If you have any questions pertaining to the identified service providers or
their role, or if you would like to use a different service provider for any of the listed services
please contact us.
Bond Counsel: Kutak Rock LLP
Paying Agent: Bond Trust Services Corporation
Rating Agency: S&P Global Ratings (S&P)
Summary:
The decisions to be made by the City Council are as follows:
• Accept or modify the finance assumptions described in this report
• Adopt the resolution attached to this report.
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5d)
Title: Resolution approving presale of 2026 debt issuance Page 9
Presale Report
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
June 1, 2026
Page 5
Pre-Sale Review by City Council: June 1, 2026
Due Diligence Call to Review Official Statement and
Conference Call With Rating Agency: Week of June 29, 2026
Distribute Official Statement: Week of June 22, 2026
City Council Meeting to Award Sale of the Bonds: July 6, 2026
Estimated Closing Date: July 28, 2026
Attachments
Estimated Sources and Uses of Funds
Estimated Proposed Debt Service Schedule
Resolution Authorizing Ehlers to Proceed with Bond Sale
EHLERS’ CONTACTS
Stacie Kvilvang, Senior Municipal Advisor (651) 697-8506
Jason Aarsvold, Senior Municipal Advisor (651) 697-8512
Keith Dahl, Senior Municipal Advisor (651) 697-8595
Silvia Johnson, Lead Public Finance Analyst (651) 697-8580
Alicia Gage, Senior Financial Analyst (651) 697-8551
PROPOSED DEBT ISSUANCE SCHEDULE
EHLERS’ CONTACTS
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5d)
Title: Resolution approving presale of 2026 debt issuance Page 10
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
$9,930,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2026A
Issue Summary
Assumes Current Market BQ AAA Rates plus 50bps
Total Issue Sources And Uses
Dated 07/28/2026 | Delivered 07/28/2026
Street
Reconstruction
Connect
the Park Police Station
Water
Revenue
Issue
Summary
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds $5,900,000.00 $440,000.00 $1,025,000.00 $2,565,000.00 $9,930,000.00
Total Sources $5,900,000.00 $440,000.00 $1,025,000.00 $2,565,000.00 $9,930,000.00
Uses Of Funds
Total Underwriter's Discount (1.200%)70,800.00 5,280.00 12,300.00 30,780.00 119,160.00
Costs of Issuance 73,081.57 5,450.14 12,696.38 31,771.91 123,000.00
Deposit to Project Construction Fund 5,755,000.00 430,000.00 1,000,000.00 2,500,000.00 9,685,000.00
Rounding Amount 1,118.43 (730.14)3.62 2,448.09 2,840.00
Total Uses $5,900,000.00 $440,000.00 $1,025,000.00 $2,565,000.00 $9,930,000.00
Series 2026A GO Bonds - P | Issue Summary | 5/21/2026 | 10:41 AM
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5d)
Title: Resolution approving presale of 2026 debt issuance Page 11
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
$9,930,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2026A
Issue Summary
Assumes Current Market BQ AAA Rates plus 50bps
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
07/28/2026 -----
08/01/2027 --349,173.23 349,173.23 -
02/01/2028 460,000.00 3.100%173,143.75 633,143.75 982,316.98
08/01/2028 --166,013.75 166,013.75 -
02/01/2029 650,000.00 3.150%166,013.75 816,013.75 982,027.50
08/01/2029 --155,776.25 155,776.25 -
02/01/2030 675,000.00 3.150%155,776.25 830,776.25 986,552.50
08/01/2030 --145,145.00 145,145.00 -
02/01/2031 695,000.00 3.250%145,145.00 840,145.00 985,290.00
08/01/2031 --133,851.25 133,851.25 -
02/01/2032 715,000.00 3.300%133,851.25 848,851.25 982,702.50
08/01/2032 --122,053.75 122,053.75 -
02/01/2033 745,000.00 3.350%122,053.75 867,053.75 989,107.50
08/01/2033 --109,575.00 109,575.00 -
02/01/2034 765,000.00 3.400%109,575.00 874,575.00 984,150.00
08/01/2034 --96,570.00 96,570.00 -
02/01/2035 795,000.00 3.450%96,570.00 891,570.00 988,140.00
08/01/2035 --82,856.25 82,856.25 -
02/01/2036 820,000.00 3.550%82,856.25 902,856.25 985,712.50
08/01/2036 --68,301.25 68,301.25 -
02/01/2037 845,000.00 3.650%68,301.25 913,301.25 981,602.50
08/01/2037 --52,880.00 52,880.00 -
02/01/2038 510,000.00 3.700%52,880.00 562,880.00 615,760.00
08/01/2038 --43,445.00 43,445.00 -
02/01/2039 535,000.00 3.750%43,445.00 578,445.00 621,890.00
08/01/2039 --33,413.75 33,413.75 -
02/01/2040 550,000.00 3.800%33,413.75 583,413.75 616,827.50
08/01/2040 --22,963.75 22,963.75 -
02/01/2041 575,000.00 3.900%22,963.75 597,963.75 620,927.50
08/01/2041 --11,751.25 11,751.25 -
02/01/2042 595,000.00 3.950%11,751.25 606,751.25 618,502.50
Total $9,930,000.00 -$3,011,509.48 $12,941,509.48 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $83,357.75
Average Life 8.395 Years
Average Coupon 3.6127528%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.7557030%
True Interest Cost (TIC)3.7660726%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.5934679%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.9473408%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 3.6127528%
Weighted Average Maturity 8.395 Years
Series 2026A GO Bonds - P | Issue Summary | 5/21/2026 | 10:41 AM
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5d)
Title: Resolution approving presale of 2026 debt issuance Page 12
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
$9,930,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2026A
Issue Summary
Assumes Current Market BQ AAA Rates plus 50bps
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 105% of Total
Water
Revenue Levy/(Surplus)
02/01/2027 -------
02/01/2028 460,000.00 3.100%522,316.98 982,316.98 1,031,432.83 330,531.68 700,901.15
02/01/2029 650,000.00 3.150%332,027.50 982,027.50 1,031,128.88 325,830.75 705,298.13
02/01/2030 675,000.00 3.150%311,552.50 986,552.50 1,035,880.13 328,723.50 707,156.63
02/01/2031 695,000.00 3.250%290,290.00 985,290.00 1,034,554.50 326,035.50 708,519.00
02/01/2032 715,000.00 3.300%267,702.50 982,702.50 1,031,837.63 328,174.88 703,662.75
02/01/2033 745,000.00 3.350%244,107.50 989,107.50 1,038,562.88 329,839.13 708,723.75
02/01/2034 765,000.00 3.400%219,150.00 984,150.00 1,033,357.50 331,017.75 702,339.75
02/01/2035 795,000.00 3.450%193,140.00 988,140.00 1,037,547.00 326,450.25 711,096.75
02/01/2036 820,000.00 3.550%165,712.50 985,712.50 1,034,998.13 326,807.25 708,190.88
02/01/2037 845,000.00 3.650%136,602.50 981,602.50 1,030,682.63 326,497.50 704,185.13
02/01/2038 510,000.00 3.700%105,760.00 615,760.00 646,548.00 -646,548.00
02/01/2039 535,000.00 3.750%86,890.00 621,890.00 652,984.50 -652,984.50
02/01/2040 550,000.00 3.800%66,827.50 616,827.50 647,668.88 -647,668.88
02/01/2041 575,000.00 3.900%45,927.50 620,927.50 651,973.88 -651,973.88
02/01/2042 595,000.00 3.950%23,502.50 618,502.50 649,427.63 -649,427.63
Total $9,930,000.00 -$3,011,509.48 $12,941,509.48 $13,588,584.95 $3,279,908.18 $10,308,676.77
Significant Dates
Dated 7/28/2026
First Coupon Date 8/01/2027
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $83,357.75
Average Life 8.395 Years
Average Coupon 3.6127528%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.7557030%
True Interest Cost (TIC)3.7660726%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.5934679%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.9473408%
Series 2026A GO Bonds - P | Issue Summary | 5/21/2026 | 10:41 AM
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5d)
Title: Resolution approving presale of 2026 debt issuance Page 13
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: June 1, 2026
Consent agenda item: 5e
Executive summary
Title: Resolution electing not to waive the statutory tort limits for liability insurance
Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution electing not to waive the statutory tort
limits for liability insurance.
