HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021/01/25 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JAN. 25, 2021
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 Jan. 25, 2021 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. Boards and commissions
3. 8:15 p.m. Tentative 2021 study session calendar
4. 8:45 p.m. Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
8:50 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal)
8:55 p.m. Adjourn
Written reports
5. Community technology advisory commission smart cities initiative
6. 2021 housing program and budget summary
7. Sustainability division update for Q1 2021
8. Fourth quarter investment report (Oct. – Dec. 2020)
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: January 25, 2021
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
Recommended action: The purpose of this item is to update the city council regarding staff’s
speed limit evaluation and discuss next steps.
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. In March 2020, council directed staff to continue to investigate
the feasibility and impacts of changing speed limits within the city.
After presenting a draft speed limit evaluation to council in August 2020, staff has reviewed
council’s questions as well as additional considerations for race equity and inclusion,
environmental factors, and implementation details. Those topics are included in the updated
evaluation report.
Staff continues to recommend 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 the recommendation to set speed limits based on a safety, engineering
and traffic analysis, speed limit changes could occur in Summer 2021. Once a final speed
evaluation report is complete, the next step in implementation is to adopt an ordinance. To
stay on-schedule for summer implementation, the ordinance would be brought to council in
early spring 2021.
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.
The funding source is general obligation (GO) 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 updated citywide speed limit evaluation
Existing and recommended speed limit maps
DRAFT ordinance
Study session report, Aug. 24, 2020
Study session report, March 9, 2020
Prepared by: Ben Manibog, transportation engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (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 staff’s speed limit research was provided to the council at their March 9,
2020 study session and is attached for reference. At that meeting, council directed staff to
continue to investigate the feasibility and impacts of changing speed limits within the city.
At the Aug. 24, 2020 study session (attached), a draft speed limit evaluation report was
provided to council with preliminary citywide speed limit recommendations. At that meeting,
council directed staff to continue the speed limit evaluation and to bring the final draft to
council.
Also, at the August meeting, staff outlined additional topics and implementation considerations
that would be included in the final evaluation report when brought back to council. Those
topics are:
•Report considerations
o Race equity and inclusion
o Environmental factors
o Enforcement
•Implementation considerations
o City code
o Signs
o Traffic signals
o Communications and education
o Evaluation
At that meeting, council directed staff to continue the speed limit evaluation and to bring a final
draft to council. Councilmembers also had a few remaining questions about the crash analysis
and other topics, which are addressed at the end of the report.
Attached is the final draft speed limit evaluation. The document is broken into 15 sections: New
legislative authority, Policy, Goals, Guidance, National and local examples, Crash analysis, Safety
research, Traffic evaluation, Race equity and inclusion, Environmental benefits, Findings and
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
conclusions, Recommendations, Implementation, Communications, and Evaluation. Below is a
summary of changes (if any) to each section from what the council has seen before. See the
evaluation document for further detail on each of these sections.
New legislative authority: No changes were made to this section.
Policy: No changes were made to this section.
Goals: No changes were made to this section.
Guidance: Language was added about the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed changes
for consideration of setting speed limits in December 2020. The proposed changes are in-line
with previously discussed national guidance provided to council.
National and local examples: No changes were made to this section.
Crash analysis: Information was added in response to council questions regarding the city’s
crashes in context with nearby cities and the state.
Safety research: No changes were made to this section.
Traffic evaluation: No changes were made to this section.
Race equity and inclusion: Information was added about the relationship between race and
road safety, the percentage of White residents and vehicle speeds, the framework of our
approach to race equity and inclusion, and how that informed our speed limit factors,
evaluation, and enforcement.
Environmental benefits: Information was added on how staff did not find research showing a
direct positive or negative environmental benefit by lowering speed limits.
Findings and conclusions: Additional findings were added from the race equity and inclusion
section. An additional conclusion was added regarding race equity and inclusion.
Recommendations: Information was added on additional considerations for speed limit setting
regarding race equity and inclusion.
Implementation: Information was added on expected implementation steps, including
establishing city authority, signs, traffic signals, and enforcement.
Communications: Information was added on the city’s plan to educate community members on
future speed limit changes and their connection to safety.
Evaluation: Information was added on how the city plans to evaluate the effects of speed limit
changes.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
City council questions from Aug. 25, 2020 study session
The council asked staff to show the city’s vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian crashes in context;
How do we compare to nearby cities who are also changing their speed limits?
Crashes by severity
Over the study period, the city had a smaller percentage of fatal, serious injury, and minor
injury crashes compared to nearby cities. The city had a similar proportion of possible injury
and property damage crashes compared to nearby cities.
Crashes by mode
Over the study period, the city had a smaller proportion of pedestrian and bike crashes
compared to most nearby cities.
St. Louis Park Minneapolis Saint Paul Edina Golden Valley Minnesota
K - Fatal 2 39 26 0 0 1,023
A - Serious Injury 12 441 141 12 3 4,199
B - Minor Injury 125 2,618 951 120 53 22,786
C - Possible Injury 283 4,010 1,045 113 89 34,433
N - Prop Dmg Only 1,343 18,614 7,014 525 338 175,875
U - Unknown 260 5,144 2,203 2 5
0%
10%20%30%40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%100%
2017 -2019 crashes by severity
St. Louis Park Minneapolis Saint Paul Edina Golden Valley Minnesota
Pedestrian 33 1,206 558 22 5 3,081
Bike 31 755 226 18 12 2,101
Vehicle 1,961 28,905 10,596 732 471 233,134
90%
91%
92%
93%
94%
95%
96%
97%
98%
99%
100%
2017 -2019 crashes by mode
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
Fatal crash rate and targets
The city meets or nearly meets regional and statewide targets for fatal crash rates. The city also
has lower fatal crash rates than other cities with non-zero rates. However, the overall desired
crash rate is zero in which there are no fatal crashes in the city.
The metro area’s target is set by the Metropolitan Council in their Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). The statewide target is set by MnDOT. Crash rates are measured per 100-million
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to better compare different sized and differently used
transportation systems.
Serious injury crash rate and targets
0.425
0.990
0.825
0.000 0.0000.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
St. Louis Park Minneapolis Saint Paul Edina Golden Valley
2017 -2019 fatal crash rate per 100M VMT
MetCouncil TIP target MnDOT 5yr avg target
2.547
11.196
4.473
1.996
0.499
0.000
2.000
4.000
6.000
8.000
10.000
12.000
St. Louis Park Minneapolis Saint Paul Edina Golden Valley
2017 -2019 serious injury crash rate per 100M VMT
MetCouncil TIP target MnDOT 5yr avg target
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 6
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
The city meets or nearly meets regional and statewide targets for serious injury crash rates. The
city also has a lower or comparable serious injury crash rate compared to nearby cities.
However, the overall desired crash rate is zero in which there are no serious injury crashes in
the city. The crash rate targets and comparison measurements are the same as the fatal injury
crash graph.
Is there a percentage safety benefit from lowering a speed limit to 25 mph versus 20 mph?
There is a safety benefit for pedestrians if vehicles are moving slower (25 mph versus 20 mph).
However, lowering a speed limit does not guarantee a driver will follow that speed limit.
We cite the same study as the City of Minneapolis, where a pedestrian has a 40% chance of
dying or sustaining a serious injury if they are hit by a driver at 30 mph. That same pedestrian
has a 25% chance when struck at 25 mph and a 13% chance when struck at 20 mph.
We are setting speed limits to increase safety as well as meet the expectations of all road users.
We aim to set speed limits within 5 mph of the average or median speed, where drivers are
already comfortable driving. These speeds are most often lower than our current posted limits.
Drivers may believe the speed limits are not justified if they are set to unreasonable levels. Like
installing traffic controls where not justified, unreasonable speed limits may cause low
compliance. Low compliance and a false sense of security from other road users is a safety
hazard.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 7
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation
Can we see a graphic showing where crashes occur in the city?
Below is a graphic from MnDOT’s crash mapping program showing non-freeway crashes in the
city from 2017 to 2019. Each red dot represents a unique vehicle crash.
The graphic shows that non-freeway crashes occur on our busiest streets. Those streets, shown
with the highest density of dots, are County Road 25, Minnetonka Blvd, Excelsior Blvd,
Louisiana Ave, and Cedar Lake Rd. Only Louisiana Avenue and Cedar Lake Road are under city
jurisdiction.
Next steps: If the council supports the recommendation to set speed limits based on a safety,
engineering and traffic analysis, speed limit changes can occur in Summer 2021. Once a final
speed evaluation report is complete, the next step in implementation is to adopt an ordinance.
To stay on-schedule for summer implementation, the ordinance would be brought to council in
spring 2021.
To communicate the recommended speed limit changes, staff will be using the “inform” section
on the International Association for Public Participation’s (IAP2) spectrum of public
participation. Prior to bringing the ordinance to council, the community will be given an
opportunity to ask staff questions regarding the recommendations.
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
Draft 1/19/2021
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 provision (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 March 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.
•Active Living: Sidewalks and 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
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 8
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 setting 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 agencies 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.
•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:
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 9
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 October 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
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 10
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.
Racial 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.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 11
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.
• Living 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 way
that 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.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 12
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.
Living 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, and
the 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.
• 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.
• 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 updated
guidance.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 13
7 | Page
• National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
In 2017, the NTSB released a comprehensive report Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes
Involving Passenger Vehicles 1. 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 85th
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)”.
The 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 between
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).
The 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.
Based 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.
The current MUTCD 2offers the following standards (not guidance) for setting speed
limits:
1 NTSB. “Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles” Safety Study (2017)
2 FHWA. “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways” (2012)
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 14
8 | Page
• “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
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).
The 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).
The 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 3. 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 speed
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).
3 NCUTCD. “18B-RW-03” Proposal for Changes to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2019)
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 15
9 | Page
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).
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”.
On December 14, 2020, the Federal Highway Administration released their proposed
changes to the MUTCD. These proposed changes will be open for comments until March
15, 2021. Among these proposed changes, the FHWA notes a decreased priority in
considering 85th percentile speeds in setting speed limits 4.
• “…proposes changes to reinforce the stated understanding that other factors, in
addition to the 85th-percentile speed, have a role in setting speed limits”.
• “…85th percentile speed…should be considered, particularly for freeways and
expressways…”.
The FHWA also requested comment on additional recommendations from the NTSB
report:
• “Removal of the 85th-percentile speed as a consideration in setting speed limits
regardless of the type of roadway (this recommendation was based in part on
the assumption that that the 85th-percentile speed can increase over time as a
result of the posted speed limit)”.
• “The requirement to use an expert system to validate a speed limit that has
been determined through engineering study”.
These changes are in-line with previously discussed findings in this report.
• 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 5 provides urban speed limit guidance and was
released in late July 2020.
NACTO’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).
4 National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for
Streets and Highways; Revision, 85 Fed. Reg. 80898 (Dec 14, 2020).
5 NACTO. “City Limits: Setting Safe Speed Limits on Urban Streets” (Summer 2020)
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 16
10 | Page
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).
If 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).
If 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).
If 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
contextually 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
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).
The 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.
Their 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.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 17
11 | Page
• 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 decisions 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 draft guidance and recommendations.
The 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
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 Access (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:
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 18
12 | Page
• Collector and arterial 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”.
In 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.
The 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 setting 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.
The 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.
6. National and local examples
• 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
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 19
13 | Page
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
• 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:
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 20
14 | Page
• 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 appropriate 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
context 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.
• 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 others 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.
In order for Renton to consider a request to reduce speed limits from 25 mph to 20 mph
the 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, business
owners, and residents in the neighborhood.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 21
15 | Page
iv. The request will be brought to the city council where staff may recommend
approval, 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.
The 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. In
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 retained 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 an
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.
• 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 zones
iii. Adjustments – changes based on engineering judgement or study
The 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.
The engineering work and sign replacements were all done in-house. The costs for the
changes was lumped into the annual sign replacement budget.
7. 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 in 2021.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 22
16 | Page
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.
Crashes by severity
Over the study period, the city had a smaller percentage of fatal, serious injury, and minor injury
crashes compared to nearby cities. The city had a similar proportion of possible injury and
property damage crashes compared to nearby cities.
