HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021/11/22 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
NOV. 22, 2021
The St. Louis Park City Council is meeting in person in accordance with the most recent COVID-
19 guidelines. Members of the public may attend the Nov. 22, 2021 study session, in person at
St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. The meeting may also be viewed live via
webstream at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil and on local cable (Comcast SD channel 17/HD channel
859). Visit bit.ly/slpccagendas to view the agenda.
6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – council chambers
Discussion items
1. 6:30 p.m. Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
2. 7:30 p.m. Systems project update
8:15 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal)
8:20 p.m. Adjourn
Written reports
3. October 2021 monthly financial report
4. MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street
5. Application for Tax Increment Financing Assistance – Wooddale Station
6. Aldersgate resolution of support for Minnesota Housing Finance
7. West Metro Home Remodeling Fair Joint Powers Agreement
The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of city hall and on the text
display on civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s
website. If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952-924-2525.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: November 22, 2021
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
Recommended action: No action required.
Policy consideration: Does Council require any additional information relative to the 2015-2020
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Analysis?
Summary: Since the city’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted in February 2018, staff have
worked diligently to design and implement the wide-ranging initiatives laid out to reach the
plan’s goals. From internal projects to massive programs and public policy, nearly every
department has had a hand in working to reach the goals of the CAP. The first five-year
greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis (attached) finds that while there is significant
work remaining to address emissions—particularly from residential and commercial natural gas
consumption—the city’s emissions are trending in the right direction due to both the city’s
efforts and to external policy efforts. Notably, this reduction in emissions has occurred despite
population growth and the construction of many new multifamily buildings.
The CAP was written using 2015 as the baseline year. Understanding the baseline emissions
from each sector beginning in 2015 (building energy, transportation, waste, and wastewater)
allowed targets to be set to decrease emissions over time. LHB, Inc. was hired to complete the
greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis, which depicts through a narrative and
graphics how much progress is being made to reach the 2030 goals. The report focuses on 2016
through 2019 data, with a separate section discussing the effects of the pandemic on 2020
emissions.
Staff and Becky Alexander from LHB, Inc. will be present to provide an overview of the report.
The greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis report is attached for council’s review.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Discussion
2015-2020 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Analysis
Prepared by: Emily Ziring, sustainability manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, director of building and energy
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, interim deputy city manager/operations and recreation director
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
Discussion
Background: In February 2018 the city council formally adopted the city’s Climate Action Plan.
The goals of the plan are some of the most robust of any city in Minnesota. The biggest bowl
outcome of the plan is for the community to achieve community-wide carbon neutrality by
2040, with seven important midterm goals set for 2030. The goals were set for 2030 as midway
point for the city to assess its progress toward becoming carbon neutral by 2040.
The strategies within each goal were set up relative to a projected “business-as-usual” (BAU)
level, which accounts for anticipated city growth. Specific reduction targets are assigned to
each strategy that were calculated using a “wedge diagram” tool that compared potential
progress against the anticipated emissions if the city were to take no action to reduce its
emissions. Implementation of the strategies under all of the goals will result in a 55% reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions from business-as-usual by 2030, and 62% by 2040. The remaining
post-2030 emissions reductions will come from fossil fuel use in buildings and travel, including
vehicle and air travel.
Present considerations: The 2015-2020 greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis has
been included in the packet for the council’s review. The analysis revealed that St. Louis Park’s
emissions decreased 5% from 2015 to 2019 and an additional 17% in 2020. When compared to
the BAU reduction target, St. Louis Park’s GHG emissions achieved a 9% reduction in 2019.
Next steps: Sustainability staff anticipate returning to council for a study session on Dec. 13,
2021 with a summary of proposed 2022 climate action programs. The proposed programs serve
as the city’s response to the greenhouse gas progress report and when combined with existing
programs, policies and projects, set the city on a path towards continuous and accelerated
emissions reductions.
The December discussion will also serve as an opportunity to introduce a draft of a climate
emergency resolution. The resolution template was developed by the Minnesota Cities Climate
Caucus, a group of municipal and county elected officials from across the state working
together on solutions to the climate crisis. It will be adapted by the city’s Environment and
Sustainability Commission to highlight the effects of climate change on St. Louis Park and the
city’s climate action efforts. Many of the cities represented by the Cities Climate Caucus intend
to pass climate emergency resolutions (based off of the same template) as a coordinated effort
in January 2022.
St. Louis Park
2015-2020
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Inventory
and Analysis
November 2021
Prepared by:
Becky Alexander, LHB
Page 3 Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
Table of Contents
Background 1
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary 1
Energy 2
Travel 5
Waste 6
Drivers of Change 7
Residential Electricity 8
Commercial/Industrial Electricity 9
Residential Natural Gas 9
Commercial/Industrial Natural Gas 11
Travel 12
Waste 13
City Comparison 14
Pathway to Carbon Neutrality 15
Building Energy Progress 16
Vehicle Travel Progress 17
Waste Progress 18
Notes 19
Page 4 Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
ST. LOUIS PARK 2015-2020 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 1
Background
St. Louis Park’s Climate Action Plan (2018) models a pathway to carbon neutrality by
2040, supported by sector-specific goals, strategies, and actions. The plan is based on
nine years of historic community-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions data. This
report documents the changes in community-wide emissions since the baseline year
of 2015, assesses the drivers of change, and evaluates whether the city is on track to
meet its emissions goals. It provides a high-level overview of GHG emissions and is
not intended to be a detailed progress report on specific initiatives within the Climate
Action Plan. St. Louis Park anticipates that this type of GHG emissions analysis will be
undertaken every five years at a minimum.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary
Community-wide GHG emissions for 2016 through 2020 have been calculated
through Minnesota’s Regional Indicators Initiative consistently with the baseline data
used in the city’s Climate Action Plan.1 These inventories follow the U.S. Community
Protocol, developed by ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability USA.2 They include
electricity and natural gas use, vehicle travel, and waste generated within city
boundaries. About 60% of the city’s emissions are from building energy use, 38% from
travel, and 2% from waste management (Figure 1).
St. Louis Park’s emissions decreased 5% from 2015 to 2019 and an additional 17% in
2020 (Figure 2). The Drivers of Change section below quantifies the reasons for this
decrease. Due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, data from 2020 is
considered an anomaly that is discussed separately from 2015-2019 trends.
Figure 2. St. Louis Park greenhouse gas emissions by activity from 2007-2020 (left) and 2019 breakdown by activity (right).
Figure 1. St. Louis Park 2019
GHG breakdown by activity,
fuel type, and sector. 60%Nat. Gas32%Com/Ind37%Elec.28%Res.23%38%38%38%2%2%2%Waste
Travel
Energy
GHG
BREAKDOWN
Page 5 Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
ST. LOUIS PARK 2015-2020 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 2
ENERGY
Buildings generate GHG emissions by using electricity and natural
gas. Electricity accounted for 28% and natural gas accounted for
32% of the community’s emissions in 2019 (Figure 1).
Electricity is commonly used to power lighting, appliances, and
air conditioning, and is increasingly being used for space and
water heating via heat pumps. The city’s electric utility provider,
Xcel Energy, provided community-wide annual electricity usage
data, broken down between residential and commercial/
industrial users. Xcel also publishes their annual emissions
factors (tonnes of CO2e per kilowatt-hour of electricity), which
account for the different sources of energy used to generate
electricity.3
Electricity use decreased 12% from 2015 to 2019 before rising
2% in 2020 – likely due to the transition to remote work during
the pandemic without substantial reductions occurring in
commercial buildings (Figure 3). With cleaner electricity provided
by Xcel Energy, electricity emissions decreased 27% from 2015
to 2019, and another 19% in 2020 (Figure 4).
Figure 3. St. Louis Park electricity use by sector for
2007-2020.
Figure 4. St. Louis Park electricity emissions by sector for 2007-2020 (left) and 2019 breakdown by sector (right).
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
20072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020million MMBTUELECTRICITY USE
Commercial/Industrial Electricity
Residential Electricity
Page 6 Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
ST. LOUIS PARK 2015-2020 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 3
Natural gas is commonly used for space heating, water heating,
and cooking appliances, as well as for some types of commercial
equipment. Usage data was provided by the city’s natural gas
utility provider, CenterPoint Energy. Unlike electricity, natural
gas emissions factors do not vary over time.
Natural gas use and emissions varied over the study period,
driven primarily by weather (Figure 5). In 2019, natural gas use
and emissions were 14% higher than in 2015, though they
dropped 12% in 2020 (Figure 6). While this data is not weather-
normalized, more information about the impacts of weather is
included in the Drivers of Change section below.
Figure 6. St. Louis Park natural gas emissions by sector for 2007-2020 (left) and 2019 breakdown by sector (right).
Figure 5. St. Louis Park natural gas use by sector for
2007-2020.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
20072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020million MMBTUNATURAL GAS USE
Commercial/Industrial Natural Gas
Residential Natural Gas
Page 7 Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
ST. LOUIS PARK 2015-2020 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 4
Emissions from building energy use can also be broken out
between residential and commercial/industrial uses. Commercial
and industrial buildings accounted for 37% of 2019 emissions,
while residential buildings were responsible for 23% (Figure 1).
Residential users include single-family homes, townhomes, and
duplexes. Commercial/industrial includes non-residential energy
users, such as businesses, industries, and institutions. Energy
used in multi-family residential buildings can fall into either
category, depending on whether there are energy meters for
each unit (residential) or for the entire building (commercial). In
practice, electricity is typically accounted for within the
residential sector while natural gas is typically accounted for in
the commercial sector.
Commercial/industrial energy use increased by 1% from 2015 to
2019 before dropping 8% in 2020 due primarily to a warmer
winter. Commercial/industrial emissions decreased 14% from
2015 to 2019 and dropped another 17% in 2020.
Residential energy use increased 10% from 2015 to 2019 before
dropping 7% in 2020. Residential emissions decreased 2% from
2015 to 2019 and then dropped 12% in 2020.
0
50
100
150
200
250
20072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020thousand tonnes CO2eENERGY EMISSIONS
Commercial/Industrial Electricity
Commercial/Industrial Natural Gas
Residential Electricity
Residential Natural Gas
Figure 7. St. Louis Park building energy emissions by
sector and fuel type for 2007-2020.
Figure 8. St. Louis Park building energy emissions by sector/fuel type for 2007-2020 (left) and 2019 breakdown by sector/fuel type (right).
Page 8 Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
ST. LOUIS PARK 2015-2020 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 5
TRAVEL
St. Louis Park’s travel emissions account for vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) within city boundaries, regardless of where each
trip started or ended. Travel accounted for 38% of the
community’s emissions in 2019 (Figure 1).
Vehicles with internal combustion engines emit GHGs from their
tailpipes while in use. Electric vehicles may result in GHGs from
electricity generation. Vehicle emissions are dependent on miles
driven, fuel type, and fuel efficiency. City-specific VMT data is
available from the Minnesota Department of Transportation.4
Emissions are estimated using statewide or national averages
from ICLEI and the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
for vehicle type breakdown, fuel breakdown, fuel economy, and
emissions factors by fuel type.
Due to population growth and additional travel per capita, VMT
increased by 5% from 2015 to 2019. It dropped by 21% in 2020
due to job loss, remote work/school, and other business and
lifestyle changes caused by the pandemic (Figure 10). Travel
emissions increased by 2% from 2015 to 2019, with some of the
increased VMT offset by better fuel economy. Like VMT, travel
emissions also dropped 21% from 2019 to 2020 (Figure 9).
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020million vehicle miles traveledVEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
0
50
100
150
200
250
20072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020thousand tonnes CO2eVEHICLE EMISSIONS
Figure 9. St. Louis Park emissions from vehicle travel
for 2007-2020.
Figure 10. St. Louis Park vehicle miles traveled for 2007-2020.
Page 9 Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
ST. LOUIS PARK 2015-2020 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 6
WASTE
Landfilled and incinerated solid waste disposal accounted for 2%
of the community’s emissions in 2019.5 While St. Louis Park
tracks residential waste disposed, it does not currently track non-
residential waste.6 Therefore, total citywide waste has been
estimated based on the city’s proportion of Hennepin County’s
population. Due to this methodological limitation, the data is not
granular enough to accurately reflect the impacts of city action.
The City is currently exploring ways to rectify this.
Residential waste generation (city data) decreased 2% from
2015 to 2019 (Figure 20) and recycling rates rose from 49% to
51% of waste disposed. Residential waste rose 20% in 2020 –
with a 56% recycling rate – due to an influx of residents working
and preparing meals from home during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Conversely, total waste generation (based on county data)
increased 12% from 2015 to 2019 before dropping by 18% in
2020 (Figure 12). This drop reflects a decrease in reported
commercial recycling, likely due to a combination of pandemic
impacts and methodological changes in how recycling data is
estimated. Total waste emissions increased 6% from 2015 to
2019 before dropping 7% in 2020 (Figure 11).
Figure 12. St. Louis Park municipal solid waste generation by disposal method for 2007-2020 – estimated based on countywide trends –
and city-specific residential waste disposed (total of all disposal methods) (left). 2019 breakdown of total waste by disposal method
(right). The 2019 residential recycling rate was 51%. Organics recycling is included within the recycling totals.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020thousand tonnes CO2eWASTE EMISSIONS
Incinerated Landfilled
Figure 11. St. Louis Park municipal solid waste
emissions by disposal method for 2007-2020,
estimated based on countywide trends.