Policy consideration: Does the city council support the statutory tort limits for liability
insurance, rather than waiving them and increasing future costs?
Summary: Each year, the council is required to pass a resolution indicating whether they wish
to waive or not waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability insurance established by
Minnesota Statute 466.04.
The statutory liability limits for claims that occur after July 1, 2009, are $500,000 per claimant
and $1,500,000 per occurrence.
The city council must review and make an election of one of the following three options:
• Not to waive the statutory tort limits (staff recommendation)
• Waive the limits and not purchase excess liability coverage
• Waive the limits and purchase excess liability coverage
The three options are explained in more detail in the background section of this report.
Financial or budget considerations: The city will continue to maintain liability insurance
coverage through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust in the amount required by
State Statute, and the required annual motion will be in place in preparation for the new policy
year. If the city council were to choose to waive the limits, the city would incur additional
insurance costs which are not budgeted for at this time.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Emily Carr, assessing technician
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen ,administrative services director
Reviewed by: Tiffany Stephens, interim deputy finance manager/financial analyst
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5e) Page 2
Title: Resolution electing not to waive the statutory tort limits for liability insurance
Discussion
Background: The three options the city council has are detailed below. The city’s practice has
been Option 1 since 2009: to not waive the statutory tort limits. Staff recommends the council
continue with this practice.
Option 1 (recommended):
If the city council elects not to waive the statutory tort limits, an individual claimant would be
able to recover no more than $500,000 on any claim to which the statutory tort limits apply.
The total which all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence would be limited
to $1,500,000.
Option 2:
If the city council waives the statutory tort limits and does not purchase excess liability
coverage, a single claimant could potentially recover up to $2,000,000 on a single occurrence.
The total which all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the
statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to $2,000,000, regardless of the number of
claimants.
Option 3:
If the city council waives the statutory tort limits and purchases excess liability coverage, a
single claimant could potentially recover an amount up to the limit of the coverage purchased.
The total which all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the
statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to the amount of coverage purchased,
regardless of the number of claimants.
Next steps: The City of St. Louis Park has elected in the past to not waive the statutory tort
limits and has not purchased excess liability coverage. Staff recommend continuing this practice
to not waive the statutory limits. The following resolution allows the statutory tort limits to
remain in place until the council changes this election. Staff will ask council to consider this
question annually as required by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust.
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5e) Page 3
Title: Resolution electing not to waive the statutory tort limits for liability insurance
Resolution No. 26 -___
Electing not to waive the statutory tort limits for liability insurance
Whereas, pursuant to previous action taken, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust has requested the city of St. Louis Park to make an election with regard to waiving or not
waiving its tort liability established by Minnesota Statute 466.04; and
Whereas, the choices available are to not waive the statutory limit, to waive the limit
but to keep insurance coverage at the statutory limit, or to waive the limit and to add additional
insurance coverage,
Be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota as follows:
That the St. Louis Park City Council does hereby elect not to waive the statutory tort liability
limit established by Minnesota Statute 466.04 and that such election is effective until amended
by further resolution of the St. Louis Park City Council.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council June 1, 2026:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: June 1, 2026
Consent agenda item: 5f
Executive summary
Title: Resolution approving 2026-2028 LELS Local #623 Deputy Police Chief labor agreement
Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution approving labor agreement between the
city and the deputy police chief employee bargaining group, establishing terms and conditions
of employment for three years from Jan. 1, 2026 – Dec. 31, 2028.
Policy consideration: Does council approve the labor agreement between the city and the
union?
Summary: The city currently has one staff person serving as deputy police
chief, previously a non-union position. In December 2025, this employee unionized through the
standard procedures of the Bureau of Mediation Services with Law Enforcement Labor
Services (LELS) as the exclusive representative. This bargaining group joins our other seven (7)
unions in St. Louis Park, for a total of eight (8) union groups, representing about half of all
benefit-earning staff.
The city met with the newly formed union for very productive negotiation sessions throughout
the winter and spring. We are pleased to bring this multi-year contract to council for
approval. Items agreed upon follow the approved compensation plans and are consistent with
other groups.
Financial or budget considerations: The amount recommended has been included in the
2026 budget and will be incorporated into 2027 projections.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Rita Vorpahl, HR director
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5f) Page 2
Title: Resolution approving 2026-2028 LELS Local #623 Deputy Police Chief labor agreement
Discussion
Background: The city and the newly formed deputy police chief union group have negotiated
and come to agreement on the following terms and conditions of a new contract:
• Duration of three years (Jan. 1, 2026 – Dec. 31, 2028).
• 2026 wage increase of 3.5% to all steps.
• Adding language that requires above average performance in order to advance through
the pay steps in accordance with other groups.
• Employer contribution for insurance same as other groups.
• Include definitions and language that confirms position is an exempt supervisory
position.
• Include a statement confirming the city and union’s agreement to work together to
advance the strategic priorities of the city.
Next steps: Staff recommends approval. All items noted above are included within the
2026 budget and will be included in future year budget preparation. The proposed contract is
on file with the city clerk. More detail is available upon request.
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5f) Page 3
Title: Resolution approving 2026-2028 LELS Local #623 Deputy Police Chief labor agreement
Resolution No. 26-___
Approving labor agreement between
the City of St. Louis Park and
Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS) #623 Deputy Police Chief
January 1, 2026 – December 31, 2028
Whereas, the city and the union have reached a negotiated settlement covering the
terms and conditions of a labor agreement as permitted by the State of Minnesota Public
Employees Labor Relations Act; and
Whereas, the city council may enter into such agreements as authorized by its charter,
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park that
(1) The mayor and city manager are authorized to execute a collective bargaining
agreement, City Contract No. 084-26 between the City of St. Louis Park and LELS Local
#623, effective January 1, 2026, through December 21, 2028; and
(2) That the city manager or the city manager's designee are authorized to execute for
Contract No. 084-26 any subsequent amendments, memoranda of understanding, or
other related agreements provided the amount of Contract No. 084-26, as amended via
such amendments, memorandums, or agreements, does not increase beyond the
amount of the competitive bidding threshold established by law.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council June 1, 2026:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: June 1, 2026
Consent agenda item: 5g
Executive summary
Title: Approve temporary seasonal premises amendment for liquor establishment
Recommended action: Motion to approve amendment to the licensed premises for A Wok in
the Park LLC.
Policy consideration: Does the applicant meet the requirements to amend the licensed
premises for the sale and service of alcohol to include temporary/seasonal outdoor spaces?
Summary: In 2025, the city implemented a process for issuing annual commercial patio permits
for temporary/seasonal outdoor spaces. Establishments that also hold liquor licenses are
required to obtain approval of the temporary extension of their licensed premises to include
the temporary/seasonal outdoor space.
A Wok in the Park LLC, dba Wok in the Park applied for temporary extension of their licensed
premises to include a temporary/seasonal outdoor space. The restaurant currently holds an on-
sale wine and strong beer liquor license with Sunday sales. They applied for an amendment to
the existing licensed premises located at 3005 Utah Avenue South. The proposed amendment
will add approximately 163 square feet of seasonal-use outdoor space and will provide seating
for six additional guests.
Applications from the establishment have been reviewed and approved by zoning, building and
the city clerk’s office. If approved by the council, the proposed amendments to the licensed
premises for the sale and service of alcohol will be valid for the duration of the commercial
patio permits. If the license holder wants to utilize the seasonal-use outdoor space in future
years they will need to go through the permitting and premises amendment processes.
St. Louis Park City Code Section 3-68 (a) states “each license shall be issued only for the exact
rooms and square footage described in the application. A license is valid only in the compact
and contiguous building or structure situated on the premises described in the license”.
St. Louis Park City Code Section 3-106 states that “proposed enlargement or substantial
alteration which changes the character of the licensed establishment or extension of a premises
previously licensed shall not be allowed unless the city council approves an amendment to the
liquor license”.
All zoning and building requirements have been met and any additional SAC charges have been
paid to the Met Council. The applicants have provided proof of liquor liability insurance to cover
the additional temporary outdoor space. Staff recommend approval of the proposed premises
amendment for Wok in the Park.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Map of proposed licensed premises extension
Prepared by: Amanda Scott-Lerdal, deputy city clerk
Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5g) Page 2
Title: Approve temporary seasonal premises amendment for liquor establishment
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: June 1, 2026
Consent agenda item: 5h
Executive summary
Title: Approve Change Orders No. 1 and 2 for the Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue
Improvements Project – Phase 2 (4024-1100) – Ward 4
Recommended action: Motion to authorize approval of Change Orders No. 1 and 2 with Park
Construction in the amount of $133,336.72 for the Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue
Improvements Project – Phase 2 - City Contract No. 113-25.
