HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020/08/24 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
AUG. 24, 2020
All meetings of the St. Louis Park City Council will be conducted by telephone or other electronic
means starting March 30, 2020, and until further notice. This is in accordance with the local
emergency declaration issued by the city council, in response to the coronavirus (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 Aug. 24, 2020 city
council meeting by electronic device or telephone rather than by being personally present at
the city council's regular meeting place at 5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
Members of the public can monitor the meeting by video and audio at https://bit.ly/watchslpcouncil
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. Citywide speed limit evaluation
2. 7:30 p.m. Fire department staffing structure
3. 8:15 p.m. Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
8:20 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal)
8:25 p.m. Adjourn
Written reports
4. Menthol, mint, and wintergreen flavored tobacco products
5. July 2020 monthly financial report
6. West End Office Park minor amendment to special permit
7. Notice of eviction
8. Request to vacate portions of unused utility easements at 8200 Minnetonka Blvd.
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: August 24, 2020
Discussion item : 1
Executive summary
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
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 item is to update the city council regarding staff’s
speed limit evaluation and recommendations.
Policy consideration: Does the council wish to implement speed limit changes on city streets
based on a safety, engineering, and traffic analysis?
Summary: In May 2019, provisions passed by the Minnesota legislature gave cities increased
authority to set speed limits. To clarify, the legislation does not grant cities the ability to change
speed limits on county roads or MnDOT highways, only on roads under the city’s jurisdiction. In
the case where a street is a border street, the adjacent municipality must also agree to the
speed limit change. In March 2020, council directed staff to continue to investigate the
feasibility and impacts of changing speed limits within the city.
After conducting a comprehensive traffic evaluation , staff recommends that speed limits should
be changed citywide using a “category” approach. Generally, the recommended speed limit for
local neighborhood streets is 20 mph. More busy roads that connect neighborhoods have a
recommended speed limit of 25 mph. The busiest roads have a recommended speed limit of 30
mph. One road is recommended for a 35-mph speed limit.
If the council supports staff recommendations, speed limit changes could not occur until 2021.
Additional considerations (race equity and inclusion, environmental factors, police and
enforcement) and implementation considerations (financial, city code, signage, communications,
and evaluation plans) are continuing to be reviewed and would be included in the final
evaluation brought to council.
Financial or budget considerations: Financial impacts relating to changing speed limits are
currently estimated at $200,000. Costs include new signs, signal timing, and public outreach.
Costs are assumed to be paid for using general obligation bonds.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion
DRAFT citywide speed limit evaluation
Existing and recommended speed limit maps
Study session report, March 9, 2020 – (pages 190 – 220)
Prepared by: Ben Manibog, transportation engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
Discussion
Background: In May 2019, the Minnesota legislature passed a provision that gave cities
authority to set speed limits. They went into effect on Aug. 1, 2019. The full language of this
provision is provided below:
Minnesota Statues, Section 169.14, Subd. 5h. Speed limits on city streets. A city may
establish speed limits for city streets under the city's jurisdiction other than the limits
provided in subdivision 2 without conducting an engineering and traffic investigation.
This subdivision does not apply to town roads, county highways, or trunk highways in the
city. A city that establishes speed limits pursuant to this section must implement speed
limit changes in a consistent and understandable manner. The city must erect
appropriate signs to display the speed limit. A city that uses the authority under this
subdivision must develop procedures to set speed limits based on the city's safety,
engineering, and traffic analysis. At a minimum, the safety, engineering, and traffic
analysis must consider national urban speed limit guidance and studies, local traffic
crashes, and methods to effectively communicate the change to the public.
A report regarding speed limit evaluation was provided to the council at their March 9, 2020
study session and is attached for ref erence.
This report is an update on those efforts and a summary of the analysis that has been completed
to-date . Attached is a draft speed limit e valuation. The document is broken into nine sections:
Policy, Goals, Guidance, National and local examples, Existing speed limits, Traffic evaluation,
Findings and conclusions, Recommendations, and Next steps. Below is a summary of each
section, see the evaluation document for further detail on each of these sections.
Policy: Existing city policies prioritize e quitable traffic safety and access for people
walking/rolling, biking, and taking transit over vehicles. Policies referenced and considered as a
part of the DRAFT speed limit evaluation were:
• Active Living: Sidewalks & Trails Plan (2008)
• Complete Streets policy (2013)
• Healthy Eating and Active Living (HEAL) policy (2013)
• Vision 3.0 (2017)
• Council strategic priorities (2018)
• Climate Action Plan (2018)
• Comprehensive Plan 2040 (2019)
• Living Streets Policy (2019)
Goals: Drawing from these existing city policies, staff established goals to help frame how to set
speed limits. The goals were:
• To support the city’s goal to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries that are a result of
crashes on city streets.
• To reflect the city’s goal in creating a mobility system that prioritizes walking first, then
bicycling and transit, and then motor vehicle use.
• To ensure the quality and function of the transportation system contributes to equitable
outcomes for all people.
Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
• To support the movement of people and goods.
• To be understandable, consistent, replicable, reasonable, and contextually appropriate .
• To clearly communicate and educate the new speed limits and their connection to safety,
especially as people enter the city.
Guidance: In our analysis, staff hired a consultant (SEH) to research national guidance (see attached
study session report) and looked at guidance from other national organizations. These included:
• National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
• National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)
• National Cooperative Research Program (NCHRP)
• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
National and local examples: To better understand different methods of setting speed limits
and their impacts, the city spoke with staff from cities that have changed their speed limits both
locally and nationally. Discussions with cities included:
• City of Minneapolis
• City of Saint Paul
• City of Edina
• City of Renton, WA
• City of Wheaton, IL
• Town of Marana, AZ
Existing speed limits: Historically, s peed limits in Minnesota have been set statewide based on
Statute 169.14. To paraphrase and highlight portions applicable to St. Louis Park, speed limits for
urban streets are set at a default of 30 mph. Alleys are set to a default of 10 mph. The authority to
change speed limits in this statute has been given to the MnDOT Commissioner of Transportation.
Speed limits in St. Louis Park that differ from statute were the result of a request of the roadway
owner to complete a speed study. See the attached map of existing speed limits in the city.
The following city streets differ from these default speeds:
• A few neighborhood streets are set at 25 mph. Those are the result of MnDOT speed
studies conducted from the late 1960’s to the mid -1980’s.
• Cedar Lake Road was formerly owned and maintained by Hennepin County. Its current
speed limit, 35 mph, was set by MnDOT and has remained since its turnback to the city.
• The East Highway 100 frontage road near Beth El Synagogue was formerly under
ownership and control of MnDOT. Its current speed limit, 40 mph, was set by MnDOT
and has remained since its turnback to the city.
Traffic evaluation: To get an understanding of existing vehicle speeds and other traffic
conditions, staff pulled together existing data, including a citywide traffic crash analysis, traffic
volumes and traffic speeds.
Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
Crash analysis
Crash data from 2017 to 2019 was reviewed and analyzed by a consultant (Spack Solutions) to
understand trends and patterns. The full citywide crash analysis report will be ready for release
later this year.
Key findings from the crash analysis that help inform future speed limits include:
• While crashes happen on all types of streets, crashes are concentrated on higher-traffic
streets, which often have higher design and operating speeds.
• Streets with higher speed limits were more likely to have fatal or high injury crashes
when compared to streets with lower speed limits.
• People walking and biking are overrepresented in severe and fatal crashes in St. Louis
Park. While both combined make up less than 2% of all crashes (out of 3775 total),
pedestrians and bicyclists make up 33% of fatal crashes (out of 3 total) and 43% of high
injury crashes (out of 21 total).
• 34% of crashes in St. Louis Park happen at intersections. However, those crashes make
up 67% of fatal crashes and 70% of high injury crashes. Failing to yield the right of way
was a frequent cause of pedestrian and bicycle crashes.
Existing vehicle counts and speeds
Volume and speed data from about 800 readings were used to conduct the evaluation. The
collected data came from multiple sources:
• The city frequently conducts speed studies to evaluate road conditions in response to
traffic requests or to aid in the engineering design process. This review utilizes data
collected within the last four years. The data set includes speeds from 375 locations on
city streets.
• Every four years, the city takes traffic counts on Municipal State Aid System (MSAS) roads
in accordance with MnDOT. During the last round of counting, the city elected to collect
speed information as well. This review utilizes data collected in 2017. The data set
in cludes speeds from 123 locations on city streets.
• The city often uses speed feedback boards deployed through our police department.
These boards display the speed in which drivers are traveling and reminding them of the
existing speed limit. This review us es data collected from the last three years. This data
set includes speeds from 314 locations on city streets.
Staff’s initial speed findings are divided into three groups:
1. Low traffic roads (less than 2,000 vehicles a day)
2. Medium traffic roads (between 2,000 and 12,000 vehicles a day)
3. High traffic roads (more than 12,000 vehicles a day)
Those findings are shown in the table below:
Median speed Average speed 85th percentile speed
All city streets 23.5 mph 23.4 mph 27.8 mph
Low traffic roads 21.1 mph 21.0 mph 25.5 mph
Medium traffic roads 28.9 mph 28.4 mph 33.4 mph
High traffic roads 27.6 mph 29.5 mph 34.7 mph
Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
Some takeaways from our findings are:
• The average speed across all low traffic streets was 21 mph.
• Low traffic road s are the city’s safest streets based on the citywide crash study, although
severe and fatal crashes have happened on them.
• The city regularly receives resident concerns about people driving too fast on roads of all
traffic levels. These complaints , when compared with the existing speed data, suggest
that the current speed limit does not reflect the expectations of residents. The city can
support these expectations by setting a speed limit that promotes safety and community
needs for these streets.
• The median speeds of medium and high traffic roads are similar, ranging from 27 to 29
mph. This indicates that the current speed limit is higher than most drivers are
comfortable traveling and lowering it will support safety on those streets. Characteristics
of higher traffic roads , when compared to medium traffic roads, are the higher number
of lanes. The increased width of the road makes it more difficult for pedestrians and
bicyclists to cross.
Findings and conclusions: Based on data and research from the evaluation, the key findings are:
• Lower traffic speeds reduce both the likelihood and severity of crashes.
• A majority of states have a lower default speed limit than Minnesota. All of Minnesota’s
neighboring states have a 25-mph default urban speed limit.
• The traditional approach of using 85th percentile speed to set speed limits is no longer
considered the best practice for urban streets.