Crashes by mode
St. Louis Park Minneapolis Saint Paul Edina Golden Valley Minnesota
K - Fatal 2 39 26 0 0 1,023
A - Serious Injury 12 441 141 12 3 4,199
B - Minor Injury 125 2,618 951 120 53 22,786
C - Possible Injury 283 4,010 1,045 113 89 34,433
N - Prop Dmg Only 1,343 18,614 7,014 525 338 175,875
U - Unknown 260 5,144 2,203 2 5
0%10%20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%90%100%
2017 -2019 crashes by severity
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 23
17 | Page
Over the study period, the city had a smaller proportion of pedestrian and bike crashes
compared to most nearby cities.
Fatal crash rate and targets
The city meets or nearly meets regional and statewide targets for fatal crash rates. The city also
has lower fatal crash rates than other cities with non-zero rates. However, the overall desired
crash rate is zero in which there are no fatal crashes in the city.
The metro area’s target is set by the Metropolitan Council in their Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). The statewide target is set by MnDOT. Crash rates are measured per 100-million
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to better compare different sized and differently used
transportation systems.
St. Louis Park Minneapolis Saint Paul Edina Golden Valley Minnesota
Pedestrian 33 1,206 558 22 5 3,081
Bike 31 755 226 18 12 2,101
Vehicle 1,961 28,905 10,596 732 471 233,134
90%
91%
92%
93%
94%
95%
96%
97%
98%
99%
100%
2017 -2019 crashes by mode
0.425
0.990
0.825
0.000 0.0000.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
St. Louis Park Minneapolis Saint Paul Edina Golden Valley
2017 -2019 fatal crash rate per 100M VMT
MetCouncil TIP target MnDOT 5yr avg target
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 24
18 | Page
Serious injury crash rate and targets
The city meets or nearly meets regional and statewide targets for serious injury crash rates. The
city also has a lower or comparable serious injury crash rate compared to nearby cities.
However, the overall desired crash rate is zero in which there are no serious injury crashes in the
city. The crash rate targets and comparison measurements are the same as the fatal injury crash
graph.
8. 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).
2.547
11.196
4.473
1.996
0.499
0.000
2.000
4.000
6.000
8.000
10.000
12.000
St. Louis Park Minneapolis Saint Paul Edina Golden Valley
2017 -2019 serious injury crash rate per 100M VMT
MetCouncil TIP target MnDOT 5yr avg target
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 25
19 | Page
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
Data 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 pedestrian 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)
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 26
20 | 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”.
The 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.
The 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.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 27
21 | Page
9. St. Louis Park traffic evaluation
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 to
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 and
includes 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 utilizes data collected within the previous three years
and includes speeds from 314 locations on city streets.
Data 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)
The 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
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 28
22 | 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
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.
10. Race equity and inclusion (REI) considerations
Race and road safety
As a part of the city’s strategic priorities and goals, a race equity lens should be applied to all city
work and city decisions. Race is a factor in the safety outcomes of road users of all modes.
Similarly, structural and individual racism (conscious or unconscious) further existing disparities
in safety for Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC).
From a study done by Smart Growth America 6, BIPOC were more likely than White people to be
struck and killed by a driver. Drivers yield less often to Black pedestrians compared to White
pedestrians as observed from a study in Portland, Oregon 7. A different study in Las Vegas 8 found
that in higher-income neighborhoods, drivers failed to yield to Black pedestrians 21% of the time
compared to White pedestrians at 3%. The same study found that drivers yielded more often for
women compared to men.
The city’s existing vehicle speed data was compared to demographic information collected by
the American Community Survey in 2018. Based on our existing speed data, vehicles drove
slower in areas with a higher percentage of White residents. The dots represent census block
groups and the dashed line is a linear trend line.
6 Dangerous By Design (2019) by Smart Growth America
7 Racial bias in driver yielding behavior at crosswalks (2015) by Goddard, Kahn, and Adkins
8 Examining racial bias as a potential factor in pedestrian crashes (2017) by Coughenour et al.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 29
23 | Page
The correlation of higher percentages of White residents and slower streets is affected by
factors including housing discrimination, land use, and the road system.
Racial covenants (racially restrictive housing deeds) beginning in the 1910s and formally ending
with the 1968 Fair Housing Act, prevented non-White people from purchasing single family
housing. According to Mapping Prejudice 9, racial covenants existed and remain on many housing
deeds in St. Louis Park. Legacies of racial covenants include lower BIPOC house ownership and
less diversity in areas that had covenants. Also, single family housing areas are often placed
away from the busiest roads in the city, while multifamily housing are often built closer to busier
roads.
Multifamily housing is also often adjacent to more traffic-intensive land uses such as other
multifamily housing, commercial, office, planned unit development (PUD), business park, and
industrial uses. In contrast, single family housing is often set near other single-family housing or
parks and open space which are less traffic intensive.
Land use sets the needs of the transportation system. Because multifamily housing is set around
other traffic-intensive uses, the adjacent road system is built for more vehicles and often
designed for faster speeds. Single family housing is often in areas designed for less vehicles with
narrower, disconnected, or cul-de-sac streets, which decrease traffic volumes and vehicle
speeds.
Race and speed limits
Historically, lowered speed limits occurred in more White and affluent neighborhoods when
implemented or those neighborhoods over time have become Whiter than the city as a whole.
There are four areas in the city that obtained lower speed limits through petition: Westwood
Hills, Lake Forest, Cobblecrest/Aquila, and Willow Park. These neighborhoods petitioned the city
and MnDOT to conduct a speed study from the late 1960s to the early 1980s. In each instance,
9 https://mappingprejudice.umn.edu/
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
35%45%55%65%75%85%95%85th %-ile speed in mph% White population in census block group
85th percentile speed by % White population
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 30
24 | Page
the speed limit was lowered from 30 mph to 25 mph. Shown in the tables below are the census
tracts where those changes occurred, the percentage of White population, and the mean and
median incomes.
• Aquila/Cobblecrest – Census tracts 223.01 and 223.02
Aquila Ave, 34th St and Aquila Ln were lowered to 25 mph from 30 mph in 1969. 223.01 223.02 citywide
1970 % White population 98.6% 99.4% 99.2%
2018 % White population 87.2% 78.7% 82.4%
1970 median income (1970$) $ 17,707.00 $ 11,203.00 $ 12,483.00
2018 median income (2018$) $ 70,121.00 $ 50,903.00 $ 75,690.00
1970 mean income (1970$) $ 19,499.00 $ 11,419.00 $ 14,203.00
2018 mean income (2018$) $ 87,457.00 $ 77,759.00 $ 95,972.00
• Willow Park – Census tract 221.02
22nd St and Quebec Ave were lowered to 25 mph from 30 mph in 1969. 221.02 citywide
1970 % White population 99.2% 99.2%
2018 % White population 81.2% 82.4%
1970 median income (1970$) $ 13,563.00 $ 12,483.00
2018 median income (2018$) $ 61,908.00 $ 75,690.00
1970 mean income (1970$) $ 14,690.00 $ 14,203.00
2018 mean income (2018$) $ 78,598.00 $ 95,972.00
• Westwood Hills – Census tract 222
Westmoreland Ln and Franklin Ave were lowered to 25 mph from 30 mph in 1979. 222 Citywide
1980 % White population 97.6% 97.9%
2018 % White population 90.4% 82.4%
1980 median income (1980$) $ 28,732.00 $ 21,362.00
2018 median income (2018$) $ 77,612.00 $ 75,690.00
1980 mean income (1980$) $ 35,252.00 $ 25,344.00
2018 mean income (2018$) $ 107,368.00 $ 95,972.00
• Lake Forest – Census tract 228.01
Parkwoods Rd, Cedarwoods Rd, Parklands Rd, and Forest Rd were lowered to 25 mph from 30
mph in 1984. 228.01 Citywide
1980 % White population 98.6% 97.9%
2018 % White population 90.1% 82.4%
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 31
25 | Page
1980 median income (1980$) $ 36,937.00 $ 21,362.00
2018 median income (2018$) $ 141,458.00 $ 75,690.00
1980 mean income (1980$) $ 52,776.00 $ 25,344.00
2018 mean income (2018$) $ 176,967.00 $ 95,972.00
Having more time or resources to petition the city should not determine whether you have
lower speed limits. Furthermore, while petitions themselves can be seen as “race neutral”, the
positive outcomes tend to benefit White and affluent residents compared to BIPOC and less
affluent residents.
Framework
To work to counter these inequities, a targeted universalism approach was taken to ensure
equitable distribution of safety improvements. As defined by University of California-Berkeley,
targeted universalism is:
“…setting universal goals pursued by targeted processes to achieve those
goals…universal goals are established for all groups concerned…[and] the strategies
developed to achieve those goals are targeted, based upon how different groups are
situated within structures, culture, and across geographies to obtain the universal goal”.
In short, to make a policy equitable, one has to actively target marginalized groups through
policy decisions in order for those groups to achieve the same (or better) outcomes. This
framework comes through the speed limit evaluation in two ways, speed limit setting factors
and evaluation.
Speed limit setting factors
A universalist mindset for speed limits (where all people will realize safer streets) is to lower the
speed limit on all streets equally, therefore everyone has safer streets. Missing from that
evaluation is acknowledging that neighborhoods have a different racial, economic, or land use
make-up. Instead, by using a targeted universalism approach, setting speed limits can
acknowledge that different sections of our population use different modes of transportation
and that pedestrian and transit infrastructure differ from neighborhood to neighborhood.
For instance, BIPOC residents of St. Louis Park are less likely to commute by personal vehicle and
less likely to work from home 10. To target the safety of non-vehicle trips, which are more likely
to be BIPOC residents, transit service, continuous sidewalks or trails, and residential zones
(multi- and single-family) were incorporated into the speed limit evaluation.
If a street does not have a continuous sidewalk or trail, the street is first considered for 20 mph.
If there is not a dedicated off-street place to walk, residents have to walk on the street. Slower
vehicle speeds on those roads are safer for pedestrians and bicyclists.
If a street has some form of transit (bus or SWLRT), it is first considered for 25 mph. Keeping
transit streets at 25 mph allows buses to maintain reliable schedules while also lowering their
10 Means of transportation to work, American Community Survey (2019)
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 32
26 | Page
current speed limit. However, in cases where there is no sidewalk or trail, transit users must use
the street and the road is considered for 20 mph.
After a first round of speed limit assignments, a second round was taken with average speeds in
mind. Generally, if roads met a higher speed limit criteria but average drivers traveled lower
than that speed limit, the lower limit was recommended. The goal of new speed limits is to meet
the expectations of drivers, other road users, and residents. This was done especially in
residential zones and areas where there are no sidewalks or trails. A similar approach was taken
with roads with faster average speeds than the first speed limit assignment. Lower speed limits
were prioritized in residential areas and places where there are no sidewalks or trails, even if
average speeds were slightly higher.
Enforcement
Like safety outcomes, race is a factor in the enforcement of speed across the country. Studies in
Lafayette, Louisiana 11, Detroit 12, and North Carolina 13 have found that Black drivers are more
likely to receive a speed warning stop, receive a speeding ticket, and be arrested for speeding,
especially when police officer discretion was the most pronounced.
A person’s race or ethnicity is not currently recorded at the state or local level when they are
stopped by police. So, those numbers are not available for this study to compare to the above
research. If a statewide or other study is completed in the future, or if that kind of data becomes
available, the results will be considered with any further implementation of speed limits.
No additional police staffing or resources are proposed around the enforcement of new speed
limits. The police and engineering departments will monitor traffic conditions throughout and
after implementation and make changes to enforcement as necessary.
11. Environmental benefits
In consulting with the building and energy department, staff did not find research showing a
direct positive or negative environmental benefit by lowering speed limits. If any such research
is found or published before or after implementation, it will be reviewed and considered in later
changes to speed limits.
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.
11 Man vs. Machine: An investigation of speeding ticket disparities based on gender and race (2017) by
Sarah Marx Quintanar
12 Driving while Black in suburban Detroit (2010) by Timothy Bates
13 Police stops, pretext, and racial profiling: Explaining warning and ticket stops using citizen self-reports
(2008) by Kirk Miller
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 33
27 | Page
• 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.
• The current speed limits do not reflect the expectations of residents, drivers, and other
road users. The current speed limit is higher than most drivers are comfortable traveling
and lowering it will support safety on those streets.
