HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021/03/01 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular AGENDA
MARCH 1, 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 a 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. The chief administrator
has determined that in-person council or commission/committee meetings are not feasible at
this time due to the pandemic.
Special study session at 5:30 p.m.
The St. Louis Park City Council will meet by videoconference for a special study session on
March 1 at 5:30 p.m. to review updated goals and strategies for Connect the Park. Visit
bit.ly/slpccagendas to view the agenda and reports. Members of the public can monitor the
meeting by video and audio at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil or by calling 1.312.535.8110 and using
access code 372 106 61 for audio only.
Economic development authority (EDA) at 6:25 p.m.; Regular city council meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Following the special study session, some or all members of the St. Louis Park City Council will
participate in the March 1 EDA and 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. Visit bit.ly/slpccagendas to view the agenda and reports.
Members of the public can monitor the meeting by video and audio at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil
and on local cable (Comcast SD channel 17 and HD channel 859). For audio only call
+1.312.535.8110 and use access code 372 106 61.
Members of the public who want to address the city council during the regular meeting about items
on the agenda should call the number noted below next to the corresponding item. Call when the
meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. and follow instructions provided. Comments will be taken during each
item in the order they are received and must relate to an item on the current city council agenda.
• 952.562.2886 – consent agenda items 4a -4h
• 952.562.2888 – item 6a – Liquor license for Excelsior Blvd., LLC dba Hazelwood Food and Drink
• 952.562.2887 – item 8a – Ordinance pertaining to signs on rooftop screening
5:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
Discussion item
1. 5:30 p.m. Connect the Park update
6:25 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
1. Call to order
2. Roll call
3. Approval of minutes -- None
5. Reports
5a. Approval of EDA disbursements
Recommended action: Motion to accept for filing EDA disbursement claims for the
period of January 23, through February 19, 2021.
Meeting of March 1 , 2021
City c ouncil agenda
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1. Call to order
1a. Pledge of allegiance
1b. Roll call
2. Presentations
2a. Proclamation – Colorectal cancer awareness month – March 2021
2b. Recognition of donations
3. Approval of minutes
3a. City council meeting minutes of Jan. 19, 2021
3b. Special s tudy session meeting minutes of Jan. 19, 2021
3c. City council meeting minutes of Feb. 1, 2021
4. Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar
Recommended action: **Motion to approve the agenda as presented and items listed on the
consent calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add
or remove items from the agenda , or move items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion.)
4a. A ccept for filing city disbursement claims for the period of January 23, through February
19, 2021.
4b . A pprove second reading and adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 36 pertaining to zoning
and approve summary ordinance for publication.
4c . Designate Standard Sidewalk, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder, and authorize execution
of a contract with the firm in the amount of $188,266.75 for concrete replacement –
Project No. 4021-0003.
4d . Designate G.L. Contracting, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of
a contract with the firm in the amount of $526,407.10 for the Alley Reconstruction Project
No. 4020-1500.
4e . A dopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of
$34,121.60 for Project No. 4018-1050, which is the Historic Walker Lake Phase 1
improvement project with Minger Construction Inc., Contract No. 96-19.
4f . A dopt Resolution approving acceptance of a $300 donation from Jody Winger for the
purchase of a tree to be placed in Wolfe Park in honor of Bill Rosenfeld.
4g . A dopt Resolution accepting donation to the fire department from Bryan and Ronna
Bartness for fire prevention programs and equipment.
4h . Adopt Resolution in support of application for MnDOT Local Road Improvement program
funding for the Louisiana Avenue/ Cedar Lake Road improvement project no. 4023-1101.
5. Boards and commissions -- None
6. Public hearings
6a. Excelsior Blvd., LLC dba Hazelwood Food and Drink – St. Louis Park
Recommended action: Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony, and close
public hearing. Motion to approve application from Excelsior Blvd., LLC dba Hazelwood
Food and Drink – St. Louis Park for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license for the premises
located at 4450 Excelsior Blvd. unit 120.
Meeting of March 1 , 2021
City c ouncil agenda
7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – None
8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items
8a. First reading of ordinance pertaining to signs on rooftop screening
Recommended action: Motion to approve the first reading of Ordinance amending
Section 36-362(h) pertaining to signs on rooftop equipment screening structures and set
second reading for March 15, 2021.
9. Communications – None
**NOTE : The consent calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or
which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either
a councilmember or a member of the public, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the
regular agenda for discussion.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular city council meetings are carried live on civic TV cable channel 17
and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at
www.parktv.org, and saved for video on demand replays. During the COVID-19 pandemic, agendas will be posted on Fridays on
the entrance doors to city hall and on the text display on civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available after
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: Special study session
Meeting date: March 1, 2021
Discussion item : 1
Executive summary
Title: Connect the Park update
Recommended action: None at this time. Staff is presenting the updated goals and strategies of
Connect the Park and providing information on the related metrics.
Policy consideration: Does the city council support the updated goals and recommended
metrics discussed in this report?
Summary: Connect the Park is the building of infrastructure that supports the policies and
programs of the city. It is the implementation of the Active Living : Sidewalk and Trail Plan that
is intended to change how people move around the community by constructing a
comprehensive citywide system of sidewalks, bikeways, and trails.
This report is part of an ongoing series of council discussions related to Connect the Park. The
purpose is to share the update the goals , strategies, and recommended metrics, so the plan will
reflect the strategic priorities, policies and plans of the city.
At the Nov. 9, 2020 council study session , the city council provided staff with feedback on the
recommended goals and strategies; this report includes updated goals and strategies based on
that feedback. The focus of the study session discussion is to provide metrics to measure the
progress toward achieving the goals.
It is anticipated that there will be additional study sessions in the coming months to discuss
Connect the Park.
Financial or budget considerations: This report focuses on specific policy as it relates to the
Connect the Park implementation plan. This policy discussion will likely result in financial or
budget considerations in future reports. The funding source for Connect the Park is General
Obligation bonds.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Nov. 9, 2020 study session report (page 28-31)
Nov. 9, 2020 study session minutes (page 3-6)
Exhibit #1 – Connect the Park Goals and Strategies - Metric Matrix
Attachments #1 - #11
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, senior engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Connect the Park update
Discussion
Background: Connect the Park (CTP) is the building of infrastructure that supports the policies
and programs of the city. It is the implementation of the bikeway, sidewalk and trails identifie d
in the Active Living Sidewalk and Trail Plan . The purpose is to make a measurable difference in
how people travel around the community by constructing a comprehensive citywide system of
bikeways, sidewalks, and trails. It builds on council policies and plans to set a course for
implementation of the non-motorized transportation for the community.
Connect the Park was discussed by the council at three previous study sessions, Aug. 26, 2019,
July 13, 2020 and Nov. 9, 2020.
The conversation in August of 2019 focused on the status of the initiative at the halfway point
of the 10-year capital improvement program (CIP). There was significant emphasis on how the
program has evolved and has be en re defined by city plans, policies, directives, and best
practices of the industry.
The council provided staff with feedback that they support the installation of bikeways,
sidewalks, and trails; however, they felt that there were additional policy questions that
needed to be addressed.
The policy question for the July 2020 study session was, “Does the city council support the
routes identified on the Connect the Park map?”. Staff heard that council supports the
bikeways, sidewalks, and trail segments identified in the Connect the Park plan and in the
locations shown on the maps. However, council requested that the following items be
addressed as Connect the Park moves forward:
•There have been significant changes since the initial development of Connect the Park
and the goals should be updated to reflect the city’s strategic priorities .
•Metrics should be developed to understand how the investments in Connect the Park are
making a meaningful difference in how people move about the city.
The Nov. 9, 2020 study session focused on reviewing updated goals and strategies to align with
the city’s strategic priorities. Staff walked through the process of taking the eleven Connect the
Park goals, city’s strategic priorities and prominent city policies and plans t o create three new
goals. Council was generally in agreement with the updated goals and strategies; however, they
asked for refinements that included, using plain language , people-centered statements, and
action -orientated words to better connect with community members.
See the linked Nov. 9, 2020 study session report and meeting minutes for a recap of the council
discussion on goals and strategies.
Connect the Park goals and strategies : The goals and strategies are the “why” of Connect the
Park. The intent is to communicate with stakeholders the reasons why the city is building the
different segments of bikeway, sidewalk and trail. The “how” of Connect the Park will come as
staff creates feasibility reviews of planned segments. The following are the refined goals and
strategies of Connect the Park from discussion at the Nov. 9, 2020 study session.
Goal 1. Make progress toward cleaner air, less traffic and noise and more livable neighborhoods by
providing convenient and safe ways to use low-carbon and no-carbon travel methods
Goal 2. Contribute to equitable outcomes for all people
Goal 3. Improve overall health and wellbeing of the community
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1 ) Page 3
Title: Connect the Park update
Each of the updated goals has a set of strategies to help achieve the goal. These strategies will
be used to guide the evaluation and development of each segment to accomplish the goals.
Goal 1. Make progress toward cleaner air, less traffic and noise and more livable
neighborhoods by providing convenient and safe ways to use low-carbon and no-
carbon travel methods*
Strategies:
• Consider pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit first, then vehicles, when designing
projects.
• Build a complete system of pedestrian and bicycle routes throughout the city to
connect users to common destinations.+
• Remove or reduce barriers to using the pedestrian and bicycle system.
• Install directional signs throughout the city so pedestrians and bicyclists can
easily find their way to common destinatio ns.
• Make low-carbon and no-carbon travel methods an easy option to access public
transit and as an alternative to shorter vehicle trips.
* Includes walking, rolling , biking, mobility sharing and public transit such as
buses and light rail.
+ Common destinations include schools, parks, businesses, gathering locations
and public transit.
Goal 2. Contribute to equitable outcomes for all people
Strategies:
• Provide access for all residents to pedestrian and bicycle connections to common
destinations.
• Design the system to be user-friendly for all ages and abilities.
• Be mindful of racial inequities in the existing pedestrian and bicycle system and
work to address those inequities when designing projects.
Goal 3. Improve overall health and wellbeing of the community
Strategies:
• Reduce the fatalities and serious injuries resulting from vehicle crashes on city
streets.
• Build a system that allows everyone to feel safe and accepted in every area of
the city.
• Create a system that allows everyone the option to use physical activity safely to
reach common destinations and to connect with nature.
The following topics were discussed at the study session, but not incorporated into the refined
goals and strategies. Staff offers that these topics are decision-making considerations for the
individual segments and recommends that they be a part of the individual segment feasibility
analysis discussed at the end of this report.
• Cost-effectiveness and return on investment (ROI): To develop cost and compare it to
what we are getting in return, we first need to understand what is possible, who we are
serving, and what the impacts are. Staff recommends that this information be provided
as a part of the individual segment feasibility analysis.
• Interested but concerned users: The goals and strategies are for the entire bikeway,
sidewalk, and trail plan. Interested but concerned users are specific to bikeways and is
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1 ) Page 4
Title: Connect the Park update
focused on bicycle facility type selection. The strategy under goal #2 includes the term
“all ages and abilities”. As shown on attachment #6, this encompasses a wide variety of
bikeway users. Staff recommends that during bikeway segment design, the feasibility
analysis will provide a design for “interested but concerned users” in the context of the
specific segment. Additionally, metrics on type of users will be collected to better
understand who is using our bikeways.
Finally, the council shared an interest in discussing community engagement. Since e fforts
surrounding how we engage the public crosses all departments, staff recommends that we do
not pursue a conversation focused solely on Connect the Park. One of the topics on the city
council’s study session discussion item list is "Public process expectation and outcomes”. This is
scheduled for the second quarter of 2021. Engineering staff will be a part of this conversation
and will apply the recommendations to all our projects.
Metrics for the goals and strategies: A set of metrics were then paired with the updated goals
to measure how Connect the Park is achieving the updated goals and strategies. The metrics
that were chosen are based on the data and practices available in the industry. They balance
data that is readily available by other source s and the effort and cost required for staff and
consultants to acquire this data.
There are eight primary metrics that staff recommends using to measure the Connect the Park
progress against the updated goals and strategies. These can be found in Exhibit #1 attached to
this report. Each of the metrics is described in detail in the following paragraphs.
1. Citywide attitude surveys (Attachment #1)
An example of the information we can collect using an attitude survey is in the attached
report. This was completed as a capstone project for a group of University of Minnesota
graduate students in partnership with the city in May 2019. The project , Sidewalks in St.
Lou is Park , sought additional insight into residents’ perceptions and behaviors, effects
on property values and accessibility related to sidewalks in the community. A version of
this kind of survey could be completed on a biannual basis to gain insight relate d to how
Connect the Park goals are being met. Since much of what the city is trying to measure
is public perception, staff sees this as the method for collecting data that will get directly
at attitudes and behavior.
2. Community walk scores (Attachment #2)
The community walk score measures the walkability of any address and can be found at
www.walkscore.com. This metric is included in the Climate Action Plan and staff
suggests that we use this annually to evaluate the entire city.
3. Community bike score (Attachment #3 and #8)
People for Bikes creates an annual scorecard that gives a score for ridership, safety, the
network connections, reach of the system for all users and the growth of bicycling in the
city. Staff suggests that we use this annually to evaluate the entire city.
During the Dakota-Edgewood project development, a Bike Network Analysis (BNA)
(attachment #8) was completed to understand how the connectiv ity score of the
community increases with the addition of the bike way and the trail bridge. Similar BNA
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1 ) Page 5
Title: Connect the Park update
could be completed on individual Connect the Park segments as they are brought
forward for implementation.
4. Pedestrian counts (Attachment #4 and #6)
Staff recommends collecting pedestrian counts on an annual basis. In addition, for each
segment, existing pedestrian counts will be conducted to establish a baseline for
comparison. These counts are either done in person by volunteers or using video. Due
to this, more qualitative data could be gathered, such as the type of user like the All
Ages & All Abilities chart.
5. Bicycle counts (Attachment #5)
Hennepin County completes a yearly bike count every fall. The city would complete a
similar count on roadways with bikeways during the same time as the county. In
addition, for each segment, existing bike counts will be conducted to establish a
baseline for comparison. The se counts are either done in person by volunteers or using
video. Due to this, more qualitative data could be gathered, such as the type of user like
the All Ages & All Abilities chart.
6. Crash statistics for pedestrians and bicycles (Attachment #7)
Staff will review historic crash data on our street network to understand the number of
accidents involving pedestrians and bicyclists. This information will show the trends in
the community. Staff recommends reviewing this data on a yearly basis. In addition, we
recommend that this information is provided as a part of the individual segment review
that occurs during project development.
7. Demographic data (Attachment #9 and #11)
Demographic data like the data provided during the Dakota-Edgewood Trail Bridge and
the Beltline Blvd Pedestrian Improvements project s would be used to help inform how
the proposed segment is contributing to equitable outcomes for all people. Staff
recommends collecting this data for each segment that is proposed.
8. Access to destinations (Attachment #1)
Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Sidewalks in St. Louis Park report show key accessibility data
for race and age (pages 20 – 23 of the pdf). Staff recommends completing this type of
analysis using census data annually.
Staff will monitor industry trends. As new data and methodology become available, we would
consider using them to enhance our data set for measuring the updated goals and strategies of
Connect the Park.
Next steps: If council supports the metrics presented in this report, staff recommends that our
next study session topic be a discussion of individual segment feasibility review criteria. These
criteria will be applied to each segment as they are designed and brought forward to the
council for consideration. Based on council direction, they could include facility design, impacts,
demographics served, cost, and return on investment. On bikeway segments, the following
would be added to the analysis: the options for bikeway type, alternate routes, and specific
user type served by each option (including a “interested but concerned”) would be added to
the analysis.
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 6
Title: Connect the Park update
A dditional policy discussion topics:
•Schedule: Last fall, during the 2021 budget process, finance took a deep dive into our
CIP and how the 10- year projections for debt levy influence the annual budget cycle. As
a part of this, the schedule for the CTP plan was slowed down, with completion
extended from 2027 to 2036.
•Community and neighborhood sidewalk designation: Sidewalks included in the CTP
implementation plan are designated as community. The council has requested a
discussion regarding the definitions for sidewalk designation.
It is expected that the council policy conversation for Connect the Park could be completed by
summer of 2021. This would help to inform the public process for the upcoming capital
improvement projects scheduled for 2022 and beyond.
Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3
Make progress toward cleaner air, less traffic and noise
and more livable neighborhoods by providing convenient
and safe ways to use low-carbon and no-carbon travel
methods
Contribute to equitable outcomes for
all people
Improve overall health and wellbeing of
the community Effort Assigned
to
Est.
hours
Attachment #1: Attachment #1: Attachment #1:
1. Who will be served by the project?
3. Why don't you bike today?
Community walk score Attachment #2: numerical value Annually Low Staff 4
Community bike score Attachment #3: numerical value Annually Low Staff 4
Bike Network Analysis Attachment #8: Bike Network Analysis Segment High Consultant 25
Pedestrian counts Attachment #4: numerical value Attachment #6: Type of user Attachment #6: Type of user Annually/segment High Consultant 100
Attachment #6: Type of user Attachment #6: Type of user
Attachment #10: Type of Facilities Attachment #10: Type of Facilities
Crash statistics for peds and bikes Attachment #7: Numerical value Attachment #7: Numerical value Annually/segment Low Staff 4
Attachment #11 Attachment #11
Attachment #9: Age, race, gender, etc Attachment #9: Age, race, gender, etc
Access to destinations Attachment #1: Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6 Attachment #1: Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6 Annually Medium Staff 40
Notes for resource allocation:
Low: under 5 hours
Medium:5 to 50 hours
High:over 50 hours
Staff
Consultant
20
80
120
High
MediumBy segmentDemographic data
Bicycle counts Attachment #5: numerical value Annually/segment
Exhibit #1
High Staff
Resource allocation
Connect the Park Goals and Strategies - Metrics
Metrics Frequency
1.Would you be more active if bikeways
were present?Citywide attitude surveys Every two years
1. What are residents travel behaviors and perceptions of bike
facilities in SLP?
2. What are the barriers that prevent you from using low-
carbon/no-carbon travel?
3. Would you prefer to walk, bike or take transit instead of
driving to destinations?
2. Do you feel safe while using these
facilities?
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 7
Sidewalks in
St. Louis Park:
Understanding
Resident Perceptions and
Behaviors, Effects on
Property Values,
and Accessibility
Erin Daly
Alena DeGrado
Austin Hauf
Haley Sevening
Leoma Van Dort
Faculty Advisor:
Greg Lindsey
May 2019
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 8
Sidewalks in St. Louis Park
Capstone Paper
In Partial Fulfillment of the Master of Urban and Regional Planning Degree Requirements
The Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs
The University of Minnesota
Erin Daly
Alena DeGrado
Austin Hauf
Haley Sevening
Leoma Van Dort
Greg Lindsey
Capstone Advisor
University of Minnesota
Debra Heiser
Ben Manibog
City of St. Louis Park
________________________
Date of Oral Presentation
________________________
Approval Date of Final Paper
May 7, 2019 May 29, 2019
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 9
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance
and guidance throughout the capstone process.
Greg Lindsey, Professor of Urban & Regional Planning | University of Minnesota
Debra Heiser, Engineering Director | City of St. Louis Park
Ben Manibog, Transportation Engineer | City of St. Louis Park
Cory Bultema, City Assessor | City of St. Louis Park
Yunlei Qi, PhD Candidate | University of Minnesota
Jessica Schoner, Project Planner & Researcher | Toole Design Group
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 10
Table of ContentsExecutive Summary 1
Introduction 3
Research Approach & Methodology 5
Results 6
What These Analyses Mean for St. Louis Park 19
Recommendations 23
Appendices 24
Survey
Property Values
Accessibility
Appendix A: Survey Technical Memo
Appendix B: Property Value Analysis Technical Memo
Appendix C: Accessibility Analysis Technical Memo
7
13
15
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 11
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 12
Executive Summary
St. Louis Park is a first-ring suburb in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, with
varying land use patterns based on proximity to Minneapolis. The city has developed
a number of plans to improve its pedestrian network, including the Connect the Park
plan that identifies a six-year funding stream for implementing new sidewalks to increase
connectivity, improve safety and accessibility, and enhance livability.
While many residents support the City’s efforts to implement sidewalks, some have
concerns related to how sidewalks could affect property values, increase crime, remove
trees/green space, and create a maintenance burden for residents. In addition, City staff
have also heard from residents that sidewalks will not be used because everyone drives
or that streets are quiet enough for pedestrians to walk on the road.
To evaluate the concerns raised by residents and measure the future impacts of St. Louis
Park’s planned sidewalk and trail implementation, students from the Master of Urban
and Regional Planning program at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs - University of
Minnesota partnered with the City of St. Louis Park on a capstone project. The project
was designed to answer three research questions, which were informed by the needs
and interests of St. Louis Park staff:
1 | Sidewalks in St. Louis Park
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 13
To answer these questions, the project used a mixed-methods approach that combined
a web-based survey, a statistical analysis of property values, and a GIS-based analysis of
accessibility.
The survey was primarily distributed via the City’s official social media outlets, news
platforms, and listservs. To increase the survey response rate among specific subsets of
the population, 337 flyers were distributed to single-family homes and 17 apartment
buildings were emailed a link to the survey. More than 600 completed survey responses
were gathered over a period of 30 days in March 2019. The property value analysis
included data from nearly 3,200 home sales from 2012-2018 and 16 property and
neighborhood characteristics that typically affect property values. The accessibility
analysis used demographic and infrastructure data to evaluate changes in accessibility to
19 destination categories if all planned sidewalks and trails were implemented.
The results of the analyses revealed the following key findings:
Based on these findings, we proposed five recommendations to the City of St. Louis Park
(see sidebar). These recommendations in general provide support for the City’s ongoing
efforts to implement the Connect the Park plan and inform new initiatives in improving
the pedestrian network.
Recommendations
Continue reaching out to
populations beyond those that
responded to the survey.
Increase proactive
engagement around sidewalk
maintenance.
Collect updated data on
sidewalk condition, curb
ramps, and other elements of
walking infrastructure.
Revisit the results of the
accessibility analysis once
updated Census data becomes
available.
Account for other barriers
to walking as sidewalks are
implemented.
1
2
3
4
5
1. Most residents like sidewalks.
2. Most residents feel safer with sidewalks.
3. Most residents are unhappy with winter maintenance of sidewalks.
4. Sidewalks have no significant effects on property values.
5. Most residents would prefer to walk to more destinations and will have
better access to destinations with continued sidewalk and trail implementation.
Sidewalks in St. Louis Park | 2
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 14
Introduction
The City of St. Louis Park has
developed a number of plans such
as the Trails and Sidewalks Master
Plan (1999), Active Living: Sidewalks
and Trails (2007), and Connect
the Park (2013) to improve its
pedestrian network. The Connect
the Park plan identifies a six-year
funding stream (2018-2023) for
new sidewalk implementation
to provide connectivity, improve
safety and accessibility, and
enhance livability1.
Figure 1 shows the City of St.
Louis Park’s existing and planned
pedestrian network. The green
lines indicate streets with sidewalks
and trails and the orange lines
indicate streets with planned
sidewalks and trails. Streets shown
in gray do not have existing or
planned sidewalks or trails.
Background
Figure 1. Existing and Planned Pedestrian Network in St. Louis Park1 City of St. Louis Park. (2019). Connect the Park.
3 | Sidewalks in St. Louis Park
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 15
While many people support the City’s efforts to implement sidewalks, staff have identified
a number of resident concerns associated with sidewalk implementation. Common
concerns include effects on property values, increases in crime, the removal of trees/loss
of green space, and the resident burden of maintaining sidewalks. In addition, staff have
also heard from residents that sidewalks will not be used because everyone drives or that
streets are quiet enough for pedestrians to walk on the road.
As graduate students at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs,
we were interested in evaluating the concerns raised by residents and measuring the
future effects of St. Louis Park’s planned sidewalk and trail implementation. We partnered
with the City to answer the following research questions (see Figure 2), which were
informed by the needs and interests of St. Louis Park staff.
To answer these questions, we developed a mixed methods approach that combined a
web-based survey, a property value analysis, and a GIS-based accessibility analysis which
address concerns raised by residents and illustrate how access to destinations will change
with continued implementation of sidewalks and trails.
Figure 2. Research Questions
This report includes a summary
of the methodology and results
for a survey of St. Louis Park
residents regarding their travel
behaviors and perceptions of
sidewalks and analyses of the
associations between sidewalks
and property values and access
to destinations. In addition, we
provide recommendations for using
the findings from this study to
support future implementation of
the Connect the Park plan.
Sidewalks in St. Louis Park | 4
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 16
Research Approach & Methodology
Figure 3 summarizes the scope,
substance, and limitations of the
survey, the property value analysis,
and accessibility analysis. While the
methodologies and limitations are
summarized here, Appendices A, B,
and C contain full details for each.
Figure 3. Summary of Research Approach & Methodology
5 | Sidewalks in St. Louis Park
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 17
The survey analyses, which were based on more than 600 completed responses, reflect
the range of opinions St. Louis Park residents have about the use and effects of sidewalks.
However, the results are not necessarily representative of the views of all St. Louis Park
residents because the sample was not randomly selected.