Policy consideration: None.
Summary: On June 2, 2025, the city council awarded a contract to Park Construction in the
amount of $12,693,922.85 for the Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue Improvements
Project – Phase 2.
During construction, modifications to the original design were determined to be necessary
based on existing field conditions and conflicts not identified in the project plans. Because this
work differed from the original contract documents, it was classified as extra work requiring
contract Change Orders No. 1 and 2, with a total cost of $133,336.72. Resolution No. 09-116
allows the city manager to process change orders on construction contracts up to a cumulative
total of $100,000. The total of these two change orders is over this administrative authority, so
they need to be approved by the city council.
Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue Improvements Project
(4024-1100)
Amount
Awarded contract amount $12,693,922.85
Change Order No. 1 $ 123,814.36
Change Order No. 2 $ 9,522.36
Revised contract amount $12,827,259.57
Financial or budget considerations: The awarded contract was $12,693,922.85. These change
orders increase the contract amount by $133,336.72 for a contract total of $12,827,259.57.
The additional costs will be paid for using Municipal state aid and water utility funds. There are
adequate funds to pay for these increased project costs.
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
Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5h) Page 2
Title: Approve Change Orders No. 1 and 2 for the Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue Improvements Project –
Phase 2 (4024-1100) – Ward 4
Discussion
Background: On June 2, 2025, the city council awarded a contract to Park Construction in the
amount of $12,693,922.85 for Phase 2 of the Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue
Improvements Project (4024-1100).
During construction, modifications to the original design were determined to be necessary
based on existing field conditions and conflicts not identified in the project plans. The
modifications included work related to city utilities (watermain, storm sewer and sanitary
sewer), stormwater treatment, landscaping and sidewalks/trails. Because this work differed
from the original contract documents, it was classified as extra work requiring contract Change
Order No. 1 and contract Change Order No. 2, with a total cost of $133,336.72. Resolution 09-
116 allows the city manager to process change orders on construction contracts up to a
cumulative total of $100,000. The total of these two change orders is over this administrative
authority, so they need to be approved by the city council.
The contract changes were attributed to the following modifications:
•Change Order No. 1
o Unforeseen conflicts with private utilities required modifications to the original
storm sewer, sanitary sewer and watermain utility design.
o A temporary hydrant was installed to facilitate watermain flushing and maintain
the project schedule.
o An underground stormwater infiltration treatment system was installed at
Willow Park. Additional subgrade correction work was required to ensure the
soil met infiltration requirements.
o To protect existing trees and minimize impacts to adjacent driveways, the
contractor installed street lighting conduit using directional boring rather than
direct burial excavation methods.
o Additional tree and stump removals were required due to design modifications
identified during construction.
o Total cost: $123,814.36
•Change Order No. 2
o Modifications were made to the alignment of the 22nd Street trail due to
concerns that the trail could be accessed by motor vehicles. The changes were
necessary to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists using the trail.
o Additional drain tile was required for a newly constructed retaining wall.
o Additional removals, grading and paving were required near the Metro Transit
Park-and-Ride at Wayzata Boulevard to provide an ADA-compliant connection
between the Park-and-Ride facility and the Louisiana Avenue sidewalk.
o Total cost: $9,522.36
Due to the nature of construction projects, unforeseen conditions and associated costs can
occur during construction. The additional work completed through these change orders was
necessary to ensure the long-term quality, safety and functionality of the roadway, sidewalk,
trail and utility infrastructure.
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 5h) Page 3
Title: Approve Change Orders No. 1 and 2 for the Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue Improvements Project –
Phase 2 (4024-1100) – Ward 4
Financial or budget considerations: This project was included in the city’s 2025–26 Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP). Funding sources for the project include Municipal State Aid, federal
aid, state appropriation funding through the Local Road Improvement Program, general
obligation bonds and utility funds. The following table includes the funding sources for the
additional work. There are adequate funds to pay for these increased project costs.
Change order Funding source Amount
Change order no. 1 Municipal State Aid $101,722.14
Local – Watermain Revenue Bond Proceeds $ 22,092.22
Total $123,814.36
Change order no. 2 Municipal State Aid $ 9,522.36
Total $ 9,522.36
Change orders 1 and 2 total $133,336.72
Upon approval of these change orders, the revised total contract amount for the Cedar Lake
Road and Louisiana Avenue Improvements Project is $12,827,259.57.
Next steps: This project is expected to be substantially complete and open to the public in
November 2026.
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: June 1, 2026
Action agenda item: 7a
Executive summary
Title: Approve preliminary layout for Hennepin County Minnetonka Boulevard Reconstruction
project phase 2 (4028-7000) – Wards 1 and 3
Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution granting city support for the preliminary
layout for the Hennepin County Minnetonka Boulevard Reconstruction project and authorizing
staff to continue to work with Xcel Energy on relocating the overhead utilities underground.
Policy consideration:
•Does the city council support Concept B as the preliminary layout for the Minnetonka
Boulevard Reconstruction project phase 2?
•Does the city council want to continue to pursue the relocation of the overhead utilities
underground in conjunction with this project?
Summary: Hennepin County is proposing to reconstruct Minnetonka Boulevard (CSAH 5)
between Highway 100 and Aquila Avenue in St. Louis Park in 2028 and 2029. They hired Alliant
Engineering Inc. as their consultant to complete the project planning and engagement.
Since 2025, staff with engineering, communications and public works have been working with
Hennepin County’s project team to develop the design for this project. In addition, their project
team has done extensive community engagement to help inform Concept B as the
recommended design. While community feedback has generally been positive towards Concept
B, parts of the biking community have expressed concerns with the design. Concept B is
recommended because it would provide the best “all ages and abilities”, avoid operational
impacts present in other concepts and result in lower city costs.
All concepts evaluated include full watermain replacement, new sanitary sewer structures, an
improved storm network and stormwater treatment, a new road surface, ADA upgrades, tree
plantings, street lighting and safety improvements.
Financial or budget considerations: The total cost estimate for Concept B is $39.22 million,
with Hennepin County covering $26.20 million. The city's share in the capital improvement plan
(CIP) is $13,050,000, however, an updated cost estimate is $1,621,320 higher than the CIP
budget. The city’s costs will be paid for using utility funds and general obligation bonds. Any
operating and maintenance cost increases would be paid for by the general levy. Additional
information on the breakdown of project costs and funding, and utility undergrounding can be
found in the discussion section of the report.
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; Resolution; city council public hearing report May 4, 2026;
Existing overhead utility segment map; CRFS Summaries; Hennepin County Active
Transportation Committee Resolution
Prepared by: Mark Elgaard, engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director; Jack Sullivan, assistant city engineer
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Title: Approve preliminary layout for Hennepin County Minnetonka Boulevard Reconstruction project phase 2
(4028-7000) – Wards 1 and 3
Discussion
Background: Minnetonka Boulevard, located between Highway 100 and Aquila Avenue, is a
concrete roadway with a four-inch bituminous overlay. Due to the bituminous overlay, there
are many locations where the curb is only one or two inches high. Constructed in 1956, the
roadway is nearing the end of its useful life. Hennepin County plans to reconstruct the roadway
because routine maintenance activities, such as bituminous overlays and crack seals, are no
longer cost-effective.
The current roadway and sidewalk design does not meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
standards and does not adequately serve people walking, biking or those with limited mobility.
City staff have heard from the community that there are safety concerns for pedestrians
crossing the road.
The existing bike facilities consist of on-street bike lanes created by converting roadway
shoulders and restriping them. These facilities do not meet the city council’s goal of providing
“all ages and abilities” bicycle infrastructure, and community feedback has consistently
indicated that riding directly adjacent to vehicle traffic is not perceived as comfortable or safe.
To provide “all ages and abilities” bicycle infrastructure on Minnetonka Boulevard, off-street
facilities are recommended.
City watermain and utility infrastructure under the road have experienced multiple failures over
the last five years, including two instances that caused private property damage. For these
reasons, the watermain is recommended to be replaced.