• There is a correlation between a higher percentage of white residents and lower vehicle
speeds in the city.
• Historically, lowered speed limits occurred in more White and affluent neighborhoods
or those neighborhoods over time have become Whiter than the city as a whole.
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
o Support the city’s strategic goal of being a leader in racial equity and inclusion.
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
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.
• 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
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 34
28 | Page
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 speed
limit.
• A street or segment was recommended for a 25-mph speed limit if it met all of the
following:
o Half-mile segment or more
o Regular bus service OR adjacent to SWLRT platform OR ADT > 2,000
o 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:
o Half-mile segment OR road with split border with another city
o 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:
o 0 – 2 intersections or major crossings per half mile
o Limited or no pedestrian access
• Alleys will retain a 10 MPH speed limit.
After these initial speed limit assignments, a second consideration was taken looking at average
speeds.:
• If roads met a higher speed limit criteria, but average drivers traveled lower than the
speed limit, the lower limit was recommended. Additional consideration was made for
areas with predominantly residential zoning and areas without sidewalks or trails.
• A similar approach was taken with roads with faster average speeds than the first speed
limit assignment. Lower speed limits were prioritized in residential areas and places
where there are no sidewalks or trails, even if average speeds were slightly higher.
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 pedestrians 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.
• 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.
14. Implementation
This section includes a summary of next steps to support these speed limit changes. It is
recommended that the implementation of the speed limits laid out in this report be
accomplished in 2021.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 35
29 | Page
Establishing city authority
Staff has consulted the city attorney to understand the process for the city to establish speed
limits on city streets. He has indicated that first, the city must meet the standards in Minn. Stat.
§169.14 subd. 5h, which are:
1. The implementation of the speed limit changes must be consistent and understandable.
2. The city must erect appropriate signs to display the speed limit.
3. The city must develop procedures to set speed limits based on safety, engineering and
traffic analysis, which may at minimum must consider:
a. national urban speed limit guidance and studies
b. local traffic crashes
c. methods to effectively communicate the change to the public
This speed limit evaluation report is intended to be the public document that lays out the
procedures to set speed limits in St Louis Park, thereby meeting the standards in statute. The
city attorney further indicated an ordinance would enable the city authority set speed limits.
Signs
The city will provide appropriate signage to communicate speed limits. The core features of the
signage plan:
• Speed limit signs will be salvaged or replaced citywide with changes in speed limits. The
new signs will resemble existing signage.
• Signage will be installed at gateway locations on major collector and arterial roadways
showing the citywide speed limit in St Louis Park is 20 mph unless otherwise posted.
These signs may also be placed periodically in non-gateway locations as appropriate.
• Speed limit signage on streets where the speed limit is above 20 mph. Locations of signs
for speed limits above 20 mph will be guided by:
o At speed limit transition points;
o Near intersections with arterial or other high-traffic streets; and
o At least once every mile and at least 1/4-mile apart.
• Signage for streets with 20 mph speed limits may be posted at speed limit transition
points.
The implementation of speed limit signage will occur in four stages. First, Hennepin County and
MnDOT will adjust any speed limit signage as needed on their roads and ramps. Then, roads
with a recommended speed limit of 25 mph or higher will be signed. These are signed corridor-
by-corridor. After, 20 mph signs will be installed on streets that transition from higher speed
limits. Lastly, gateway signs will be installed on the perimeter of the city. The gateway signs,
similar to Minneapolis and Saint Paul, will read “CITYWIDE SPEED LIMIT 20 UNLESS OTHERWISE
SIGNED”.
Traffic signals
To implement new speed limits, traffic signals need to be retimed. The calculations for traffic
signal timing are based on existing speed limits. So, the city will contract with a consultant to
retime city-owned traffic signals. Hennepin County, MnDOT, and the City of Minneapolis also
own signals that are affected by the changes. The city will work with our agency partners to
make the necessary changes to those signals. All signalized intersections in the city will be
reviewed in 2021.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 36
30 | Page
Enforcement
St. Louis Park will start with focusing on education of the speed limit change through
communications and outreach rather than enforcement. No additional police staffing or
resources are proposed around the enforcement of new speed limits.
15. Communications and education plan
The city will implement a proactive communications and outreach plan to educate community
members about the new speed limits. The city will use the speed limit changes as an
opportunity to highlight the important connection between traffic speed and safety.
Core message: Slower is safer. Slower speeds on our local streets make travel safer for
everyone, no matter how they get around.
Messages around new speed limits
• To support safer streets, St. Louis Park is lowering speed limits on most streets.
• The new speed limit will be 20 mph on low traffic city-owned streets unless otherwise
signed.
• Medium traffic city-owned streets will generally be signed at 25 mph.
• Speed limits on high traffic city-owned streets, county roads and MnDOT highways will
continue to be signed at 30 mph or higher.
• If you are in doubt about the speed limit, go 20 mph. Slower is always safer for you and
people around you.
• Follow all posted speed limit signs. If there are no signs, the speed limit is 20 mph.
Additional messages will explain the safety benefits of lower speeds and the details of the
process around selecting and implementing the new speed limits.
Communications and outreach strategies
In working with the communications department, staff has developed a toolkit of resources to
inform and educate community members on speed limit changes. They include, but are not
limited to:
• Virtual communications
o City webpage dedicated for speed limits
o Social media posts
o Email blasts
o PSA video
• Print communications
o Park Perspective
o Mailed postcards
o Newspapers
• Other outreach
o Yard signs
o Stickers
o Neighborhood and city events (pending COVID)
Detailed communications and outreach tactics based on these strategies will be used. Education
strategies and actions will be evaluated and adapted as needed.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 37
31 | Page
16. Evaluation
Engineering will complete and present an initial evaluation of speed limit changes to the city
council within three years of implementation of speed limit changes. The evaluation is expected
to include:
• Results from a traffic speed study in the summer of 2022
• A comparison of crashes on city streets with two years of data before and after the
speed limit change.
• The police and engineering departments will monitor traffic conditions throughout and
after implementation to inform the evaluation.
• Any future recommendations around speed limits, supporting safe traffic speeds, or
additional evaluation.
Additionally, revaluation of speed limits would occur as a part of planned construction projects
and transit route changes.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 38
32 | Page
Thank you to those who helped gather information and advised on this evaluation including:
• Ben Manibog, Engineering, City of St. Louis Park
• Deb Heiser, Engineering, City of St. Louis Park
• Luke Ingram, Engineering, City of St. Louis Park
• Jeff Stevens, Public works, City of St. Louis Park
• Matt Druley, Public works, City of St. Louis Park
• Mike Garland, Police, City of St. Louis Park
• Siar Nadem, Police, City of St. Louis Park
• Anthony Pacholke, Police, City of St. Louis Park
• Christine Tuuri, Police, City of St. Louis Park
• Jacque Smith, Communications, City of St. Louis Park
• Dan Castaneda, Information resources, City of St. Louis Park
• Gary Morrison, Community development, City of St. Louis Park
• Sean Walther, Community development, City of St. Louis Park
• Alicia Sojourner, Race equity and inclusion, City of St. Louis Park
• Emily Ziring, Building and energy, City of St. Louis Park
• Annie Pottorf, Building and energy, City of St. Louis Park
• Ethan Fawley, City of Minneapolis
• Allan Krugman, City of Minneapolis
• Steve Mosing, City of Minneapolis
• Randy Newman, City of Saint Paul
• Fay Simer, City of Saint Paul
• Andrew Scipioni, City of Edina
• Max Moreland, MnDOT
• Jonah Finkelstein, Spack Solutions
• Tom Sohrweide, SEH Inc.
• Chelsea Ritchie, SEH Inc.
• Chris Barnes, City of Renton, WA
• Sarang Lagvankar, City of Wheaton, IL
• Diahn Swartz, Town of Marana, AZ
• Fausto Burrel, Town of Marana, AZ
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 39
Fig 1: Existing speed limits on city roads
0 1 20.5
Miles
Legend
Non-city or private streets
25
30
35
40
Existing speed limit
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 40
Recommended speed limits 1/19/21
Legend
Non-city or private roads
20
25
30
35
0 1 20.5
Miles
Proposed speed limit
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 41
Ordinance No. ____21
City of St. Louis Park
Hennepin County, Minnesota
An ordinance amending Chapter 30 of the
St. Louis Park City Code relating to traffic and vehicles
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Section 1. Chapter 30 of the City Code shall be amended by adding thereto a new ______ to
read as follows:
Speed on city streets. The city engineer may establish speed limits for city streets under
the city’s jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions set forth at Minnesota Statutes
Section 169.14. A comprehensive listing and the procedures relied upon to establish
speed limits under this section shall be kept on file by the engineering director and will be
made readily available for public inspection.
Section 2. The Engineering Department and the City Engineer shall produce a speed limit
evaluation taking into account the factors listed in Minnesota Statute Section 169.14 subd. 5h.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall take effect following its passage and publication on _____,
2021.
Adopted this ______ day of _______________, 2021, by the City Council of the City of
St. Louis Park.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council (insert date)
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Citywide speed limit evaluation Page 42
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: January 25, 2021
Discussion item: 2
Executive summary
Title: Boards and commissions
Recommended action: Provide time for council to discuss various aspects of the city’s boards
and commissions.
Policy consideration:
•Does the city council need additional information about the annual recruitment process
for the city’s boards and commissions?
•Does the city council have additional questions regarding the city’s boards and
commissions?
Summary: The council asked for a study session discussion on various aspects of the city’s
boards and commissions. During this meeting, staff will present the schedule for the annual
recruitment and appointment process. The appointments to the seven boards and commissions
occurs annually. The application period for the annual appointment process began Jan. 4, 2021
and will remain open until Feb. 28, 2021.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the annual boards and commission meeting will be
rescheduled. Staff will revisit the possibility of holding a meeting later this year. Staff liaisons
will work with board and commissions to draft their work plans which will be presented to the
council later this year.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration:
•St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create
a more just and inclusive community for all.
•St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship.
•St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood
oriented development.
•St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way
around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
•St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through
community engagement.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Boards and commissions
Discussion
Annual recruitment and appointment process
Appointments to the seven boards and commissions occurs annually. The application period for
the annual appointment process began Jan. 4, 2021. City staff will advertise and recruit until
Feb. 28, 2021. In March, the city council will review and evaluate the applications submitted.
Candidate interviews will be held late April. Formal appointments will go to the city council for
approval at the second regular meeting in May. Terms for newly appointed board/commission
members begin May 31.
Proposed annual recruitment schedule:
Date Action
January – February 1.Advertisement & recruitment activities
2.Application available online
February 28 Application deadline
Week of March 1 Applications provided to Council for review & scoring
March 29 Council scores due & selection of candidates for interviews
Week of April 5 Notify candidates of application status and schedule interviews
April Candidate interviews (virtual)
May 10 Appointment recommendations due to staff
May 17 Formal approval of appointments
Interview panels:
During last year’s process, the council participated in interview panels consisting of no more than
three council members and the commission chair. The interview panels then provided their
recommendations to the whole council. Staff received comments from board and commissions
chairs of appreciation for their involvement. Commission chairs have asked to provide input
during earlier stages of the process including in the decision of who gets interviewed.
Annual boards and commission meeting and work plans
Annual board and commission meeting:
The annual meeting for boards & commissions with the city council typically takes place in
February. This year’s meeting will be rescheduled pending COVID-19 restrictions.
Annual work plans:
Annual work plans ensure that the priorities of the city council and boards and commissions
are aligned and that the city has the appropriate resources to support board and commission
work. The annual work plan process enables boards and commissions to propose their goals
and initiatives for the upcoming year and provides the city council with the opportunity to
review, comment, and discuss the information with each board/commission before giving final
direction on priorities.
Staff liaisons will work with the city’s board and commissions to draft their work plans. The city
council will review the proposed work plans and provide feedback. Staff will schedule 30-
minute meetings with each commission later this year. The work plans can be modified to add
or delete items by mutual agreement during a work session or by city council approval at a
council meeting. The city council can direct a change to any of the board and commissions
work plans at their discretion.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: January 25, 2021
Discussion item: 3
Executive summary
Title: Tentative 2021 study session calendar
Recommended action: The council is asked to review the tentative 2021 study session calendar
and provide input and guidance.