Page 10 Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
ST. LOUIS PARK 2015-2020 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 7
Drivers of Change
Many factors impact community-wide emissions, from city
growth and weather to emissions reduction programs. This
analysis determines the biggest drivers of change from the
baseline year of 2015 to the year 2019 using the “Greenhouse
Gas Contribution Analysis” toolkit developed through the U.S.
Department of Energy’s Cities Leading through Energy Analysis
and Planning (Cities-LEAP) program.7
Figure 14 shows the top reasons for increases and the top
reasons for decreases in community-wide greenhouse gas
emissions. The primary reasons for increases are all associated
with city growth or external factors (such as weather), while the
primary reasons for decreases reflect policies, programs, and
action at the federal, regional, and local scale.
The following sections show full results for each sector/fuel type.
+3%
+2%
+1%
+3%
-1%
-4%
-6%
-2%
547 thousand metric tons
520 thousand metric tons -5%
2015 INVENTORY
colder winter
population growth
more buildings
other increases
cleaner vehicles
less electricity use
cleaner electricity
other decreases
2019 INVENTORY
Emissions increases Emissions decreases Total emissions
ST. LOUIS PARK GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS DRIVERS OF CHANGE
Figure 14. The biggest drivers of change in community-wide emissions from 2015 to 2019 for St. Louis Park.
Top three reasons for reductions:
1.Cleaner electricity supplied by
Xcel Energy.
2.Electricity efficiency and
conservation, especially in
commercial/industrial buildings.
3.Improved vehicle fuel economy.
Top three reasons for increases:
1.A colder winter increased natural
gas use.
2.Population growth increased
residential energy use, vehicle
travel, and waste.
3.New construction increased
multi-family building energy use.
Page 11 Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
ST. LOUIS PARK 2015-2020 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 8
RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICITY
Despite an increase both in the number of households (in both
single-family and multi-family homes, including apartments and
condos) and the percentage of households using electricity for
space heating, emissions from residential electricity decreased by
23% from 2015 to 2019 (Figure 15). The average household used
9% less electricity in 2019 than in 2015. Most of these savings are
beyond what is accounted for from utility conservation program
participation and could be due to a combination of occupant
behavior, federal appliance standards, and resident action such as
lightbulb replacement.
Additional savings were achieved through cleaner electricity
supplied by Xcel Energy, which reported an 19% drop in emissions
per kilowatt-hour of electricity over this time period. This includes
a small impact from local investment in renewable electricity
through Xcel programs, which rose from 1.8% of residential
electricity use in 2015 to 4.0% in 2019.8 While weather does affect
the electricity used for residential space heating and cooling, its
impact on these two study years is minimal.9
+3%
+1%
-0%
+4%
-1%
-12%
-17%
56k metric tons CO2e
43k metric tons CO2e -23%
2015 INVENTORY
more households
colder winter
cooler summer
more households with electric heating
utility conservation programs
residential electricity efficiency
cleaner electricity
2019 INVENTORY
Emissions Increases Emissions Decreases Total Emissions
ST. LOUIS PARK RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICITY EMISSIONS DRIVERS OF CHANGE
Figure 15. Drivers of change for residential electricity emissions from 2015 to 2019 in St. Louis Park. Residential electricity efficiency refers
to savings beyond those reported through utility conservation programs.
Page 12 Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
ST. LOUIS PARK 2015-2020 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 9
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ELECTRICITY
Emissions from commercial and industrial electricity decreased by
29% from 2015 to 2019 (Figure 16). Much of this drop is due to
energy efficiency, with utility conservation programs recording
significant savings. Additionally, cleaner electricity supplied by
Xcel Energy caused a significant (19%) reduction in emissions per
kilowatt-hour. This includes a small impact from local investment
in renewable electricity through Xcel programs, which rose from
0% of commercial/ industrial electricity use in 2015 to 1.7% in
2019.10 No correlation was found between weather and
commercial and industrial electricity use, suggesting that it has a
negligible impact compared to other factors.
+4%
0%
0%
-8%
-9%
-16%
142k metric tons CO2e
101k metric tons CO2e -29%
2015 INVENTORY
commercial building growth
colder winter
cooler summer
utility conservation programs
commercial electricity efficiency
cleaner electricity
2019 INVENTORY
Emissions Increases Emissions Decreases Total Emissions
ST. LOUIS PARK COMMERCIAL ELECTRICITY EMISSIONS DRIVERS OF CHANGE
Figure 16. Drivers of change for commercial/industrial electricity emissions from 2015 to 2019 in St. Louis Park. Commercial electricity
efficiency refers to savings beyond those reported through utility conservation programs.
Page 13 Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
ST. LOUIS PARK 2015-2020 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 10
RESIDENTIAL NATURAL GAS
Residential natural gas emissions increased by 17% from 2015 to
2019 (Figure 17). This is primarily caused by the colder winter;
around three-quarters of St. Louis Park’s residential natural gas is
estimated to be used for space heating. This vulnerability to
changes in the weather suggests there are opportunities for St.
Louis Park to improve residential resilience and environmental
justice.
After accounting for weather, there was a slight increase in natural
gas use per household, despite 5% savings reported through utility
conservation programs. Possible reasons for this could be a trend
toward larger homes, changes in home temperature settings,
and/or increased natural gas use for water heaters, cooking
appliances, and laundry dryers. Less than 3% of St. Louis Park’s
homes use propane, fuel oil, or other fuels for space heating –
these uses have a minimal impact on the total.11
+3%
-5%
+16%
-5%
+7%
+0%
65k metric tons CO2e
75k metric tons CO2e +17%
2015 INVENTORY
more households
fewer households with gas heat
colder winter
utility conservation programs
more natural gas per household
no change in heating fuels mix
2019 INVENTORY
Emissions Increases Emissions Decreases Total Emissions
ST. LOUIS PARK RESIDENTIAL NATURAL GAS EMISSIONS DRIVERS OF CHANGE
Figure 17. Drivers of change for residential natural gas emissions from 2015 to 2019 in St. Louis Park. “More natural gas per household”
accounts for savings reported through utility conservation programs (i.e. natural gas per household increased 2% despite 5% savings
reported through utility program participation).
Page 14 Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
ST. LOUIS PARK 2015-2020 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 11
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NATURAL GAS
Commercial/industrial natural gas emissions increased by 11%
from 2015 to 2019 (Figure 18). This is primarily caused by the
colder winter; about 60% of St. Louis Park’s commercial natural
gas is estimated to be used for space heating. The construction of
new multifamily buildings (which are typically considered
commercial users of natural gas) is responsible for additional
increases. After accounting for weather and new construction,
there was a slight decrease in natural gas use per square foot of
building area, though not nearly as much as anticipated based on
the 9% savings reported by utility conservation programs.
+6%
+9%
-9%
+7%
-0%
82k metric tons CO2e
92k metric tons CO2e +11%
2015 INVENTORY
more multifamily buildings
colder winter
utility conservation programs
more commercial natural gas
no change in heating fuels mix
2019 INVENTORY
Emissions Increases Emissions Decreases Total Emissions
ST. LOUIS PARK COMMERCIAL NATURAL GAS EMISSIONS DRIVERS OF CHANGE
Figure 18. Drivers of change for commercial/industrial natural gas emissions from 2015 to 2019 in St. Louis Park.
Page 15 Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
ST. LOUIS PARK 2015-2020 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 12
TRAVEL
Vehicle travel emissions increased by 2% from 2015 to 2019
(Figure 19). Increases due to population growth and more travel
per person were partially offset by improved vehicle fuel
economy.
The Climate Action Plan includes numerous strategies aimed at
reducing emissions from travel, including vehicle efficiency,
adoption of EVs, and reducing VMT through initiatives such as land
use changes, car sharing services, wayfinding and implementation
of Connect the Park. While there is not a one-to-one inverse
relationship between vehicle trips and bike/walk trips, one of the
strategies of Connect the Park is to “Make low-carbon and no-
carbon travel methods an easy option to access public transit and
as an alternative to shorter vehicle trips.” Beginning in 2022, St.
Louis Park’s Engineering Department will be collecting data (both
bike/pedestrian counts and attitude surveys) to gauge overall
trends in use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities moving forward.
+3%
+1%
0%
-2%
193k metric tons CO2e
197k metric tons CO2e +2%
2015 INVENTORY
population growth
more travel per person
no local program impacts
cleaner vehicles
2019 INVENTORY
Emissions Increases Emissions Decreases Total Emissions
ST. LOUIS PARK TRAVEL EMISSIONS DRIVERS OF CHANGE
Figure 19. Drivers of change for vehicle travel emissions from 2015 to 2019 in St. Louis Park.
Page 16 Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
ST. LOUIS PARK 2015-2020 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 13
WASTE
Using County-level data prorated by population, emissions from
waste disposal increased by 6% from 2015 to 2019 (Figure 21).
This increase can be attributed to a combination of population
growth, economic growth, and more waste being generated per
person. As total waste emissions data is only available at the
county level, it does not reflect the impacts of St. Louis Park’s
residential organics and waste reduction programs, commercial
and multifamily recycling requirements, or its Zero Waste
Packaging ordinance.
Using city-specific data, the amount of landfilled or incinerated
residential waste per person decreased by 10% over this period
(Figure 20). Much of this reduction can be attributed to the
collection of food scraps for composting through the city’s
organics program in addition to other City programs such as pay-
as-you-throw garbage service levels and waste reduction
educational initiatives.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019thousand tonsRESIDENTIAL WASTE
Yard Waste
Organics Recycling
Recycling
Garbage
Figure 20. St. Louis Park residential solid waste by
disposal method for 2007-2019.
+4%
+1%
-2%
-1%
+4%
10k metric tons CO2e
11k metric tons CO2e +6%
2015 INVENTORY
population growth
increased GDP per person
shift in waste disposal methods
incineration emissions factor
more waste per person
2019 INVENTORY
Emissions Increases Emissions Decreases Total Emissions
ST. LOUIS PARK WASTE EMISSIONS DRIVERS OF CHANGE
Figure 21. Drivers of change for municipal solid waste emissions from 2015 to 2019 in St. Louis Park, based on countywide data.
Page 17 Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
ST. LOUIS PARK 2015-2020 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 14
City Comparison
To provide additional context for understanding St. Louis Park’s
progress toward its climate goals, its emissions can be compared
to other Minnesota communities with climate action plans. Both
Northfield and Eden Prairie and have adopted climate action
plans (in 2019 and 2020, respectively), are served by the same
electric utility as St. Louis Park, and have similar weather trends.
Figure 22 shows per capita community-wide emissions for each
of these cities from 2015 through 2019.
•St. Louis Park: 8% reduction
•Eden Prairie: 9% reduction
•Northfield: 4% reduction
Figure 23 shows how these changes break down by sector and
fuel. Eden Prairie’s trends are very similar to St. Louis Park’s.
While Northfield’s trends are generally in the same direction,
they are a smaller magnitude. Waste is the exception, where St.
Louis Park’s and Eden Prairie’s emissions (both using Hennepin
County waste management data) grew slightly due to an increase
in landfilled waste, while Northfield’s emissions decreased due
to a higher recycling rate.
-40%-30%-20%-10%0%10%20%
Com/Ind Electricity
Residential Electricity
Com/Ind Natural Gas
Residential Natural Gas
Vehicle Travel
Waste
CHANGE IN PER CAPITA EMISSIONS FROM 2015 TO 2019
St. Louis Park Eden Prairie Northfield
Figure 23. Percent change in per capita emissions by sector for St. Louis Park, Eden Prairie, and Northfield from 2015 to 2019.
Figure 22. Change in per capita community-wide
emissions from 2015-2019 for St. Louis Park, Eden
Prairie, and Northfield.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019tonnes CO2e per capitaPER CAPITA EMISSIONS
Northfield
Eden Prairie
St. Louis Park
Page 18 Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
ST. LOUIS PARK 2015-2020 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 15
Pathway to Carbon Neutrality
In 2019, the city was not on track to meet its climate goals (Figure
24). Progress can be evaluated by comparing current emissions
(the white dots labeled “Updates” in the following figures) to the
GHG emissions reduction plan (the dashed “Strategic Plan” in
Figure 26 and Figure 28) representing the impact of all modeled
emissions reduction strategies. This comparison can be framed in
relation to the business-as-usual (BAU) trajectory (the upper grey
line), which reflects a potential scenario if no action is taken.
Unlike comparisons to the 2015 baseline presented earlier in this
report, comparing to BAU accounts for anticipated city growth.
St. Louis Park’s GHG emissions reduction plan called for a 17%
reduction from business-as-usual emissions in 2019. It achieved
a 9% reduction. See the sections on Building Energy Progress and
Vehicle Travel Progress below for more detail.
2020 STATUS
In 2020, the city achieved a 24% reduction from BAU, exceeding
its plan milestone of a 21% reduction (Figure 24). However, this
was due in part to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and is
not anticipated to be sustained without additional climate action.
Impact of New Growth Projections
New population and jobs forecasts for St.
Louis Park through 2040 have been
released since the City’s Climate Action
Plan was developed. While the job
forecasts changed less than 0.5%, the
population forecasts increased by up to
7%. This will require the community to
reduce emissions per capita at a faster
rate than previously modeled, achieving
approximately 4.6 tonnes CO2e per
person in 2030 rather than 4.9 tonnes
CO2e per person (from a 2015 baseline of
12.5 tonnes CO2e per person). Another
way of thinking about this is the
“Business-As-Usual” trajectories shown
in Figure 22 through Figure 26 would be
growing more steeply than shown, so
additional actions will be needed to
reach the city’s goals.
