HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020/07/27 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JULY 27, 2020
All meetings of t he St. L ouis Park City Council will be conducte d by telephone or other electronic
means starting March 30, 2020, and until further notice. T his is in accordance w it h the local
emergency declaration issued by t he city council, in response t o t he c oronavirus (COVID -19)
pandemic and Governor Walz's “Stay Safe MN” executive order 20-056.
Some or all members of the St. Louis Park City Council will participate in the July 27, 2020 city
council meeting by electronic device or telephone rather than by being pe rsonally present at
the city council's regular meeting place at 5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
Members of the public can monitor the meeting by video a nd audio a t http s://bit.ly/watch slpcouncil
or by calling +1-312-535-8110 meeting number (access code): 372 106 61 for audio only. Cisco
Webex will be used to conduct videoconference meetings of the city council, with council
members and staff participating from multiple locations.
6:30 p.m. - STUDY SESSION
Discussion items
1. 6:30 p.m. Police use of force policy
2. 8:15 p.m. Policing structural analysis
3. 9:00 p.m. Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
9:05 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal)
9:10 p.m. Adjourn
Written reports
4. Climate action in time of COVID – follow -up discussion
5. June 2020 monthly financial report
6. Second quarter investment report (April – June 2020)
7. SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process
8. Public art update
9. Arlington Row Apartments East and Arlington Row Apartments West plat extensions
10. COVID-related street closures
The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of city hall and on the text display
on civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952-924-2525.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: July 27, 2020
Discussion item : 1
Executive summary
Title: Police use of force policy
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is Categorized as Time -Sensitive **
•None at this time . The purpose of this study session is to provide information to the
council on the department’s use of force policy and have a facilitated discussion.
Policy consideration: Does the council need additional information on the police departments
use of force policy?
Summary: Following the murder of George Floyd, the council asked to review the departments
use of force policy in St. Louis Park. During this study session, the department will give an
overview of its policies, review the 8 Can’t Wait policy recommendations and update the
council on recent legislation passed by Minnesota legislature. This session will be facilitated by
consultant Shawn Sorrel.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a
more just and inclusive community for all.
St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community
engagement.
Supporting documents: Facilitator bio
Prepared by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst
Reviewed by: Alicia Sojourner, race equity manager
Mike Harcey , chief of police
Nancy Deno, deputy city manager
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Police use of force policy
Facilitator bio: Shawn Sorrell
Shawn Sorrell is an experienced consultant with public and private entities in design and
implementation of organizational change strategies and leadership development, dedicated to
diversity, equity and inclusion. Provides facilitation and consultation on cross-cultural
communication, developing cultural and emotional intelligence. Currently serving as the
Diversity and Equal Justice Manager for Hennepin County Minnesota Department of
Community Corrections and Rehabilitation. Also, servin g a Hennepin County Disparities
Reduction Justice Domain coordinator.
Prior public service positions in Hennepin County Minnesota Human Resources Diversity and
Inclusion Division and State of Delaware Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their
Families. Formally studied chemical engineering at Drexel University, sociology and psychology
at the University of Delaware and is a native of Baltimore, MD. Spent several years working
with community groups and religious organizations in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and
Wilmington, Delaware cultivating violence prevention programs and mentoring youth from
diverse religious and ethnic backgrounds. Community board participation with Avenues for
Youth, Volunteer Lawyers Network, Woodbury YMCA and Woodbury Public Safety Multicultural
Advisory Committee .
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: July 27, 2020
Discussion item : 2
Executive summary
Title: Policing structural analysis
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is Categorized as Time-Sensitive**
•Council will be asked to participate in an active discussion to develop a roadmap for
reviewing the St. Louis Park policing structure /model.
Policy consideration:
•What aspects of the policing structure /model would the council like to review?
•Who else needs to be included in these conversations?
Summary: Following the murder of G eorge Floyd, the council asked to review the policing
structure in St. Louis Park. This study session will provide time for the council to have a
thoughtful discussion about the ne xt steps in reviewing the policing structure. This session will
be facilitated by consultant Shawn Sorrell.
Note, the police de partment conducted a structural review with the city council between
August and November of 2017. During these sessions the council discusses the de partments
service delivery model, policy and procedures, critical incidents and council response to
critical i ncidents. Materials from those sessions can be found here (link).
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicabl e.
Strategic priority consideration:
St. Louis Park is committe d to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a
more just and inclusive community for all.
St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community
engagement.
Supporting documents: None
Prepared by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst
Reviewed by: Alicia Sojourner, race equity manager
M ike Harcey, chief of police
Nancy Deno, deputy city manager
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: July 27, 2020
Discussion item : 3
Executive summary
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is Categorized as Time -Sensitive **
•The city council and city manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled study session
on Aug. 10, 2020.
Policy consideration: Not applicable.
Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the regularly scheduled study session
on Aug. 10, 2020.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Tentative agenda – Aug. 10, 2020
Study session discussion topics and timeline
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant
Reviewed by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Aug. 10, 2020.
6:30 p.m. Study session - To be held via videoconference
Tentative discussion items
1.COVID update and CARES Act, 2021 budget discussion – Administrative services (120 minutes)
Chief Financial Officer Melanie Lammers and Ehlers Consultant Stacie Kvilvang will present
information on preliminary 2021 budget, provide an update on COVID financials and also
share more detailed information on the CARES Act funding. Department Directors will be
present as needed for questions.
**Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered essential business and is
Categorized as T ime -Sensitive**
2.Future study session agenda planning – Administrative services (5 minutes)
Communications/meeting check-in – Administrative services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Written reports
3.PLACE redevelopment contract update
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Study session discussion topics and timeline
Future council items
Priority Discussion topic Comments Timeline for council
discussion
3 Discuss public process
expectations and outcomes
Staff is working on the approach for
undertaking this discussion. TBD
4
Revisit housing setback, FAR , &
more related to affordable
housing
4th qtr. (Oct.
2020?)
5 Home-based businesses (HBB)/
accessory dwelling units (ADU)
ADU – 9/29/20;
HBB - 1st qtr. 2021
6 Public forums at council mtgs 9/23/19 SS. Staff doing research of other cities. 1st qtr. 2021
8 Community and neighborhood
sidewalk designations 9/14/20
9 Remove mint & menthol
exemption from existing
Written report
8/24/20
10 Easy access to nature, across
city, s tarting w/ low-income
TBD
11 Conversion therapy ban TBD
12 Changes to sign ordinance Sept. 2020
13 WHNC Access Fund *On hold pending direction from school
district.*On hold
Council items in progress
Priority Discussion topic Comments Next Steps
1
Prioritizing transit options thru
investments, and engineering
and operations decisions
SS discussion 10/21/19. Staff met with Metro
Transit Dec., 2019; discussed 7/13/20
Pilot program
winter ’20-‘21
2 Climate in the time of COVID Discussed May 26, 2020 Written report
7/27/20
7 STEP discussion: facilities Council asked staff to consider lending options
to assist STEP in buying a new bldg.
STEP is searching
for a new facility
Police use of force policy review Discussion 7/27/20
Policing: structural analysis Discussion 7/27/20
R evitalization of Walker Lake
area
Council approved updated parking ord. Dec.
2019; Planning Commission working on new
zoning ord. and design guidelines for the
district – recommendation to council Q4;
Construction of phase 1 completed summer
2019; Phase 2 currently under construction
Discussion of
ordinance and
design guidelines
late 2020
Crime free ordinance/
affordable housing strategies
Council reviewed ordinance; Certain provisions
of CF ordinance suspended; Work group
formed; Work group presented
recommendations to council 6/8/2020.
1st reading repeal
ordinance 8/3/20,
2nd reading 8/17/20
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: July 27, 2020
Written report: 4
Executive summary
Title: Climate action in time of COVID – follow -up discussion
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is categorized as Time-Sensitive**
•No action requested. Report provides follow up information to council questions.
Policy considerations: Is council supportive of the proposed programs and expected progress
toward achi eving the Climate Action Plan goals?
Summary: At the May 26, 2020 study session, the city council requested a list of metrics tying
the Conservation in the Park campaign and the Climate Champions program to St. Louis Park’s
Climate A ction P lan (CAP) goals. A list of m etrics intended to answer questions regarding target
participation lev els f or each of the strategies proposed to reach midterm goals 1-5 is included in
this report. A s ignif icant community-wide investment will be needed to achieve the midterm
goals.
Council also requested an update on the city’s Green Building Policy, which is currently under
review by staff for updating.
Information on local air q uality d ata sources is also p rovid ed in order to respond to que stions
about the impact of St. Louis Park mobile-source and point-source emissions on public he alth.
Financial or budget considerations: Funding incentive programs to reduce community
greenhouse gas emissions at an annual level chosen to meet the midt erm goals f or b uilding
energy efficiency (goals 1-4) and renewable e nergy (goal 5) could require an annual city
investment of between $1.9 - $ 2.4 million for each o f t he y ears 2021 through 2030.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Attachment A - Climate Action Plan midterm goals 1-5 w/ projected costs
Prepared by: Emily Ziring, sustainability m anager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, director of building and energy
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Climate action in time of COVID – follow-up discussion
Discussion
Background: The Sustainability Division is tasked with facilitating the implementation of the
city’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), adopted in February 2018. Because greenhouse gas emissions
from buildings make up 58% of all emissions in St. Louis Park, a large focus of the CAP is
reducing energy consumption across building types. A “Climate Champ ions” program has been
developed for both commercial and residential property owners designed to engage, reward,
and recognize property owners who choose to complete a no/low-cost energy assessment at
their property and commit to undertake building energy improvements using loan and/or
rebate programs. This includes existing loan and rebate programs through the city and partner
organizations, as well as some new city rebate programs. The program is scheduled to begin in
early 2021 and continue.
Staff is now spearheading a new campaign for residents called “Conservation in the Park.” This
campaign promotes community-wide money-saving programs primarily focused on home
energy conservation, tailored with targeted tips for both renters and homeowners of all income
levels.
Both the Climate Champions program and the Conservation in the Park campaign are designed
to make progress in reaching Climate Action Plan midterm goals for building energy efficiency
(goals 1-4) and renewable energy (goal 5). Taken together, these five goals will help the city
reduce emissions 45% by 2030. Goals 6 and 7, which target 10% of the midterm greenhouse gas
emissions reductions through travel and solid waste strategies, respectively, are being
addressed under separate climate action programs including Connect the Park and the Zero
Waste Packaging ordinance. The Sustainability Division will also work closely with Engineering
and Operations on future policies and programs toward reaching these two goals and plans to
update the city council on Goals 6 and 7 next year.
Present considerations:
Climate Action Plan Midterm Goals
Each of the seven midterm goals within the Climate Action Plan is accompanied by a series of
strategies. Specific targets (i.e. metrics) that were calculated for the Climate Action Plan using
the wedge diagram tool are assigned to each strategy, and each strategy is supported by
initiatives and actions intended to help the city achieve these targets:
Goals
Strategies
Initiatives
Actions
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Climate action in time of COVID – follow-up discussion
Staff placed each of the goals 1-5 and their underlying strategies into a spreadsheet that would
allow staff to calculate the number of buildings needing to be addressed (retrofitted,
weatherized, appliances replaced, renewables installed, etc.) each year in order to hit the 2030
targets. The estimated costs for each building owner to reach those targets has also been
calculated in the spreadsheet, along with 10-year total and annual cost for the city to offer
incentives to meet each target and a description of the corresponding incentive programs (see
Attachment A). The incentive programs identified in the spreadsheet are both existing
programs and new programs proposed under Climate Champions.
The most suitable sources of data for tracking progress against each of the strategies continue
to be identified. Because most of the city incentive programs are matche d rebates predicated
on participants receiving rebates from Xcel and CenterPoint Energy, data used to track annual
participation, as well as participation levels in specific programs by census tract, will come from
the utilities . In most cases, the utilities’ programs do not line up perfectly with the CAP
strategies so proxies will have to be used to determine participation. For example, Xcel Energy’s
HVAC-R equipment rebate program data can serve as the data source for numerous commercial
building strategies (retrofits, equipment replacement, etc.), so staff will work to ensure that
participants are not double -counted. Home Energy Squad is another example; homeowners
may receive recommendations for an appliance upgrade, a retrofit or weatherization during the
visit, but only when action is taken is participation captured under the programs listed in
Strategy 3 and Strategy 4. Using utilities’ rebate program data also assumes that all property
owners who took energy efficiency measures applied for rebates, which may not be the case.
The 2020 Conservation in the Park campaign supports a few of the strategies under CAP Goal 4:
Reduce energy consumption in residential buildings by 35% by 2030. Because the campaign was
intentionally designed to be budget-neutral, no new incentive programs are being offered this
year. The campaign is engaging residents through the Park Perspective, social media,
GovDelivery emails , mailed flyers, print media, and industry groups. Metrics that track
participation in each campaign event or program (such as email “click -through rates,” social
media “shares” and event registrations) will be recorded to determine how many residents
have participated in energy conservation webinars and behavior-based energy conservation
actions and programs. A post-campaign survey will also be conducted and sent to the
subscribers of the Climate Action Plan GovDelivery newsletter list to gauge how many home
energy improvements and energy consumption behavior changes were undertaken as a result
of this campaign. For additional details, see Attachment A.
Additionally, the Conservation in the Park campaign will promote the 2020 Intercity Home
Energy Squad Challenge. St. Louis Park joined fourteen other cities to compete in the challenge,
and the winner will be determined by the greatest percent increase in Home Energy Squad
participation (calculated by average from last five years). The Home Energy Squad is a joint
program from Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy, and once participants complete a virtual
visit, they will be connected with savings tips and recommendations to pursue energy efficiency
projects (placing it primarily under CAP Goal 4, Strategy 4: Appliance, Equipment, and Fixture
Efficiency: 17,820 households replace electrical equipment with high efficiency models, and
7,200 households replace natural gas equipment with high efficiency models by 2030).
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: Climate action in time of COVID – follow-up discussion
The Environment and Sustainability Commission has reviewed the Climate Action Plan midterm
goals 1-5 with projected costs; their feedback has been incorporated into the attachment.
Green Building Policy U pdate
One of the strategies that appears in the CAP requires that by 2030, all new and renovated
buildings are constructed to green building standards (net-zero energy). There are three main
pathways laid out for this strategy:
1. Support the State’s adoption of a high-performance building energy code
The city cannot currently exceed the State’s energy code. However, if the State legislature were
to pass a bill adding a green building code as an appendix or option in the State Building Code,
local jurisdictions would be able to adopt it. The city has been actively involved in efforts to
change the State energy code, serving as one of six representative cities on the Planning Team
of a statewide coalition called the Cities Advanced Building Performance Working Group. Key
collaborators contributed to the discussion as well, including the League of Minnesota Cities,
utilities, the architectural community, design engineers, and the insurance industry.
While a consensus was reached on a path forward, because of the pandemic the legislature was
unable to consider the legislation this year. The Working Group remains in communication and
plans to resume discussions with the State this fall.
2. Adopt a green building code as soon as it becomes available
If or when the State adopts an advanced building energy code , the Building & Energy
Department is preparing to integrate an updated code into its practices.
3. Strengthen the city’s green building policy
The city has a G reen Building Policy that requires development projects that receive city
financial assistance to use green building standards in the design of the buildings. The policy
was adopted in 2010 and last updated in 2014. Sustainability staff has been meeting with other
cities in the region to co mpare sustainable building policies for their frameworks (code s,
standards, ratings/certifications, or guidelines with verification) and ease of use and to
determine whether there is interest in working together to develop one uniform policy or
template that could be used by all cities in the metro, thereby avoiding a patchwork of policies
and checklists. Sustainability has been in regular communication on this topic with Community
Development staff ; the departments will be meeting this year to discuss how best to update the
existing Green Building Policy , taking into account the potential regional collaboration and
future high -performance building energy code. Community Development will also be
recommending changes to the policy to require compliance with the code when requesting
certain land-use changes (PUD, Comp Plan Amendment), in addition to the current trigger of
financial assistance requests.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Title: Climate action in time of COVID – follow-up discussion
Air Quality Data
At the May 26, 2020 study session, the city council also requested information about air quality
in St. Louis Park. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) operates a network of air
monitors throughout Minnesota. These monitors measure pollutants in outdoor air around the
clock and throughout the year. The results track pollution trends over time, show whether
outdoor air meets federal and state air quality standards, and help residents understand if the
air is healthy to breathe. MPCA submits air pollution monitoring data to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency as well as sharing it with Minnesotans.
The MPCA monitoring network is extensive but it does not measure pollution everywhere (there
is only one monitor in St. Louis Park). To help fill in the gaps, the agency uses computer models to
estimate air concentrations across the state. The modeled concentrations are based on an
emissions inventory composed of almost all sources of pollution across the state. These emissions
are calculated a few different ways and at varying levels of detail: facility emissions (primarily
from industrial businesses) are self-reported and very specific down to the exact location of the
stack, vehicles emissions are based on more general traffic counts provided by MnDOT, and
sources like residential wood burning are broad statistical estimates based on survey data.
The MPCA offers two primary tools for organizing modeled air quality data: 1) a pollutant
ranking tool that shows where we would expect to see the highest air pollution risks based on
emissions from all of 55 different pollutant sources, and 2) a source priority tool that shows
how much each specific source contributes to the air pollution in an area. Together, these two
tools can provide local air quality data in order to respond to questions about the impact of St.
Louis Park mobile -source and point-source emissions on public health. If the council has
questions about specific pollutants or the public health risks in certain geographic areas of St.
Louis Park, these tools can be used to answer those questions.
Financial Considerations: Because (outside of the Green Building Policy) the city cannot
currently require property owners to make energy efficiency improvements or install
renewable energy, incentives are the primary tool available to encourage property owners to
undertake any work. It’s likely that future incentives will also need to be devised for midterm
Goals 6 and 7 to reduce vehicle emissions and solid waste.
The total cost for each property owner to meet Goals 1-5 will vary depending on property type,
size, age, and whethe r some strategies have already been achieved, but each commercial
building owner can expect to spend between $50,000 - $1.6 million and each residential
property owner can expect to spend $3,000 - $25,000 (depending on square footage of each
property, cost of equipment, level of insulation needed, number of solar panels, etc.). Because
this tool focuses on external incentives, the city’s own operating and capital costs for meeting
CAP goals are not included.
The cost of city incentives per year will range depending on the characteristics of the buildings
addressed, including property type, size, age, and whether some strategies have already been
achieved (for example, if there is on-site solar already in place or appliances have been recently
replaced). Costs modeled assume that the number of buildings affected is spread evenly over
10 years, however, the budget could start lower and ramp up, or fluctuate based on projected
demand, over the 10-year period.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 4) Page 6
Title: Climate action in time of COVID – follow-up discussion
As a percentage of the total cost of improvements, the city incentives range from 3 percent to
60 percent depending on the program and building type. If, however, a property owner
combines city incentives with the external rebate programs listed in Attachment A, the capital
cost of improvements can potentially be far lower than estimated. As an example:
A 12,000 square foot office building undergoes a no-cost energy assessment. Energy
experts identify many opportunities to improve energy efficiency and update
equipment, including retrofitting the street-facing windows and upgrading the rooftop
units to high efficiency.
This hypothetical building is also located in a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency-
identified environmental justice area of concern, meaning the St. Louis Park Green
Building Energy Match covers 30% of building retrofit costs, up to $10,000.
Costs Before Rebates $56,000
Utility and Partner Rebates ($6,500)
St. Louis Park Green Building Match (NEW in 2021) ($10,000)
Final Cost $39,500
This cost can also be financed through a number of low-cost financing programs, which will be
presented to the property owner.
A summary of the annual estimated cost of city incentives needed to meet the strategies laid out
in goals 1-5 of the CAP is below, and the complete spreadsheet can be found in Attachment A.