• When setting urban speed limits with broad authority, there are two common options
from guidance and recent city speed limit changes:
o Default citywide speed limit of 25 mph
o Category speed limits with 20 mph on local residential streets and generally
higher on busier and connecting streets.
• Success in changing speed limits in smaller cities has yet to be realized as they have been
recent, and they have not yet reevaluated traffic conditions. However, larger cities such as
Portland, Seattle, and Boston, have found success with the category speed limit approach.
The key findings above led to the following conclusions:
• Speed limits lower than the statutory default are justified because they:
o Promote public health, safety, and welfare
o Support city policies
o Align with emerging national best practices for safe urban street operations
o Support the city’s traffic safety goal to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries on
city streets
Speed limit recommendations: Based on the above findings and conclusions, staff recommends
that speed limits be set using a category approach. For St. Louis Park, a category approach to
speed limits is the most appropriate generally with 20 mph on lower traffic roads, 25 mph on
medium traffic roads, and 30+ mph on high traffic roads because:
• It is easier to communicate when compared to a single default speed limit. Hennepin
County and MnDOT-owned roads will continue to have 30 mph speed limits or higher
and it is unknown when or if those will change.
Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1) Page 6
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
• These lower speed limits prioritize public health and safety (a person hit at 30 mph is
three times as likely to be killed or severely injured than a person hit at 20 mph).
• A citywide 25 mph speed limit does not reflect the design, land use , mode use, and
expectations of city streets.
• Low traffic roads generally serve short, local connections, have on-street parking, are
narrow and require slow speeds when two cars pass each other. In addition, they have
frequent entrances to residences or businesses. The average speed of low traffic roads is
21 mph.
• Medium traffic roads generally serve longer trips, have traffic signals at higher volume
intersections to support safe crossing of all modes, are wider in width, and sometimes
have on-street parking. The average speed of medium traffic roads is 28 mph.
• High traffic roads generally serve longer trips, have traffic signals at high volume
intersections to support safe crossing of all modes, are wider in width, often do not have
on-street parking, and have more than two traffic lanes. The average speed of high traffic
roads is 30 mph.
The following criteria were taken into consideration while determining appropriate speed limits:
The default speed limit for roads in St Louis Park is recommended to be 20 mph.
A street or segment was recommended for a 25-mph speed limit if it met all of the following:
• Half -mile segment or more
• Regular bus service OR adjacent to SWLRT platform OR ADT > 2,000
• Continuous sidewalk/trail or predominantly non-residential zone
A street or segment was recommended for a 30-mph speed limit if it met the 25 mph criteria
and all of the following:
• Half -mile segment OR road with split border with another city
• ADT > 12,000 OR 4 or more driving lanes
A street or segment was recommended for a 35-mph speed limit if it met the 30 mph criteria
and all of the following:
• 0 – 2 intersections or major crossings per half mile
• Limited or no pedestrian access
Alleys will retain a 10 MPH speed limit.
Staff finds that a category speed limit approach accomplishes the original goals of the evaluation
because it:
• Supports the city’s traffic safety goal to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries on city
streets.
• Reflects the city’s priority in creating a mobility system that prioritizes pe destrian s first,
then bicyclists and transit users, then drivers.
• Aligns with current national speed limit guidance.
• Is understandable, consistent, replicable, reasonable, and appropriate for an urban
context.
Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1) Page 7
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
•Contributes to equitable outcomes for all people.
•Supports the movement of people and goods.
•Sends a clear message to the driving public that “slower is safer” on all streets.
Next steps: There are additional considerations that staff are still reviewing as a part of this
evaluation . These include:
•Race equity and inclusion considerations
•Financial
•City code changes
•Signage plan
•Communications and education plan
•Environmental considerations
•Police and enforcement considerations
•Evaluation plan
Updates on these items will be included with the final speed limit evaluation report when it is
brought to council later this year.
St. Louis Park Engineering Department • 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416
www.stlouispark.org • Phone: 952.924.2656 • Fax: 952.924.2662 • TTY: 952.924.2518
Speed limit evaluation
D raft 8/17/2020
1.Executive summary
2.New legislative authority
In May 2019, the Minnesota legislature passed two provisions that give cities increased
authority to set speed limits. They went into effect on Aug. 1, 2019. The full language of the first
provision is provided below:
Minnesota Statutes, Section 169.14, Subd. 5h. Speed limits on city streets . A city may
establish speed limits for city streets under the city’s jurisdiction other than the limits
provided in subdivision 2 without conducting an engineering and traffic investigation.
This subdivision does not apply to town roads, county highways, or trunk highways in
the city. A city that establishes speed limits pursuant to this section must implement
speed limit changes in a consistent and understandable manner. The city must erect
appropriate signs to display the speed limit. A city that uses the authority under this
subdivision must develop procedures to set speed limits based on the city’s safety,
engineering, and traffic analysis. At a minimum, the safety, engineering, and traffic
analysis must consider national urban speed limit guidance and studies, local traffic
crashes, and methods to effectively communicate the change to the public.
The second provis ion (Section 169.011, Subd. 64) expands the definition of a residential
roadway to include city streets or town roads in areas zoned exclusively for housing that are not
collector or arterial streets. To utilize this provision, cities are not required to do a study.
Instead, the city must post speed limit signs at the beginning and end of the roadway section.
The City of St. Louis Park plans to use the new laws to change speed limits from the state
statutory urban speed limit of 30 mph. Cities must do so “in a consistent and understandable
manner…based on the city’s safety, engineering, and traffic analysis”. They must also provide
“appropriate signs” and consider ”methods to effectively communicate the change to the
public”.
3.Local policy and input that informs speed limits
Existing City of St. Louis Park policies prioritize equitable traffic safety and access for people
walking , rolling, biking, and taking transit. Details of existing city policies and plans that inform
speed limits are included in the following sections.
•City council speed limit staff direction
On Mar ch 9, 2019, staff provided a written report to the city council, updating them on
the status of speed limits in Minnesota. In the report, staff provided information
regarding the new local legislative authority to change speed limits, existing speed limit
data in the city, and staff’s proposed path forward. The council was asked if they wish
staff to continue to investigate the feasibility and impacts of changing speed limits
within the city. Following the meeting, staff was given direction to continue to
investigate changing speed limits.
•Ac tive Living: Sidewalks a nd Trails Plan (2008)
As a part of Vision St. Louis Park in 2007, the city heard from community members that
we needed more infrastructure for pedestrians and bicyclists. A group of community
members was brought together to create a Community Advisory Committee. That
Page 8Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
2 | Page
committee along with city staff created the Active Living: Sidewalks & Trails Plan. The
plan called for the creation of a connected network of bikeways, sidewalks, and trails
throughout the community. Some of the goals and strategies established for this system
inform the set ting of speed limits:
•Bicycle and Pedestrian Goals
o Establish safe crossings of highways, arterial roads and rail corridors
using innovative traffic calming strategies, improved traffic control
systems and where possible, grade separations.
•Objectives
o Reduce the number and severity of pedestrian and bicycle accidents in
St. Louis Park.
•Strategies
o Sidewalks
Use innovative designs to calm traffic and enhance streetscapes
to make streets safer and more pleasant for pedestrians.
•St . Louis Park Complete Streets policy (2013)
In 2013, the city council approved a resolution that it is the city’s policy to utilize
complete streets principles and to work with partner ag encies so that complete streets
elements are evaluated with city transportation projects. The term Complete Street is
defined by Minnesota Statute 174.75.
Complete Streets considers the needs of motorists, pedestrians, transit users and
vehicles, bicyclists, and commercial and emergency vehicles moving along and across
roads, intersections, and crossings in a manner that is sensitive to the local context and
recognizes that the needs vary in urban, suburban, and rural settings.
The applicable benefits that inform setting speed limits as described in the city’s policy
are:
•Improve the safety of all users on roadways .
•Create transportation networks that support more walking and biking that
encourage more physical activity and improving physical health.
•Create equity in access and transportation options for individuals not able to
operate a vehicle.
•Positive impacts to the environment by creating transportation options other
than the single -occupant vehicle.
•Improve the quality of life by creating walkable neighborhoods.
b.Healthy Eating and Active Living (HEAL) policy (2013)
In 2012, the city council directed city staff to identify best practices for further
development and promotion of the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program, including the
adoption of an Active Living Policy. In 2013, the city council approved an active living
policy that included healthy eating to more holistically address community health.
The applicable parts of the HEAL policy that inform setting speed limits are:
Page 9Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
3 | Page
Built Environment
The City of St. Louis Park recognizes that the built environment influences active living
opportunities and that the City of St. Louis Park influences the built environment at
many scales through infrastructure investments, land use policies and regulations, and
city financial assistance. The city will:
•Plan and construct a built environment that encourages walking, biking and
other forms of physical activity.
•Utilize Complete Streets principles to design and maintain streets in a manner
that is appropriate to the community context and safe for all users, including
pedestrians, bicyclists and transit passengers of all ages and abilities, as well as
trucks, buses, and automobiles.
•Vision 3.0 (2017)
In Oct ober 2017, the city council approved Vision 3.0. Every ten years, the city launches
an ambitious grassroots effort to ask residents about their hopes and dreams for the
future of St. Louis Park. The third installment of the vision process produced five
recommendations from the community for St. Louis Park’s future. Two of the five
recommendations highlight creating an equitable and forward-thinking transportation
system:
Develop future -focused transit and mobility solutions
Commit to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion
•Work with community partners to make diversity and inclusion a
priority in all components of city business.
•St. Louis Park strategic priorities (2018)
In May 2018, the city council approved strategic priorities. The strategic priorities are a
result of the recommendations brought forward during the Vision 3.0 process. The five
priorities are intended to articulate and provide direction to staff on those things the
city council feels will have the most powerful/positive impact on the St. Louis Park
community by 2028. Two of the strategic priorities speak most to setting equitable
speed limits:
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.
•Expanding racial equity as an ongoing discussion within all areas of city
business .
•Creating awareness and a learning environment where consequences
and unintentional impact of our work and decisions are addressed.
St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make
their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably.
•Researching and implementing multiple and affordable mobility
solutions for all.
•Climate Action Plan (2018)
In 2018, the city council passed a Climate Action Plan with the goal of achieving carbon
Page 10Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
4 | Page
neutrality – having a net zero carbon footprint – by 2040. The plan provides guidance for
residents, businesses, and the city on reducing the greenhouse gas emissions and
impacts of climate change. The plan was created by the St. Louis Park Environment and
Sustainability Commission in partnership with the youth of St. Louis Park.