Policy consideration: How should future study session agenda topics be prioritized to stay at
the “biggest bowl” relative to the council’s strategic priorities?
Summary: The attached tentative 2021 study session calendar provides an overview of
upcoming study sessions. The items in green are annual reoccurring council discussions. Dates
shaded in yellow are either full or close to being full. Items on the calendar may change or shift
as needed.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration
•St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to
create a more just and inclusive community for all.
•St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship.
•St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood
oriented development.
•St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way
around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
•St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through
community engagement.
Supporting documents: 2021 study session calendar
Prepared by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
*Annual TIF district management report 1:00 Citywide speed limit evaluation 1:00 Housing programs and funding resources
update
1:00 Policing discussion - continuted 1:30 Community technology advisory commission
smart cities initiative
1:00 2021 Market Value Overview 1:00
Funding for climate action plan 1:00 Boards and commissions discussion 0:45 Connect the Park - Review updated goals and
strategies
1:15 P4 Revisit housing setbacks, FAR, & more
related to affordable housing
1:00 Racial equity check-in/learning 1:00 Follow-up discussion on funding of Climate
Action Plan
1:00
Q1 2021 study session review and prioritization 0:30 P5 Home based businesses 0:45
Future study session agenda planning 0:05 Future study session agenda planning 0:05 Future study session agenda planning 0:05 Future study session agenda planning 0:05 Future study session agenda planning 0:05 Future study session agenda planning 0:05
Communications/meeting check in (verbal) 0:05 Communications/meeting check in (verbal) 0:05 Communications/meeting check in (verbal) 0:05 Communications/meeting check in (verbal) 0:05 Communications/meeting check in (verbal) 0:05 Communications/meeting check in (verbal) 0:05
2:10 2:25 3:10 2:40 2:10 2:40
*LBAE convene date 0:15 *LBAE reconvene 1:30 *2021 Budget Discussion 1:30 Board & commission workplan review (TBD)0:30 Racial equity check-in/learning 1:00 *Information on CIP, debt and long range
financial planning
1:30
Board & commission workplan review (TBD)0:30 Board & commission workplan review (TBD)0:30 Board & commission workplan review (TBD)0:30 Community technology advisory commission
smart cities initiative – part 2
1:00
Q2 Board & commission workplan review (TBD)0:30 Board & commission workplan review (TBD)0:30
Future study session agenda planning 0:05 Future study session agenda planning 0:05 Future study session agenda planning 0:05 Future study session agenda planning 0:05 Future study session agenda planning 0:05 Future study session agenda planning 0:05
Communications/meeting check in (verbal) 0:05 Communications/meeting check in (verbal) Communications/meeting check in (verbal) 0:05 Communications/meeting check in (verbal) 0:05 Communications/meeting check in (verbal)0:05 Communications/meeting check in (verbal)0:05
1:25 1:35 2:40 1:10 2:10 1:40
*Budget discussion 2:00 *2021 Budget 1:30 *Legislative Priorities discussion 0:45
Q3 Racial equity check-in/learning 1:00
Future study session agenda planning 0:05 Future study session agenda planning 0:05 Future study session agenda planning 0:05 Future study session agenda planning 0:05 Future study session agenda planning 0:05 Future study session agenda planning 0:05
Communications/meeting check in (verbal) 0:05 Communications/meeting check in (verbal) 0:05 Communications/meeting check in (verbal) 0:05 Communications/meeting check in (verbal) 0:05 Communications/meeting check in (verbal) 0:05 Communications/meeting check in (verbal) 0:05
0:10 0:10 2:10 0:10 2:40 0:55
*2021 CIP and LRFMP (long range financial
management plan)
2:00 *Legislative Priorities discussion 0:45 *Annual TIF district management report 1:00 Racial equity check-in/learning 1:00
*2021 Budget and capital improvement plan
update (if needed)
1:30
Q4
Future study session agenda planning 0:05 Future study session agenda planning 0:05 Future study session agenda planning 0:05 Future study session agenda planning 0:05 Future study session agenda planning 0:05 Future study session agenda planning 0:05
Communications/meeting check in (verbal) 0:05 Communications/meeting check in (verbal) 0:05 Communications/meeting check in (verbal) 0:05 Communications/meeting check in (verbal) 0:05 Communications/meeting check in (verbal) 0:05 Communications/meeting check in (verbal) 0:05
2:10 0:10 0:55 2:40 1:10 0:10
Meeting full
*annual council discussion item
27
October November December
11 25 8 22 13
July August September
12 26 9 23 13 27
22
April May June
12 26 10 24 14 28
11 25 8 22 8
2021 Council Study Session Calendar
January February March
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 3) Title: Tentative 2021 study session calendar Page 2
SWLRT PLACES art temporary installment
locations 0:30
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: January 25, 2021
Discussion item: 4
Executive summary
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Recommended action: The city council and city manager to set the agenda the special study
session on Feb. 1, 2021 and the regularly scheduled study session on Feb. 8, 2021.
Policy consideration: Not applicable.
Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the special study session on Feb. 1,
2021 and the regularly scheduled study session on Feb.8, 2021.
Also attached to this report is:
-Study session discussion topics and timeline
-Proposed topics for future study session discussion:
Topic Proposed by Councilmember
Requiring family-size units as part of our inclusionary
housing policy
Margaret Rog
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Tentative agenda – Feb. 1 and Feb. 8, 2021
Study session discussion topics and timeline
Study session topic proposal
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 January 25, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
FEB.1, 2021.
5:45 p.m. Special study session - To be held via videoconference
Tentative discussion items
1.Update on federal legislative items – administrative services (30 minutes)
The city’s federal lobbyist, Emily Tranter (Primacy Strategy Group), will provide an update to
council on upcoming federal legislation.
FEB.8, 2021.
6:30 p.m. Study session - To be held via videoconference
Tentative discussion items
2.Housing programs and funding resources update – community development (60 minutes)
Staff will present an overview of the city’s current and proposed housing initiatives and programs
for 2021 along with a summary of the funding sources.
3.Connect the Park – review updated goals and strategies – engineering (75 minutes)
Staff will recap the updated goals and strategies of Connect the Park with a focus on the metrics
used to measure their success.
4.P5 Home-based businesses – community development (45 minutes)
The city council asked to discuss changes to the zoning rules for home occupations. The changes
loosen restrictions to allow activity in accessory buildings, allow one or more outside employees
that come to the residence, and other similar changes. Staff and planning commission prepared a
list of potential amendments that were shared in a written report to council on January 11, 2021.
City council asked to discuss the matter before advancing any of the proposed changes.
5.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
5.Proposed allocation of 2021 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
6.SLP Living TIF request
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 4) 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. 2nd qtr. 2021
4 Revisit housing setback, FAR, &
more related to affordable housing Going to planning commission for discussion. Discuss 2/22/21
5 Home-based businesses (HBB) Written report 1/11/21 Discuss 2/8/21
6 Public forums at council mtgs 9/23/19 SS. Staff doing research of other cities. 2nd qtr. 2021
8 Community and neighborhood
sidewalk designations To be combined w/ Connect the Park discussion. 2nd qtr. 2021
9
Remove mint & menthol
exemption from existing flavored
tobacco policy
On hold pending court decision *On hold
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 Staff is preparing information for council Report 2/22/21
+
Creating pathways to home
ownership for BIPOC individuals
and families
TBD
+ Youth on commissions 1st reading on 1/4/21, second reading 1/19/21 2nd reading 1/19/21
+
Boards and commissions:
recruitment & appointment
process, other
Discuss 1/25/21
+ Transportation commission TBD
Council items in progress
Priority Discussion topic Comments Next Steps
7 STEP discussion: facilities Council asked staff to consider lending options
to assist STEP in buying a new bldg. On hold
+ Policing discussion Discussed 7/27/20 & 9/29/20. Discuss 2/22/21
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: January 25, 2021
Written report: 5
Executive summary
Title: Community technology advisory commission smart cities initiative
Recommended action: No action required. This report is to provide information and to ensure
commission members are prepared to answer council questions at the March 8, 2021, study
session presentation and discussion on smart cities initiatives.
Policy consideration: Does the work the community technology advisory commission has
undertaken so far with smart cities meet the expectations of the city council? Does the council
have any questions, ideas or perspectives that should be taken into consideration as planning
continues and in preparation for the March 8 discussion with the commission?
Summary: The community technology advisory commission has embarked on a smart cities
project with the goal of aligning any suggested smart city initiatives with the city council’s
strategic priorities. Identified smart city use cases are focused on finding and delivering
improved quality of life for all residents and creating a more efficient, responsive, and
sustainable city.
Financial or budget considerations: The city has hired consultant Insight Digital Innovations to
work with the commission to define smart city objectives that are aligned with the council’s
strategic priorities. Those objectives will be presented by commission members at the March 8
city council study session. If council agrees with the direction of the commission, more work will
take place to determine budget considerations associated with proposed smart cities initiatives.
Strategic priority consideration: The commission is keeping in mind each of the council’s
strategic priorities when developing proposed smart cities initiatives. However, current areas of
focus align most closely with the following council strategic priorities:
•Being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive
community for all.
•Continuing to lead in environmental stewardship.
•Providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably,
safely, and reliably.
•Creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement
Supporting documents: Discussion
Smart cities workshop results
Smart cities committee charters
Prepared by: Jacque Smith, communications and marketing manager
Reviewed by: Clint Pires, chief information officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Community technology advisory commission smart cities initiative
Discussion
Background: Following work in 2019 to redefine its mission and goals, the community
technology advisory commission turned its attention in 2020 to how the concept and practice
of smart cities might be applied in St. Louis Park. The first goal was to host a smart cities
workshop in early 2020 which would then help direct the commission’s work for the remainder
of the year. The workshop was delayed until fall 2020 due to diversion of staff resources to
respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In September, commission members and city staff representing all city departments
participated in an online survey designed to collect ideas and inform the workshop direction,
planned for an online half-day session in October. At the workshop, Insight staff helped
participants understand the concept and practice of smart cities, defined in this case as
application of technology to improve quality of life.
From there commission members and city staff used the pre-workshop survey results to
identify possible use cases for smart cities initiatives, then prioritized those use cases against
both measurable benefits and the council’s strategic priorities. By the end of the workshop,
which extended to a second half-day session, three main themes emerged: connected
community, environment and geographical information systems (GIS).
In its subsequent November 2020 regular meeting, the commission established three
committees, one for each theme. The committees included commission members and city staff.
The committees were directed to develop charters outlining goals, methods, initial tasks, and
opportunities for investigation. Those charters were presented at the December 2020 meeting
of the commission and are included in this report.
Since then, the committees have been working with Insight facilitators and city staff to create a
use case definition for the prospective smart cities initiatives identified in the committee
charters. The use case definition will outline project goals, potential benefits and limitations,
scope and impact. The draft use case definitions will be presented to the city council at its
March 8 study session.
Present considerations: The smart cities committees and community technology advisory
commission would like to know if the council has any questions, ideas or perspectives that
should be taken into consideration as planning continues and in preparation for the March 8
discussion with city council. CTAC and staff recognize not all use cases can be addressed at one
time due to both financial and human resource capacity.
Next steps: The commission will present its draft smart cities use case definitions to the city
council at the March 8 study session and will be available for discussion with the council. If the
council indicates that the commission and committees are moving in the right direction, then
work will continue in the second quarter of 2021 to finalize the use cases by defining project
steps, prioritization, timeline and budget considerations, as well as opportunities for
community feedback on any proposed public-facing initiatives.