The property value analysis, which was based on almost 3,200 home sales in St. Louis
Park, revealed the effect the presence of a sidewalk has on a property’s value. However,
the analysis did not account for all home preferences and a limited number of errors may
have occurred due to incomplete sidewalk data.
The accessibility analysis, which was based on more than 12,800 residential parcels
and 19 destination categories, identified changes in accessibility to destinations if all
planned sidewalks and trails were implemented. However, accessibility may not be truly
represented because the analysis did not account for informal routes, physical barriers,
or sidewalk condition, and used parcel-level population estimates.
Results
Together, the survey, property value analysis, and accessibility analysis provide detailed
information about how St. Louis Park residents think and feel about sidewalks and
how sidewalks affect property values and access to destinations. The following section
highlights key takeaways from our results. Additional results and findings are presented
in Appendices A, B, and C.
Sidewalks in St. Louis Park | 6
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 18
Our survey revealed how residents
think and feel about sidewalks
and how they use sidewalks to
get to the places they want to
go. We identified respondent
characteristics and key takeaways
for both closed- and open-ended
questions.
Compared to the demographics of
St. Louis Park as a whole, survey
respondents:
• Were older;
• Were majority female;
• Were less racially and
ethnically diverse;
• Had higher levels of
educational attainment;
• Had higher household
incomes; and
• Had more vehicles per
household.
In addition, survey responses
represented each of the 16
identified areas within St. Louis
Park (see Figure 4) as well as
people that do and do not live on
sidewalks (see Figure 5).
Figure 4. Distribution of Responses
Figure 6. Uses of Sidewalks
Figure 5. Respondents that Live and Do Not Live on a Street with a Sidewalk
Most respondents use sidewalks for recreational purposes.
Survey
7 | Sidewalks in St. Louis Park
Lives on a street with a sidewalk
Does not live on a street with a sidewalk
56.4%43.6%
Recreation Socializing Transportation
85.0%
43.4%
69.7%
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 19
Agree Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree Agree Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree Agree Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree
I am more likely to choose to walk to destinations if there are sidewalks along the route.
I would be more active if I lived on a street with sidewalks.
I am more likely to drive to destinations even if there are well-connected sidewalks.
78.7%
9.5%11.9%
47.9%
25.2%26.9%29.7%29.0%
41.4%
Strongly Agree Agree Neither agree or
disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
I prefer to live on a street with a sidewalk.
I chose my current residence partly because there are sidewalks.
56.7%
9.9%
15.5%
7.1%
12.3%13.3%
4.8%
15.5%
10.6%
54.2%
Many respondents believe that they would be more active if sidewalks are present.
Figure 8. Sidewalks and Physical Activity
Most respondents prefer to live on a street with a sidewalk, but did not choose their current residence based on that preference.
Sidewalks in St. Louis Park | 8
Figure 7. Sidewalk Preference
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 20
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
74.4%
15.7%
5.3%2.7%1.9%
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
Sidewalks allow me to interact with my neighbors positively.Sidewalks increase neighborhood crime.
40.1%
27.1%
2.1%2.9%
20.8%
18.0%
5.8%
32.5%
6.3%
44.6%
Figure 10. Sidewalks and Impact on Social Interaction
Most respondents feel safer from traffic while walking on sidewalks than on roads.
Figure 9. Sidewalks and Safety from Traffic
Most respondents believe that sidewalks allow them to interact positively with their neighbors and do not believe
that sidewalks increase neighborhood crime.
Survey
9 | Sidewalks in St. Louis Park
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 21
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
4.3%3.2%
18.3%
23.9%
50.32%
Many respondents would prefer to walk, bike or take transit instead of driving to destinations.
Mode mismatch is the difference
between the percentage of
respondents that use and
percentage of respondents that
would prefer to use a certain
type of transportation.
Parks are the most common
destination respondents walk to.
Table 1. Mode Mismatch
Figure 11. Sidewalks and Impact on Property Values
Most respondents do not believe that sidewalks decrease property values.
Sidewalks in St. Louis Park | 10
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 22
Poor sidewalk connectivity Lack of pedestrian friendly facilities
Auto-orientedness Insufficient traffic-calming measures
Lack of destinations to walk to
Increased safety for pedestrians Community interaction
Livability and quality of life
Responses to the open-ended
question, “If you have any other
thoughts or comments about
sidewalks in St. Louis Park,
please share them with us here”
provided additional insights into
residents’ travel behaviors and
perceptions of sidewalks. Of the
624 survey responses, 381 (61%)
included an answer to this open-
ended question. These responses
were analyzed using NVivo, a
computer-based qualitative data
analysis software, to identify most
commonly discussed topics and
group them under categories.
A complete list of these topics
and categories can be found in
Appendix A.
Among the following groups, more
people chose to answer the open-
ended question than not to:
• People who are 65 and over;
• People who are retired; and
• People with a graduate or
professional degree.
Included below are key findings from the analysis of people’s responses to the open-
ended question along with a typical comment that illustrates the most commonly cited
topic under each category of responses.
Respondents most frequently cited increased safety for pedestrians as a benefit of sidewalks.
Respondents most frequently cited poor sidewalk connectivity as a barrier to walking.
I run a lot. I dislike running on streets. I much prefer walking/running on
sidewalks due to traffic driving down the street. Cars parked on a street without
sidewalks force me to run/walk almost in the middle of the street with my
stroller. It’s super dangerous.
“
Sidewalks are great, as long as they are relatively consistent, at least on a
block-by-block basis. Some of the sidewalks in our area end abruptly mid-block,
forcing us back onto the street while we’re walking our dog [...].”“
75%15%10%Figure 12. Benefits of Sidewalks
56%20%12%7%5%
Figure 13. Barriers to Walking
Survey: Analysis of Written Comments
11 | Sidewalks in St. Louis Park
”
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 23
Poor winter maintenance Sidewalk condition
Sidewalk design Remval of sidewalk
Maintenance responsibility Economic cost
Impact on environment Impact on private property
Nuisance behavior Other
Respondents most frequently cited poor winter maintenance as a challenge to using sidewalks.
Respondents most frequently cited the responsibility of maintaining sidewalks, economic cost, and impact on the environment as problems associated with having sidewalks.
It is very, very expensive and hard
work for an individual to keep up the
sidewalks on the professional safety
level necessary. Especially the elderly
and people who are on a low fixed
income (“house poor”), hiring private
plows to do the job and totally clear
everything to avoid melting snow
and the hiring [sic] someone to keep
redoing the job is prohibitive [...].
“
”
62%24%12%1%
Figure 15. Challenges to Using Sidewalks
31%25%25%8%6%4%
Figure 14. Problems Associated with Having Sidewalks
Access to current sidewalks is severely limited in the winter due to snow and
ice. If they were more cleared, I would use them more often.”“
Sidewalks in St. Louis Park | 12
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 24
According to our analysis, we
found no significant effects of the
presence of a sidewalk on the
sale price of a home in St. Louis
Park. Other factors did prove to
be important, which we expected
based on existing research.
Among the 19 variables analyzed,
15 variables were significantly
correlated with sales price, either
positively (+) or negatively (-) as
shown in Table 2. Factors like the
number of bedrooms and size of
the garage had positive influences
on the sale price of a home.
Factors like proximity to a highway
and effective age had negative
influences. The word “None”
in Table 2 means no significant
correlation exists.
Sidewalks have no significant effect on property values for single-family homes in St. Louis Park.
Property Values
Table 2. Results of Property Value Analysis
Effect on
Property ValueVariable
13 | Sidewalks in St. Louis Park
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 25
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 26
St. Louis Park’s existing sidewalk network does not disproportionately favor white residents over non-White residents in terms of access to the destinations studied.
Total
Pop.
Non-
Hispanic
White
All
Minority
Groups
Walking
Disparity
Total
Pop.
Non-
Hispanic
White
All
Minority
Groups
Walking
Disparity
Parks 49.54 47.62 57.98 10.36 Restaurants 70.88 69.59 76.54 6.95
Restaurants 31.09 29.60 37.64 8.04 Parks 83.89 82.81 88.66 5.85
All K-12 Schools 18.61 17.51 23.47 5.96 Pharmacies 37.02 36.09 41.13 5.04
All Transit Stops 78.36 77.30 83.05 5.75 Nursing Homes 45.93 45.17 49.29 4.12
Outpatient Care 24.44 23.47 28.72 5.25 Places of Worship 63.53 64.23 60.45 -3.78
Nursing Homes 18.86 18.00 22.63 4.62 Outpatient Care 45.44 44.79 48.32 3.53
Physicians 13.31 12.48 16.94 4.45 Hospitals 8.77 8.15 11.51 3.35
Pharmacies 14.02 13.42 16.67 3.25 Retail Stores 28.18 27.57 30.87 3.30
Hospitals 2.80 2.22 5.37 3.14 Lenox Community Center 7.58 8.11 5.28 -2.83
Grocery Stores 14.15 13.92 15.12 1.20 All Transit Stops 92.35 91.86 94.52 2.66
Retail Stores 11.07 10.86 12.00 1.14 Physicians 25.50 25.20 26.80 1.59
Lenox Community Center 1.98 2.15 1.27 -0.87 All K-12 Schools 47.47 47.18 48.73 1.54
The Rec Center 2.25 2.13 2.79 0.66 The Rec Center 7.04 7.23 6.20 -1.03
St. Louis Park Library 1.66 1.53 2.19 0.65 Daycare Centers 32.52 32.64 31.97 -0.67
Places of Worship 29.45 29.50 29.24 -0.27 Sabes Jewish Comm. Center 1.64 1.76 1.12 -0.63
Sabes Jewish Comm. Center 1.10 1.15 0.89 -0.26 St. Louis Park Library 4.38 4.27 4.89 0.63
Daycare Centers 10.06 10.11 9.86 -0.25 Grocery Stores 38.44 38.55 37.96 -0.59
SWLRT Stations 3.11 3.15 2.94 -0.22 SWLRT Stations 8.10 8.17 7.78 -0.39
Food Shelf 0.28 0.32 0.13 -0.19 Food Shelf 2.59 2.61 2.49 -0.12
Note: For destination categories with a negative walking disparity, access for non-Hispanic whites exceeds minority groups.
0.25 Miles 0.5 Miles
Table 3. Accessibility to Destinations on Existing Sidewalk Network by Race
Accessibility, as used, refers to
numbers of opportunities within
specified distances on connected
sidewalks. Our analysis produced
both baseline accessibility data for
the existing walking network as
well as data on expected changes
if all planned sidewalks and trails
are built. Unless otherwise noted,
values in the tables below indicate
the percentage of people within
walking distance on either the
existing or planned network for
the destination, demographic, and
distance combination shown. It
should be noted that the 6 percent
increase in walkable miles created
by the move from the existing
to planned network generated
increases of greater than 6 percent
in accessibility for some destination
categories.
We have calculated a walking
disparity to show the accessibility
gap (difference) between non-
Hispanic White and all minority
residents (see Table 3).
Accessibility
15 | Sidewalks in St. Louis Park
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 27
The benefits of the City’s current sidewalk and trail implementation plan will be realized by both White residents and residents of color.
Total
Pop.
Non-
Hispanic
White
All
Minority
Groups
Total
Pop.
Non-
Hispanic
White
All
Minority
Groups
Physicians 10.60 10.66 10.39 Sabes Jewish Comm. Center 44.26 43.62 48.69
Lenox Community Center 5.20 5.34 4.18 Physicians 7.53 7.93 5.90
Daycare Centers 4.10 4.50 2.26 Daycare Centers 6.26 6.47 5.31
Places of Worship 3.79 4.00 2.83 All K-12 Schools 4.51 4.59 4.18
Outpatient Care 2.14 1.53 4.37 Lenox Community Center 3.42 3.24 4.60
Retail Stores 1.44 1.39 1.62 Hospitals 2.24 2.85 0.34
All Transit Stops 1.39 1.47 1.06 Nursing Homes 2.04 2.10 1.82
Parks 1.32 1.41 1.01 Pharmacies 1.87 2.06 1.12
All K-12 Schools 1.11 1.30 0.51 Places of Worship 1.84 1.98 1.16
Restaurants 1.09 1.22 0.64 Outpatient Care 1.78 2.03 0.73
Grocery Stores 1.07 1.04 1.22 Retail Stores 1.37 1.49 0.92
The Rec Center 1.03 1.05 0.95 Restaurants 0.97 1.07 0.57
Nursing Homes 0.94 0.96 0.88 Parks 0.81 0.89 0.51
Pharmacies 0.88 1.04 0.34 St. Louis Park Library 0.81 0.80 0.87
SWLRT Stations 0.22 0.09 0.82 All Transit Stops 0.77 0.73 0.94
SWLRT Stations 0.77 0.78 0.74
Grocery Stores 0.75 0.76 0.73
The Rec Center 0.56 0.63 0.23
Note: Destination categories with no change have been omitted.
0.25 Miles 0.5 Miles
Table 4. Change in Accessibility to Destinations by Race
Implementing all planned sidewalks
and trails will increase the share of
non-Hispanic Whites within 0.25
miles of a grocery store by 1.04
percent and the share of minority
individuals within 0.25 miles of
a grocery store by 1.22 percent,
compared to 1.07 percent for the
population as a whole.
Sidewalks in St. Louis Park | 16
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 28
Planned sidewalk and trail construction will increase accessibility to key destinations for residents under age 18.
Existing Planned
Percent
Change*Existing Planned
Percent
Change*
Daycare Centers 8.90 9.45 6.17 Sabes Jewish Comm. Center 0.95 1.84 93.33
Lenox Community Center 2.20 2.30 4.81 Daycare Centers 31.25 33.54 7.32
Places of Worship 29.11 30.23 3.84 All K-12 Schools 44.75 46.83 4.65
Retail Stores 8.19 8.35 2.01 Lenox Community Center 8.23 8.50 3.31
All Transit Stops 75.32 76.79 1.96 Places of Worship 64.34 65.84 2.33
The Rec Center 0.98 0.99 1.84 Retail Stores 21.78 22.14 1.67
All K-12 Schools 17.16 17.46 1.77 The Rec Center 4.69 4.76 1.47
Parks 45.31 46.09 1.73 Restaurants 65.53 66.27 1.13
Grocery Stores 13.21 13.41 1.53 St. Louis Park Library 4.72 4.77 1.11
Restaurants 27.04 27.44 1.50 Grocery Stores 35.24 35.60 1.01
St. Louis Park Library 1.73 1.73 0.00 All Transit Stops 90.51 91.39 0.97
Sabes Jewish Comm. Center 0.39 0.39 0.00 Parks 82.15 82.88 0.89
SWLRT Stations 1.34 1.34 0.00 SWLRT Stations 4.87 4.91 0.72
*Calculated by dividing the difference between planned and existing access by existing access.
0.25 Miles 0.5 Miles
Table 5. Population Under 18 within Walking Distance to Key DestinationsWith today’s walking network,
8.9 percent of youth under age
18 are within a 0.25-mile walking
distance of a daycare center.
Building all planned sidewalks and
trails would increase this number
to 9.45 percent, an increase of 6.17
percent.
Accessibility
17 | Sidewalks in St. Louis Park
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 29
Planned sidewalk and trail construction will increase accessibility to key destinations for residents age 65 and older.
Existing Planned
Percent
Change*Existing Planned
Percent
Change*
Physicians 13.74 14.39 4.69 Sabes Jewish Comm. Center 1.68 2.44 45.22
Places of Worship 35.08 36.34 3.59 Physicians 22.02 23.86 8.38
Lenox Community Center 1.33 1.38 3.50 Lenox Community Center 5.48 5.81 6.08
Parks 48.46 49.12 1.36 Hospitals 6.42 6.67 3.89
Restaurants 31.40 31.77 1.18 Places of Worship 69.28 70.53 1.81
Grocery Stores 14.27 14.42 1.04 Nursing Homes 54.91 55.70 1.43
All Transit Stops 79.84 80.62 0.98 Pharmacies 45.09 45.65 1.25
Outpatient Care 23.88 24.11 0.95 Outpatient Care 44.10 44.49 0.87
Retail Stores 15.85 15.98 0.85 SWLRT Stations 5.80 5.85 0.85
Pharmacies 21.15 21.30 0.70 Restaurants 71.64 72.25 0.85
Nursing Homes 25.10 25.23 0.53 Retail Stores 35.66 35.95 0.81
The Rec Center 2.95 2.96 0.23 Parks 85.37 86.07 0.81
Food Shelf 0.25 0.25 0.00 All Transit Stops 92.27 92.85 0.62
Hospitals 2.90 2.90 0.00 St. Louis Park Library 3.42 3.44 0.61
St. Louis Park Library 1.60 1.60 0.00 Grocery Stores 50.30 50.54 0.48
Sabes Jewish Comm. Center 0.91 0.91 0.00 The Rec Center 10.55 10.60 0.46
SWLRT Stations 2.46 2.46 0.00 Food Shelf 1.70 1.70 0.00
*Calculated by dividing the difference between planned and existing access by existing access.
0.5 Miles0.25 Miles
Table 6. Population of Older Adults within Walking Distance to Key Destinations With today’s walking network,
5.48 percent of adults age 65 and
older are within a 0.5-mile walking
distance of Lenox Community
Center. Building all planned
sidewalks and trails would increase
this number to 5.81 percent, an
increase of 6.08 percent.
Sidewalks in St. Louis Park | 18
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 30
Our mixed methods research
approach revealed five categories
of findings, including general
perceptions of sidewalks, safety,
mode mismatch and accessibility,
sidewalk maintenance, and
property values in St. Louis Park.
What These Analyses Mean for St. Louis Park
Survey results showed that respondents were generally supportive of sidewalk
implementation and had positive perceptions of sidewalks. While respondents
almost evenly represented residents that both lived and did not live on a street
with a sidewalk, 72 percent reported that they would prefer to live on a street with
a sidewalk and 92 percent reported using sidewalks. Despite this preference, the
desire to live on a street with a sidewalk did not appear to be strong enough to
influence where residents chose to live.
Survey results also revealed positive perceptions of sidewalks related to improved
physical activity and social interaction. For example, 79 percent of respondents
believed that they would be more likely to walk to destinations if there were
sidewalks along the route. Another 67 percent of respondents believed that
sidewalks allowed them to interact positively with their neighbors. Further, 77
percent of respondents did not believe that sidewalks increase neighborhood
crime.
Most residents like sidewalks.
Most residents feel safer with sidewalks.
Sidewalks also appear to have a positive impact on perceptions of safety. Both
the lack of pedestrian facilities (such as crosswalks) and the lack of traffic calming
measures were named as barriers to walking in St. Louis Park. Ninety percent of
respondents reported feeling safer from traffic while walking on sidewalks than
while walking on the road. Further, the most frequently mentioned benefit of
sidewalks was increased safety for pedestrians, ranking higher than community
interaction, and livability/quality of life benefits.
19 | Sidewalks in St. Louis Park
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 31
Most residents are unhappy with winter maintenance of sidewalks.
Sidewalks have no statistically significant effects on property values.
Despite the general support for sidewalks, there are still challenges associated
with their use and implementation in St. Louis Park. In fact, concerns related to
sidewalk maintenance and specifically poor winter maintenance, were cited as
the most common challenge to using and having sidewalks. It is important to
note that these findings resulted from an open-ended question that respondents
voluntarily answered. Given that the survey was administered during the month
of March, towards the end of a particularly snowy winter, these findings may
have been biased towards winter-related criticisms. Nonetheless, concerns
about sidewalk maintenance are valid and ranked higher than concerns related
to sidewalk condition, the economic cost of sidewalks, and their impact on the
environment.
In some communities, residents believe that sidewalks make a home more
desirable and increase property values. In recent years, St. Louis Park staff
have heard concerns from some residents that building sidewalks will decrease
property values. Our survey asked residents which story they believed and found
that 74.2 percent disagreed with the statement that sidewalks decrease property
values.
Our research suggests that sidewalks actually have no statistically significant
effect on property values, positive or negative. Our analysis showed no statistically
significant relationship between the presence of a sidewalk and the sale price
of a home. Other factors, such as the number of bedrooms and proximity to a
highway, are correlated to the sale price, as would be expected. These findings
suggest that vocal opposition to sidewalk implementation because of property
value concerns is likely to be coming from a minority of St. Louis Park community
members, whose beliefs are not supported by the results of our analysis.
Sidewalks in St. Louis Park | 20
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 32
What These Analyses Mean for St. Louis Park
As indicated in the survey results, the perception that St. Louis Park residents are
largely car-dependent and that cars get priority in the transportation system is
seen as a barrier to walking in the city. Survey results also revealed a desire for this
to change. Respondents would prefer to be able to walk to more places than they
currently do, a concept which we have referred to as a mode mismatch. While
mode mismatches also exist for bicycling and public transportation options, the
values were largest for walking (see Table 1). Notably, the mode mismatch values
calculated for personal vehicles were all negative, indicating that respondents
drive to places more often than they would prefer to.
Only five percent of respondents that answered the open-ended survey question
reported a lack of destinations being a barrier to walking in St. Louis Park.
Nonetheless, the results of our accessibility analysis showed that accessibility
varied greatly for different destinations in the city. Parks, for example, are the
most common destination that respondents currently walk to and prefer to walk
to, resulting in the smallest mode-mismatch (see Table 7). This result is supported
by the accessibility analysis, which found parks to have the highest accessibility
for residents at both the quarter- and half-mile walking distances (50% and 84%,
respectively).
Restaurants and bars, on the other hand, had the largest mode-mismatch.
However, the accessibility values for restaurants and bars was also quite high at
the quarter- and half-mile walking distances (31% and 71%, respectively). This
result indicates that while restaurants and bars are accessible to many residents,
they may not be the restaurants/bars they want to walk to, or there may be other
Most residents would prefer to walk to more destinations and will have better access to destinations with continued sidewalk and trail implementation.
21 | Sidewalks in St. Louis Park
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 33
factors preventing them from walking to these destinations. Poor sidewalk connectivity
(such as sidewalks ending abruptly), which was the most cited barrier to walking in the
survey, may be one of these factors.
Other destinations, such as daycare centers, resulted in smaller mode-mismatch values,
indicating that respondents may prefer to drive to them. The number of destinations
involved also affects how the results should be interpreted. Libraries have a high mode
mismatch and low accessibility, but this is because there is only one location in St.
Louis Park. On the other hand, grocery stores as a category has a relatively high mode
mismatch and low to moderate accessibility, but also has more potential to improve
through future improvements around the City.
Mode
Mismatch Base
Percent
Change*Base
Percent
Change*
Restaurants/Barsa 32.6 31.09 1.09 70.88 0.97
Retail Shops**b 23.4 11.07 1.44 28.18 1.37
Libraries 22.7 1.66 0.00 4.38 0.81
Community Centers 19.1
Lenox Comm. Center 1.98 5.20 7.58 3.42
The Rec Center 2.25 1.03 7.04 0.56
Sabes Jewish Comm. Center 1.10 0.00 1.64 44.26
Grocery Stores 14.1 14.15 1.07 38.44 0.75
Places of Worship 12.4 29.45 3.79 63.53 1.84
Schoolc 10.8 18.61 1.11 47.47 4.51
Medical Services 10.6
Hospitals 2.80 0.00 8.77 2.24
Outpatient Care 24.44 2.14 45.44 1.78
Pharmacies 14.02 0.88 37.02 1.87
Physicians 13.31 10.60 25.50 7.53
Daycared 6.1 10.06 4.10 32.52 6.26
Parks 3.7 49.54 1.32 83.89 0.81
*Calc. by dividing distance between planned and existing access by existing access.
**Other than grocery stores
a "Restaurants" in accessibility analysis
b "Retail Stores" in accessibility analysis
c "All K-12 Schools" in accessibility analysis
d "Daycare Centers" in accessibility analysis
0.25 Miles 0.5 Miles
Table 7. Mode Mismatch and Accessibility Comparison
Sidewalks in St. Louis Park | 22
Mode
Mismatch Base
Percent
Change*Base
Percent
Change*
Restaurants/Barsa 32.6 31.09 1.09 70.88 0.97
Retail Shops**b 23.4 11.07 1.44 28.18 1.37
Libraries 22.7 1.66 0.00 4.38 0.81
Community Centers 19.1
Lenox Comm. Center 1.98 5.20 7.58 3.42
The Rec Center 2.25 1.03 7.04 0.56
Sabes Jewish Comm. Center 1.10 0.00 1.64 44.26
Grocery Stores 14.1 14.15 1.07 38.44 0.75
Places of Worship 12.4 29.45 3.79 63.53 1.84
Schoolc 10.8 18.61 1.11 47.47 4.51
Medical Services 10.6
Hospitals 2.80 0.00 8.77 2.24
Outpatient Care 24.44 2.14 45.44 1.78
Pharmacies 14.02 0.88 37.02 1.87
Physicians 13.31 10.60 25.50 7.53
Daycared 6.1 10.06 4.10 32.52 6.26
Parks 3.7 49.54 1.32 83.89 0.81
*Calc. by dividing distance between planned and existing access by existing access.
**Other than grocery stores
a "Restaurants" in accessibility analysis
b "Retail Stores" in accessibility analysis
c "All K-12 Schools" in accessibility analysis
d "Daycare Centers" in accessibility analysis
0.25 Miles 0.5 Miles
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 34
Based on our findings, we have
developed five recommendations
that we hope will be used to aid
in the future implementation of
sidewalks.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Continue reaching out to populations beyond those that responded to the survey.