One of the seven major goals of the plan is to reduce vehicle emissions by 25% by 2030
as compared to the business -as-usual forecast. One of the initiatives under this goal
informs the setting of citywide speed limits:
i.Initiative 6.4: Enable reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from single-
occupancy vehicles
1.Continue to modify land use and encourage alternative modes of
transportation, consistent with the city’s complete streets policy and
any future living streets policy.
•St. Louis Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan (2019)
In 2019, the city council adopted the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The plan carries
out the city’s future vision and sets goals, strategies, and priorities in a comprehensive
manner and sets a clear image of the values , the city as a governing body wants to
achieve. Many goals and strategies across multiple departments and city services
reinforce creating a safe transportation system prioritizing vulnerable road users and
focusing on elevating the role race plays in all aspects of city business .
Ra cial equity goals and strategies
•Break down barriers in creating a just and inclusive community for all
o Expand racial equity conversations within all areas of city
business
•Ensure racial equity in city services and programs to make a tangible
difference for all.
o Apply a racial equity lens to all city work and city decisions
o Re-evaluate established city systems and processes to
effectuate change in how the city conducts its business.
Mobility system goals and strategies
•Plan, design, build, and operate the city’s mobility system in a way that
prioritizes walking first, followed by bicycling and transit use, and then
motor vehicle use.
o Incorporate an approach that is based on surrounding land use
context when planning and designing transportation projects
o Continue to explore and evaluate flexible and innovative
designs and seek guidance from established best practices, to
achieve desired outcomes.
o Promote and support adaption of the mobility network to take
advantage of improved technologies and mobility modes.
•Ensure the quality and function of the transportation system
contributes to the equitable outcomes for all people
o Promote public awareness of the range of travel choices and
the beneficial impacts travel choices have on household
finances, personal quality of life, society, and the environment.
Page 11Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
5 | Page
•Eliminate fatalities and serious injuries that are a result of crashes on
city streets
o Prioritize safety investments in line with the modal hierarchy
o Protect pedestrians and bicyclists through design decisions that
strive to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries
o Use enforcement, design decisions, and operational norms to
reflect an acute awareness for protecting all users of the
mobility systems.
Pedestrian mobility goals and strategies
•Provide for the needs of pedestrians by removing barriers
o Employ traffic management measures where appropriate to
enhance safe pedestrian mobility.
Bicycle mobility goals and strategies
•Provide for the needs of bicyclists, removing barriers to active
transportation
o Implement emerging best practices in bikeway design
Vehicular mobility goals and strategies
•Provide well-designed and well-maintained city streets that balance the
needs users, residents, businesses, and property owners.
o Identify traffic management measures in conjunction with
upgrades to the mobility system.
o Maintain the roadway network in a safe and fiscally responsible
manner
•Work to ensure roadways efficiently connect residents, employees, and
visitors to local and regional destinations .
o Promote and support the use of Travel Demand Management
strategies to achieve more efficient use of the existing
community mobility network and reduce congestion problems.
•L iving Streets Policy (2019)
In 2019, the city council approved the Living Streets Policy. Living Streets is an effort to
balance the important role of our right of way to move traffic and accommodate utilities
with the equally important need for a multi-modal transportation system and a cleaner
environment. The purpose of living streets is to build community, provide
environmental benefits, and provide economic benefits.
The city’s Living Streets vision statements most applicable to inform setting speed limits
are:
•The city will plan, design, build, and operate the city’s mobility system in a wa y
t hat prioritizes walking first, followed by bicycling and transit use, and then
motor vehicle use.
•Transportation will occur via complete, integrated, efficient, safe, and
comfortable networks for all users regardless of age or abilities, including
pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit passengers, as well as trucks, buses, and
automobiles.
Page 12Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
6 | Page
•The environment, in terms of local air and water quality and in terms of global
impacts like climate change, will be positively impacted by the city’s
transportation-related decision-making.
•The transportation system will benefit all users equitable, particularly
vulnerable users and the most underinvested and underserved neighborhoods.
L iving Streets is built on six principles that guide the implementation of the policy, two
of which are most applicable to setting speed limits:
•Traffic management
o Traffic is an important element of livability. The methods for traffic
management depend largely on the type of roadway, its function, a nd
t he modes of travel expected on the roadway.
o The concept of traffic management is usually focused on limiting cut -
through traffic, decreasing the speed of vehicles, and enhancing
safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.
o …data will be collected on existing conditions. Recommendations will
be made on which traffic management measure(s) could be utilized
based on the context of the specific transportation project.
•Creating a sense of place
o Creating an atmosphere that is positive, pleasant, and safe, helps
attract and retain residents in the community.
o Elimination of signals, signs, or utility poles.
4.St. Louis Park speed limit goals
Staff established goals to help frame this speed limit evaluation. The goals are based on
applicable existing city policies and the new Minnesota speed limit statutes.
•T o s upport the city’s goal to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries that are a result of
crashes on city streets.
•To reflect the city’s goal in creating a mobility system that prioritizes walking first, then
bicycling and transit, and then motor vehicle us e.
•To ensure the quality and function of the transportation system contributes to equitable
outcomes for all people .
•To support the movement of people and goods .
•To be understandable, consistent, replicable, reasonable, and contextually appropriate
in setting speed limits.
•To clearly communicate and educate the new speed limits and their connection to
safety, especially as people enter the city.
5.National guidance and consideration for setting urban speed limits
In recent years, the transportation industry has sought change in the approach to setting urban
speed limits and that is now beginning to yield new and updated guidance. This guidance is
moving toward a safe-systems approach to setting speed limits on urban streets rather than one
focused on current observed traffic speeds. This section outlines this new and update d
g uidance.
Page 13Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
7 | Page
•National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
In 2017, the NTSB released a comprehensive report Reducing Speeding -Related Crashes
Involving Passenger Vehicles . The report directly addresses the traditional methods for
setting speed limits and the challenges with those methods:
“Typically, speed limits are set by statute, but adjustments to statutory speed limits are
generally based on the observed operating speeds for each road segment – specifically,
the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic. Raising speed limits to match the 85t h
percentile speed can result in unintended consequences. It may lead to higher operating
speeds, and thus a higher 85th percentile speed. In general, there is not strong evidence
that the 85th percentile speed within a given traffic flow equates to the speed with the
lowest crash involvement rate for all road types. Alternative approaches and expert
systems for setting speed limits are available, which incorporate factors such as crash
history and the presence of vulnerable road users such as pedestrians” (Executive
Summary, Page x)”.
T he report goes on to say:
“The relationship between speed and injury severity affects more than just speeding
vehicle occupants. This is particularly true in urban areas where the interaction betwee n
vehicles and vulnerable road users such as pedestrians is considerably higher. A safe
system approach to setting speed limits emphasizes the consideration of human
biomechanical tolerances and shifts the focus from vehicles to all road users. Especially
in urban areas, it has emerged as an alternative to the use of the 85th percentile speed
in setting speed limits in speed zones” (Rethinking How to Set Speed Limits, page 29).
T he report recommends changes to the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA)
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices “MUTCD”:
“…to, at a minimum, incorporate the safe system approach for urban roads to
strengthen protection for vulnerable road users” (page 29).
•Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
The MUTCD sets minimum standards and provides guidance to ensure uniformity and
consistency on the public transportation system. In the State of Minnesota, the
Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD) is used. The
MnMUTCD and MUTCD are, in general, identical in language, and exact in language as it
references speed limits. It is routine that new and addendum language of the MUTCD is
adopted by the MnMUTCD.
B ased on the NTSB recommendation, the National Committee on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (NCUTCD) began collecting feedback and considering changes to the
MUTCD related to setting speed limits.
T he current MUTCD offers the following standards (not guidance) for setting speed
limits:
•“Speed zones (other than statutory speed limits) shall only be established on the
basis of an engineering study that has been performed in accordance with traffic
Page 14Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
8 | Page
engineering practices. The engineering study shall include an analysis of the
current speed distribution of free -flowing vehicles”.
•“The Speed limit sign…shall display the limit established by law, ordinance,
regulation, or as adopted by the authorized agency based on the engineering
study. The speed limits displayed shall be in multiples of 5 mph” (Section 2B.13
page 56).
T he current MUTCD offers the following guidance (not standard) on setting speed limits:
•“States and local agencies should conduct engineering studies to reevaluate
non-statutory speed limits on segments of their roadways that have undergone
significant changes since the last review, such as the addition or elimination of
parking or driveways, changes in the number of travel lanes, changes in the
configuration of bicycle lanes, changes in traffic control signal coordination, or
significant changes in traffic volumes”.
•“When a speed limit within a speed zone is posted, it should be within 5 mph of
the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic” (Section 2B.13, page 58).
T he current MUTCD offers the following option (not guidance nor standard) on setting
speed limits:
•“Other factors that may be considered when establishing or reevaluating speed
limits are the following:
A.Road characteristics, shoulder condition, grade, alignment, and sight
distance;
B.The pace;
C.Roadside development and environment;
D.Parking practices and pedestrian activity; and
E.Reported crash experience for at least a 12-month period” (Section
2B .13, page 58).
The NCUTCD recently approved recommended changes to the current MUTCD related
to setting speed limits . These recommendations are provided to the FHWA for
consideration in the next edition of the MUTCD, which requires federal rulemaking. The
FHWA has not initiated rule making for the next edition of the MUTCD yet, but this is
expected to begin within the next year. The recommendations approved by the NCUTCD
include:
•“Removing from standard that “The engineering study shall include an analysis
of the current speed distribution of free -flowing vehicles”.
•Upgrading and revising the considerations for establishing speed zones to read:
“Factors that should be considered when establishing or reevaluating spee d
limits within speed zones are the following:
A.Speed distribution of free -flowing vehicles (such as current 85th
percentile, the pace, and review of past speed studies).
B.Reported crash experience for at least 12-month period relative to
similar roadways.
C.Road characteristics (such as lane widths, curb/shoulder condition,
grade, alignment, median type, and sight distance).
Page 15Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
9 | Page
D.Road context (such as roadside development and environment including
number of driveways and land use, functional classification, parking
practices, presence of sidewalks/bicycle facilities).
E.Road users (such as pedestrian activity, bicycle activity)”.
•Revising the guidance statement regarding the posted speed limit being made
within 5 mph of the 85th percentile speed to apply only “on freeways,
expressways, or rural highways”.