October 22 –28, 2020
St. Louis Park
Smart City Workshop
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 5)
Title: Community technology advisory commission smart cities initiative Page 3
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 5)
Title: Community technology advisory commission smart cities initiative Page 4
Use Case
Definition
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 5)
Title: Community technology advisory commission smart cities initiative Page 5
Use Case Definition
Smart city initiatives already in process Smart city initiatives planned or in consideration
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 5)
Title: Community technology advisory commission smart cities initiative Page 6
Use Case Definition
Smart city initiatives already in process Smart city initiatives planned or in consideration
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 5)
Title: Community technology advisory commission smart cities initiative Page 7
Use Case Definition
Smart city initiatives already in process Smart city initiatives planned or in consideration
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 5)
Title: Community technology advisory commission smart cities initiative Page 8
Prioritization
Exercise
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 5)
Title: Community technology advisory commission smart cities initiative Page 9
City Strategic Priorities
•Being a leader in racial equity and inclusion
•Continuing to lead in environmental stewardship
•Providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood-oriented development
•Providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city
comfortably, safely and reliably
•Creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 5)
Title: Community technology advisory commission smart cities initiative Page 10
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 5)
Title: Community technology advisory commission smart cities initiative Page 11
High
Measurable Benefit –Value CreationHighCity Values of Importance – Aligned to City Goals
Top Right Quadrant –Themes
Connected
Community
GIS
Citizen
Safety
Citizen
Awareness Environmental
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 5)
Title: Community technology advisory commission smart cities initiative Page 12
Key Themes,
Smart City
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 5)
Title: Community technology advisory commission smart cities initiative Page 13
Key Themes
GIS
Geographic data is the building block for smart city digital
infrastructure allowing robust integrations to various platforms. It
becomes essential to daily workflows, minimizes downtime for staff,
and provides insights to city departments.
Supported Use Cases:
Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Multiple system integrations, GIS Urban,
3D model of city including buildings and utilities for planning.
Connected Community
Provide internet access to the community allowing all citizens equal
ability to access the internet without barriers.
Supported Use Cases:
Internet access, Required broadband to multifamily buildings, Public wi-fi network
(5G, fiber, etc), Zoning Agreements - Broadband Connections.
Environmental
Deliver sustainable assets to the public providing trusted resources
and reducing the reliance on traditional power sources and legacy
infrastructure.
Supported Use Cases:
City water monitoring, ChargePoint EV network, Non-private EV charging system in
public right of way, LED streetlight replacements, Westwood Hills Nature Center.
Citizen Awareness
Connecting city resources to provide visibility into city operations
and deliver data that supports more informed city and communities.
Supported Use Cases:
Snow plowing technologies, City water monitoring, City data portal for public
access, Local connection platforms, My SLP mapping, Mass transit monitoring, Bus
routing options/scheduling, Online scheduling and payments for city rentals and
resources.
Citizen Safety
Upgrade city infrastructure to provide a safer environment and
secure open spaces for citizens while providing intelligence to
public services. Create opportunities for public to opt-in to share
data from private sources to enhance public safety.
Supported Use Cases:
Surveillance camera community connect, Smart light poles, gun shot detection,
security and surveillance
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 5)
Title: Community technology advisory commission smart cities initiative Page 14
Digital Whiteboard
If you would like to view the whiteboard from
the virtual workshops visit the link below.
Click on ‘Continue as Guest’ in the top right of
the webpage.
You will be asked to enter your email address.
Once entered you will have access to the
whiteboard of the SLP Smart City Workshop.
https://insight.invisionapp.com/freehand/docum
ent/ut0JlMiMJ
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 5)
Title: Community technology advisory commission smart cities initiative Page 15
Thank you
Aaryn Anderson
Aaryn.Anderson@Insight.com
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 5)
Title: Community technology advisory commission smart cities initiative Page 16
Community technology advisory commission
Environmental committee charter
The goal of the CTAC environmental committee (CEC) is to determine uses and applications of
technology to further the city’s efforts in support of its strategic priorities, specifically to continue to
lead in environmental stewardship. A key target of the committee is to further the use of advanced
technologies in support of the city’s Climate Action Plan (CAP).
The CEC will work with city departments – most notably building and energy – other CTAC committees
and city commissions (such as environment and sustainability commission), state agencies and utilities
to determine what actions are in progress; where and what type of technology is required to generate
and access relevant data; integrate disparate sources of data. This information will be used to display
information to relevant departments and agencies and to city residents.
The CEC will also study efforts in other cities that could be useful such as road electrification for public
transportation and city vehicles.
Initial tasks will be to work with groups and projects outlined in the current phase of the CAP, including
kickstart projects and goals 1, 2 and 4; as well as determine requirements and opportunities such as
efforts underway at Westwood Hills Nature Center.
Opportunities for investigation include:
•Dashboard on a CAP webpage to let residents see progress toward goals and obtain information
Creation of a central database and Integration of data sources such as those from Xcel Energy,
the city and other sources. This will aid in analytics and removal of the need for manual entry of
data from multiple and disparate sources into applications such as the Energy Star Portfolio
Manager which supports initiatives such as the Efficient Building Benchmarking Ordinance.
•Building awareness in the community about existing electric vehicle applications through
inclusion in appropriate webpages and dashboards.
•Use of the interpretive center at Westwood Hills Nature Center as a smart building testbed.
•Sensing air quality and integration of that data with a central database for display and analysis.
•Bike and pedestrian sensor system on sidewalks and trails to measure the impact of Connect the
Park projects.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 5)
Title: Community technology advisory commission smart cities initiative Page 17
Community technology advisory commission
Connected community committee charter
The goal of the CTAC Connected Community committee is to establish citywide modern networks for
residents and visitors to use mobile and internet-based city-based information and services and for
general private online use. This will include all aspects of wired and wireless connectivity, access to
computer and communications tools and managed services required to enable them to fully participate
in online learning, work and healthcare. The committee will conduct its work in support of city council
strategic priorities involving leadership in racial equity and environmental stewardship and building
social capital through community engagement.
Committee work will investigate existing and forthcoming technologies such as private LTE and 5G,
metro ethernets, use of fiber optics and various other network solutions. Chief deliverables from these
efforts will be recommendations and alternatives for implementations.
In addition, the connected community committee will investigate applications that would benefit from
citywide mobile and high-speed networks such as distance learning, remote working, virtual healthcare,
personal communication and citywide services and information.
Initial steps of the committee are:
•Review the Comcast survey results gathered from focus groups as part of the franchise renewal
initiative conducted in 2019-2020.
•Review possible network infrastructure alternatives, including an analysis of existing and planned
infrastructure. Develop a gap analysis and consequent high-level design.
•Review application opportunities that would use this infrastructure and help drive infrastructure
standards and architecture.
•Build out solution bundles that address each use case. Examine public-private partnership
opportunities.
•Finalize proposals for the broader CTAC and city council.
•Consider equity goals in any design and work with appropriate commissions and volunteer
organizations. Consider prioritized deployments reflecting equity, infrastructure, and topography
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 5)
Title: Community technology advisory commission smart cities initiative Page 18
Community technology advisory commission
GIS committee charter
The goal of the GIS committee (GISC) is to determine opportunities to enrich the GIS (Geographic Information
System) platform to enable other committee endeavors and to find opportunities to use existing platform
capabilities and data to fulfill city strategic goals and initiatives more broadly. Of note, most data used by
internal city departments is geographic, so the GIS system has provided an integrated source of truth on
many areas of city operations which can be commonly accessed and provide helpful context for city
employees. GIS data allows for nuanced consideration of city metrics and trends, which means development
of GIS capabilities is foundational to pursuing all five city strategic priorities.
The GIS Committee will work with city departments, especially GIS specialists and technical experts, and in
collaboration with other CTAC committees, city commissions and community partners. GISC will also study
achievements and implementations in use by other cities, such as use of layered data to inform efforts;
communicate transparently with the public; and generate more equitable and sustainable policy decisions.
Initial tasks will focus on improved data availability to both city departments and community members,
particularly for the goals outlined in the strategic priorities. Another key task is investigating what data might
still be needed within the GIS platform to enable meaningful engagement with the strategic priorities and
opportunities to integrate additional geographically located datasets in use by the city.
Using the work performed for GIS, the committee will work with city departments and other CTAC
committees to examine existing data silos and new integration requirements. This will allow the city to
provide data for numerous applications for the near future and beyond.
Opportunities for investigation:
●Implement the trail plowing application, currently in beta for North Cedar Regional Trail, more
broadly. This would serve both the environmental stewardship and mobility strategic initiatives and
allow future applications for residents showing the status of snow plowing.
●Expand use of dashboards for internal and external topics. Dashboards specific to the city's strategic
initiatives could be used to better communicate efforts and progress to the public. Integration of GIS
databases and tools by GIS providers would enable this transparency between city efforts and city
residents.
●Integrate additional data sources used by the city, but currently not available within GIS. Examples
include enterprise utility billing, Xcel Energy data and social media data.
●Expose more GIS platform data to citizens directly. Open data is an increasing trend across even
small and rural cities. Making highly requested data sets available, with sites available to visually
explore the data, can decrease time spent on routine data collection by staff, improve transparency
and result in richer community dialogues.
●Find opportunities where analytics or prediction based on GIS data could provide greater efficiencies
or smarter policy recommendations for existing city processes and services.
●Expanded use of mapping applications for tracking traffic, facilities, and city assets and resources.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 5)
Title: Community technology advisory commission smart cities initiative Page 19
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: January 25, 2021
Written report: 6
Executive summary
Title: 2021 housing program and budget summary
Recommended action: The purpose of this report is to present an overview of the city’s current
and proposed housing initiatives and programs for 2021 along with a summary of the funding
sources. This report is being provided now in preparation for the February 8 study session
discussion.
Policy consideration: Does the council agree that the current and proposed city housing
initiatives and programs support the city’s strategic priorities at a policy level.
Summary: The city administers a comprehensive number of housing programs and initiatives in
support of furthering the city’s strategic priorities related to promoting and facilitating a
balanced and enduring housing stock that offers a continuum of diverse life-cycle housing
choices suitable for households of all income levels The programming offered by the city
addresses single-family housing preservation and rehab, affordable home ownership, energy
and sustainability, rental assistance, multi-family NOAH preservation, tenant protection, BIPOC
homeownership and wealth building, and landlord support and education.
Financial or budget considerations: In 2021, the city is proposing to use a combination of the
following five funding sources to finance non-federally funded city housing programs and
initiatives:
1. Affordable Housing Trust Fund
2. Pooled TIF from non-housing TIF districts
3. Pooled TIF from housing TIF districts
4. Housing Rehab Fund
5. Community Development Block Grant funds
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development. St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader
in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Appendix A, Housing program summary
Appendix B, 2021 housing budget
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, community development deputy director/housing supervisor
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: 2021 housing program and budget summary
Discussion
Background: In addition to the current housing topics identified by the council, the city has long
term goals related to promoting and facilitating a balanced and enduring housing stock that
offers a continuum of diverse life-cycle housing choices suitable for households of all income
levels including:
1. Creating, preserving and improving the city’s single-family (SF) housing stock.
2. Promoting quality multi-family developments, both rental and owner occupied, in a
variety of locations throughout the city, including near transit centers, retail and
employment centers and in commercial mixed-use districts.
3. Promoting home ownership including affordable homeownership opportunities.
4. Ensuring all housing is safe and well maintained.
To facilitate and support these goals, the city has created and implemented a significant
number of housing programs offering a comprehensive variety of financial incentives and
services. As the city advances and evolves, the future SWLRT station areas will continue to
stimulate housing development opportunities. These opportunities will require mindful
decisions to maximize growth that supports and advances the city’s overall Housing Goals and
Vision, while preserving naturally occurring single- and multi-family affordable housing in and
around these areas.
Housing Program Summaries: Appendix A below, provides a summary of the city’s current
housing programs and initiatives.
In addition to the city-funded housing initiatives, the St. Louis Park Housing Authority (HA)
administers three rental assistance programs: the Public Housing Program, the Housing Choice
Voucher program and the Stable Home program. These programs provide income-based
affordable housing for approximately 550 families annually, ensuring that they do not pay more
than 30% of their income for housing. The HA also administers two service programs that assist
residents to successfully live independently and achieve greater economic stability. The annual
budget for the HA exceeds $4.3 million annually.
Proposed 2021 Changes to Existing Programming:
1. 4d affordable housing tax incentive program: The length of the affordability
commitment is decreased from 10 years to 5 years to generate greater participation in
the program. The type of properties eligible to participate has also been expanded to
include rental duplexes. To date, only one development has elected to participate in the
program; however, with the reduction in the length of the affordability commitment, we
have received several inquiries from owners exploring participation in 2021.