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
tonnes CO2e
PLANNED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS BY SECTOR
Commercial/Industrial Efficiency
Residential Efficiency
Electric Grid Mix
Renewable Energy
Travel Strategies
Waste Strategies
Advanced Thermal Strategies & Offsets
Advanced Travel Strategies & Offsets
Business-As-Usual Goal
Baseline
Updates
Figure 24. St. Louis Park emissions reduction scenario, overlaid with progress since 2015.
Page 19 Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
ST. LOUIS PARK 2015-2020 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 16
BUILDING ENERGY PROGRESS
In 2019, the community was not on track to meet its reduction
targets for building energy emissions (Figure 26).
St. Louis Park’s GHG emissions reduction plan called for a 38%
reduction from business-as-usual (BAU) electricity emissions in
2019. It achieved a 31% reduction, reducing electricity use more
quickly than anticipated but not transitioning to clean energy
quickly enough to meet plan targets (Figure 25). Since the city’s
goal of 100% renewable electricity by 2030 is more aggressive
than Xcel’s goal of carbon-free electricity by 2050, significant
renewable energy investment within St. Louis Park is needed.
Natural gas emissions were 6% higher than BAU in 2019, not
meeting the plan’s 10% decrease. Additional efforts are needed
to reduce natural gas use, especially in cold years.
2020 STATUS
In 2020, the community was much closer to achieving its energy
emissions reduction plan, which called for a 32% reduction from
BAU. It achieved a 30% reduction through additional electricity
efficiency, cleaner electricity supplied by Xcel, and less natural
gas used due to the warmer winter (Figure 26).
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
tonnes CO2e
ENERGY STRATEGIES
Commercial/Industrial Efficiency
Residential Efficiency
Electric Grid Mix
Renewable Energy
Business-As-Usual Strategic Plan Goal
Baseline
Updates
Figure 26. St. Louis Park building energy emissions reduction scenario, overlaid with progress since 2015.
Figure 25. St. Louis Park's progress in 2019 toward the
energy targets modeled in the 2018 Climate Action
Plan.
-40%-35%-30%-25%-20%-15%-10%-5%0%5%10%15%Com/Ind ElectricityRes. ElectricityElectricity Emissions FactorCom/Ind Natural GasRes. Natural Gas% change from business-as-usual2019 ENERGY PROGRESS
Plan Actual
Page 20 Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
ST. LOUIS PARK 2015-2020 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 17
VEHICLE TRAVEL PROGRESS
In 2019, the community was not on track to meet its reduction
targets for vehicle travel emissions (Figure 28). St. Louis Park’s
GHG emissions reduction plan called for a 5% reduction from
business-as-usual (BAU) travel emissions in 2019. It achieved a
2% reduction.
With higher population growth than anticipated and slightly
higher VMT per capita, VMT was 3% higher than BAU in 2019
(Figure 27). This was offset by a more rapid decrease than
anticipated in the vehicle emissions factor (tonnes CO2e per mile
traveled) due to assumed improvements in fuel economy.12 VMT
reduction and additional progress toward cleaner vehicles are
needed to meet the city’s climate goals.
2020 STATUS
Impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, St. Louis Park
achieved a 22% reduction in VMT emissions from BAU, far
exceeding the planned 6% (Figure 28).13 Though some ongoing
VMT savings are likely to be achieved through a sustained
increase in remote work, it is unlikely to remain at 2020 levels
without implementing other reduction strategies.
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
tonnes CO2e
VEHICLE TRAVEL STRATEGIES
Reduce VMT
Vehicle Efficiency (CAFE standards)
Electric Vehicles
Fuel Switching for Heavy Duty Vehicles
Baseline
Updates
Business-As-Usual Strategic Plan Goal
Figure 28. St. Louis Park vehicle travel emissions reduction scenario, overlaid with progress since 2015.
Figure 27. St. Louis Park's progress in 2019 toward the
travel targets modeled in the 2018 Climate Action
Plan.
-10%
-5%
0%
5%Vehicle Miles TraveledVehicle Emissions Factor% change from business-as-usual2019 TRAVEL PROGRESS
Plan Actual
Page 21 Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
ST. LOUIS PARK 2015-2020 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 18
WASTE PROGRESS
Based on countywide data, the community was not on track to
meet its reduction targets for waste emissions in 2019. Unlike the
other sectors, a wedge diagram showing the impact of emissions
reduction strategies on the business-as-usual trajectory was not
created for solid waste in the 2018 Climate Action Plan, as the
only strategy modeled was a 50% reduction in waste generation
by 2030.
St. Louis Park’s waste emissions were 3% higher than business-
as-usual (BAU) in 2019, rather than the 12% reduction called for
in the plan. With higher population growth than anticipated and
more waste per capita, 9% more waste was disposed of in 2019
than predicted by the BAU forecast (Figure 29). This was partially
offset by a 5% reduction from the BAU waste emissions factor
(tonnes CO2e per ton of waste disposed) due to an increased
recycling rate. Additional waste reduction and diversion is
needed to meet the city’s climate goals, along with revised
accounting methodologies to better separate city-specific
impacts from countywide data.
2020 STATUS
In 2020, the community was still not on track to meet its waste
reduction targets, achieving a reduction of 2% from BAU rather
than the 15% reduction called for in the plan.
Figure 29. St. Louis Park's progress in 2019 toward the
waste targets modeled in the 2018 Climate Action
Plan. While the plan calls for waste reduction, it does
not specify a waste diversion goal (e.g. recycling),
which impacts the waste emissions factor.
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%Solid WasteWaste Emissions Factor% change from business-as-usual2019 WASTE PROGRESS
Plan Actual
Page 22 Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
ST. LOUIS PARK 2015-2020 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 19
Notes
1 St. Louis Park’s GHG emissions can be further explored and benchmarked against other Minnesota cities at the Regional
Indicators Initiative website: www.regionalindicatorsmn.com.
2 The U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions serves as a national standard to define which emissions sources and activities should be included in a community-wide inventory and provides
methodologies to account for these emissions. This protocol reflects the sources and activities that local governments are
best able to influence, including emissions that occur within the community’s geographic boundaries (also known as Scope
1 emissions) as well as emissions occurring outside the community (also known as Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions). The U.S.
Community Protocol accounts for the six internationally recognized GHGs that directly impact the climate (carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride). While these gases have different
levels of heat-trapping potential, they are assessed using the common metric of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e).
3 Per the U.S. Community Protocol, these inventories use the emissions factors as reported to The Climate Registry, which exclude CO2 from biomass generation. 2019 and 2020 emissions factors are currently undergoing third-party verification
and are subject to change when the verification is complete by the end of 2021. These factors are system-wide averages
that do not account for community-level differences in local renewable electricity generation or purchase through
programs such as WindSource or Renewable*Connect. However, St. Louis Park’s current participation in these programs is
low enough (less than 2.5% of total electricity use) that they would not make a noticeable difference in the results shown
here. As these programs grow, a methodology will be needed to account for their impact while accurately reflecting
renewable energy credit (REC) ownership (which is transferred to the consumer for some programs, but not others) and
avoiding double-counting savings (as they are already accounted for in Xcel’s system-wide average). Following the ICLEI
Protocol, other market-based solutions such as REC purchases are also excluded from these inventories.
4 VMT data is not available for 2015 due to MnDOT migrating to a new tracking system. VMT was estimated for this year
using the average VMT per capita from 2014 and 2016. Emissions were estimated using emissions per mile from 2016,
which was much more similar to 2015 values for fuel economy and biofuel content than 2014 was.
5 Emissions from managing municipal solid waste generated within city boundaries are determined based on the quantity of waste, waste composition (e.g. organics, plastics), and the method of disposal (e.g. landfill, incineration, recycling). In
Minnesota, municipal solid waste data is tracked at the county level and reported annually to the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency. Emissions from waste incineration are reported by the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center. Landfill
emissions are estimated and based on statewide averages for landfill composition and methane recovery rates. Per the U.S.
Community Protocol, recycled waste is assigned zero emissions.
6 The city’s residential solid waste program provides organized collection for 12,300 single-family to four-unit homes.
7 This tool accounts for changes in population, size of the built environment, emissions factors, weather, and per capita GDP (for solid waste only). Due to data limitations, the impact of economic cycles on energy use and travel are not included. The
analysis also reflects data tracked through local programs. In this case, local data tracked for Xcel Energy and CenterPoint
Energy’s conservation improvement programs is included. While these programs report savings from program participation
in a given year, savings from all years from 2015 to 2019 were aggregated for this analysis (as savings are presumed to
persist into future years).
The weather analysis uses monthly energy data from Hennepin County from 2017-2019 to determine how weather-
dependent the community’s building stock is likely to be. This data is limited by the billing cycles of the utility companies,
which don’t align with calendar months. This may cause some imprecision in the weather normalization.
Page 23Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
ST. LOUIS PARK 2015-2020 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 20
8 This includes participation in Windsource, Renewable*Connect, Solar*Rewards, and community solar gardens. It does not
include other forms of REC purchases. See Note 3 for additional information about how these programs are accounted for
in the emissions inventories.
9 The analysis estimates that about 11% of electricity use during these years goes toward space cooling and 6.5% is used for
space heating. As 2015 and 2019 were both cooler than average summers, the percentage used for cooling may increase in
future years – especially as summer temperatures increase.
10 This includes participation in Windsource, Renewable*Connect, Solar*Rewards, and community solar gardens. It does not
include other forms of REC purchases. See Note 3 for additional information about how these programs are accounted for
in the emissions inventories.
11 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, “St. Louis Park House Heating Fuel”.
12 Fuel economy assumptions are based on national data. This does not account for city-specific increases in electric
vehicles. However, the current number of electric vehicles registered in St. Louis Park (less than 200) would not make a
significant impact on the results.
13 Reductions in 2020 vehicle travel emissions exceeded the amount required to put the community on a linear path to carbon neutrality by 2040 (the dotted “Goal” line in Figure 26). Due to the perceived difficulty in achieving rapid
decarbonization of the transportation sector, the GHG emissions reduction strategies modeled in the Climate Action Plan –
shown by the dashed “Strategic Plan” line – does not get all the way to carbon neutrality. Instead, a large percentage will
need to be addressed through “Advanced Travel Strategies and Offsets,” as shown in Figure 22. Reducing vehicle travel at
the extreme rate seen during the COVID-19 pandemic could be one approach to “Advanced Travel Strategies.”
Page 24 Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: November 22, 2021
Discussion item: 2
Executive summary
Title: Systems project update
Recommended action: None. The purpose of this item is to update council on the status of this
project and next steps.
Policy consideration: Does council support the proposed calendar and pilot project to test the
systems approach?
Summary: On Sept. 27, 2021 staff proposed development and implementation of a systems
approach to address the existing list of council-requested items and correlate the items to the
city’s strategic priorities. Following discussion with council, staff worked on and completed the
identified “next steps”.
Phase 1 - Reorganize existing list, develop anticipated timeline, and action plan for council.
Phase 2 – Evaluate current method to propose items to identify opportunities to better
facilitate systems thinking, communicate variables, determine sense of urgency, assess
value/impact of initiative, assign strategic priority.
At the meeting on Nov. 22, 2021 staff will review and discuss the following with council:
• Review how council-requested items are sorted/grouped by strategic priority and identify
those items which staff believes to be “complete” (work objective has been achieved or
the scope of any additional work is outside of the city’s authority).
• Briefly highlight process for proposing council-requested items going forward, including
use of new automated request form and workflow.
• Review and discuss sample 2022 annual calendar for systems approach, including when
items could be scheduled, staff rationale, and workflow transitions.
• Review proposed pilot with around the Environmental Stewardship strategic priority to
test and evaluate this approach, including staff analysis and strategic plan for pilot system.
Next steps:
Initiate pilot project and develop evaluation tools and metrics
Test and implement new workflow process for council to request items
Analyze each priority area and how it fits into the 2022 calendar and develop action plan
Develop tracking tool for council to see timeline and pertinent details of each priority area
Financial or budget considerations: Staff time; no additional expenditures anticipated.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Exhibit A – Systems grouping outline
Exhibit B – Summary of completed items
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Community &
Civic
Engagement
Housing &
Neighborhood-
Oriented
Development
Racial Equity &
Inclusion
Transit &
Mobility
Solutions
Environmental
Stewardship
Boards & Commissions
•Structure, function, roles
•Transportation Commission
•Food Security Task Force
Public Process
Expectations & Outcomes
Council Rules & Procedures
•Agenda format
•Proclamation policy
•Public forums at meetings
Land Acknowledgments
REI req. for developers
requesting TIF
Corridor Parking Policy
Neighborhood-focused
Commercial Activity in Parks
Climate Action Plan
•Greenhouse Gas Emissions
•Climate Emergency Resolution
•Programming Overview
•Climate Champions
•Solar Sundown
•Tree Planting
•Vehicle Idling Policy
•Green Building Policy revisions
•Zero Waste Packaging updates
Policing structural
analysis
Study session meeting of January 4, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Systems project update Page 2
Exhibit A – Systems grouping outline
Exhibit B – Summary of council-requested items deemed to be completed
Council-requested item Department Staff summary/rationale for disposition
Conversion therapy ban Admin Services This was reviewed by council and the HRC extensively. It was determined that passage of a resolution or an ordinance banning the practice in the city would be largely
performative and not enforceable. The state subsequently enacted a ban on conversion therapy, which the city is subject to.
Public health coordinator role Admin Services A written report was provided to council on 10-26-20 on community health services and connections. As a city that remains responsive to community needs,
community health is and continues to be a priority when considering programs, policies , and infrastructure. The city continues to strengthen partnerships with
local, county and state agencies to monitor community health and improve access and address needs from the community as they arise. Staff are confident
that departments appropriately respond to the unique needs of the community and continue to find innovative and creative ways while partnering with local,
county, state, and non-profit agencies. This allows staff to be nimble in response while ultimately serving community health needs.