•National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) speed limit guidance
The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) guide City Limits:
Setting Safe Speeds for Urban Streets provides urban speed limit guidance and was
released in late July 2020.
N ACTO’s guide identifies two general approaches for setting default speed limits and
states the following:
“Cities have two options for setting default speed limits: citywide or by category
of street (e.g., major, minor, alley).
Citywide speed limits are generally easier to implement and may be easier for
drivers to follow. However, in cities where there is clear differentiation between
major arterial streets and local or minor streets, setting speed limits based on
category of street can sometimes allow cities to lower speed limits on a number
of streets below what would be allowable citywide (i.e., 20 mph on minor streets
vs. 25 mph citywide).
I f cities have the authority to set default speed limits, they should decide
whether to implement citywide limits or category limits based on what makes
the most sense given the total conditions” (page 46).
I f setting a default citywide speed limit, NACTO recommends using 25 mph:
“Setting or lowering default citywide speed limits is an inexpensive, scalable way
to quickly improve safety outcomes, and establish a basis for larger safety gains.
Default cityside limits also provide consistent expectations and messages about
speed across the jurisdiction, which is easy for drivers to follow” (page 47).
I f setting speed limits using categories, NACTO recommends:
•Major streets: 25 mph.
“A 25 mph speed limit on urban multi-lane streets has demonstrable safety
benefits for all users. Major streets feature a combination of high motor vehicle
traffic volume, signalization of major intersections, and an inherently
multimodal street environment” (page 49).
•Minor streets: 20 mph.
“A 20 mph speed limit on minor streets supports safe movement and
c ontextually appropriate design on the majority of city streets. Since minor
streets tend to have either very low volumes or operate at the speed of the most
cautious driver, cities can apply a category speed limit to minor streets without
detailed review of street characteristics. Minor streets include physically small
Page 16Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
10 | Page
streets where low speeds are often already present, as well as low-vehicle -
volume streets with few or no transit stops” (page 50).
•Alleys and shared streets: 10 mph
NACTO identifies that cities can define “slow zones”:
“Slow Zones are specifically designated areas with slower speeds than otherwise
similar streets in the same jurisdiction. Neighborhood-scale or site-specific zones are
useful for addressing high-priority areas such as areas with elevated collision rates
or sensitive land uses (schools, parks, etc.). Cities should create slow zones based on
their own location-specific needs, but several types of slow zones are relatively
common” (page 54).
T he NACTO guide includes additional details for analyzing speeds on major streets if a
jurisdiction is not able to set default citywide or category speed limits. The guide
recommends setting safe speed limits by evaluating conflict density and activity level.
T heir recommendations say that streets with high activity and high conflict density
should have 20 mph speed limits while urban streets with low activity levels and low
conflict density should have maximum speed limits of 35 mph.
•National Cooperative Research Program (NCHRP) report on speed limit guidance
There is an active research study on speed limits that is not yet available, so its full
recommendations could not be considered as part of this analysis. Engineering will
consider the completed study as part of future evaluations of speed limits. The research
objectives of the National Cooperative Research Program (NCHRP) project 17-76 are to:
•Identify and describe factors that influence operating speed; and
•Provide guidance to make informed decis ions related to establishing speed
limits on roadways
On April 7, 2019, the NCHRP completed the first phase, which included an analysis of
existing information, a research plan to address gaps to develop the guidance, and an
outline or framework of the dr aft guidance and recommendations.
T he research team presented to AASHTO on June 18, 2019 with an update on the
project. Based on the second research objective, the team aims to create speed limit
guidance and a tool to set speed limits. In developing these, the team focuses on the
following as guiding principles:
•Easy to explain
•Avoid “black box” feel
•Consistent results
•Defendable/demonstrate sources of decision rules
•Flexible so future knowledge can update decision rules
•Can be used for all roadway types /contexts
•Group similar roadway types/contexts
•Different set of decision rules for each roadway type/context groups
Page 17Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
11 | Page
The team makes a distinction between different setting groups: Limited access
(freeways), undeveloped (rural), developed, and full access. For the St. Louis Park
context of local speed limit setting, limited access and undeveloped will be omitted from
this evaluation. The categories are still in DRAFT form.
i. Full A ccess (DRAFT )
1.Rounded down 50th [percentile]
2.Closest 50th
ii.Developed (DRAFT )
1.Closest 50th
2.Rounded down 85th
3.Closest 85th
“Full Access” streets are defined as:
•Local roads in suburban contexts
•Collector and local roads in urban contexts
•Non-freeways in urban core contexts
“Developed” streets are defined as:
•Collector and ar terial roads in suburban contexts
•Arterial roads in urban contexts
For reference, the Metropolitan Council considers St. Louis Park an “Urban Center” city
under their “ThriveMSP 2040 Community Designations”.
I n both cases, the NCHRP team is considering evaluating roads for speed limits using the
50th percentile speeds (median) instead of an 85th percentile. This is in line with the
2017 NTSB speed study and the subsequent NCUTCD recommendations.
•Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
i.USLIMITS
In 2008, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) developed a knowledge-
based expert system called USLIMITS for recommending speed limits in speed
zones that are considered to be credible and enforceable while taking
pedestrians and bicyclists into consideration.
T he current version, USLIMITS2, was created in 2012 as a “user-friendly, logical,
and objective tool for local communities and agencies with limited access to
engineers experienced in conducting speed studies for set ting appropriate
speed limits. For experienced engineers, USLIMITS2 can provide an objective
second opinion and increase confidence in speed limit setting decisions.
ii. Optimization
In 2012, The FHWA published Methods and Practices for Setting Speed Limits:
An Informational Report . In the report, the FHWA describes the method of
optimization for setting speed limits.
Page 18Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
12 | Page
T he optimum speed limit is the speed limit that yields the minimum total
societal cost, which includes vehicle operation costs, crash costs, travel time
costs, and other social costs. This method of setting speed limits is rarely used
due to the difficulty of quantifying key variables.
•Speed limits in other states
A 2010 report by NHTSA provides a summary of state speed laws for all fifty states plus
the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. According to the study, statutory speed limits
for city streets range from 20 to 45 mph. However, most states set default speed limits
of 25 or 30 mph. Of the 52 statutory speed limits for city streets:
•40% (21) set speed limits at 25 mph
•29% (15) set speed limits at 30 mph
•19% (10) did not set a statutory speed limit for city streets
•6% (3) set speed limits at 35 mph
•And 6% (3) had a combination of 25 and 35 mph limits depending on the
categorization of the road or area type
In 2017, a majority of states (30) had a default urban speed limit of 25 mph, including all
of Minnesota’s neighboring states (see Figure ###). In addition, 17 states allow 20 mph
speed limits if certain conditions are met. Since 2017, some states have made changes
to their speed limits under various conditions.
Figure ###: Default urban speed limit by state as of 2017
Page 19Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
13 | Page
6.Speed limit changes from local cities
In May 2018, the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul announced their intentions to change their
speed limits citywide. Both are still underway in their implementation and look to complete
them by the end of fall.
•Minneapolis
The City of Minneapolis is reducing their speed limits on city streets as follows:
•20 mph on City of Minneapolis minor streets. These are predominately local
residential streets.
•25 mph on most major City streets. Major streets are generally arterial and
collector streets.
•35 mph on four short segments of major City streets based on conditions.
•Alleys and Nicollet Mall will retain speed limits of 10 mph.
•Saint Paul
The City of Saint Paul is reducing their speed limits on city streets as follows:
•Principal and Minor Arterial streets are major streets and will generally have 25
mph speed limits and were evaluated to determine whether a higher speed limit
is appropriate based on context and design.
•Collector streets are generally major streets with 25 mph speed limits and were
evaluated to determine whether a lower speed limit is appr opriate based on
context and design.
•Local streets are generally minor streets with 20 mph speed limits and were
evaluated to determine whether a higher speed limit is appropriate based on
c ontext and design.
•Alleys will retain speed limits of 10 mph.
•Edina
The City of Edina is considering changing their speed limits. In late July 2020, their
engineering staff presented a draft speed limit evaluation. Their recommendations
were:
•30 mph on four -lane major streets
•25 mph on two-lane major streets
•20 mph on major streets within School Zones (no change from current
restriction)
•20 mph on minor streets
•15 mph on minor streets within School Zones (no change from current
restriction)
•10 mph on alleys (no change from current restriction)
Their council indicated a preference for a uniform approach rather than a tiered
approach. Therefore, Edina is reworking their speed limit evaluation and plan to report
updated recommendations by the end of 2020. Their implementation could occur as
early as 2021 but may be delayed to 2022.
Page 20Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
14 | Page
7.Speed limit changes from similar -sized cities
While the policies from local cities did include resources and other expected impacts, much of
the understanding from their policies and those available from NACTO and other s focus on large
cities . Large cities often have more resources or in-house capacity to accomplish certain tasks.
So, the city sought information and lessons learned from other smaller cities who have also
changed their speed limits to understand possible impacts for a city of our size.
•Renton, WA
Renton, Washington is a first -ring suburb of Seattle with a population of about 100,000.
In 2019, Renton created a process for neighborhoods to lower their default speed limit
from 25 mph to 20 mph.
I n order for Renton to consider a request to reduce speed limits from 25 mph to 20 mph
t he following must occur:
i.Staff consults the MUTCD
ii.The requestor gathers signatures on a petition in which each property, dwelling
unit, or business is allowed one signature.
iii.The petition must be signed by at least 60% of property owners, bus iness
owners, and residents in the neighborhood.
iv.The request will be brought to the city council where staff may recommend
a pproval, denial, or modification of the request.
v.City council may approve, deny, or modify the speed limit request.
The City of Renton estimated the cost of changing out approximately 450 existing
“Speed Limit 25 mph” signs to “Speed Limit 20 mph” signs is $20,500.
T he city has yet made any changes to neighborhood speed limits. Only one
neighborhood has come forward wanting to pursue this petition, but the COVID -19
pandemic has stopped further activity.
•Wheaton, IL
Wheaton, Illinois is a western suburb of Chicago with a population of roughly 50,000. I n
2018, Wheaton lowered the speed limit for residential neighborhoods from 30 mph to
25 mph. The changes were based on a traffic study the city had conducted through a
consultant.
While 25 mph is the new speed limit for the majority of residential streets, some streets
considered “major collector” and “arterial” streets where traffic volumes were above
6,000 vehicles a day remained at a 30-mph speed limit. Two streets r etained their 35-
mph speed limit.