2. Multi-family rehab loan program: This program was implemented in late 2019 and has
had no participation to date. Given the uncertainties in the rental market and that
interest rates are extremely low, several changes are being made to the program. The
initial length of affordability commitment is being decreased from 10 years to 5 years,
with options to extend the affordability commitment and the deferral of the loan in
additional five-year increments. An extended affordability commitment will include
forgiveness of a portion of the loan balance. The amount forgiven will increase
dependent on the length of the affordability commitment. These changes are being
made to stimulate participation in the program.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Title: 2021 housing program and budget summary
3. Discount Loan: Staff is proposing that funding for this program be suspended for 2021.
Due to the extremely low interest rates, there was very little use of this program in
2020. Homeowners can currently access funding with lower interest rates in the private
market. Reinstatement of the program will be considered if/when interest rates
increase in the future.
4. Move-Up transformation loan: The household income eligibility for this program is
being reduced from 120% AMI to 110% and 115% AMI, depending on household size.
The new household income eligibility criteria are consistent with income restrictions
required for use of Housing TIF as a funding source for the program.
Proposed new initiatives:
1. Homeownership and wealth-building loan program for Black, Indigenous, People of
Color (BIPOC), and other underserved low-income populations: Staff proposes to create
and facilitate a homeownership program designed to address historic inequities and
disparities in homeownership rates for BIPOC and other underrepresented low-income
households. This program is proposed to provide soft-second mortgages to bridge the
gap between the city’s median home price and an affordable home price, based on
income level (60-80% of area median income for a family of four). The soft-second
mortgage will bear no-interest, have no monthly payments, and be forgivable after 30
years. As part of this effort staff will work with organizations and agencies serving
BIPOC populations in order to identify key barriers and challenges to obtaining
homeownership, and develop strategies and resource needed to address those
challenges. The goal is to address housing disparities, build power in communities
most impacted by housing inequities, and pilot a program to address housing
challenges and support inclusive and equitable homeownership opportunities.
2. Minnetonka Blvd Multi-family Homeownership land trust development: The city has
acquired four single-family homes located on the south side of Minnetonka Boulevard
west of Lake Street for potential redevelopment with affordable, ownership housing, to
further expand and diversify the city’s housing stock. The properties are zoned R-4
medium-density multi-family residential. All the homes will be built to incorporate
significant energy efficient and sustainable features, as appropriate, and will be sold at
affordable prices to qualifying low-income households. Staff is in discussions with two
non-profit housing organizations to explore the feasibility of a land trust ownership
model for the site. Staff will work with the organizations serving the BIPOC
communities and other under-represented low-income households to market these
homes.
3. NOAH rental multi-family land trust preservation: Staff is pursuing a partnership with a
preservation or mission-driven multi-family developer/owner that would be interested
in exploring the feasibility and benefits of a land trust model for a multi-family NOAH
rental property. Land-trusts are typically used for homeownership but could have
significant benefits as a NOAH rental preservation tool, especially in and around the
SWLRT stations where redevelopment and gentrification pressures are growing on the
city’s NOAH multi-family rental properties.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 4
Title: 2021 housing program and budget summary
2021 Funding Sources
In 2021 the city will use five funding sources to finance city housing programs:
Funding resource 2020 funding
revenue
FYE 2020
fund balance
2021 funding
revenue
Total funding
available 2021
Affordable Housing
Trust Fund**
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,122,000 $2,122,000
Pooled TIF, non-
housing TIF districts**
$272,621 $272,621 $425,073 $697,694
Pooled TIF, Housing
TIF districts**
$412,000 $343,455 $412,000 $755,455
CDBG $163,482 0 $160,000 $160,000
Housing Rehab Fund $2,318,855 $2,318,855 0 $1,997,400
Total $4,166,958 $3,866,386 $2,119,073 $5,732,549
*Revenues and expenditures in the above table are estimated based on unaudited 2020 expenses and
anticipated revenues for 2021 and are subject to change
**TIF and HRA Levy proceeds received mid and end of year 2021
1. Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF): The AHTF is financed through an annual
contribution of HRA Levy funds. Salaries for housing staff are also funded with HRA Levy
funds. The 2021 HRA levy adopted on 12/21/2020 is $1,437,180. After reductions for
2021 housing rehab salaries ($299,944) and lobbyist costs ($15,000), approximately
$1,122,236 is available to fund programs through the trust fund.
2. TIF Pooled from non-housing TIF districts: 35% is retained for affordable housing
activities from redevelopment TIF districts that are kept open after all developer
obligations are paid off. For 2021, the current projection is approximately $425,073
from 3 districts (Wolfe Lake, Ellipse and Eliot Park). Pooled TIF from non-housing TIF
districts can only be used for rental projects that are both rent- and income-restricted
(20% affordable at 50% AMI or 40% at 60% AMI), and can only be used for capital costs.
Pooled TIF funds must remain in the TIF district and are only transferred when eligible
expenses have been incurred. The city is currently seeking special legislation that will
allow the pooled TIF funds to be deposited into the city’s AHTF, allow the city to use the
funds for ownership housing as well as rental housing, and allow use of the funds to be
guided by the city’s AHTF policy, which will allow greater flexibility in how the funds are
leveraged to create affordable rental and homeownership opportunities.
3. TIF pooled from Housing TIF districts: For 2021, the projected amount of TIF pooled from
housing TIF districts is $412,000 from two housing TIF districts (Park Center $183,000 and
Aquila $229,000). Pooled TIF funds from housing TIF districts can be used for affordable
rental (20%/50% AMI or 40%/60% AMI) and/or affordable homeownership housing
(affordable to households at 110% and 115% AMI, depending on household size).
4. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): The city receives an annual allocation of
federal CDBG funds from Hennepin County. Historically, the CDBG resources have been
used to fund “sticks and bricks” affordable housing programs. In 2020 the city received
$163,482 in funding which was used to fund the Low-Income Single-Family
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 5
Title: 2021 housing program and budget summary
Homeownership Deferred Rehab Loan and the Affordable Housing Land Trust program.
It is anticipated that the amount of the 2021 CDBG award will be similar to 2020’s award.
5. Housing Rehab funds: The Housing Rehab fund balance consists of funds carried over
from FYE 2019. This fund has no significant on-going funding source. Prior to 2019, the
primary source of these funds was a fee the city charged entities for issuing private
activity bonds on their behalf. Approximately $600,000 is generated annually from
these fees. Beginning in 2019, the bond fees are directed to the general fund. The
current Housing Rehab fund balance is $1,928,355. These funds will be used to finance
programs and initiatives that cannot be funded utilizing other sources due to income
and rent restrictions on the use of those funds.
Appendix B (attached to this report) lists the 2021 budgeted housing programs, the amount
budgeted for each program and the designated funding source.
Next steps: Based on council’s input and direction at a policy level, staff will proceed with
continued implementation and management of the existing housing initiatives, and planning
and development of the new homeownership initiatives listed above.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 6
Title: 2021 housing program and budget summary
Appendix A
City of St. Louis Park Affordable Housing Initiatives
In support of the city’s housing goals to promote and facilitate a balanced and enduring housing
stock that offers a continuum of diverse lifecycle housing choices for households in all income
levels including affordable housing, the city has implemented a number of programs to create
affordable housing, support the preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH),
facilitate ownership and wealth-building opportunities for BIPOC and other underserved
populations, and enact tenant protection policies including:
• Inclusionary Housing Policy: The city adopted the Inclusionary Housing Policy in June 2015.
The policy requires market rate multi-family residential developers receiving financial
assistance from the city, requesting land use changes through the use of a planned unit
development (PUD) or requesting a zoning use amendment to the Comp Plan to include a
percentage of affordable units in the development. The units must be affordable to
households with incomes at 30%, 50% or 60% area median income, depending on the option
chosen by the developer. Since the policy was adopted, the city has added 59 affordable units
in four developments. Another four developments are under construction that will add an
additional 87 units affordable at or below 60% AMI and 130 units affordable at 80% AMI.
There are also several developments that have been approved or are in the planning process.
The council amended the policy to include a one-for-one replacement requirement of any
NOAH units demolished or converted to another use as part of the development project.
• Affordable Housing Trust Fund: In 2018 the city established an Affordable Housing Trust
Fund. Housing trust funds are distinct funds established by city, county or state
governments that receive ongoing dedicated sources of public funding to support the
preservation and production of affordable housing. Housing trust funds can also be a
repository for private donations. Money in a housing trust fund may only be used to:
1) make grants, loans, and loan guarantees for the development, rehabilitation, or financing
of housing;
2) match other funds from federal, state, or private resources for housing projects; and/or
3) provide down-payment assistance, rental assistance, and homebuyer counseling services.
The city may finance the fund with any money available to a local government, unless expressly
prohibited by state law. The current primary source of funding for the city’s trust fund is an
annual budgeted allocation of HRA levy funds, which was available beginning in 2020.
• Land Banking/selling public land to facilitate affordable housing development: The city has
acquired several land parcels for the purpose of facilitating mixed use development that will
include affordable housing units. Three recent examples include the Beltline Station area,
the Wooddale station area and the acquisition of the four single family properties on
Minnetonka Boulevard as a future site for affordable housing.
• 4d tax classification program: The city initiated a local program that enables owners of
NOAH properties in St. Louis Park to utilize a state property tax provision called 4d, also
known as the Low-Income Rental Classification (LIRC). Minnesota’s 4d provision reduces
property taxes by approximately 40 percent on rent restricted housing units that are
affordable to households making 60% or less of area median income (AMI). Eligible
properties must meet two conditions: the owner of the property must agree to rent and
income restrictions serving households at 60% AMI or below for at least 20% of the units in
the development and they must receive “financial assistance” from federal, state or local
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 7
Title: 2021 housing program and budget summary
government. This condition allowed the city to create a “Local 4d” program in which
qualifying properties receive the 4d tax break in return for agreeing to conditions which
meet the city’s housing policy goals. Participating owners must sign a commitment to keep
at least 20% of the units in their building affordable for 5 years. In return, the city pays the
state application fee for the first year of 4d certification and $200 per unit for energy
improvements with a maximum of $6,000 per building.
• Multi-family rental rehabilitation loan program: The city implemented a program that
provides attractive financing to multifamily rental property owners for rehab or major
capital improvements. The program is designed to encourage investments in multifamily
rental properties in exchange for a commitment of units affordable for occupancy by low-
and moderate-income households. The deferred loan must be used for improvements in
qualified units or in common spaces. Rents of the assisted units must be affordable to
households with incomes at or below 60% AMI for the entirety of the 5-year term of loan.
The owner has the option to extend the loan and affordability commitments in exchange for
progressive loan forgiveness.
• Tenant Protection Ordinance: The city enacted an ordinance in 2018 that requires a three
month period following the ownership transfer of a NOAH multi-family residential property
during which the new owner is required to pay relocation benefits to tenants if the new
owner (1) increases the rent, (2) rescreens existing residents, or (3) implements non-
renewals without cause and the tenant chooses to move during this period. NOAH
properties are defined as buildings where at least 18% of the units have rents affordable to
households with incomes at or below 60% Area Medium Income (AMI). This ordinance
would not prohibit a new owner from taking the actions listed above; however, the owner
would be required to pay resident relocation benefits if they do take any of those actions
during the three-month tenant protection period. The ordinance will allow for a period of
time for residents to work with housing support resources and seek alternative housing if
they are facing unaffordable rent increases, new screening criteria requirements that would
be problematic for them, or a thirty day non-renewal without cause notice to vacate.
• Legacy Program: This program was generated as an outcome of the NOAH preservation
workgroup discussions held in 2017/18. The workgroup recognized that the majority of
NOAH owners appreciate and care about their residents and that there are owners that
would be interested in creating a “legacy” by preserving their property as affordable
housing. The program is marketed to owners to make them aware of the financial
advantages of transferring their NOAH property to a non-profit preservation buyer. The city
will work with property owners and preservation buyers to assist in facilitating the process
for any interested owners.
• Fair Housing Policy: Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act establishes federal policy for providing fair
housing throughout the United States. The intent of Title VIII is to assure equal housing
opportunities for all citizens. The City of St. Louis Park, as a recipient of federal community
development funds under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, is
obligated to certify that it will affirmatively further fair housing. This policy’s purpose is to
outline St. Louis Park’s dedication and response to fair housing issues, which includes
designating a fair housing officer to provide referrals to residents and direct them to appropriate
agencies to file a fair housing complaint and track the complaint and resources given.