Recommendations
Continue reaching out to
populations beyond those that
responded to the survey.
Increase proactive
engagement around sidewalk
maintenance.
Collect updated data on
sidewalk condition, curb
ramps, and other elements of
walking infrastructure.
Revisit the results of the
accessibility analysis once
updated Census data becomes
available.
Account for other barriers
to walking as sidewalks are
implemented.
1
2
3
4
5
Survey respondents were not representative of all St. Louis Park residents.
Limitations in how our survey was administered may have made it harder for some
residents to respond than others, particularly those who do not speak English,
those without access to social media, and residents living in multi-family housing.
To gain a more inclusive understanding of how St. Louis Park residents think about
and use sidewalks, future engagement should expand to involve a more diverse
population.
Increase proactive engagement around sidewalk maintenance.
Improving residents’ understanding of the constraints and priorities of current
sidewalk maintenance while pursuing opportunities for broader winter
maintenance should be key strategies. Staff should increase communication
efforts with the general public to better manage resident expectations around the
quality of sidewalk maintenance and address the lack of clarity in relation to who
is responsible for maintenance in different areas.
Collect updated data on sidewalk condition, curb ramps, and other elements of walking infrastructure.
Our analysis did not account for sidewalk condition or the presence of curb ramps,
but a future analysis could utilize complete data to do so. These data can also inform
investment decisions related to sidewalk construction and maintenance, ultimately
reducing physical barriers for people who want to walk to more destinations.
23 | Sidewalks in St. Louis Park
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 35
Revisit the results of the accessibility analysis once updated Census data becomes available.
It is not realistic to expect City staff to redo this analysis every time the Census
releases new data. However, comparing our results (based on 2010 Census data)
to evolving demographic trends can ensure that the findings remain relevant to St.
Louis Park residents. These findings provide a baseline for the City to keep in mind
as parts of the city continue to diversify and accessibility needs change over time.
Account for other barriers to walking as sidewalks are implemented.
This analysis showed general support for sidewalks and the potential to increase
accessibility, but other elements that create walkable environments, such as
lighting, land uses, and street trees should also be considered. A sidewalk alone
is not enough to make people feel safe walking to the places they need to go.
To truly make St. Louis Park a walkable city, staff should pursue strong land use
policies, safer walking infrastructure, and environments that prioritize pedestrians
holistically.
Additional details on methodology
and findings specific to each
research question are available in
the Appendices:
Appendix A: Survey Technical
Memo
Appendix B: Property Value Analysis
Technical Memo
Appendix C: Accessibility Analysis
Technical Memo
Appendices A, B, and C are available
as separate documents and can be
obtained by contacting the City of
St. Louis Park.
Sidewalks in St. Louis Park | 24
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 36
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 37
Attachment #2 – Community Walk Score
Walk Score.com
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 38
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 39
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 40
St. Louis Park, MN ||CITY SCORECARD
2.4 All mode fatalities and injuries
Bicycle fatalities and injuries
Perceptions of safety
0.5 Growth in bike facilities and events
Perceptions of progress 2.4
Data unavailable
1.7 The overall score is based on Ridership, Safety,
Network, Reach and Acceleration. It includes
publicly available data and data gathered from
our Community Survey, City Snapshot, and
Bicycle Network Analysis.
2020 OVERALL SCORE
SAFETY
Measures how safe it is and feels to ride a bike.
ACCELERATION
Measures the city's commitment to growing bicycling quickly.
0 10 20 30 80 90 100BNA SCORE 706040
1.3 Bicycle Network Analysis (BNA)
Perceptions of network quality
1.0
2.5
NETWORK
Measures how well the bike network connects people to destinations.
2.0 Demographic gap in BNA
Bicycle commuting rates by gender 3.1
1.7
REACH
Measures how well the bike network serves everyone equally.
2.0
2.5
2.9
2.1 Bicycle commuting
Recreational bike riding
Perceptions of bike use
0.2
3.7
2.4
RIDERSHIP
Measures how many people are riding.
‡
‡*
* City Snapshot missing
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 41
BICYCLE NETWORK ANALYSIS | bna.peopleforbikes.org
DID YOU KNOW?
32% of Americans ages 3 and older rode a
bicycle in the past year
Learn more from the U.S. Bicycling Participation Study
peopleforbikes.org/resources/u-s-bicycling-
participation-report/
LEARN MORE CityRatings.PeopleForBikes.org
» A Guide for City Leaders
Identify strategies to address common barriers to
building great bicycling infrastructure.
peopleforbikes.org/placesforbikes/resources/
» PeopleForBikes Community Grant Program
Non-profit organizations and local governments can
apply for funding for bicycle projects and advocacy
initiatives. peopleforbikes.org/apply-now/
» Advocacy Alert Program
Local and state advocacy groups can apply
to communicate and share their issues with
PeopleForBikes supporters in their area.
peopleforbikes.org/local-engagement-portal/
» Better Bike Share Partnership
Learn best practices for engaging underserved
communities through bike share programs.
betterbikeshare.org
» Ride Spot
Find, create and share bike rides and events in
your area with an app designed to help connect
people with great places to ride. ridespot.org
» E-Bike Regulations
Review a comprehensive list of e-bike regulations
in each state. peopleforbikes.org/our-work/e-bikes
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
» WHAT IS IT? The Bicycle Network Analysis (BNA)
is data analysis software that measures how well
the bike network in a city connects people with the
places they want to go safely and comfortably.
» WHAT CAN IT TELL ME? The BNA rates every street
within a city as high or low stress and analyzes where
the network is strong and where it is weak. A city's
BNA score factors into its City Ratings Network and
Reach scores.
» SPEED LIMITS IN THE BNA. Speed limits play an
important role in street safety and in the BNA.
Since most city streets are in residential areas,
speed limits on residential streets can have a
large impact on the BNA score.
≤ 25 mphResidential
speed limits
create high-stress
streets for bikes.
Residential
speed limits
create low-stress
streets for bikes.
St. Louis Park, MN's
residential speed
limit is*
>25mph
*Based on state law and City Snapshot submissions
30 mph
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 42
/DNH6WUHHW'DNRWD$YHQXH0LQQHWRQND%RXOHYDUG
&HGDU
/
D
N
H
5
R
D
G
(GJHZRRG$YHQXHWK6WUHHW
UG6WUHHW1257+1RUWK
-DQXDU\
([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV
'DNRWD(GJHZRRG%ULGJH7UDQVSRUWDWLRQDQG3DUNLQJ6WXG\
&LW\RI6W/RXLV3DUN
)LJXUH
7UXFNV
WK3HUFHQWLOH
6SHHG PSK
WK3HUFHQWLOH
6SHHG PSK
WK3HUFHQWLOH
6SHHG PSK
/(*(1'
$03HDN+RXU9ROXPH
303HDN+RXU9ROXPH
3HDN+RXU3HGHVWULDQ9ROXPHV
(VWLPDWHG<HDU$YHUDJH
'DLO\7UDIILF $'7 9ROXPHV
'DLO\3HGHVWULDQ9ROXPH
'DLO\%LNH9ROXPH
6LGH6WUHHW6WRS&RQWURO
7UDIILF6LJQDO&RQWURO
$OO:D\6WRS&RQWURO
;;
;;
;;;;
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 43
Bike Count Report
2017
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 44
Overview
Page 1
Overview
Introduction
In 2017, Hennepin County conducted 48-hour bicycle counts at 34 locations in the southern half of the
county. These sites included the list of regularly scheduled locations that are counted every other year,
as well as special counts for capital improvement program (CIP) projects. Staff look to six permanent counter locations across the county to provide year-round data, which is used to calculate Average
Annual Daily Bicyclist (AADB) volumes for 48-hour count sites.
This report summarizes the methodology for conducting counts, analyzing count data and the results
from the 2017 count program.
Why count?
The primary focus of the bicycle counting program is to track and report bicycle volume information
along Hennepin County roadways, including trails adjacent to county roads. Trails owned and
maintained by Three Rivers Park District are not included in this program because Three Rivers
conducts their own bicycle monitoring program.
There are many reasons to establish and maintain a regular bicycle monitoring program, including: •Track ridership changes seasonally and annually•Provide bicycle data to inform and support planning and engineering decisions and identify
where additional data is needed•Determine bicycle volumes that may be used to calculate crash rates•Tr ack bicycle usage before and after county projects•Report bicycle data to elected officials, local government agencies, and the general public
Context
Local, regional, and national plans, policies, and trends support the development of a comprehensive bicycle counting program. •Hennepin County’s 2040 Bicycle Transportation Plan calls for development of an automated
bicycle counting program.•Bicycle monitoring aligns with the Hennepin County Transportation Systems Plan.•Local, state, and federal transportation agencies nationwide are planning and implementingbicycle counting programs. Notably, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has been a
leader in researching bicycle counting technologies, providing technical training to local staff,
and supplying permanent bicycle counters to agencies throughout the state.
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 45
Overview
Page 3
Figure 2 – Hennepin County bicycle count locations in Minneapolis
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 46
Materials and methodology
Page 4
Materials and methodology
Equipment
Hennepin County uses MetroCount RoadPod tube counters for its bicycle counting program. Tubes are
placed across a bikeway or roadway and bicycles are counted when they roll over the tube,
compressing it and sending a pulse of air to the MetroCount device. This program uses unique thin-
walled tubes specifically designed for counting bicycles.
Data collection
Staff collected count information at 34 locations in southern Hennepin County in 2017. Each location was counted for 48 hours, enabling staff to count at numerous locations with limited time and
resources. At each site, tubes were placed in the location expected to be used by the majority of people
biking.
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 47
Results
Page 8
Figure 4 – 2017 bike counts and top 5 sites in Minneapolis
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 48
Site code:7:00 1 bikes
Location:13:00 1 bikes
Total0:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 18:00 0.59:00 010:00 0.511:00 0.512:00 013:00 114:00 015:00 0.516:00 0.517:00 018:00 019:00 0.520:00 021:00 022:00 023:00 0.5
Note: These counts were
conducted by video. The
dates are not consecutive
and there is no video
available from midnight
to 4 a.m. for both days.
Totals
000
10
000003
10
1010
3
503
Minnetonka Blvd & E of TH 100 PM peak hour starts at:
Saturday
9/23/2017
EB WB
00
0
00
0
00 00
Hennepin County Bicycle Monitoring Program
6
10000
00100
00000
5.5
0000
00
Time
AM peak hour starts at:
000
00000
000
Wednesday
9/27/2017
EB00
110
00000
000
WB00000001000
0013
5
000100
0
002
00
00000.5
Daily Average
EB000
0
0.500.500
0.5000.50 00.5000.5
0
2.5
WB00000000.5000.50
0000 00.5
3
Average Annual Daily
Bicyclists (AADB)
4
000.500
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
EB WB Total
29
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 49
Who is the “All Ages & Abilities” User?
To achieve growth in bicycling, bikeway design needs to meet the needs of a broader set of potential bicyclists.
Many existing bicycle facility designs exclude most people who might otherwise ride, traditionally favoring very
confident riders, who tend to be adult men. When selecting a bikeway design strategy, identify potential design
users in keeping with both network goals and the potential to broaden the bicycling user base of a specific street.
Children
School-age children are an essential
cycling demographic but face unique
risks because they are smaller and
thus less visible from the driver's
seat than adults, and often have less
ability to detect risks or negotiate
conflicts.
Seniors
People aged 65 and over are the
fastest growing population group
in the US, and the only group with
a growing number of car-free
households.12 Seniors can make
more trips and have increased
mobility if safe riding networks are
available. Bikeways need to serve
people with lower visual acuity and
slower riding speeds.
Confident Cyclists
The small percentage of the bicycling
population who are very experienced
and comfortable riding in mixed
motor vehicle traffic conditions are
also accommodated by, and often
prefer, All Ages & Abilities facilities,
though they may still choose to ride
in mixed traffic.
People with Disabilities
People with disabilities may use
adaptive bicycles including tricycles
and recumbent handcycles, which
often operate at lower speeds, are
lower to the ground, or have a wider
envelope than other bicycles. High-
comfort bicycling conditions provide
mobility, health, and independence,
often with a higher standard for bike
infrastructure needed.
Women
Women are consistently under-
represented as a share of total
bicyclists, but the share of women
riding increases in correlation to
better riding facilities.13 Concerns
about personal safety including
and beyond traffic stress are often
relevant. Safety in numbers has
additional significance for female
bicyclists.
People Riding Bike Share
Bike share systems have greatly
expanded the number and diversity
of urban bicycle trips, with over 28
million US trips in 2016.14 Riders
often use bike share to link to other
transit, or make spontaneous or
one-way trips, placing a premium
on comfortable and easily
understandable bike infrastructure.
Bike share users range widely in
stress tolerance, but overwhelmingly
prefer to ride in high-quality
bikeways. All Ages & Abilities
networks are essential to bike share
system viability.
Low-Income Riders
Low-income bicyclists make up half
of all Census-reported commuter
bicyclists, relying extensively on
bicycles for basic transportation
needs like getting to work.17 In
addition, basic infrastructure is
often deficient in low-income
neighborhoods, exacerbating safety
concerns. An All Ages & Abilities
bikeway is often needed to bring safe
conditions to the major streets these
bicyclists already use on a daily
basis.
People of Color
While Black and Latinx bicyclists
make up a rapidly growing segment
of the riding population, a recent
study found that fewer than 20%
of adult Black and Latinx bicyclists
and non-bicyclists feel comfortable
in conventional bicycle lanes; fear
of exposure to theft or assault or
being a target for enforcement were
cited as barriers to bicycling.15 Long-
standing dis-investment in street
infrastructure means that these
riders are disproportionately likely
to be killed by a car than their white
counterparts.16
People Moving Goods or Cargo
Bicycles and tricycles outfitted
to carry multiple passengers or
cargo, or bicycles pulling trailers,
increase the types of trips that can
be made by bike, and are not well
accommodated by bicycle facilities
designed to minimal standards.
3
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 50
Attachment #7_Crash statistics for peds and bikes
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Pedestrian crashes 9 6 2 14 11 10 10 12 11 8
Bike crashes 9 12 15 10 18 15 14 10 7 6
Vehicle crashes 441 453 474 532 498 720 635 597 729 426
90%
92%
94%
96%
98%
100%
Annual St. Louis Park non-freeway crashes
St. Louis Park Minneapolis Saint Paul Edina Golden
Valley Minnesota
Pedestrian 33 1048 558 22 5 3081
Bike 31 657 226 18 12 2101
Vehicle 1961 24955 10596 732 471 233134
90%
91%
92%
93%
94%
95%
96%
97%
98%
99%
100%
2017 -2019 crashes by mode
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 51
Attachment #7_Crash statistics for peds and bikes
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Annual non-freeway bike and pedestrian crashes
Pedestrian crashes Bike crashes
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Annual non-freeway vehicle crashes
Vehicle crashes
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 52
Attachment #7_Crash statistics for peds and bikes
Pedestrian and bike crash locations 2011 – 2020
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 53
Connectivity Score Improvement BNA Score:
Improvement of Dakota
Bikeway + RR crossing
0 - 4
4 - 12
12 - 20
Dakota-Edgewood
RR Crossing
20 - 28
28 - 42
42 - 69
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 54
Attachment #9_ Demographic Data
De mographics of neighborhoods
1.What is the populations and the racial make-up of the Blackstone, Cedarhurst, Eliot and Eliot
View neighborhoods? What is the number of BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color)
children reside in those neighborhoods?
2013- 2017 ACS 5-year estimates Census Tract
220
Census Tract
221.01
Census Tract
221.02
Neighborhoods: Blackstone
and
Cedarhurst
Eliot and Eliot
View
Pennsylvania
Park and Willow
Park
Total Population: 1,658 2,717 2,827
Median Household Income ($): 75,000 87,565 62,566
Median Age: 34.2 33.7 35.3
Population Under 5 (%): 2.17 4.67 6.37
Population 18-24 (%): 5.07 5.67 7.39
Population 65 and Over (%): 8.75 9.31 14.68
Persons Below Poverty Level (%): 2.90 4.64 10.52
Children Under 18 Living in Poverty (%): 0.00 8.13 13.72
Not High School Graduate (%): 2.98 3.22 5.80
Non-Hispanic, Black (%): 1.09 14.17 11.81
Non-Hispanic, White (%): 82.63 69.16 73.15
Hispanic (%): 6.39 3.46 9.76
American Indian or Alaska Native (%): 0.30 0.44 0.00
Asian (%): 3.92 8.87 3.18
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
(%):
0.00 0.00 0.57
Some Other Race (%): 0.00 2.58 0.00
Foreign Born (%): 8.26 18.18 9.94
No One in Household Age 14+ Speaks
English "Very Well" (%):
0.70 6.57 3.89
Renter Occupied Housing Units (%): 42.53 43.55 41.77
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 55
2.How many students going to Peter Hobart would be able to walk to school with this bridge,
that cannot today?
•The following table is information provided by the school district regarding the
number of students and their racial makeup that live north of the BNSF railroad and
don’t have pedestrian or bicycle access to the Peter Hobart Elementary School and
the St. Louis Park High School.
Table 1
Total
school
population
Identified race
African
American
Asian,
Pacific
Islander Caucasian Hispanic
Native
American
Two or
more
races
Peter Hobart School
Overall school population 497 139 34 268 42 13 1
Blackstone Neighborhood 18 4 0 9 5 0 0
Cedarhurst Neighborhood 9 1 0 8 0 0 0
Eliot Neighborhood 88 21 11 47 6 3 0
Eliot View Neighborhood 18 3 1 13 1 0 0
Totals 133 29 12 77 12 3 0
Percent of total student
population 27% 21% 35% 29% 29% 23% 0%
SLP High School
Overall school population 1511 424 77 802 182 24 2
Blackstone Neighborhood 5 0 0 3 2 0 0
Cedarhurst Neighborhood 5 0 0 5 0 0 0
Eliot Neighborhood 47 14 7 17 8 1 0
Eliot View Neighborhood 13 4 0 6 3 0 0
Totals 70 18 7 31 13 1 0
Percent of total student
population 5% 4% 9% 4% 7% 4% 0%
Page 56
Attachment #9_ Demographic Data
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 57
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 58
Attachment #11_Beltline questions
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 59
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 60
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 61
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 62
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 63
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 64
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 65
Special study session meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 66
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: March 1, 2021
Consent agenda item: 5a
Executive summary
Title: Approval of EDA disbursements
Recommended action: Motion to accept for filing EDA disbursement claims for the period of
January 23, through February 19, 2021.
Policy consideration: Does the EDA desire to approve EDA disbursements in accordance with
Article V – Administ ration of Finances, of the EDA bylaws?
Summary: The finance division prepares this report on a monthly basis for the EDA to review and
approve. The attached reports show both EDA disbursements paid by physical check and those
by wire transfer or Automated Clearing House (ACH) when applicable.
Financial or budget considerations: Review and approval of the information follows the EDA ’s
charter and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal stewardship.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: EDA disbursements
Prepared by: Kari Mahan, accounting clerk
Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
2/25/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:24:10R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
1Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
280,278.214800 EXCELSIOR APARTMENTS LLC 4900 EXC BLVD TIF DIST G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT
280,278.21
126,945.04BRIDGEWATER BANK SHOREHAM TIF DIST G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT
126,945.04
207.19CENTERPOINT ENERGY MTKA BLVD PROPERTIES HEATING GAS
204.686211 CEDAR LK RD (DAHL PROP)HEATING GAS
411.87
24.97CITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
16.12ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
175.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
93.27ADMINISTRATION G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
31.17HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIES
10.00COMM & MARKETING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
150.00FINANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
55.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING
153.97POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
60.06POLICE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
204.15POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT
1,092.83POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
580.00POLICE G & A TRAINING
76.71POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
184.48POLICE G & A LICENSES
52.04FIRE OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES
57.90FIRE OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
327.23FIRE OPERATIONS SMALL TOOLS
136.49FIRE OPERATIONS HEALTH & WELLNESS
21.80BLDG & ENERGY G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
120.00ENGINEERING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
512.46ENGINEERING G & A TRAINING
350.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
16.94ROUTINE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
490.00CABLE TV G & A TRAINING
20.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TRAINING
30.00SOLID WASTE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
32.16ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
13.97PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
71.83WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
608.31REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
Economic development authority meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approval of EDA disbursements Page 2
2/25/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:24:10R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
2Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
2,288.00RECREATION OUTDOOR CENTER OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
8,056.86
618,170.64DUKE REALTY WEST END TIF DIST G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT
618,170.64
2,475.00EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC BELTLINE SWLRT DEVELOPMENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
918.754900 EXC BLVD TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
641.00ELIOT PARK TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
918.00WEST END TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
641.00ELLIPSE ON EXC TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
641.00PARK CENTER HOUSING G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
916.50CSM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
463.75DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
918.00MILL CITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
918.00PARK COMMONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
641.00ELMWOOD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
641.00WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
918.00SHOREHAM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
641.00AQUILA COMMONS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
918.00HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
13,210.00
560,448.74GOTTMAR II LLC PARK COMMONS G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT
560,448.74
610,692.57GOTTMAR LLC PARK COMMONS G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT
610,692.57
10,000.00HAYES JOURDAN DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
10,000.00
536.77HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER ELMWOOD APTS TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,296.064900 EXC BLVD TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,085.68ELIOT PARK TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,924.10WEST END TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,340.28ELLIPSE ON EXC TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
572.14VICTORIA PONDS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
745.62PARK CENTER HOUSING G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,503.11CSM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,655.23DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Economic development authority meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approval of EDA disbursements Page 3
2/25/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:24:10R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
3Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
1,220.16MILL CITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6,487.61PARK COMMONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,338.57ELMWOOD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
718.01WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,152.18SHOREHAM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,177.16AQUILA COMMONS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
705.56HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
29,458.24
68,743.13HIGHWAY 7 BUSINESS CENTER LLC HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT
68,743.13
1,000.00HIT RESULTS FITNESS DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,000.00
140.00KENNEDY & GRAVEN BELTLINE SWLRT DEVELOPMENT LEGAL SERVICES
400.00WOODDALE STATION TIF DIST LEGAL SERVICES
4,191.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES
4,731.00
8,106.00MAHONEY TIM DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8,106.00
1,000.00NAIL BAR & SPA DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,000.00
505.00NAIOPDEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
505.00
3,000.00PRIMACY STRATEGY GROUP LLC.DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES
3,000.00
10,000.00ROMENS RICK DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
10,000.00
267,747.93SIDAL REALTY CO LTD PARTNERSHIP LLLP MILL CITY G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT
267,747.93
514.23XCEL ENERGY MTKA BLVD PROPERTIES ELECTRIC SERVICE
84.536211 CEDAR LK RD (DAHL PROP)ELECTRIC SERVICE
598.76
Economic development authority meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approval of EDA disbursements Page 4
2/25/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:24:10R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
4Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
Report Totals 2,623,103.99
Economic development authority meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approval of EDA disbursements Page 5
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: March 1, 2021
Presentation: 2a
Executive summary
Title: Proclamation – Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month – March 2021
Recommended action: Mayor to read proclamation recognizing March as Colorectal Cancer
Awareness Month.
Policy consideration: None
Summary: In 1999, the Prevent Cancer Foundation led the charge to designate March as
National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. While colorectal cancer affects both men and
women in almost equal numbers and is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United
States, there are several screening methods available, making the disease highly preventable.
Promoting awareness can help save lives across all populations through cancer prevention and
early detection.
This outreach is even more important in 2021 as a result of delayed screenings due to COVID-19
lockdowns and cancelations of screening procedures. In 2020, during the first three months of
the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting lockdowns alone, over 1.7 colonoscopies were missed.
This resulted in an estimated 18,800 missed or delayed colorectal cancer diagnosis, and up to
4,500 additional unnecessary deaths in the next five years.
Blue has been designated the established color associated with colon cancer awareness. In
addition to presentation of this proclamation, the Louisiana Bridge will be lit blue on Tuesday,
March 9, 2021.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Proclamation
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant
Reviewed by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Title: Proclamation – Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month – March 2021
Proclamation
Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month
March 2021
Whereas colorectal cancer is the second -leading cause of cancer deaths in the United
States among men and women combined, but there is currently no cure;
Whereas colorectal cancer is one of the few cancers that can be prevented with timely
screening and due to COVID-19, the total number of colonoscopies and biopsies performed
declined nearly 90% by mid-April 2020 compared to the same period the previous year;
Whereas individuals born in the 1990s have double the risk of colon cancer and
quadruple the risk of rectal cancer as those born in the 1950s;
Whereas it is estimated that over 145,000 people were diagnosed with colorectal cancer
and over 53,000 people died of colorectal cancer in 2020;
Whereas colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates are disproportionately higher
among racial and ethnic minorities;
Whereas the national goal established by the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable is to
strive to increase timely colorectal cancer screening rates to 80 percent in every community for
all Americans eligible for screening;
Whereas it is critical that all people, of all ages, know the signs and symptoms of the
disease; and
Whereas observing a Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month during the month of March
would provide a special opportunity to offer education on the importance of early detection and
screening.
Now, therefore be it resolved, that the Mayor and City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park do hereby proclaim March 2021 as: Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month.