For Wheaton’s implementation plan, they estimated the total cost to be about
$250,000. These costs included $174,000 for two additional police officers and a n
additional patrol vehicle to “effectively complete an outcome driven enforcement
effort”. Without the police department components, the speed limit changes amounted
to about $55,000.
Page 21Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
15 | Page
•Marana, AZ
Marana, Arizona is a northwest suburb of Tucson with a population of about 35,000. In
2020, Marana lowered and raised the speed limit on a variety of streets. The changes
were categorized as the following:
i.Updates – new streets added and changes made to reflect existing conditions
ii.Simplifications – posting the same speed limit for both directions or eliminating
short speed z ones
iii.Adjustments – changes based on engineering judgement or study
T he analysis behind the changes varied depending on the segment ranging from looking
at horizontal curvature of the road to formal speed studies. The new speed zones range
from 25 mph to 45 mph.
T he engineering work and sign replacements were all done in-house. The costs for the
changes was lumped into the annual sign replacement budget.
8.St. Louis Park crash analysis implications for speed limits
Crash data from 2017 to 2019 was reviewed and analyzed by a consultant (Spack Solutions) to
understand trends and patterns. The full crash analysis report will be ready for release later this
year.
Key findings from the crash analysis that help inform future speed limits include:
•While crashes happen on all types of streets, crashes are concentrated on higher -traffic
streets, which often have higher design and operating speeds.
•Streets with higher speed limits were more likely to have fatal or high injury crashes
when compared to streets with lower speed limits.
•People walking and biking are overrepresented in severe and fatal crashes in St. Louis
Park. While both combined make up less than 2% of all crashes (out of 3775 total),
pedestrians and bicyclists make up 33% of fatal crashes (out of 3 total) and 43% of hig h
injury crashes (out of 21 total).
•34% of crashes in St. Louis Park happen at intersections. However, those crashes make
up 67% of fatal crashes and 70% of high injury crashes. Failing to yield the right of way
was a frequent cause of pedestrian and bicycle crashes.
Page 22Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
16 | Page
9.National safety research implications for speed limits
A number of studies demonstrate the relationship between speed and road safety. Generally,
higher speeds increase the likelihood of a crash and the likelihood that a crash will be severe or
fatal.
The NTSB 2017 report Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles
summarizes the connection between speed and safety:
“Speed – and therefore speeding – increases crash risk in two ways: (1) it increases the
likelihood of being involved in a crash, and (2) it increases the severity of injuries by all
road users in a crash.
The relationship between speed and crash involvement is complex, and it is affected by
factors such as road type, driver age, alcohol impairment, and roadway characteristics
like curvature, grade, width, and adjacent land use. In contrast, the relationship between
speed and injury severity is consistent and direct. Higher vehicle speeds lead to larger
changes in velocity in a crash, and these velocity changes are closely linked to injury
severity. This relationship is especially critical for pedestrians involved in a motor vehicle
crash, due to their lack of protection” (Executive Summary page ix).
A key factor in the likelihood of a crash is how far it takes to stop. Figure XXX outlines the
relationship between stopping sight distance and speed. Stopping sight distance grows with
speed. According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), it takes the average driver 301 feet to stop at 40 mph, 197 feet at 30 mph, and 112
feet at 20 mph. A change from 30 mph to 20 mph results in an average driver stopping 85 feet
sooner, which is almost five car lengths of 18 feet each. Note that other research yields different
stopping sight distances based on different reaction times and speeds of breaking (AASHTO
guidance is conservative), but it always takes longer to stop at higher speeds.
Figure XXX: Stopping Distance and Speed
3,704
2
12
39
1
6
32
0
3
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Total crashes
Fatal crashes
Serious injury crashes
2017 -2019 crashes in St. Louis Park by mode
Vehicle Pedestrian Bicycle
Page 23Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
17 | Page
D ata Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). A
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Washington, DC: AASHTO, 2011. “Assumes
2.5 second perception-braking time and 11.2 ft/sec2 driver deceleration”.
Figure XXX shows the relative crash risk for a pedes trian hit at different speeds. A person is
significantly more likely to lose their life or sustain a serious injury as the speed at impact
increases. A person hit at 30 mph is three times as likely to be killed than at 20 mph.
Figure XXX: Pedestrian Risk and Impact Speed
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
15 mph
20 mph
25 mph
30 mph
35 mph
40 mph
Average Stopping Distance (Feet)
Page 24Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
18 | Page
While the fact that lower traffic speeds increase safety is well established, there has been less
study on the impact of speed limits on traffic speeds. A 2018 Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety study Lowering the Speed Limit from 30 to 25 mph in Boston: Effects on Vehicle Speeds is
the most recent detailed look at the impact of a change in speed limits on vehicle speeds. The
study concluded that “…lowering the speed limit in urban areas is an effective countermeasure
to reduce speeds and improve safety for all road users”.
T he study found significant reductions in the probability of vehicles exceeding 30 mph and 35
mph. There was a 29.3 percent decline in the odds of speeding for vehicles traveling faster than
35 mph. Reduction in higher urban speeds is especially valuable because risk to pedestrians
increases dramatically between 25 mph and 35 mph.
T he study showed only a small change in the average traffic speed in Boston after the speed
limit change, reinforcing that people generally drive to what they feel is comfortable given the
context and design of the street. These results also suggest that there was less speed differential
with the 25-mph limit than with the 30-mph limit since higher-end speeds decreased.
Minimizing speed differential has been one of the long -standing rationales for using the 85th
percentile for setting speed limits. But, this study reinforces that behavior on urban streets is
different than rural and highway conditions.
Page 25Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
19 | Page
10.St. Louis Park traffic speed study implications for speed limits
To develop an understanding of how motorists currently behave on different types of streets
under existing speed limit regulations, the city performed an evaluation of existing speeds on
roadways within St. Louis Park.
Speed data from almost 800 locations were used in this evaluation. The collected data came
from multiple sources:
•The city frequently conducts speed studies to evaluate existing driving conditions t o
determine the appropriate action to take in response to a citizen concern (through the
traffic committee) or to aid in the engineering design process. This review utilizes data
collected within the previous four years and includes speeds from 375 locations on city
streets.
•Every four years, the city takes traffic counts on Municipal State Aid System (MSAS)
roads in accordance with MnDOT. During the latest round of counting, the city elected
to collect speed information as well. This review utilizes data collected in 2017 a nd
includes speeds from 123 locat ions on city streets.
•The city often uses speed feedback boards deployed through our police department.
These boards display the speed in which drivers are traveling and reminding them of the
existing speed limit. This review utilizes data collected within the previous three years
and includes speeds from 314 locations on city streets.
D ata from all sources were typically collected via traffic tubes for at least 48 hours in the middle
of a typical weekday. When traffic tubes can’t be used, the counts are conducted using video
analysis. Speed data was collected by direction and all data points count each direction as an
individual study.
Staff’s initial speed findings are divided into three groups:
•Low traffic roads (less than 2,000 vehicles a day)
•Medium traffic roads (between 2,000 and 12,000 vehicles a day)
•High traffic roads (more than 12,000 vehicles a day)
T he general findings are shown in the table below:
Median speed Average speed 85th percentile speed
All city streets 23.5 mph 23.4 mph 27.8 mph
Low traffic roads 21.1 mph 21.0 mph 25.5 mph
Medium traffic roads 28.9 mph 28.4 mph 33.4 mph
High traffic roads 27.6 mph 29.5 mph 34.7 mph
Key takeaways from the speed study include:
•The average speed across all low volume streets was 21 mph.
•Low traffic streets are the city’s safest streets based on the citywide crash study,
although severe and fatal crashes have happened on them.
•The city regularly receives resident concerns about vehicles driving too fast on roads of
all traffic levels. These complaints , when compared with the existing speed data , suggest
that the current speed limit does not reflect the expectations of residents and that the
Page 26Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
20 | Page
city can support this by setting a speed that supports safety and community
expectations on these streets.
•The median speeds of medium and high traffic roads are similar, ranging from 27 to 29
mph. This indicates that the current speed limit is higher than most drivers are
c omfortable traveling and lowering it will support safety on those streets.
Characteristics of higher traffic roads, when compared to medium traffic roads , are the
higher number of lanes. The increased width of the road makes it more difficult for
pedestrians and bicyclists to cross.
11.Race Equity and Inclusion (REI) considerations
12.Findings and conclusions
Based on data and research documented in this evaluation, the key findings from our evaluation
are:
•Lower traffic speeds reduce both the likelihood and severity of crashes.
•A majority of states have lower default speed limits than Minnesota. All of Minnesota’s
neighboring states have a 25 mph default urban speed limit.
•The traditional approach of using 85th percentile speed to set speed limits is no longer
considered the best practice for urban streets.
•When setting urban speed limits with broad authority, there are two common options
from guidance and recent city speed limit changes:
o Default citywide speed limit of 25 mph
o Category speed limits with 20 mph on local residential streets and generally
higher on more busy and connecting streets .
•Success in changing speed limits in smaller cities has yet to be realized as they have
been recent and have not yet reevaluated traffic conditions. However, success in larger
cities such as Portland, Seattle, and Boston, have found success with the category speed
limit approach.
T he key findings above led to the following conclusions:
•Speed limits lower than the statutory default are justified because they:
o Promote public health, safety, and welfare
o Support city policies
o Align with emerging national best practices for safe urban street operations
o Support the city’s traffic safety goal to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries on
city streets
13.Speed limit recommendations
Based on the above findings and conclusions, staff recommends that speed limits be set using a
category approach. For St. Louis Park, a category approach to speed limits is the most
appropriate generally with 20 mph on lower traffic roads, 25 mph on medium traffic roads, and
30+ mph on high traffic roads because:
•It is easier to communicate when compared to a single default speed limit. Hennepin
C ounty and MnDOT -owned roads will continue to have 30 mph speed limits or higher
and it is unknown when or if those will change.
•These lower speed limits prioritize public health and safety (a person hit at 30 mph is
three times as likely to be killed or severely injured than a person hit at 20 mph).
Page 27Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
21 | Page
•A citywide 25 mph speed limit does not reflect the design, land use, mode use, a nd
expectations of city streets.
•Low traffic roads generally serve short, local connections, have on-street parking, are
narrow and require slow speeds when two cars pass each other . In addition, they have
frequent entrances to residences or businesses. The average speed of low traffic roads is
21 mph.