Youth on Commissions Admin Services Ordinance 2603-21 was adopted on 1-19-21. This ordinance expanded youth membership and voting privileges of youth members on all commissions, except the
Planning Commission/BOZA.
Mint/menthol exemption Building & Energy Litigation was initiated following Edina passing an ordinance to prohibit the sale of mint/menthol tobacco products. Edina prevailed at the District Court level and that
Order was immediately appealed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were held on May 12, 2021 and a decision by the court should be made
shortly. The lawsuit occurring is not covered by insurance and Edina is paying for 100% of the fees to defend the decision. This case, and the outcome of any further
appeals, will determine if a city can adopt ordinances prohibiting sale of these products. Staff continues to monitor and would bring forward any additional
recommendations for council consideration that may arise.
Smoking restrictions on outdoor patios Building & Energy Council discussed at the 11-1-21 special study session. The consensus was for staff to develop an educational policy around this issue. Staff is working on the council
directive and planning for implementation.
Create a housing stabilization fund
utilizing CARES Act funds
Community
Development
The city provided STEP with $180,000 in housing stabilization funding which was subsequently reimbursed utilizing CARES Act funds allocated to the city.
Create pathways for BIPOC individuals
and families to build wealth through
home ownership
Community
Development
A homeownership and wealth-building program targeted to BIPOC households was created to assist low-income, first-generation-homebuyer households become
homeowners in St. Louis Park. The program will be rolling out by the end of 2021.
Require family-size units as part of
inclusionary housing policy
Community
Development
The city’s Inclusionary Housing Policy was amended to require family-size units in developments subject to the policy.
STEP facilities discussion Community
Development
STEP has acquired two adjacent buildings to expand their services. If STEP determines they would like to request funding assistance from the city to renovate the
buildings, they will contact staff and staff will bring the request to the city council at a future study session. To date, no request for funding assistance has been
submitted.
Zoning and land use changes at
Minnetonka Blvd. & Hwy 100
Community
Development
This property has been re-guided in the Comp Plan and rezoned per council direction.
Semi-trailer truck parking Engineering Ordinance 2623-21 was adopted on August 2, 2021 and granted the city the authority to restrict semi-trucks from parking in non-residential areas. Moving forward,
staff will monitor activity and explore ways to address parking needs for truckers. One recent opportunity is a Metro Cities workgroup to discuss city
experiences. Staff will be a part of this work group. Meetings will begin in December 2021.
WHNC Access Fund Operations & Recreation The school district science team is heading into year two of a three-year review of our E-12 curriculum and instruction for science. They have indicated their plans to
center Westwood in the curriculum planning they are looking to unveil in the coming year. With new MN science standards and scope and sequence, they are looking
to have greater alignment moving forward. This would provide access to all students to participate in classes at WHNC.
Study session meeting of January 4, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Systems project update Page 3
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: November 22, 2021
Written report: 3
Executive summary
Title: October 2021 monthly financial report
Recommended action: No action is required.
Policy consideration: Monthly financial reporting is part of our financial management policies.
Summary: The monthly financial report provides an overview of general fund revenues and
departmental expenditures comparing them to budget throughout the year.
Financial or budget considerations: Expenditures should generally be at about 83% of the
annual budget through October. General fund expenditures continue to be approximately 5%
under budget at 78%. Revenues are difficult to measure in the same way due to the timing of
when some are received, examples of which include property taxes and State aid payments. A
summary of revenues and departmental expenditures compared to budget is included and a
few variance comments are provided below.
Two large commercial building permits were issued in October for the Luxe and Texa-Tonka
Apartments increasing year to date license and permit revenue to 96%.
Intergovernmental revenue is at 103% after receiving the police & fire State aid payment on
October 1, which was higher than the amount budgeted.
There are only two departments exceeding budget year to date. Rec center expenditures are
exceeding budget by about 7%, due in part to pool season expenditures that were more than
offset by higher pool revenue. The engineering expenditure variance is due to the portion of
staff time that has been charged to other funds for projects year to date.
Some departments are running well under budget on expenditures due in large part to staff
turnover and position vacancies. One of the larger variances is Administration, where
expenditures are 18% less than budget due to the unfilled management assistant position and
because most of the election expenses won’t be incurred until November.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Summary of revenues and departmental expenditures – General Fund
Prepared by: Darla Monson, accountant
Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, interim deputy city manager/operations and recreation director
Summary of Revenues & Departmental Expenditures - General Fund As of October 31, 2021 20212021201920192020202020212021Balance YTD Budget Budget Audited Budget Audited Budget YTD OctRemaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes26,880,004$ 26,952,306$ 28,393,728$ 28,635,694$ 29,601,811$ 15,170,398$ 14,431,413$ 51.25% Licenses and Permits4,103,424 5,264,659 4,660,811 5,294,310 4,621,829 4,447,201 174,628 96.22% Fines & Forfeits279,700 274,340 280,000 126,192 231,000 123,672 107,328 53.54% Intergovernmental1,760,900 1,761,763 1,760,082 2,061,267 1,661,549 1,716,321 (54,772) 103.30% Charges for Services2,187,319 2,160,345 2,273,824 1,600,806 2,013,834 1,787,946 225,888 88.78% Rents & Other Miscellaneous1,367,012 1,500,867 1,456,102 1,201,119 1,499,091 1,179,779 319,312 78.70% Transfers In1,999,877 2,012,706 2,038,338 2,049,976 2,055,017 1,693,348 361,670 82.40% Investment Earnings 180,000 523,124 210,000 486,468 200,000 81,576 118,424 40.79% Other Income31,300 57,274 621,280 3,442,900 593,300 461,090 132,210 77.72% Use of Fund Balance298,156 230,026 25,000 25,000 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues39,087,692$ 40,737,411$ 41,694,165$ 44,898,732$ 42,502,431$ 26,661,330$ 15,841,101$ 62.73%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration1,837,620$ 1,673,619$ 1,868,599$ 1,472,421$ 1,617,882$ 1,052,035$ 565,847$ 65.03% Finance1,034,199 1,078,291 1,124,045 1,194,828 1,129,591 941,704 187,887 83.37% Assessing772,746 751,737 808,171 792,277 798,244 632,167 166,077 79.19% Human Resources805,620 756,767 823,209 796,088 837,736 618,232 219,504 73.80% Community Development1,502,521 1,515,672 1,571,894 1,536,657 1,576,323 1,205,466 370,857 76.47% Facilities Maintenance1,170,211 1,209,474 1,265,337 1,246,439 1,349,365 1,102,287 247,078 81.69% Information Resources1,674,937 1,474,604 1,709,255 1,596,487 1,683,216 1,374,373 308,843 81.65% Communications & Marketing805,674 786,448 828,004 710,334 970,934 673,654 297,280 69.38%Total General Government9,603,528$ 9,246,612$ 9,998,514$ 9,345,531$ 9,963,291$ 7,599,916$ 2,363,375$ 76.28% Public Safety: Police10,335,497$ 10,452,038$ 10,853,821$ 10,611,141$ 11,307,863$ 9,311,317$ 1,996,546$ 82.34% Fire Protection4,813,078 4,754,524 5,040,703 4,764,337 4,998,636 4,152,403 846,233 83.07% Building 2,555,335 2,430,473 2,696,585 2,321,664 2,571,968 2,027,507 544,461 78.83%Total Public Safety17,703,910$ 17,637,035$ 18,591,109$ 17,697,142$ 18,878,467$ 15,491,227$ 3,387,240$ 82.06% Operations: Public Works Administration290,753$ 214,436$ 273,318$ 216,899$ 249,256$ 189,965$ 59,291$ 76.21% Public Works Operations3,111,481 3,099,493 3,331,966 3,168,538 3,285,820 2,432,041 853,779 74.02% Vehicle Maintenance1,242,236 1,268,700 1,278,827 1,207,998 1,303,159 996,526 306,633 76.47% Engineering570,377 609,567 551,285 531,801 523,547 521,493 2,054 99.61%Total Operations5,214,847$ 5,192,196$ 5,435,396$ 5,125,236$ 5,361,782$ 4,140,024$ 1,221,758$ 77.21% Parks and Recreation: Organized Recreation1,579,569 1,498,462 1,637,002 1,369,309 1,639,358 1,316,316 323,042 80.29% Recreation Center1,949,657 2,041,386 2,061,394 1,864,459 2,082,697 1,871,606 211,091 89.86% Park Maintenance1,833,297 1,820,455 1,906,363 1,802,534 1,916,643 1,511,538 405,105 78.86% Westwood Nature Center643,750 612,266 748,683 606,378 736,515 531,553 204,962 72.17% Natural Resources484,784 429,409 504,143 433,362 496,497 335,783 160,714 67.63%Total Parks and Recreation6,491,057$ 6,401,977$ 6,857,585$ 6,076,042$ 6,871,710$ 5,566,795$ 1,304,915$ 81.01% Other Depts and Non-Departmental: Racial Equity and Inclusion -$4,592$ 314,077$ 272,994$ 341,293$ 224,423$ 116,870$ 65.76% Sustainability26,283 497,484 244,655 432,043 238,382 193,661 55.18% Transfers Out300,000 428,845 0.00% Contingency and Other74,350 121,245 144,860 225,000 0.00%Total Other Depts and Non-Departmental74,350$ 452,119$ 811,561$ 662,509$ 1,427,181$ 462,805$ 310,531$ 32.43%Total General Fund Expenditures39,087,692$ 38,929,940$ 41,694,165$ 38,906,460$ 42,502,431$ 33,260,767$ 8,587,819$ 78.26%Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 3) Title: October 2021 monthly financial reportPage 2
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: November 22, 2021
Written report: 4
Executive summary
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street
Recommended action: None at this time. The purpose of this report is to provide the council a
status report and background on this property.
Policy consideration: None at this time
Summary: In late August, MnDOT Metro District reached out to staff to let us know that they have
determined that there is not a transportation purpose to keep the right of way west of Toledo
Avenue and south of 28th Street. This is the first step in MnDOT’s decision-making process for
land release. Their next steps include environmental and historical review.
On Sept. 30, city staff met with MnDOT to discuss their position, process and timeline. MnDOT
has not formally offered the land to the city at this time. They have only notified the city that they
intend to release the land and asked if the city is interested in having control of the property.
If the city is interested in taking this property, we would need to send a letter to MnDOT
requesting the land. Once we do that, MnDOT will send the city an official offer letter. The city
would have six months from the date of the offer letter to accept the land.
If the council is interested in asking for this land, staff recommends that we wait until MnDOT has
completed their review process. With any land acquisition, it is important that the city does its
due diligence. Once MnDOT completes their process and provides the city with their
findings, staff will determine if there are additional investigations that need to be done to
understand any potential liability if the city should ask for the land.
City staff is meeting again with MnDOT in January 2022. MnDOT has targeted having their review
process complete by that time. Staff plans to bring this item to the Council for discussion after
MnDOT completes their review process.
Financial or budget considerations: If the city obtains the land for a public purpose, MnDOT
will convey the land to the city for no cost. If the city obtains the land for a private purpose, the it
appears that city would be able to purchase the land for Fair Market Value. There would also be
additional costs to develop the land for a specific use.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing
and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion; Location map; Photos of property; St. Louis Park Historical
Wayside Park/Beehive Restoration Project Report; Nov. 19, 2012 study session report and minutes
Prepared by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director
Brian Hoffman, building & energy director
Sean Walther, planning manager
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, interim deputy city manager/operations and recreation director
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street
Discussion
Background: MnDOT contacted city staff regarding their right of way west of Toledo Avenue
and south of 28th Street. They have determined they do not need the land for their purposes
and are starting their review process to relinquish ownership. MnDOT has not formally offered
the land to the city at this time. They have only notified the city that they intend to release the
land and have asked us if we are interested in having control of the property.
Due to the potential change in status of the land, staff wanted to inform the council of the
property’s status and the city’s past preservation efforts.
The last time the council discussed this property was during a Highway 100 reconstruction
study session on Nov. 19, 2012. At that time, the council provided staff the following direction:
“It was the consensus of the City Council that the City should not expend staff resources or
money to preserve the Rock Garden.” Staff has been following this direction since that time.
Attached is the Council report and the minutes from that meeting.
Previous preservation done by the City of St Louis Park:“Lilac Drive” included seven original
wayside parks in various communities along the 12.5-mile long Lilac Drive/ Highway 100
corridor. There were two parks in St. Louis Park, the original Lilac Park (Highway 100 and
Minnetonka Blvd) and Roadside Park – now called Lilac Park (next to Nordic Ware in the
southeast corner of Highway 100 and CSAH 25). Knowing that what remained of the original
Lilac Park would be eliminated with the Highway 100 expansion project, the city created the
Beehive Relocation Committee in the early 2000s. This group was made up of St. Louis Park
staff, MnDOT staff, St. Louis Park Historical Society members, and residents.
This group developed recommendations to move and preserve the historic structures located in
these wayside parks. From those recommendations, the New Lilac Park (next to Nordic Ware in
the southeast corner of Highway 100 and CSAH 25) was created in partnership with MnDOT,
Mn State Historic Preservation Office, St. Louis Park Historical Society, Three Rivers Park
District, Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority and Nordic Ware. The new park was
completed in 2009 and includes a restored Beehive, limestone picnic tables, and the council
ring (fire pit). The park also includes trails, a connection to the regional trail and interpretive
historical signage. The committee recommended that all salvageable items be moved to the
new Lilac Park. What was left on site after this process, was to be removed and disposed of by
MnDot.