Wherefore , I set my hand and cause the
Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be
affixed this 1st day of March 2021.
_________________________________
Jake Spano, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: March 1, 2021
Presentation: 2b
Executive summary
Title: Recognition of donations
Recommended action: Mayor to announce and express thanks and appreciation for the
following donations being accepted at the meeting and listed on the consent agenda:
From Donation For
Jody Winger $300 Purchase of a memorial tree for Wolfe Park in honor of Bill
Rosenfeld
Bryan and Ronna
Bartness $100 Purchase of f ire prevention programs and equipment for
the fire department
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: None
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: March 1, 2021
Minutes: 3a
Unofficial minutes
City council meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Jan. 19, 2021
1. Call to order
Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
1a. Pledge of allegiance
1b. Roll call
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Lynette Dumalag, Rachel Harris,
Larry Kraft, Nadia Mohamed, and Margaret Rog
Councilmembers absent: none
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Engineering Director
(Ms. Heiser), CIO (Mr. Pires), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Mr. Walther), Senior Planner (Ms.
Monson), CFO (Ms. Schmitt), Director of Community Development (Ms. Barton), Senior
Management Analyst (Ms. Solano)
Guests: Mike Strudivant and Sheldon Berg, Paster Properties
2. Presentations - none
3. Approval of minutes
3a. City council meeting minutes of Nov. 16, 2020
Councilmember Rog stated on page 4, last paragraph it should read: “…Councilmember
Rog stated…” and not Councilmember Kraft.
Councilmember Kraft stated on page 5, 2nd paragraph it should read: “Councilmember
Rog suggested if and when the owners replace the landscaping, the plantings should be
low maintenance and native.”
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Kraft, to approve
the Nov. 16, 2020 city council meeting minutes as amended.
The motion passed 7-0.
3b. Closed executive session minutes of Nov. 23, 2020
It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to approve
the Nov. 23, 2020 closed executive session meeting minutes as presented.
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: City council meeting minutes of January 19, 2021
The motion passed 7-0.
3c. Study session minutes of Nov. 23, 2020
Councilmember Kraft stated on page 1 it should read: “… capital improvement changes
presented, if all of them impact 2022 and beyond and would not impact the 2021 levy.”
Councilmember Kraft added on page 2, 3rd paragraph, it should read: “…will be a fund
balance of approximately 50%....and reducing the levy would still give the city a greater
than 45% fund balance by his calculations.”
Councilmember Kraft stated on page 4, 5th paragraph, it should read, “…that of these
two options he prefers the 4.5% increase….and he stated he believes climate work
should be funded at $1-2 million per year.”
It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to approve
the Nov. 23, 2020 study session meeting minutes as amended.
The motion passed 7-0.
3d. City council meeting minutes of Dec. 7, 2020
It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Dumalag, to approve
the Dec. 7, 2020 city council meeting minutes as presented.
The motion passed 7-0.
3e. Study session minutes of Dec. 14, 2020
Councilmember Rog noted on page 8 it should read: “Councilmember Rog stressed the
need for comprehensive outreach to meet goals for the solar sundown program this
year.”
Councilmember Dumalag stated on page 6 the following should be added:
“Councilmember Dumalag asked the applicants “…if they had ever worked together
before… and also asked if agreements will be dependent on acquisition of the site.”
Councilmember Kraft asked that the last sentence on page 8 be removed.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Kraft, to approve
the Dec. 14, 2020 study session minutes as amended.
The motion passed 7-0.
4. Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Title: City council meeting minutes of January 19, 2021
4a. Approve the second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2603-21 amending the St.
Louis Park Code of Ordinances Chapter 2 to add a second voting youth member to
the Community Technology Advisory Commission, Human Rights Commission, Parks
and Recreation Advisory Commission and Police Advisory Commission and
authorize publication.
4b. Authorize replacement of 2006 Ford E450 van equipped with visual sewer inspection
equipment.
4c. Adopt Resolution authorizing the award of the 2021 arts and culture grants. (This
item was removed from the consent calendar and considered as regular agenda
as item 8b.)
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 21-008 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the sewer service line at 2748 Brunswick Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN. P.I.D.
09-117-21-32-0079.
4e. Designate Hydro-Klean, LLC as the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $399,685.60 for the sanitary
sewer mainline rehabilitation project no. 4021-3000.
4f. Approve for filing parks & recreation advisory commission minutes of Sept. 16,
2020
4g. Approve for filing board of zoning appeals minutes of Oct. 21, 2020
4h. Approve for filing planning commission minutes of Dec. 2, 2020
Councilmember Kraft requested that consent calendar item 4c be removed and placed
on the Regular Agenda to 8b.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Rog, to approve
the agenda and items listed on the consent calendar as amended to move consent
calendar item 4c to the regular agenda as item 8b; and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and commissions - none
6. Public hearings
6a. First reading of ordinance implementing a franchise fee on CenterPoint Energy
Resources Corporation
Ms. Heiser presented the staff report.
Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Spano
closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Kraft asked why CenterPoint asked the city to keep the fee the same.
Ms. Heiser stated they asked us to be equitable and keep it at the same level.
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Title: City council meeting minutes of January 19, 2021
Councilmember Kraft asked why we have franchise fees versus having higher taxes. Ms.
Heiser stated for building roads but noted property taxes could also be used for this as
well. She added another option would be to use an assessment. She stated franchise
fees are a sustained way to generate funds to be able to maintain city roads.
Mr. Harmening added franchise fees are applied to all properties in the city and not only
tax paying properties, such as non-profits like Methodist Hospital and Park Nicollet.
Ms. Schmitt stated this is an equitable way to spread out the fees throughout the city.
Councilmember Rog asked the council to consider having more flexibility in spending
franchise fees for city projects such as sidewalks being cleaned in the winter and other
initiatives around walking, biking, and mass transportation. She stated there are other
goals that are more important.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mohamed, to
approve first reading of ordinance imposing a franchise fee on CenterPoint Energy and
set second reading for Feb. 1, 2021.
The motion passed 7-0.
6b. First reading of ordinance implementing a franchise fee on Northern States
Power Co. (dba Xcel Energy)
Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Spano
closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Harris asked about the utility providers, how the cost is absorbed, and if
they pass it on to customers. Ms. Heiser stated there is a fee on utility bills, and there is
no administration fee for collecting this or sending it to the city.
Ms. Schmitt stated the franchise fees are collected by utilities on our behalf and then
sent to the city. Ms. Schmitt added the utilities send the city a quarterly payment.
Councilmember Kraft stated he supports this. He noted it is interesting franchise fees
are used and a mechanism to collect taxes from residents in a different way. He added
he is interested in pursuing a different approach over time.
Councilmember Rog supports this also but noted it is interesting how much the council
is concerned with levy increases, and not as concerned about impacts on residents of
franchise fees.
It was moved by Councilmember Harris, seconded by Councilmember Mohamed, to
approve first reading of ordinance imposing a franchise fee on Xcel Energy and set
second reading for Feb. 1, 2021.
The motion passed 7-0.
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Title: City council meeting minutes of January 19, 2021
7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – none
8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions, and discussion items
8a. Texa-Tonka Apartments
Ms. Monson presented the report to the council. She noted due to technical difficulties
on this topic at the planning commission public hearing, the council will take public
comment on this topic this evening. She added additional comments in writing from
residents were accepted and additional communication was sent to residents within 500
feet of the development.
Mayor Spano asked for public comments. There were no callers currently.
Councilmember Harris noted the landscape plan and pointed out the majority of the
area is a paved over blacktop parking lot. She asked how many trees are on the site
presently. Ms. Monson stated she did not know but will get that information to the
council. Councilmember Harris stated there might be two dozen trees there and more
will be added according to the plan.
Councilmember Harris stated she attended the neighborhood meeting and noted the
developer has been working on plans for one year and the plans have evolved. She
stated the main area where they have negotiated the design is the addition of
townhouses on the north end of the site. After council input, the developer also
increased the amount of walk out units to provide a more neighborhood feel and give
direct access to the mall across the street. She stated the multiple sessions allowed for
much public comment and she is aware there is not unanimous agreement on the
project. She noted it has been a parking lot for two decades so the changes are
definitive and will be different for the neighborhood.
Councilmember Harris added some residents want more shops to walk to and visit, and
this will help. She stated there are apartments nearby but not close to the shopping
center. She also stated the proposal has lower density than could be allowed there,
adding this was done to reflect the desire of the neighbors.
Councilmember Harris stated this project is a dramatic improvement from what has
been there, the design is a mid-century clean line-look, and the neighbors prefer that.
She added the developer lives in the neighborhood and there will be 20 units at 50%
AMI. She asked if this will be the case for 25 years given the TIF. Ms. Barton stated yes,
that is correct.
Councilmember Harris stated she supports this project and feels it is the right project for
the area.
Councilmember Rog asked about the five stories. Ms. Monson stated it is three full
stories along Minnetonka with a fourth story stepped back and there is a grade change
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Title: City council meeting minutes of January 19, 2021
as the site goes north, which turns the fourth story into the fifth story on the northern
half of the site.
Councilmember Rog asked about the size of the affordable units and if there are 13 two-
bedroom affordable units in the apartments. Ms. Monson stated the affordable units
are spread evenly throughout the various unit types.
Councilmember Rog stated we are missing an opportunity here until and unless we
commit to requiring affordable units that are larger than 2-bedroom. She stated the
development is terrific and a great design, but what is missing is the opportunity for
those that need more bedrooms for their family to live there.
Councilmember Dumalag stated this is an exciting project for this area. She asked what
the genesis of this project was, and all the steps taken and what was initially proposed.
Ms. Monson stated staff did much outreach as well as the Vision 3.0 process. She stated
there has been a long-term property owner and they are now ready to divest their
property. She stated public feedback was given about what should be proposed there.
She stated council voiced support for a PUD approach for the site in January 2020.
Mr. Sturdivant, Paster Properties, stated he is part of the project team and lives in the
neighborhood at Bird Place. He stated they started looking at the site and initially
thought a large apartment building would not be acceptable for the site. He added at
that point they started looking at the townhome concept and less density and then after
getting feedback, refined the project. He stated initially they looked at apartments
there, but then landed on the current unit mix.
Councilmember Dumalag asked if they are self-managing this or is there a 3rd party
involved. Mr. Sturdivant stated this is in conjunction with Stevens Scott for leasing.
Councilmember Kraft asked if there will be natural gas used in the building. Mr. Berg
stated the units will be electrically heated, but that hot water heating and corridors will
utilize gas. He stated there is a premium paid when heating with electricity even though
in the long run that is a better green path than gas.
Councilmember Kraft noted parking on Sumter that is a concern. He asked if there are
other options if that did become an issue. Ms. Monson stated there are other options.
City code allows for compact parking and there are opportunities for metro transit
reduced passes for residents. She added the mall adjacent to the development has
opposite peak parking times, so there are opportunities to create a shared parking
agreement there. Since they do meet the parking requirements for the city, the city
cannot mandate there is an agreement between parties. She added there are not any
concerns about parking.
Councilmember Kraft stated he supports this project but agrees with Councilmember
Rog’s points on larger affordable units and is pleased to see the green initiatives added.
He also appreciates the level of EV charging stations which is far above the
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 7
Title: City council meeting minutes of January 19, 2021
requirements. Councilmember Kraft noted that some people expressed concerns about
property taxes going up or down but added he will support this.
Councilmember Brausen stated his wife grew up in this area and her mom still lives
there. He stated he also owned a home on Bird Place a few years ago, so he is excited
about this redevelopment, especially as it is in line with strategic priorities, green
initiatives, building policies, solar, and the Texa-Tonka small area plan. He stated he will
support this.
Councilmember Mohamed stated she grew up in this area adding this area needs more
movement, which she has shared with Councilmember Harris. She is also excited about
the development and expressed her interest in affordability and larger apartment units
for families.
Mayor Spano noted the design and stated he wanted this to be a visually creative
signature project. He stated he thinks the project is partway there and added the city
needs to be aesthetically aggressive and show off artists’ work and the community. He
stated he would have liked to see something more daring as far as design, but otherwise
he will support the PUD request.
Mayor Spano also noted the amount of tax revenue to be brought in from the project
will be much better than the abandoned parking lot has brought in, so this is a positive.
It was moved by Councilmember Harris, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to
approve first reading of ordinance adding Section 36-368-PUD 18 to the zoning code and
amending the Zoning Map from C-1 Neighborhood Commercial and R-3 Two-Family
Residential to PUD 18 and set the second reading for Feb. 1, 2021.
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. Authorizing the award of the 2021 arts and culture grants. Resolution No. 21-
009
Councilmember Kraft stated one of the applicants used to teach ballet to his daughter
and noted there are several very good projects to be funded here. He pointed out a
project at Wat Thai, as well as several others, and he thanked Friends of the Arts and
others working on this.
Councilmember Rog asked why the amount awarded this year is less than the $20,000
allocated. Ms. Solano stated this happens from time to time depending on what
applications are received.
It was moved by Councilmember Kraft, seconded by Councilmember Rog, to adopt
Resolution No. 21-009 authorizing the award of the 2021 arts and culture grants.
The motion passed 7-0.
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 8
Title: City council meeting minutes of January 19, 2021
9. Communications
Mayor Spano noted a Lego art project that is available online to view.
Ms. Solano announced applications for board and commissions are now being accepted
until the end of February and more information is on the city website or through Ms.
Solano.
Councilmember Brausen commented on a 6 ft. snow structure with lights along Cedar
Lake Road which is quite nice to view.
Mayor Spano referenced several art projects throughout the city, noting there is a list
available on the city website. Ms. Solano stated an interactive city art map is on the city
website and will continue to be updated.
Councilmember Harris asked if the mural on the side of the Texa-Tonka shopping center
has been added to the public art map. Ms. Solano stated she would check and get back
to council.
Councilmember Harris acknowledged the neighborhood association system and pointed
out the Texa-Tonka area developed one prior to the Paster project and revitalization of
the area. She noted Scott and Adra who are involved in this initiative.
Councilmember Kraft stated a community art exhibit is going to be available online
beginning January 22 at the Friends of the Arts website SLPFOTA.ORG.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: March 1, 2021
Minutes: 3b
Unofficial minutes
City council special study session
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Jan. 19, 2021
The meeting convened at 5:00 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Lynette Dumalag, Rachel Harris,
Larry Kraft, Nadia Mohamed, and Margaret Rog
Councilmembers absent: none
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), City Attorney
(Mr. Mattick), Director of Community Development (Ms. Barton), CIO (Mr. Pires), Engineering
Director (Ms. Heiser), Senior Management Analyst (Ms. Solano)
Guests: Senator Ron Latz, Rep. Ilhan Omar, Hennepin County Commissioner Marion Greene,
Metropolitan Councilmember Lynnea Atas Ingebretsen, House Rep. Cheryl Youakim, Lobbyist
Moore, Lobbyist Tranten
1. 2021 legislative priorities – meeting with elected and appointed representatives
Rep. Omar stated it will take time for our nation to heal from the events of January 6 and she
sees the inauguration of the new administration as a new opportunity for this country. She
noted shared priorities are being discussed and in the next few weeks they will be working on
the priorities of the new administration, including another stimulus package, COVID initiatives,
student debt, and mortgages. She added an infrastructure bill will also be worked on related to
transportation and other needs of municipalities.
Councilmember Harris asked about moratoriums on rent and if that is on evictions. Rep. Omar
stated yes, and it will go into effect tomorrow and last until September.
Councilmember Harris asked if those unable to pay their mortgages will also be addressed. Rep.
Omar stated a moratorium is now in effect related to mortgages until September and will be
extended tomorrow.
Councilmember Harris asked about federal initiatives such as works progress and skill building.
Rep. Omar stated this will be worked on and there is an agreement to move on this as soon as
possible related to a jobs program and infrastructure rebuilding around the country.
Councilmember Harris asked about the infrastructure package and stated the city is unable to
repair roads and bridges as needed, as the city is delaying an increase in our tax levy currently.
She added there is also difficulty in gaining funds for the city’s climate action plan (CAP), noting
the city would benefit from an infrastructure bill that could assist with the CAP also.
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Title: Special study session minutes of January 19, 2021
Rep. Omar stated that part of the campaign promises from the incoming president is a robust
energy proposal of $1.6 trillion and will have an impact on these concerns.
Mayor Spano stated less than 3% of Minnesotan’s have been vaccinated. He asked about doses
that have not been sent out yet and for any information on this.
Rep. Omar stated the current administration has not been truthful and starting tomorrow she
hopes for a more robust understanding of what will happen the first 100 days and how the
cities will be engaged in rolling out the vaccination plans. She stated there are no more vaccines
to be sent to states and there is no stockpile at this time. She added a pilot project will be put
into place and more will be known in the next few days.
Councilmember Kraft stated it will be helpful to have a president that is civilized. He stated $2
million per year will be needed to meet the yearly goals of the CAP. He added nature in
Minnesota can be 1/5 of climate change and could cost half a million per year also. He asked
about her thoughts on that.
Rep. Omar stated the new administration will help shape this and an open dialogue will be
advantageous for all in grant creations for this type of initiative.
Councilmember Mohamed asked if a Democratic president and house and senate will allow
more to be accomplished now.
Rep. Omar said the upcoming administration is the most progressive our country has ever had,
and this is a great starting point. She added there is a 1 percent majority in the senate for
Democrats and while there may be some challenges supporting the new administration, it will
take much advocacy and negotiation. She added this is a hopeful place to be now.
Mayor Spano stated the council has sent the representatives a legislative document that
includes items of interest to the City of St. Louis Park including housing affordability,
transportation, climate action, and race equity.
Metropolitan Council Rep. Atlas Ingebretsen introduced herself and stated parks and equity are
her areas of concern. She stated she has no updates for the council on the delay of SWLRT at
this time, but the Met Council is 100% committed to the work and working with the county on
this project. She has reviewed the city’s priorities list on legislative issues and the number one
area she has received the most outreach and engagement has been environment and climate.
She added on housing they are working to address this crisis and their staff is working across
agency lines to partner on this and build more cross-sector initiatives. She stated they have
invested resources in section 8 housing through the area and working to find housing for
families in need. She stated the Metropolitan Council takes housing very seriously, as well as
opening opportunities for people affected by COVID.
Commissioner Greene thanked the council for their ongoing partnership. She stated there are 3
new commissioners on the Hennepin County Board. She stated areas the commission will focus
on this year include SWLRT, climate action, immigration, and the pandemic response. She is
looking forward to working with the council and city.
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Title: Special study session minutes of January 19, 2021
Mayor Spano stated the city is interested in becoming a pilot for the vaccination with the
county when this might arise.
Senator Latz stated there is uncertainty around the budget now, but a more reliable budget
forecast will be available at the end of February. He added there is a cash reserve of $1.3 billion
that is available, and they are hopeful the federal government will add to the CARES Act funding
to help the shortfall. He added existing costs will hopefully be offset for the budget but will
need to be held for COVID-related issues. He stated many items have been set up for remote
work and there is discussion on a possible bonding bill.
Rep. Youakim stated she is hoping they will balance the budget this year. She added they are
also focused on helping folks in need and she is working on local option sale tax initiatives that
have developed in the last few years.
Councilmember Brausen asked about local property taxes as it relates to the city tax levy and
property values in the city. He also asked if there is any discussion on giving cities some
flexibility on the tax rates, especially since there is a large lower-income population in St. Louis
Park.
Rep. Youakim stated she was concerned about commercial property values but was not aware
of residential tax rate shifts onto individual properties. She stated this can be looked at and she
will discuss it with the city’s lobbyist.
Councilmember Rog asked about municipalities helping their own residents with property tax
relief and the fact that it seems to all be state pre-emption.
Rep. Youakim stated there is a bill looking at filing for an extra rebate and changing the
qualification age for the senior tax relief also. She stated cities could do this if they had the
funds and she did not think they could be prevented from doing that.
Mayor Spano stated in St. Louis Park the affordable houses were purchased low, then
upgraded, re-sold, and property values went way up. Others did not and the council was hoping
to adjust the tax rates for differing properties based on their market values.
Rep. Youakim stated this type of assessment on the land is being looked at with commercial
properties, but this is not something the state would consider, although noted it might be a tool
that could be used.
Councilmember Rog stated she will check in about Minnetonka Boulevard at another time with
Commissioner Greene.
Councilmember Harris asked about COVID and innovations in government services. She has
seen several family-owned businesses opening during the pandemic and asked if there is any
effort to cap delivery fees for restaurants. She also asked if there are initiatives that the state
has looked at to help these small businesses.
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Title: Special study session minutes of January 19, 2021
Senator Latz stated he had not heard of these caps and neither had Rep. Youakim. Senator Latz
added if fees are capped, it brings up other issues involving price controls and rent controls, so
he is skeptical about capping.
Councilmember Harris asked for an update on SWLRT.
Commissioner Greene stated construction is going well; however, there are two items that have
come up including the construction of the tunnel, which will add costs to make it as safe as
possible. Additionally, the crash barrier wall is another area that will have much higher costs for
construction, and because both are critical of the timeline, there will be ramifications. She
stated the Met Council is working with Hennepin County to access the budget and timelines
now and how this will change. She stated this will be addressed in 2021 and all are working
toward that.
Mayor Spano asked about reopening the bike trails in the meantime and rerouting.
Rep. Atlas Ingebretsen stated she will work on this with her staff, adding throughout the project
the county and Met Council have been working with constituents related to this. She added
there is a delay in construction, but they do not know to what extent. She added she will ask
about this and invited the council to email with further questions.
Councilmember Dumalag asked about the state tax credits and if there are ways property
owners or investors can take advantage of that.
Rep. Youakim stated there is some bipartisan support for this, developers like it also, and she is
hopeful there will be extensions.
Councilmember Kraft noted the advanced energy codes legislation that will be introduced soon
and stated 58% of emissions come from buildings in St. Louis Park and two-thirds of emissions
come from commercial sources, so this bill focusing on the energy code to hit net zero by 2036
hits a sweet spot for the city, especially with redevelopment. He asked if there is a way to get
this passed.
Senator Latz stated this is the first he has heard of this. He stated there is a more willing chair of
the energy commission and this might be helpful to opening the discussion further. Mr. Moore
added he will keep Senator Latz informed on this legislation adding his strategy will be to get
this in front of the energy commission chair and noted this is being worked on as a statewide
bill.
The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: March 1, 2021
Minutes: 3c
Unofficial minutes
City council meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Feb. 1, 2021
1. Call to order
Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
1a. Pledge of allegiance
1b. Roll call
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Lynette Dumalag, Rachel Harris,
Larry Kraft, Nadia Mohamed, and Margaret Rog
Councilmembers absent: none
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Deputy City
Manager/HR Director (Ms. Deno), Director of Community Development (Ms. Barton), Principal
Planner (Ms. McMonigal), Senior Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Sullivan), Senior Planner
(Ms. Monson), Senior Management Analyst (Ms. Solano), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas)
Guests: Mike Sturdivant, Sheldon Berg, Paster Properties; Nkongo Cigolo and Jim Alexander,
Metro Transit
2. Presentations
2a. SWLRT construction overview and update
Mr. Jim Alexander and Mr. Nkongo Cigolo from the Southwest Project Office (SPO)
presented information to the council about the delay in timeline for the SWLRT
construction project. Mr. Alexander noted delays in construction at the Kenilworth
tunnel in Minneapolis, and along the BNSF line as it crosses under I-394.
Councilmember Kraft asked if this was a surprise. Mr. Alexander stated it was a surprise
to the construction crew, and they did not anticipate it would be as difficult to fix as it is.
Councilmember Dumalag asked if parking is an issue at the site. Mr. Alexander stated
yes, that is correct, related to footings for the parking garage for the adjacent 10-story
condo building.
Councilmember Dumalag asked if any other issues are anticipated other than the issues
related to the secant wall. Mr. Alexander stated no, nothing additional of this magnitude
is anticipated.
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Title: City council meeting minutes of February 1, 2021
Councilmember Dumalag asked which project takes longer, the secant wall or the
protection barrier. Mr. Alexander stated they are currently assessing this and will be
updating the schedule.
Councilmember Mohamed asked when the project will be completed. Mr. Alexander
stated they are still sorting through this.
Mayor Spano asked when will the delay be announced. Mr. Alexander stated they are
looking years beyond 2023 for the project to be done now and are still trying to assess
the timetable, which is being worked on.
Councilmember Harris asked if the barrier wall was integrated into the project costs.
Mr. Alexander stated yes, adding there has been a change to projected costs now with
the additional two projects, but stated they do not have that amount yet.
Councilmember Harris asked if each city will be required to cover any of the project
costs. Mr. Alexander stated that will be assessed; however, contingency is in the project
to cover items that come up like this.
Councilmember Rog suggested this might be a project the Biden administration could
assist with – with federal funds.
Councilmember Brausen stated once the costs are determined, the project will go to the
corridor committee first and then state legislature before any monies would come to
the city.
Councilmember Kraft stated after seeing the presentation, it seems like it could be years
and more money before the project is completed, adding there seems to be no way to
know how long the project will take or how much money the project will need to be
completed.
Mr. Alexander agreed, but added they felt they needed to update the council on this
and hopefully folks will be patient, as they continue to get more information out as soon
as possible.