•Medium traffic roads generally serve longer trips, have traffic signals at higher volume
intersections to support safe crossing of all modes, are wider in width, and sometimes
have on-street parking. The average speed of medium traffic roads is 28 mph.
•High traffic roads generally serve longer trips, have traffic signals at high volume
intersections to support safe crossing of all modes, are wider in width, often do not have
on-street parking, and have more than two traffic lanes. The average speed of hig h
t raffic roads is 30 mph.
T he following criteria were taken into consideration while determining appropriate speed limits:
T he default speed limit for roads in St Louis Park is recommended to be 20-mph speed limit.
A street or segment was recommended for a 25-mph speed limit if it met all of the following:
•Half-mile segment or more
•Regular bus service OR adjacent to SWLRT platform OR ADT > 2,000
•Continuous sidewalk/trail or predominantly non-residential zone
A street or segment was recommended for a 30-mph speed limit if it met the 25 mph criteria
and all of the following:
•Half-mile segment OR road with split border with another city
•ADT > 12,000 OR 4 or more driving lanes
A street or segment was recommended for a 35-mph speed limit if it met the 30 mph criteria
and all of the following:
•0 – 2 intersections or major crossings per half mile
•Limited or no pedestrian access
Alleys will retain a 10 MPH speed limit.
Staff finds that a category speed limit approach accomplishes the original goals of the evaluation
because it :
•Support s the city’s traffic safety goal to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries on city
streets.
•Reflects the city’s priority in creating a mobility system that prioritizes pedestrians first,
then bicyclists and transit users, then drivers.
•Aligns with current national speed limit guidance.
•Is understandable, consistent, replicable, reasonable, and appropriat e for an urba n
context.
•Contributes to equitable outcomes for all people.
•Support s the movement of people and goods.
•Sends a clear message to the driving public that “slower is safer” on all streets.
Page 28Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
22 | Page
14.Signage plan
15.Traffic signal pla n
16.Environmental benefits
17.Communications and education plan
18.Enforcement considerations
19.Evaluation plan
Page 29Study session meeting of August 24, 2 020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
Fig 1: Existing speed limits on city roads ¯
0 1 20.5
Miles
Legend
Existing speed limit
25
30
35
40
Non-city or private roads
Page 30Study session meeting of August 24, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
Recommended speed limits
Legend
Recommended speed limit
20
25
30
35
Non-city or private roads
¯
0 1 20.5
Miles
Study session meeting of August 24, 2020 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 31
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: August 24, 2020
Discussion item: 2
Executive summary
Title: Fire department staffing structure
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is Categorized as Time-Sensitive**
•No formal action at this time. This discussion is intended to outline for the council
proposed changes to the staffing structure for the fire department.
Policy consideration: Will the proposed staffing structure meet or exceed the service level the
fire department provides in a cost-effective way?
Summary: The purpose of this presentation is to provide information for the Council regarding
the current and proposed staffing structure of the fire department and to share the impacts to
the budget through the elimination of the part time firefighter staff and replacing them with
career employees.
The analysis staff will share at the study session is that by moving to an all career model, we
increase fire prevention, lower overtime costs, reduce impacts to the capital plan, improve
team cohesion, lower training costs and create a predictable level of staffing throughout the
year.
Financial or budget considerations: The proposed staffing model will reduce the costs
associated with the fire department’s operating budget, as well as reducing the impacts to the
capital plan.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Steve Koering, fire chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session Meeting of August 24, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Fire department staffing structure
Discussion
Background: In 1996 the City of St Louis Park made a significant shift in its staffing model when
it created the paid-on call firefighter position, and supplemented fire response with these
employees in addition to the existing career staff. At the time this was considered innovative,
controversial and a lower cost option. It is important to note that over the 105 year history of
the department that restructuring of staff has covered almost every possible design including
citizen volunteers, volunteer firefighters, all career, combination and even a period where there
was no department - we used other cities to provide the service. Staff feels we now need to
consider another structural change to meet the needs of the community.
Over the past 25 years the current staffing model has served the community and has gone
through several iterations to attempt to maximize the effectiveness of the part time force
against the dollars invested. Since its inception, 104 members have been part of the workforce,
with just one part time member remaining from the original group. Over the course of the last
25 years, 32 part time members have become fulltime employees; 13 at St. Louis Park and 19
for other cities. Currently, eight of our career staff were hired from our part time ranks. One of
the current challenges of the part time firefighter model is the low retention rate - 35% over
the last 10 years, or 16 of 45 hires were retained.
In 2018 the fire department’s 2018-2023 strategic plan identified the sustainability of our
staffing model as one of six key drivers of our five-year strategy. Over the course of the last few
years, attempts have been made to align the model with the changing workforce needs to try
and meet the growing demands of response against the expanding demands on the part time
employees by forces outside of the fire department. These challenges validate what is rapidly
becoming a national trend of recognizing the higher costs and viability or sustainability of the
current combination model (part-time/full-time). COVID 19 created yet another set of
challenges for the model and as costs have escalated, it served as a tipping point to evaluate all
potential approaches to reduce operating costs without lowering the service level to the
community.
The analysis that we will share shows that by moving to an all career model, we increase fire
prevention, lower overtime costs, reduce impacts to the capital plan, improve team cohesion,
lower training costs and create a predictable level of staffing throughout the year. While this is
a difficult decision on the human side of the equation, staff feels it is really unavoidable to not
act on the improvements that the restructuring offers.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: August 24, 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 Sept. 14, 2020.
Policy consideration: Not applicable.
Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the regularly scheduled study session
on Sept. 14, 2020. Also attached to this report is the study session discussion topics and timeline.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Tentative agenda – Sept. 14, 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 August 24, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Sept. 14, 2020.
6:30 p.m. Study session - To be held via videoconference
Tentative discussion items
1.2021 budget, preliminary levies, CIP, utility rates, and fees – Administrative services (90
minutes) In preparation for setting the preliminary levy on September 21, staff and
consultants from Ehlers will present information on capital and long-range financial planning
to facilitate discussion on where the 2021 budget and levy is currently at along with proposed
utility rates and fees.
**Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered essential business and is
Categorized as Time-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.Small business assistance program update
4.P12 Changes to sign ordinance
Study session meeting of August 24, 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. 1st qtr. 2021
4
Revisit housing setback, FAR, &
more related to affordable
housing
Oct.
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 To be combined w/ Connect the Park discussion. 4th qtr. 2020
9 Remove mint & menthol
exemption from existing
Written report
8/24/20
10/13
-Easy access to nature, across
city, starting w/ low-income
neighborhoods
-WHNC Access Fund
Combine P10 and P13.
*On hold pending direction from school district.*On hold
11 Conversion therapy ban TBD
12 Changes to sign ordinance Written report
9/14/20
Community health: services and
connections in SLP Oct.
Council items in progress
Priority Discussion topic Comments Next Steps
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 Discussed 7/27/20. Staff is developing process.
Policing: structural analysis Discussed 7/27/20. Staff is developing process
Revitalization 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: August 24, 2020
Written report: 4
Executive summary
Title: Menthol, mint, and wintergreen flavored tobacco products
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is
considered essential business and is Categorized as Time-Sensitive**
•No action requested at this time. Please advise staff of questions you may have.
Policy consideration: Does council wish to postpone for the time being further discussion of
amending the tobacco licensing definitions or requirements.
Summary: The city has a history of proactively implementing requirements to help protect
public health through reducing the access and attractiveness of tobacco products to youth
within the community.
Over the past few years, the minimum age to purchase tobacco products in the city was raised
to 21; prohibited sale of all flavored tobacco products exempting menthol, mint, or
wintergreen; and stopped the sale of e-cigarettes and vaping products.
Minnesota has now raised the statewide minimum age to purchase tobacco to 21 and with
some other changes, necessitates minor amendments to our licensing section of code that the
city attorney is preparing. These will be brought to council within the next few months.
One of council’s priorities for 2020 was to discuss reviewing the definition exemption that allows
menthol, mint, and wintergreen flavored cigarettes, cigars, and loose tobacco to be sold. This
report provides an update on considerations including current legal challenges occurring with a
community that recently passed on ordinance to prohibit sale of these flavors of tobacco
products.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, building and energy director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Page 2 Study session meeting of August 24, 2020 (Item No. 4)
Title: Menthol, mint, and wintergreen flavored tobacco products
Discussion
Background: The city has successfully responded to health concerns as it relates to the sale of
tobacco products beginning with prohibiting vending machine many years ago. In 2017 the city
was the second community in the state to raise the legal age for purchase of all tobacco
products to 21. Within three years the momentum resulted in the State of Minnesota raising
the legal age to 21.
Late r in 2017, council approved amending the tobacco license requirements to restrict the sale
of all flavored tobacco with an exception for menthol, mint, and wintergreen. Then In 2019,
council discussed and passed the ordinance prohibiting sale of e-cigarettes and vaping products
within the city.
Present considerations: Currently, the city licenses 19 tobacco establishments. The number of
establishments has been on the decline over the past few years. These licensed establishments
include liquor stores, grocery stores, convenience stores and gas stations. The city curre ntly
does not have any specialty tobacco store s, however there is a pending application while the
business remains under remodeling. A certificate of occupancy and licensing inspection must
both be completed before a license could be issued. The code does not differentiate tobacco
sales based on type of the retail establishment, as the same regulations apply to all.
Recently, some other local authorities have adopted ordinances regulating the sale of flavored
tobacco products to address the youth vaping health crisis and protect public health. The
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA) specifically preserves the right
for state and local authorities to prohibit the sale of tobacco products. 21 U.S.C. § 387p(a)(1). In
response to these ordinances, tobacco companies have initiated lawsuits against local
authorities. Tobacco companies assert that these local ordinances are preempted by federal
law. In other words, they claim that municipalities lack the authority to adopt these ordinances.
Tobacco companies are most significantly objecting to the sales regulation of menthol flavored
tobacco products. Congress specifically delegated authority to the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to determine whether menthol should be banned as a flavor in cigarettes.
See 21 U.S.C. § 387g(a)(1)(A), (e). The FDA has studied the issue twice, and on both occasions, it
has declined to ban the menthol flavor. Tobacco companies argue that the delegation to the
FDA preempts the ability of local authorities to ban the sale of this particular flavor. They argue
that allowing local authorities to ban the sale of menthol flavored tobacco products would
undermine the FDA’s authority to set national standards for tobacco products. Conversely, local
authorities have argued that the FSPTCA expressly reserves authority to them to regulate, or
even prohibit, the sale of tobacco products. 21 U.S.C. § 387p(a)(1).