Additionally, the county’s storm sewer system on Minnetonka Boulevard requires upgrade and
expansion. Currently, stormwater is largely conveyed through the adjacent city system. This
project will reconstruct the corridor’s storm sewer infrastructure and incorporate water quality
treatment for roadway runoff.
Parking: Minnetonka Boulevard is currently signed “No Parking” from the western city limits to
Highway 100 under Resolution No. 23‑047, and there are no proposed changes to these parking
restrictions.
Public hearing: An overview of the recommended layout, Concept B, along with the financial
considerations for this project, was presented at the city council meeting on May 4, 2026. The
mayor opened the public hearing and invited members of the public to speak regarding the
recommended design.
In addition to the public hearing comments, staff also received a resolution from the Hennepin
County Active Transportation Committee, which is attached to this report. The Hennepin
County Active Transportation Committee is a group of fourteen appointed volunteers who
meet to advise, promote and expand opportunities for safe and convenient bicycling, walking
and rolling for transportation, commuting and recreation in Hennepin County.
What follows is a summary of questions and comments from the public hearing, along with
council members' and staff's responses to them.
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Title: Approve preliminary layout for Hennepin County Minnetonka Boulevard Reconstruction project phase 2
(4028-7000) – Wards 1 and 3
1. Can Hennepin County reduce the speed limit on Minnetonka Boulevard?
Per state statute, speed limits on county-owned roads are established by the
Commissioner of Transportation. To consider a reduced speed limit on Minnetonka
Boulevard, Hennepin County would need to request a speed study after construction is
complete. The proposed narrower road is intended to help calm traffic and reduce
speeds. Following construction, a speed study may support reducing the posted speed
limit to 30 mph, which is the minimum speed limit allowed on county roads.
This approach is consistent with Phase 1 of the Minnetonka Boulevard Reconstruction,
between Highway 100 and France Avenue. After that project was completed, the county
initiated a speed study, which resulted in the posted speed limit being reduced from 35
mph to 30 mph.
2. Is it feasible to include on‑street bike lanes or wider travel lanes for cyclists who prefer
to ride on the road rather than using a separated facility?
According to state statute, bicycles are permitted to use travel lanes on Minnetonka
Boulevard, and any street, regardless of the chosen design.
Any additional width added to the roadway to create space for bicyclists would reduce
the size of the boulevard, could limit tree plantings in already constrained areas and
increase cost. A wider road surface can also result in higher vehicle travel speeds as
drivers feel they have more room to maneuver, feel less constrained and have less of a
need to moderate their speed.
3. Will the new roadway design impact emergency vehicle response times?
In all the concepts, the proposed roadway design is the same overall width as Cedar
Lake Road between Highway 169 and Louisiana Avenue and is not expected to
negatively impact emergency vehicle response times. Minnetonka Boulevard
will generally maintain the same number of through lanes and turn lanes that exist
today, and drivers will still be required to yield to emergency vehicles by moving right
and stopping where practical. The proposed roadway is wide enough to accommodate
safe emergency vehicle passing, with vehicles pulling over as far as practical.
Staff have had discussions about the design with both the fire and police departments
and neither have expressed concern with the design of either Cedar Lake Road or the
proposed Minnetonka Boulevard.
4. Will the new roadway design impact traffic on adjacent parallel city streets?
At this time, this segment of Minnetonka Boulevard is a two-lane roadway with no on-
street parking. After the project, it would remain a two-lane roadway with no on-street
parking. The corridor currently experiences on average 11,300 to 12,100 vehicle trips
per day.
The proposed road design will maintain one lane in each direction and the existing
traffic signals at Texas Avenue, Louisiana Avenue, Dakota Avenue and Lake Street
intersections will remain. The traffic signal at Hampshire Avenue is recommended to be
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Title: Approve preliminary layout for Hennepin County Minnetonka Boulevard Reconstruction project phase 2
(4028-7000) – Wards 1 and 3
removed and replaced with a side-street stop control and a Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB) enhanced pedestrian crossing. This is because the traffic levels at the
intersection do not meet the warrants for a traffic signal. There are minimal changes to
the number of lanes with the proposed project compared to the existing conditions, and
these changes are limited to turn-lane modifications at intersections.
The corridor is expected to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the peak-hour
traffic volumes with existing and forecasted future traffic levels. With minimal changes
to corridor capacity, no impacts to traffic on adjacent parallel city streets are expected
to result from the project.
5. Concerns about construction impacts to businesses adjacent to road diet projects?
A “road diet,” as defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is the
conversion of a four-lane undivided road to a three-lane undivided road made up of two
through lanes and a center two-way left-turn lane.
The proposed roadway design for Minnetonka Boulevard is not a road diet, as there is
no reduction in the number of travel lanes. However, construction will create real and
significant short-term impacts to businesses along Minnetonka Boulevard. The project
is anticipated to be constructed over two construction seasons, and businesses will
experience the greatest disruption during the season when construction is directly in
front of their property. These impacts may include reduced visibility, modified access,
detours, noise, dust, utility coordination and lower pass-by traffic where Minnetonka
Boulevard is not available as a continuous through route.
During preliminary engagement, project staff have contacted businesses multiple times,
either by phone or in person, to bring awareness of the upcoming project and its
impacts. Staff shared resources and provided contact info for city and county staff and
organizations who could help businesses prepare for the upcoming construction.
During final design and construction staging, Hennepin County and the city will focus on
reducing impacts to the greatest extent practical. This may include additional proactive
business coordination, clear temporary access signage, regular construction updates,
advance notice of access changes, coordination around deliveries and service needs,
and staging decisions that maintain reasonable access to businesses throughout
construction.
The long-term conditions should be considered separately from the temporary
construction impacts. Available research does not show that roadway reconfiguration,
bike/pedestrian improvements, or complete streets projects generally result in long-
term negative business impacts. In many cases, these projects can support business
districts by improving safety, walkability, bicycle access, streetscape quality, and the
overall comfort of the corridor. For Minnetonka Boulevard, the primary business
concern is expected to be the temporary disruption during construction, not the
permanent roadway layout after the project is complete.
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Title: Approve preliminary layout for Hennepin County Minnetonka Boulevard Reconstruction project phase 2
(4028-7000) – Wards 1 and 3
6. Community members raised concerns about electric bicycles (e-bikes) or scooters using
the shared-use trail and requested data on shared-use trails.
Community concerns about e‑bikes, scooters and other micromobility devices are valid,
and they apply to all design concepts under consideration, not just Concept B. These
devices are now a routine part of the transportation landscape, and their different
operating characteristics must be accounted for in every design alternative.
Under Minnesota law, e‑bikes may generally be operated in the same manner as
bicycles, including on roads, shoulders, bike lanes, bicycle routes and bikeways or trails.
Motorized foot scooters, however, are regulated separately, including a statewide
prohibition on riding them on sidewalks except when entering or leaving adjacent
property. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources guidance similarly recognizes
that e‑bikes are permitted on state trails wherever traditional bicycles are allowed,
provided the device meets the statutory definition.
Many communities and agencies already provide public guidance to help users
understand where e‑bikes and scooters are allowed, how riders should yield, and how
higher‑speed electric devices differ from legal e‑bikes. For example, the City of
Bloomington instructs riders on sidewalks and trails to yield to pedestrians and slow
down when passing. Three Rivers Park District distinguishes legal e‑bikes from
higher‑speed e‑motos, which are prohibited on their trails.
For Minnetonka Boulevard, the project is introducing a new bicycle and pedestrian
facility that does not exist in this form today. Staff recommendations focus on whether
each design concept provides a safer and more comfortable environment for people
walking and biking compared to current conditions. The presence of e‑bikes and
scooters does not diminish the need for a high‑quality off‑street facility; it reinforces the
importance of designing and managing the corridor for a broader range of users and
speeds.
Regardless of which concept the city ultimately approves, this is an issue that will
require ongoing monitoring. If high‑speed e‑bike, scooter, or other device use creates
demonstrated safety or comfort concerns, the city can evaluate options such as updated
user rules, targeted signage, enforcement strategies, education efforts or
facility‑specific restrictions.