Councilmember Harris asked if the regional bikeway will be reopened to connect with
greenway. Mr. Alexander stated that is now going to be moved to 2022, as they
continue to try to pinpoint timing.
Councilmember Harris added this is a very popular bikeway and if there is any way to
open that segment sooner it would be helpful, especially as the city promotes less
carbon use and the CAP.
Mayor Spano agreed the sooner parts of the trails can be opened, the better.
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Title: City council meeting minutes of February 1, 2021
Councilmember Rog stated as she thinks about the future of mass transit and COVID,
she wonders about ventilation systems and if they will be safe for riders in the future.
Mr. Alexander stated Metro Transit is working on this.
Councilmember Dumalag asked if after another estimate is acquired from the contractor
on the secant wall and barrier, will there be any certainty about when the bike trails
might open. Mr. Alexander stated yes, they are looking at this as a holistic project, and
looking to see when trails can open.
Mayor Spano asked what percentage of construction is done on the project in St. Louis
Park. Mr. Alexander stated it is about 25% done in St. Louis Park at this time.
Mr. Cigolo referenced the communications plan and stated if residents have questions,
they can contact him at Nkongo.cigolo@metrotransit.org. Mr. Cigolo added they had
heard concerns from the city on safety and vibrations. He noted more information on
potential impacts, maps and visuals are available on SWLRT.org, and on Twitter,
Facebook, or Instagram.
Ms. McMonigal thanked Mr. Cigolo for his great work on communications, work with
Ms. Smith on city communications, and connecting with those who have questions.
3. Approval of minutes
3a. City council meeting minutes of Dec. 21, 2020
Councilmember Brausen stated on page 6, it should read, “…Marijuana dispensaries.”
Councilmember Kraft noted a change on page 5 in the 5th paragraph, stating it should
read, “…started to process a 3% increase and that is still where he is…that resulted in us
being outside the range.” He also noted later it should read, “…a difference between 3%
and 4.5% is a difference of about $300 on an average home, which is significant.”
He noted that “4D” should be added before the words “affordable housing incentive
program”.
It was moved by Councilmember Kraft, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to approve
the Dec. 21, 2020 city council meeting minutes as presented.
The motion passed 7-0.
4. Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar
4a. Accept for filing city disbursement claims for the period of Dec. 26, 2020 through
Jan. 22, 2021.
4b. Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2604-21 imposing a franchise
fee on CenterPoint Energy, and approve the summary ordinance for publication.
4c. Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2605-21 imposing a franchise
fee on Xcel Energy, and approve the summary ordinance for publication.
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 3c) Page 4
Title: City council meeting minutes of February 1, 2021
4d. Adopt resolution approving the final plans and specifications and authorizing
bidding documents for Monterey Drive, Beltline Boulevard and 36th Street
improvement project (4020-1101 and 4021-2000). (This item was removed from
the consent calendar and considered as regular agenda as item 8b.)
• Authorize an amendment of the professional services contract 144-18 with SRF
Consulting Group, Inc. in the amount of $90,000 for the final design of the
Monterey Drive-Beltline Blvd-36th Street improvement projects (4020-1101 and
4021-2000). (This item was removed from the consent calendar and considered
as regular agenda as item 8b.)
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 21-010 accepting work and authorizing final payment in the
amount of $80,166.03 for project no. 4019-5000 rehabilitation of water treatment
plant #6, Zarthan Avenue, Contract No. 159-18.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 21-011 approving labor agreement between the city and
the Local 49 employee bargaining group, establishing terms and conditions of
employment for one year, from effective Jan. 1, 2021 – Dec. 31, 2021.
4g. Adopt Resolution No. 21-012 approving labor agreement between the city and
the police sergeant employee bargaining group, establishing terms and
conditions of employment for one year, from Jan. 1, 2021 – Dec. 31, 2021.
4h. Adopt Resolution No. 21-013 declaring the official intent of the City of St. Louis
Park to reimburse certain expenditures from the proceeds of bonds to be issued
by the city.
4i. Approve an estoppel certificate for 3745 Louisiana Ave. S.
4j. Authorize execution of a professional services contract with Bolton & Menk Inc.,
in the amount of $229,444 to complete the preliminary plans for the 36th Street
and Wooddale Avenue Improvement Project (4022-6000). (This item was
removed from the consent calendar and considered as regular agenda as item 8c.)
Councilmember Dumalag requested that consent calendar item 4d and 4j be removed
and placed on the Regular Agenda to 8b and 8c.
It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to approve
the agenda and items listed on the consent calendar as amended to move consent
calendar item 4d and 4j to the regular agenda as item 8b and 8c; and to waive reading
of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and commissions - none
6. Public hearings - none
7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – none
8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions, and discussion items
8a. Texa-Tonka Apartments. Resolution No. 21-014, Resolution No. 21-015,
Ordinance No. 2606-21
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 3c) Page 5
Title: City council meeting minutes of February 1, 2021
Ms. Monson presented the staff report.
Councilmember Harris stated this project is a vast improvement over the vacant lot that
has been here the past 20 years, adding the proposed project meets most of the criteria
and meets the affordable housing plans, as well as improves tree canopy. She stated no
project will be universally appreciated by all.
Councilmember Brausen agreed and stated this project reflects community goals
including creating housing and complies with green policy and the Texa Tonka small area
plan, which had community input and neighborhood approval. He stated he will support
this, and while no project is perfect, this one is strong.
Councilmember Kraft also agreed, noting he has talked with some residents and got
feedback on the city’s 500-foot rule and how the city notifies people. He did hear there
is concern here and it does not meet the needs of folks that want to be informed. He
stated he would like to bring this topic forward for future discussion, but added he is
supportive of the project.
Mayor Spano added he is also excited about the project, while acknowledging that not
everyone is excited about it. He stated he wants to make sure this project brings new
energy to the area and activity spins off in other areas as well.
Councilmember Mohamed also agreed with the council, adding the neighborhood
desperately needs more going on and this new development will bring great
opportunities. She stated she also will support this.
It was moved by Councilmember Harris, seconded by Councilmember Mohamed, to
adopt Resolution No. 21-014, approving the amendments to the 2040 Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Plan Map, as well as related figures, tables, and text.
The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Harris, seconded by Councilmember Mohamed, to
adopt Resolution No. 21-015, approving the preliminary and final plat for Edith
Addition.
The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Harris, seconded by Councilmember Mohamed, to
approve Second Reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2606-21 adding Section 36-268-PUD
18 to the Zoning Code and amending the Zoning Map from C-1 Neighborhood
Commercial and R- 3 Two-Family Residential to PUD 18, and approve the Summary
Ordinance for publication.
The motion passed 7-0.
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 3c) Page 6
Title: City council meeting minutes of February 1, 2021
Councilmember Harris asked about the construction schedule. Mr. Sturdivant stated the
project will begin July 2021 and will take about 12-14 months to complete.
Councilmember Harris asked if there will be a groundbreaking or ribbon cutting
ceremony. Mr. Sturdivant stated yes.
8b. Final plans and specifications and authorizing bidding documents for Monterey
Drive, Beltline Boulevard and 36th Street improvement project (4020-1101 and
4021-2000) and authorize an amendment of the professional services contract
144-18 with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. in the amount of $90,000 for the final
design of the Monterey Drive-Beltline Blvd-36th Street improvement projects
(4020-1101 and 4021-2000). Resolution No. 21-016
Councilmember Dumalag stated this area is in her ward and she lives close to it also. She
thanked staff for answering her questions and stated she is excited to see the
improvements for pedestrians and bikes.
It was moved by Councilmember Dumalag, seconded by Councilmember Rog, to adopt
Resolution 21-016 approving the final plans and specifications and authorizing bidding
documents for Monterey Drive, Beltline Boulevard and 36th Street improvement project
(4020-1101 and 4021-2000) and authorize an amendment of the professional services
contract 144-18 with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. in the amount of $90,000 for the final
design of the Monterey Drive-Beltline Blvd-36th Street improvement projects (4020-1101
and 4021-2000).
The motion passed 7-0.
8c. Authorize execution of a professional services contract with Bolton & Menk
Inc., in the amount of $229,444 to complete the preliminary plans for the 36th
Street and Wooddale Avenue Improvement Project (4022-6000)
Councilmember Dumalag stated this was an improvement and she is grateful to see this
on bike facilities and is excited to hear community input also.
It was moved by Councilmember Dumalag, seconded by Councilmember Rog, to
authorize execution of a professional services contract with Bolton & Menk Inc., in the
amount of $229,444 to complete the preliminary plans for the 36th Street and Wooddale
Avenue Improvement Project (4022-6000).
The motion passed 7-0.
9. Communications
Councilmember Rog asked if staff has any sense if SWLRT delays will impact financing
for Wooddale, and the Via Sol project. Mr. Harmening stated he would check on this but
added it should not delay moving forward on these development projects.
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 3c) Page 7
Title: City council meeting minutes of February 1, 2021
Councilmember Rog asked for an update on the Sherman project at the Beltline Station.
Mr. Harmening stated there will be a lengthy negotiation on the tax increment request
from Sherman, which has not been finalized yet. He stated he will keep council
informed, but added if there are difficulties, council may need to discuss other options.
Councilmember Harris stated she is excited about the Texa Tonka development and new
restaurants coming including Revival and a taco-themed restaurant, along with a
chiropractor.
Councilmember Kraft noted he viewed the online artist showcase with St. Louis Park
Friends of the Arts and recommended everyone look at it also. It can be accessed at
slpfota.org.
Councilmember Brausen also promoted the 21-day racial equity challenge with access
on the city website, encouraging all to do this.
Councilmember Rog stated registration for the challenge has closed. Mr. Harmening
stated almost 600 people signed up for it, adding if anyone is still interested in signing
up, they should contact Mx. Sojourner at the city offices.
Ms. Solano reminded all that the city is accepting applications for boards and
commissions members until Feb. 28.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: March 1, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4a
Executive summary
Title: Approval of city disbursements
Recommended action: Motion to accept for filing city disbursement claims for the period of
January 23, through February 19, 2021.
Policy consideration: Does the city council desire to approve city disbursements in accordance
with Section 6.11 – Disbursements – How Made, of the City’s Charter?
Summary: The Finance Division prepares this report on a monthly basis for the city council to
review and approve. The attached reports show both city disbursements paid by physical check
and those by wire transfer or Automated Clearing House (ACH) when applicable.
Financial or budget considerations: Review and approval of the information follows the city’s
charter and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal stewardship.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: City d isbursements
Prepared by: Kari Mahan, accounting clerk
Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
1Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
229.17A WOK IN THE PARK ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
229.17
745.83AC ST. LOUIS PARK ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
745.83
1,580.35ACE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,580.35
937.50ACTIVE 911 INC FIRE OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
937.50
.30ADAMS DINA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
.30
252.13ADVANCED CONCRETE SAWING, INC.SIDEWALK & TRAILS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
650.23PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
265.40WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
13.27SEWER CAPITAL PROJ G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
145.97STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,327.00
3,713.39ADVANCED ENG & ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,713.39SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,713.41STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
11,140.19
21.13AHLBERG CINDY BLDG & ENERGY G & A BUILDING
21.13
98.37ALDRICH STACEY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
98.37
11,263.25ALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
447.00PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
11,710.25
2,748.85ALLSTREAMIT G & A TELEPHONE
2,748.85
1,000.84AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 2
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
2Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
29.99POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
182.99TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
1,213.82
91.46AMERICAN ESCROW AND CLOSING COMP. WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
91.46
52.20ANDERSON DAVID WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
52.20
380.69ANTONENKO LARA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
380.69
745.83APPLEBEE’S ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
745.83
271.78ARAMARKFIRE OPERATIONS HEALTH & WELLNESS
271.78
603.75ARC DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
603.75
9,576.00ARCHIVE SOCIAL INC COMM & MARKETING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
9,576.00
193.26ARVIG CONSTRUCTION INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
193.26
367.00ASCAPPERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
367.00
3,029.76ASPEN MILLS FIRE OPERATIONS UNIFORMS
3,029.76
66.51AT&T MOBILITY CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
66.51
384.37ATEK DISTRIBUTION, LLC.FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
384.37
2,388.00ATIR ELECTRIC CORPORATION FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 3
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
3Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
2,388.00
4,547.70AVI SYSTEMS GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
4,547.70
565.00AVI SYSTEMS INC CABLE TV G & A REPAIRS
565.00
5,812.65AXON ENTERPRISE, INC.POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT
180.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
5,992.65
238.84BACKER KIMBERLY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
238.84
1,900.00BADGER STATE INSPECTION LLC WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET GENERAL
1,900.00
21.14BAPPE MATTHEW WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
21.14
60.38BARKER EMILY SOLID WASTE G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
60.38
240.00BARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN LTD HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
240.00
571.50BARR ENGINEERING CO STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
571.50
450.00BARTON SAND & GRAVEL CO WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
450.00
111.95BATTERIES PLUS BULBS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
111.95
1,461.00BEACON ATHLETICS PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,461.00
293.60BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INSURANCE FUND G&A UNINSURED LOSS
324.16REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 4
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
4Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
617.76
254.16BENNETT JACK WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
254.16
8.63BERGER BRANDON WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
8.63
229.17BEST OF INDIA ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
229.17
14.53BLAIR FRANCES WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
14.53
229.17BLAZE PIZZA ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
229.17
600.00BLUE AND BROWN BACKGROUNDS, LLC. POLICE G & A TRAINING
600.00
229.17BOARD & BRUSH ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
229.17
336.60BOLTON & MENK INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
94.05WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4.95SEWER CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
59.40STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
495.00
14.84BONNESON NEIL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
14.84
163.32BORDEN JANE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
163.32
146.35BORDER STATES ELECTRIC- MPL WIRING REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
146.35
684.91BOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
645.09FIRE OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,330.00
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 5
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
5Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
268.04BRANDT GLENDA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
268.04
189.27BRIGHT KYLE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
189.27
7.92BROBERG DIANE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
7.92
1,000.00BROOKSIDE MINNOCO PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,000.00
280.44BROOKSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC.NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
280.44
211.91BRUNI FRANCIS JR. & CHRISTINE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
211.91
953.98BTR OF MINNESOTA LLC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
953.98
80.00BUDGET SIGN POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
80.00
1,020.00BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION COMMUNICATIONS/DISPATCH TELEPHONE
1,020.00
66.13BUSINESS ESSENTIALS COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
66.13
126.03CAMPBELL HEATHER WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
126.03
7,486.02CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES
115.50PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,056.00SUSTAINABILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
49.50PUBLIC WORKS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
99.00ENGINEERING G & A LEGAL SERVICES
247.50SIDEWALK & TRAILS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
349.10STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A LEGAL SERVICES
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 6
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
6Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
379.50STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
132.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
9,914.12
2,241.10CANON FINANCIAL IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,241.10
480.00CAPTIVATE MEDIA & CONSULTING COMM & MARKETING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
480.00
398.44CARDILLE CASEY TRAINING TRAINING
398.44
15.00CARENOWHUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
15.00
49.60CASEY DANIEL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
49.60
747.74CBIZ BENEFITS & INSURANCE SERVICES INC EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
747.74
2,649.88CDW GOVERNMENT INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
122.42CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
2,772.30
625.00CELEBRATE YOUR MOMENT WITH JOY FACILITY ROOM RENTAL REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS
625.00
2,250.00CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
25,550.00TRANSFORMATION LOAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
28,025.00
8,846.05CENTERPOINT ENERGY FACILITIES MCTE G & A HEATING GAS
1,807.21FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GAS
3,256.63WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
211.58REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
2,174.03SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
928.72PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
6,346.48REC CENTER BUILDING HEATING GAS
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 7
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
7Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
23,570.70
12.75CENTRAL MCGOWAN CONCESSIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
12.75
10,800.00CENTRAL PENSION FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT OTHER RETIREMENT
10,800.00
3,335.00CENTURY COLLEGE FIRE OPERATIONS TRAINING
3,335.00
1,666.92CENTURY FENCE COMPANY PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINAGE PAYABLE
1,666.92
320.30CENTURY LINK CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE
320.30
52.46CENTURY REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT LLC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
52.46
150.00CHEF MARSHALL O'BRIEN LLC FIRE OPERATIONS TRAINING
150.00
382.95CHET'S SAFETY SALES INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
200.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
582.95
144.83CINTAS CORPORATION FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
227.87WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
310.35REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
68.25REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
476.55VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,227.85
24.97CITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
314.81GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNT
16.12ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
175.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
4.99ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
93.27ADMINISTRATION G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
31.17HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIES
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 8
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
8Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
62.50HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
354.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
488.29COMM & MARKETING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
10.00COMM & MARKETING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
141.39IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
149.99IT G & A TRAINING
122.00ASSESSING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
150.00FINANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
205.00-COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING
189.33FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
71.82POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
472.28POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
60.06POLICE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
204.15POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT
1,092.83POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
380.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
2,560.00POLICE G & A TRAINING
99.00POLICE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
209.07POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
184.48POLICE G & A LICENSES
274.28FIRE OPERATIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES
52.04FIRE OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,820.06FIRE OPERATIONS FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
806.18FIRE OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,057.18FIRE OPERATIONS SMALL TOOLS
93.97FIRE OPERATIONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
794.44FIRE OPERATIONS TRAINING
136.49FIRE OPERATIONS HEALTH & WELLNESS
645.00BLDG & ENERGY G & A TRAINING
43.60BLDG & ENERGY G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
54.52PUBLIC WORKS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
120.00ENGINEERING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
512.46ENGINEERING G & A TRAINING
350.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
144.99PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
16.94ROUTINE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
130.06INSTALLATIONGENERAL SUPPLIES
75.60CABLE TV G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
490.00CABLE TV G & A TRAINING
20.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TRAINING
196.82WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 9
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
9Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
298.65WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
66.92SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
30.00SOLID WASTE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
32.16ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
25.76WARMING HOUSES GENERAL SUPPLIES
26.64PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
13.97PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
227.88PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
89.98WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,474.34WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,300.00WESTWOOD G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
30.08WINTER BREAK GENERAL SUPPLIES
608.31REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,288.00RECREATION OUTDOOR CENTER OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
21,803.84
47,717.03CLASSIC PROTECTIVE COATINGS INC WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET RETAINAGE PAYABLE
32,449.00WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
80,166.03
425.60COLE PAPERS FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
29.40FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY
455.00
18,171.18COLICH & ASSOCIATES ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES
18,171.18
1,256.76COLLINS ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION CO INSURANCE FUND G&A UNINSURED LOSS
1,256.76
113.03COMCASTCABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
34.13OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
147.16
14,023.68COMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
14,023.68
16,182.80COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION SYSTEM INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
16,182.80
155.80CONANT RYAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 10
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
10Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
155.80
775.00CONCRETE CUTTING AND CORING WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
775.00
1,014.40CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,014.40
631.10COOL AIR MECHANICAL INC REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
631.10
50.00COPPERWINGADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
50.00
3,303.54CORE & MAIN LP WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
3,303.54
8,750.00CORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8,750.00
1,795.86CORPORATE MECHANICAL REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,795.86
577.66COUGHLIN, JUDY FITNESS PROGRAMS SALARIES - REGULAR EMPLOYEES
577.66
745.83COURTYARD MINNEAPOLIS WEST ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
745.83
10,970.00COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
10,970.00
745.83CRAVE HOSPITALITY ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
745.83
274.00CRF USA MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
274.00
26.19CROWN MARKING INC.COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
26.19
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 11
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
11Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
31.96CROWN RENTAL - BURNSVILLE PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
29.95-PARK MAINTENANCE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
79.98TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
81.99
30.67CRUEY BRYCE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
30.67
65.08CUB KNOLLWOOD POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
65.08
817.06CUMMINS SALES AND SERVICE SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
817.06
5,971.02CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6,750.96SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,046.54SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,546.00SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
319.26SSD #5 G&A LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
3,676.24SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
22,310.02
41.00DALCO ENTERPRISES INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY
41.00
72.21DANIELS CHRISTOPHER WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
72.21
119.13DAVIS-SCHOENECKER JENNIFER WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
119.13
52.00DEANS PROFESSIONAL PLUMBING BLDG & ENERGY G & A ELECTRICAL
60.00BLDG & ENERGY G & A MECHANICAL
112.00
145.31DELEGARD TOOL CO VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLS
230.90GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
376.21
108.25DELUXEFINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
108.25
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 12
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
12Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
16.44DEMARAIS LIZ WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
16.44
3,815.97DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
3,815.97
382.01DETECTACHEM, INC.POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
382.01
3.07DEUSTER BRIAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
3.07
74.14DEVLIEGER JENNY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
74.14
25,522.00DIAMOND MOWERS, LLC.CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S INVENTORY
25,522.00
178.02DO-GOOD.BIZ INC COMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGE
251.80COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
71.28STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
218.58PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
128.30WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
19.01SEWER CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
38.02STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
905.01
95.00DOLAN CONSULTING GROUP POLICE G & A TRAINING
95.00
5,000.00DONTE CURTIS/ CATCH YOUR DREAMS CONSULT.RACE EQUITY & INCLUSION G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
750.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,750.00
745.83DOUBLETREE MPLS PARK PLACE ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
745.83
79.11DOUGHERTY JO ELLEN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
79.11
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 13
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
13Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
86.82DOW TYLER WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
86.82
525.00DTN, LLC.PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
525.00
120.00DUBOIS ANDREE WESTWOOD HILLS NATURE CENTER REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS
120.00
780.00EARTH RATED PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
780.00
2,015.90ECM PUBLISHERS INC ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICES
2,015.90
189.68EDELSTEIN ELISA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
189.68
155.00EDINA SQUIRT C GREEN ROC ICE RENTAL (Non-Taxable)REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS
155.00
1,000.00EGAN JOE ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
1,000.00
2,400.00EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC ESCROWS CSM/ROTTLUND
2,700.00ESCROWSMSP REAL ESTATE - EDA
585.00FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
5,685.00
.20ELECTRIC CITY CORP.BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
72.00BLDG & ENERGY G & A ELECTRICAL
72.20
2,396.00ELECTRICAL PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC. TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
2,396.00
49.94ELIAS ROBIN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
49.94
476.18EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
476.18
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 14
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
14Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
3,378.08EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INC CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S INVENTORY
3,378.08
6,857.24ENTERPRISE FM TRUST EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT RENTAL EQUIPMENT
6,857.24
1,080.00ESCAPE FIRE PROTECTION LLC FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,850.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
2,930.00
420.00ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
420.00
146.05ESTATE OF ORVILLE D HENDRICKSON WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
146.05
16,537.50EVERBRIDGE INC COMM & MARKETING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
16,537.50
60.00EXPERT INSULATION PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINAGE PAYABLE
60.00
747.17FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
747.17
101.93FAHRER-ZABEL JESSICA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
101.93
79.65FASTENAL COMPANY ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
75.75WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
155.40
68.67FEINGOLD DAVID & SHAINA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
68.67
2,950.59FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
2,950.59
11,511.03FERGUSON WATERWORKS WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
11,511.03
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 15
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
15Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
30.00FERRELLGASGENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
283.25REC CENTER BUILDING MOTOR FUELS
313.25
1.00FFM, LLC.BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
65.00BLDG & ENERGY G & A PLUMBING
66.00
229.60FIEGEN ADAM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
229.60
106.80FILTRATION SYSTEMS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
106.80
89.63FINANCE & COMMERCE, INC.PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
550.61PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
335.65WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
975.89
135.00FIRE SAFETY USA INC FIRE OPERATIONS SMALL TOOLS
375.00FIRE OPERATIONS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
510.00
225.15FIRE-DEX GW, LLC.FIRE OPERATIONS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
381.96FIRE OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
607.11
102.57FIRST ADVANTAGE HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
102.57
8,125.00FIRST SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, INC.WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
8,125.00
250.00FISCHER DANIEL GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
250.00
836.01FISCHER MINING LLC PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,894.82WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
3,730.83
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 16
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
16Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
338.00FOCUS ELECTRIC BLDG & ENERGY G & A BUILDING
338.00
181.51FORCE AMERICA DISTRIBUTING LLC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
181.51
58.33Frank Lundberg American Legion ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
58.33
77.12FRATTALLONE'S/SAINT LOUIS PARK WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
77.12
32.58FRESTEDT ROBERT WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
32.58
206.89FRITCHMAN LINDA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
206.89
23.72FRITZ SARA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
23.72
34.67GAIKOWSKI LIZZIE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
34.67
9,023.89GALLS, LLC - DBA UNIFORMS UNLIMITED POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
9,023.89
23.70GAMBLE SHEILIA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
23.70
611.00GARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
611.00
39.88GERTEN STEVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
39.88
50.00GMEINDER CARRIE BLDG & ENERGY G & A 1&2 SINGLE FAM. RENTAL
50.00
4,398.91GMH ASPHALT CORPORATION PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT B/S RETAINAGE PAYABLE
6,637.76PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 17
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
17Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
11,036.67
22.24GOMES SANNY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
22.24
245.75GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
245.75
29.27GORDON SALLY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
29.27
78.12GRAINGER INC, WW PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
674.75WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
150.60PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
10.47GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
54.58GENERAL REPAIR SMALL TOOLS
968.52
10.67GRANDLUND STEVEN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
10.67
300.00GRAPHIC SOURCE INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
300.00
3.77GRIFFIN LORETTA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
3.77
168.41GRIFFIN RYAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
168.41
.71GROEN MARLENE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
.71
80.60GRUBB ELIZABETH REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
80.60
8,008.69GUARDIAN FLEET SUPPLY CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S INVENTORY
8,008.69
39.42GUSTAFSON DANIEL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
39.42
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 18
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
18Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
660.52HACH CO WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
660.52
619.19HAMMEL GREEN & ABRAHAMSON INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
619.19
52.16HAMPTON JAZZ WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
52.16
1,500.00HARPER SAM ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
1,500.00
167.78HARRISS ROBERT WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
167.78
14,025.53HAWKINS INC WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
14,025.53
82.64HAYDEN CHRISTOPHER WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
82.64
40.74HAYENGA CARMA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
40.74
57.00HEALTHPARTNERSHUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,695.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
126.00FIRE OPERATIONS HEALTH & WELLNESS
1,878.00
14.50HEIDER STANLEY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
14.50
.85HENDRICKS LUCILLE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
.85
208.48HENDRICKSON LAURA & LUKE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
208.48
175.00HENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOC. POLICE G & A TRAINING
175.00
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 19
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
19Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
203.00HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICES
232.50ASSESSING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,314.25POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
7,022.32POLICE G & A JAIL/DETENTION SERVICES
2,436.94FIRE OPERATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS
6.00HIA ADMIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,460.45WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,466.44SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,920.89STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
9,841.78PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
285.32PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