In addition to the development of the new Lilac Park, a documentary was created to
commemorate Lilac Drive.
MnDOT’s TH100 Project was completed in 2016. However, the remains of the rock garden are
still located on MnDOT right of way (on the city street side of the noise wall). Although staff
was told that the remains would be removed, MnDOT did not remove what was left of the rock
garden. In addition, MnDOT salvaged limestone from an original retaining wall and piled it in
this area. Since the project was completed, MnDOT has done minimal maintenance to the area
except for recently removing diseased and dead trees.
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street
Present considerations:
Land characteristics
Area: MnDOT right of way – 73,612 square feet (1.7 acres)
City right of way – 28,888 square feet (0.66 acres)
Zoning: R2 – single-family residence
Comprehensive plan future land use guidance: right of way.
Other: Located inside the boundaries of the St. Louis Park Minneapolis Eruv.
Community interest: Since the completion of the TH100 project, there has been community
interest regarding this right of way and the rock garden. Recently, staff has received 40+ emails
asking the city to take over ownership of this land and restore the rock garden.
Potential uses: Staff from operations and recreation, building and energy, community
development, and engineering reviewed this opportunity and identified the following potential
uses for the land.
Potential use Strategic priority area
Regional stormwater treatment St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship
Renewable energy generation St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship
Open space St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship
Affordable housing St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range
of housing and neighborhood oriented development
What follows is a high-level summary of each of these potential uses.
Regional stormwater treatment
• Description: Construct a stormwater pond or underground storage chamber to treat
runoff from impervious surfaces.
• Analysis: Engineering staff reviewed the stormwater pipe network and the topography
of the land. There is not a way to direct impervious surface runoff to the land via the
pipe network. The rain that falls on the land already soaks into the ground and does not
require treatment. No impervious surface drains to the land. Due to this, this would not
be a potential use for the land.
This would very likely be considered a public use by MnDOT.
Renewable energy generation
• Description: Create a community solar garden (CSG) on the land.
• Analysis: The city has been looking for land suitable for a community solar garden (CSG).
A CSG allows community members unable to install roof-top solar an opportunity to
subscribe to renewable energy. These are typically between 700kw and 1Mw in size and
are operated by a developer.
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street
A CSG typically needs about 5 acres of land to achieve the needed size. This parcel is not
large enough to justify a CSG and may have reduced suitable area due to some shading.
Other remote parcels possibly could be included depending on electrical connectivity,
development cost, power grid capacity, and State rules/Xcel program requirements for
CSG developments. This option would need further research.
Solar panels are broadly, but not explicitly, allowed as an accessory use in the zoning
code. As a principal use of land, a community solar garden is not currently allowed. An
ordinance amendment is in process to both explicitly allow solar panels as accessory
uses in all districts and to allow community solar gardens as a principal use in industrial
zoning districts.
If the city wanted to acquire the land for this purpose, MNDOT may consider it as a
public use and be willing to transfer the land to the city at no cost. However, this being
defined as a public use is less clear than city owned open space/park, stormwater or
transportation purposes and could result in MNDOT requiring the city to bid on the land
in an open market bidding process.
Open space
• Description: Obtain the land for use as passive or active open space.
• Analysis: The land could be used as passive open space, where the city could develop a
sustainability and education opportunity. This could include planting the property with
tree species to create a carbon sequestration project, installing plaques to identify the
amount of carbon removal. The area could be seeded with native plants to promote
pollinators; interpretive information could be posted to educate the public.
Due to the small size and linear nature of the space, active park uses such as a dog park
or playground would be challenging. Also, the presence of the remains of the rock
garden (if they remain) limits the development potential of active park use.
If the desired use was ultimately decided to be open space or park, then a
comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning would be appropriate. The parks and
open space zoning district name does not distinguish between active and passive parks,
but in the zoning code, we do define these differently. Parks/open space means passive
recreation, including hiking trails, natural areas, wildlife areas, arboretums, open grass
areas and tot lots. Parks/recreation means areas for active outdoor recreation activities
such as baseball diamonds, tennis courts, basketball courts, playfields, playgrounds,
outdoor swimming pools, fitness courses and driving ranges.
This would very likely be considered a public use by MnDOT.
Affordable housing
• Description: Develop affordable housing on the land.
• Analysis: This area has been zoned for single-family for many years. Before that, it was
zoned for one or two-family uses. That is the use north and east of the site. This may be
another opportunity area where the city could pursue a land trust to provide lasting,
affordable homeownership opportunities. The city could also explore more dense
attached housing products to maximize the number of affordable units that could be
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street
provided or to cluster the development to one part of the site in order to preserve other
portions in either public or privately controlled open space.
If the city wanted to allow residential development on the land, the comprehensive plan
would need to be amended to change from right of way to residential. The zoning
district would work for single-family housing but would need to be amended to allow for
higher-density housing options.
If the city wanted to acquire the land to develop affordable housing specifically, MNDOT
may agree that affordable housing is considered a public use of the land and be willing
to transfer the land to the city at no cost. However, this being defined as a public use is
less clear than park, stormwater or transportation purposes and could result in MNDOT
requiring the city to bid on the land in an open market bidding process. The outcome of
those discussions would also influence if and how the city pursues acquisition and may
entail additional effort to clear the title if the city were to acquire it with a public use
restriction.
MnDot’s considerations (as seen by staff): Staff have identified several potential paths forward.
1. City use the land for a public purpose.
• The land would be city-owned and not transferrable.
• Potential public purpose could be (but may not be limited to): streets, sidewalks,
trails, utility, park, etc. Other public purposes could be discussed with MnDOT
Metro staff. Ultimately the “public purpose” would have to be agreed upon by both
parties.
• There would be no cost to the city if the land were released for a public purpose.
2. City use the land for a private purpose.
• The city would be given an opportunity to purchase the land for Fair Market Value
without it going to a public land sale.
• The city could sell the land to a second party, with some risk. The title would still
have some reference to public purpose; however, there is a way to remove this from
the title.
• They have not established a fair market value for the land.
3. The land would go to a public land sale. If this occurs:
• The city could still bid on the land.
• If the city were the successful bidder, there would be no reference to public purpose
on the title, eliminating risk.
• They have not established a fair market value for the land.
4. The city could choose not to pursue ownership of the land and allow it to be sold
through a public land sale.
• The city could still influence the land use through the city’s normal comp plan and
zoning controls.
• Comprehensive plan and zoning controls could be placed on the site either before or
after MNDOT releases/ sells the land.
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 6
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street
Next steps: If the city is interested in taking this property, we would need to send a letter to
MnDOT requesting the land. Staff recommends that we wait until MnDOT has completed their
review process. They are targeting to complete this review by our check-in meeting in January
2022.
If the City expresses interested in obtaining the property, MnDOT will send the city an official
offer letter. The city would have six months from the date of the offer letter to accept the land.
With any land acquisition, it is important that the city does our due diligence to invesitigate the
current state of the land. Once MnDOT completes their process and provides us with their
findings, staff will determine if there are additional investigations that we need to do to
understand our potential liability if the city should ask for the land. This could include soil
borings and a structural review of the rock island.
For these reasons, we believe it is premature to formally ask MnDOT for the land until MnDOT
completes their process.
SALEM AVE SSALEM AVE SHIGHWAY 100 SHIGHWAY 100 SVERNON AVE SVERNON AVE STOLEDO AVE STOLEDO AVE SUTICA AVE SUTICA AVE SMINNETONKA BLVDMINNETONKA BLVD
29TH ST W29TH ST W
28TH ST W28TH ST W
UTICA AVE SUTICA AVE S28TH ST W28TH ST W
0 200 400100
Feet
MnDOT Excess Land- Toledo and 28th Street
Legend
MnDOT right of way
City right of way
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 7
City right of way (view facing north at Minnetonka Boulevard)
City right of way (facing north just north of the Toledo cul de sac bulb)
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 8
MnDOT right of way (facing north at north boundary of city right of way)
South end of MnDOT right of way (facing west from trail along Toledo Avenue)
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 9
Middle of MnDOT right of way (facing west from trail along Toledo Avenue)
North end of MnDOT right of way (facing west from trail along Toledo Avenue)
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 10
Remains of limestone wall (facing north)
Remains of Rock Garden (facing northeast from noise wall)
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 11
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 12
!!!!
"#$#%"#$#%"#$#%"#$#%&&&&
’(#%’(#%’(#%’(#%
’)&&%’)&&%’)&&%’)&&%
****+#+#+#+#+&% +&% +&% +&%
****$&&&$&&&$&&&$&&&
****
**** # # # #
’)&&%,’)&&%,’)&&%,’)&&%,
’)&&%,’)&&%,’)&&%,’)&&%,#-#-#-#-
’(#%,’(#%,’(#%,’(#%,
’(#%,#-’(#%,#-’(#%,#-’(#%,#-
’,.)’,.)’,.)’,.)####
####
’#/#’#/#’#/#’#/#
(#0 (#0(#0(#0
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 13
1-
/
,(
%
#/
#+
+
&./
####&
.&%".
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 14
2
!
3333 // // // //
4 & ,(%"#,#
)#%$ /,(%
$#. %5)# &-##
$1 3 3& 
& /,(%
84 ,(%"#,#
$4- ,(%"#,#
!%!#9- )&:(&# ##
!!#! /,(%
$5$) ,(%"#,#
) )&:)
$ /,(%
4* /,(%
,0 /,(%
(;0 !3:1
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 15
<
$-)##/
#&/.=#
>
1&#$-/(#%
6!%$-&+:".7)&&%6?
3&
$-.##&#/)&&
%$-.&&/-.&
&/
1&###
/(#%)&&%)&
###&#.
##&.#-&/##
&%:.%
,-#/
(#%6%.&#%&:./7
&#/#&/
=#)&&%
)/##)&&
%&#.##&
&&####/
%-+##+&/
/&##
)##)&&%/
.&&.&./
&&
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 16
@
-%)&&%
###/
)&&%,.)
#./
%/A-
&&&&%#)&&
%&/#&#+".
+/&
1&#/
+%+##+&-
&#)&&%.
&-/&#
1-%#/
)&&%.3�
2./&
%)&&%
###&.//
/#-&,"#
-;6,"7
1-&-
##+&#+&/#
)&&%
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 17
.!1+,"+,(%"#
,#+)-%1#+")
) +&3�&-
-#%&/
3./)&&%
/!1/,(%#
".?=##&
3.!1"0B?
=#C&.&&&.
)&&%&"0B%&/
.&-/"0B&
0&) D&&%
)C###&,(
%D/#/#%
)-.#&&%#&
%/##/##
/#/#
&&E
’0%.!1;-&0
=#&9&*/
’.F)(#0G
-%=#
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 18
A
F(#.G#&&
-.&
%-#
<
(#1-:
".#&
(#%6".
&!%
$-&7&)&&
%6?3&#
0#/".&
, "<7,(%./
.&%#&
"0B&&%:##&&
&&#.&&
&### 3#&#
#&/"0B&
&/.3.1&)/
(&D91
"0B=#./D/&
/=#+(#%.#
% ?&&.&&&
-+#&-&%
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 19
$(#%
&)&&
%#
C/
#/#
#
.
+&?
#?
/3%,-##&#/&
/(#-#
##C;&#&
.&&#&
&#
!1/&
3%,-#01%.
/.F$-G6:/##7
H&,#&9%
)&&(#%,(
%
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 20
(#%.&.&?
/"./#
(#%$-)#
#&/#&>
)#&$-)&&%
)#&)##
)&&%
,-&/%
.
2,-&/#%&:
./
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 21
)&&%6?3.
#&&".
?=##.
.&%,(
%-/###&
)&&%>
##
#/
6.##7
2,/#
+#.&!1+&
=#3�(#&3�
H&,D+&
.&D+/##-
#&%.##&
A
3�+D.?+-&&
#/)&&%
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 22
"##
$-)#-
-%/##
#/.&%#>
-%
##,.)
&&/%#%#
2 &&/&
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 23
$%
•1+#+&61)5)7- I+
•1)5)## I@+
•&##/-5## I<+
•,-5/.:#%& I<+
•)/## I+
•)##&/ I2+
•### I2<+
•-:&&/## I+
/
•)&#%.#- I<+
•1&/ I+<
•#:/- I+<
• &&%## I+<
•2./ I<+
•9///#& I+<
•1--%&&# I<+
•/%!1 I
•//./ $1
•)/)&&% I
J,! J1 (EJ,! J1 (EJ,! J1 (EJ,! J1 (E I+
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 24
2
&
$-)#
#&=/&>
/,(% I+
,("#,# I+
167 I@+
9 I+
E I+
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 25
<
$"
E
,#/)&&%/!1
,,(%//&
#
$#/?/&
0/=#
1-=#/:%#
/&
AE
1+)5)$-)&&%
1+)5)#&&%
,-&/.:#%&
1-&-
1&&/:&#
1-#
)#/&#-&,"
0&
)/##)&&%
.!1D"0B&
;&&###
)&&%&&&.
/#D&&&#
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 26
@
$"
E
)##&/)&&%
#,.)##
-%&&##/
&&/%#%#
./&
/:&#
&#
,#&.#
1%#/#
)%6K7
1-&-
#%&#
;##;##;##;##:##:##:##:##
#-#-#-#-////
0 =0 =0 =0 =#,(%#,(%#,(%#,(%
$&E
/./%
/!1
/,(%
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 27
(#E(#E(#E(#E
,J#/=#".