Finally, during the 2026 state legislative session, lawmakers considered updates to
Minnesota’s e-bike regulations, with particular focus on higher-powered electric
vehicles commonly referred to as “e-motos.” Minnesota bill HF 3785/ SF 4186 would
have clarified that certain e-bikes or motorcycles exceeding the state’s e-bike limits may
be regulated as motor vehicles, motorized bicycles, off-highway motorcycles, or other
motorized devices rather than as standard e-bikes. Minnesota law currently limits e-
bikes to 750 watts and classifies them under the existing three-class e-bike framework.
The bill advanced through committee but did not become law before the end of the
session; as a result, the state’s existing e-bike classification framework remains in place.
Supporting e-bike regulations is one of the city’s legislative priorities.
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 7a) Page 6
Title: Approve preliminary layout for Hennepin County Minnetonka Boulevard Reconstruction project phase 2
(4028-7000) – Wards 1 and 3
7. What would be the impact to the project if the cycle track and sidewalk in Concept A
were always combined and separated from the road by a grass boulevard?
If the cycle track and sidewalk in Concept A were combined, the width of the facility
would need to increase beyond the 10-foot paved trail shown in Concept B. This may
result in a higher number of trees removed as compared to Concept B, and would have
additional costs from the additional width, use of colored concrete, and the addition of
a tactile delineation strip. Recent changes to the MnDOT Bicycle Design Manual now
state that if a dedicated bike and pedestrian facility are adjacent to one another, tactile
delineation strips are recommended. A tactile delineation strip is a cast-iron textured
surface used to separate sidewalk-level bike lanes from pedestrian walking zones, like
truncated domes used on pedestrian curb ramps. This would add roughly four (4) miles
of tactile delineation and would further increase the width of the facility by an
additional one (1) foot to account for the space needed for the tactile delineator strips.
Combining the cycle track, tactile delineation strip, and sidewalk would result in a
facility 13 feet wide.
The modified Concept A is expected to increase the total project cost by $2,800,000,
with the city cost share increasing by roughly $560,000. This would bring the estimated
total city share of the project cost to $13,610,000, which is $2,181,320 over the CIP
budget. Additionally, this modified Concept A would have yearly maintenance costs
approximately double that of Concept B. This is due to the additional width, which
would require two passes to clear snow from the facility edge to edge by the parks
department.
Concept B, as recommended, results in a minor reduction in city snow‑removal
maintenance efforts. However, as additional city‑maintained sidewalks and bicycle
facilities are added through future projects, additional funding will be required for
equipment and staffing to support a consistent snow‑removal level of service.
The addition of a tactile delineation strip running the length of the facility may introduce
new challenges for snow removal. If the tactile strips are installed recessed into the
pavement, snow and ice may accumulate in the grooves, creating an icy surface and
reducing their effectiveness for people who rely on tactile cues. Due to this, the
recommended installation would be to have the strips installed flush with the
pavement, with the tactile grooves elevated above the concrete surface. It is possible
that they may lift the plow blade slightly, leaving a thin layer of snow along the entire
corridor.
If elevated tactile grooves result in a thin layer of snow along the entire corridor, one
possible way to address it would be for utilities staff to use their narrower snow-
removal equipment to clear the snow. If that were the case, the snow removal costs
would revert to the higher costs associated with the original Concept A.
While this combined design offers dedicated spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists,
community feedback highlights ongoing compliance challenges. Specifically, users
frequently walk in the cycle track, bike the wrong way on the one-way cycle track, or
ride on the adjacent sidewalk to avoid crossing the street to reach the appropriate one-
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 7a) Page 7
Title: Approve preliminary layout for Hennepin County Minnetonka Boulevard Reconstruction project phase 2
(4028-7000) – Wards 1 and 3
way facility. These behaviors create a different set of safety concerns because they are
inconsistent with the intended facility design and may be unexpected by users who
believe the design will result in consistent separation of users.
8. Could the multi-use trail (Concept B) be striped and/or signed to indicate multi-
directional use on the trail?
It is not standard practice for the city or county to include trail pavement markings or
signage in this type of design. If Concept B is approved, staff recommend allowing the
trail to operate for at least one year after construction before evaluating whether
signing or striping the trail is needed to enhance comfort or safety.
9. Are there any cost savings for the city or property owners if the overhead utilities are
relocated underground?
There are no direct cost savings to the city or adjacent property owners from relocating
overhead utilities underground. However, undergrounding can improve service
reliability by reducing the likelihood of weather-related outages for properties and
facilities served by overhead lines. This includes residences, businesses, apartments,
community spaces, and city-owned infrastructure such as water treatment plants and
lift stations. While underground utilities do not eliminate the possibility of service
outages, they do reduce the likelihood of inclement-weather-induced outages since
they are less exposed to the elements.
Underground utilities also provide other corridor benefits, including improved
aesthetics, greater flexibility for tree planting and species selection, and additional
space for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
10. If the city council does not approve a preliminary layout on June 1, what are the next
steps?
If the council does not approve Concept B as recommended, additional analysis and
discussion will be required to fully understand the impacts and costs of a new concept,
and staff would return at a later date with an updated recommended design for council
consideration. If the requested changes represent a significant departure from what has
previously been presented to the public to date, additional public outreach and
engagement, including potential open houses, would be recommended to ensure the
public has an opportunity to provide feedback. This would likely delay the start of
construction to the 2029 construction season.
Relocating the overhead utilities underground update: In the public hearing report on May 4,
2026, city staff gave the council an update on the cost to relocate the overhead utilities in
phase 2 underground, but did not include the estimated costs to reconnect properties or the
estimated City Requested Special Facilities Surcharge (CRFS) costs. Since that time, staff have
received this information from Xcel Energy.
In phase 2, there are two segments of existing overhead utilities which could be relocated
underground:
• Segment 1: between Highway 100 and Blackstone Avenue; estimated to cost $200,000
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 7a) Page 8
Title: Approve preliminary layout for Hennepin County Minnetonka Boulevard Reconstruction project phase 2
(4028-7000) – Wards 1 and 3
• Segment 2: between Oregon and Aquila avenues; estimated to cost $5,300,000.
• The total cost for both segments is estimated at $5,500,000.
The cost difference between the two segments is largely due to the scale of the facilities
present. Segment 1 is part of the local network which supplies power to the nearby residential
and commercial properties. Local networks have less stringent requirements for relocating
underground. Segment 2 is part of the regional network, connecting substations along with
residential and commercial properties. This higher-voltage facility has additional requirements
when undergrounding, including concrete ductwork, vaults, and other additional safety
measures to reduce the risk of damage to the line.
Of note, segment 2 has a higher concentration of naturally occurring affordable housing and
renters. Also of note, there is a physical gap between segment 1 and segment 2 because that
portion of the corridor does not have overhead utilities. See attached Existing Overhead Utility
Segment map.
Funding: If the city council supports relocating overhead utilities underground, staff
recommend funding the cost through a citywide CRFS.
If only Segment 1 is relocated underground, a two‑year CRFS would be the only available
option. If both Segments 1 and 2 are relocated, the city would have the option of implementing
either a four‑year or five‑year CRFS.
The estimated monthly bill increases and the total cost for a residential property and a
low‑income property are shown in Table 1. A detailed breakdown of rate surcharges for all
other land‑use categories is included in the attachments to this report.
Table 1. Estimated monthly energy bill increase and total charged per CRFS option per segment.
Segment/CFRS period
Monthly
residential bill
increase
Total charged
to residential
property
Monthly low-
income bill
increase
Total charged
to low-income
property
Segment 1 only / 2-year CRFS $ 0.29 $ 6.96 $ 0.29 $ 6.96
Segment 1 and 2 / 4-year CRFS $ 4.37 $ 209.76 $ 1.00 $ 48.00
Segment 1 and 2 / 5-year CRFS $ 3.60 $ 216.00 $ 1.00 $ 60.00
For comparison, the cost to relocate the overhead utilities underground in Phase 1 was
estimated at $1,220,000. Those costs were funded through a citywide CRFS. This charge has not
yet taken effect; at the time of approval, Xcel Energy estimated the cost to be $8.40 per year
for a single‑family household and $3 per year for a low‑income household, applied over three
years. The city is still awaiting Xcel Energy’s final cost determination, after which the charges
will be added to customer bills.
Private service reconnection: Undergrounding utilities results in the need to shift properties'
overhead services to underground service. Since this cost cannot be funded by the CRFS, it
would need to be funded in one of the following ways.