472.00SPLASH PAD MAINT - Oak Hill Pk OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
472.00AQUATIC PARK G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
367.00CONCESSIONSOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
34,500.89
7,575.00HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE FIRE OPERATIONS HEALTH & WELLNESS
7,575.00
5,486.88HENRICKSENFACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
5,486.88
79.86HERMANN CASSANDRA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
79.86
389.79HINZ EMILY INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
389.79
102.20HINZE KELLY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
102.20
107.37HOBBS RANDY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
107.37
52.98HOCKETT MITCHELL & LYDIA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
52.98
69.92HOFFNER RON WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
69.92
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 20
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
20Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
255.09HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
29.88PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
495.28SNOW HAULING GENERAL SUPPLIES
134.52WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
176.95WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
155.03PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
131.89PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
10.86PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
121.20PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
163.04PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
76.85REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,750.59
62.50HOMEWOOD SUITES ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
62.50
128.00HOWARD MAURA BLDG & ENERGY G & A PLUMBING
128.00
3,000.00HUDDA IBRAHIM RACE EQUITY & INCLUSION G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,000.00
13.00HUTSON CHRIS WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
13.00
1,820.00I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT UNION DUES
1,820.00
101.00ICE SPORTS INDUSTRY INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,170.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
1,271.00
43.00IDZIOREK ERIC BLDG & ENERGY G & A LICENSES
43.00
684.79IMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
684.79SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
684.78SOLID WASTE G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
684.78STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,739.14
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 21
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
21Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
187,400.00IND SCHOOL DIST #283 SCHOOL DISTRICT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
187,400.00
1,264.20INDELCOWATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,264.20
11.85INDERIEDEN NICK WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
11.85
77.50INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS FIRE OPERATIONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
77.50
688.36INVER GROVE FORD GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
688.36
25.00IPMA-HR MINNESOTA HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
25.00
64.00I-STATE TRUCK CENTER GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
64.00
3.50J GADTKE PLUMBING BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
187.50BLDG & ENERGY G & A PLUMBING
191.00
1,486.50J. H. LARSON CO.FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
341.00-WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,145.50
17.40JACOBS JOHN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
17.40
23.44JANSEN MATTHEW WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
23.44
99.13JDI SIGNS & GRAPHICS BLDG & ENERGY G & A BUILDING
99.13
3.80JERRY'S HARDWARE WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
20.68PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
24.48
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 22
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
22Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
53.13JOHNSON AMANDA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
53.13
800.00JOHNSON BRYANT ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
800.00
113.97JOHNSON EARLE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
113.97
1.00JOHNSON ERIK BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
100.00BLDG & ENERGY G & A PLUMBING
101.00
30.21JUEL RYAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
30.21
292.56KANE STEVEN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
292.56
41.24KENT JENNIFER WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
41.24
745.83Kerasotes Showplace Theatres ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
745.83
200.00KEYSTONE COMPENSATION GROUP LLC HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
200.00
486.04KIELTY CHELSEA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
486.04
592.48KILLMER ELECTRIC CO INC WIRING REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
592.48
10,846.45KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC SIDEWALK & TRAILS G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
27,972.41PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
11,417.31WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
570.87SEWER CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
6,279.52STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
57,086.56
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 23
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
23Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
65.00KINNEBERG SARAH BASKETBALL REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS
65.00
43.45KNOWLES MOLLIE AND DAVID JR WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
43.45
31.76KNUDSON ERIC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
31.76
63.92KRYPEL KATHLEEN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
63.92
84.00KURTZON NATASHA INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS
84.00
3,739.00L&S ELECTRIC, INC.REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
3,739.00
130.36LANGDON JANE & DAWN STENNES WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
130.36
129.96LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES INC POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
129.96
53.71LANOUX KIMBERLY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
53.71
3,743.28LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES INC EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT UNION DUES
3,743.28
133.78LAW ENFORCEMENT TARGETS INC POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
133.78
99.24LAWRENCE TERRYN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
99.24
30.00LEAGUE OF MN CITIES ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
5,310.00POLICE G & A TRAINING
5,340.00
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 24
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
24Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
231,875.00LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE TRUST P&C EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l exp
144,442.00INSURANCE FUND BAL SHEET PREPAID EXPENSES
376,317.00
32.00LEE MARY ART REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS
32.00
1,410.00LEGEND TECHNICAL SERVICES WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
705.00REILLY G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,115.00
16,876.08LEICA GEOSYSTEMS INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
16,876.08
1,250.00LEOTEK ELECTRONICS USA LLC FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
30,000.00RELAMPINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
31,250.00
68.19LESKELA MITCHELL & REBECCA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
68.19
33.29LEVINE ABRAHAM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
33.29
750.00LEXIPOL, LLC.FIRE OPERATIONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
750.00
408.76LIESER AMANDA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
408.76
1,125.00LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
270.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,395.00
300.10LIFE SUPPORT INNOVATIONS FIRE OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
300.10
6.31LINDEMOEN MARIAH WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
6.31
10.49LINKERT WADE & JAMIE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 25
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
25Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
10.49
1,048.52LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
1,048.52
262.93LIVE WIRE ELECTRICAL SERVICES BLDG & ENERGY G & A ELECTRICAL
262.93
3,769.70LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP REILLY G & A LEGAL SERVICES
3,769.70
774.72LOFFLERIT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
774.72
1,828.52LOFFLER COMPANIES IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,828.52
51,015.09LOGISIT G & A COMPUTER SERVICES
750.00CABLE TV G & A CAPITAL REPLACEMENT FUND
13,889.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
65,654.09
8.46LOHAN NATALIE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
8.46
745.83LOOP WEST END, LLC.ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
745.83
229.17LTF CLUB OPERATIONS COMPANY INC ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
229.17
2,746.52LUBE-TECH & PARTNERS LLC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
2,746.52
745.83LUCKY CRICKET ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
745.83
745.83LUND’S & BYERLY’S ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
745.83
13.34LYNCH STACIA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 26
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
26Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
13.34
375.36MACK GREGORY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
375.36
103.72MACKEY TERRYL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
103.72
1,851.86MACQUEEN EQUIP CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
228.36SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
52.47GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
5,085.27GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
7,217.96
4,719.00MAGNEY CONSTRUCTION INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
4,719.00
4,200.00MAHLN COLLEEN ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
4,200.00
245.00MAILING REQUIREMENTS COMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGE
245.00
16,698.50MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY OF GAINSVILLE, INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
16,698.50
1,610.00MARIE RIDGEWAY LICSW LLC POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,610.00
745.83MARRIOTT MINNEAPOLIS WEST ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
745.83
19.94MATZKE HOWARD AND HELEN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
19.94
500.00MAXIM'S SNOW REMOVAL SNOW PLOWING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
500.00
13.46MCCAGUE SCOTT WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
13.46
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 27
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
27Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
745.83McCoy’s Public House ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
745.83
22.42MCGINTY MADELINE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
22.42
63.66MCKEOWN COURTNEY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
63.66
12,563.00MCMAADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
12,563.00
826.67MENARDSFACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
130.06SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
48.53WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
92.25PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
107.64PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
78.84PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
21.16SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
63.92WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,369.07
34.30MENDOZA TAYLOR WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
34.30
3,400.00METRO WATERSHED PARTNERS STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
3,400.00
24,601.50METROPOLITAN COUNCIL BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
388,094.20OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
412,695.70
179.00MHABLDG & ENERGY G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
179.00
825.00MHSRC/RANGE POLICE G & A TRAINING
825.00
61.96MICRO CENTER TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
61.96
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 28
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
28Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
786.50MIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS PRINTING & PUBLISHING
786.50
745.83Mill Valley Kitchen ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
745.83
16.86MILLER ANDREW WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
16.86
92.57MILLER EVAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
92.57
125.00MINIKAHDA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
125.00
58.33Minneapolis Golf Club ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
58.33
848.16MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CTR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT WAGE GARNISHMENTS
848.16
6,000.00MINNESOTA CIT POLICE G & A TRAINING
6,000.00
33,035.00MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WATER UTILITY G&A NON-ROM SERVICE FEE
33,035.00
18,659.40MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCEWATER UTILITY G&A LICENSES
840.00REILLY G & A LICENSES
19,499.40
25.00MINNESOTA DEPT AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
25.00
3,491.24MINNESOTA DEPT COMMERCE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNT
3,491.24
7.11MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
7.11
150.00MINUTEMAN PRESS COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 29
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
29Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
150.00
152.00MINVALCO INC WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
152.00
166.66MISFITS HOCKEY ROC ICE RENTAL REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS
166.66
56.07MITCHELL NICOLE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
56.07
219.20MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,148.38SIDEWALK & TRAILS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
2,367.58
270.00MN FIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION BOARD FIRE OPERATIONS TRAINING
270.00
119.96MOL JARED REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
119.96
3,653.00MOSS & BARNETT CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,653.00
5,000.00MOVEFWDPOLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,000.00
240.00MR CUTTING EDGE REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
240.00
136.70MSC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
553.02GENERAL REPAIR SMALL TOOLS
689.72
760.00MSFCAFIRE OPERATIONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
760.00
95.49MUDRA MITCHELL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
95.49
19.25MULCAHY KATHRYN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 30
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
30Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
19.25
463.65MYKLEBUST, JOHN STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
432.45PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3.83WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
34.29SEWER CAPITAL PROJ G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
934.22
311.00NAC MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL SERVICES REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
311.00
1,557.77NAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
62.21WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
14.91VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
23.99PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLS
127.08GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,785.96
574.16ND CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT WAGE GARNISHMENTS
574.16
6,999.94NEARMAP US INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
6,999.94
15.44NEIMANN SARAH WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
15.44
16,666.68NICHOLAS LEGEROS INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
16,666.68
154.95NOKOMIS SHOE SHOP FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
200.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
394.95WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
785.80PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,535.70
42.15NORDALINE BRIANNA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
42.15
206.32NORTH AMERICAN SAFETY INC SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
260.04PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 31
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
31Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
466.36
299.50NORTHSTAR COMPANIES FIRE OPERATIONS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
299.50
215.00NPELRAHUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
289.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING
504.00
5,452.58NYSTROM PUBLISHING COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
5,452.58
600.00OAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
600.00
74.02ODONNELL MATTHEW WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
74.02
65.17OFFICE DEPOT COMM & MARKETING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
29.52COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
54.24FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
96.34COMM DEV PLANNING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
226.38POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
333.35POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
152.86BLDG & ENERGY G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
319.03PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
90.81ENGINEERING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
13.98WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,381.68
168.95OGREN ROBERT WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
168.95
6.64OKONEK MITCHELL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
6.64
167.17OLSEN ERIC AND SARAH FERGUSON WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
167.17
500.00OLSON, MARNEY GENERAL INFORMATION MEETING EXPENSE
500.00POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 32
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
32Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
1,000.00
54.50ON SITE SANITATION NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
483.50FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
105.50OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
643.50
127.96O'REILLY FIRST CALL GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
127.96
63.30ORTALE BRIAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
63.30
216.40OVERHEAD DOOR CO FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
216.40
4,250.00OVERLAY CONSULTING SUSTAINABILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4,250.00
475.00OVERSTREET DEVIN GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
475.00
212.78OWENS SCOTT WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
212.78
307.05OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY INC FIRE OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
307.05
296.25PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES INC REILLY G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
296.25
180.77PALM LAUREN AND RYAN HAHNFEDLT WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
180.77
3.54PALMER MIKE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
3.54
83.81PANNELL, LISA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
83.81
745.83PARK TAVERN ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 33
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
33Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
745.83
229.17Parkway Pizza ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
229.17
132.31PARTSTREE.COM GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
132.31
19.98PATRICK, MICHEAL WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
19.98
1,110.00PATRIOT DIAMOND SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,110.00
70.89PAWLOWSKI KAYLA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
70.89
5.14PEINE BEN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
5.14
50.00PETERSON DANIEL GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
50.00
7.83PETERSON JESSE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
7.83
5,200.33PFM ASSET MANAGEMENT CITY POOLED INVESTMENTS BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
5,200.33
220.36PHILBROOK MAXWELL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
220.36
656.83PHOMPHAKDY ALAN SYSTEM REPAIR TRAINING
656.83
20.53PILGRIM DRY CLEANERS FIRE OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
20.53
14.71POLANSKA KATARZYNA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
14.71
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 34
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
34Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
1,429.40POLYBEST, INC.FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY
1,429.40
406.00POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
406.00
3,250.00PRAETORIAN DIGITAL FIRE OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,250.00
20,250.00PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
20,250.00
316.25PRECISE MRM LLC PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
316.25WATER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
316.25SEWER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
316.25STORM WATER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
1,265.00
85.48PREMIUM WATERS INC FIRE OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
85.48
505.00PRO HEADSETS, LLC.E-911 PROGRAM OFFICE EQUIPMENT
505.00
20.00PRO HYDRO- TESTING, LLC.FIRE OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
20.00
63.74PRO-TUFF DECALS FIRE OPERATIONS SMALL TOOLS
63.74
745.83PUNCH BOWL SOCIAL ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
745.83
68.00QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
8,801.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
8,869.00
745.83RACKNER, INC.ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
745.83
395.00RAINBOW COMPANIES TREE MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 35
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
35Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
395.00
745.83Raku Sushi & Lounge ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
745.83
80.84RAMIREZ OSCAR WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
80.84
4,594.56RANDY'S ENVIORMENTAL SERVICES FACILITIES MCTE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
2,461.18REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
7,055.74
861.78RAZ RACHEL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
861.78
17,080.61REACH FOR RESOURCES INC COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
17,080.61
541.98RED WING STORE PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
593.49WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
200.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,335.47
2,822.60REFERRAL COLLISION INSURANCE FUND G&A UNINSURED LOSS
2,822.60
17,900.00REHRIG PACIFIC CO SOLID WASTE G&A OTHER
17,900.00
475.00REIN DAVE GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
475.00
543.66REINHART ANDREW WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
543.66
229.17REM 5 ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
229.17
411.19RHYNER JESSICA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
411.19
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 36
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
36Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
226.60RICOH USA INC IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
226.60
76.02RITZMAN NANCY & DEAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
76.02
53,663.94-RJM CONSTRUCTION LLC GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE
187,684.75GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
134,020.81
2,954.89ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY FIRE OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2,954.89
745.83ROJO MEXICAN GRILL ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
745.83
254.61ROLLING BRAD & LEAH WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
254.61
125.00SAKR OMAR GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
125.00
34.99SALA, GRANT BLDG & ENERGY G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
34.99
8,245.08SAMBATEK, INC.WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
8,245.08
22.79SAMUELS JOSHUA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
22.79
217.60SANCHEZ CAROLS WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
217.60
8,514.00SAVATREETREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
8,514.00
251.42SCHROEDER GINA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
251.42
49.94SCHULTZ ROBERT WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 37
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
37Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
49.94
220.00SETS DESIGN INC.POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
525.00POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
85.00POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
195.00COMMUNICATIONS/DISPATCH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,025.00
345.00SHAPCO PRINTING INC COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
345.00
176.07SHARON J. BOERM REVOCABLE TRUST WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
176.07
51,183.77SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, INC.SIDEWALK & TRAILS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
51,183.77
17.70SHRED-IT USA MINNEAPOLIS ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
19.53FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
568.34POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
17.70BLDG & ENERGY G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
17.70ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
254.97WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
895.94
15.00SIELEMAN STEWART WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
15.00
137.00SIGN PRODUCERS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
137.00
8,164.00SIGNATURE MECHANICAL INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
304.00REC CENTER BUILDING MAINTENANCE
668.00REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
331.00RECREATION OUTDOOR CENTER OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
9,467.00
51.69SINCLAIR ALISON WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
51.69
965.03SKELLY GABE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 38
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
38Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
965.03
1,582.86SLP FF ASSOC IAFF LOCAL #993 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT UNION DUES
1,582.86
39.04SMITH LAURA HUMAN RESOURCES MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
39.04
50.00SOLIE LINDA GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
50.00
900.00SPACK SOLUTIONS, INC.ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
900.00
SPECTRUM SIGN SYSTEMS, INC.GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE
14,080.00GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
14,080.00
705.28SPS COMPANIES INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
705.28
73,187.35SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC SIDEWALK & TRAILS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
73,187.35
71.52ST. MANE JOE AND BRANDI WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
71.52
197.36STARK CAITLYN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
197.36
725.00STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
725.00
50.00Steel Toe Brewing ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
50.00
551.26STREICHER'S POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT
551.26
111.77STROHL ERICA REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
111.77
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 39
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
39Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
46.54SULLIVAN LUKE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
46.54
139.00SUMMIT COMPANIES FIRE OPERATIONS REPAIRS
139.00
23,677.59SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC REILLY G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
23,677.59
125.00SUSA TREASURER WATER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
125.00
30.33SUSAN L. BENTLEY REVOCABLE TRUST WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
30.33
331.19SWANSON CAROLYN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
331.19
495.00TACTICALPOLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
495.00
14.67TALKOVIC DYLAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
14.67
188.17TAN CHENGYAO WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
188.17
4,495.85TARGETSOLUTIONS LEARNING FIRE OPERATIONS TRAINING
4,495.85
229.17TASTE OF INDIA ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
229.17
5,623.20TECH DUMP SOLID WASTE G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,623.20
61,982.76TELEMETRY & PROCESS CONTROL, INC. WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET RETAINAGE PAYABLE
27,476.06WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
27,476.06SEWER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
27,476.06STORM WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 40
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
40Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
144,410.94
2,201.76TERMINIX PROCESSING CENTER FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,201.76
29.64TEVLIN JAMES WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
29.64
745.83TEXA-TONKA LANES ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
745.83
745.83TGI FRIDAY’S ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
745.83
745.83THE BLOCK ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
745.83
50.00THE DAMPFWERK DISTILLERY ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
50.00
745.83THE LOCAL ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
745.83
851.74THE MPX GROUP COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
851.74
1.73THE NGUYEN COUNG WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
1.73
108.92THE SHERWINN WILLIAMS CO WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
153.93PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
262.85
117.60THE STANDARD ADMINISTRATION G & A LIFE INSURANCE
120.42ADMINISTRATION G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
35.18RACE EQUITY & INCLUSION G&A LIFE INSURANCE
34.57RACE EQUITY & INCLUSION G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
91.95HUMAN RESOURCES LIFE INSURANCE
95.09HUMAN RESOURCES LONG TERM DISABILITY
65.79COMM & MARKETING G & A LIFE INSURANCE
64.47COMM & MARKETING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 41
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
41Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
119.76IT G & A LIFE INSURANCE
131.12IT G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
112.01ASSESSING G & A LIFE INSURANCE
110.59ASSESSING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
124.97FINANCE G & A LIFE INSURANCE
124.51FINANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
297.82COMM DEV G & A LIFE INSURANCE
296.23COMM DEV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
70.36FACILITIES MCTE G & A LIFE INSURANCE
69.07FACILITIES MCTE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
1,060.83POLICE G & A LIFE INSURANCE
1,046.40POLICE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
116.84COMMUNICATIONS/DISPATCH LIFE INSURANCE
114.50COMMUNICATIONS/DISPATCH LONG TERM DISABILITY
485.90FIRE OPERATIONS LIFE INSURANCE
482.39FIRE OPERATIONS LONG TERM DISABILITY
274.97BLDG & ENERGY G & A LIFE INSURANCE
279.07BLDG & ENERGY G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
34.16SUSTAINABILITY G&A LIFE INSURANCE
33.43SUSTAINABILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
79.18PUBLIC WORKS G & A LIFE INSURANCE
64.95PUBLIC WORKS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
244.40ENGINEERING G & A LIFE INSURANCE
250.93ENGINEERING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
228.22PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LIFE INSURANCE
243.77PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
52.83CABLE TV G & A LIFE INSURANCE
51.71CABLE TV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
21.21HOUSING REHAB G & A LIFE INSURANCE
20.86HOUSING REHAB G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
136.65WATER UTILITY G&A LIFE INSURANCE
134.51WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
70.49SEWER UTILITY G&A LIFE INSURANCE
81.93SEWER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
46.86SOLID WASTE G&A LIFE INSURANCE
45.90SOLID WASTE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
82.04STORM WATER UTILITY G&A LIFE INSURANCE
67.50STORM WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
7,722.54EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND G&A LIFE INSURANCE
132.08ORGANIZED REC G & A LIFE INSURANCE
134.53ORGANIZED REC G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 42
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
42Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
131.32PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LIFE INSURANCE
128.76PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
21.21NATURAL RESOURCES G & A LIFE INSURANCE
20.86NATURAL RESOURCES G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
73.53WESTWOOD G & A LIFE INSURANCE
71.99WESTWOOD G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
130.68REC CENTER SALARIES LIFE INSURANCE
128.25REC CENTER SALARIES LONG TERM DISABILITY
84.96VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LIFE INSURANCE
83.15VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
16,797.80
10.71THE UPS STORE WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
10.71
4,739.47THE WILEY LAW OFFICE HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4,739.47
25.38THOMPSON JENNIFER MARIE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
25.38
639.96THOMSON REUTERS WEST PAYMENT CENTER POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
639.96
285.30THRIVEPASSEMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
285.30
1,482.00TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
187.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,669.00
1.00TIM'S QUALITY PLUMBING BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
100.00BLDG & ENERGY G & A PLUMBING
101.00
22.70TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
22.70
4,590.00TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,590.00
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 43
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
43Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
976.00TRAFFIC CONTROL CORP RELAMPING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
976.00
16.64TRI STATE BOBCAT GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
16.64
2,289.75TRUE COLORS INTERNATIONAL RACE EQUITY & INCLUSION G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2,289.75
9.70TULLY MOLLY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
9.70
182.00TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
182.00
4,487.39TWIN CITY OUTDOOR SERVICES INC SNOW PLOWING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
23,240.00SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8,262.00SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
35,989.39
118.93TWIN CITY SAW CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
118.93
3,369.00UHL CO INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
360.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
816.35PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,545.35
220.96ULINEREC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
249.92VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLS
470.88
199.95ULTIMATE SAFETY CONCEPTS INC FIRE OPERATIONS REPAIRS
199.95
664.57US DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT WAGE GARNISHMENTS
664.57
234.03VAIL, LORI HUMAN RESOURCES MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
234.03
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 44
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
44Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
5.57VAN AVERY LUANN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
5.57
129.36VAUGHAN, JIM NATURAL RESOURCES G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
129.36
120.00VERIFIED CREDENTIALS HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
120.00
50.04VERIZONSEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
15,597.77CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
73.76CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE
15,721.57
814.48VIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
814.48
485.00WARNING LITES OF MN INC INSTALLATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
485.00
488.68-WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
109,498.65SOLID WASTE G&A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
37,643.10SOLID WASTE G&A RECYCLING SERVICE
24,066.90SOLID WASTE G&A YARD WASTE SERVICE
35,451.79SOLID WASTE G&A ORGANICS
206,171.76
774.22WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
774.22
229.17WEINBERG BROTHERS INVEST. CO., LLC. ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
229.17
73.00WESTPHAL NOEL BLDG & ENERGY G & A LICENSES
73.00
98.63WESTWOOD HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC. NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
98.63
3,750.00WHEELER ALLISON ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
3,750.00
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 45
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
45Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
178.68WINSUPPLY OF EDEN PRAIRIE RELAMPING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
617.52SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
796.20
172.99WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP INC FIRE OPERATIONS UNIFORMS
172.99
21.67WONG PATRICIA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
21.67
1,079.15WORLD FUEL SERVICES, INC.GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
1,079.15
2,187.00WSB ASSOC INC ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,235.50WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4,412.50SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
12,002.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
19,837.00
7.42WU CHAOWEN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
7.42
13,822.60XCEL ENERGY FACILITIES MCTE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
28,471.61PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
1,547.30REILLY G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
4,737.33SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
961.29STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
41.65BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE
66.57WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE
20,147.47REC CENTER BUILDING ELECTRIC SERVICE
69,795.82
745.83YANGTZE RIVER RESTAURANT ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
745.83
92.75YANZHU JI WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
92.75
745.83YARD HOUSE ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
745.83
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 46
2/24/2021CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:11:32R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
46Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
2/19/20211/23/2021 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
2,208.45YOUNG ENV. CONSULTING GROUP, LLC. STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2,208.45
33.98YOUNGER ADAM & ANNA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
33.98
229.17YUM! KITCHEN AND BAKERY ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
229.17
164.45ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
164.45
662.97ZIEGLER INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
662.97
88.55ZIRING EMILY SUSTAINABILITY G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
88.55
Report Totals 2,950,020.15
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 47
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: March 1, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4b
Executive summary
Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to outdoor seating in the I-G General Industrial
zoning district
Recommended action: Motion to approve second reading and adopt Ordinance amending
Chapter 36 pertaining to zoning and approve summary ordinance for publication.