&".+,(%+!3
B$EB$EB$EB$E A
1E1E1E1E
3#+ )(&#
##
$&E$&E$&E$&E
0% &
60 7
"#:HE"#:HE"#:HE"#:HE
)&&%
"#,/##E"#,/##E"#,/##E"#,/##E
#
&&-&
/,(%)&
&% //-
&&%".
/%.
-##+
&/-%.
-##
,(%)&&%
./F(#
0G.=#
&&
(/,&,#E(/,&,#E(/,&,#E(/,&,#E
,#,#,#,#B$B$B$B$
• #)#)#)#)
(#&#/##+/
# ?D&
• ########
/&##J#
#//./
#
• ,#,#,#,#
##/
<DD/#
• ,)/,)/,)/,)/
3#+#.&
&&#&//
/+&<DC+2D+..AG
#%#&&#&&
.#&&/
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 28
A
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 29
!""
#
!"" $%&’()*#
+$*,$$-
./.01+1
+!232&)4.#&$
$)(&"5(,&!67
’&85(-##,
#()&(&!232&)
49#&##)&:
&&&)$($(,
,),&:#);
’&385&)<85-&:&##&),(&
#,&:35&)85#&:,<5&
##&)&(#&#(#&
:###&)&#&
=;(&#!232&)4.
((&##,&$($)
((&85&)25&
$,),(+!232&)
4.#;77’##)
((-&$)$(’,(&
&-(85;$<5$,,&67
= ./+1./..0
($##::(
)#$::,
:25,##:#>#(:#
#&:: !"",)#
,&)
#,&$#58<?)
: !""#,,)
#($:$$#)
$(#,)&,(#)
,&
.0
(9(($$
!"" &) !"",)
,$ !""@ $((
$,&(#’()*
#+$*,$$-
:) 9#(+0:’.!26(.
(!26!-(#9
.0A
(#&=#&(&#
(,’#&&)#(#-
&(:/#($))$$
$($,(#$$.+B#&$$
##
##&)#:,#
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 30
=++C0=1./
,&&)4(’4-#
!""’!""!3"38"-#,#&&)(#!232$,
)D’&,( !""-,(#$
# !"" :&&!23?
,&): !""&&!23?’83"6
83"2-8<?# : !"",&!23245
!"",#%#
!"")#’(
((-
,&).,,+
#*/#( ,)(!23)!2<".
##74)$7#
!"",,)#(5!236#(#(
/:#(&#(5:#( !""B*#
#(&&:)###:&
#::#&,)()#%))#
#;##,&$#$,
#,,),(#&:#(
’#!236-:#
!"",*@/= /:#(:):#
&,)## !""(B
0
0
D
,# !"":&(B9:’
!""9:-0,:’ !""0,:-:)
,## !""B !""+:’8<<- !"" 88
4(&,((
>=1 =>4
!"?:,,&!223,##
!""’ =23"!3"$2<3?"$26"3"?-# !""&(&)*
)&&.4) /&
,)$,&$#$#:)
:( !""&, ’-8":.’-,
!22<!22$##*(((’*=-&, 4$
=$+ $ =,!22!22*=#,B
(#%’&,0,:.8":.-#(
.&#:#(:#)
!""(#%’&,&
0,:.4-:)% !""#
!2<$#(.&#(,
’#!226-$:)&(#,#,,)
(!"?:,’ =:,(&23"!3"$2<3?"$
26"3"?-*=$:(#$:#’#()#&)
*)!228 !22-
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 31
*.=0.+.+
,&!232&)43##
:),&&)’#:&&&)-4(?"##
:),&)$&$.##)&:
,97/:#(* ,)$!2"!2?"7
((##):)0.&(
,;(B(#%,&
#5#% !""’4)-
!23<!2<!’.+-#))#,)
)##:)$):#
&$),##:)’.
+- )/:#(,&
#74)$79:,)##%,/:#
(/:5$(,#&D$(:&$#%/&)* /+
#.$4)5##/:5
,&,)$$
)#$&$:$,,&::
#&:,,,)(&&’.+
-($(?6/###:
)#* /5:#(
(#9(#,4##,* /$* /
:.,/4&(&:,#&
(&%::#(,#:,%&
5(#)’.+-# )
,&#,)((#)#
!""$&!23<!2<!$,,)#%,)#)
)#44(:#(,#,,+(
# !""),)*
(5:’.+-/
9(#/:#(/:5
#!23"5#99(#7.
:)7##:#()5(),
9$,#)#&:;:
(D&)*
,)$9:,)##%
,:#(,#(#.
’.++-##),4) /$,
=)(0.7+
$!233!2<379((4) /=*
;(/:#(9&
(,###)()&,7(
$!6"!2<8771&+$!6"!2<"79
= +=**.
##)();:# !""&)$
(,),(::)
(:$&(,&,:
$$;#&(
0$D$’ !""-$,&*(
:
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 32
.+
#(#(/:#( ,)*
*/#( ,)!236!232
7##:)4/,4=
/#( ,)$*71#&(#$!236
#+(( ,)*!238!23?’#&E!$!23F!23!236
’#&*!$!232-F!2<!2<<’#&/!$!2<<-
$&E+ :B !""’4)-
<3#*/#(#&):$$#(&
!22
$#7 ,)/#(##:54)54+)7*#E$E)6$!238$
##!<74) 7*#E$E3"$!236$#
*)$$*$,E(+:
,)!""#*/#(#&)!"?
0#$&!8$!228
//=.+C0=1./.=*=.
!""4)
4) /&(&&.(
#,( !""&,($
(’&<8(-&,0,:0>) 8’,+
6!-&&$(’!<(-&,
4?&,!23<!2<!$)&)4$4)
’)!8(( 8 8&&-,5
#%4),(#, !""
, !"",#7 ,)7$&)!28"$,+
,??(,).&(4))
&&:#(,+#’:#($
(:#($($-$5#%
:#,)#$:
&$#($99(#,#
. !"",)&4(’4-#%&)
(:)’-44,!238$ !""&(4#%(
#)&,$8""3$"""()#%(6"",)
!238##9()!$8""()#!23’*)!228B6-
& !""$(# =: ?!/’:)-,
#%,&5&
,(#)(,(, !""#%,7()(#)
(&&$$##7’*)!228B2-
&E ,$&,#:$,$&
)#9##,)9#
#(%,)$:$(
#,)$&#:$,$(&,($9
:#$(#’ !22B!"- &#(
!""B#,)$(&)#:$
,9)#D)#:<"##(
,3:$&$:(&
##(3$8"8,((’!$62"-:
D$(’2$<6-$#’$!22-$’$<6-$((’8$<"6-1
((9(#$#####$((&&’!-$
,’8-$’!-$+(():’3-’ !22B!-4)5
&,9#/:#(/:5#)#,
,&,)#($"""&!:
:’74) 7!236-
((
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 33
(#(#(#(#EEEE
3J#/".&!
%$-&+,(%+!3
B$B $B$B$EEEE
1111 EEEE
3#+ )(& #
$&$&$&$&EEEE
0% &
60 7
"#:H"#:H"#:H"#:H EEEE
)&&%
"#,/##"#,/##"#,/##"#,/##EEEE
/.$-
,%.H&,
(#%%.!
%$-&)&&%
&C&.
+/#+&%/
+&.
%/-%.
-##
&/+&/
.-.
/:#%&(#%
./D/&
/=#/2
2
(/,&,#E(/,&,#E(/,&,#E(/,&,#E
,#,#,#,#B$B$B$B$
•#6$-7+#6$-7+#6$-7+#6$-7+
$-&/#+/
&&#&/+#&.#%
&#%
•##+##+##+##+
$/#%.#/#&#
.&&/#.
&#%/#&&
•&&&&
•00 00
-&.+/#-&..?
@D?/&".
.
•)#%9&:0)#%9&:0)#%9&:0)#%9&:0
3&/+/.
/&&.&3
&/&-&&
.&##&/#
&&..&
&/&&/./
&/
./&/&#%
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 34
2
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 35
<
$,*:$
!""*:’+ 8-
# !""
*:
./.01+1
#!232&)4#&:#
##&$$(
(%,#35#($
&!"5$,&#
#,&9,&(,
#((##(
:(#
&!232&)49#&
’:,###9()(&:&
#-:(#)#9
#&&&&$)($(
,,)=&#
<5&)85#&,##
’)?5&)85-.#&,$#25&)
35&,&,##&)(#
&#(#&:#&#
$,($&(&$#&#
4!232&)4.#’#,2
(:-,,&#,#
&:&(,)!67&$(
$(!?5$:#
,,#,#
#,,),,$:#:
’(:-#&&)(#:,(
,,(:::(!2?6,9
(#(& !"",&
.0!232&)4.
&(&):,&&$(
(&&,:#,(
,.:##
,&)#’&
!6"5(-,(&&,,,
!"5&$(#,&((#$
(#,
((:(#(&&,
,(#&,5&
5:##:,,##,,$
,#$,:$
,
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 36
@
##,:,&)(:$
$&,#(#!2?6&)9(#(
& !""*:,#’*)!232
#=>($##!3$!8-
= ./+1./..0
$(,#9(*:,
!"",)#,##9()
#$&:#$$!!#&$#
#5:,’9-#,
(#&)::’#&&),##-,
,)#:,,)9(#,$
#
9(#(& !""*:,
!2?6#: !"",):
*::$#5
#,(’($(#$#$-&’
-$9,)&
,(:,#,
!""
.0
& !""
*:’+ 8-&,&) !""F&) !""
,)F&)*:8826’&!232-*::
!""F&),)&(# !""$
9(#(& !""*:$:,),
.0A
##:&):&#$9#::%
,,&:,)###9()9#
&$#$$$
,,):&(:’(#&#,##)(:!2?6
’ !22B!3--
!2?6$9(#(& !""*:,&#
,#(#$,
,(:$::,,(,
:,))$$($,(#$$
)&(#(&)(:()
.+
##(:(#
#&#,($&(&$
#&#,:,
=++C0=1./
$,*:$,&!232&)4
(’4-# !""’!""!3"38"-
#,(#&)*)!232#8826#
*:’+ 8-: !"",&!232
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 37
45 !"",#%#
!"")#’(
((-#,#
?(#%’38"()!""!3"3-#
(#7+/:.43!GG!36!366!327
,&).,,+#*/#
( ,)!23")!2<".#
#74)7# !"",
,)#(5!236#(#(/:#(&
#(5:#( !""B
*##(&&:
)###:&#::
#&,)()#%))#
#;##,&$#$,
#,,),(
#&:#(’#!236-:#
!"",*@/= /:#(:):#
&,)## !""(B
0
0
D
,# !"":&(B
9:’ !""9:-
0,:’ !""0,:-
:),## !""B
!""+:’8<<-
!"" 884
(&,((
>=1 =>4
!"?:,,&!223,##
!""’ =23"!3"$2<3?"$26"3"?-# !""
&(&)* )&&.
4) /&,)$,&$#
$#:):( !""&, ’
-8":.’-,!22<!22$##*((
(’*=-&, 4$ =$+ $ =,!22
!22*=#,B(#%’&,0,:.
8":.-#(.&#:#(
:#) !""
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 38
A
(#%’&,&0,:.
4-:)% !""#!2<$#(
.&#(,’#!226-$:)
&(#,#,,)(
!"?:,’ =:,(&23"!3"$2<3?"$26"3"?-*=$:
(#$:#’#()#&)*)!228 !22-
*.=0.+.+
,&!232&)43##:)
,&&)’#:&&&)-4(
?"##:),&)$&$.
,))::)#&$),##
&:#$),:
&,
#% !""’74)7-!23<!2<!
4),/:#(/:5$(,#&D$(:&$
#%##)&:,97/:#(*
,)$!2"!2?"7(($#&:$##)
.=./>/1A0.9)
,:$##),4) /$, =)
(0.7+$!233!2<37
9((4) /=*;(
/:#(9&(,#
((&4) /$##)(),
71&+$!6"!2<"77($!6"!2<879
= +=**.
##)();:#
!""&)$(,),(::)
!""9(#(&)
(&:#&(0$
D$’ !""-$,&*(
:&:#(#0
.+
#(#(/:#( ,)
**/#( ,)!236!232
7##:)4/,4=
/#( ,)$*71#&(#$!236
#+(( ,)*!238!23?’#&E!$
!23F!23!236’#&*!$!232-F!2<!2<<’#&/!$!2<<-
(&$’* -/*’*@/=-E)!2$!223
$&E+ :B !""
’4)-<3#*/#(#&):
$$#(&!22
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 39
$#7 ,)/#(##:54)54+)7*#
E$E)6$!238$##!<
74) 7*#E$E3"$!236$#
*)$$*$,E(+
: ,)!""#*/#(
#&)!"?0#$&!8$!228
.$$(#&(/:#(%:&(##
/:#(/:$*/#( ,)+!23!2<!
=$ $(# **<:#&)
/:#(/:$*/#( ,)+!2<$#!28<
//=.+C0=1./.=*=.
!""4)
4) /&(&&.