1. The city can fund the one-time service reconnection costs.
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 7a) Page 9
Title: Approve preliminary layout for Hennepin County Minnetonka Boulevard Reconstruction project phase 2
(4028-7000) – Wards 1 and 3
2. The individual properties could pay for their individual service reconnection costs.
In phase 1 of the Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project, the city covered the costs of
the service reconnections for property owners at an average cost, adjusted for inflation, of
$9,000 per service.
In phase 2, segment 1 has an estimated 5 impacted properties and segment 2 has an estimated
8 impacted properties, for a total of 13 private service reconnections. If the city chooses to
cover the cost for property owners, staff estimates the costs shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Total costs of undergrounding per segment, not including right-of-way or easements.
Segment Undergrounding cost Service reconnection cost Total cost
Segment 1 only $200,000.00 $45,000.00 $245,000.00
Segment 2 only $5,300,000.00 $72,000.00 $5,372,000.00
Segment 1 and 2 $5,500,000.00 $117,000.00 $5,617,000.00
Due to the preliminary nature of the county’s roadway designs, these costs still do not include
right of way/easement costs for new utility infrastructure where there is not adequate room in
the existing right of way. Once the preliminary layout is approved, staff will coordinate with
Xcel Energy and Hennepin County to identify potential right of way/easement needs related to
the private utility work. Once that is done, staff can provide an update to the council.
Staff recommendation: Underground utilities would improve aesthetics throughout the
corridor, allow additional room for tree plantings, allow larger tree species to be planted in the
boulevards, increase service reliability by limiting weather-based outages, and improve vehicle
safety by decreasing the likelihood of vehicular collisions with utility poles. While there are a lot
of benefits to undergrounding utilities, there are added costs. Keeping those in mind, staff
recommend the following:
1. Relocate the utilities underground in segment 1 as a part of this project. This would
create a continuous corridor of Minnetonka Boulevard with no overhead utilities
extending from France Avenue to Oregon Avenue, a distance of 2.25 miles. With an
estimated cost of $245,000, this is a cost-effective improvement that would create a
large, consistent section of Minnetonka Boulevard.
2. Do not relocate the utilities underground in segment 2. The cost to relocate this
segment is exponentially higher than Phase 1 was or than segment 1 of Phase 2 is
planned to be. The benefits of relocating for these blocks should be weighed against the
costs per household. There are also opportunity costs to dedicating this level of funding
to a relatively minor facet of a construction project.
Additionally, Xcel Energy has confirmed that the same high-cost facility is present for what
would be phase 3 of the project, between Aquila Avenue and Highway 169. This final .7 miles
would likely incur a similarly high cost to relocate utility service underground.
If council determines that both segments of phase 2 and (future) phase 3 of this project should
be undergrounded, initial estimates are that approximately $11,000,000 will be needed to
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 7a) Page 10
Title: Approve preliminary layout for Hennepin County Minnetonka Boulevard Reconstruction project phase 2
(4028-7000) – Wards 1 and 3
complete the work. This will be on top of the regular cost share formula that is applied to
county projects.
Financial or budget considerations: The overall cost for Concept B is $39.22 million, with
Hennepin County covering $26.20 million. The county’s cost share is funded as follows:
• Federal funding: $7,000,000
• County State Aid and Metro sales tax funds: $19,200,000
The city's share in the capital improvement plan (CIP) is $13,050,000; however, the updated
cost estimate is $1,621,320 higher than the CIP budget. The following table outlines the
estimated city cost and funding sources.
Cost type CIP Engineer’s estimate
Construction $7,743,680 $8,700,000
Engineering and administration $2,120,000 $2,350,000
Contingency $0 $1,000,000
Right of way/Land acquisition $1,565,000 $1,000,000
Total $11,428,680 $13,050,000
Funding sources CIP Engineer’s estimate
General obligation bonds $4,988,680 $7,485,853
Sanitary sewer utility $700,000 $502,300
Water utility $5,740,000 $4,061,847
Total $11,428,680 $13,050,000
The engineer's estimate is 12.4% greater than the CIP and does not include the preliminary
estimate to relocate the overhead utilities underground. This cost was not included in the CIP
estimate since it will likely be funded by CRFS.
As with the overhead relocation in phase 1 of the Minnetonka Boulevard Reconstruction
project, staff recommend funding the relocation with CRFS, and the private service
reconnections with general obligation bonds.
City staff are pursuing additional funding to help cover city costs for this project. This includes
submitting the project for Fiscal Year 2027 Community Project Funding. We have heard from
Representative Omar, Senator Smith and Senator Klobuchar that they have recommended this
project for inclusion at the level of $2 million.
In addition to the project construction cost, there is a future impact on the city’s annual budget
for operation and maintenance. To ensure that snow removal is completed at our current level
of service, there will be additional budget requests. If Concept B is approved, staff will be
requesting the purchase of a new truck or tractor in 2028 as a part of our 2029 budget process,
potentially resulting in a one-time levy increase of $140,000. If a different concept is approved,
there would be different requests commensurate with the operation and maintenance needs.
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 7a) Page 11
Title: Approve preliminary layout for Hennepin County Minnetonka Boulevard Reconstruction project phase 2
(4028-7000) – Wards 1 and 3
Next steps:
City council preliminary design decision June 1, 2026
Final design 2026 and 2027
Approve cooperative construction agreement 2027
Private utility relocation 2027
Construction 2028 and 2029
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 7a) Page 12
Title: Approve preliminary layout for Hennepin County Minnetonka Boulevard Reconstruction project phase 2
(4028-7000) – Wards 1 and 3
Resolution No. 26-___
Supporting Hennepin County’s preliminary layout for the Minnetonka Boulevard
Reconstruction Project
Project No. 4028-7000
Whereas, Hennepin County is proposing to reconstruct Minnetonka Boulevard (CSAH 5)
between Highway 100 and Aquila Avenue in St. Louis Park in 2028 and 2029; and
Whereas, the existing roadway was constructed in 1956 and has reached the end of its
useful life; and
Whereas, Hennepin County has completed a public engagement process and has
selected Concept B as the preferred layout that provides improved safety for all modes; and
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
that:
1. The city of St. Louis Park approves Concept B as the preferred layout for the
improvements to Minnetonka Boulevard from Highway 100 to Aquila Avenue.
2. Hennepin County is hereby authorized to acquire right of way, permits, and/or
easements required for the improvements shown in the preferred layout.
3. City staff is authorized to work with Xcel Energy to develop final cost estimates so
that the city council can determine whether or not to proceed with the
undergrounding of the overhead utilities.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council June 1, 2026:
__________________________________
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Existing Overhead Utility Segments
(l) ><(
C 0
33rd St
-Segmentl
-Segment2,....
0 1 ----=====:::::i---c::::====::J Miles 0.5
"' C
·;:;; ·;; 0
Minnetonka Blvd
26th St
Date: 5/28/2026
ff) St. Louis ParkII,/ MINNESOTA .,,,.,,= I.If"& ,, 11,o �Yk
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Approve preliminary layout for Hennepin County Minnetonka Boulevard Reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) – Wards 1 and 3 Page 13
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation
City Requested Special Facilities Surcharge (CRFS)
City of St. Louis Park
192,713
Customer Class Customers Surcharge(1)Months Recovery
Residential 25,223 $0.29 24 $173,463
Res Low Income 475 $0.29 24 $3,267
Small C&I ND 1,316 $0.29 24 $9,050
Small C&I 703 $0.87 24 $14,504
Large C&I 204 $1.16 24 $5,612
Street Lighting 116 $0.29 24 $798
Sm Mun Pump ND 18 $0.29 24 $124
Small Mun Pump 11 $0.87 24 $227
Large Mun Pump 4 $1.16 24 $110
Total 28,070 $207,154
Total Carrying Charges included in recovery amount(2)$14,441
Allowable Class Surcharge Levels per Month Under CRSF Tariff
Residential:$0.25 up to $5.00
Low Income Residential: $0.25 up to $1.00
Small C&I Non-Dmd: $0.25 up to $5.00
Small C&I - Demand: 3 Times Residential Amount
Large C&I - Demand: 4 Times Residential Amount
(1)Adjustment possible in final months of recovery period for more precise cost recovery.
(2)
Excess Expenditures =
Monthly carrying charge of 0.7138% applies to outstanding balance, equal to compounded rate based on 6.95%
overall rate of return from the last general rate case (2024 of MYRP) and 1.96% tax factor.