Rece ntly, federal courts in California have upheld local sales bans of flavored tobacco products
(including menthol flavor). CA Smoke & Vape Ass’n v. Cnty of L.A., 2020 U.S. Dist LEXIS 141962
(C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2020); R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Cnty. Of L.A., Order GRANTING Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 33) and DENYING Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment as Moot
(Dkt. 32), 2:20-cv -04880-DSF -KS (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2020). In addition, more limited sales bans of
flavored tobacco products have been upheld in New York, Rhode Island, and Chicago.
Page 3 Study session meeting of August 24, 2020 (Item No. 4)
Title: Menthol, mint, and wintergreen flavored tobacco products
Next steps: Litigation regarding local ordinances to regulate menthol, mint, and wintergreen
tobacco flavors is currently ongoing in Edina. The defense for this type of litigation is not
covered by the cities insurance carrier and becomes a direct expense for the city.
Until further court decisions in Minnesota provide improved clarity on if or how a city ordinance
may prohibit the sale or menthol flavored tobacco products, staff recommends postponing
further discussion on this issue. We will continue to monitor and update council as information
becomes available .
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: August 24, 2020
Written report: 5
Executive summary
Title: July 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 them to budget throughout the year. A budget to
actual summary for the four utility funds is also provided with this report.
Financial or budget considerations: At the end of July, general fund expenditures were at
approximately 52% of the adopted annual budget, which is about 6% under budget. First half
property tax collections were much better than earlier anticipated. Permit revenue has
continued to be strong during the summer and is exceeding budget.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
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
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of August 24, 2020 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: July 2020 monthly financial report
Discussion
Background: This monthly report provides summary information of the overall level of
revenues and departmental expenditures in the general fund compared to the adopted budget
throughout the year. A budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included with
this report.
Present considerations:
General Fund
Under normal circumstances, expenditures would generally be at approximately 58% of the
annual budget at the end of July. General fund expenditures are running about 6% under at
52% of the adopted annual budget through July and no departments have exceeded budget. A
large portion of our low expenditures can be attributed to salary savings from positions in the
general fund that were put on hold due to COVID.
A supplemental property tax settlement was received at the end of July from Hennepin County
which brought first half collections to 52.8% of the general fund levy. This compares to 51.7%
last year after the first half settlement.
License and permit revenues combined are at approximately 85% of budget through July. Net of
the refunds that were recently issued to businesses due to the COVID-19 closures , business and
liquor license revenue is at 81% of budget or $771K of the $953K budgeted. Permit revenue is
at 87% of budget through July. Larger permits issued to date have included Parkway Place, The
Quentin and several school district projects. A portion of the 10 West End permit was deferred
to 2020 to offset related expenditures.
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 $21,876
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 Monthly Expenditures -General Fund
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund
As of July 31, 2020
2020 2020
2018 2018 2019 2019 2020 2020 Balance YTD Budget
Budget Audited Budget Audited Budget YTD Jul Remaining to Actual %
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 25,705,886$ 26,597,928$ 26,880,004$ 26,952,306$ 28,393,728$ 14,986,752$ 13,406,976$ 52.78%
Licenses and Permits 3,924,648 4,001,644 4,103,424 5,264,659 4,660,811 3,982,654 678,157 85.45%
Fines & Forfeits 269,200 282,146 279,700 274,340 280,000 72,421 207,579 25.86%
Intergovernmental 1,864,877 2,006,435 1,760,900 1,761,763 1,760,082 964,238 795,844 54.78%
Charges for Services 2,162,410 2,180,589 2,187,319 2,160,345 2,273,824 812,505 1,461,319 35.73%
Rents & Other Miscellaneous 1,318,037 1,427,744 1,367,012 1,500,867 1,456,102 666,594 789,508 45.78%
Transfers In 1,929,090 1,929,076 1,999,877 2,012,706 2,038,338 1,156,364 881,974 56.73%
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 57,274 621,280 375,851 245,429 60.50%
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$ 23,074,232$ 18,619,933$ 55.34%
General Fund Expenditures:
General Government:
Administration 1,341,606$ 1,340,282$ 1,837,620$ 1,673,619$ 1,868,599$ 774,844$ 1,093,755$ 41.47%
Finance 978,752 964,036 1,034,199 1,078,291 1,124,045 595,426 528,619 52.97%
Assessing 759,865 710,715 772,746 751,737 808,171 453,134 355,037 56.07%
Human Resources 796,666 735,050 805,620 756,767 823,209 445,960 377,249 54.17%
Community Development 1,479,911 1,559,721 1,502,521 1,515,672 1,571,894 892,064 679,830 56.75%
Facilities Maintenance 1,162,342 1,223,109 1,170,211 1,209,474 1,265,337 697,040 568,297 55.09%
Information Resources 1,589,432 1,526,028 1,674,937 1,474,604 1,709,255 925,988 783,267 54.17%
Communications & Marketing 755,940 829,732 805,674 786,448 828,004 429,264 398,740 51.84%
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$ 5,213,720$ 4,784,794$ 52.14%
Public Safety:
Police 9,930,681$ 9,877,014$ 10,335,497$ 10,452,038$ 10,853,821$ 6,025,786$ 4,828,035$ 55.52%
Fire Protection 4,657,973 4,630,520 4,813,078 4,754,524 5,040,703 2,771,363 2,269,340 54.98%
Building 2,544,762 2,295,910 2,555,335 2,430,473 2,696,585 1,369,642 1,326,943 50.79%
Total Public Safety 17,133,416$ 16,803,444$ 17,703,910$ 17,637,035$ 18,591,109$ 10,166,791$ 8,424,318$ 54.69%
Operations:
Public Works Administration 230,753$ 208,050$ 290,753$ 214,436$ 273,318$ 127,881$ 145,437$ 46.79%
Public Works Operations 3,091,857 2,998,935 3,111,481 3,099,493 3,331,966 1,765,740 1,566,226 52.99%
Vehicle Maintenance 1,253,367 1,210,279 1,242,236 1,268,700 1,278,827 662,531 616,296 51.81%
Engineering 525,834 552,432 570,377 609,567 551,285 235,224 316,061 42.67%
Total Operations 5,101,811$ 4,969,696$ 5,214,847$ 5,192,196$ 5,435,396$ 2,791,376$ 2,644,020$ 51.36%
Parks and Recreation:
Organized Recreation 1,582,490 1,499,780 1,579,569 1,498,462 1,637,002 862,385 774,617 52.68%
Recreation Center 1,860,755 2,004,937 1,949,657 2,041,386 2,061,394 1,001,141 1,060,253 48.57%
Park Maintenance 1,830,530 1,866,744 1,833,297 1,820,455 1,906,363 986,091 920,272 51.73%
Westwood Nature Center 622,346 599,704 643,750 612,266 748,683 344,147 404,536 45.97%
Natural Resources 559,662 376,359 484,784 429,409 504,143 211,783 292,360 42.01%
Total Parks and Recreation 6,455,783$ 6,347,524$ 6,491,057$ 6,401,977$ 6,857,585$ 3,405,548$ 3,452,037$ 49.66%
Other Depts and Non-Departmental:
Racial Equity and Inclusion -$ -$ -$ 4,592$ 314,077$ 160,816$ 153,261$ 51.20%
Sustainability 26,283 497,484 133,242 364,242 26.78%
Transfers Out 1,040,000 300,000 0.00%
Contingency and Other 315,772 186,966 74,350 121,245 4,323 0.00%
Total Other Depts and Non-Departmental 315,772$ 1,226,966$ 74,350$ 452,119$ 811,561$ 298,381$ 517,503$ 36.77%
Total General Fund Expenditures 37,898,933$ 38,248,388$ 39,087,692$ 38,929,940$ 41,694,165$ 21,875,817$ 19,822,672$ 52.47%
*Primarily related to E911 expenditures from restricted fund balance.
Study session meeting of August 24, 2020 (Item No. 5)
Title: July 2020 monthly financial report Page 3
Budget to Actual - Enterprise FundsAs of July 31, 2020 Current BudgetJul Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetJul Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetJul Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetJul Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetOperating revenues: User charges7,472,931$ 3,433,842$ 4,039,089$ 45.95% 7,897,086$ 3,878,838$ 4,018,248$ 49.12% 3,510,090$ 1,718,409$ 1,791,681$ 48.96% 3,065,882$ 1,598,827$ 1,467,055$ 52.15% Rent revenue, permits & other533,242 510,269 22,973 95.69% 43,000 4,556 38,444 10.59% 169,100 169,100 0.00%-- Total operating revenues8,006,173 3,944,110 4,062,063 49.26% 7,940,086 3,883,393 4,056,693 48.91% 3,679,190 1,718,409 1,960,781 46.71% 3,065,882 1,598,827 1,467,055 52.15%Operating expenses: Personal services1,521,345 878,539 642,806 57.75% 809,868 512,683 297,185 63.30% 539,901 299,654 240,247 55.50% 896,367 372,859 523,508 41.60% Supplies & non-capital268,300 195,685 72,615 72.93% 72,500 17,332 55,168 23.91% 247,550 50,285 197,265 20.31% 12,500 1,394 11,106 11.15% Services & other charges2,073,702 1,905,704 167,998 91.90% 4,621,847 2,987,467 1,634,380 64.64%2,920,580 1,400,222 1,520,358 47.94%329,946 480,536 (150,590) 145.64% Depreciation * Total operating expenses3,863,347 2,979,928 883,419 77.13% 5,504,215 3,517,482 1,986,733 63.91% 3,708,031 1,750,162 1,957,869 47.20% 1,238,813 854,789 384,024 69.00%Operating income (loss)4,142,826 964,182 3,178,644 23.27% 2,435,871 365,911 2,069,960 15.02% (28,841) (31,753) 2,912 110.10% 1,827,069 744,038 1,083,031 40.72%Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Interest income 7,450 17,853 (10,403) 239.64% 13,250 2,719 10,531 20.52% 13,000 2,038 10,962 15.68% 5,600 5,600 0.00% Bond interest & bank charges(412,950) (587,986) 175,036 142.39% (87,250) (72,361) (14,889) 82.94% (23,500) (8,654) (14,846) 36.83% (34,850) (64,783) 29,933 185.89% Total nonoperating rev (exp)(405,500) (570,134) 164,634 140.60% (74,000) (69,642) (4,358) 94.11% (10,500) (6,616) (3,884) 63.01% (29,250) (64,783) 35,533 221.48%Income (loss) before transfers3,737,326 394,049 3,343,277 10.54% 2,361,871 296,269 2,065,602 12.54% (39,341) (38,368) (973) 97.53% 1,797,819 679,255 1,118,564 37.78%Transfers inTransfers out(638,635) (372,537) (266,098) 58.33% (873,785) (509,708) (364,077) 58.33% (248,289) (144,835) (103,454) 58.33% (342,130) (199,576) (142,554) 58.33%NET INCOME (LOSS)3,098,691 21,511 3,077,180 0.69%1,488,086 (213,439) 1,701,525 -14.34%(287,630) (183,204) (104,426) 63.69% 1,455,689 479,680 976,009 32.95%Items reclassified to bal sht at year end: Capital Outlay(2,649,356) (323,693) (2,325,663) 12.22% (1,411,750) (303,418) (1,108,332) 21.49%-- -(3,245,049) (304,776) (2,940,273) 9.39%Revenues over/(under) expenditures449,335 (302,181) 751,516 76,336 (516,857) 593,193 (287,630) (183,204) (104,426) (1,789,360) 174,903 (1,964,263) *Depreciation is recorded at end of year (non-cash item).Water SewerSolid WasteStorm WaterPage 4Study session meeting of August 24, 2020 (Item No. 5) Title: July 2020 monthly financial report
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: August 24, 2020
Written report: 6
Executive summary
Title: West End Office Park minor amendment to special permit
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is
considered essential business and is Categorized as a Required Action**
•No action required. Please provide individual comments or questions to staff. Staff
intends to place the request for a minor amendment to the special permit on the
September 8, 2020 consent agenda.