• Notice of Eviction: Council adopted an ordinance at the end of 2020 that requires landlords
to provide a notification to tenants seven days prior to filing an eviction action in court for
nonpayment of a financial related obligation.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 8
Title: 2021 housing program and budget summary
Rental Assistance
• Kids in the Park Rent Assistance Program: Recognizing that housing instability keeps
students from attending school consistently and diminishes their likelihood of achieving
key measures like reading proficiency, the city implemented a shallow rent subsidy
program to assist low-income St. Louis Park rental households who have children
attending school in St. Louis Park or their assigned attendance school, to remain in their
current housing. The “Kids in the Park Rent Assistance Program” provides rent
assistance to households for up to 48 months. The participants receive a flat monthly
rental assistance amount that decreases annually over the four-year period. Eligible
households must have one parent that works a minimum of 28 hours a week, must
reside in rental housing located in St. Louis Park, and be lease compliant. In addition to
the rent subsidy, STEP staff meet with each household to assess their economic and
social needs, establish a plan to address needs, provide referrals, and offer case
management, as needed. Participant households are also required to attend parent-
teacher conferences and take an active role in their children’s educational progress. The
Housing Authority (HA) is the fourth year of administering the program and is currently
serving 17 families on the program. Three additional families will be added in 2021.
• Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV): HUD allocated the St. Louis Park HA
approximately 342 rental assistance vouchers. In addition to these vouchers, the HA also
administers vouchers issued by other HA’s to participants that are renting a unit in St.
Louis Park. Participants rent a qualifying unit from a private owner/landlord. The rent
paid by the household is based on their household income. The difference in the rent
paid by the participant and the market rate rent is paid by the HA. Of the 342 vouchers,
54 are project based at 3 supportive housing developments and at Excelsior and Grand.
In 2018 and 2020 the HA also received additional HUD voucher allocations; 15
Mainstream Vouchers that serve nonelderly disabled individuals and 27 Family
Unification Program vouchers to serve families where housing is needed to reunite child
with their guardians. The HA also assumed the administration of 32 rental assistance
vouchers for residents that transitioned from project based to tenant assistance at a
privately owned- development that opted out of the rental assistance contract. The
HCV rental assistance programs are federally funded.
• Public Housing Program (PH): The HA owns and manages 157 units of public housing.
The units include a 110-unit low rise apartment complex, 37 single family homes
scattered throughout the city, and in partnership with Project for Pride in Living, 12
units at Louisiana court. The rent amount is calculated based on household income.
HUD also provides additional grant funds annually to assist in funding capital
improvements to the PH properties. The PH program is federally funded.
• Stable Home Rent Subsidy Program: In partnership with Hennepin County, the HA
administers a rent subsidy program to serve persons that have been chronically
homeless. The program provides rent assistance for three years and the rent amount is
based on the household’s income. Participants must reside in suburban Hennepin
County. There are currently approximately 40 participants on the program.
• Funding provided to STEP for emergency assistance program: The city has provided
$60,000 annually to assist in funding STEP’s Emergency Assistance Program which
provides rent assistance to families experiencing financial crises. The goal of the
program is to intervene to prevent families from losing their housing or having
an eviction action on their record.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 9
Title: 2021 housing program and budget summary
Promote and Support Responsible Property Management
• SPARC – St. Louis Park’s Landlord Coalition: The city facilitates quarterly meetings with
the city’s landlords and rental owners to discuss topics and issues of interest including
topics related to good management practices. One initiative with this group has been to
recruit new landlords to accept Housing Choice Voucher participants. A newsletter is
emailed every other month or more often if needed to all licensed rental properties.
• Rental Licensing/Crime Free Training: The city requires that rental property staff attend a
crime free training as part of the city’s rental licensing requirements. Topics include fair
housing requirements to best practices for screening applicants.
Affordable Homeownership
• West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust (Homes Within Reach): Homes Within
Reach is a program of West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust that purchases
properties, rehabilitates and then sells the home to qualified low to moderate income
households. Buyers pay for the cost of the home only and lease the land for 99
years. City funds are leveraged with CDBG, Hennepin County Affordable Housing
Incentive Fund (AHIF) and HOME funds, Metropolitan Council and Minnesota Housing
funds as well as other resources. Using the land trust model means that families can
more easily purchase a home where they work or live, retain it for generations, and not
over burden their incomes in becoming homeowners. There were two homes purchased
in St. Louis Park in 2020 for a total of 19 land trust homeownership properties.
• Affordable homeownership assistance program: The city implemented an enhanced
affordable homeownership program in 2020 that provides down payment and closing
cost assistance deferred loans to assist first-time homebuyers (or have not owned a
home in the least three years) in purchasing a home in St. Louis Park. Employees of St.
Louis Park businesses would be eligible for an additional loan amount to encourage
them to live where they work.
o The maximum loan amount is $15,000, not to exceed 5% of the purchase price.
o Live where you work loan amount: An additional $5,000 to employees of St.
Louis Park businesses.
o Interest rate and loan terms: 0% interest 20-year deferred loan. 100% of the loan
amount is due if the property is sold, ownership is transferred, or no longer
owner-occupied. Loan is forgiven after 20 years.
Affordable Housing Rehab Programs Technical, Design, and Conservation Services
• Architectural Design Service: This service provides an architectural consultation for
residents to assist with brainstorming remodeling possibilities and to raise the awareness
of design possibilities for expansions. Residents select an approved architect from a pool
developed in conjunction with the MN Chapter of the American Institute of Architects.
All homeowners considering renovations are eligible for this service regardless of
income; however, to ensure committed participants, residents make a $25 co-pay.
• Remodeling/Rehab Advisor: The intention of this service is to help residents improve
their homes (either maintenance or value-added improvements) by providing technical
help before and during the construction process. All homeowners are eligible for this
service regardless of income. The city contracts with the Center for Energy and
Environment (CEE) for this free service to homeowners.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 10
Title: 2021 housing program and budget summary
• Home Energy Squad Enhanced Visit and Rebates: Home Energy Squad Enhanced program
is a comprehensive residential energy program designed to help residents save money
and energy and stay comfortable in their homes. The program which began in March,
2012, is administered by the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE). The city pays $50
per resident visit which is leveraged with funds from Xcel Energy, Center Point Energy
and CEE. The cost per resident is $50 per enhanced visit. The city also provides a match
of 50% of gas and electric utility rebates for energy efficient furnaces, water heaters, air
conditioners and qualifying air sealing and insulation.
• Annual Home Remodeling Fair: The cities and school district community education
departments of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Golden Valley co-sponsor the
annual home remodeling fair. The fair provides residents an opportunity to attend
seminars, talk with vendors and city staff about permits, zoning, home improvement
loans, and environmental issues related to remodeling. The fair is a self-sustaining event
and vendor registration fees cover the costs. The 2021 fair has been cancelled and will
be revisited in 2022.
• Home Remodeling Tour: The annual tour is designed to meet the housing goal to
remodel and expand single-family, owner-occupied homes. The self-guided tour of five
to six homes provides a showcase of a variety of home remodeling projects to provide
ideas, information, and inspiration to other residents considering remodeling. The 2020
tour was cancelled and will be revisited in 2021.
• Discount Loan Program: This program encourages residents to improve their homes by
“discounting” the interest rate on the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MN Housing)
home improvement loans. Residents must have a household income of $104,000 or less.
Eligible improvements include most home improvement projects except for luxury items
such as pools and spas. The city contracts with CEE for loan administration.
• Move–Up Transformation Loan: The purpose of this loan is to encourage residents with
incomes at or below 110/115% of median area income, depending on household size, to
expand their homes. The program provides deferred loans for 25% of the applicant’s
home expansion project cost, with a maximum loan of $25,000. The loan has 0%
interest and is forgiven after 30 years if homeowner continues to live in the home.
• The Emergency Home Repair Program: The city offers grants of up to $4,000 to low
income homeowners to cover the cost of immediate emergency repairs such as furnace
replacement, roof repairs, etc. To qualify, a household’s income must be at or below
50% of the area medium income.
• Deferred Loan Program: This loan program assists low income homeowners in funding
basic safety and maintenance improvements. The maximum loan amount is $30,000 and
the loan is deferred until sale of the property or forgiven after 15 years. To qualify a
household’s must be at or below 80% of the area medium income.
• Housing Improvement Area (HIA): The HIA is a finance tool to assist with the
preservation of the city’s existing townhome and condominium housing stock. An HIA is
a defined area within a city where housing improvements are made, and the cost of the
improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed on the properties within
the area. The Association borrows low interest money from the city, improvements are
completed, and unit owners repay the loan through fees imposed on their properties
and collected with property tax payments. To date, eight HIA’s have been established
and over thirteen million dollars of improvements has been made to 1218 units.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 11
Title: 2021 housing program and budget summary
Additional Housing Programs in Process or Being Explored
Housing
•Multi-family residential land trust model: The city currently partners with Homes Within
Reach to provide single family affordable homeownership opportunities. There may be
potential to utilize this same model to create affordable multi-family homeownership or
rental opportunities, possibly with the city working in partnership with for-profit or non-
profits developers.
•Nondiscrimination of Rental Assistance: This policy would prohibit owners and managing
agents from discriminating against people in the leasing and renting of housing based on
a person’s receipt of public assistance or any requirements of a public assistance
program, including Section 8 vouchers. An ordinance passed in Minneapolis faced a
court challenge by rental property owners and a legal appeal. The city, like many other
communities, are waiting for the outcome of the legal challenges before further
consideration.
Planning
•Revisiting housing setbacks, FAR, and more to maintain and create more affordable housing:
The city council intends to revisit the city’s regulations relating to the sizes of single-family
houses. In the late-1990s and mid-2000s, the city relaxed its regulations to promote
expansion of single-family houses to encourage residents to stay in the city as their housing
space needs increased as opposed to moving to outer ring suburbs where larger home
stock is typically available (move up housing). In addition, the changes hoped to reduce
variance requests, which they did. The city council will be discussing ways to stem the loss
of affordable single-family homes as builders and private owners tear down or add onto
older, smaller homes and build much larger ones.
Affordable
Housing Trust
Fund (HRA Levy)
Pooled TIF - Non-
Housing Districts
Pooled TIF -
Housing
Districts
Community
Development Block
Grant (CDBG)
Housing Rehab
Fund
Funding available:FYE 2020 1,000,000$ 272,621$ 412,000$ 163,482$ 2,318,855$
2021 1,122,000$ 425,073$ 412,000$ 160,000$ -$
2020 Expended -$ -$ 68,545$ 163,482$ 321,955$
Total Available 2,122,000$ 697,694$ 755,455$ 160,000$ 1,997,400$
Project
Affordability
restriction
Affordable
Housing Trust
Fund (HRA Levy)
Pooled TIF - Non-
Housing Districts
Pooled TIF -
Housing
Districts
Community
Development Block
Grant (CDBG)Housing Rehab
Homeownership & Wealth-
bulding loan program (BIPOC &
Low-income)80% AMI 300,000$
Minnetonka Multi-family
homeownership 50-80% AMI 1,000,000$ 300,000$
Multi-family rehab loan 60% AMI 100,000$
4d incentive program 60% AMI 10,000$
Emergency Repair Grant 50% AMI 18,500$
Land Trust homeownership
program Homes Within Reach
(WHAHLT)60-80% AMI 70,000$ 30,000$
Foreclosure incentive/land trust 60-80% AMI 10,000$
Housing Improvement Area
MH Hsg
affordable home
limit 5,000$
Move up in the Park
Transformation loan 110% AMI for 2
or less, 115% AMI
for 3 or more 50,000$
Down payment assistance
program for first time
homebuyers
110% AMI for 2
or less, 115% AMI
for 3 or more 120,000$
Low income deferred home
rehab loan up to 80% AMI 125,000$
Rehab advsior none 18,000$
Architectural design services none 11,250$
Home Energy Squad visits none 5,000$
Energy rebates 115% AMI 25,000$
On-bill financing for energy
efficient mechanicals
MHFA income
limit
Neighborhood grant program none 52,000$
Kids in the Park rental assistance 50% AMI 135,000$
STEP Emergency Assistance none 60,000$
Realtors forum none 3,000$
SPARC newsletter/meetings none 5,000$
Total budgeted 1,300,000$ -$ 678,500$ 155,000$ 319,250$
2021 Housing Budget: Programs and Funding Resources
Appendix B
Page 11 Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: 2021 housing program and budget summary
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: January 25, 2021
Written report: 7
Executive summary
Title: Sustainability division update for Q1 2021
Recommended action: No action is required at this time.