Policy consideration: Does the council wish to amend Section 36-244 to allow outdoor seating
in the I-G General Industrial zoning district.
Summary: Mary Loeffelholz, co -owner of Dampfwerk Distillery applied to amend the zoning
ordinance to allow outdoor seating as an accessory use in the I-G General Industrial district.
Background: Dampfwerk Distillery and its cocktail room are located at 6311 Cambridge Street.
They opened a temporary outdoor seating area in 2020 as a result of the pandemic and the city
emergency powers that allows businesses in the city to apply for temporary uses even though
the use, or an aspect of the use, is not permitted by city codes.
Dampfwerk is reviewing their future operations and desire to permanently operate an outdoor
seating area after the pandemic restrictions are lifted. The I -G General Industrial district, however,
does not allow outdoor seating. Therefore, the applicant proposes the attached zoning text
amendment to allow outdoor seating in the I-G General Industrial district with the listed
conditions.
Present considerations: Attached is a copy of a proposed ordinance. In summary, the ordinance
proposes to allow outdoor seating with the same conditions that are required for outdoor
seating in other zoning districts:
1. Require a wall to separate the outdoor seating from adjacent residential areas.
2. Sound limits when located within 500 feet of residential.
3. Hours of operation limited to 7am to 10pm when located within 500 feet of residential.
4. Additional parking only required when outdoor seating exceeds 500 square feet or 10%
of the gross building area.
The p lanning commission conducted a public hearing on January 20, 2021. No comments were
received from the public, and the planning commission recommended approval. The city council
approved the first reading on Feb. 16, 2021.
Financial or budget considerations: None.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Ordinance
Summary ordinance for publication Prepared by: Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor
Karen Barton, community development director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to outdoor seating in the I-G General Industrial zoning district
Ordinance No. ____-21
Ordinance regarding outdoor seating in the
I-G General Industrial district
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Whereas, an application was received from Dampfwerk Distillery to amend the I-G
General Industrial district to allow outdoor seating as an accessory use , and
Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the planning
commission (case no. 20-37-ZA), and
Now, therefore be it resolved that the following amendments shall be made to the City
Code:
Section 1. Chapter 36, Section 36-244(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby
amended to add the following underlined te xt to the list of land use descriptions.
(10) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages is permitted as an accessory use with
the following conditions:
a. The use must be separated from any adjacent residential use by a building wall or six -
foot fence. This provision will not apply if the residential use is located on an upper
story above the principal use.
b. If the outdoor seating area is located within 500 feet of a residence, then no speaker or
other electronic device which emits sound, or the playing of any band, orchestra,
musician or group of musicians, or the use of any device to amplify the music of any
band, orchestra, musician or group of musicians, are permitted where the noise or
music is plainly audible at the residence above the normal conversation level occurring
in the outdoor seating area.
c. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. if the use is located
within 500 feet of a residential use.
d. Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area does not exceed 500
square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the principal use, whichever is less.
Parking will be required at the same rate as the principal use for that portion of
outdoor seating area in excess of 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross building
area, whichever is less.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect March 26, 2021.
First Reading February 16, 2021
Second Reading March 1, 2021
Date of Publication March 11, 2021
Date Ordinance takes effect March 26, 2021
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to outdoor seating in the I-G General Industrial zoning district
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 1, 2021
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to outdoor seating in the I-G General Industrial zoning district
Summary for publication
Ordinance No. ____-21
An ordinance amending
the St. Louis Park zoning ordinance
pertaining to outdoor seating in the
General Industrial zoning district
This ordinance amends Chapter 36 of the City of St. Louis Park city code relating to
zoning. The amendment allows outdoor seating as an accessory use in the General Industrial
zoning district with conditions.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council March 1, 2021
Jake Spano /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: March 11, 2021
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: March 1, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4c
Executive summary
Title: Bid tabulation: concrete replacement – Project No. 4021-0003
Recommended action: Motion to designate Standard Sidewalk, Inc. the lowest responsible
bidder, and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $188,266.75 for
concrete replacement – Project No. 4021-0003.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to continue the city’s practice of repairing or
replacing existing sidewalk, curb and gutter, and catch basins?
Summary: Bids were received on Feb. 16, 2021 for miscellaneous concrete repair, including
sidewalk, curb and gutter, and storm sewe r catch basins at various locations in the city. This
annual construction contract addresses needed concrete repairs in the pavement management
area scheduled for routine pavement maintenance the following year, as well as sidewalk trip
hazards throughout the city.
Three (3) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid results is as follows:
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
Standard Sidewalk, Inc. $188,266.75
Concrete Idea Inc. $219,722.50
JL The is, Inc. $249,982.50
Engineer’s Estimate $246,565.00
A review of the bid indicates Standard Sidewalk, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid.
Standard Sidewalk, Inc. has completed this type and size of work successfully in other cities ,
including St. Louis Park . Staff recommends that a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount
of $188,266.75.
Financial or budget considerations: This project was planned for and included in the city’s
adopted 2021 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), with an estimated budget of $287,500.00. This
project is funded by the operations budget, stormwater utility, and pavement management
funds. Funding details are provided in the discussion section.
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
Overall 2021 financial summary
Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, senior engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: Bid tabulation: concrete replacement – Project No. 4021-0003
Discussion
Background: Bids were received on Feb. 16, 2021 for the concrete replacement project. This
annual construction contract addresses miscellaneous concrete repair, including sidewalk, curb
and gutter, and storm sewer catch basins at various locations in the city. To id entify the areas
included in this project, staff annually surveys the condition of concrete infrastructure to
identify hazards for repair. The project includes repair of panels of sidewalk that are cracked or
have been lifted by tree roots, curb and gutter with similar defects that create drainage or
safety problems, and deteriorating catch basins that are within the work are a.
An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor on Jan. 21, 2021. In
addition, plans and specifications are made available electronically via the internet on the city’s
OneOffice website. Email notification was provided to four (4) minority associations , and final
printed plans were available for viewing at Construct Connect and at City Hall.
Seventeen (17) contractors/vendors purchased plan sets, two (2) of which were Disadvantaged
Business Enterprises (DBE).
Funding Details: Based on the low bid received, cost and funding details are revised as follows:
CIP Estimate Low bid
Construction cost $270,000.00 $188,266.75
Engineering and administration $17,500.00 $18,826.68
Total $287,500.00 $207,093.43
Revenues
Pavement management fund $82,500.00 $60,057.09
Operations budget $95,000.00 $68,340.84
Stormwater $110,000.00 $78,695.50
Total $287,500.00 $207,093.43
Attached is the overall financial summary for the transportation and maintenance projects
included in the 2021 CIP. As each project is brought to the council for final approval and for bid
award, this summary will be updated to reflect the bids received. Final numbers will depend on
bids received.
The total debt levy increase for 2023 is projected to be 3.80% for the projects included in the
2021 CIP. This assumes using 10-year bonding. It is recommended to issue a longer 15-year
term for the Louisiana bridge project to reduce 2023 and 2024 levy impact to 2.3% debt levy
increase; this will be discussed during the 2021 budget process.
Due to the nature of our construction projects, unexpected costs do come up. To address this,
past practice has been to show a contingency for all aspects of the project. What follows is a
table that shows this contingency and how this would affect the project costs. These
contingency costs are within the funding identified in the CIP. If overruns occur, there are
adequate funds to cover these costs.
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Title: Bid tabulation: concrete replacement – Project No. 4021-0003
Low Bid
Contingency
(10%)
Engineering
(10%) Total
Pavement Management $54,597.36 $5,459.74 $5,459.74 $65,516.83
PW Operations Fund $62,128.03 $6,212.80 $6,212.80 $74,553.63
Stormwater Utility $71,541.37 $7,154.14 $7,154.14 $85,849.64
Total $188,266.75 $18,826.68 $18,826.68 $225,920.10
Construction Timeline: All work required under this contract will be completed by July 31, 2021.
Overall financial summary
Ta ble 1 shows the actual costs for the projects that the city council has authorized for bidding or has awarded. The highlighted $2,409,943 is the budget amount
left after the project costs in the table. We have three projects remaining in 2021 with a budget estimate of $1,901,816 for those projects. We are on track to be
under budget in total for our 2021 transportation and maintenance projects.
T
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Bid tabulation: concrete replacement – Project No. 4021-0003 Page 4
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: March 1, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4d
Executive summary
Title: Bid tabulation: Alley Reconstruction P roject (4020-1500)
Recommended action: Motion to designate G.L. Contracting, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder
and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $526,407.10 for the Alley
Reconstruction Project No. 4020-1500.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to continue to implement our alley
reconstruction program?
Summary: This year’s project will reconstruct f ive (5) sections of alleys in the Oak Hill and South
Oak Hill neighborhoods that are currently gravel or bituminous. Bids were received on Feb. 22,
2021. A total of two (5) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid results is as
follows:
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
G.L. Contracting, Inc. $526,407.10
Standard Contracting Inc. $573,315.83
JL Theis, Inc. $584,911.59
Concrete Idea Inc. $599,995.50
Ti-Zack Concrete, Inc. $706,088.71
Engineer’s Estimate $561,329.83
A review of the bids indicates G.L. Contracting, Inc. submitted the lowest bid. G.L. Contracting,
Inc. is a reputable contractor who successfully completed the city’s 2017, 2018 and 2019 Alley
Reconstruction Projects. Staff recommends that a contract be awarded to the firm in the
amount of $526,407.10.
Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city’s Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) for 2021. Funding will be provided using Pavement management (franchise fees) and
stormwater utility wit h no assessments to residents. Additional information on the breakdown
of the funding can be found later in this report.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Location map
Overall 2021 financial summary
Prepared by: Phillip Elkin , senior engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Title: Bid tabulation: Alley Reconstruction Project (4020 -1500)
Discussion
Background: Bids were received on Feb. 22, 2021 for the Alley Reconstruction Project (4020-
1500). This project was originally scheduled for 2020 and was postponed due to COVID-19. This
will be the fourth year in a 10-year plan to reconstruct all gravel and bituminous alleyways to
concrete pavement.
This year’s project will reconstruct f ive (5) sections of alleys in the Oak Hill and South Oak Hill
neighborhoods that are currently gravel or bituminous. The alleys serve approximately 84 homes
and several businesses. Improvements to the alley include grading, storm sewer installatio n for
better drainage, and an 8-inch concrete pavement.
An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor and Finance and
Commerce on Jan. 28, 2021. In addition, plans and specifications are made available electronically
via the internet on the city’s OneOffice website. Email notification was provided to four (4)
minority associations.
Twenty -Seven (27) contractors/vendors purchased plan sets, including five (5) of which were
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE).
Funding Details: Staff has reviewed the bids and determined that G.L. Contracting, Inc. is the
lowest responsible contractor. Based on the low bid received, cost and funding details are as
follows:
CIP Low bid
Construction cost $567,000.00 $526,407.10
Engineering and administration $ 85,000.00 $ 78,961.06
Total $652,000.00 $605,368.17
Funding Sources
Pavement management $423,800.00 $393,489.31
Stormwater $228,200.00 $211,878.86
Total $652,000.00 $605,368.17
Attached is the overall financial summary for the transportation and maintenance projects
included in the 2021 CIP. As each project is brought to the council for final approval and for bid
award, this summary will be updated to reflect the bids received. Final numbers will depend on
bids received.
The total debt levy increase for 2023 is projected to be 3.80% for the projects included in the
2021 CIP. This assumes using 10-year bonding. It is recommended to issue a longer 15-year
term for the Louisiana bridge project to reduce 2023 and 2024 levy impact to 2.3% debt levy
increase; this will be discussed during the 2021 budget process.
Due to the nature of our construction projects, unexpected costs do come up. To address this,
past practice has been to show a contingency f or all aspects of the project. What follows is a table
that shows this 10% contingency and how this would affect the project costs. Engineering has
reviewed these contingency costs with the Chief Financial Officer. If overruns occur, there are
adequate funds to cover these costs.
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Title: Bid tabulation: Alley Reconstruction Project (4020 -1500)
Low Bid
Contingency
(10%)
Engineering
(15%) Total
Pavement management $342,164.62 $34,216.46 $51,324.69 $427,705.77
Stormwater $184,242.49 $18,424.25 $27,636.37 $230,303.11
Total $526,407.10 $52,640.71 $78,961.07 $658,008.88
Construction Timeline: Construction is anticipated to begin in late May and should be completed
by October 2021.
TEXASAVESPRIVATE RD
OAK LEAF CT
T
A
F
T
A
V
E
S
34 1/2 ST W
DIVISION ST
3 6 T H ST
W LOUI
SI
ANAAVESUTAHAVES¯
2021 Alley Construction
Legend
Project Alleys44th St. W.
33RD ST W
34TH ST W
35TH ST W
37TH ST W
LAKE ST WOREGON AVE SPENNSYLVANIA AVE SQUEBEC AVE SRHODE ISLAND AVE SSERVICE DR HIGHWAY 7SUMTER AVE SWALKER ST
RHODE ISLAND AVE S?A@7
Page 4 City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4d)
Title: Bid tabulation: Alley Reconstruction Project (4020 -1500)
Overall financial summary
T able 1 shows the actual costs for the projects that the city council has authorized for bidding or has awarded. The highlighted $2,409,943 is the budget amount
left after the project costs in the table. We have three projects remaining in 2021 with a budget estimate of $1,901,816 for those projects. We are on track to be
under budget in total for our 2021 transportation and maintenance projects.
T
Page 5 City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4d)
Title: Bid tabulation: Alley Reconstruction Project (4020-1500)
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: March 1, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4e
Executive summary
Title: Final payment resolution – Historic Walker Lake Phase 1– Project No. 4018-1050
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final
payment in the amount of $34,121.60 for Project No. 4018-1050, which is the Historic Walker
Lake Phase 1 improvement project with Minger Construction Inc., Contract No. 96-19.
Policy consideration: Not applicable .
Summary: On May 20, 2019, the city council awarded a contract in the amount of
$2,297,991.30 to Minger Construction Inc. for the Historic Walker Lake Phase 1 improvement
project, project 4018-1050. Th e first phase of this project was constructed in 2019 and included
street rehabilitation, streetlight and watermain replacement, storm sewer, landscaping,
sidewalk and ADA improvements. Phase 2 was constructed in 2020 under a separate contract.
The final contract amount for this project is $2,234,060.46, which is 3% lower than the original
contract price. Details on the contract changes and quantity underruns are included in the
discussion section of this report.
Financial or budget considerations: The final cost of the work performed by the contractor
under Contract No. 96-19 has been calculated as follows:
Original contract (based on estimated quantities) $ 2,297,991.30
Change Orders/ extra work + $ 54,838.56
Quantity underruns - $ 118,769.40
Final contract cost $ 2,234,060.46
Previous payments - $ 2,199,938.86
Balance due $ 34,121.60
This project was included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Funding was provided by
the following sources: pavement management, water utility, storm utility, sanitary sewer utility
and general obligation bonds (sidewalk and bikeway).
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Joseph Shamla, senior engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Title: Final payment resolution – Historic Walker Lake Phase 1 – Project No. 4018-1050
Discussion
Background: Annually, the city rehabilitates several miles of local residential streets as part of
the pavement management program. The Historic Walker Lake Phase 1 improvement project
included street rehabilitation, streetlight and watermain replacement, storm sewer,
landscaping, sidewalk, and ADA improvements.
On May 20, 2019, the city council awarded a contract in the amount of $2,297,991.30 to
Minger Construction Inc. for the Historic Walker Lake Phase 1 improvement project, project
4018-1050. The final contract amount, $2,234,060.46, is 3% less than the contract amount.
There were change orders approved on the project, but the increased cost of the change orders
was offset by quantity underruns and cost-saving modifications during construction.
During construction, some unexpected items came up that added to the cost of the project. The
additional work that was completed increased the cost of the contract by $54,838.56, resulting
in a final contract amount for this project is $2,352,829.86. There were also quantity underruns
of $118,769.40, which brought the total cost of the project to $2,234,060.46.
The contract changes are attributed to a revised storm sewer system and the installation of
banner arms on the light poles. During construction, a high -pressure gas main conflicted with the
de signed storm sewer system. To keep the contractor on schedule, modifications were needed to
adjust the storm sewer to work around the high -pressure gas main. This additional work was
necessary to ensure that the area drains properly. In addition, welded banner arms were added
to the light poles instead of the banded banner arms, which were in cluded in the contract and
create a lot of maintenance issues for public works.
There are a couple of reasons why this project came in under the anticipated cost. The first
reason is that the existing soils onsite were better than what was expected. Most of the existing
subgrade material exposed during construction was found to be adequate and suitable material
for road base. This meant there were limited subgrade corrections necessary to be addressed
by the contractor, which contributed to cost savings.
Another reason the project was completed under the proposed cost is that there were a couple
of items , which were overestimated in the bid quantities. Th is included sidewalk and utility
quantities. Since the project used less than what was estimated, the cost of the project came in
lower than awarded.
Financial or budget considerations: The final cost of the work performed by the contractor under
Contract No. 96-19 has been calculated as follows:
Original contract (based on estimated quantities) $ 2,297,991.30
Change Orders/ extra work + $ 54,838.56
Quantity underruns - $ 118,769.40
Final contract cost $ 2,234,060.46
Previous payments -$ 2,199,938.86
Balance due $ 34,121.60
This project was included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Funding was provided by
the following sources: pavement management, water utility, storm utility, s anitary sewer utility
and general obligation bonds (sidewalk and bikeway).
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4e) Page 3
Title: Final payment resolution – Historic Walker Lake Phase 1 – Project No. 4018-1050
Resolution No . 21-____
Resolution authorizing final payment
and accepting work for the
Historic Walker Lake Phase 1 improvement project
City Project No. 4018-1050
Contract No. 96-19
Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows:
1.Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated May 20, 2019, Minger Construction
Inc. has satisfactorily completed the Historic Walker Lake Phase 1 improvement project,
as per Contract No. 96-19.
2.The Engineering Director has filed her recommendations for final acceptance of the
work.
3.The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The final contract
cost is $2,234,060.46.
4.The City Manager is directed to make final payment in the amount of $34,121.60 on this
contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 1, 2021
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: March 1, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4f
Executive summary
Title: Accept monetary donation to operations and recreation department
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a $300 donation
from Jody Winger for the purchase of a tree to be placed in Wolfe Park in honor of Bill R osenfeld.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to accept this gift with the restriction on its use?
Summary: State statute requires city council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is
necessary in order to make sure the city council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the
use of each donation prior to it being expended.
Jody Winger graciously donated $300 for the purchase of a shade tree to be installed in Wolfe
Park in honor of Bill Rosenfeld.
Financial or budget considerations: This donation will be used for a memorial tree at the location
designated above.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, senior office assistant
Reviewed by: Jim Vaughan, natural resources coordinator
Cynthia S. Walsh, director of operations and re creation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Title: Accept monetary donation to operations and recreation department
Resolution No. 21-____
Resolution approving acceptance of a donation in the amount of
$300 for the purchases of a memorial tree in Wolfe Park
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is required by state statute to authorize acceptance
of any donations; and
Whereas, the city council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the
donor; and
Whereas, Jody Winger donated $300.
Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that this gift
is hereby accepted with thanks to Jody Winger with the understanding that it must be used for
a memorial tree to be placed in Wolfe Park .
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 1, 2021
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: March 1, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4g
Executive summary
Title: Accept donation to fire department from Bryan and Ronna Bartness
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution accepting donation to the fire department
from Bryan and Ronna Bartness for fire prevention programs and equipment.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to accept this donation with restrictions on the
use?
Summary: State statute requires city council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is
necessary in order to make sure the city council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the
use of each donation prior to it being expended.
Bryan and Ronna Bartness are graciously d onating to the fire department an amount of
$100.00. The donation is given with restrictions.
Financial or budget considerations: This donation will be used for fire prevention programs and
equipment.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Cary Smith, fire marshal
Reviewed by: Steve Koering, fire chief
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Page 2 City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Accept donation to fire department from Bryan and Ronna Bartness
Resolution No. 21-____
Resolution approving acceptance of donation to fire department
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is required by state statute to authorize acceptance
of any donation; and
Whereas, the city council must ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the
donors; and
Whereas, the donation from Bryan and Ronna Bartness is directed toward fire
prevention programs and equipment.
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of St. Louis Park that this donation is
hereby accepted with thanks and appreciation.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 1, 2021
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: March 1, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4h
Executive summary
Title: Resolution of support for MnDOT Local Road Improvement Program fund application –
(4023-1101)
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution in support of application for MnDOT Local
Road Improvement program funding for the Louisiana Avenue/ Cedar Lake Road improvement
project no. 4023-1101.
Policy consideration: none
Summary: The Local Road Improvement Program (LRIP) provides funding assistance to local
agencies for constructing or reconstructing local roads. Funds for the program are appropriated
based on Minnesota Statutes 174.52. In 2020, the Local Road Program Advisory Committee
requested MnDOT State Aid to prepare a solicitation opportunity for local agencies to provide
project applications for the Local Road Improvement Program (LRIP). The legislature provided
$75,000,000 for LRIP in Laws of Minnesota, 5th Special Session, Chapter 3, Article 1, Section 16,
Subdivision 2. The maximum request is $1,250,000 per project to fund capital construction
costs only. The funding is not eligible for engineering, right-of-way, or other non-construction
related costs.
Louisiana Avenue from Wayzata Boulevard to the bridge over the railroad tracks and Cedar Lake
Road from Nevada Avenue to Kentucky Lane is scheduled for reconstruction in 2023. This street
is classified as an arterial and is regionally significant, so it is a good candidate for LRIP funds.
The deadline to apply for LRIP funding is March 3, 2021. A resolution of support from the city
council is required with the application.
Financial or budget considerations: The construction of this project is included in the city’s
capital improvement program (CIP) for 2023. The preliminary construction cost estimate is
$5,777,765. This project will be paid for using a combination of Municipal State Aid, General
Obligation Bonds, Pavement Management, Stormwater, Water, and Sanitary Sewer funds. If the
city can secure LRIP funding for this project, the cost savings on this project will reduce the
amount of funding needed from other funding sources and help mitigate funding challenges for
other projects.
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
Resolution
Prepared by: Joseph Shamla, senior engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Title: Resolution of support for MnDOT Local Road Improvement Program fund application – (4023-1101)
Discussion
Background: Louisiana Avenue from Wayzata Boulevard to the bridge over the railroad tracks
and Cedar Lake Road from Nevada Avenue to Kentucky Lane is scheduled for reconstruction in
2023. This is due to pavement condition. The road is on the city’s Municipal state aid (MSA)
system and is eligible for state aid funds to pay for road improvements. However, there will not
be adequate MSA funds to pay for this improvement. The existing Average Daily Traffic along
Louisiana Avenue is over 18,000 vehicles per day and about 44% of the traffic is non-local. This
street is classified as an arterial and is regionally significant, so it is a good candidate for LRIP
funds.
The planned improvements include:
•Pavement rehabilitation
•Multi-modal improvements to add a bike facility along Louisiana Avenue and Cedar
Lake Road
•Construction of new sidewalk on the east side of Louisiana Avenue
•Intersection upgrades at Wayzata Boulevard, Franklin Avenue, and Cedar Lake Road
•Replacement of water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer as needed
Present considerations: In 2020, the Local Road Improvement Program Advisory Committee
requested MnDOT State Aid prepare a solicitation opportunity for local agencies. The LRIP was
established in Minnesota Statute 174.52 to assist local agencies in constructing or reconstructing
local roads. The legislature provided $75,000,000 for LRIP in Laws of Minnesota, 5th Special
Session, Chapter 3, Article 1, Section 16, Subdivision 2. The maximum request is $1,250,000 per
project to fund capital construction costs only. The funding is not eligible for engineering, right-
of-way, or other non-construction related costs.
Projects are selected through a competitive solicitation process using the following criteria,
along with recommendations from the Local Road Improvement Program Advisory Committee.