Policy consideration: Does the project meet the zoning requirements for a minor
amendment to the special permit?
Summary: The existing courtyard at the West End Office Park (5353, 5401 Gamble Drive and
5354, 5402 Parkdale Drive) was built in the 1970s. The owner would like to renovate the space
in order to create a more active, usable outdoor amenity space where tenants can work,
gather, and spend time outdoors. The proposal includes removing the water fountain and
leveling some of the mounds on the site, and creating open lawn space, covered seating and
working areas, and a new pedestrian connection with an accessible ramp connecting the site
with the Shops at West End across the street. The buildings and parking lots will remain
unchanged, and the site will be updated to meet landscaping and lighting requirements in the
zoning code.
The scope of the project requires a minor amendment to the special permit (Resolution 5405).
Minor amendments do not require a public hearing or planning commission review. Staff
intend to place the request for an amendment on the September 8, 2020 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: Aerial of project site
Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of August 24, 2020 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: West End Office Park minor amendment to special permit
Aerial of project site
Project scope
extents
Site perimeter
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: August 24, 2020
Written report: 7
Executive summary
Title: Notice of eviction
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 recommends council consider a Notice of Eviction policy
requiring seven days noticing to tenants prior to bringing an eviction action.
Policy consideration: Does the council support a tenant protection policy as proposed
requiring owners to provide a notice to tenants prior to filing an eviction action for
nonpayment of rent?
Summary: The implementation of a Notice of Eviction policy would require rental property
owners/managers to provide a notice to tenants prior to the filing of an eviction action for
nonpayment of rent. The notice is meant to ensure that residents are informed and aware of
the consequences of unresolved financial obligations to the landlord that are in violation of
the lease. The policy was first reviewed with council at the March 25, 2019 study session and
again at the October 28, 2019 study session. Representatives from HOME Line and the
Volunteer Lawyers Network & the Housing Court Project provided input on the impacts of the
policy largely from the tenant’s perspective at the October study session.
Council directed staff to conduct a public outreach process stressing the importance of
reaching out to rental property owners for their input. The proposed policy was posted on the
city’s website and social media platforms and distributed through the SPARC (St. Louis Park Area
Rental Coalition) newsletter. At the January 27, 2020 council study session staff recommended
that the proposed notice period be reduced from 14 days to 7 days based on the input
received from the rental owners and managers.
At the same time the council was considering this policy, a similar bill requiring a notice be
provided to tenants prior to filing an eviction was introduced at the 2020 legislative session.
Further action on the local policy was deferred to allow the legislature to consider the bill. Since
the legislature failed to take any action on the bill, the policy is being presented to council for
consideration to approve at the local level.
Financial or budget considerations: Implementation and ongoing management and monitoring
of this policies will require additional city staff time, as well as direct costs related to educating
rental property owners of the new requirements.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, community develop deputy director and housing supervisor
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community de velopment director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Page 2 Study session meeting of August 24, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: Notice of eviction
Discussion
Background: A bill was introduced at the 2019 legislative session that would require a notice be
provided to tenants prior to filing an eviction action . The notice is meant to ensure that
residents are informed and aware of the consequences of unresolved financial obligations to
the landlord that are in violation of the lease or another material breach of the lease . The
legislat ure failed to take action on the bill.
In 2019 an d early 2020, council discussed adopting a local policy similar to the policy in the
legislative bill. The city’s Notice of Eviction policy would require rental property
owners/managers to provide a notice to tenants prior to the filing of an eviction action for
nonpayment of rent or unpaid financial obligations in violation of the lease .
Action on the policy was deferred while the legislature once again considered whether to adopt
a similar bill which was reintroduced at the 2020 session. Again, the legislature failed to take
action on the bill. Absent a statewide notice requirement, the local policy is being presented for
council consideration. The proposed policy presented at the January 27, 2020 study session
reduced the notice period from 14 days to 7 days based on comments received from the public.
The notice being proposed is as follows:
Notice of eviction policy/St. Louis Park: Before bringing an eviction action alleging a material
breach of the lease for nonpayment of rent or other unpaid financial obligations, a landlord
must provide written notice to the residential tenant specifying the allegations of nonpayment
of rent or other unpaid financial obligations and must state the total amount due along with
specific accounting of the total amount . The notice must be delivered personally, mailed to the
residential tenant at the address of the leased premises or delivered electronically if the tenant
has indicated that is there preferred form of communication. If the alleged material breach of
the lease or the rent delinquency is not corrected within 7 days of the delivery or mailing of the
notice, the landlord may proceed with filing a complaint based on any allegations in the notice.
The landlord must attach a copy of the notice to the complaint.
Summary of public input comments: 84 comments were received on the proposed Notice of
Eviction policy. A summary of the comments by self -identified groups is provided below. The
on-line comments are available in their entirety in the January 27, 2020 city council report.
Community members:
•Many comments supporting the notice. Commenters thought it was reasonable and that
it gives renters time to remedy the situation
•Several thought the notice requirement should be longer and that the city should create
notice templates for owners to use
•Several others felt the ordinance isn’t necessary, that renters know when they are
paying rent late, they sign a lease; leases and state statute cover rental agreements and
evictions and should be adequate and should be at the discretion of the owner, no need
for another layer of government regulation
•Some felt 14 days is too long, resulting in tenants being 2 months behind on rent. Small
rental property owners could be put in a financial hard spot and that the notice should
apply for financial arrears only
Page 3 Study session meeting of August 24, 2020 (Item No. 7)
Title: Notice of eviction
Renters:
•Agree with policy and stated it seems fair
•Reasonable to provide a short grace period
•Strikes a good balance
•Deliver in person/sign that it was received
Property owners:
•Majority felt notice requirement was not necessary. Majority of owners already provide
notice (rare not to) and an opportunity for tenants to pay arears prior to filing in the
case of non-payment of rent
•Property owners commented that evictions are costly and time consuming and a last
resort for owners. It is easier to negotiate than file an eviction. Most owners wait until
the 10th to act spending the first part of month negotiating with tenants
•Prope rty owners stated a 14-day period is excessive and will create the risk to the owner
of losing two -months’ rent which creates a financial burden. Owners are a for-profit
business that relies on timely rent payments; can’t stay in unit for free and property
owners have financial responsibilities such as mortgage payments, utilities, and other
financial obligations
•Unintended consequences could include: requiring higher security deposits; stricter
screening criteria; increased cost of doing business passed on to tenants; landlords will
remove current grace period to pay without a late fee and immediately send out the 14
day notice; will replace “reminder letter” with notice of intent to file an eviction;
negatively impact tenant/landlord relationship; tenant hardship to pay rent after the
15th and then have to pay the next month’s rent two weeks later, tenants end up being
buried in debt
•Owners stated there is no “major problem” that requires the city to step in and fix ; f elt
it is an o verreach of city authority; binding legal contract with terms spelled out already
in place ; tenants’ responsibility to read and understand terms of the lease ; not local
governments role – these issues should be part of the lease agreement
•Allow email/electronic notification, need clear guidelines on proof of notification
delivery
•Only five other states have 14-day notice or greater requirements
Staff has consulted the city’s legal counsel on the city’s authority to implement a notice prior to
eviction requirement. Counsel’s opinion is that the city has the local authority to implement
the new policy and impose new requirements but cautioned that there is always a risk that the
city could be challenged.
Next steps: Implementation of the notice of eviction policy will require a codification in the
ordinance, most likely in the tenant protection ordinance section . If council is in favor of
moving forward with the policy as proposed, staff will work with legal coun sel to draft an
ordinance and return to a future meeting to hold the public hearing and first reading for
adoption of the proposed ordinance.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: August 24, 2020
Written report: 8
Executive summary
Title: Request to vacate portions of unused utility easements at 8200 Minnetonka Boulevard
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is Categorized as a Required Action**
•None at this time. Please inform staff of questions you may have.
Policy consideration: Are the utility easements needed for public purposes?
Summary: The city received a petition from Paster Properties to vacate portions of utility
easements at 8200 Minnetonka Boulevard, also known as the Texa-Tonka Lanes. The 10-foot-
wide utility easement runs north to south through the site, underneath the building. The
easement, which was originally recorded in 1951, has never been used. Additionally, in 1958,
the Hennepin County District Court decided that this easement did not apply to the lot, though
the easement is still showing up in the property’s title documentation.
Paster Properties requests to vacate the utility easement in order to clean up the titles to the
property.
City council will hold a public hearing and a first reading of an Ordinance for the vacation
request on Sept. 8, 2020, followed by a second reading on Sept. 21, 2020.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Survey of lot showing utility easement location
Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, senior planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of August 24, 2020 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Title: Request to vacate portions of unused utility easements at 8200 Minnetonka Boulevard
Survey of 8200 Minnetonka Boulevard