Potential Cost of Incentives
Per Year (low end)
Potential Cost of Incentives
Per Year (high end)
Goal 1: Reduce energy consumption in
large commercial and industrial (C/I)
buildings by 30% by 2030, as compared to
the business-as-usual forecast. $140,700 $194,500
Goal 2: Reduce energy consumption in
small to mid -size commercial buildings by
30% by 2030, as compared to the
business-as-usual forecast. $229,900 $276,800
Goal 3: By 2030, design all new
construction to be net-zero energy (NZE). NA NA
Goal 4: Reduce energy consumption in
residential buildings by 35% by 2030, as
compared to the business-as -usual
forecast. $1,217,500 $1,526,000
Goal 5: Achieve 100% renewable
electricity by 2030. $300,000 $360,000
TOTAL $ 1,888,100 $ 2,357,300
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 4) Page 7
Title: Climate action in time of COVID – follow-up discussion
Within the category of building energy efficiency, the goal with the greatest greenhouse gas
reduction impact and the lowest “impact efficiency” (low -end incentive dollars per ton of
greenhouse gases reduced) is Goal 1. It is worth noting, however, that the $10,000 - $15,000
incentive amounts inputted into the tool for this goal assume that the division’s 2021 incentive
budget will match its 2020 adopted budget; it will likely require greater incentive amounts to
spur energy improvements in large commercial & industrial buildings . Minneapolis, for
example, matches $15,000 - $30,000 per commercial building.
Achieving our Climate Action Plan midterm goals requires a substantial investment. In
summary: in order to meet midterm goals 1-5, a community investment of between $9.2 –
$121.5 million for commercial property owners and $66.6 – $168 million for residential
property owners would be required (depending on square footage of each property, amount
and cost of equipment, level of insulation needed, number of solar panels, etc.), which could be
spurred by a city investment of approximately $18.9 – $23.6 million over ten years for existing
and new incentive programs.
These costs assume that there is city staff and partner staff capacity to meet the targets for
each strategy, but it is likely that both would need to be increased to meet this level of demand.
For example, the Center for Energy and Environment has historically completed around 135
Home Energy Squad visits per year in St. Louis Park; doubling or tripling the number of visits per
year may require they hire additional assessors. The goals also assume 100 percent
participation in each strategy—that every property owner is aware of loan and incentive
programs and willing and able to undertake energy efficiency and renewable energy
improvements—but, as described, in most cases the city cannot compel property owners to
make improvements.
As discussed at the May 26, 2020 study session, the 2021 budget request for the Sustainability
Division includes funding for incentives at the same level as in the adopted 2020 budget, or
$100,000. While this level of funding will not reach the targeted numbers for each strategy, it
will be distributed in such a way to achieve maximum impact efficiency, primarily reaching large
commercial & industrial property owners and leveraging the greatest amount of outside
funding and financing programs.
Next steps: Sustainability staff will continue to track progress against Climate Action Plan goals
and strategies (Attachment A) following the outcome of the city council discussion.
1
Climate Action Plan midterm goals 1-5 with projected costs
July 27, 2020
Category: Building Energy Efficiency (21.7% of GHG reduced toward midterm)
Goal 1: Reduce energy
consumption in large
commercial and
industrial (C/I) buildings
by 30% by 2030, as
compared to the
business-as-usual
forecast.
Goal Goal Per
Year
Data
Source/Proxy
Cost
Assumption
Total Cost
to Each
Owner
(low end)
Total Cost
to Each
Owner
(high end)
Incentive Program
Description
10-year Cost
of Incentives
(low end)
10-year Cost
of Incentives
(high end)
Cost of
Incentives
Per Year
(low end)
Cost of
Incentives
Per Year
(high end)
Incentives
as a % of
Total Cost
Cost per ton of
greenhouse
gases reduced
("impact
efficiency")
Other Funding and
Financing Sources
Strategy 1: Building
Retrofits: 79 buildings
complete retrofits by
2030, saving an average
of 18% (1.5% of total
building emissions).
79 8 Xcel and
CenterPoint
business
programs
$20/sq. ft. $300,000 $1,500,000 Green Building Energy
Match (NEW): 20%-30%,
max $10,000-$15,000
per building . Maximum
city funding per project
is for buildings in MPCA-
identified
environmental justice
area of concern,
buildings that are
participating in the
Benchmarking program,
and buildings that want
to participate in
Benchmarking
voluntarily.
$790,000 $1,185,000 $79,000 $118,500 3% Property Assessed
Clean Energy (PACE)
financing
Trillion BTU
financing
MN Chamber Waste
Wise Foundation
grants
Utility rebates
CARES Act
Strategy 2: Appliance
Equipment and Fixture
Efficiency: 79 buildings
replace equipment with
high efficiency models
by 2030, saving an
average of 25% (3.3% of
total building emissions).
79 8 Xcel and
CenterPoint
business
programs
$30k per
building
$30,000 $30,000 Commercial Business
Refrigeration Match
(NEW): $6,000 per
building
$474,000 $474,000 $47,400 $47,400 20% Property Assessed
Clean Energy (PACE)
financing
Trillion BTU
financing
MN Chamber Waste
Wise Foundation
grants
Utility rebates
CARES Act
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 4)
Title: Climate action in time of COVID – follow-up discussion Page 8
2
Goal 1 (cont’d): Reduce
energy consumption in
large commercial and
industrial (C/I) buildings
by 30% by 2030, as
compared to the
business-as-usual
forecast.
Goal Goal Per
Year
Data
Source/Proxy
Cost
Assumption
Total Cost
to Each
Owner
(low end)
Total Cost
to Each
Owner
(high end)
Incentive Program
Description
10-year Cost
of Incentives
(low end)
10-year Cost
of Incentives
(high end)
Cost of
Incentives
Per Year
(low end)
Cost of
Incentives
Per Year
(high end)
Incentives
as a % of
Total Cost
Cost per ton of
greenhouse
gases reduced
("impact
efficiency")
Other Funding and
Financing Sources
Strategy 3: Efficient
Building Operations: By
2030, 143 buildings are
actively engaged in
building operations best
management practices
(BMPs), saving an
average of 15% (7.7% of
total building emissions)
143 14 Xcel and
CenterPoint
business
programs
BOC
training
cost
$3,390 $4,000 Building Operator
Certification training
match (NEW): $500 or
$1,000 per trainee.
Higher amount rebated
to building owners
whose trained workers
are from traditionally
underrepresented
groups. Assumes 2 per
building over 10 years.
$143,000 $286,000 $14,300 $28,600 29% Utility rebates
May be grants
Strategy 4: Behavior
Change: By 2030,
occupants of 52
buildings are engaged in
sustained behavior
change strategies, saving
an average of 8% (0.7%
of total building
emissions).
52 5 Behavior
change
campaign
data
Xcel smart
meter data
Staff time
for city and
business
Unknown Unknown TBD NA NA NA NA May be grants
Goal 1 subtotals $333,390 $1,534,000 $1,407,000 $1,945,000 $140,700 $194,500 $2.75
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 4)
Title: Climate action in time of COVID – follow-up discussion Page 9
3
Goal 2: Reduce energy
consumption in small to
mid -size commercial
buildings by 30% by
2030, as compared to
the business-as-usual
forecast.
Goal Goal Per
Year
Data Source Cost
Assumption
Total Cost
to Each
Owner
(low end)
Total Cost
to Each
Owner
(high end)
Incentive Program
Description
10-year Cost
of Incentives
(low end)
10-year Cost
of Incentives
(high end)
Cost of
Incentives
Per Year
(low end)
Cost of
Incentives
Per Year
(high end)
Incentives
as a % of
Total Cost
Cost per ton of
greenhouse
gases reduced
("impact
efficiency")
Other Funding and
Financing Sources
Strategy 1: Building
Retrofits: 117 small and
mid-sized buildings
complete retrofits by
2030, resulting in an
average energy savings
of 18% (0.7% of total
building emissions).
117 12 Xcel and
CenterPoint
business
programs
$10-15/sq.
ft.
$50,000 $300,000 Green Building Energy
Match (NEW): 20%-30%,
max. $8,000-$10,000
per building . Maximum
city funding per project
is for buildings in MPCA-
identified
environmental justice
area of concern,
buildings that are
participating in the
Benchmarking program,
and buildings that want
to participate in
Benchmarking
voluntarily.
$936,000 $1,170,000 $93,600 $117,000 16% Property Assessed
Clean Energy (PACE)
financing
Trillion BTU
financing
MN Chamber Waste
Wise Foundation
grants
Utility rebates
CARES Act
Strategy 2: Appliance
Equipment and Fixture
Efficiency: 188 buildings
replace equipment with
high efficiency models,
resulting in an average
energy savings of 17%
(2.6% of total building
emissions).
188 19 Xcel and
CenterPoint
business
programs
$15k per
building
$15,000 $15,000 Commercial Business
Refrigeration Match
(NEW): $6,000 per
building
$1,128,000 $1,128,000 $112,800 $112,800 40% Property Assessed
Clean Energy (PACE)
financing
Trillion BTU
financing
MN Chamber Waste
Wise Foundation
grants
Utility rebates
CARES Act
Strategy 3: Efficient
Building Operations: By
2030, 235 buildings are
actively engaged in
building opera tions
BMPs, saving an average
of 23% (3.0% of total
building emissions).
235 24 Xcel and
CenterPoint
business
programs
BOC
training
cost
$1,695 $2,000 Building Operator
Certification training
match (NEW): $500 or
$1,000 per trainee.
Higher amount rebated
to building owners
whose trained workers
are from traditionally
underrepresented
groups. Assumes 2 per
building over 10 years.
$235,000 $470,000 $23,500 $47,000 59% Utility rebates
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 4)
Title: Climate action in time of COVID – follow-up discussion Page 10
4
Goal 2 (cont’d): Reduce
energy consumption in
small to mid -size
commercial buildings by
30% by 2030, as
compared to the
business-as-usual
forecast.
Goal Goal Per
Year
Data Source Cost
Assumption
Total Cost
to Each
Owner
(low end)
Total Cost
to Each
Owner
(high end)
Incentive Program
Description
10-year Cost
of Incentives
(low end)
10-year Cost
of Incentives
(high end)
Cost of
Incentives
Per Year
(low end)
Cost of
Incentives
Per Year
(high end)
Incentives
as a % of
Total Cost
Cost per ton of
greenhouse
gases reduced
("impact
efficiency")
Other Funding and
Financing Sources
Strategy 4: Behavior
Change: By 2030,
occupants of 155
buildings are engaged in
sustained behavior
change strategies, saving
an average of 5% (0.4%
of total building
emissions).
155 16 Behavior
change
campaign
data
Xcel smart
meter data
Staff time
for city and
business
Unknown Unknown TBD NA NA NA NA May be grants
Goal 2 subtotals $66,695 $317,000 $2,299,000 $2,768,000 $229,900 $276,800 $8.79
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 4)
Title: Climate action in time of COVID – follow-up discussion Page 11
5
Goal 3: By 2030, design
all new construction to
be net-zero energy
(NZE).
Goal Goal Per
Year
Data Source Cost
Assumption
Total Cost
to Each
Owner
(low end)
Total Cost
to Each
Owner
(high end)
Incentive Program
Description
10-year Cost
of Incentives
(low end)
10-year Cost
of Incentives
(high end)
Cost of
Incentives
Per Year
(low end)
Cost of
Incentives
Per Year
(high end)
Incentives
as a % of
Total Cost
Cost per ton of
greenhouse
gases reduced
("impact
efficiency")
Other Funding and
Financing Sources
Strategy 1: Energy Code
Enforcement: Continue
to ensure all new and
renovated buildings meet
the current energy code,
reducing energy use by
35% from the baseline
building for new
construction and 17% for
renovations (1.2% of
total building emissions).
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Strategy 2: Stretch
Energy Code: By 2030, all
new and renovated
buildings are constructed
to green building
standards (NZE), reducing
emissions by 67-100%
from the baseline
buildings for new
construction and 34-50%
for renovations,
depending on the year
designed (3.3% of total
building emissions).
100% NZE 100% NZE NA $50-100/SF Unknown Unknown Advance state energy
code or use Green
Building Policy (CD)
For discussion For
discussion
For
discussion
For
discussion
NA
Goal 3 subtotals
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 4)
Title: Climate action in time of COVID – follow-up discussion Page 12
6
Goal 4: Reduce energy
consumption in
residential buildings by
35% by 2030, as
compared to the
business-as-usual
forecast.
Goal Goal Per
Year
Data Source Cost
Assumption
Total Cost
to Each
Owner
(low end)
Total Cost
to Each
Owner
(high end)
Incentive Program
Description
10-year Cost
of Incentives
(low end)
10-year Cost
of Incentives
(high end)
Cost of
Incentives
Per Year
(low end)
Cost of
Incentives
Per Year
(high end)
Incentives
as a % of
Total Cost
Cost per ton of
greenhouse
gases reduced
("impact
efficiency")
Other Funding and
Financing Sources
Strategy 1: Energy Code
Enforcement: Continue
to ensure all new and
renovated residential
buildings meet the
current energy code,
reducing energy use by
39% from the baseline
building for new
construction and 19% for
renovations (0.8% of
total building emissions).
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Strategy 2: Stretch
Energy Code: By 2030, all
new residential buildings
are built to net zero
energy (NZE) standards
reducing emissions by
67-100% from the
baseline building,
depending on the year
designed (0.5% of total
building emissions).
100% NZE 100% NA Ranges
depending
on SFH or
multifamily;
assume
$50-100/SF
TBD TBD Advance state energy
code or use Green
Building Policy (CD)
For discussion For
discussion
For
discussion
For
discussion
NA
Strategy 3: Building
Retrofits/Weatherization:
9,000 single-family
households complete
retrofits/weatherization
by 2030, saving an
average of 37% for
natural gas and 6% for
electricity (4.9% of total
building emissions).
9,000 900 Xcel and
CenterPoint
residential
programs
$6,500 per
SFH
average
$5,000 $8,000 HES visits: $50 each
Energy Efficient Home
Rebates: 50% of utility
rebates (CD)
up to $250 for
insulation;
New program will offer
$50 max for thermostat
rebates (NEW)
$2,725,000 $2,750,000 $272,500 $275,000 6% Utilities -subsidized
HES program
CEE Home Energy
Loan Program
Property Assessed
Clean Energy (PACE)
financing
Trillion BTU
financing
Utility rebates
Federal
Weatherization
Assistance Program
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 4)
Title: Climate action in time of COVID – follow-up discussion Page 13
7
Goal 4 (cont’d): Reduce
energy consumption in
residential buildings by
35% by 2030, as
compared to the
business-as-usual
forecast.
Goal Goal Per
Year
Data Source Cost
Assumption
Total Cost
to Each
Owner
(low end)
Total Cost
to Each
Owner
(high end)
Incentive Program
Description
10-year Cost
of Incentives
(low end)
10-year Cost
of Incentives
(high end)
Cost of
Incentives
Per Year
(low end)
Cost of
Incentives
Per Year
(high end)
Incentives
as a % of
Total Cost
Cost per ton of
greenhouse
gases reduced
("impact
efficiency")
Other Funding and
Financing Sources
Strategy 4: Appliance,
Equipment, and Fixture
Efficiency: 17,820 (75%)
households replace
electrical equipment with
high efficiency models,
and 7,200 households
replace natural gas
equipment with high
efficiency models by
2030, saving an average
of 13% (2.9% of total
building emissions).
17,820
electrical
7,200
natural
gas
1,782
electrical
720
natural gas
Xcel and
CenterPoint
residential
programs
$5000 for
elec, $3000
for NG
$3,000 $8,000 Energy Efficient Home
Rebates: 50% of utility
rebates (CD)
$9,450,000 $12,510,000 $945,000 $1,251,000 25% Utilities -subsidized
HES program
CEE Home Energy
Loan Program
Property Assessed
Clean Energy (PACE)
financing
Trillion BTU
financing
Utility rebates
Federal Low Income
Home Energy
Assistance Program
(LIHEAP)
Federal
Weatherization
Assistance Program
Strategy 5: Behavior
Change: By 2030, 90% of
households will be
engaged in sustained
behavior change
strategies, saving an
average of 10% (3.0% of
total building emissions).
22,140 2,214
households
Behavior
change
campaign
data
Xcel smart
meter data
Staff time
for city and
residents
Unknown Unknown Conservation in the
Park, future programs
NA NA NA NA May be grants
Goal 4 subtotals $8,000 $16,000 $12,175,000 $15,260,000 $1,217,500 $1,526,000 $25.67
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 4)
Title: Climate action in time of COVID – follow-up discussion Page 14
8
Category: Renewable Energy (23.3% of GHG reduced toward midterm) *
Goal 5: Achieve 100%
renewable electricity by
2030
Goal Goal Per
Year
Data Source Cost
Assumption
Total Cost
to Each
Owner
(low end)
Total Cost
to Each
Owner
(high end)
Incentive Program
Description
10-year Cost
of Incentives
(low end)
10-year Cost
of Incentives
(high end)
Cost of
Incentives
Per Year
(low end)
Cost of
Incentives
Per Year
(high end)
Incentives
as a % of
Total Cost
Cost per ton of
greenhouse
gases reduced
("impact
efficiency")
Other Funding and
Financing Sources
Strategy 1-2
Commercial/Industrial:
All businesses purchase
all their electricity from
green power by 2030
(36.3% of total building
emissions in 2030)
2300
businesses
230 Xcel Energy 150,000
kWh/year
(assume 10
years)
$0.0098 per
kWh
Windsource
$14,700 $14,700 None recommended None
recommended
NA NA NA NA NA NA
Strategy 3-4 Residential:
All households purchase
100% of their electricity
from green power by
2030 (14.1% of total
building emissions in
2030)
24,600
HHs
2,460 Xcel Energy 10,000
kWh/year
(assume 10
years)
$0.01 per
kWh
Windsource
$1,000 $1,000 None recommended None
recommended
NA NA NA NA NA NA
Strategy 5: On-site solar
photovoltaic (PV): Meet
10% of building
electricity consumption
with rooftop solar by
2030 (5.6% of total
building emissions in
2030)
37 MW 4 Xcel Energy $1,850/kW
(comm)
$3,000/kW
(res)
Does not
include
utility or
fed
incentives
Ranges
depending
on building
type
SFH
$8,000+
Commercial
$100,000+
Ranges
depending
on building
type
SFH
$8,000+
Commercial
$100,000+
Solar Sundown (NEW):
Max city funding per
project is $500 or $600
for homes in MPCA-
identified environmental
justice area of concern,
likely ramping down as
grid gets cleaner;
amounts unlikely to
incent C&I
$3,000,000 $3,600,000 $300,000 $360,000 6-10% $2.02 Xcel Solar*Rewards
($/kWh incentive)
Federal investment
tax credit
CEE Solar Financing
program
Property Assessed
Clean Energy (PACE)
financing
Goal 5 subtotals $14,700
+$100,000
(comm) or
$1,000 +
$8000**
(res)
$14,700
+$100,000
(comm) or
$1,000 +
$8000**
(res)
$3,000,000 $3,600,000 $300,000 $360,000
TOTAL GOALS 1-5 $18,881,000 $23,573,000 $1,888,100 $2,357,300
*The renewable energy emissions reduction calculation assumes the building energy efficiency goals are met through 2030
** Property owners are not likely to purchase 100% of their electricity from green power and install rooftop solar, so this cost is likely a choice between the strategies each year.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 4)
Title: Climate action in time of COVID – follow-up discussion Page 15
9
Conservation in the Park campaign goals
Goal Relation to Climate Action Plan Goal Calculation
300 residents engaged in energy
conservation behavior change
Goal 4, Strategy 5:
Behavior Change: By 2030, 90% of households will
be engaged in sustained behavior change
strategies, saving an average of 10% (3.0% of total
building emissions).
The campaign aims to:
•Have 100 free energy conservation webinar participants
•Add 200 new newsletter subscribers to Climate Action Plan
GovDelivery list
•Maintain a 5% click-through rate* on newsletter campaigns
(or about 70 clicks based on current subscriptions)
•Record behavior changes from participants who complete
email survey
•Track likes and shares on social media
*According to Mailchimp, average CTR for government is 3.9%
145 virtual Home Energy Squad
visits completed
Goal 4, Strategy 4: Appliance, Equipment, and
Fixture Efficiency: 17,820 (75%) households
replace electrical equipment with high efficiency
models, and 7,200 households replace natural gas
equipment with high efficiency models by 2030,
saving an average of 13% (2.9% of total building
emissions).