St.LouisParkCRFSSum (1) East 2Yr SVH 5/22/2026 9:11 AM
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Approve preliminary layout for Hennepin County Minnetonka Boulevard
Reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) – Wards 1 ĂŶĚ ϯ and 3Page 14
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation
City Requested Special Facilities Surcharge (CRFS)
City of St. Louis Park
5,446,072
Customer Class Customers Surcharge(1)Months Recovery
Residential 25,223 $4.37 48 $5,264,808
Res Low Income 475 $1.00 48 $22,688
Small C&I ND 1,316 $4.37 48 $274,689
Small C&I 703 $13.11 48 $440,212
Large C&I 204 $17.48 48 $170,324
Street Lighting 116 $4.37 48 $24,213
Sm Mun Pump ND 18 $4.37 48 $3,757
Small Mun Pump 11 $13.11 48 $6,888
Large Mun Pump 4 $17.48 48 $3,340
Total 28,070 $6,210,919
Total Carrying Charges included in recovery amount(2)$764,846
Allowable Class Surcharge Levels per Month Under CRSF Tariff
Residential:$0.25 up to $5.00
Low Income Residential: $0.25 up to $1.00
Small C&I Non-Dmd: $0.25 up to $5.00
Small C&I - Demand: 3 Times Residential Amount
Large C&I - Demand: 4 Times Residential Amount
(1)Adjustment possible in final months of recovery period for more precise cost recovery.
(2)
Excess Expenditures =
Monthly carrying charge of 0.7138% applies to outstanding balance, equal to compounded rate based on 6.95%
overall rate of return from the last general rate case (2024 of MYRP) and 1.96% tax factor.
St.LouisParkCRFSSum (1) Total 4Yr SVH 5/22/2026 9:11 AM
and 3Page 15
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Approve preliminary layout for Hennepin County Minnetonka Boulevard
Reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) – Wards 1 and 3
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation
City Requested Special Facilities Surcharge (CRFS)
City of St. Louis Park
5,446,072
Customer Class Customers Surcharge(1)Months Recovery
Residential 25,223 $3.60 60 $5,413,972
Res Low Income 475 $1.00 60 $28,321
Small C&I ND 1,316 $3.60 60 $282,472
Small C&I 703 $10.80 60 $452,685
Large C&I 204 $14.40 60 $175,150
Street Lighting 116 $3.60 60 $24,899
Sm Mun Pump ND 18 $3.60 60 $3,864
Small Mun Pump 11 $10.80 60 $7,083
Large Mun Pump 4 $14.40 60 $3,434
Total 28,070 $6,391,879
Total Carrying Charges included in recovery amount(2)$945,805
Allowable Class Surcharge Levels per Month Under CRSF Tariff
Residential:$0.25 up to $5.00
Low Income Residential: $0.25 up to $1.00
Small C&I Non-Dmd: $0.25 up to $5.00
Small C&I - Demand: 3 Times Residential Amount
Large C&I - Demand: 4 Times Residential Amount
(1)Adjustment possible in final months of recovery period for more precise cost recovery.
(2)
Excess Expenditures =
Monthly carrying charge of 0.7138% applies to outstanding balance, equal to compounded rate based on 6.95%
overall rate of return from the last general rate case (2024 of MYRP) and 1.96% tax factor.
St.LouisParkCRFSSum (1) Total 5Yr SVH 5/22/2026 9:10 AM
and 3Page 16
City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Approve preliminary layout for Hennepin County Minnetonka Boulevard
Reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) – Wards 1 and 3
Hennepin County
Active Transportation Committee
A Resolution Regarding the Minnetonka Boulevard Reconstruction Project
Date: May 18, 2026
Motion: Moved by: Dave Carlson Seconded by: Henrik Kowalkowski.
WHEREAS; Hennepin County will be reconstructing Minnetonka Boulevard (CSAH 5) from
Vernon Avenue S to Xylon Avenue S beginning in 2028; and,
WHEREAS; During the April 20, 2026, Hennepin County ATC meeting a proposed corridor design
was shown that includes 10-foot above-curb shared use paths on both sides, reduction of
roadway profile to 1 through lane in each direction, pedestrian refuge medians, removal of
shoulder space, and a widened boulevard; and,
WHEREAS; Although the placement of the proposed shared use path several feet away from the
back of curb can provide an enhanced sense of separation from automobile traffic for trail users,
and narrows the roadway to provide traffic calming benefits as well as providing space for the
snow storage and placement of new trees to replace those lost as part of the proposed solution;
and,
WHEREAS; Although the inclusion of paths on both sides enables path access without having to
cross Minnetonka Boulevard, shared use paths increase conflicts between cyclists and other trail
users regardless of age and ability, as well as between trail users and motorists making turning
movements; and,
WHEREAS; However, one-way bikeways provide more consistent and predictable interactions
between different travel modes and require less horizontal space than two-way paths; and,
WHEREAS; Retaining tree cover was one of the most highly requested and rated feedback topics
during public engagement; and,
WHEREAS; Implementation of the proposed shared use paths will increase impact to trees
throughout the corridor; and,
WHEREAS; Snow removal from up to 4 feet of bikeway immediately behind the curb is possible
with current snow clearing equipment while simultaneously clearing snow from the roadway;
and,
WHEREAS; Additional attention is required to ensure sufficient and desirable transit access; and,
and 3Page 17City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Approve preliminary layout for Hennepin County Minnetonka Boulevard
Reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) – Wards 1 and 3
WHEREAS; The Hennepin County Active Transportation Committee recognizes the complexity of
providing a solution that best meets the needs of active transportation roadway users, and
commends design staff for the functional solution they are proposing;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED;
That the Hennepin County Active Transportation Committee supports the inclusion of grade-
separated one-way bikeways on both sides of Minnetonka Boulevard. Additionally, we ask the
project team to consider the inclusion of 3-foot-wide shoulder spaces on both sides to
accommodate cyclists who wish to avoid conflicts with other shared path users. If there are space
considerations, the Hennepin County Active Transportation Committee recommends the removal
of one or the narrowing of both of the proposed shared use paths. The Hennepin County Active
Transportation Committee further requests that the project team give additional consideration to
the location of transit stops so that comfortable and adequate transit access is afforded along the
corridor.
Hennepin County Active Transportation Committee:
Tammy McLemore – District 1 Aye Ryan Mckee – District 4 Aye
Nicole Armstrong – District 1 Aye Henrik Kowalkowski – District 5 Aye
Seth Stattmiller – District 2 Aye Lou Dzierzak – District 5 Aye
Billy Binder – District 2 Aye Luke Van Santen – District 6 Aye
Dave Carlson – District 3 Aye Scott Zerby – District 6 Absent
Ethan Kleinbaum – District 3 Aye Greg Anderson – District 7 Absent
Sam Gallagher – District 4 Absent Clara Sandberg – District 7 Aye
and 3Page 18City council meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Approve preliminary layout for Hennepin County Minnetonka Boulevard
Reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) – Wards 1 and 3
Meeting: Special study session
Meeting date: June 1, 2026
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission annual meeting with council
Recommended action: None at this time
Policy consideration: Does the council have any work direction for this commission?
Summary: The June 2026 check-in will feature the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission,
represented by chair David Yakes with staff support from Stacy Voelker, administrative
coordinator.
The commission is one of the city’s advisory bodies responsible for studying and considering all
aspects of public parks and recreation and recommending programs that best meet the needs
of St. Louis Park residents.
The discussion will include a summary of the commission’s most recent approved work plan—
highlighting completed items, ongoing projects and areas still in progress. The focus of this
check-in will be on opportunities for council feedback, guidance on work-plan priorities, and
any additional direction the council would like the commission to consider moving forward.
The next scheduled check-in on June 8, 2026, will feature the Environment and Sustainability
Commission.
Financial or budget considerations: None
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a city that delivers reliable
services, uses city resources responsibly, operates transparently and builds strong relationships
with residents.