(#,( !""&
,($(’&<8(-&,0,
:0>) 8’,+ 6!-&&$(’!<(
-&, 4?&&,
!23<!2<!$)&)4$4)’)!8(( 8
8&&-,5#%4),(
#, !"", !"",#7
,)7$&)!28"$,+,??(,).&
(4))&&:#(,+
#’:#($(:#($($-$
5#%:#
,)#$:&$#($9
9(#,#. !"",)&4(
’4-#%&)(:)’-44,!238$
!""&(4#%(#)&,$8""3$"""()
#%(6"",)!238##9()!$8""()#
!23’*)!228B6-& !""$(# =: ?!/
’:)-,#%,&
5&,(#)(,(, !""#%
,7()(#)(&&$$#
#7’* &E ,$&,#:$
,$&)#9##,)9#
#(%,)$:$(
#,)$&#:$,$(&,
($9:#$(#’ !22B!"- &#
( !""B#,)$(&)#:
$,9)#D)#:<"##(
,3:$&$:(&
##(3$8"8,((’!$62"-:
D$(’2$<6-$#’$!22-$’$<6-$((’8$<"6-1
((9(#$#####$((&&’!-$,
’8-$’!-$!22B!-4)5&
,9#/:#(5#)#,,
&,)#($"""&!:
:’74)
((
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 40
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 4)
Title: MnDOT excess land update – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Page 41
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: November 22, 2021
Written report: 5
Executive summary
Title: Application for Tax Increment Financing Assistance – Wooddale Station
Recommended action: This staff report outlines Wooddale Station LLC’s application for Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) in connection with its proposed Wooddale Station Development.
Policy consideration: Is the EDA willing to consider entering into a purchase and redevelopment
contract to reimburse the Developer for up to $12.18 million in qualified costs through tax
increment financing (TIF) generated by the project to enable it to achieve financial feasibility?
Summary: Saturday Properties and Anderson Companies, collectively known as Wooddale
Station LLC, (“Developer”) has a Preliminary Development Agreement with the EDA and city for
the SWLRT Wooddale Ave. Station Site located at the northeast corner of Wooddale Ave. and
36th Street W. They also have a purchase agreement to acquire the neighboring property at
8502 36th St. W. Upon assembly of the properties, the Developer plans to construct a single-
phase, mixed-use, mixed-income, sustainable, transit-oriented development with 60 affordable
units that will be rent restricted below market rate for 25 years. The $88.7 million development
would include the following components:
•Two, six-story mixed-use buildings with a total of 297 multi-family units including 237
market rate units and 60 affordable units. Specifically, 10% (30) of the units would be
affordable to households at 50% AMI and 10% (30) of the units would be affordable to
households at 60% AMI. The inclusion of units at 50 percent of AMI would provide deeper
affordability than required under the city's Inclusionary Housing Policy.
•12,600 SF of commercial space and 3,500 SF of co-working/community space.
•Underground parking linking the two buildings.
•A 15,000 SF public plaza adjacent to the Wooddale Ave. Station for public events, site
amenities, and public art.
Financial or budget considerations: It is proposed that the EDA would sell its property located
at 5950 W 36th St. to the Developer for $3 million. Due to considerable extraordinary costs
associated with the redevelopment site and other costs associated with meeting city
expectations and requirements, the Developer applied to the EDA for tax increment financing
(TIF) assistance. Tax increment financing uses most of the increased property taxes, generated
by a new development, to finance certain qualified costs incurred by that development for a
limited period of time. Upon examination of the project’s pro forma, the EDA’s financial
consultant determined that up to $12.18 million in TIF assistance is warranted to enable the
major transit-oriented development to proceed. Such assistance would derive from the
establishment of a new redevelopment TIF district and be provided via a pay-as-you-go TIF Note.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, redevelopment admin.; Keith Dahl, municipal advisor, Ehlers
Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, economic development manager
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, interim deputy city manager/operations and recreation director
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Application for Tax Increment Financing Assistance – Wooddale Station
Discussion
Site information: The SWLRT Wooddale Ave. Station Site is located in the Elmwood
neighborhood at the northeast corner of Wooddale Ave. and 36th Street W. It consists of two
parcels, 5950 and 5802 W. 36th St., comprising a total of approximately 3.08 acres.
5950 W 36th St. is 1.78 acres and owned by the EDA. It is occupied by a vacant 16,700 SF
commercial building (formerly occupied by the Nash Frame shop) and a municipal parking lot.
The EDA entered into a Preliminary Development Contract with the Developers in February
2021 to redevelop the site. 5802 W 36th St. is 1.4 acres and is owned by Standal Properties. It is
occupied by a one-story, multi-tenant commercial building, cell tower, and parking lot. The
Developers have a purchase agreement with Standal Properties to acquire the site for $3.84
million.
SWLRT Wooddale Avenue Station Site and adjacent property
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: Application for Tax Increment Financing Assistance – Wooddale Station
Site area (acres): 3.08 acres
Current use: Vacant building & municipal Surrounding land uses:
parking lot.
One-story, neighborhood commercial
building, cell tower, surface parking lot
North: SWLRT Wooddale Ave. Station
East: Yosemite Ave. right-of-way /
neighborhood commercial & Douglas
Corp.
South: 36th Street W. right-of-way /
TowerLight Senior Living
West: Wooddale Ave. right-of-way
Current 2040 land use guidance Current zoning
TOD - transit oriented development MX-1 vertical mixed use
Proposed zoning
PUD planned unit development
Background: In August 2020, the EDA conducted a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit
transit-oriented development proposals for the SWLRT Wooddale Avenue Station Site. The RFP
envisioned the site to be an active, vibrant, and connected place where people can affordably
live, work, and recreate with the opportunities and advantages of proximity to LRT. The site is
expected to become an important community hub for mixed-income housing, neighborhood
business, and transit including:
• Affordable multifamily housing that exceeds the city’s Inclusionary Housing Policy
requirements and facilitates multicultural and intergenerational living (i.e. includes larger
size units);
• Smaller scale, affordable, ground floor commercial spaces conducive for neighborhood
businesses;
• Attractive, bold and creative architecture;
• Building and site designs that incorporate numerous “green” elements including
renewable energy sources designed to achieve net zero carbon emissions at the site and
serve as a showcase for environmental sustainability;
• Numerous accommodations for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and automobiles,
including electric bikes, electric vehicles, and possibly car sharing;
• A public plaza and community space with unique community landmark and features;
• High quality site amenities and public art;
• Connections to nature through green features such as enhanced landscaping, green roofs,
or living wall systems.
The EDA also sought a development proposal that seamlessly integrates with the adjacent
SWLRT Wooddale Avenue Station and connects to the surrounding Elmwood neighborhood.
At the December 14, 2020 study session, the EDA determined Saturday Properties/Anderson
Companies’ proposal most closely aligned with the city’s vision, development objectives and
preferred programming for the site. Subsequently the EDA entered into a Preliminary
Development Agreement with the Developers on Feb. 16, 2021.
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Title: Application for Tax Increment Financing Assistance – Wooddale Station
Since that time, staff, the Developers, and the city’s financial advisor, Ehlers, have been working
through the financial components of the proposal, specifically the extraordinary costs
associated with the redevelopment site and other costs associated with meeting city’s
expectations and requirements. The identification of these costs then led to the Developers’
application for tax increment financing.
Present considerations: The Developers propose to construct a mixed-use, mixed-income,
transit-oriented development with two, six-story mixed-use buildings linked together via
underground parking. The development would include a total of 297 multi-family units, 12,600
SF of neighborhood commercial, and 3,500 SF of co-working/community space. The mixed
income development would provide 237 market rate units and 60 affordable units. Also
included in the development is a 15,000 SF public plaza located adjacent to the Wooddale Ave.
Station providing hard and green space for community gatherings, landscaping, and public art.
The project is designed to be open and welcoming to all. The development will be
neighborhood-oriented with neighborhood commercial and spaces designed for residents and
the public. The site will be designed for all users, and specifically pedestrians.
Rendering of proposed Wooddale Station Development
Wooddale Station would be a single-phased development with two mixed-use buildings
connected via underground parking. The buildings include a combination of studio, alcove, one-,
two-, and three-bedroom units. The unit mix would be as follows:
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 5) Page 5
Title: Application for Tax Increment Financing Assistance – Wooddale Station
Unit Type
Market
Rate
50% AMI
units
Percent
50% AMI
60% AMI
units
Percent
60% AMI Total units
Percent of
total units
Studio 45 6 20% 6 20% 57 19%
Alcove 57 7 23% 7 23% 71 24%
1-bedroom 85 11 37% 11 37% 107 36%
2-bedroom 41 5 17% 5 17% 51 17%
3-bedroom 9 1 3% 1 3% 11 4%
Total 237 30 100% 30 100% 297 100%
Pending approval of planning entitlements and financing, the Developer plans to commence
construction in early 2023 and complete construction by the end of 2024. The development
team expects to own and operate the development for the long term, and Saturday Properties
will be the project manager.
Inclusionary housing: The proposed apartment development would be mixed-income with 237
units (80 percent) leasable at market rate, 30 units (10 percent) affordable to households at 50
percent of area median income (AMI), and 30 units (10 percent) affordable to households at 60
percent area median income. The inclusion of units at 50 percent of AMI would provide deeper
affordability than required under the city's Inclusionary Housing Policy. The 60 affordable units
would be designed with similar features as the market rate units and would be spread
proportionally through the mix of unit types. The inclusionary housing units would have their
rents restricted below market for 25 years. In addition, 20% of the units would be two
bedrooms or larger to provide family sized housing units.
Climate Action Plan: The Developer will adhere to the city’s Green Building Policy and will
follow Enterprise Green Communities utilizing the Minnesota Overlay as its design criteria. The
development will include a rooftop solar array and will likely include the following sustainable
features:
• Rooftop solar panels
• Native plantings that are low irrigation and low maintenance
• Diversion and recycling of construction and demolition waste
• Low flow fixtures
• Daylighting and views of spaces.
• Electric vehicle charging stations
• Bicycle parking
• Parking for shared vehicles and car services
• Underground stormwater system for rate control
Given the above, the proposed development exceeds the city’s Green Building Policy
requirements.
Racial equity and inclusion: The mixed income development will provide equal access to new,
quality housing including both market rate and affordable units. City staff will work with the
development team to ensure they comply with the intent of the forthcoming Diversity, Equity,
and Inclusion Policy.
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 5) Page 6
Title: Application for Tax Increment Financing Assistance – Wooddale Station
The developer has hosted a neighborhood meeting with the Elmwood and Sorensen
neighborhoods and has presented the development concept to the Human Rights Commission.
Both meetings were well received. The developer also intends to have conversations with STEP,
Perspectives, neighboring retail tenants, St. Louis Park elected officials, and more discussions
with the neighborhood. The developer intends to build social capital through community
engagement during the design process and events hosted on site and after construction
completion. The developer will also provide a webpage where people can learn more about the
project, contact them with questions, and stay informed during and after construction.
Before construction the developer intends to host a pre-project informational meeting for
subcontractors and venders to explain the overall scope of the project, and their potential
specific, individual scopes of work. They would then solicit proposals from the subcontractors/
vendors that attended the informational meetings and other certified firms known to be active
in the housing industry. The general carpentry/laborer requirements for the project (daily
clean-up, traffic control, maintenance of safety installations, etc.) may also be well suited for a
related labor pool that would work directly for Wooddale Station LLC and not through a sub or
vendor. These opportunities will be investigated more thoroughly by the developer.
Constructing mixed income housing near SWLRT provides residents the opportunity to utilize
quick, convenient, and reliable transportation to work or recreational activities. The
development is also immediately adjacent to the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail providing
additional options to reach major destinations by bike or foot, and for recreational purposes.
The Developer: St. Louis Park based-Saturday Properties and Anderson Companies both have
considerable experience developing, constructing, and managing projects in the metro area.
Saturday Properties is headquartered at 3546 Dakota Avenue, ½ mile from the Wooddale
Station, while Anderson Companies is located one mile away from the Wooddale Station, at
3340 Republic Avenue.
Brent Rogers, the owner of Saturday Properties, was instrumental in the development of
TowerLight Senior Housing, located across the street from the Wooddale Station Site, and
participated as a developer representative on St. Louis Park’s Form Based Zoning Code steering
committee. Saturday Properties have recently developed and manage several successful mixed-
use developments including the 171-unit Lime project and the 242-unit Blue project at Lyn-lake
in Minneapolis, and Nolan Mains, a 100-unit marquee development with 34,000 square feet of
commercial at 50th and France in Edina.
Anderson Companies redeveloped the Reilly Tar Superfund site, which is now home to Davita
Dialysis and Twin Cities Periodontics. Anderson Companies was also the Senior Project Manager
for the renovation of the Historic Brookside School in St. Louis Park. They have been in business
since 1999 and recently completed the Benedictine Living Community of Shakopee, and Lowa46
in Minneapolis.
Application for Tax Increment Financing assistance: There are considerable extraordinary costs
associated with the subject redevelopment properties. Specifically, the two structurally
substandard, 1950's era buildings on site (containing asbestos) will need to be remediated and
removed. Additionally, the site is environmentally challenged, requiring abatement and soil
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 5) Page 7
Title: Application for Tax Increment Financing Assistance – Wooddale Station
remediation and the contaminated soil onsite must be removed and disposed off-site. These
extraordinary redevelopment costs, along with the cost of structured parking, roof-top solar, a
large public plaza adjacent to LRT, and 60 affordable units (with below market rents for 25
years) created a gap in the project’s proforma. The extent of these extraordinary costs
adversely impacts the project’s pro forma to the point where it cannot achieve a reasonable
market rate of return to attract financing. The Developer applied for $15 million in tax
increment financing (TIF) assistance to offset the project’s gap.
Tax increment financing uses most of the increased property taxes, generated by a new
development, to finance certain qualified costs incurred by that development for a limited
period of time. The EDA’s financial consultant, Ehlers, examined the information provided
within the developer’s TIF application based on general industry standards for land,
construction, and project costs; rents; operating expenses; fees; underwriting and financing
criteria; and project cash flow. Based on this analysis, Ehlers and city staff determined the
extent to which the proposed project exhibited a financial gap justifying the provision of TIF
assistance was in an amount not to exceed $12,180,000.