145 visits represent a 15% increase in Home Energy Squad
participation from the average amount of visits completed in the
last 5 years.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 4)
Title: Climate action in time of COVID – follow-up discussion Page 16
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: July 27, 2020
Written report: 5
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Summary of revenues and expenditures – general fund
Budget to actual – enterprise funds
Prepared by: Darla Monson, accountant
Reviewed by: Melanie Lammers, chief financial officer
Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Actual $2,899 $6,184 $8,981 $11,848 $15,420 $18,566
Budget $3,475 $6,949 $10,424 $13,898 $17,373 $20,847 $24,322 $27,796 $31,271 $34,745 $38,220 $41,694
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
$ THOUSANDS Executive summary
Title: June 2020 monthly financial report
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item
is considered essential business and is Categorized as Time-Sensitive**
•No action required at this time.
Policy consideration: Monthly financial reports are part of our financial management policies.
Summary: The monthly financial report provides an overview of general fund revenues and
departmental expenditures comparing to budget throughout the year. A budget to actual
summary for the four utility funds is also included with this report. We will be reviewing the
impact on our financials from COVID and the CARES act at our August 10th council workshop.
Financial or budget considerations: Under normal circumstances, expenditures would generally
be at approximately 50% of the annual budget at the end of June. General fund expenditures
are running about 5% under at 44.5% of the adopted annual budget through June and no
departments have a variance.
License and permit revenues combined are at approximately 79% of budget through June. Over
87% of the budgeted business and liquor license revenue has already been received, which is
consistent with prior years. Permit revenue is at 77% of budget through June. Large permits
pulled in June included Parkway Place and The Quentin totaling $48 million in valuation.
Monthly Expenditures - General Fund
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund
As of June 30, 2020
2020 2020
2018 2018 2019 2019 2020 2020 Balance YTD Budget
Budget Audited Budget Audited Budget YTD Jun Remaining to Actual %
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 25,705,886$ 26,597,928$ 26,880,004$ 26,952,306$ 28,393,728$ 28,393,728$ 0.00%
Licenses and Permits 3,924,648 4,001,644 4,103,424 5,264,659 4,660,811 3,677,355 983,456 78.90%
Fines & Forfeits 269,200 282,146 279,700 274,340 280,000 61,364 218,637 21.92%
Intergovernmental 1,864,877 2,006,435 1,760,900 1,761,763 1,760,082 492,892 1,267,190 28.00%
Charges for Services 2,162,410 2,180,589 2,187,319 2,160,345 2,273,824 505,879 1,767,945 22.25%
Rents & Other Miscellaneous 1,318,037 1,427,744 1,367,012 1,500,867 1,456,102 549,228 906,874 37.72%
Transfers In 1,929,090 1,929,076 1,999,877 2,012,706 2,038,338 991,169 1,047,169 48.63%
Investment Earnings 160,000 251,494 180,000 523,124 210,000 56,853 153,147 27.07%
Other Income 40,950 35,802 31,300 57,274 621,280 372,588 248,692 59.97%
Use of Fund Balance 523,835 298,156 230,026 - 0.00%
Total General Fund Revenues 37,898,933$ 38,712,858$ 39,087,692$ 40,737,411$ 41,694,165$ 6,707,327$ 34,986,838$ 16.09%
General Fund Expenditures:
General Government:
Administration 1,341,606$ 1,340,282$ 1,837,620$ 1,673,619$ 1,868,599$ 638,340$ 1,230,259$ 34.16%
Finance 978,752 964,036 1,034,199 1,078,291 1,124,045 512,233 611,812 45.57%
Assessing 759,865 710,715 772,746 751,737 808,171 387,417 420,754 47.94%
Human Resources 796,666 735,050 805,620 756,767 823,209 385,832 437,377 46.87%
Community Development 1,479,911 1,559,721 1,502,521 1,515,672 1,571,894 763,557 808,337 48.58%
Facilities Maintenance 1,162,342 1,223,109 1,170,211 1,209,474 1,265,337 612,817 652,520 48.43%
Information Resources 1,589,432 1,526,028 1,674,937 1,474,604 1,709,255 802,879 906,376 46.97%
Communications & Marketing 755,940 829,732 805,674 786,448 828,004 384,275 443,729 46.41%
Community Outreach 27,637 12,085 0.00%
Total General Government 8,892,151$ 8,900,758$ 9,603,528$ 9,246,612$ 9,998,514$ 4,487,349$ 5,511,165$ 44.88%
Public Safety:
Police 9,930,681$ 9,877,014$ 10,335,497$ 10,452,038$ 10,853,821$ 5,174,321$ 5,679,500$ 47.67%
Fire Protection 4,657,973 4,630,520 4,813,078 4,754,524 5,040,703 2,370,527 2,670,176 47.03%
Building 2,544,762 2,295,910 2,555,335 2,430,473 2,696,585 1,185,149 1,511,436 43.95%
Total Public Safety 17,133,416$ 16,803,444$ 17,703,910$ 17,637,035$ 18,591,109$ 8,729,997$ 9,861,112$ 46.96%
Operations:
Public Works Administration 230,753$ 208,050$ 290,753$ 214,436$ 273,318$ 113,580$ 159,738$ 41.56%
Public Works Operations 3,091,857 2,998,935 3,111,481 3,099,493 3,331,966 1,428,185 1,903,781 42.86%
Vehicle Maintenance 1,253,367 1,210,279 1,242,236 1,268,700 1,278,827 574,671 704,156 44.94%
Engineering 525,834 552,432 570,377 609,567 551,285 198,203 353,082 35.95%
Total Operations 5,101,811$ 4,969,696$ 5,214,847$ 5,192,196$ 5,435,396$ 2,314,640$ 3,120,756$ 42.58%
Parks and Recreation:
Organized Recreation 1,582,490 1,499,780 1,579,569 1,498,462 1,637,002 740,549 896,453 45.24%
Recreation Center 1,860,755 2,004,937 1,949,657 2,041,386 2,061,394 740,610 1,320,784 35.93%
Park Maintenance 1,830,530 1,866,744 1,833,297 1,820,455 1,906,363 823,658 1,082,705 43.21%
Westwood Nature Center 622,346 599,704 643,750 612,266 748,683 291,903 456,780 38.99%
Natural Resources 559,662 376,359 484,784 429,409 504,143 183,993 320,150 36.50%
Total Parks and Recreation 6,455,783$ 6,347,524$ 6,491,057$ 6,401,977$ 6,857,585$ 2,780,713$ 4,076,872$ 40.55%
Other Depts and Non-Departmental:
Racial Equity and Inclusion -$ -$ -$ 4,592$ 314,077$ 139,018$ 175,059$ 44.26%
Sustainability 26,283 497,484 114,014 383,470 22.92%
Transfers Out 1,040,000 300,000 0.00%
Contingency and Other 315,772 186,966 74,350 121,245 0.00%
Total Other Depts and Non-Departmental 315,772$ 1,226,966$ 74,350$ 452,119$ 811,561$ 253,032$ 558,529$ 31.18%
Total General Fund Expenditures 37,898,933$ 38,248,388$ 39,087,692$ 38,929,940$ 41,694,165$ 18,565,731$ 23,128,434$ 44.53%
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 5)
Title: June 2020 monthly financial report Page 2
Budget to Actual - Enterprise Funds
As of June 30, 2020
Current
Budget
Jun Year
To Date
Budget
Variance
% of
Budget
Current
Budget
Jun Year
To Date
Budget
Variance
% of
Budget
Current
Budget
Jun Year
To Date
Budget
Variance
% of
Budget
Current
Budget
Jun Year
To Date
Budget
Variance
% of
Budget
Operating revenues:
User charges 7,472,931$ 2,510,678$ 4,962,253$ 33.60%7,897,086$ 2,896,172$ 5,000,914$ 36.67%3,510,090$ 1,228,241$ 2,281,849$ 34.99%3,065,882$ 1,251,167$ 1,814,715$ 40.81%
Rent revenue, permits & other 533,242 482,377 50,865 90.46%43,000 3,242 39,758 7.54%169,100 169,100 0.00%- -
Total operating revenues 8,006,173 2,993,054 5,013,119 37.38%7,940,086 2,899,415 5,040,671 36.52%3,679,190 1,228,241 2,450,949 33.38%3,065,882 1,251,167 1,814,715 40.81%
Operating expenses:
Personal services 1,521,345 767,696 753,649 50.46%809,868 428,518 381,350 52.91%539,901 253,107 286,794 46.88%896,367 317,613 578,754 35.43%
Supplies & non-capital 268,300 163,426 104,874 60.91%72,500 15,413 57,087 21.26%247,550 47,535 200,015 19.20%12,500 792 11,708 6.34%
Services & other charges 2,073,702 1,384,195 689,507 66.75%4,621,847 2,707,465 1,914,382 58.58%2,920,580 949,248 1,971,332 32.50%329,946 378,182 (48,236) 114.62%
Depreciation *
Total operating expenses 3,863,347 2,315,317 1,548,030 59.93%5,504,215 3,151,395 2,352,820 57.25%3,708,031 1,249,890 2,458,141 33.71%1,238,813 696,588 542,225 56.23%
Operating income (loss)4,142,826 677,737 3,465,089 16.36% 2,435,871 (251,981) 2,687,852 -10.34% (28,841) (21,649) (7,192) 75.06% 1,827,069 554,579 1,272,490 30.35%
Nonoperating revenues (expenses):
Interest income 7,450 4,076 3,374 54.72%13,250 6,616 6,634 49.93%13,000 5,309 7,691 40.84%5,600 2,875 2,725 51.34%
Interest expense/bank charges (412,950) (208,961) (203,989) 50.60%(87,250) (38,014) (49,236) 43.57%(23,500) (5,041) (18,459) 21.45%(34,850) (10,965) (23,885) 31.46%
Total nonoperating rev (exp)(405,500) (204,884) (200,616) 50.53%(74,000) (31,398) (42,602) 42.43%(10,500) 268 (10,768) -2.55%(29,250) (8,090) (21,160) 27.66%
Income (loss) before transfers 3,737,326 472,853 3,264,473 12.65% 2,361,871 (283,379) 2,645,250 -12.00% (39,341) (21,381) (17,960) 54.35% 1,797,819 546,489 1,251,330 30.40%
Transfers in
Transfers out (638,635) (319,317) (319,318) 50.00%(873,785) (436,892) (436,893) 50.00%(248,289) (124,145) (124,145) 50.00%(342,130) (171,065) (171,065) 50.00%
NET INCOME (LOSS)3,098,691 153,536 2,945,155 4.95% 1,488,086 (720,271) 2,208,357 -48.40% (287,630) (145,525) (142,105) 50.59% 1,455,689 375,424 1,080,265 25.79%
Items reclassified to bal sht at year end:
Capital Outlay (2,649,356) (245,768) (2,403,588) 9.28%(1,411,750) (225,662) (1,186,088) 15.98%- - - (3,245,049) (226,852) (3,018,197) 6.99%
Revenues over/(under) expenditures 449,335 (92,233) 541,568 76,336 (945,933) 1,022,269 (287,630) (145,525) (142,105) (1,789,360) 148,572 (1,937,932)
*Depreciation is recorded at end of year (non-cash item).
Water Sewer Solid Waste Storm Water
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 5)
Title: June 2020 monthly financial report Page 3
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: July 27, 2020
Written report: 6
Executive summary
Title: Second quarter investment report (April – June 2020)
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item
is considered essential business and is Categorized as Time-Sensitive**
•No action required at this time.
Policy consideration: Reporting on investments quarterly is part of our financial management
policies.
Summary: The quarterly investment report provides an overview of the City’s
investment portfolio, including the types of investments held, length of maturity and yield.
Financial or budget considerations: The total portfolio value at June 30, 2020 is $56.6 million.
Approximately $33.4 million is invested in longer term securities that include U.S. Treasury
notes, Federal agency bonds, municipal debt securities and certificates of deposit. The
remaining $23.2 of the portfolio is held in money market accounts for bond projects and
operating cash flow needs between property tax settlements. The overall yield to maturity
decreased to 1.22% from 1.57% and 1.78% the prior two quarters as interest rates further
declined. Money market rates dropped significantly in the second quarter.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Investment portfolio summary
Prepared by: Darla Monson, accountant
Reviewed by: Melanie Lammers, chief financial officer
Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: Second quarter investment report (April – June 2020)
Discussion
Background: The City’s investment portfolio is focused on cash flow needs and investment in
longer term securities in accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A and the City’s investment
policy objectives of: 1) preservation of capital; 2) liquidity; and 3) return on investment.
Present considerations: The portfolio value increased from $53.9 million at March 31, 2020 to
$56.6 million at June 30, 2020. The 70% advance payment of the first half property tax settlement
from Hennepin County of $12.9 million was received on June 19 and replenished much needed
cash in the money market used for payroll and operating expenses.
The overall yield of the portfolio decreased again in the second quarter to 1.22% compared to
1.57% the prior quarter and 1.78% at the end of 2019. This is the combined yield including both
the funds held in money market accounts and long-term investments, and interest rates on both
have decline d over the last several months. Cities typically use a benchmark such as the two-year
Treasury (.16% on June 30, 2020 and 1.58% on December 31, 2019) for yield comparison of their
overall portfolio.
There was $23.2 million in money market accounts at the end of June, which includes
approximately $10 million of bond proceeds for the completion of the nature center, connect the
park, SCADA and other utility projects. The August 1, 2020 debt service payments will require
$2.3 million of cash. Bond proceeds will continue to be spent down in the coming weeks as the
construction work at the nature center nears completion. Money market rates decreased
significantly during the quarter and are now at only about .1%.
The remaining $33.4 million of the portfolio is invested in long er term securities includ ing
municipal bonds ($2.3 mil), Federal agency bonds ($10.9 mil), U.S. Treasury notes ($19.8 mil)
and two CD’s ($447,000). Municipal bonds are issued by states, local governments, or school
districts to finance special projects. Agency bonds are issued by government agencies such as
the Federal Home Loan Bank and Fannie Mae and can have a call date provision where they can
be called prior to final maturity. Due to the low interest rates, there was only one trade during
the quarter. The Federal security purchased had a two-year term and a yield to maturity of
.95%. A treasury note redemption of $2 mil was required on June 8 for operating cash needs
prior to receiving the property tax advance.
This table summarizes the City’s portfolio at June 30, 2020:
Next steps: None at this time.
3/31/20 6/30/20
<1 Year 47% 57%
1-2 Years 18% 15%
2-3 Years 17% 14%
3-4 Years 7% 11%
>4 Years 11% 3%
3/31/20 6/30/20
Money Markets/Cash $18,438,301 $23,203,253
Commercial Paper $0 $0
Certificates of Deposit $447,115 $446,874
Municipal Debt $2,327,170 $2,348,636
Agencies/Treasuries $32,661,373 $30,645,845
City of St. Louis Park
Investment Portfolio Summary
June 30, 2020
Institution/Broker Investment Type CUSIP Maturity Date
Yield To
Maturity Par Value
Market Value at
6/30/2020
Estimated Avg
Annual Income
4M Liquid Asset Money Market 0.03% 3,129,448 3,129,448 939
4M Plus Money Market 0.10% 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000
UBS Institutional Money Market 0.13% 416,851 416,851 542
UBS Institutional Money Market (bond proceeds) 0.13% 9,656,955 9,656,955 12,554
23,203,253
PFM CD - World's Foremost Bk NE 9159919E5 08/06/2020 2.30% 200,000 200,382 4,600
PFM CD - Comenity Cap Bk UT 20033AND4 10/13/2020 2.00% 245,000 246,492 4,900
446,874
PFM Muni Debt - Connecticut State Txble GO Bonds 20772JKN1 10/15/2020 1.78% 1,000,000 1,004,010 17,800
PFM Muni Debt - California State Txble GO Bonds 13063DGA0 04/01/2021 2.80% 450,000 457,529 12,600
PFM Muni Debt - Minnesota State Txble GO Bonds 60412ASE4 08/01/2022 1.76% 200,000 207,854 3,520
PFM Muni Debt - San Jose CA Txbl GO Bonds 798135H51 09/01/2023 2.13% 650,000 679,244 13,845
2,348,636
PFM FNMA 3135G0T60 07/30/2020 1.60% 1,250,000 1,251,388 20,000
PFM FHLB 3130ACE26 09/28/2020 1.48% 575,000 576,685 8,510
PFM FHLMC 3137EAEJ4 09/29/2020 1.69% 530,000 531,887 8,957
PFM FHLMC 3137EAEK1 11/17/2020 1.91% 800,000 805,144 15,280
PFM Freddie Mac 3137EAEL9 02/16/2021 2.47% 800,000 810,720 19,760
PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0U27 04/13/2021 2.55% 500,000 509,135 12,750
PFM US Treasury Note 912828Q78 04/30/2021 1.87% 100,000 100,984 1,870
PFM US Treasury Note 912828R77 05/31/2021 2.02% 1,600,000 1,617,504 32,320
PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0U35 06/22/2021 2.76% 700,000 717,395 19,320
PFM FHLB Global 3130A8QS5 07/14/2021 1.25% 750,000 757,313 9,375
PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.73% 650,000 663,787 11,245
PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.85% 1,150,000 1,174,392 21,275
PFM FHLB 3130AF5B9 10/12/2021 3.02% 750,000 777,000 22,650
PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.72% 700,000 710,038 12,040
PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.64% 575,000 583,246 9,430
PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.85% 200,000 202,868 3,700
PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0U92 01/11/2022 2.65% 400,000 414,816 10,600
PFM FFCB Bond 3133ELVV3 04/08/2022 0.95% 375,000 375,713 3,563
PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.12% 500,000 515,530 10,600
PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.18% 800,000 824,848 17,440
PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.69% 1,300,000 1,340,378 34,970
PFM US Treasury Note 912828TJ9 08/15/2022 2.76% 430,000 443,270 11,868
PFM US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.78% 925,000 970,057 25,715
PFM US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.51% 2,550,000 2,674,211 64,005
PFM US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.55% 1,675,000 1,756,589 42,713
PFM FHLB 3130AJ7E3 02/17/2023 1.44% 620,000 638,240 8,928
PFM US Treasury Note 912828R69 05/31/2023 2.53% 1,000,000 1,042,083 25,300
PFM US Treasury Note 912828R69 05/31/2023 1.83% 350,000 364,766 6,405
PFM US Treasury Note 912828T91 10/31/2023 1.55% 75,000 78,563 1,163
PFM US Treasury Note 912828T91 10/31/2023 1.48% 450,000 471,480 6,660
PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0V34 02/05/2024 2.58% 475,000 512,311 12,255
PFM FHLB 3130AFW94 02/13/2024 2.58% 500,000 539,820 12,900
PFM US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.55% 600,000 642,188 9,300
PFM US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.66% 1,600,000 1,713,664 26,560
PFM US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 0.85% 260,000 278,372 2,210
PFM US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.36% 350,000 374,731 4,760
PFM US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.66% 1,150,000 1,230,859 19,090
PFM FHLB 3130AGWK7 08/15/2024 1.55% 175,000 183,223 2,713
PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0X24 01/07/2025 1.69% 650,000 684,795 10,985
PFM Freddie Mac 3137EAEP0 02/12/2025 1.52% 750,000 785,858 11,400
30,645,845
GRAND TOTAL 56,644,610 691,883
Current Portfolio Yield To Maturity 1.22%
Page 3 Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 6)
Title: Second quarter investment report (April – June 2020)
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: July 27, 2020
Written report: 7
Executive summary
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is Categorized as Time-Sensitive**
•Staff asks that council provide feedback regarding the revised re development objectives
included in the draft request for proposals (RFP) for the SWLRT Wooddale Avenue Station
Site and proposed developer selection process .
Policy consideration: Do the revised redevelopment objectives included in the draft RFP for the
Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) Wooddale Avenue Station Site meet the EDA’s
expectations and is the proposed process for identifying and selecting a developer acceptable?