Policy consideration: None at this time. Please inform staff of any questions you might have.
Summary: This report is intended to provide a high-level quarterly overview of the projects and
programs the division has completed, is currently working on, and is planning.
•Efficient Building Benchmarking ordinance
o 2020 scorecards reviewed by collaborative and sent to property owners (sample
attached)
•Solar Sundown
o Designing Solar Sundown program, communications plan and materials and
preparing for imminent launch
•Climate Champions
o Meeting with Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Energy Smart program to plan
2021 program launch
o Planning report to council in early 2021 to share program details
•Electric vehicle chargers (in collaboration with Operations & Recreation, Engineering)
o Completing application for grant funds for two public EV charging sites
•Green Building Policy (in collaboration with Community Development)
o Met with cities collaborative to review best practices and continuing to revise
draft of suggested policy changes
•Trees initiative (in collaboration with Operations & Recreation)
o Co-authored grant proposal for funds for tree planting
•Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory
o Working with Great Plains Institute on developing tool to track CAP progress
o Emissions inventory expected in summer 2021 after 2020 data available
•City facilities
o Assisting with scoping energy saving/generating projects at Rec Center
o Working with GreenCorps member to automate utility data feeds to B3
Benchmarking to track facilities’ energy trends more easily
Financial or budget considerations: None at this time.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Sample scorecard
Prepared by: Emily Ziring, sustainability manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, building and energy director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Building Energy Performance Profile
Energy Spending
ENERGY STAR
SLP 1234 1234 Walker St 34,462 sq.ft.
Your building's EUI2
0 20 40 60
2018
2019
Regional
Average
49.7
59.6
3
You currently spend $45,465.98
per year on energy
You could save up to $6,820 per
year by reducing your building's
energy use 15%.
®
Your building’s ENERGY STAR score helps you assess
how your building is performing by comparing its
performance to other buildings across the country,
normalized by building type and climate. A score
above 50 means your building is performing better
than 50 percent of like buildings nationwide. A score
of 75 or higher may be eligible for certification.
Learn more here
Your Score: 74 75
0
Least Efficient
100
Most Efficient
2020 St. Louis Park
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 7)
Title: Sustainability division update for Q1 2021 Page 2
Next Steps
Rebates and Funding
Thank You
01 MAKE A PLAN
Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy offer a
variety of energy audits, studies, and
resources to help identify areas of possible
improvement in your building as well as offers
guidance on how to take advantage of their
findings.
02 TAKE ACTION
View Xcel Energy’s Smart Energy Solutions
guide and CenterPoint Energy’s Efficiency
Programs & Rebates page for information on
how to perform different energy efficiency
upgrades, choose a vendor, and qualify for
rebates.
03 GET RECOGNITION
You’ve improved the energy efficiency of your
building; now it’s time to celebrate. Check out
the EBC Map to see how your building compares
to other buildings in the city and state.
Contact your city’s sustainability department for information on any current rebates and incentives.
Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy offer rebates to assist with the upfront costs for a variety of
projects that will increase energy efficiencies, such as equipment upgrades, tune-ups, and lighting
retrofits.
MinnPACE(Minnesota Property Assessed Clean Energy) provides commercial building owners with
funding for renewable energy projects and efficiency upgrades.
For more information, contact MinnPACE at 651-204-6236.
Minnesota Department of Commerce provides up to $2,500 for business owners to make efficiency
projects possible through their Energy Smart Program.
For more information, call Rob Friend at 651-292-3915 or email rfriend@mnchamber.com.
Center for Energy and Environment provides loans to businesses looking to make cost-effective energy
efficiency improvements.
For more information, call Jim Hasnik at 612-335-5885 or email jhasnik@mncee.org.
Thank you for reporting your building’s
benchmarking data through the Efficient
Buildings Collaborative. This report card shows
how your building is performing year-to-year
and how it compares to similar buildings. Our
goal is to help you understand and improve your
building’s energy performance, which can
reduce operating costs and increase the value of
your building.
Questions?
Visit Our Website
Help Desk:
EBCHelp@hennepin.us
866-614-7542
[1] Site Energy Use Intensity (EUI) is your building's
annual energy use (all types) divided by square feet.
[2] Regional EUI based on climate region by building
type from Commercial Building Energy Consumption
Survey, Table C10
[3] Energy spending dollar values are estimated based
on current utility energy rates and self-reported energy
consumption. Estimates do not include all fixed and
demand charges, and may be lower than actual spend
and savings potential.
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 7)
Title: Sustainability division update for Q1 2021 Page 3
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: January 25, 2021
Written report: 8
Executive summary
Title: Fourth quarter investment report (Oct. – Dec. 2020)
Recommended action: No action required at this time.
Policy consideration: Reporting on investments quarterly is part of our financial management
policies.
Summary: The quarterly investment report provides an overview of the city’s investment
portfolio, including the types of investments held, length of maturity and yield.
Financial or budget considerations: The total portfolio value at Dec. 31, 2020 is $81.6 million
comparable to just over $81 million at the end of 2019. Approximately $28.3 million is invested
in longer term securities that include U.S. Treasury notes, federal agency bonds and municipal
debt securities. The remaining $53.3 of the portfolio is held in money market accounts for bond
projects, future reinvesting when interest rates improve, and operating cash flow needs
between property tax settlements. The overall yield to maturity decreased to .73% from 1.16%
the prior quarter. Interest rates on securities and money markets have dropped significantly
since the pandemic.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Investment portfolio summary
Prepared by: Darla Monson, accountant
Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Title: Fourth quarter investment report (Oct. – Dec. 2020)
Discussion
Background: The city’s investment portfolio is focused on cash flow needs and investment in
longer term securities in accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A and the city’s investment
policy objectives of: 1) preservation of capital; 2) liquidity; and 3) return on investment.
Present considerations: The portfolio value at Dec. 31, 2020 is $81.6 million, which is an
increase from $54.4 million at Sept. 30, 2020. The increase is due to the receipt of the second
half property tax and TIF settlements on Dec. 1, 2020 totaling $23.8 million and the bond sale in
November. Approximately $10 million of cash will be expended from money market accounts
on Feb. 1, 2021 for debt service and pay as you go TIF note payments. The next property tax
payment will be the 70% advance in late June 2021.
The overall yield to maturity decreased in the fourth quarter to .73% compared to 1.16% the
prior quarter and 1.78% at the end of 2019. This is the combined yield including both the funds
held in money market accounts and long-term investments, and interest rates on both have
declined significantly over the last several months since the pandemic. The overall yield is still
higher than the two-year Treasury (.13% on Dec. 31, 2020), which is a typical benchmark used
by cities for yield comparison of their overall portfolio, because some of the older securities in
the portfolio have higher yields to maturity. Rates on a five-year Treasury were at .36% on Dec.
31, 2020.
There was approximately $53.3 million in money market accounts at the end of December,
which includes $16.3 million of bond proceeds. Most of the bond money is from the November
2020 bond sale with a small amount from 2019 for final contract payments on the nature
center and other engineering and utility projects. Money market rates have fallen significantly
in the last 6 months and are now near zero at just .01% to .05%.
The remaining $28.3 million of the portfolio is invested in longer term securities including
municipal bonds ($1.3 mil), Federal agency bonds ($7.3 mil) and U.S. Treasury notes ($19.7 mil).
Municipal bonds are issued by states, local governments, or school districts to finance special
projects. Agency bonds are issued by government agencies such as the Federal Home Loan
Bank and Fannie Mae. There were no new purchases during the quarter. Due to the low
interest rates, securities that matured were not reinvested in order to preserve liquidity for
when rates begin to improve. Some Treasury securities have been purchased in early 2021 with
rates of about .35%.
This table summarizes the city’s portfolio at Dec. 31, 2020:
Next steps: None at this time.
9/30/20 12/31/20
<1 Year 59% 76%
1-2 Years 12% 11%
2-3 Years 15% 4%
3-4 Years 11% 7%
>4 Years 3% 2%
9/30/20 12/31/20
Money Markets/Cash $23,644,206 $53,362,125
Commercial Paper $0 $0
Certificates of Deposit $245,194 $0
Municipal Debt $2,351,103 $1,344,538
Agencies/Treasuries $28,196,141 $26,909,467
City of St. Louis Park
Investment Portfolio Summary
December 31, 2020
Institution/Broker Investment Type CUSIP
Maturity
Date
Yield To
Maturity Par Value
Market Value at
12/31/2020
Estimated Avg
Annual Income
4M Liquid Asset Money Market 0.02%22,825,403 22,825,403 4,565
4M Plus Money Market 0.05%7,002,555 7,002,555 3,501
UBS Institutional Money Market 0.01% 7,200,343 7,200,343 720
UBS Institutional Money Market (bond proceeds)0.01% 16,333,825 16,333,825 1,633
53,362,125
PFM Muni Debt - California State Txble GO Bonds 13063DGA0 04/01/2021 2.80% 450,000 452,795 12,600
PFM Muni Debt - Minnesota State Txble GO Bonds 60412ASE4 08/01/2022 1.76% 200,000 208,808 3,520
PFM Muni Debt - San Jose CA Txbl GO Bonds 798135H51 09/01/2023 2.13% 650,000 682,936 13,845
1,344,538
PFM Freddie Mac 3137EAEL9 02/16/2021 2.47% 800,000 802,144 19,760
PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0U27 04/13/2021 2.55% 500,000 503,315 12,750
PFM US Treasury Note 912828Q78 04/30/2021 1.87% 100,000 100,406 1,870
PFM US Treasury Note 912828R77 05/31/2021 2.02% 1,600,000 1,608,256 32,320
PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0U35 06/22/2021 2.76% 700,000 708,680 19,320
PFM FHLB Global 3130A8QS5 07/14/2021 1.25% 750,000 754,028 9,375
PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.73% 650,000 658,125 11,245
PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.85% 1,150,000 1,164,375 21,275
PFM FHLB 3130AF5B9 10/12/2021 3.02% 750,000 766,635 22,650
PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.72% 700,000 706,510 12,040
PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.64% 575,000 580,348 9,430
PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.85% 200,000 201,860 3,700
PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0U92 01/11/2022 2.65% 400,000 410,248 10,600
PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.12% 500,000 511,640 10,600
PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.18% 800,000 818,624 17,440
PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.69% 1,300,000 1,330,264 34,970
PFM US Treasury Note 912828TJ9 08/15/2022 2.76% 430,000 440,449 11,868
PFM US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.78% 925,000 961,824 25,715
PFM US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.51% 2,550,000 2,651,516 64,005
PFM US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.55% 1,675,000 1,741,682 42,713
PFM FHLB 3130AJ7E3 02/17/2023 1.44% 620,000 636,058 8,928
PFM US Treasury Note 912828R69 05/31/2023 2.53% 1,000,000 1,035,672 25,300
PFM US Treasury Note 912828R69 05/31/2023 1.83% 350,000 362,469 6,405
PFM US Treasury Note 912828T91 10/31/2023 1.55% 75,000 78,117 1,163
PFM US Treasury Note 912828T91 10/31/2023 1.48% 450,000 468,807 6,660
PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0V34 02/05/2024 2.58% 475,000 508,754 12,255
PFM FHLB 3130AFW94 02/13/2024 2.58% 500,000 535,960 12,900
PFM US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.55% 600,000 637,313 9,300
PFM US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.66% 1,600,000 1,700,681 26,560
PFM US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 0.85% 260,000 276,260 2,210
PFM US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.36% 350,000 371,889 4,760
PFM US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.66% 1,150,000 1,221,516 19,090
PFM FHLB 3130AGWK7 08/15/2024 1.55% 175,000 183,321 2,713
PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0X24 01/07/2025 1.69% 650,000 684,951 10,985
PFM Freddie Mac 3137EAEP0 02/12/2025 1.52% 750,000 786,773 11,400
26,909,467
GRAND TOTAL 81,616,131 594,658
Current Portfolio Yield To Maturity 0.73%
Study session meeting of January 25, 2021 (Item No. 8)
Title: Fourth quarter investment report (Oct. – Dec. 2020)Page 3