•The availability of other state, federal and local funds
•The regional significance of t he route
•Effectiveness of the proposed project in eliminating a transportation system deficiency
•The number of persons positively impacted by the project
•The project’s contribution to other local, regional, or state, economic development or
redevelopment efforts
•Ability of the local unit of government to adequately provide for the safe operation and
maintenance of the facility upon project completion
The deadline to apply for LRIP funding is March 3, 2021. A resolution of support from the city
council is required with the application.
Next steps:
March 3, 2021 Project application deadline
April 2021 LRIP Advisory Committee reconvenes
May 2021 LRIP Advisory Committee announces awards
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 4h) Page 3
Title: Resolution of support for MnDOT Local Road Improvement Program fund application – (4023-1101)
Resolution No. 21-____
Resolution authorizing application for
Grant Agreement for State Transportation Fund
(Local Road Improvement Program)
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park has applied to the Commissioner of Transportation for
a grant from the Minnesota State Transportation Fund for the Local Road Improvement
Program and
Whereas, the Commissioner of Transportation has given notice that funding for this
project is available; and
Whereas, the legislature has provided $75,000,000 in funding, with a cap of $1,250,000
for each project; and
Whereas, the 2023 project scope is the mult i-modal improvement of Louisiana Avenue
from Wayzata Boulevard to the bridge over the railroad tracks and Cedar Lake Road from
Nevada Avenue to Kentucky Lane, with an estimated preliminary construction cost of
$5,777,765; and
Whereas, Louisiana Avenue is an existing two-lane arterial roadway with Average Traffic
Daily Traffic over 18,000 vehicle s per day and about 44% of the traffic is non-local. It needs
improvements to meet current and future pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and traffic demands of
the corridor; and
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park acknowledges that LRIP funds can be used on
reasonable elements associated with roadway construction and that other costs, including but
not limited to: consulting engineering and inspection, utility construction, as well as
construction costs above the LRIP award will need to have alternate funding sources; and
Now therefore be it resolved that the City of St. Louis Park does hereby support the
corridor improvement project and agrees to maintain such improvements, and supports
submittal of the LRIP application, and provides assurance that all costs associated with the
project will be paid beyond the LRIP grant award. The proper City officers are authorized to
execute a grant agreement and any amendments thereto with the Commissioner of
Transportation concerning the above-referenced grant.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 1, 2021
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: March 1, 2021
Public hearing: 6a
Executive summary
Title: Excelsior Blvd., LLC dba Hazelwood Food and Drink – St. Louis Park
Recommended action: Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony, and close public
hearing. Motion to approve application from Excelsior Blvd., LLC dba Hazelwood Food and Drink
– St. Louis Park for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license for the premises located at 4450
Excelsior Blvd. unit 120.
Policy consideration: Does the applicant meet the requirements for the issuance of an on-sale
intoxicating and on-sale Sunday liquor license?
Summary: The city received an application from Excelsior Blvd., LLC dba Hazelwood Food and
Drink – St. Louis Park for an on-sale intoxicating and on -sale Sunday liquor license for the
property located at 4450 Excelsior Blvd. unit 120. The restaurant will be on the ground floor of
the Bridgewater Bank building, comprising of 5,503 square feet of indoor space and an
additional 940 square feet of outdoor space. Indoor space will provide seating for 205 guests
and outdoor seating for approximately 50 guests. The menu will offer modern comfort food
and will be available in both indoor and outdoor spaces.
Patrick Woodring and Scott Foster are two of the main principals listed on the application and
both hold interest in Nova Restaurant Group, which owns several other establishments,
including two other Hazelwood Food and Drink locations. Felipe Navarro will be the store
manager overseeing the day-to-day sale of alcohol. The applicant is planning to open in early
April 2021. Any guidelines that continue to be in place due to covid-19 will be adhered to for
the safety of staff and patrons.
The police department conducted a full background investigation, and nothing was discovered
that would warrant denial of the license. The application and police report are on file in the city
clerk’s office. The required notice of the public hearing was published on February 18, 2021. If
the license is approved, nothing will be issued until all requirements have been met with the
city Building and Energy department, Hennepin County, and the State Alcohol and Gambling
Enforcement Division.
Financial or budget considerations: Fees include $500 for the background investigation and
$8,950 for an on -sale intoxicating and on-sale Sunday liquor license. Pursuant to city code
provisions, the license fee will be pro-rated for the remainder of the license term.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: None
Prepared by: Chase Peterson-Etem, office assistant
Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: March 1, 2021
Action agenda item: 8a
Executive summary
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to signs on rooftop screening
Recommended action: Motion to approve the first reading of Ordinance amending Section 36-
362(h) pertaining to signs on rooftop equipment screening structures and set second reading for
March 15, 2021.
Policy consideration: Does the council wish to amend Section 36-362(h) to allow sign s on
rooftop equipment screening structures?
Summary: Audrey Janzen, on behalf of the Excelsior Group , applied for a zoning ordinance text
amendment to allow rooftop signs when attached to a rooftop equipment screen wall. The
Excelsior Group owns the new 10 West End office building. The office building includes a large
rooftop equipment screening structure that they designed with the intent of mounting signage
on it as outlined in the attached discussion section. They were, however, unaware that the city
does not allow rooftop signage.
Planning commission discussion: The planning commission heard the application on Jan. 20,
2021. The public hearing was closed with no comments received. Staff recommended denial of
the application . The planning commission, however, tabled consideration of the ordinance so
revisions could be made based on their discussion at the meeting. The planning commission
reviewed the revised ordinance on Feb. 24, 2021, and recommended approval of the revised
ordinance.
Present considerations: A copy of the ordinance is attached and summarized below. The
ordinance proposes to allow signs on rooftop equipment screening structures in the planned
unit development districts with the following conditions:
1. The building is at least eight stories tall and is used for predominantly office uses.
2. The rooftop equipment screening structure must enclose at least 40% of the rooftop.
3. The sign cannot extend above the height of the rooftop screening structure.
4. The rooftop equipment screening structure shall be included in the building height.
5. The rooftop equipment screening structure must be included in the building elevation
when calculating compliance to the architectural design and materials requirements.
6. Prior to installing any wall sign on the rooftop equipment screening structure, the rooftop
equipment screen structure must be inspected and certified by an engineer to verify that
the structure can support the proposed sign.
Financial or budget considerations: None .
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion; Ordinance ; Excerpt of planning commission minutes;
Applicant response to application questions
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor
Karen Barton, community development director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to signs on rooftop screening
Discussion
Proposed ordinance : The application submitted to the city included the following amendment
to the ordinances pertaining to signs. It was presented to the planning commission on Jan. 20,
2021, and they determined it was too subjective and broad in scope. As a result, they requested
staff meet with the applicant to discuss revisions and present a revised ordinance to the
planning commission on Feb. 24, 2021.
36-362 (b)(4) Installation of signs on the tops of buildings which are unsupported by a
perimeter screen wall constitute a hazard during periods of high winds and is an
obstacle to effective firefighting and other emergency services.
36-362 (C) Sign, Screen Wall means a sign attached to a non-structural wall incorporated
into the aesthetic of the building, which surrounds the perimeter of the roof to conceal
equipment.
Revised ordinance: Staff reviewed the planning commission’s comments from the January 20,
2021 meeting and met with the applicant. The result is the attached copy of the revised draft
ordinance. In summary, the ordinance is written to allow wall signs to be attached to rooftop
equipment screening structures with the following conditions:
1.The building must be located in a planned unit development (PUD) zoning district. This
condition limits the number of properties that can take advantage of the rooftop screening
structure signage. There are currently 17 PUD zoning districts. Of these, only two are made
up of predominately office uses, 10 West End and Bridgewater Bank on Excelsior Boulevard.
Bridgewater Bank, however, is only four stories tall, and therefore, does not qualify based
on other conditions recommended below.
2.The rooftop equipment screening structure is located on a building that is at least eight
stories tall and that is used for predominantly office uses. Eight stories was chosen to be
consistent with an existing sign regulation that allows larger sign faces on buildings over
eight stories.
3.The rooftop equipment screening structure upon which the sign is mounted must enclose an
area equal to at least 40% of the total rooftop area of the building. 40% was chosen as a
minimum size to be considered a substantial portion of the rooftop.
4.For rooftop equipment screening structures with multiple or varying heights, the signs
cannot extend above the height of the shortest section of the rooftop screening structure.
This provision is intended to prevent someone from constructing one section of a larger
screen wall solely for the purpose of installing a larger and higher sign.
5.The rooftop equipment screening structure shall be included in the building height. A
substantial structure, such as a screening structure that occupies at least 40% of the
rooftop, should be included in the height measurements.
6.The rooftop equipment screening structure must be included in the building elevation when
calcula ting compliance to the architectural design and materials of each building elevation.
The intent of this provision is to require the design of the screening structure to be integral
and compatible with the principal building.
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to signs on rooftop screening
7. Prior to installing any wall sign on the rooftop equipment screening structure, the rooftop
equipment screen structure must be inspected and certified by an engineer to verify that the
structure can support the proposed sign. This provision is to ensure that the screening
structure is structurally sound prior to installing the sign. Repairs to the structure may be
required depending on the results of the report.
The ordinance adds the new text to the “special provisions” subsection of the sign ordinance.
This subse ction allows specific types of signs such as real estate signs, directional signs, political
signs, electronic signs, and others that would not be allowed by the general sign regulations or
may require conditions specific to a type of sign. By placing the proposed ordinance in this
subsection, the city would allow signs on rooftop screening structures administratively when all
the conditions are met.
The sign requested by 10 West End meets the proposed conditions; therefore, it would be
allowed if this ordinance is approved.
Staff analysis: Each of the proposed conditions of approval listed above are followed by a brief
explanation of the condition. Staff finds the revised ordinance as written provides the city with
adequate controls to allow rooftop signs only in limited circumstances. It does not completely
resolve all of staff’s stated concerns at the previous planning commission meeting and in the
previous staff report. The ordinance proposes to allow a few businesses or buildings to have the
advantage of placing signs on the rooftop. While drafting and administering the sign ordinance,
the city places care in adopting regulations that are fair and equitable. In keeping with this, the
city code includes a list of types of signs that are prohibited citywide, which includes rooftop
signs. Adopting a regulation that gives the advantage of a rooftop sign to a few businesses is
problematic. It can be viewed as giving a competitive advantage to one business or building
over those around it by allowing it to have a sign at a higher elevation than similar buildings and
making it more visible than the others.
Apart from giving an advertising advantage to a few properties, it also introduces dimensional
standards (conditions of approval) that need to be me t to qualify for the rooftop sign.
Maintaining rooftop signs as prohibited city wide makes it clear and equitable to all that they
are not permitted under any circumstances. Changing the code to allow rooftop signs if certain
conditions are met introduces the opportunity to argue for special considerations through the
variance process. While arguing for special considerations is not the intent of the variance
process, it is often utilized to attempt to argue that a request is reasonable even though it does
not meet code. This puts the city in a difficult position of having to justify why one applicant
was given a variance and another is not.
10 West End PUD: The Excelsior Group applied for a planned unit development (PUD) in 2016 for
the 10 West End office building. An 11-story, 350,000 square foot multi-tenant office building.
The application submitted for the PUD included detailed plans for the building and property.
The plans included sheet A302 Exterior Elevation – North and Sheet A051 Architectural Signage
Plan. Both are pictured below. The exterior elevation shows what a sign mounted to the
rooftop screening would look like. The second sheet, the architectural signage plan, is a detail
sheet that shows a closeup of the signage and where it is proposed to be located.
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to signs on rooftop screening
Screen wall
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to signs on rooftop screening
Existing regulations: The city does not allow rooftop signs as defined in the code below:
Sign, rooftop means a sign attached to any roof or any sign attached to a building in any
other manner that allows more than ten percent of its area to extend above the wall or
parapet wall of the side of the building on which the sign is located.
This code clearly requires a sign to be located on the wall of the building. The code does not
allow a sign to be installed on any stru cture located on the roof, including fences used to screen
rooftop equipment.
Section 3632(c)(3)c prohibits the PUD ordinance from being used to modify the signage
requirements and requires the PUD to follow the sign requirements of the most closely related
zoning district as designated in the approving ordinance.
Section 36-268-PUD 6 is the approving ordinance that regulates 10 West End. Section 36-
268(d)(3) regulates signage in PUD 6 and states that the sign regulations pertaining to the office
district shall be applied.
These two code sections prohibit rooftop signs from being permitted or approved in the PUD 6
(10 West End) development. As a result, sheet A051 Architectural Signage Plan was not
approved or included in the list of official exhibits found in section 36-268(a) which states that
the site is to be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the list of exhibits.
After the PUD was approved, a building permit was applied for and approved in 2019. The
building permit submittal did not include sheet A051 Architectural Signage Plan. The exclusion
of this plan sheet is consistent with the PUD regulations, the PUD 6 (10 West End) ordinance
and the fact that a building permit does not authorize signage. Signage is regulated by section
36-362, specifically section 36-362(f)(1) which states that a “sign permit” is required.
History of rooftop signs: Rooftop signs were specifically prohibited in the Diversified
Development District (DDD) in 1975. The purpose of the DDD was to allow the development of
large properties in a manner consistent with an overall plan of the area. The DDD allowed a
variety of residential, office, commercial and industrial uses. The DDD district included the land
that is now West End and the Costco/Home Depot commercial area. The current West End area
was rezoned in 1992 to IP Industrial Park and O Office.
Rooftop signs were prohibited citywide in 1985. The reasoning for prohibiting rooftop signs is
included in the sign ordinance:
Section 36-362(b)(4) Installation of signs on the tops of buildings constitutes a hazard
during periods of high winds and is an obstacle to effective firefighting and other
emergency services.
The city adopted the ordinance prohibiting rooftop signs as a result of safety concerns and
aesthetics. Below are a few historical pictures of commercial properties with rooftop signs in St.
Louis Park.
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to signs on rooftop screening
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to signs on rooftop screening
Administration of sign ordinance: The sign ordinance states that signs are important to give an
opportunity for identification of community businesses and institutions. (Section 36-362(b)(2).
It also states that uncontrolled and unlimited construction and placement of permanent signs
adversely affects the image and aesthetic of the community and undermines economic value
and growth [Section 36-362(b)(5)].
Rooftop signs were prohibited citywide in 1985 because they reflected poorly on the aesthetics
of the community, were found to be a safety hazard and the city determined that businesses
can reasonably meet their advertising needs without placing signs on the roof.
Planning Commission meeting: The planning commission reviewed the revised ordinance on
Febr. 24, 2021 and recommend ed approval of the revised ordinance .
The commission commented that the revised ordinance addressed their concerns that they had
with the previous ordinance. They appreciated the fact that the code narrowly identified
properties and buildings that would be eligible by allowing this type of sign only on buildings
located in the PUD zoning district, and were satisfied that the PUD process allows the city broad
authority to review the design of the rooftop screening structure and the sign locations .
Allowing the rooftop screening structure signs in the PUD districts only is an incentive the city
can offer for projects providing superior site and building design or other stated city goals for a
PUD. The commission also appreciated the condition that the rooftop screening structure must
be inspected and certified by a structural engineer prior to the installation of each sign to
protect safety.
Next Steps: The ordinance is scheduled for a second reading before the city council on March
15, 2021.
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to signs on rooftop screening
Ordinance No. ____-21
Ordinance regarding signs on rooftop screening structures
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Whereas, an application was received from 10 West End LLC to amend the sign ordinance
to allow signs on rooftop equipment screening structures, and
Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the planning
commission (case no. 20-30-ZA), and
Now, there fore be it resolved that the following amendments shall be made to the City
Code:
Section 1. Chapter 36, Section 36-362(h) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby
amended to add the following underlined text to the list of land use descriptions.
(9) Rooftop screen signs. Notwithstanding Section 36-362(e) wall signs are permitted on
rooftop equipment screening structures located in the planned unit development
zoning districts subject to the following conditions:
1. The rooftop equipment screening structure is located on a building that is at
least eight stories tall and that is used for predominantly office uses.
2. The rooftop equipment screening structure upon which the sign is mounted
must enclose an area equal to at least 40% of the total rooftop area of the
building.
3. For rooftop equipment screening structures with multiple or varying heights, the
signs cannot extend above the height of the shortest section of the rooftop
screening structure .
4. The rooftop equipment screening structure shall be included in the building
height.
5. The rooftop equipment screening structure must be included in the building
elevation when calculating compliance to the architectural design and materials
of each building elevation.
6. Prior to installing any wall sign on the rooftop equipment screening structure,
the rooftop equipment screen structure must be inspected and certified by an
engineer to verify that the structure can support the proposed sign.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect April 9, 2021.
First Reading March 1, 2021
Second Reading March 15, 2021
Date of Publication March 25, 2021
Date Ordinance takes effect April 9, 2021
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to signs on rooftop screening
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 15, 2021
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to signs on rooftop screening
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
January 20, 2021 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Imran Dagane, Matt Eckholm, Courtney Erwin, Jessica
Kraft, Tom Weber
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Jacquelyn Kramer, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther
3. Public Hearings
A. Sign zoning code amendments – 10 West End
Applicant: Audrey Janzen
Case Nos: 20-30-ZA
Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator, presented the staff report.
Mr. Walther stated this application was initiated by Excelsior Group to amend the
zoning code related to signs.
Commissioner Kraft asked if the city allows signage anywhere except the roof. Mr.
Morrison stated yes, signage is allowed on walls and wall signs may extend up to 10%
above a parapet or roof line, as well as ground mounted signs.
Commissioner Beneke asked if a wall is around a rooftop terrace, is it called a wall if it is
above the roofline. Mr. Morrison stated a parapet wall would be allowed to have signage.
Commissioner Weber stated the language seems to be related to safety. He asked if
safety was the concern fo this ban or was this the reason used and was council more
concerned with the aesthetic side. Mr. Morrison stated safety was the reason, and
aesthetics were not found in the ordinance as a reason.
The applicant, Mr. Culp, spoke on behalf of Excelsior Group. He gave background and
history on the project.
Commissioner Kraft asked if they always planned to put the sign on the screen wall and
then realiz ed it was not allowed. Mr. Culp stated yes, that is correct. He stated they
were working with Ryan Companies when this was submitted, and they realize code
overrides all, but that it was not a secret.
Commissioner Weber asked if the sign is for a tenant or for the name of the development.
Mr. Culp stated it is for a tenant.
City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 11
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to signs on rooftop screening
Commissioner Weber asked if the tenant would cancel if they do not get the sign. Mr.
Culp stated he did not believe so.
Ms. Janzen added this tenants sign would not work with what they wanted. Mr. Culp added
by amending the zoning code, there would be better results, but no material change.
Commissioner Weber stated the sign at the Verge does not look that different
aesthetically and asked what the difference is.
M r. Morrison stated the wall material is different and it is a wall with occupied space
behind it and a roof. If this is adopted city-wide, others would be able to take advantage
of the ordinance and then signs could be placed on the rooftop in various locations
around the city. He stated the way the ordinance is drafted now allowing signs on
parapet walls is the only way to allow signs on the roof screen.
Mr. Culp agreed with Mr. Morrison and the subjectivity about the draft sign ordinance.
He stated signs are a big part about getting tenants. He noted they could have made the
parapet wall higher to accommodate the signage and use a material that is used across
the rest of the building if they had known this would be a problem.
Chair Eckholm opened the public hearing.
There were not callers on the line.
The Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Beneke stated he did not think this ordinance could be approved since it
is so subjective. He stated he would vote against this adding he thought the commission
could discuss this further at a later date in more depth.
Chair Eckholm stated the way this is written, it is too broad for him to support. He
encouraged the applicant to bring something else back to staff.
Commissioner Weber stated this development is up against two major highways and the
marketing there does make sense, but he added the residential around there may or
may not see the sign. He added he does not want to give up on this idea yet, and
possibly the wording should be rewritten.
Commissioner Kraft added her hesitation is the current ordinance is very broad and
subjective and should be rewritten. She added if we are interested in allowing this, it
would need to be less subjective and she would deny this tonight.
Chair Eckholm made a motion, Commissioner Weber seconded, recommending tabling
this issue while staff works on the ordinance language that works best for the city and
the applicant.
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
To: St. Louis Park Planning Commission, c/o Gary Morrison
From: 10 West End, LLC, c/o Chris Culp
RE: Section 36-362 of the St. Louis Park Zoning Code
Date: January 13, 2021
Standing
10 West End, LLC, the owner of an 11-story, 350,000 SF multi-tenant office building located at 1601 Utica
Avenue S. is leading an effort to modify the Sign Regulations in the St. Louis Park City Zoning Code (“Zoning
Code”). This effort to make modifications is supported by real estate developers and St. Louis Park residents.
Narrative
In 2019, The Excelsior Group (“TEG”) and its project partners submitted detailed construction plans to the city
for review and approval in order to obtain a building permit for the above referenced building at 1601 Utica Ave.
S. Those plans were reviewed by many City departments including the zoning department. Many of the
departments responded with comments and questions that were addressed by TEG and its project partners to the
satisfaction of the City. The final plans were approved, and a building permit was issued. The building is now
constructed, and a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the City.
During the construction of the building, TEG and its project partners marketed the building for lease. During that
marketing effort, TEG shared the City-approved building plans with prospective tenants and their advisors. TEG
and prospective tenants used the City-approved plans to design their possible offices and evaluate the marketing
opportunities afforded by the building’s location and design characteristics.
The City-approved plans show, in multiple places, signage on walls at the top of the building. Appropriately, the
marketing team and prospective tenants relied on the City-approved plans when they considered building signage
as an attractive feature afforded by this particular building. After signing a lease with HDR, an engineering firm
TEG, on behalf of HDR, submitted an application for a building sign to the City for approval. The sign
application showed HDR’s logo on the walls at the top of the building in a location substantially similar to the
location shown on the City-approved plans.
The application was denied as it was determined that the sign was placed on a “Screen Wall,” which the City has
determined is prohibited under Section 36-362 of the Zoning Code (despite Screen Wall not appearing in this
section of the Zoning Code). This, of course, was a surprise to the development team, marketing team, property
management team, and HDR given the fact that the City-approved plans clearly show a sign on the “Screen Wall.”
TEG spoke with City staff about our options to fulfill the representations made to HDR. We are advised that
there is a process for seeking a variance, but variances for signs on “Screen Walls” have historically been unsuccessful
and the instance described above was not likely to justify a deviation from previous decisions. A second option
would be to seek a change to the Zoning Code. We have chosen to seek a change to the Zoning Code as we
believe it is in the best interest of the City, its residents, property owners, and employers.
Request
10 West End, LLC is seeking to modify, if necessary, the Zoning Code as it relates to Signs. The reason for the
change is to add clarity to the definition of a “wall.” Arguably, the sign placement discussed above is permissible
under the current Zoning Code, but the historical interpretation of the Zoning Code suggests that the sign is not
permissible. Thus, a clarification seems appropriate and important, especially because its “misplacement” was not
identified at the time the building plans were approved and a building permit was issued for our project.
Page 12 City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 8a)
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to signs on rooftop screening
Currently, the Zoning Code outlines the reasons that Sign Regulations are necessary, including safety and
aesthetics. The Zoning Code goes on to describe what characteristics are allowed in various areas of the city. One
portion of the Zoning Code prohibits signs, as defined in the Zoning Code, from being placed on the Rooftop
(Section 36-362(e)(3)). Another portion of the Zoning Code prohibits signs, as defined in the Zoning Code, from
being placed on various parts and components of a building, including chimneys, rooftop equipment, observation
towers, flagpoles, cooling towers, elevator penthouses, commercial antennas, communication towers, belfries,
church spires, and cupolas.
10 West End, LLC recognizes that building aesthetics are compromised when signs placed on spaces that are too
small for a legible sign, like including chimneys, observation towers, flagpoles, cooling towers, commercial
antennas, communication towers, and spires. 10 West End, LLC also understands and supports the objective of
safety and structural integrity. We, however, feel that the top of a building, as discussed in the Zoning Code as the
top of the parapet, is too narrow.
We believe that the top of the building should be the highest part of the perimeter of the building whether that
space is occupiable or not, especially if that structural perimeter is integrated into the design of the building either
at initial construction or as part of a building renovation.
We are seeking to earn your support for a modification to Section 36-362(c) (definitions) by changing the
definition of Sign, rooftop from “a sign attached to any roof or any sign attached to a building in any other manner
that allows mor than ten percent of its area to extend above the wall or parapet of the side of the building on which
the sign is located” to “a sign attached to any roof or any sign attached to a building in any other manner that
allows mor than ten percent of its area to extend above the a wall or parapet of the side of the building on which
the sign is located.”
Perhaps a definition of “wall” is necessary in this case. We believe a qualifying wall is a wall that is opaque,
structurally sound, provides for movement within that wall, and architecturally integrated into the rest of the
building design. This an important part of our design at 10 West End as the design of our wall on the roof went
beyond simple screening, with the roof wall massing intentionally extending to affect the architectural shape of the
top of the building.
The simple change to the definition and, perhaps, the addition of a definition of “wall” for this section of the
Zoning Code, would allow for much more clarity and would incent property owners and developers to be
intentional in their design of what are commonly referred to as Screen Walls. The intentionality of Screen Wall
design would lead to improved building aesthetics in St. Louis Park while providing a competitive edge over other
cities in attracting employers.
Page 13 City council meeting of March 1, 2021 (Item No. 8a)
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to signs on rooftop screening