Summary: At the Feb. 10, 2020 study session, the EDA reviewed and discussed the proposed
redevelopment objectives for the SWLRT Wooddale Avenue Station Site Request For Proposals
(RFP) presented in the staff report. Based upon feedback provided at the study session, the
redevelopment objectives for the Station Site were revised to include:
•An abundance of affordable multifamily housing that exceeds the city’s Inclusionary
Housing Policy requirements and facilitates multicultural and intergenerational living (i.e.,
increased number of affordable units, larger size units);
•Smaller scale, affordable, ground floor commercial spaces conducive for neighborhood businesses;
•Attractive, bold and creative architecture;
•Building and site designs that incorporate numerous “green” elements including renewable
energy sources designed to achieve net zero carbon emissions at the site and serve as a
showcase for environmental sustainability;
•Numerous accommodations for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and automobiles,
including electric bikes , electric vehicles, and possibly car sharing;
•A public plaza or community space with a unique community landmark or feature ;
•High quality site amenities and public art;
•Connections to nature through green features such as enhanced landscaping, green roofs
or living wall systems.
St aff has prepared a RFP based on the revised redevelopment objectives for the site with the
intent to distribute by Aug. 7, 2020, select a developer this fall and work through the land use,
zoning and public financing approvals through the next year. The target to commence project
construction on the site would be fall/winter 2021.
Financial or budget considerations: The EDA is expected to incur minimal costs related the
proposed RFP process for the SWLRT Wooddale Avenue Station Site.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion; Feb. 10, 2020 study session minutes; council input photos
from Feb. 10, 2020 study session; Draft SWLRT Wooddale Station RFP
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, economic de velopment coordinator
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community de velopment director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager, EDA ex ecutive director
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process
Discussion
Background: Information on the SWLRT Wooddale Avenue Station Site and previous planning
studies were provided in the February 10, 2020 study session staff report.
SWLRT Wooddale Avenue Station Site
Proposed request for proposals: To identify and select a new developer for the Wooddale
Avenue Station Site, re development plans are proposed to be solicited through a request for
proposals (RFP) process similar to the one conducted for the SWLRT Beltline Station Site . A
draft RFP (attached) has been completed, and if acceptable, the RFP will be distributed to area
development firms (including affordable housing developers) and publicized through local
business media as well as the city’s web site. The objective is to seek a fully capable and
experienced developer or development team to construct a signature mixed -use, transit-
oriented, sustainable development consisting of mixed -income, multi-family housing and
commercial space. The project should embrace the location’s direct multi-modal transportation
access, optimize the property’s development potential and be consistent with the city’s 2040
Comprehensive Plan , development objectives, council’s s trategic priorities and previous
planning studies. The goal is to have the RFP completed and disseminated by August 7, 2020
and a developer selected by year’s end.
RFP criteria: Based upon discussion from the February 10, 2020 study session, the city envisions
the SWLRT Wooddale Avenue Station Site to be an active, vibrant and connected place where
people can affordably live, work and recreate with the opportunities and advantages of
proximity to LRT. The site is expected to become an important community hub for mixed -
income housing, neighborhood business and transit. Proposals will be expected to exceed the
city’s green building and inclusionary housing policy requirements and incorporate principles of
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process
TOD and sustainable development that support and benefit from the proximity of the SWLRT
and the regional trail. Accordingly, the EDA will be seeking proposals that include:
• An abundance of affordable multifamily housing that exceeds the city’s Inclusionary
Housing Policy requirements and facilitates multicultural and intergenerational living
(i.e. includes larger size units);
• Smaller scale, affordable, ground floor commercial spaces conducive for neighborhood
businesses;
• Attractive, bold and creative architecture;
• Building and site designs that incorporate numerous “green” elements including
renewable energy sources designed to achieve net zero carbon emissions at the site and
serve as a showcase for environmental sustainability;
• Numerous accommodations for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and automobiles,
including electric vehicles, electric bikes and possibly car sharing;
• A public plaza or community space;
• High quality site amenities and public art;
• Connections to nature through green features such as enhanced landscaping, green
roofs or living wall systems.
Proposed projects also need to seamlessly integrate with the adjacent SWLRT Wooddale
Avenue Station and connect to the surrounding Elmwood neighborhood.
Proposal selection process: All complete redevelopment proposals will be evaluated by an
internal selection team comprised of staff engaged in the development planning process.
Submittals will be evaluated in a systematic manner that will include , but not be limited to, the
following criteria:
I. Site and Building Plans: Degree to which proposal meets or exceeds city’s TOD vision,
development objectives, and the goals of previous planning studies; integrates with
the station area, pedestrian and neighborhood connections; and exhibits site
synergies as well as creative and efficient design (up to 16 points).
II. Project Program: Proposed housing and commercial components, square footages,
bedroom mix as well as number of affordable housing units and their respective
affordability levels above city requirements (up to 16 points).
III. Economic Impact: Proposed property purchase price, estimated taxable market value
of completed project, hiring of minority contractors and workers, and project’s overall
employment potential (up to 12 points).
IV. Community Benefits: Connectivity of proposed project to the surrounding area;
quality of public spaces, including gathering areas/plazas, green space, landscaping,
public art (up to 12 points).
V. Racial Equity and Inclusion: How the proposed development advances one of the city’s
key Strategic Priorities of Racial Equity and Inclusion in order to create a more just and
inclusive community for all (i.e., through outreach to historically underserved
communities , the hiring of BIPOC contractors/workers, provision of affordable housing,
inclusion of creative housing types/features, through commercial spaces, public spaces,
planned social events, building management and policies, etc.) (up to 16 points).
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 4
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process
VI. Sustainability: Inclusion of green building elements that meet and exceed city
requirements, including on-site energy generation, waste reduction, measures to
reduce trip generation and degree to which project meets city’s energy and carbon
neutrality goals (up to 16 points).
VII. Development Team: Overall experience of company and project principals with similar
projects and the type of development being proposed; financial and team member
capacity to implement proposal; previous experience of development team working
together; ability of development team to meet regularly with city staff to refine
project plans, positive property management experience (up to 12 points).
Developer selection and project approval process: A multi-stage process is planned to select a
developer, enter into various agreements, and work cooperatively toward project approval and
construction. These include:
Stage 1: Developer Selection & Preliminary Development Agreement
City staff engaged in the development planning process will evaluate all submitted
proposals with respect to completeness and consistency with the criteria listed
above. Staff may recommend up to four development teams to present proposed
project plans to the city council/EDA at a Study Session tentatively in November
2020. The city council/EDA will discuss the merits of each proposal and may or
may not select a developer with which to enter into a Preliminary Development
Agreement.
Outcome: EDA announces selected developer tentatively in January/February
2021 and subsequently enters into a Preliminary Development Agreement.
Stage 2: Due Diligence & Project Planning
Developer begins site and project due diligence process and prepares preliminary
site and building plans in anticipation of zoning and redevelopment contract
approvals.
Outcome: Developer obtains preliminary project approvals by mid -2021.
Stage 3: Planning & Public Financing Approvals
The developer files formal preliminary and final applications for planning and
public financing approvals. All requests for planning and public financing approvals
are subject to the city’s typical procedural review process. City staff will work with
the developer to prepare plans consistent with city objectives and requirements in
order to obtain city council/EDA approvals; however, approvals are not
guaranteed.
Outcome: All public approvals should be obtained by fall/winter 2021.
Stage 4: Real Estate Transaction
The real estate closing should occur within four weeks of the final planning and
redevelopment contract approvals.
Outcome: Developer gains control of the site .
Stage 5: Construction
Start of construction expected within four weeks of the property closing.
Outcome: Project commencement.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7) Page 5
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process
Preliminary development agreement
Upon selection, it is expected that the developer and the EDA would enter into a preliminary
development agreement. The purpose of which is to formalize the respective parties’
obligations as well as their respective responsibilities relative to further defining the project
consistent with the parties’ mutual objectives. Under the agreement, the parties would agree
to work cooperatively towards a mutually acce ptable redevelopment plan for the site,
determine its financial feasibility, and the approvals necessary to bring it to fruition, as well as
to negotiate in good faith toward a definitive purchase and redevelopment contract and a
related planning development contract. Additionally, the selected developer would be provided
with exclusive rights to negotiate acquisition of the subject property with the EDA as well as
formal permission to access the property in order to conduct its due diligence. Further included
in the agreement would be an outline for applying for land use and zoning changes as well as
tax increment financing (TIF).
Next steps: In the next 18 months, multiple, key EDA/city actions will be needed; these include:
1.Solicit RFPs to identify and select a developer for the SWLRT Wooddale Avenue Station
Site.
2.Enter into preliminary development agreement with the selected developer.
3.Arrive at a mutually acceptable site and building plan for the site.
4.Pursue necessary planning approvals.
5.Negotiate business terms for financial assistance.
6.Remove the site from the existing Wooddale Station TIF district and create a new TIF
district;
7.Enter into a purchase and redevelopment contract and planning development contract
with the developer.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 6
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 7
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 8
1
SWLRT Wooddale Avenue Station Site
Request for Redevelopment Proposals
A Premier
Transit-Oriented Development Opportunity
EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 9
2
SWLRT Wooddale Avenue Station Site
Request for Redevelopment Proposals
Submission Schedule, Deadline, and Contact
Estimated RFP Schedule
Request for Proposals Issued August 7, 2020
Notice of intent to apply with contact information
Last date for questions
September 11, 2020
Proposal deadline October 9, 2020
Developer Interviews November 2020
Developer recommendation and selection December 2020
EDA Approval of Preliminary Development Contract January/February 2021
The city reserves the right to extend or otherwise modify the above schedule. If and when such
changes in the schedule occur, notice will then be provided to developers who notified the EDA,
per the requirement below.
Proposal Deadline
Developers intending to submit a proposal are asked to inform the city via email by September
11, 2020 so they can be notified of any changes or clarifications to this RFP. Emails should be
sent to Mara Strand at: mstrand@stlouispark.org
Complete proposals are due in city offices by 4 p.m. local time, October 9, 2020.
Proposals received after the deadline will not be accepted. It is the respondent’s responsibility
to ensure their proposal is received in a timely manner.
Send proposals to:
Greg Hunt, economic development coordinator
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Proposal requirements may be found in Section II of this document.
Contact Information
Questions regarding this RFP should be directed to:
Greg Hunt, economic development coordinator
952.924.2197
ghunt@stlouispark.org
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 10
3
Contents
I. SWLRT Wooddale Avenue Station RFP Overview
Development Vision and Objectives 5
• Strategic Priorities 6
• Site Overview 6
II. Site and Background Information
• Property Description 7
Transportation 8
• Regional Transportation Access 8
• Roads 8
• Site Access Constraints/Challenges/Opportunities 9
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Trails 9
• Regional Trail 9
• Bus Transit 10
• Southwest Light Rail (SWLRT) / METRO Green Line Extension 10
Development Site Specifications 11
• Comprehensive Plan 11
• Zoning 11
• Environmental Analysis 12
• Stormwater Management 12
• Utility Connections 12
• Neighborhood Characteristics 12
• Area Amenities 12
• Area Employment 13
Previous Planning Studies 13
• Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit and Transportation Study 13
• Wooddale Station Plan 14
• Corridor Development Initiative 15
• Transitional Station Area Action Plan (TSAAP) 15
City Policies for Development 16
• Inclusionary Housing Policy 16
• Green Building Policy 16
• Climate Action Plan 16
• Public Financing Assistance/Tax Increment Financing (TIF) 17
III. RFP Submission and Proposal Selection
• Proposal Content 17
• Proposal Selection 18
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 11
4
• Project Approval Process 19
• Developer / Staff Coordination 20
IV. City Contracting Requirements
• Property Acquisition and Letter of Intent 20
• Preliminary Development Agreement 20
• Other Requirements 20
• Cost of Responding to RFP 22
• Right to Modify, Spend and Waive 23
• Disclosure and Disclaimer 23
RFP attachments
Attachments A-I may be accessed by the following links:
https://www.stlouispark.org/business/swlrt-wooddale-avenue-station-redevelopment-site
A. SWLRT Wooddale Ave Station Renderings and Plan
B. 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Map and TOD section
C. Planned Unit Development Ordinance 2518-17
D. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Finding of Fact and Record of
Decision
E. Area Plans:
i. Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit and Transportation Study
ii. Station Area Plan (2010): Intro and Wooddale Station Area Plan
iii. LISC Community Development Initiative: Power Point and Report
iv. Wooddale Ave Station TSAAP (2013): Intro and Plan
F. SLP Inclusionary Housing Policy: Policy and Program Guide
G. SLP Green Building Policy and Checklist
H. SLP Climate Action Plan and Plan Summary
I. SLP Sample Preliminary Development Agreement
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 12
5
I. SWLRT Wooddale Avenue Station RFP Overview
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“EDA”) is requesting proposals to
redevelop the SWLRT Wooddale Ave. Station Site (“site”) located at 5950 36th St. West. This
well-positioned, 1.6-acre, redevelopment opportunity has exceptional access to multimodal
transportation as it lies immediately south of the Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT)/METRO
Green Line Wooddale Avenue Station platform (under construction) and adjacent Cedar Lake
LRT Regional Trail. The site is also served by a Metro Transit bus stop and close to interchanges
for MN Highways 100 and 7. Additionally, the site is centrally located in the first-ring city of St.
Louis Park at the northeast corner of 36th Street West and Wooddale Avenue South.
Location and context of Wooddale Ave. Station Site
Development Vision and Objectives
The EDA seeks an experienced and capable developer or development team to construct a
signature, mixed use, transit-oriented development (TOD) on the SWLRT Wooddale Ave. Station
Site that includes significant affordable housing . One that achieves the city’s long-term vision,
development objectives and Strategic Priorities. Proposals will be expected to exceed the city’s
green building and inclusionary housing policy requirements and incorporate principles of TOD
and sustainable development that support and benefit from the proximity of the SWLRT and
the regional trail.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 13
6
Development goals of the site as specified in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, include:
• Pursue transit-oriented, high density, well connected, mixed-use centers at future light
rail transit station areas.
• Create a mix of housing opportunities including affordable housing and increased
viability of neighborhood services
• Provide human scale development that creates connections and a strong sense of
community and place.
The city envisions the SWLRT Wooddale Avenue Station Site to be an active, vibrant and
connected place where people can affordably live, work and recreate with the opportunities
and advantages of proximity to LRT. The site is expected to become an important community
hub for mixed-income housing, neighborhood business and transit. Accordingly, the EDA is
seeking proposals that include:
• An abundance of affordable multifamily housing that exceeds the city’s Inclusionary
Housing Policy requirements and facilitates multicultural and intergenerational living
(i.e. includes larger size units);
• Smaller scale, affordable, ground floor commercial spaces conducive for neighborhood
businesses;
• Attractive, bold and creative architecture;
• Building and site designs that incorporate numerous “green” elements including
renewable energy sources designed to achieve net zero carbon emissions at the site and
serve as a showcase for environmental sustainability;
• Numerous accommodations for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and automobiles,
including electric bikes, electric vehicles, and possibly car sharing;
• A public plaza or community space with unique community landmark or feature;
• High quality site amenities and public art;
• Connections to nature through green features such as enhanced landscaping, green
roofs or living wall systems.
Proposed projects also need to seamlessly integrate with the adjacent SWLRT Wooddale
Avenue Station and connect to the surrounding Elmwood neighborhood.
Strategic Priorities: Additionally, submitted proposals should be consistent with and reflect the
city’s Strategic Priorities. These provide that 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.
• leading in environmental stewardship.
• providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood-oriented development.
• providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the City comfortably,
safely and reliably.
• creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 14
7
In planning for the SWLRT project, the city invested considerable time and resources to develop
a vision for the Elmwood area and the SWLRT Wooddale Avenue Station Site. The city has
conducted studies, purchased property, and invested in significant public improvements to
make the site attractive for transit-oriented development and affordable housing.
Location of the SWLRT Wooddale Ave. Station Site within the City of St. Louis Park
II. Site and Background Information
Property Description: The Southwest LRT Wooddale Avenue Station Site (5950 36th St. W.) is
located at the northeast corner of 36th Street West and Wooddale Avenue South in St. Louis
Park’s Elmwood neighborhood. The site abuts the SWLRT Wooddale Station platform (under
construction). Vehicle access is provided along Yosemite Avenue and 36th Street West, while
bike and pedestrian access is provided along 36th Street West, Wooddale Avenue South and via
the adjacent Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 15
8
Wooddale Ave. Station Site
Site address: 5950 36th St. W
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
PID: 1611721340610
Owner: St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Site area: 1.68 acres (73,155 square feet)
Current use: Surrounding land uses:
Vacant 16,700 SF commercial building
and municipal parking lot
North: SWLRT, freight rail, regional trail,
Highway 7, Via Sol redevelopment
East: Small scale commercial
West: Wooddale Avenue South
South: 36th Street West/TowerLight Senior
Living
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 16
9
2040 land use plan Zoning
TOD - transit oriented development
(50 to 125 units per acre)
PUD planned unit development
Transportation
Regional Transportation Access: The subject property has outstanding access to many mobility
modes. It is immediately southeast of the MN Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue South interchange
and 1/2 mile west of MN Highway 100. Across the LRT and freight railroad tracks to the north is
the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail. Additionally, there is a Metro Transit bus stop on the site
along 36th Street West. Most notably, the site will have direct access to light rail transit in 2023.
Roads: The site is bounded by 36th Street West (12,600 ADT) to the south and Wooddale
Avenue South (11,000 ADT) to the west MN Highway 7 (37,000 ADT) is .1 mile to the north, and
MN Highway 100 (128,000 ADT) is ½ mile to the east.
Additionally, the site is approximately 3.5 miles from Interstate 394 to the north, three miles
from Highway 169 to the west, and four miles from MN Highway 62 to the south.
Location and context of Wooddale Ave. Station Site
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 17
10
Planned access to the Wooddale Avenue Station
Site Access Constraints/Challenges/Opportunities: Because of the transit-oriented nature of
the site, full vehicle access to the subject property will be provided from Yosemite Avenue
South, near the Southwest LRT passenger drop-off, while direct vehicle access on 36th Street
West will be limited to right-in/right-out turning movements.
On-street parking adjacent to the redevelopment site is very limited along 36th Street West
because of the proximity of the intersection, and on-street parking is not allowed along
Wooddale Avenue South. The west side of the site is at grade with the LRT platform, which
creates a unique opportunity to activate the ground floor of the redevelopment site and
integrate it with the station area. Due to the grades on the east side of the site, a retaining wall
is required between the LRT walkway along the site’s north property line and the site’s
driveway connection to Yosemite Avenue South.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Trails: Bicyclists and pedestrians can access the site from sidewalks
along Wooddale Avenue and 36th Street West, as well as from the Cedar Lake LRT Regional
Trail to the north. The city plans to expand the pedestrian and bike infrastructure along
Wooddale Avenue South and along 36th Street West as part of the city’s commitment to
making the community easier to get around by bicycling and walking.
Regional Trail: Immediately north of the adjacent rail tracks is the Cedar Lake LRT Regional
Trail. A pedestrian/bicycle underpass at Wooddale Avenue South is being constructed as part of
the SWLRT project and will provide safer connections between the trail, Wooddale Avenue
South and the Wooddale Avenue LRT Station.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 18
11
This multi-use regional trail connects trail users to Uptown, downtown Minneapolis and the
western suburbs in less than half an hour. An estimated 735,600 visitors annually access the
trail year-round, many for daily commuting purposes, making it one of the most heavily used
trails in the nation.
Bus Transit: Metro Transit bus service is available along 36th Street West via Routes 17 and
615. Metro Transit is expected to expand service to the system with the opening of SWLRT in
2023. It is anticipated that one route will connect the station area to northern St. Louis Park,
while the other route is planned to connect the station area to the Shoppes at Knollwood and
downtown Hopkins.