Supporting documents: Current Commission Roster, Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission Workplan
Prepared by: Pat Coleman, community engagement coordinator
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Special study session meeting of June 1, 2026 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission annual meeting with council
Current Commission Roster
Current Roster: Notes/Comments:
Sonya Rippe (Ward 3) Term expires May 31,2028
Bruce Cantor (Ward 2) Term expires May 31, 2026
Jay Jaffee (Ward 1) Term expires May 31, 2026
Amy Brandli (Ward 3) Term Expires May 31, 2027
David Yakes (Ward 4) Term Expires May 31, 2026
Open Term Expires May 31, 2028
Open Term Expires May 31, 2029
Adreinne Krill (Ward 1) Youth Member - Term Expires May 31, 2026
Open Youth Member - Term Expires Aug. 31, 2027
* Please note that commissioners whose terms have ended may continue serving in their
current seats until new appointments are approved by the city council.
Board and Commission
Annual work plan Presented to council: February 17, 2025
Approved by council: February 17, 2025
1
2025 work plan │ Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
1
Initiative name: Joint meeting with Environmental Commission
Initiative type:
☒Staff support (review project,
policy or program and provide
feedback)
☐Independent research project
☐Gather community feedback
☐Lead community event
Initiative origin:
☐Third party-initiated
☐Staff-initiated
☒Commission-initiated
☐Council-initiated
Legally required (e.g. response to
Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)?
☐Yes
☒No
Commissioner lead(s) name(s):
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
Environmental Commission
Is this an established work group? (if applicable)
☐Yes
☐No
Initiative description: Joint meeting with environmental Commission to include Natural Resources manager and Westwood Hills Nature
Center Manager
Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☒ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A
Target completion date: 2nd quarter
This section to be completed by staff:
Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed
Budget required:
Staff support required:
Liaison comments:
Special study session meeting of June 1, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission annual meeting with council Page 3
2
2
Initiative name: Youth Association President Summit
Initiative type:
☐Staff support (review project,
policy or program and provide
feedback)
☐Independent research project
☐Gather community feedback
☒Lead community event
Initiative origin:
☐Third party-initiated
☐Staff-initiated
☒Commission-initiated
☐Council-initiated
Legally required (e.g. response to
Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)?
☐Yes
☒No
Commissioner lead(s) name(s):
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
School District
Is this an established work group? (if applicable)
☐Yes
☐No
Initiative description: In partnership with the school district, a summit meeting will be held in May and November. All youth associations are invited
to participate in these gatherings to discuss how to ensure all youth have access to athletics.
Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☒ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☐ N/A
Target completion date: May and Nov. (2nd and 4th quarter)
This section to be completed by staff:
Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed
Budget required:
Staff support required:
Liaison comments:
Special study session meeting of June 1, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission annual meeting with council Page 4
3
3
Initiative name: Support Vision 4.0
Initiative type:
☒Staff support (review project,
policy or program and provide
feedback)
☐Independent research project
☐Gather community feedback
☐Lead community event
Initiative origin:
☐Third party-initiated
☒Staff-initiated
☐Commission-initiated
☐Council-initiated
Legally required (e.g. response to
Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)?
☐Yes
☒No
Commissioner lead(s) name(s):
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
All
Is this an established work group? (if applicable)
☐Yes
☒No
Initiative description: Support the citywide Vision 4.0 process by participating directly and/or encouraging others to participate, and by
sharing information with other community members about the process.
Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A
Target completion date: 4Q 2025
This section to be completed by staff:
Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed
Budget required: None
Staff support required: Communication from staff liaison about opportunities with Vision 4.0.
Liaison comments: Plan to keep the commission informed about opportunities to assist with the citywide Vision 4.0 process.
Special study session meeting of June 1, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission annual meeting with council Page 5
4
4
Initiative name: Minnehaha Creek Cleanup
Initiative type:
☐Staff support (review project,
policy or program and provide
feedback)
☐Independent research project
☐Gather community feedback
☒Lead community event
Initiative origin:
☐Third party-initiated
☒Staff-initiated
☐Commission-initiated
☐Council-initiated
Legally required (e.g. response to
Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)?
☐Yes
☒No
Commissioner lead(s) name(s):
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
Is this an established work group? (if applicable)
☐Yes
☐No
Initiative description: Lead the Minnehaha Creek Clean up which is an annual community event to clean up a portion of Minnehaha
Creek.
Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A
Target completion date: October (3rd quarter)
This section to be completed by staff:
Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed
Budget required:
Staff support required:
Liaison comments:
Special study session meeting of June 1, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission annual meeting with council Page 6
5
5
Initiative name: Review and provide input on Webster Park master plan
Initiative type:
☒Staff support (review project,
policy or program and provide
feedback)
☐Independent research project
☐Gather community feedback
☐Lead community event
Initiative origin:
☐Third party-initiated
☒Staff-initiated
☐Commission-initiated
☐Council-initiated
Legally required (e.g. response to
Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)?
☐Yes
☒No
Commissioner lead(s) name(s):
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
Is this an established work group? (if applicable)
☐Yes
☒No
Initiative description: Review and provide input on the redevelopment of Webster Park.
Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A
Target completion date: 3rd quarter
This section to be completed by staff:
Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed
Budget required:
Staff support required:
Liaison comments:
Special study session meeting of June 1, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission annual meeting with council Page 7
6
6
Initiative name: Host annual staff appreciation event
Initiative type:
☒Staff support (review project,
policy or program and provide
feedback)
☐Independent research project
☐Gather community feedback
☐Lead community event
Initiative origin:
☐Third party-initiated
☐Staff-initiated
☒Commission-initiated
☐Council-initiated
Legally required (e.g. response to
Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)?
☐Yes
☒No
Commissioner lead(s) name(s):
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
Is this an established work group? (if applicable)
☐Yes
☒No
Initiative description: The Commission hosts an annual staff appreciation event showing support of Parks and Recreation staff.
Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A
Target completion date: 4th quarter
This section to be completed by staff:
Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed
Budget required:
Staff support required:
Liaison comments:
Special study session meeting of June 1, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission annual meeting with council Page 8
7
7
Initiative name: Association / community group connection
Initiative type:
☒Staff support (review project,
policy or program and provide
feedback)
☐Independent research project
☐Gather community feedback
☐Lead community event
Initiative origin:
☐Third party-initiated
☐Staff-initiated
☒Commission-initiated
☐Council-initiated
Legally required (e.g. response to
Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)?
☐Yes
☒No
Commissioner lead(s) name(s):
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
Is this an established work group? (if applicable)
☐Yes
☒No
Initiative description: The Commission invites youth associations and other community groups to discuss opportunities and successes
monthly. Invite staff members for updates and/or introduction (new staff).
Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A
Target completion date: Monthly
This section to be completed by staff:
Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed
Budget required:
Staff support required:
Liaison comments:
Special study session meeting of June 1, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission annual meeting with council Page 9
8
8
Initiative name: Community Events volunteer
Initiative type:
☒Staff support (review project,
policy or program and provide
feedback)
☐Independent research project
☐Gather community feedback
☐Lead community event
Initiative origin:
☐Third party-initiated
☒Staff-initiated
☐Commission-initiated
☐Council-initiated
Legally required (e.g. response to
Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)?
☐Yes
☒No
Commissioner lead(s) name(s):
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
Is this an established work group? (if applicable)
☐Yes
☒No
Initiative description: Encourage commissioners to volunteer at special events such as ShamROC Ice Bowling, U.G.L.Y. Sweater Dash,
ROCtoberfest and other community events.
Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A
Target completion date: As needed
This section to be completed by staff:
Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed
Budget required:
Staff support required:
Liaison comments:
Initiative Origin Definitions
•Third party-initiated – Project initiated by applicant or external agency (statutory boards)
•Staff-initiated – Project initiated by staff liaison or other city staff
•Commission-initiated – Project initiated by the board or commission
•Council-initiated – Project tasked to a board or commission by the city council
Special study session meeting of June 1, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission annual meeting with council Page 10
9
Strategic Priorities
1.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.
2.St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship.
3.St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development.
4.St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and
reliably.
5.St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement
Modifications
•Work plans may be modified, to add or delete items, in one of three ways:
•Work plans can be modified by mutual agreement during a joint work session.
•If immediate approval is important, the board or commission can work with their staff liaison to present a modified work plan for city
council approval at a council meeting.
•The city council can direct a change to the work plan at their discretion.
Future ideas
Initiatives that are being considered by the board or commission but not proposed in the annual work plan. Council approval is needed if the
board or commission decides they would like to amend a work plan.
Initiative Comments
Special study session meeting of June 1, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission annual meeting with council Page 11