Southwest Light Rail (SWLRT) / METRO Green Line Extension: The Wooddale Avenue Station
(see Attachment A) is under construction along the northern boundary of the site. The SWLRT
line is a 14.5-mile extension of the METRO Green Line from Minneapolis. SWLRT will provide a
one-seat ride to downtown Minneapolis, the University of Minnesota, the S tate Capitol, and
downtown St. Paul to the east, as well as
major employment centers including the
Opus Business Park, the United Health
Optum campus, the Golden Triangle and
others to the west. It will be part of an
integrated system of transitways,
including connections to the METRO Blue
Line, proposed Blue Line Extension,
Northstar Commuter Rail Line and other
major bus routes. The Wooddale Avenue
Station is one of three stations in St. Louis
Park where boardings will occur every 10
minutes during the day. Travel time
between Wooddale Avenue Station and
downtown Minneapolis Intermodal
Station (Target Field) will be
approximately 13 minutes. Projected
boardings at Wooddale Avenue Station
are forecast at 1,817 per weekday in
2040. SWLRT Route Map
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 19
12
Rendering of SWLRT Wooddale Avenue Station platform
SWLRT is currently in the construction phase of the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts
funding process. Heavy construction will occur between 2020 and 2022. SWLRT is expected to
begin passenger service as an extension of the METRO Green Line in 2023.
The selected developer team will be expected to collaborate with the SWLRT Project Office
(SPO) to design its proposed project to seamlessly integrate with the LRT station, and without
altering SWLRT improvements. A SWLRT passenger drop-off “kiss and ride” will be located east
of the site near the 35th Street West/Yosemite Avenue South driveway. The developer is also
expected to work with the city and SPO to design the development to discourage drop-offs
along 36th Street West and Wooddale Avenue South.
Development Site Specifications
Comprehensive Plan: The site is guided TOD - transit-oriented development in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan. This category encourages a mix of uses including multifamily residential,
small scale commercial, office and civic uses oriented toward the transit station. The goal of this
designation is to create pedestrian scale development within proximity to the transit stations.
The focus is on block sizes, lot sizes, and building forms that create pedestrian-rich
environments. It is expected that multifamily residential housing will make up approximately 75
to 80 percent of the uses; with the remaining 20 to 25 percent being commercial, office, civic or
other compatible uses in this land use category in the city. The net multifamily residential
density range allowed is 50 to 125 units per acre.
Zoning: The site is zoned PUD – Planned Unit Development. The PUD establishes the zoning
regulations for a specific property that allows for conditions and requirements that fit the
context and character of the individual site.
A PUD was approved for the subject property in 2017. The current PUD-Ordinance 2518-17 (see
Attachment C) approved a 110-room hotel and 84-unit apartment building with ground floor
commercial space and underground and above ground structured parking. The PUD also allows
for significant parking reductions and innovative parking management strategies.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 20
13
The city expects the existing PUD ordinance will be amended, and a new PUD ordinance will be
adopted for the Wooddale Station Site redevelopment based on the agreed upon site and
building plans. The residential density may not exceed 125 units per acre. This process will need
to include community conversations with the Elmwood neighborhood and one or more
neighborhood meetings.
Environmental Analysis: An environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) was completed for
the site in 2016. It included a traffic study to analyze the traffic capacity of the surrounding road
network. Depending on the proposal the selected developer may be expected to fund an
update to either the EAW or traffic study to be completed by consultants chosen by the city.
Stormwater Management: Development must meet the stormwater management
requirements of the city and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The city previously
constructed a regional stormwater management facility off-site at Hoigaard Village that will
provide the stormwater treatment requirements for this site. That facility provides the
stormwater quality and volume control requirements of t he city and local watershed. As a
result, the selected developer will be required to pay the site’s proportionate share of the
facility. This cost is anticipated to be $67,004. The developer will still be responsible for
installing stormwater rate control measures on the subject property that meet current
requirements.
Utility Connections: Sanitary sewer service adequate to handle the needs of the subject
property is located under Wooddale Avenue South and water is located in 36th Street West. In
2022-23, it is expected that 36th Street West will be reconstructed, and the sanitary sewer
capacity in the mains under that road will be expanded. Connections could be made to this line
during that construction project, if desired or needed.
Neighborhood Characteristics: The SWLRT Wooddale Avenue Station Site is in the Elmwood
neighborhood; a well-established neighborhood that is currently being transformed with
transit-oriented developments in and around the SWLRT station area. Adjacent land uses and
amenities include:
North SWLRT Wooddale Avenue Station
platform and Via Sol multifamily
residential and e-generation
developments
East Small-scale commercial
South 36th Street West and TowerLight
Senior Living and Child Care
West Wooddale Avenue South
Southwest Village in the Park condominiums
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 21
14
Area Amenities : The site is near Central Community Center and St. Louis Park High School.
Nearby parks include Jorvig Park to the west, Center Park to the south, and Lilac Park to the
east. Other recreational amenities to the east include Bass Lake Preserve/George Hahn Trail,
Wolfe Park, Veteran’s Amphitheater and the city’s Rec Center that features an outdoor aquatic
park as well as indoor and outdoor ice rinks. Nearby commercial businesses include: Burlington
Coat Factory, MicroCenter, Target, Lunds & Byerlys, Steel Toe Brewing, LA Fitness, several
fitness studios, US Post Office, and the Historic Walker Lake Business District.
Area Employment: Large employers within a mile of the SWLRT Wooddale Avenue Station Site
include SPS Companies, the St. Louis Park School District, NordicWare, Burlington Coat Factory,
MicroCenter, Target, Lunds & Byerlys, Bridgewater Bank, HealthPartners Park Nicollet Health
Clinic, and Methodist Hospital. Additionally, the Beltline Business Park located just east of the
station area includes an eclectic mix of successful businesses including Citizens Independent
Bank, Steel Toe Brewing, REM5 Virtual Reality Laboratory, SixSpeed (a marketing agency), Art
Partners (interior arts and graphics displays), MARS Advertising (shopper marketing), Pavek
Museum, and Flagship Recreation (playground manufacturer) among others.
Previous Planning Studies
Over the last two decades, four major planning studies were conducted in anticipation of future
development at the SWLRT Wooddale Station. They are summarized below.
Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit and Transportation Study: In 2003, the county and city jointly
completed the Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit and Transportation Study (See Attachment E.i)
which provided a thirty-year vision for redevelopment, infill development and infrastructure
changes in the Elmwood area, and included specific recommendations for the Wooddale
Avenue Station Site. The plan envisions the north side of 36th Street W. as a mixed-use node
with retail/service uses on the ground floor and housing above to help establish 36th Street as
the “main street” for the Elmwood area.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 22
15
Wooddale Station Area Plan: In 2010, a Station Area Plan (see Attachment E.ii.) was completed
for the Wooddale Station which envisioned the Wooddale area as mixed-use transit village with
an intensified urban, dense, and walkable pedestrian-oriented environment. The plans
anticipate mixed-use development with ground floor retail and housing above as the dominant
building type along major streets. Additional plan recommendations included:
• Continue to expand on the mixed-use and residential uses surrounding the station that
have been developed.
• Focus the highest intensity development on Wooddale Avenue South and 36th Street
West.
• Introduce mixed-use development with ground floor retail and upper floor housing and
office space along 36th Street West in order to create better cohesion with the Beltline
station area to the east of Highway 100.
Elmwood Area Land Use and
Transportation Study
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 23
16
• Enhance the connections to the existing city grid and sidewalk network.
• Respect the adjacent established residential neighborhoods and design redevelopment
projects to transition in scale and pattern from higher density near the LRT station to a
lower scale adjacent to the existing single-family housing.
• The transit plaza near the station should also be designed to encourage year-round
pedestrian use, form the foreground to civic activity, and provide a positive amenity to
residents and transit users.
• The streetscape should be robust and should include sidewalks, pedestrian scaled
lighting, street trees and plantings, street furnishings, bike racks and public art.
Corridor Development Initiative: In 2013, Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) helped
the city evaluate the development potential for the Wooddale Avenue LRT Station area, with
special emphasis on the subject site (see Attachment E.iii.). The goals generated included:
• Enhance neighborhood assets and character.
• Enhance connections to reinforce pedestrian, bus, and bike access.
• Encourage development of mixed-use/ mixed-income projects.
Transitional Station Area Action Plan (TSAAP): In 2015 a Transitional Station Area Action Plan
(TSAAP) (see Attachment E.iv.) was completed to analyze the key challenges and opportunities
within the Wooddale station area. The plan recommended the station area continue to develop
into a predominantly residential transit-oriented neighborhood that utilizes active uses at the
street level to activate the station area. Key recommendations of the plan included:
• Continue to build a mix of medium- to high-density residential uses along 36th Street W.
with retail or commercial uses next to the highway.
• Design new buildings to enhance pedestrian access by orienting them towards streets,
the LRT platform, and open spaces and locating them as close to the street line as
possible.
• Incorporate active ground level uses on buildings adjacent to the station and facing onto
36th Street West and Wooddale Avenue South.
• Provide additional setbacks on buildings at the intersection of Wooddale Avenue South
and 36th Street West to provide additional room for passengers transferring between
the bus and LRT
• Explore opportunities for a mid-block connection between 36th Street W. and the
eastern end of the station platform to improve connections between bus and LRT
service.
• Introduce a public plaza adjacent to the station along Wooddale Avenue South to
provide spill-out space for active uses facing the station and to act as a receiving point
for passengers walking to the station or transferring to the LRT by bike.
• Minimize the impact of parking and circulation on pedestrians by locating parking below
grade or to the rear of new buildings in structures and consolidating access and service
drives.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 24
17
• Accommodate retail and short-term parking in shared parking facilities to minimize the
construction of single use parking areas.
• Limit vehicular access points along Wooddale Avenue South and 36th Street West.
City Policies for Development
Inclusionary Housing Policy: All submitted proposals will be expected to include an abundance
of affordable multifamily housing that facilitates intergenerational living (i.e. including larger
units) and exceeds the city’s Inclusionary Housing Policy requirements (see Attachment F). The
policy’s income eligibility and rent affordability minimum standards are as follows:
a. At least twenty percent (20%) of the units shall be affordable for households at sixty
percent (60%) Area Median Income (AMI), or
b. At least ten percent (10%) of the units shall be at affordable for households at fifty
percent (50%) AMI, or
c. At least five percent (5%) of the units shall be affordable for households at thirty
percent (30%) AMI.
d. The units shall be affordable for at least 25 years following building occupancy.
e. The size and design of the affordable dwelling units shall be consistent and comparable
with the market rate units in the development.
f. The affordable units shall be distributed throughout the development.
Green Building Policy: Redevelopment proposals will also be expected to meet/exceed the
city’s Green Building Policy (Attachment G) requirements. The goal of the policy is to promote
buildings that are energy efficient, economical to operate, environmentally responsible, and
healthy places to live and work, to further enhance the quality of life in St. Louis Park. The
policy requires commercial and mixed-use projects meet the MN Sustainable Building 2030
Energy Standard (SB2030). Projects are also required to conserve indoor and outdoor water
usage, improve indoor environmental quality, implement best management practices for
handling stormwater on-site and recycle construction waste.
SB2030 is a progressive energy conservation program that sets specific performance targets for
energy use in buildings compared to representative buildings in existence in 2003. Every five
years, the total building energy consumption from carbon-producing fuels is reduced so that by
2030 a 100% reduction (net zero energy) is achieved. For projects built between 2020-2024 the
SB2030 standard requires buildings to achieve an 80% reduction in energy from the
representative 2003 building. Design assistance, low-interest loans, and rebates from partners
such as Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy can help significantly to reduce the payback period
for initial investments. Reaching the current 80% reduction target will most likely require use of
on-site renewables.
Climate Action Plan: The city’s Climate Action Plan (See Attachment H) sets a goal to reduce
energy use by 35% from the business-as-usual forecast for residential buildings and 30% for
commercial buildings by 2030 (from the business-as-usual forecast). It also sets a goal of
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 25
18
designing all new construction to be net-zero energy by 2030, which aligns with the city’s Green
Building Policy.
Implementing TOD near anticipated LRT stations supports the Climate Action Plan strategy to
modify land use to encourage multiple modes of transportation and enable reduction of vehicle
miles traveled from single-occupancy vehicles. The Climate Action Plan also calls for reducing
parking requirements for developments that provide programs, infrastructure and mitigations
to reduce parking demand such as access to electric car-sharing and bicycle sharing programs to
increase mobility options for all residents, dedicated parking for no/low emission vehicles,
resident and/or employee transit incentives, and ample bicycle parking and storage.
Public Financing Assistance/Tax Increment Financing (TIF): To achieve the city’s vision,
development objectives, and policy requirements for the Wooddale Ave. Station Site, the
city/EDA is willing to consider applications for private activity bonds, AHTC and/or tax
increment financing, should they be proven financially necessary. Projects may also qualify for
other types of non-city public financial assistance such as low-income tax credits as well as
grants for transit-oriented development and contamination cleanup. City staff managing the
RFP process can help identify city programs and other financing tools for specific types of
redevelopment.
III. RFP Submission and Proposal Selection
Proposal Content: Proposal responses should demonstrate clearly and accurately the
capabilities, knowledge, experience and capacity of the development team to meet the
requirements of this RFP and proposed project.
Respondents must submit copies of their proposals as follows: one (1) unbound copy, nine (9)
bound copies and one (1) electronic version, Microsoft Office compatible, on a USB drive.
Proposals must be on standard 8 ½” by 11” paper. All supporting documentation must be on
paper no larger than 11” by 17”. Proposals and supporting documentation must be submitted
in a sealed envelope or boxed container labeled “SWLRT Wooddale Ave. Station Proposal.”
Materials and USB drives will not be returned.
All submitted proposals must include the following information and materials:
• A cover page expressing the developer’s desire to submit the proposal and including the
following information:
• Developer/team’s name and mailing address.
• Name, mailing address, telephone number and email address of the primary
contact person.
• Signature of authorized representative of responding developer or team.
The EDA expects to sell the site to the selected developer at market rate. Accordingly,
developers should include a Letter of Intent to purchase this property in their proposals.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 26
19
In addition to a cover letter, the proposal should include the following materials, in order,
separated by index tabs or dividers:
Exhibit Description
A Identification of development team (including architect, contractor and any women,
BIPOC, veteran-owned contractors/construction managers), experience with
comparable projects and working together, team member capacity to implement
proposal and complete the redevelopment project in a timely manner and
availability to meet regularly with city and SWLRT project staff.
B List of two or more comparable, completed mixed-use, mixed income, transit-
oriented, sustainable developments of a similar nature or scale
C Brief narrative that describes the proposed project and how it meets or exceeds the
city’s vision and development objectives as well as incorporates the principles and
goals of the various station area plans, and its likely users
D Preliminary site plan(s)
E Conceptual building elevations and renderings to illustrate the proposed project
F List of proposed project components, stories, building and component square
footages, number of housing units, mix, bedroom sizes, number of affordable units
and their respective affordability levels.
G List of estimated project construction costs
H List of project’s estimated economic benefits including total market value, real
estate taxes, BIPOC contractor and worker hiring plans, and overall employment
potential
I Description of the community benefits resulting from the project such as
connectedness to surrounding areas, advancement of racial equity and inclusion,
public spaces (including gathering areas/plazas, green space, landscaping ), public art
J List of the environmentally sustainable elements incorporated in the project
K Projected construction commencement and completion dates
L Letter of Intent stating proposed purchase price for the Site
M Developer’s current legal status: corporation, partnership, sole proprietor, etc. and
supporting evidence/documentation of financial strength
N Any other information that is critical to the city’s ability to evaluate the proposal
Proposal Selection: Evaluation of all complete responses to this RFP will be conducted in a
systematic manner that will include, but not be limited to, the following criteria:
I. Site and Building Plans: Degree to which proposal meets or exceeds city’s TOD vision,
development objectives, and the goals of previous planning studies; integrates with
the station area, pedestrian and neighborhood connections; and exhibits site
synergies as well as creative and efficient design (up to 16 points).
II. Project Program: Proposed housing and commercial components, square footages,
bedroom mix as well as number of affordable housing units and their respective
affordability levels above city requirements (up to 16 points).
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 27
20
III. Economic Impact: Proposed property purchase price, estimated taxable market value
of completed project, hiring of BIPOC contractors and workers, and project’s overall
employment potential (up to 12 points).
IV. Community Benefits: Connectivity of proposed project to the surrounding area;
quality of public spaces, including gathering areas/plazas, green space, landscaping,
public art (up to 12 points).
V. Racial Equity and Inclusion: How the proposed development advances one of the
city’s key Strategic Priorities of Racial Equity and Inclusion in order to create a more
just and inclusive community for all (i.e., through outreach to historically underserved
communities, the hiring of BIPOC contractors/workers, provision of affordable
housing, inclusion of creative housing types/features, through commercial spaces,
public spaces, planned social events, building management and policies, etc.)
(up to 16 points).
VI. Sustainability: Inclusion of green building elements that meet and exceed city
requirements, including on-site energy generation, waste reduction, measures to
reduce trip generation and degree to which project meets city’s energy and carbon
neutrality goals (up to 16 points).
VII. Development Team: Overall experience of company and project principals with similar
projects and the type of development being proposed; financial and team member
capacity to implement proposal; previous experience of development team working
together; ability of development team to meet regularly with city staff to refine
project plans, positive property management experience (up to 12 points).
Project Approval Process: The EDA anticipates a multi-stage process to select a developer,
enter into various agreements, and work cooperatively toward project approval and
construction. The process includes:
Stage 1: Developer Selection & Preliminary Development Agreement
City staff engaged in the development planning process will evaluate all submitted
proposals with respect to completeness and consistency with the criteria listed
above. Staff may recommend up to four development teams to present proposed
project plans to the city council/EDA at a Study Session tentatively in November
2020. The city council/EDA will discuss the merits of each proposal and may or
may not select a developer with which to enter into a Preliminary Development
Agreement.
Outcome: EDA announces selected developer tentatively in January/February
2021 and subsequently enters into a Preliminary Development Agreement.
Stage 2: Due Diligence & Project Planning
Developer begins site and project due diligence process and prepares preliminary
site and building plans in anticipation of zoning and redevelopment contract
approvals.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 28
21
Outcome: Developer obtains preliminary project approvals by mid-2021.
Stage 3: Planning & Public Financing Approvals
The developer files formal preliminary and final applications for planning and
public financing approvals. All requests for planning and public financing approvals
are subject to the city’s typical procedural review process. City staff will work with
the developer to prepare plans consistent with city objectives and requirements in
order to obtain city council/EDA approvals; however, approvals are not
guaranteed.
Outcome: All public approvals should be obtained by fall/winter 2021.
Stage 4: Real Estate Transaction
The real estate closing should occur within four weeks of the final planning and
redevelopment contract approvals.
Outcome: Developer gains control of the site.
Stage 5: Construction
Start of construction expected within four weeks of the property closing.
Outcome: Project commencement.
Developer / Staff Coordination: The selected developer team will be expected to meet
regularly (i.e. approximately every two weeks, or as needed) with city and Southwest Project
Office (SPO) staff and others to coordinate the design, approval and construction of all the
proposed project’s various public and private components. Development teams must commit
to this schedule.
IV. City Contracting Requirements
Preliminary Development Agreement: Upon selection, it is expected that the preferred
developer and the EDA will enter into a Preliminary Development Agreement (“PDA”), to
formalize the respective parties’ rights and responsibilities further defining the proposed
development project consistent with the parties’ mutual objectives. Under the PDA
(Attachment I), the parties would agree to work cooperatively towards defining the development
and its components, determining their financial feasibility, the infrastructure necessary, the
approvals necessary, as well as agreeing to negotiate in good faith toward a definitive Purchase
and Redevelopment Contract (“Redevelopment Contract”) and a related planning development
contract regarding the approved project. Under the PDA, the developer would be provided with
exclusive rights to negotiate acquisition of the Site with the EDA as well as formal permission to
access the Site in order to conduct its due diligence. The PDA would also include an outline for
applying for zoning changes as well as tax increment financing.
Property Acquisition and Letter of Intent: The property subject to this RFP will be sold by the
EDA “as-is.” Responses to this RFP are required to include a Letter of Intent to acquire the Site.
It is city policy to sell property at its fair market value . The City Appraiser will review the
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 29
22
selected developer’s Letter of Intent. Offer prices will be one of multiple criteria for evaluating
proposals. The Letter of Intent must state:
• The amount offered for the site,
• Contingencies associated with this offer and,
• The developer’s ability to close on purchase of the site.
Other Requirements: Other requirements vary depending upon the type of development
proposed and the source and amount of public investment, if any. The following list is not
exhaustive. Respondents unfamiliar with these standard requirements are urged to seek
further information from city staff.
1. Due Diligence. While the city has tried to provide as much useful background
information about the site as necessary, the information contained herein is not
intended as a complete record of the site. During the term of the PDA, the selected
developer will be responsible for conducting its own due diligence (including inspection
of the physical condition of the site) for matters that in the developer’s judgment could
affect its use of the site for the proposed development.
2. Environmental Considerations. The EDA does not have Phase I and Phase II
Environmental Site Assessments for the site. The site will be sold “as is” and the EDA
makes no warranties or representations regarding the environmental conditions of the
parcel nor will it indemnify the selected developer with respect to the existence of any
hazardous substances on or in the vicinity of the parcel. The selected developer will be
responsible, at its cost, for testing, monitoring and remediation of any environmental or
geotechnical soil conditions encountered to the satisfaction of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency or other regulatory bodies. The EDA will sponsor any grant applications
for contamination cleanup upon the selected developer’s request, subject to EDA
approval. The selected developer will be responsible for all costs associated with such
grant applications.
3. Inclusionary Housing Policy. All proposed projects are subject to the requirements
included within the city’s Inclusionary Housing Policy dated July 2020 (Attachment F.).
4. Green Building Policy. All proposed projects are subject to the requirements included
within the city’s Green Building Policy updated July 2020 (Attachment G.).
5. Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards. The development must conform to the MN
State Accessibility Code as published in 2015. Developers must describe the accessibility
design of each of the code-required handicapped units in any proposed housing
development (e.g., roll-in showers), the mix of accessible units and where they are
located within the development, and any appropriate safety features for vision- and
hearing-impaired people, as well as ensuring that such units and features meet all
applicable provisions of the 2015 MN State Building Code.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 30
23
6. Rezoning Responsibility. It is the selected developer’s responsibility to undertake and
finance any zoning and use permits necessary for approval of the proposed
development.
7. Utilities. It is the selected developer’s responsibility to identify the locations of and
provide for the installation of electricity, gas, water, sewer service and other utilities
servicing the site from the public mains to the individual units.
8. Construction Standards. The development must meet all St. Louis Park City codes, and
the 2015 MN State Building Code. All proposed developments will be reviewed for
energy efficiency.
9. Prevailing Wage Policy. In accordance with federal Prevailing Wage Policy, the
developer must covenant and agree to cause its general contractor to comply with the
wage and hour standards issued by the United States Secretary of Labor pursuant to the
Davis Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C. Sections 276a to 276a-5, as amended, and the Contract Work
Hours and Safety Standards Act, 40 U.S.C. Sections 327-333. The Davis-Bacon Act
requires that all contractors and subcontractors pay prevailing wages as determined by
the federal Davis-Bacon wage decision.
10. Small and Underutilized Businesses. Development projects that receive public financial
assistance will be expected to make “good faith efforts” to meet goals for the use of
businesses owned by women, and persons of color or indigenous in construction and
professional services. A list of certified businesses can be obtained by contacting the
Small and Underutilized Business Program at 612-673-3076 or at
mnucp.metc.state.mn.us.
11. Minnesota Business Subsidy Act. Depending upon the level and purpose of public
assistance received, provisions of the Minnesota Business Subsidy Act, Minnesota
Statutes, sections 116J.993-116J.995, may also apply to the development. Should these
requirements apply, they will be included in a business subsidy agreement as part of the
Redevelopment Contract.
12. Hold Harmless. The selected developer shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold the
city and EDA harmless from any and all claims or lawsuits that may arise from the
developer’s activities under the provisions of the Redevelopment Contract that are
attributable to the acts or omissions, including breach of specific contractual duties, of
the developer or the developer’s independent contractors, agents, employees or
officers.
Cost of Responding to RFP: This RFP in no way obligates the respondent to enter into a
relationship with the EDA. Nor does this RFP obligate the EDA to enter into a relationship with
any entity that responds, nor does it limit or restrict the EDA’s right to enter into a relationship
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 31
24
with any entity that does not respond to this RFP. In its sole discretion, the EDA may pursue
discussions with one or more entities responding to this RFP, or none at all .
The EDA further reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cancel this RFP at any time for any
reason.
The EDA has the authority to select a developer and to negotiate a Redevelopment Contract as
outlined in this RFP.
Receipt of responses to this RFP does not obligate the EDA to hire any respondent.
The EDA reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals, in part or in whole, and to
waive any minor informalities, as deemed in the city’s best interests. Selection of a developer
does not constitute acceptance or approval of all aspects of the developer’s submitted
proposal by the EDA. The EDA reserves the right to propose and/or require revisions to the
proposed redevelopment and negotiate with the developer over various aspects of the
proposed redevelopment proposal.
The EDA reserves the right, but not the obligation, to enter into a Purchase and
Redevelopment Contract with the developer proposing the best and most responsive and
responsible development that is most advantageous to the city. In determining the most
advantageous proposal, the EDA further reserves the right to consider matters such as, but not
limited to, the respondent’s consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Development
Objectives, Strategic Priorities, the quality of previous related projects, as well as the
developer’s experience with projects similar to the proposed development, business reputation
and financial abilities.
The EDA in no way takes responsibility for the costs incurred by respondents or their
contractors in connection with this RFP process, including, but not limited to, costs associated
with preparing a proposal or participating in any presentations or negotiations related to this
RFP or cleanup or correction of conditions existing on the site.
Right to Modify, Suspend and Waive:
The EDA reserves the right to:
a) Modify, and/or suspend any and all aspects of this RFP;
b) Request additional information or clarification from any or all respondents and allow for
corrections of errors or omissions;
c) Waive any unintentional defects as to form or content of the RFP or any proposals
submitted. Any substantial changes in the requirements of the RFP will be disseminated
in writing to all parties who have expressed an interest in preparing a proposal. Any and
all information requested in addenda must be returned with the developer’s proposal to
be considered responsive.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 32
25
Disclosure and Disclaimer: This Request for Proposals is for information purposes only. Any
action taken by the EDA in response to proposals made pursuant to this RFP, or in making any
award or failing or refusing to make any award, shall be without liability or obligation on the
part of the city or EDA or any of their officers, employees or advisors. This RFP is being
provided by the EDA without any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, as to its
content, accuracy or completeness. Any reliance on the information contained in this RFP, or on
any communications with the city’s officials, employees or advisors, shall be at the developer’s
own risk. Prospective developers should rely exclusively on their own investigations,
interpretations and analysis in connection with this matter. This RFP is made subject to
correction of errors, omissions, or withdrawal without notice.
This RFP does not constitute an offer by the EDA. The EDA’s determination as to the
qualifications and acceptability of any party or parties submitting a response to the RFP shall be
made at the sole discretion of the EDA. The EDA is governed by the laws of the state of
Minnesota and all proposals and supporting data shall be subject to disclosure as required by
such law.
The EDA reserves the right to accept, subject to negotiation of final terms and conditions, any
proposal deemed in the best interest of the city, to waive any irregularities in any proposals, to
reject any and all proposals, to re-advertise for new Responses, to extend the deadline for
submission of Responses, and to modify the project schedule proposals in this document.
Neither the city or EDA, nor any of their officers, agents or employees shall be responsible for
the accuracy of any information provided to any developer as part of this RFP. All respondents
are encouraged to independently verify the accuracy of any information provided. The use of
any information in this document in the preparation of a response to this request is at the sole
risk of the responding party
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Wooddale Station Site RFP and developer selection process Page 33
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: July 27, 2020
Written report: 8
Executive summary
Title: Public art update
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is Categorized as Time-Sensitive**
• None at this time. This report is to update the council on the city’s various public art activities.
Policy consideration: Are the various initiatives outlined in this report in keeping with council
expectations?
Summary: Numerous public art activities are currently active ; this is an update on them.
Notably, Friends of the Arts (FOTA) and city staff have worked with a community steering
committee to create an “Arts and Culture Strategic Roadmap.” The roadmap is an overarching
“blueprint, outlining paths along which St. Louis Park can strengthen the cultural life of the city
as an element of achieving Vision 3.0, the city’s Livable Community Principles , and its Strategic
Priorities.” City council discussed this process on August 26, 2019 and January 13, 2020.
Another new and helpful tool is the Public Art Map . It provides locations of public art in the city
as well as descriptions of the installations and information about the artists. This map is being
updated as more art is added in the community. A third new effort is an “Equity Audit”
conducted by Forecast Public Art of the public art in St. Louis Park. It provides an assessment
and re commendations that will help us to collect data and better address equity in public art.
In addition, there are recent public art installations in the community including the community
mural on the 3540 Dakota Ave S. building on Highway 7 and the phone art on the inside of the
Highways 100 and 7 noise wall. M ore public art is coming in new developments including
Bridgewater Bank and the Elmwood. New art in public facilities is also in progress at the
Westwood Hills Nature Center, the Lou isiana Bridge over Minnehaha Creek, the Dakota Trail
Bridge , and sidewalk poetry in the Historic Walker Lake area. Art installations are being pursued
along the SWLRT corridor, with temporary and/or pop-up art expected to begin in 2021. The
city will continue with the annual Arts and Culture Grant Program, as well as the utility wrap
and intersection art programs.
Financial or budget considerations: None at this time.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Discussion
St. Louis Park Public Art Collection Equity Audit – July 2020
Strategic Roadmap for advancing arts and culture
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, principal planner
Reviewed by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst
Karen Barton, community development director
Nancy Deno, HR director/deputy city manager
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Title: Public art update
Discussion
Strategic Roadmap
The St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts (FOTA) and the city worked with a consultant to create the
“Strategic Roadmap for Advancing Arts and Culture” (attached). The city and FOTA worked with
a Steering Committee of 13 community members to create the roadmap and a vision for the
future. The process included an extensive public listening and comment process: the steering
committee led over 25 focus groups, and 259 on-line surveys were completed, and the input
was incorporated into the roadmap. The roadmap sets forth Strategic Imperatives and Guiding
Principles for the future of arts and culture in the community. This effort was funded by a grant
from the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council.
Public Art Map
The public art map on the city’s website provides locations of public art in the city as well as
descriptions of the installations and information about the artists. This map is being updated
continually as more art is added in the community.
Equity Audit
Forecast Public Art conducted an “Equity Audit” of the public art in St. Louis Park (attached). It
provides an assessment and recommendations that will help us to collect data and better
address equity in public art in terms of collecting artist data, reviewing public art processes and
locations for future art.
Recent Art Installations
Historic Walker Lake Community Mural on Highway
Created by GoodSpace Murals this mural highlights past, present, and future stories of Historic
Walker Lake and St. Louis Park. The mural design was created based on input from the
community through an online survey, design events, suggestion boxes, and interviews, and
painted in part by the community at STEP's Empty Bowls event in February. More information:
www.slpfota.org/walkerlake.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Title: Public art update
Phone Art
MnDOT approved the phone art installation on the inside of the northeast corner of Highways
100 and 7 noise wall. The artist is Dave Gatzmer, a neighbor who collected old rotary and push
button phones on display as art.
Art In -P rogress
Sidewalk Poetry
The city initiated a sidewalk poetry program where poems submitted by residents and students
of St. Louis Park schools will be stamped into local public sidewalks. This fall, poetry will be
incorporated into the new sidewalk being constructed along the high school stadium on Lake and
Walker Streets. Poetry guidelines asked for poems that express a sense of location and local
identity, is rooted in cultural expression, connects to personal, community and environmental
health and well-being, and explores the concept of place and time. Poetry will be selected by a
committee of community members. Poems not selected at this time may be used in future projects.
Development Projects
• Bridgewater Bank: Moments of Tangency is the name of the public art piece by Craig Snyder
and Homan Wong that has been installed in the front plaza at Bridgewater Corporate Center.
• The Elmwood apartment building will have an installation by the artist David Craig. The art
will include granite columns that are a gateway to the site.
Art in Public Facilities
• Westwood Hills Nature Center
o Emily Lavalier's density collage depicts the Westwood Hills Nature Center using
recycled books, magazines, WHNC brochures, flyers, and photographs, as well as new
photos to capture life in St. Louis Park.
o Christopher Tully's artwork uses a combination of two-dimensional painting and
three -dimensional relief style sculpting to depict flora and fauna of Westwood Hills
Nature Center's woodlands.
o A third piece was commissioned in collaboration with the St. Louis Park Rotary Club
and Sunrise Rotary Club for the front patio area outside the main entrance to the
building. Nicholas Legeros has been commissioned to create two sculptural pieces
using laminated Alaskan Cedar wood and Chilton stone.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8) Page 4
Title: Public art update
• Louisiana Bridge o ver Minnehaha Creek
o Art for the bridge is being developed by Randy Walker, Gita Ghei, Lori Greene. it will
be on the bridge over the creek as well as along the walkway under the bridge.
• Dakota Trail Bridge art - in progress
• PLACES – Public art in SWLRT st ation areas
o The PLACES committee is working toward art along the SWLRT corridor. With current
funding, Forecast Public Art has sent out a call for Fellowship to curate pop-up public
art that are low -budget, temporary projects in one of the station areas. The intent is
to raise awareness, generate interest and enthusiasm along the SWRLT corridor, and
create opportunities to build identity and a sense of belonging among community
members.
On -G oing Art P rograms
Arts and Culture Grant Program
The Arts & Culture Grant Program is a collaborative program between the City of St. Louis Park,
the St. Louis Park Youth Development Fund and St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts. The program
makes grant dollars available every year for music, visual arts, theater, film, multimedia, dance
and other art projects. It provides funding for new arts programs that support community
pride, connect artists and the community, and engage people in creative learning.
Utility Wraps
Utility box wraps have been used in cities nationwide to add artistic flare to neighborhoods and
communities. St. Louis Park’s utility box wrap program helps create a sense of community
connection and pride, while providing a way to add more artistic beauty to the city.
Intersection Painting
Paint the pavement/intersection art is an initiative to promotes the building of social capital
and placemaking through creating neighborhood art with residents and artists. The intent is to
have an easy way to beautify and calm traffic on a wide range of streets and provide an
opportunity that all residents can take part in. There are no intersections that have been
painted to date.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8) Page 5
Title: Public art update
City H all Third Floor Art
The third -floor city hall lobby public art display is used to showcase and elevate local art and
artists’ talent. The art display rotates on a four-month basis, giving three to nine St. Louis Park
artists the opportunity to showcase their work throughout the year. The goal is to make the art
display more inclusive by forming new relationships and partnerships. The hope is it will
increase representation of artists from different backgrounds and disciplines.
Next Steps: The Arts and Culture Strategic Roadmap will be brought to the city council for
acceptance at a regular meeting in August. City staff and FOTA will be working on the
implementation steps of the roadmap for future public art. In addition, the recommendations
from the Equity Audit will be addressed and incorporated into the city’s future public art
processes.
St. Louis Park
Public Art Collection
Equity Audit - July 2020
30 artwork commissions
listed in the collection from 1997 - 2020.
20 include enough data for this study.
25 artists commissioned to create
20 permanent artworks studied here.
Commissions range from $5K- $200K
Materials include concrete, steel,
aluminum, fiber, mosaic, glass, led’s/
light, and more
Artworks
Artists
Costs
Materials
Adapted from Americans for the Arts, a
framework to consider the measure of equity is
referenced as follows:
Cultural equity embodies the values, policies, and
practices that ensure that all people—including but not
limited to those who have been historically
underrepresented based on race/ethnicity, age, disability,
sexual orientation, gender, gender identity,
socioeconomic status, geography, citizenship status, or
religion—are represented in the development of arts
policy; the support of artists; the nurturing of accessible,
thriving opportunities for expression; and the fair
distribution of resources.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8)
Title: Public art update Page 6
1997 2003 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2017 2018 2019 2020
3
4
100K
KEY
Male Artist
Female Artist
Artist Team - multiple
gender identities
BIPOC artist or
team member
YEAR
$$$
200K
6
1
Cost &
Date
Unlisted
Year Commissioned, Gender and Race, Amount of Commission
5
Cost unlisted Cost unlisted
*artist gender is determined by
artist statements available online
and indication of she/he/they.
*artist race is assumed by indication
Identity shared or not shared in
Artist statement
*BIPOC
(Black, Indigenous or Person of color)
2
9
10
7
8
11
12
13
15
16
17 18
19
Cost unlisted
20
14
2015
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8)
Title: Public art update Page 7
Artworks List
23 Permanent Artworks Included in Data
1.Celebration of Peace Evelyn Raymond June 1997
2.Louisiana Oaks Public Art Feature Caprice Glasner Oct 2003
3.Allegory of Excelsior Andrea Myklebust June 2003
4.The Rhythm of Life Fence Weaving Denise Tennen 2007
5.Spirit of Lennox Denise Tennen Sept 2008
6.The Bee Way Foster Wiley August 2009
7.Aurora Organ Camille Utterback Jan 2010
8.Etched Glass Kathy Bradford 2010
9.36th Street Streetscape Marjorie & Martin Pitz September 2010
10.Windtrace Norman Andersen October 2010
11.Dream Elevator Randy Walker October 2012
12.Autumn Crescendo 11th Hour Heroics Nov 2013
13.Recollection and Promise Amy Bauer and Brian Boldon 2013
14.Louisiana and Highway 7 Bridge Myklebust + Sears 2015
15.Moon Flower Lisa Elias 2017
16.Full Circle James Brenner 2018
17.Fun! Stacia Goodman 2018
18.ROC Mosaic Caron Bell 2019
19.Bridgewater Craig Snyder 2020
20.Louisiana Bridge at Minnehaha Creek Randy Walker, Lori Green, Gita Ghei, 2020
Not Included in data. Not permanent. rotating, or not enough info recorded
Spirit of St. Louis Park Banners
Our town: Faces & Places
40 Asset Paintings
Our Town Sings
Wolfe Park Sign
City Hall 3rd Floor Art - various - 2015? Present
Not Included. Reason noted:
Children’s Nest Egg/The Birds Nest Jonee Kulman Sept 2008 - listed as no longer in existence
The Elmwood and Dakota Bridge - 2020- listed as not chosen yet
Found Sprials Stacia Goodman 2010 - no longer in existence
Westwood Nature Center - installation in progress
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8)
Title: Public art update Page 8
Median household income (census track 2018) in St. Louis
Park ranges from $44,737 to $117,647. According to the data,
northeast St. Louis Park has the highest median incomes—at
$117,647. Residents in tracts near Westwood Health Care
Center have the lowest median income in SLP, at $44,737.
Public art works included in the map correlate to what is
available via the public art map on the St. Louis Park website.
If there are public art works in other areas, they are not listed
on the St. Louis Park public art map.
Indicates permanent public art work
Location of public art works in relation to SLP resident
income, areas of high to low property values.
Subject matter/content of public art works- general list
•Abstract ballet of doves - celebration and wish for peace
•Human figure soaring through the stars•Park signage and park amenities — rainbow, sun, worm•Welcome
•Birds nest
•Flight of bees
•Figures
•Human presence into light•Etched glass•Wind patterns
•Tower with colored strands
•Circle- relationship between internal and external
•Mosaic representing diversity of people
•Morning glories•Historic photographs and contemporary life in SLP•Bundt cake plans
Highest
Income area
Lowest
Income area
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8)
Title: Public art update Page 9
SLP Demographic Data 2018
Source: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/stlouisparkcityminnesota,US/PST045219
Census Summary for Racial Demographic
White: 82.4%
Non-white, Black, Indigenous, POC: 19.5%
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8)
Title: Public art update Page 10
Who is being commissioned to create public
artworks? Are the artists commissioned diverse in
race, age, gender, career-status, socioeconomic
background, etc? Are the artists commissioned
representative of St. Louis Park in various contexts
(past, present, future)? How does the collection’s
demographic info compare to the broader state?
Whose voices or perspectives are sought out and
incorporated within decision-making processes?
How are public artists and artworks selected? Are
public artworks designed/created with community
involvement? How are artists compensated? Is
commission price equitable across demographic
differences?
Where are the art works situated? Are artworks placed
in locations where people of all economic levels benefit
from public art? Are areas of lower income afforded
public art amenities as equally as higher income areas?
Are artworks placed in areas in which all people will feel
comfortable or safe to engage with the work?
What forms of artwork are supported and pursued; do
they represent a range of cultural origins and practices?
What is the subject matter that the artwork explores;
does it investigate issues or experiences that represent
some communities more than others; is anyone
privileged or excluded?
Who
How Where
What
Methodology:
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8)
Title: Public art update Page 11
•GENDER: 70% of collection (included in data) includes
commissions by women or a team consisting of a woman.
•GENDER: Commissions by male artists are consistently
higher in overall cost than those by women, though
commissions including women artists are included in the top
5 highest commission cost.
•GENDER: There are several artists that have multiple
commissions. 3 female artists have been commission 2 times
each. One male artist has been commissioned 2 times.
•RACE: Only 2 artists out of 25 identify or share racial identity
as Black, Indigenous or POC. No one public art commission
has been solely led by BIPOC artist. The 2 artists who are
BIPOC are included on a team. Note: Racial identity is based
on info available in artist statements. Info is not listed.
•RACE: BIPOC artists are not commissioned until 2020.
Findings:
•ECONOMIC: 3 of the highest commissions include artists who
identify as women or BIPOC.
•ECONOMIC: The majority of public art works are situated in
proximity to higher income areas of SLP, though lower income
areas are not excluded from proximity to public artworks. The
lowest income area in SLP does not have permanent public
artworks. Most of SLP public art is in private redevelopment
projects, and so the locations are not chosen by the city related
to equity. SLP does have a number of public art projects with
public buildings and park— these sites offer more opportunity
to ensure equity in lower income neighborhoods.
•ECONOMIC: 17 Commissions list a fiscal partner.
•OTHER: Subject matter of most public artworks is generally
accessible, non-specific and representative of all people.
Assumes a general, board identity of SLP residents rather than
cultural specificity of any group. Subjects lean towards abstract
metaphor, nature or material and interactivity.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8)
Title: Public art update Page 12
Recommendations for
future data collection:
Unknown:
•Career status of artists is not listed. (Emerging, mid-career, established).
•Racial demographics are not listed, gender is not listed.
•How are community members involved in the planning, outreach,
implementation, and evaluation of public artworks?
•Fee paid to artist for labor vs total cost of the artwork commission?
•Who applied for each commission? How are the demographics of who is
selected comparable to the demographics of who is applying?
Variables:
The following art works in the collection are listed as rotating or changing.
As a result, they are not included in the audit.
Artist info is not listed, costs are not listed (including fees paid to artists).
Mosaic End Tables
Wolfe Park Sign
Spirit of St. Louis Park Banners
Our Town: Faces & Places Photography
40 asset paintings
Our Town Signs
Title of Work
Location of Work
Artist Name
Race, Gender, Career Status of Artist/s
Description of Work, Materials
Total Cost of Commission, Artist Fee, Consulting Fees
Fiscal Partners
Installation Date, Ribbon Cutting
Is the Artist a St. Louis Park Resident?
Selection Process (committee? Invitational? RFP? RFQ?)
Selection Panel Demographics
Community Engagement Processes?
How many applicants? How many RFP/Q responses?
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8)
Title: Public art update Page 13
•SLP has developed a Strategic Framework for Advancing Arts and Culture in St. Louis Park that includes
integrating the City’s racial equity goals with the public art commission process. Racial equity goals should be
reviewed and assessed regularly to track improvements in inclusion of artists from BIPOC racial backgrounds.
•Improve data collection and review practices to ensure that gaps are both addressed and responded to
on a year to year basis. Conduct a poll of public artists the city has previously engaged to determine demographics,
including information as shown on Page 8.
•St. Louis Park’s online public art location map should be continually updated to include all works in the collection.
•Draft standard public art selection process, focus on eligibility requirements and submission requirements.
Revise selection committee recruitment process to ensure inclusion of a balanced group in terms of race and gender
in addition to other considerations.
•An assessment timeline could be established. Determine often should the data be reviewed. Gaps could be
assessed every year.
•Consider the scope of data collection. Data could be collected during the submission process, during the commission
process and after. Consider by who, when and how this data is collected. If surveys could be used— consider a
survey for the artist and a survey for the selection panel. (see next page for examples)
•Update demographic data and consider trends once Census 2020 data is available.
Recommendations
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8)
Title: Public art update Page 14
Sample Data Collection Points for Applicants/Panelists
** Survey should indicate the message: “Your response is voluntary and confidential. It will have no influence on decisions and
outcomes of your application/participation or any other opportunities you may apply for or participate in, in the future.”
Data collection points: Artists who apply to commissions
Race/Ethnicity
Gender
Age
Career Status - Early, Emerging, Mid-career, Established
St. Louis Park Resident? County where they live/work
How many previous public art commissions?
Data collection points: Selection Panelists
Race/Ethnicity
Gender
Age
St. Louis Park Resident? County where they live/work
Income range
Field of work
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8)
Title: Public art update Page 15
Excel Sheet Data Collection Revision
Art Name Artist Installation
Date
Ribbon
Cutting Description Location Fiscal
Partners
Amount
Collected
Consultant
Costs Artist Stipends Amount for Art
Art Name Artist Name Description Location Artist Fee Total Cost Fiscal
Partners
Consultant
Costs
Artist
Demographic
Data
Selection
Process
Format
Community
Engagement
Current SLP Excel Sheet
Recommended SLP Excel Sheet
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8)
Title: Public art update Page 16
Experience PARKS AND REC in the Park
Strategic roadmap for advancing arts and culture
City of St. Louis Park
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8)
Title: Public art update Page 17
City of St. Louis Park
STRATEGIC ROADMAP FOR ADVANCING ARTS AND CULTURE
…connecting people, voices, places, spaces…
The purpose of this framework is to serve as a blueprint, outlining paths along which St. Louis Park can strengthen the cultural
life of the city as an important element of achieving Vision 3.0 to be A Place for all People, the city’s Livable Community
Principles, and its Strategic Priorities.
The intent is to share a vision where arts and culture can be a key contributor to economic and community development
when approached strategically and included as a tool and part of the solution to our community’s challenges.
Since late summer, 2019, there has been a multi-pronged effort to engage residents in conversations to gather input on
what the community values, where they hope efforts should be focused, and perceptions of the importance of creativity,
culture and the arts to community vitality. The process included an extensive public listening and comment process. A
steering committee led over 25 focus groups, engaging a breadth of community voices spanning age, cultural, social and
economic interests. In addition, 259 electronic surveys were completed. The ideas that emerged from the community
listening sessions and survey processes are incorporated into this framework shaped by the steering committee and the
executive team composed of City of St. Louis Park and Friends of the Arts leadership.
WHY ARTS AND CULTURE?
Arts and culture have measurable impact on community cohesion, on economies, and on personal health and wellbeing. They
are powerful tools for community engagement in support of community vitality, as well as community resiliency in times of
significant change. Equity can be successfully advanced through arts, creativity, and cultural celebration. In addition, through
arts and culture, we are invited into public dialogue often in a less threatening setting. We nurture a strong next generation
of creative thinkers and problem solvers through arts in our educational curriculum, and finally create healthy communities
capable of meeting the demands of the future.
There is a significant body of literature documenting the importance of arts and culture in building local identity and pride of
place. Through participatory arts initiatives communities strengthen connections among residents, frequently bridging
differences, forming new bonds, and building stronger links between different
neighborhoods or cultural groups. Arts and culture have been proven to improve
public health and safety. Further, as they improve quality of life and community
appeal, they can improve business climate, support the economy, and in many cases
invite tourism. Community spaces and public life can be energized through arts and
culture.
The literature tells us that
● Arts, culture and creativity create an aesthetic appeal and a quality of life that invite
community and economic investment.
● Arts participation builds civic engagement. Individuals involved in the arts are more
likely to partake in a wealth of civic and social activities.
● Culture builds social capital, builds community, grows institutional networks.
● Arts participants are more than twice as likely to volunteer in their communities.
● Arts and culture provide improvements to the overall quality of the neighborhood;
and improve the local economy.
● Engaging with art is essential to the human experience. Research provides strong
evidence that arts educational experiences can produce significant positive impacts on academic and social development.
Culture, creativity and the arts at their core have an intrinsic value, which must not be overlooked as economic and social
impact is explored. Personal experience enriches our inner lives, touches our emotional world, and serves to express what it
means to be human. Culture, creativity and the arts are important tools in galvanizing individuals and communities.
Arts and culture are positive,
often playful, vehicles to:
• invite participation
•build local identity
•strengthen the business
climate
•bridge cultural differences
•celebrate pride of place
•invite collaboration across
economic, civic, and social
interests.
Experience PARKS AND REC in the Park
1
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8)
Title: Public art update Page 18
Page 2 of 9
LOCAL LEADERSHIP
St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts has been building
community through the arts since 1995. The organization
was founded after neighbors came together to advocate for
maintaining art and music programs in St. Louis Park
schools amidst potential budget cuts. The newly-formed
group of passionate arts advocates then organized its first
community-wide arts and culture event in public parks, and
took their advocacy efforts to the city government to push
for additional investments in arts and culture. Leadership
from both the city council and staff were receptive, leading
to official recognition of Friends of the Arts as St. Louis
Park's arts council.
The City of St. Louis Park has embraced public art and taken
steps to proactively integrate it into the community fabric.
Art has been incorporated throughout the city in new
developments and public infrastructure improvement
projects; project grants through the annual Arts and
Culture Grant Program; placing art in city buildings, parks and public
spaces; as well as through the creation of other art opportunities.
Friends of the Arts has worked closely with the City of St. Louis Park for
its nearly 25 year history, and has also helped form three local theater
groups, provided fiscal sponsorship to many small groups and projects,
created a scholarship fund for residents, and organized dozens of
community projects bringing people together to participate, learn, and
enjoy the arts in their community.
The breadth of programs and broad support for the arts by Friends of the
Arts and the city is a result, in large part, of advocates from the
community and within city government, and the strong relationships that
have formed. To ensure the long-term stability of arts and culture in the
community, the city and Friends of the Arts are working together to
determine where efforts should be focused, how to express and
communicate its importance to community vitality, and building cross-
sector support and partnerships. Guided by the knowledge that arts and
culture are a key contributor to economic and community development,
this framework will enshrine past efforts and offer a strategic path to
approach arts and culture as a tool in solving community challenges and
developing policy on which the future of arts and culture in St. Louis Park
will grow.
Friends of the Arts has achieved
significant cross-sector partnership
and collaboration. It has implemented
projects with commercial and
nonprofit businesses, health and social
service organizations, a variety of City
Commissions, faith-based
communities, arts organizations, and
cultural institutions.
MN Citizens for the Arts Executive Director, Sheila
Smith, presents the 2016 St. Louis Park CreativeMN
Economic Impact Report to residents and City Council
Summer concert series at the
Wolfe Park Veterans Memorial Amphitheater
'Recollection and Promise,' an art glass
installation by Amy Bauer and Brian
Boldon at St. Louis Park City Hall
Experience PARKS AND REC in the Park
2
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8)
Title: Public art update Page 19
Page 3 of 9
WHY NOW?
Culture, creativity and the arts are in alignment with St. Louis Park priorities. These strategic priorities can be realized in
part through making arts and culture a mainstay in the community. In crafting this framework, our intent is to invite arts
and culture as key contributors to community development and economic vitality, a lens and a tool as the city seeks
solutions to our community’s challenges.
Why now? St. Louis Park is becoming more racially/ ethnically diverse. The city has adopted priorities both
to be a leader in racial equity and inclusion, as well as to build social capital through community
engagement. Culture, creativity and the arts are vital tools in bridging differences in cultures and race,
addressing equity, and creating involvement opportunities thereby galvanizing and engaging communities.
Why now? The population of St. Louis Park is steadily growing and changing. Growth in new rental housing
attracts a younger demographic. Culture, creativity and the arts are a valuable means of integrating new,
more diverse and younger residents into the community. Individuals involved in arts and culture are more
likely to stay in the community and more likely to participate in a wealth of other civic and social activities.
Why now? St. Louis Park has adopted as a strategic priority expanding options for people to make their
way around the City. New mobility options for making our way around the city includes punctuating the
routes with interesting, aesthetically-pleasing art, buildings, and places that are comfortable to travel to
and gather together in. The arts offer many options for enhancing new transportation alternatives.
Why now? Climate change has been named as a significant priority issue for St. Louis Park. The arts have
an important role to play in raising awareness to environmental issues, as well as gaining commitment to
achieve the city’s goals. Arts and culture serve to address climate change in our built and natural
environments where we spend our lives.
Why now? A 2016 study by the City of St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts and Minnesota
Citizens for the Arts demonstrated that the nonprofit arts and culture sector alone, without inclusion of the
commercial arts sector, is a substantial industry in St. Louis Park, generating over $1.5 million in total
economic impact annually as of 2016. In announcing this study, Sheila Smith, Executive Director of
Minnesota Citizens for the Arts, said “Clearly St. Louis Park’s arts and culture organizations are bringing
people to town who wouldn’t otherwise be there to spend their money in local businesses. There is
something special going on in St. Louis Park.”
Economic Impact of Nonprofit Arts Sector, 2016
Data from MN Citizens for the Arts, 2016 Creative MN Report
Experience PARKS AND REC in the Park
3
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8)
Title: Public art update Page 20
Page 4 of 9
The inaugural Thai Street Food Festival
(photo from the Thai Cultural Council of MN)
OUR HERITAGE – PLAYING IT FORWARD
St. Louis Park can lay claim to a rich and diverse history of participation in
arts and culture that without doubt makes this place distinctive.
●In 1891, the St. Louis Park Community Band formed, which thrives still
to this day more than a century later. For decades, concerts were held
at Bandstand Park, which is now known as Jorvig Park.
●The roots of the Parktacular festival too date back to the early 1900s.
The 1914 event was dubbed the “biggest jubilee celebration ever” in
the Minneapolis Daily Newspaper.
●St. Louis Park youth have a rich history of music, arts and culture. A
1912 ‘May Fete’ involved students “representing different nations in
costume, song, and folk dance.” At the high school, choir and band date
back to the early 1900s, with dance instituted in 1944 and graphic arts
in 1952, all continuing to this day.
●Public art in the city has strong ties back to “beautification,” as the
movement was called in the early 20th century—1930s roadway
beautification projects created roadside parks along Lilac Way. In
1997, the City commissioned its first contemporary public artwork,
paving the way for a significant number to follow.
●A culturally diverse city, home to the Jewish Community Center and
Wat Promwachirayan (Buddhist temple and Thai cultural center),
people of many backgrounds express and celebrate their culture in St.
Louis Park.
STRENGTHS – OUR FOUNDATION TO BUILD ON
The strength of the cultural community in St. Louis Park, as identified in our assessment process, is summed up in the word
PARTICIPATION. Residents appreciate and also seek more opportunities for
●Outdoor festivals, fairs and gatherings of the community. This
strength was frequently tied to bridging cultures through events and
celebrations that intentionally bring together diverse ethnic and
cultural groups.
●Public art and beautification of public spaces dispersed throughout
the city, often in unexpected places.
●Art and music programs in the schools.
●Support for artists and arts organizations.
St. Louis Park residents value
●Being together with friends and neighbors
●Celebrating and sharing their own cultural heritage; experiencing
other cultures
●Arts and culture opportunities in their neighborhood, accessible and
close to home
●Opportunities to express oneself artistically or culturally
“We need more chance encounters
with the arts.”
“I need to ask myself, ‘What kind of
town do I want to leave for my kids?”
“We all want to live in a beautiful
town.”
The St. Louis Park Village Band in 1903
(photo from the St. Louis Park Historical Society)
Experience PARKS AND REC in the Park
4
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8)
Title: Public art update Page 21
Experience PARKS AND REC in the Park
5
Page 5 of 9
VISION
St. Louis Park’s vision for community vitality is a city
defined and recognized as a place where
•individual ingenuity is nurtured;
•enduring bonds among diverse
communities are solidified;
•culture and the arts are recognized as
critical to fostering positive social change.
A city where ….
•creativity, culture and the arts foster and
celebrate social cohesion and celebration;
•streets and neighborhoods are enlivened
by the arts in ways that support both
community-gathering and are rooted in
cultural expression;
•creativity and culture strengthen and
improve community health and wellbeing
for both our natural world and our
residents.
STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK: BUILDING CONNECTIONS – RESPONSIVE, COLLABORATIVE, INTEGRATED
This framework explores key priorities identified as critical to building on current assets and
strengths, honoring the community’s desire for participatory, dispersed arts and culture
opportunities that connect, enliven, and improve the wellbeing of our community. The
vision suggests a model in which these three core areas of development are all continuously
informed and tested through the lenses or questions: Are our ideas guided by a
commitment to embrace equity and inclusion? Are our ideas amplified by proactive efforts
to build awareness of arts and culture, as well as recognition of a unique civic identity? Are
our ideas sustained through policy and resource commitment?
Advance Equity and
Inclusion
Build Awareness and
Recognition
Sustain through
Policy
Arts
Connect
Community
Arts
Promote
Wellbeing
Arts Enliven
Public
Spaces
The arts make our
values visible.
The Historic Walker Lake community mural,
created by GoodSpace Murals ElemENTRY Art Project at Peter Hobart Elementary School,
led by teaching artist Joe DeCamillis
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8)
Title: Public art update Page 22
Experience PARKS AND REC in the Park
6
Page 6 of 9
CORE THEMES FOR ARTS AND CULTURE DEVELOPMENT
Connect People, Ideas, Communities
Focus on the power of culture and creativity in building social cohesion through the nurture and development of
public celebration and unexpected or chance encounters with the arts.
Enliven Public Spaces
Focus on the power of arts and culture to enliven streets, neighborhoods, public and green spaces as important
assets to the city that support both community-gathering and are rooted in cultural expression. Support arts in
public spaces, with formal and informal opportunities to create aesthetic beauty.
Promote Health and Wellbeing
Focus on creativity and the arts as important vehicles to strengthen and improve community health and wellbeing
through programs and projects that support mental health, encourage active lifestyles, support sustainable
greenspace—creative opportunities encouraging healthy minds, healthy bodies, and a healthy natural world.
PROCESS LENSES INFORMING ALL CORE THEMES
Advance Equity and Inclusion
Advance and celebrate St. Louis Park’s diversity of people, places and cultures, while providing creative community
voices in efforts to eliminate the underlying barriers and disparities—social, economic, health—that impact under-
represented communities.
Build Awareness and Recognition
Distinguish St. Louis Park as a city of innovation and a breadth of artistic activity, a place that leverages the unique
voices of a culturally diverse, active and growing creative community.
Sustain and Strengthen through Policy and Resources
Leverage and strengthen St. Louis Park’s arts and cultural assets and capacity, ensuring that residents experience
the value that arts bring to the city through incorporation of creativity, culture and the arts in the ongoing dialogue
and deliberation of all public policies, as well as setting aside financial and human resources sufficient to sustaining
this resource within the city.
Community participants create a mandala for the
'100 Hands Mosaic' public artwork
The '100 Hands Mosaic' permanent installation at the
West End Showplace Icon Theater
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8)
Title: Public art update Page 23
Experience PARKS AND REC in the Park
7
Page 7 of 9
STRATEGIC IMPERATIVES: BUILDING CONNECTIONS
Strategic Imperative: Connect People, Ideas, Communities. Engage the power of arts,
culture and creativity in overcoming barriers and creating opportunities to build social capital through
community engagement.
Key Outcomes:
●Expanded festivals and street fairs, creative placemaking activities showcasing the breadth of cultures
present in St. Louis Park.
●Neighborhood tools are in place to leverage arts, culture and heritage and to celebrate diverse identity
and vibrancy.
●Neighborhood cultural assets are activated, successfully utilizing arts and culture to invite opportunities
to welcome, to know neighbors, to experience diverse cultural practices.
●There is a strengthened commitment and access to arts in education that meets youth where they are
physically, economically, developmentally and culturally.
Strategic Imperative: Promote Health and Wellbeing. Focus on both the wellbeing of people
and the natural world. Strengthen and improve community health and wellbeing through
encouragement of creative opportunities encouraging healthy minds, healthy bodies, and a healthy
natural world that are dispersed throughout the city.
Key Outcomes:
●Individual resident health is strengthened through opportunities for personal expression of one’s
creative voice. Personal isolation is mitigated.
●Creativity and the arts are engaged in support of efforts that increase opportunities to connect with
nature, and that incorporate arts and culture elements in our green spaces and trails; programming
encourages both healthy bodies and a healthy natural world.
●Wellbeing is enhanced as creativity, culture and arts are consistently defined to include the traditions
and expressions of the many cultural groups within St. Louis Park; diverse cultural traditions are
recognized and reflected throughout our arts and culture, making local arts accessible to all.
Strategic Imperative: Enliven Public Spaces. Continue to develop arts in public spaces as
opportunities, formal and informal, to create a sense of local identity. Enliven streets, neighborhoods,
public and green spaces as important assets to the city that support both community-gathering and are
rooted in public expression.
Key Outcomes:
●Develop systems to ensure that aesthetic beauty is promoted in conjunction with function in city
infrastructure projects.
●Develop mechanisms to further develop and responsively integrate unique local identity within
neighborhoods through arts and culture.
●Institute planning procedures that engage creativity and the arts in support of efforts to expand
networks of sidewalks, trails and bike facilities.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8)
Title: Public art update Page 24
Page 8 of 9
KEY PROCESS LENSES: GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Key Process Lens: Advance Equity and Inclusion. Engage creativity, culture and the arts to
create a more just and inclusive community for all. Advance and celebrate St. Louis Park’s diversity of
people, places and cultures, while working aggressively to address the underlying disparities—social,
economic, health—that impact under-represented communities.
Key Outcomes:
●More frequent engagement in arts, culture and heritage activities are experienced by more people and more
diverse communities throughout St. Louis Park.
●Creativity, culture and arts are consistently defined to include the traditions and expressions of the many cultural
groups within St. Louis Park.
●Diverse cultural traditions are recognized and reflected throughout our arts and culture, making local arts
accessible to all.
Key Process Lens: Build Awareness and Recognition. Create a unified arts and culture
identity/brand. Distinguish St. Louis Park as a city of innovation including a breadth of artistic and
cultural activity; a place that leverages the unique voices of a culturally diverse, young and growing
artistic community.
Key Outcomes:
●The community knows and recognizes the importance of culture, creativity and the arts in strengthening
the city’s vitality.
●The value and impact of culture, creativity and the arts in strengthening the city’s vitality is broadly
communicated within and beyond our city’s boundaries.
●Creative hubs and cultural offerings throughout all neighborhoods are known and activities broadly
communicated.
Key Process Lens: Sustain and Strengthen through Policy and Resources. Leverage and
strengthen St. Louis Park’s arts and cultural assets and capacity through incorporation of creativity,
culture and the arts in the ongoing dialogue and deliberation of all public policies, as well as
committing financial and human resources sufficient to sustaining this resource within the city.
Key Outcomes:
●Policies are in place that embed, strengthen and solidify arts & culture strategic imperatives throughout
municipal decision-making processes as a lens and a tool for policy development.
●Strengthen the collaboration between Friends of the Arts (FOTA) and the city.
●Artists are welcomed, find a business climate inviting entrepreneurial business development, and thrive.
●St. Louis Park maximizes resources to build a creative city through mutually beneficial partnerships
spanning business, city and private sources.
●This work is sustained through the establishment of an ongoing Steering Committee representative of
leadership key to the implementation of Framework goals, and charged with implementation plan
development, oversight and strategy implementation.
Experience PARKS AND REC in the Park
8
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8)
Title: Public art update Page 25
Page 9 of 9
PROJECT TEAM
Steering Committee Members:
●Robyn Awend, Sabes Jewish Community Center, Director of Cultural Arts
●Becky Bakken, Discover St. Louis Park, CEO
●Paul Danicic, Park Nicollet Foundation, Donor & Community Relations Officer
●Darius Gray, City of St. Louis Park, Community Organizer
●George Hagemann*, St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts, Board Member
●Larry Kraft, Environment and Sustainability Commission, City of St. Louis Park
●Kim LaBo, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Education and Engagement Coordinator
●Jamie Marshall*, St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts, Executive Director
●Meg McMonigal*, City of St. Louis Park, Principal Planner
●Korawan (Yin) Muangmode, Thai Cultural Council of MN, President
●Astein Osei, St. Louis Park Public Schools, Superintendent
●Maria Solano*, City of St. Louis Park, Senior Management Analyst
●Denise Tennen, Artist
*member of Executive Team
Consultant and Facilitator: Sharon Rodning Bash
CREDITS
St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts is a nonprofit organization dedicated to building community through the arts in St. Louis
Park, Minnesota. Since 1995, Friends of the Arts has worked to support, promote, and enhance arts and culture activities in
partnership with the City of St. Louis Park and other community partners. Learn more at www.slpfota.org.
The City of St. Louis Park is dedicated to promoting and integrating arts, culture and community aesthetics in all city
initiatives, and partners with Friends of the Arts to do so.
Special Thanks to:
The St. Louis Park Historical Society, the Sabes Jewish Community Center, Wat Promwachirayan and the Thai Cultural
Council of MN, and all who contributed to the development of this framework in the community listening process.
This activity is made possible by the voters of Minnesota through a grant from the Metropolitan Regional
Arts Council, thanks to a legislative appropriation from the arts and cultural heritage fund.
The inaugural St. Louis Park Art Fair at the ROC, 2018 Sabrina Datt leads and instructs youth participants in a dance at
the 2018 Children First Ice Cream Social
Experience PARKS AND REC in the Park
9
Page 9 of 9
PROJECT TEAM
Steering Committee Members:
●Robyn Awend, Sabes Jewish Community Center, Director of Cultural Arts
●Becky Bakken, Discover St. Louis Park, CEO
●Paul Danicic, Park Nicollet Foundation, Donor & Community Relations Officer
●Darius Gray, City of St. Louis Park, Community Organizer
●George Hagemann*, St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts, Board Member
●Larry Kraft, Environment and Sustainability Commission, City of St. Louis Park
●Kim LaBo, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Education and Engagement Coordinator,
●Jamie Marshall*, St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts, Executive Director
●Meg McMonigal*, City of St. Louis Park, Principal Planner
●Korawan (Yin) Muangmode, Thai Cultural Council of MN, President
●Astein Osei, St. Louis Park Public Schools, Superintendent
●Maria Solano*, City of St. Louis Park, Senior Management Analyst
●Denise Tennen, Artist
*member of Executive Team
Consultant and Facilitator:Sharon Rodning Bash
CREDITS
St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts is a nonprofit organization dedicated to building community through the arts in St. Louis
Park, Minnesota. Since 1995, Friends of the Arts has worked to support, promote, and enhance arts and culture activities in
partnership with the City of St. Louis Park and other community partners. Learn more at www.slpfota.org.
The City of St. Louis Park is dedicated to promoting and integrating arts, culture and community aesthetics in all city
initiatives, and partners with Friends of the Arts to do so.
Special Thanks to:
The St. Louis Park Historical Society, the Sabes Jewish Community Center, Wat Promwachirayan and the Thai Cultural
Council of MN, and all who contributed to the development of this framework in the community listening process.
This activity is made possible by the voters of Minnesota through a grant from the Metropolitan Regional
Arts Council, thanks to a legislative appropriation from the arts and cultural heritage fund.
The inaugural St. Louis Park Art Fair at the ROC, 2018
Sabrina Datt leads and instructs youth participants in a dance at
the 2018 Children First Ice Cream Social
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 8)
Title: Public art update Page 26
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: July 27, 2020
Written report: 9
Executive summary
Title: Arlington Row Apartments East and Arlington Row Apartments West plat extensions
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is Categorized as Time-Sensitive**
• No action at this time. Staff intends to include Melrose Company’s request for an extension
to record the final plat for Arlington Row Apartment East and Arlington Row Apartment
West on the August 3, 2020 consent agenda.
Policy consideration: Does the council wish to allow Melrose Company an additional year to
record the final plat for Arlington Row East and Arlington Row West?
Summary: In 2016 Melrose Company received final city council approval for the Arlington Row
Apartments East and Arlington Row Apartments West preliminary and final plat and planned
unit development (PUD) in order to re develop two currently vacant properties into multi-family
apartment buildings.
Per the city code, Melrose Company was required to record the final plat within two years after
city council approval or request that the city council approve an extension. Due to increased
construction costs and project revisions to comply with the inclusionary housing policy, Melrose
Company has twice previously requested an extension to record the final plat on August 15,
2018 and August 15, 2019. Council may grant an additional extension to this deadline.
Melrose Company has delayed filing the plat in order to defer the costs of park and trail
dedication fees until the project moves forward. The developer planned to apply for a PUD
amendment earlier this year but delayed their application due to the global health pandemic.
The developer plans to apply for a PUD amendment and move forward with the project within
the next year. Staff will bring the formal request to extend the plat filing deadline on the August
3 consent agenda.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: None
Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor
Karen Barton, community development director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: July 27, 2020
Written report: 10
Executive summary
Title: COVID-related street closures
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is categorized as Time-Sensitive**
•None at this time.
Policy consideration: Are there locations on our local street system where pedestrians and
bikers are unable to achieve physical distancing and should be closed to through traffic to
support department of health guidance ?
Summary: At the May 26, 2020 study session , the city council asked for further information
about closing city streets to promote physical distancing. This report outlines examples of how
other cities/entities close streets, how they operate, and how they compare to St. Louis Park.
Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) closed streets and
parkways earlier this year to further promote safe recreation with physical distancing. They did
so by either partially or fully closing streets to vehicles. Pedestrians can use the streets freely
while bicyclists must remain on existing bik e infrastructure.
Based on our analysis, staff does not recommend closing streets related to the ongoing
pandemic at this time. Supporting information is included in the discussion section of this
report.
Financial or budget considerations: It is assumed that if streets are closed, the cost to install
barricades would come from the general operating budget. For reference, the temporary
Elmwood neighborhood traffic installments in 2018 cost roughly $10,000.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion
MPRB and Minneapolis street closure maps
Prepared by: Be n Manibog, transportation engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 10 ) Page 2
Title: COVID -related street closures
Discussion
Background: In the May 26, 2020 study session, the city council asked for further information
about closing city streets to promote physical distancing. This report outlines examples of how
other cities/entities close d streets, how they operate, and how they compare to St. Louis Park.
Based on this analysis, staff does not recommend closing streets related to the ongoing
pandemic.
In this report, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB), the City of Minneapolis, and
the City of Oakland, California will be discussed.
Reasons to close streets
Although there are similarities, each entity slightly differed on the reasoning for their street
closures.
MPRB
•“…to allow more space for trail users to follow social distancing practices and limit the
spread of COVID-19”.
Minneapolis
•Complement the approximately 21 miles of parkways the Minneapolis Park and
Recreation Board closed to vehicles to give people more space for outdoor activities
•Open up space for walking, rolling and biking while social distancing
•To support active recreation and safe access to essential businesses
•High er concentration of pedestrians accessing essential services and narrow sidewalks
that do not easily support social distancing
Oakland
•Bay Area shelter-in -place orders
•Parks are crowded or closed
•COVID-19 ex acerbates inequities
o Inequitable access to parks and open space and the lack of safe space to be
active
•Vehicle trips are down, vehicle speeds are up
•People are using streets as shared public spaces
H ow the COVID-street closures work
MPRB:
•Signage and barricades installed at key locations
•Parkway roads dedicated to two-way pedestrian traffic
•Walking paths dedicated to two-way pedestrian traffic
•Bike paths operate as normal
•Driving lanes and parking bays closed except where needed for property access
•Emerge ncy vehicles allowed on closed sections at all times
•Service, delivery, and sanitation vehicles allowed on closed sections. Drivers required to
move and replace barricades.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 10 ) Page 3
Title: COVID -related street closures
Minneapolis
• Signage and barricades installed at key locations
• Local car traffic only, no through-traffic
• On-street parking generally retained, some restrictions necessary
• Pedestrians may use road
Oakland
• Roads closed to through traffic
• Emergency vehicles are not restricted in any way
• Sanitation vehicles and delivery vehicles may still use the roads as needed to conduct
business
• Residents can still drive and park on closed streets
• City provides signage and barricades at key locations
What kind of streets were closed?
MPRB
In April, the MPRB fully or partially closed p arkways that were directly adjacent to or near major
regional park amenities. All locations have significant pedestrian and bike activity that was
intensified by the Governor’s stay-at-home order. Due to the popularity of these regional
amenities, physical distancing was not possible on the existing trails along these parkways.
The parkways have a combination of two-way and one -way traffic and sometimes have on-
street parking. All segments have extensive pedestrian trails, sidewalks, and bike paths. Most of
the parkway segments do not have adjacent businesses. The select businesses adjacent to
parkway segments were also closed due to the pandemic. The segments of parkways where
there is residential driveway access were reduced to one-way traffic. The closed parkways often
carry higher levels of vehicle traffic with volumes comparable to streets ranging from Alabama
Avenue to Monterey Drive in St. Louis Park.
The MPRB began to reopen a few parkways in June 2020. Parkways were re opened for different
reasons , including:
• To open roads adjacent to reopened businesses
• To open sections impacted by construction detours
• Low pedestrian usage during closure
Minneapolis
In late April, Minneapolis implemented Stay Healthy streets to complement the MPRB closures.
These are loops located in three areas of the city: North, Northeast, and South. The loops use a
combination of neighborhood streets and existing trails and range from 4 – 6 miles long. When
using streets instead of trails, the loops use lower volume roads. Minneapolis laid these routes
out to take advantage of existing infrastructure such as park trails, bike lanes, bike boulevards,
a pedestrian highway bridge, and traffic diverters.
Streets on these routes are closed to through-traffic but remain open for local access. On -street
parking is generally retained; however, some connection points have parking restrictions on
one side of the street to ensure space for walking, rolling and biking. The loops have sidewalks
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 10 ) Page 4
Title: COVID -related street closures
on both sides of the street for nearly all segments. The traffic on these roads compare s to St.
Louis Park , ranging from typical neighborhood streets to 38th Street.
Some information to note regarding the neighborhoods where these Stay Healthy loops are
locate d:
• They were focused in areas where there are higher concentrations of pedestrians
accessing essential services and narrow sidewalks that do not easily support physical
distancing.
• The properties that these loops surround are a combination of single -, two-, and three-
family dwellings and cluster developments. In addition, there are corridors in the area
with high -density residential buildings and commercial businesses.
• Much of the access to properties are off alleys or along streets that are not included in
the loop. Solid waste uses the alleys to provide service to residents.
• In all cases , the loops are set up in areas where there is a strong continuous street grid
system. As a result, closing one street to non-local traffic does not greatly impact how
people can drive around these neighborhoods. In addition, alleys provide a secondary
route for vehicle traffic.
Applicability in St. Louis Park
At the start of the ongoing pandemic, the engineering department monito red what cities across
the country were doing to accommodate the increase in bicycle and pedestrian activity and
support physical distancing. To understand if there was a comparable application in St. Louis
Park, engineering consulted with operations and recreation, community development, and the
police departments. Higher concentrations of pedestrians unable to achieve physical distancing
were not observed along city streets. We asked the departments to monitor the situation and
let us know if conditions changed.
Engineering looked at Minneapolis ’s and other cities’ street closures and compared it to St.
Louis Park to see if there was a similar application. We did not find a location in the city where
it would be necessary to close the road to through-traf fic in order to allow room for physical
distancing. What follows is a summary of what we observed.
Cit ies in other areas of the country are closing streets to provide park and recreation space.
Access to parks in some cities is limited, especially for BIPOC communities . The City of St. Louis
Park has a robust park system. All St. Louis Park residents live within a quarter-mile of a city
park or a regional trail. Strictly using the sidewalk/trail network , at least 50% of residents live
wit hin a 5-minute walk to a park and at least 83% within a 10-minute walk. The percentages are
higher for BIPOC residents when compared to all residents (58% for 5-minute walks and 88% for
10-minute walks).
The city’s parks and trails are not set up like those in Minneapolis. The MPRB parkways run
around and through their parks, paralleling a regional trail system. The parkways trail system
draws not only Minneapolis residents, but people from around the Twin Cities. Our parks do
not have a parkway system and parallel trail and are used mainly by St. Louis Park residents.
Staff did not observe overcrowding on the trails that parallel local streets and connect our
parks.
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 10 ) Page 5
Title: COVID -related street closures
St. Louis Park does not have a strong continuous street grid system that spans the city.
Highways and railroads break up the city street grid, creating loops within neighborhoods. Due
to this, car traffic on our neighborhood streets is mainly local. This , compounded with people
staying home, means that traffic on these roads is significantly reduced.
Our low -volume neighborhood streets serve predominantly single -family homes. These streets
are primarily in residential zoning districts (R1 and R2), which do not allow multiple -family
dwellings. As a result, our neighborhoods have lower population density when compared to
Minneapolis, which means our local streets have lower vehicle volumes. Minneapolis’s R1
zoning district allows for three -unit dwellings on any lot.
While some of these homes are served by alleys, the majority of St. Louis Park’s single -family
homes are served by driveways accessing the road. For most streets, the only people that drive
on them are the people that live there. There is very limited through-traffic.
Many of our local streets do not have sidewalks, and people walk on the roads under pre-
pandemic traffic volumes .
Our commercial nodes are located along high -volume roads, as are our high -density residential
properties. Most of the traffic on these roads is through-traffic. We would not recommend
closing these corridors due to the potential increase in traffic on parallel lo w-volume roads.
Staff has also not received feedback from residents regarding being unable to properly
physically distance along city streets .
As a result, staff has not found a compelling reason to close streets to further support physical
distancing while walking or biking . The engineering, operations and recreation, community
development, and police departments will continue to monitor the changing street, park, and
trail conditions through the remainder of the pandemic. If conditions are observed where
pedestrians and bikers are unable to achieve physical distancing in a safe manner, we would
bring forward a recommendation to implement a street closure similar to those seen in other
cities around the country.
Street with enhancements for walking and biking
Existing trail
Minneapolis Stay Healthy Streets Loop Routes
North Minneapolis Route Northeast Minneapolis Route South Minneapolis Route
Streets on these routes are generally for local car traffic only to support comfortable walking and biking while social distancing during the COVID-19 emergency
Humboldt Ave NHumboldt Ave NVictory Memorial PkwyVictory Memorial Pkwy
Irving Ave NIrving Ave N26th Ave N26th Ave NVictory Memorial PkwyVictory Memorial PkwyFillmore St NEFillmore St NE5th St NE5th St NE22nd Ave NE22nd Ave NE
5th
S
t
NE5th
S
t
NEPierce StPierce St 6th Ave SE6th Ave SE17th Ave S17th Ave S34th St E34th St E
1st Ave S1st Ave S40th St E40th St E
2 hr 6 min walk 36 min bike ride 1 hr 36 min walk 29 min bike ride 1 hr 26 min walk 28 min bike ride
6.3 miles Street with enhancements for walking and biking
Existing trail4.3 miles Street with enhancements for walking and biking4.8 miles
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 10)
Title: COVID-related street closures Page 6
*Street changes are subject to change
*The Minneapolis Park Board implemented many of
these improvements and others were supported by
Hennepin County, City of Saint Paul, and Ramsey
County
Bde Maka Ska
Lake
Harriet
Cedar
Lake
Lake of
the Isles
Lake
Nokomis
Lake
Hiawatha
Wirth
Lake
E River Pkwy (St. Paul)
Minneapolis Stay Healthy Streets
Street changes to support comfortable walking, biking and rolling while social distancing during the COVID-19 emergency
Parkways
Parkway expanded walk/bike space
Stay Healthy Street loop routes
Existing trail on loop route
Other walk/bike enhancements
Study session meeting of July 27, 2020 (Item No. 10)
Title: COVID-related street closures Page 7