*It is estimated that the affordability impact over 25 years will amount to approximately $7
million or $117,000 per affordable unit.
The estimated total development cost (TDC) to construct the proposed mixed-use, mixed
income development is approximately $88.7 million or $298,860 per unit.
Proposed level of assistance: The recommended level of assistance for the development was
determined by analyzing its projected return on investment over the term of the TIF assistance.
Ehlers concluded that tax increment assistance in the amount of $12.18 million over an
anticipated term of eighteen years is necessary to make the project financially feasible. This
level of assistance would offset enough of the extraordinary site costs and affordability impact
to allow the proposed project to achieve a rate of return sufficient to attract investors thereby
enabling it to proceed. The Developer has indicated the recommended level of assistance is
acceptable.
TIF Eligible Expenses Amount ($)
Building demolition and disposal $190,000
Soil mitigation, removal, and earthwork $350,000
Site Prep/Utilities/Landscape $690,000
Stormwater $340,000
Structured Parking $13,213,000
Total TIF Eligible Expenses $14,783,000
Other Project Specific Extraordinary Expenses
Sustainability Impact (per Green Building Policy) $1,783,500
Public Plaza (per Council approved RFP goals) $2,580,000
Affordable Impact* (per Inclusionary Housing Policy) $7,009,502
Total Other Extraordinary Costs $11,373,002
TIF Requested by Developer $15,000,000
TIF Assistance Recommended (not to exceed) $12,180,000
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 5) Page 8
Title: Application for Tax Increment Financing Assistance – Wooddale Station
Consistent with previous EDA redevelopment agreements, a "lookback" provision would be
incorporated into the redevelopment contract with the Developer. Under the contract,
Wooddale Station LLC would be required to submit verified final project costs and reports
detailing the actual financial performance of the development. The lookback analysis ensures
that if the project’s total development costs are appreciably lower and/or the development’s
net operating income is appreciably higher than the estimates provided, the EDA would share
economically in the success of the project by reducing the amount of TIF assistance provided.
Financing structure: The Developer anticipates using a conventional 30-year mortgage at an
interest rate of 4.00%. Moreover, Wooddale Station LLC has proposed to finance the project
with a construction mortgage that is roughly 61% of the total development cost. Based on
current underwriting conditions, it appears the Developer is maximizing its construction
mortgage. Wooddale Station LLC will bring about $19,939,229 in equity which is roughly 22.5%
of the total development costs. City staff will also assist with applications for local and public
grants to offset the total development costs to the extent possible. The proposed financing
terms and developer fee are typical and reasonable for a project of this nature.
Land Acquisition: Wooddale Station LLC intends to acquire two parcels located at 5802 and
5950 and 5802 W. 36th Street. 5802 W 36th Street is owned by Standal Properties, whereas
5950 W 36th Street is owned by the EDA. The Developer would acquire the Standal Properties
parcel for $3.84 million and the EDA parcel for $3 million, which would be paid in full at closing.
While land acquisition for projects has varied over the years in the city, the average acquisition
price per unit has been approximately $24,500 per unit.
TIF Note: The Wooddale Station Development will take approximately 18-24 months to
construct. It is anticipated that the first increment would be paid in 2025. Given current
estimates of market value, it is estimated that a $12.18 million TIF Note would be paid off in
approximately eighteen years (on a net present value basis). This term exceeds the 15-year
guideline in the city’s TIF Policy however the Developer’s willingness to assume the $2.58
million cost to construct and finance the public plaza is considered a mitigating circumstance
justifying the slightly longer term. Payments on the Note would be made on a "pay-as-you-go"
basis, which means that as the Developer pays the project’s property taxes, a portion of those
taxes (the “tax increment”) are paid back biannually to the Developer under the terms of the
TIF Note. Thus, payments to the Developer will only be made as the project’s property taxes are
received. This is the preferred financing method under the city's TIF Policy.
TIF district: The tax increment to be provided to the proposed Wooddale Station Development
would derive from a newly established redevelopment TIF district. The proposed Wooddale
Station South TIF District would include two parcels: 5950 and 5802 36th Street W. along with
adjacent rights of way. The 5950 36th Street W parcel is parcel is currently included in the
Wooddale Station TIF District. Prior to the establishment of the new TIF district this parcel will
need to be eliminated from that TIF District. The new redevelopment TIF district would allow
for up to 26 years of tax increment by state statute.
Consulting firm LHB conducted a TIF district feasibility analysis for 5950 W 36th Street to
determine if the proposed TIF district for the Wooddale Station Development qualified as a
redevelopment district. After inspecting the subject property, LHB evaluated it against current
statutory criteria and concluded that the EDA’s site would quality as a redevelopment TIF
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 5) Page 9
Title: Application for Tax Increment Financing Assistance – Wooddale Station
district. LHB conducted a preliminary feasibility analysis for 5802 W 36th Street in November
2021 and will be completing their analysis of the building in the coming weeks. LHB anticipates
the entire site will qualify as a redevelopment district.
TIF district plan: It is recommended that the TIF Plan for the proposed TIF district authorize the
use of tax increment generated by the District to help pay for certain qualifying project
expenses and capital improvements associated with the District should they subsequently be
proven necessary.
Property value and taxes: The current taxable market value of the subject redevelopment
property is just over $6.5 million. This would be the proposed TIF district’s Base Value. The
estimated market value of the property upon the proposed development’s completion (for TIF
estimation purposes) is estimated at approximately $77.5 million. Most of this value (minus the
Base Value) would be captured as tax increment and used to make payments on the TIF Note to
the Developer until it is paid off. It is estimated that the development would generate nearly $1.2
million in annual property taxes upon completion and full occupancy. The city, county and school
district would continue to receive property taxes collected on the subject site’s Base Value.
Analysis of development’s conformity with the city’s TIF Policy: The following table lists the
objectives, qualifications, and guidelines for the use of tax increment financing as specified in
the city’s TIF Policy, as well as how and whether the proposed development meets the majority
of those standards.
TIF Policy Compliance Table
Factor Requirement/Guideline Proposed Project Met?
Applicable
TIF District
Redevelopment/Renewal &
Renovation/ Housing/Economic
Development
Redevelopment Yes
Statutory TIF
district
requirements
Redevelopment District (example)
70% site coverage,
More than 50% of bldgs structurally
substandard & are reasonably
distributed
LHB found 5950 36th St. W to
qualify as a redevelopment TIF
district. LHB’s initial findings show
5802 36th St. W to quality as a
redevelopment TIF district. LHB will
be finalizing its analysis in the
coming weeks.
Anticipated
yes
Use of TIF Proposed costs are statutorily
eligible for reimbursement through
proposed TIF district.
Proposed uses of tax increment are
statutorily eligible through
redevelopment TIF districts.
Yes
TIF Objectives TIF Policy requires projects to meet
over half of the applicable
objectives for use of TIF.
Project meets all applicable Policy
objectives.
Yes
Minimum
qualifications
Applicable Strategic Priorities Proposed project provides broad
range of housing and neighborhood-
oriented development.
Yes
Meets Green Building Policy
requirements
Development will exceed Green
Bldg Policy requirements.
Yes
Meets Inclusionary Housing Policy
requirements (if applicable)
Development will exceed
Inclusionary Housing Policy
requirements.
Yes
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 5) Page 10
Title: Application for Tax Increment Financing Assistance – Wooddale Station
Meets Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion Policy
The Developer’s construction
practices, and ongoing management
will meet the city’s diversity, equity,
and inclusion policy.
Yes
Consistent with city's
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance, or approvals pending
Proposed project is consistent with
city's Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Ordinance.
Yes
Removes contamination, blight
and/or will not generate significant
environmental problems
Project removes blight and
contamination.
Yes
Helps facilitate desired
development that would not occur
without assistance
Proposed assistance would
facilitate desired development and
would not occur without such
assistance.
Yes
Developer provided necessary
documentation to evaluate TIF
need and proposed project
Developer provided necessary
documentation to evaluate
proposed project and TIF request.
Yes
Determined not financially feasible
"but-for" the use of tax increment
financing
Ehlers determined proposed project
is not financially feasible "but-for"
the use of tax increment financing
Yes
Developer has experience and
capability to construct proposed
project
Developer has extensive
experience and capability to
construct the proposed project.
Yes
Developer plans to retain
ownership of project long enough
to stabilize occupancy (if
applicable)
Developer plans to retain ownership
of the project through stabilization,
and Saturday Properties will remain
the property manager.
Yes
Desired
qualifications
Incorporates Livable Communities,
New Urbanism, TOD, Sustainable
Design principles (i.e., mixed-use,
urban design, human scale,
walkable, public spaces, and
sustainable design features).
Proposed project incorporates
Livable Communities, New
Urbanism, and TOD design
principles.
Yes
High quality development (sound
architectural design, quality
construction and materials)
Proposed project will incorporate
high quality design and materials.
Yes
Provides rents at deeper
affordability levels such as 30% or
50% AMI (if applicable)
30 units will have rents affordable
to households at 50% AMI
Yes
Provides units for larger families
(i.e., 3- & 4-bedroom units (if
applicable)
Eleven 3-bedroom units are
proposed
Yes
Complements and/or adds value to
neighborhood by providing public
elements or placemaking features
(if applicable)
Project will complement and add
value to surrounding neighborhood
by providing mixed income
housing, commercial businesses,
public amenities, and public art
Yes
Proposed development will likely
stimulate further investment in
surrounding area/neighborhood
Project will stimulate additional
development along 36th Street and
in the surrounding Wooddale
Station area
Yes
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 5) Page 11
Title: Application for Tax Increment Financing Assistance – Wooddale Station
Provides new, or retained,
employment (if applicable)
An estimated 39-59 jobs will be
created by project’s commercial
businesses.
Yes
The increase in market value of the
property after redevelopment is
more than 8 times the original
market value
The estimated market value of the
site after redevelopment is 12
times the original market value.
Yes
Will have a positive community
impact
Proposed project will have a
significant positive impact on the
area.
Yes
Will not place extraordinary
demands on city services
City departments determined
proposed project will not place
extraordinary demands on city
services.
Yes
Land price for project site is within
market range.
Land price for project site is within
market range.
Yes
Ratio of private to city investment
(TIF and grants) is more than $5 to $1
Proposed private to city investment
is nearly $6 to $1.
The proposed amount of TIF
assistance or term of the TIF Note
is within range of similar
developments which received TIF
assistance.
The proposed amount of TIF
assistance reflects the higher
amount of extraordinary costs,
including the cost of more
affordable units, a more
sustainable building, and a large
public plaza and courtyard adjacent
to SWLRT.
Yes
Proposed TIF assistance will be
provided on a pay-as-you-go-basis.
Proposed TIF will be provided on a
pay-as-you-go-basis.
Yes
Given that the proposed development meets statutory requirements, as well as all objectives,
qualifications and guidelines as specified in the TIF Policy, staff finds Wooddale Station LLC’s
request for TIF assistance meets the EDA’s requirements for the use of tax increment financing.
Summary and recommendation: Based upon its analysis of the project’s proforma, Ehlers
determined that the proposed Wooddale Station Development has a verified financial gap and
is not financially feasible but/for the provision of tax increment financing. To offset this gap, it is
proposed that the EDA consider reimbursing the developer up to $12.18 million in TIF
assistance to facilitate the proposed mixed-use, mixed-income, transit-oriented development.
The assistance would be provided on a pay-as-you-go basis from tax increment generated by
the project. The term of the proposed TIF Note would be paid off in approximately eighteen
years. Such assistance would derive from a new redevelopment TIF district and be provided
upon completion and stabilization of the proposed project.
In summary, providing tax increment financing assistance to the proposed Wooddale Station
Development makes it possible to:
• Redevelop property with a structurally substandard building that is underutilized and
environmentally impacted property near a multi-modal transit location within the city.
• Provide the city with a major mixed use, mixed income, transit-oriented development
consistent the city’s strategic priorities, comprehensive plan, the Elmwood Area Land
Use and Transportation Plan, and the Wooddale Station Redevelopment RFP.
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 5) Page 12
Title: Application for Tax Increment Financing Assistance – Wooddale Station
• Spur additional investment along 36th Street and adjacent to the SWLRT Wooddale Ave.
Station.
• Further diversify the city’s housing stock with 297 new multifamily housing units
adjacent to multi-modal transportation.
• Add 30 housing units that would be affordable to households at 50% AMI, and 30
housing units that would be affordable to households at 60% AMI. The 60 reduced-rent
units would be kept affordable for at least 25 years.
• 20 percent of the units would be two-bedrooms or larger, with 11 three-bedrooms
units to accommodate larger families.
• Add approximately 12,600 square feet of new neighborhood commercial development
to accommodate local businesses benefitting the surrounding area as well as the
adjacent local and regional trail and light rail.
• Provide a large public plaza for community gatherings and public art along with indoor
space that would be made available for neighborhood meetings/gatherings.
• Include numerous green building features including on-site, roof top solar as well as
accommodations for bicycles and electric charging stations.
• Facilitate approximately $89.3 million of new investment and create 39-59 new jobs
further invigorating the Beltline area.
• Bring the subject property to optimal market value and generate nearly $1.2 million in
annual property taxes further adding to the city’s tax capacity and economic vitality.
• Construct a quality building (e.g. sound architectural design, class materials I materials
and quality construction) that will substantially enhance the development site’s
aesthetics and provide aesthetically pleasing landscape as well as other site features.
Given these findings, staff supports providing TIF assistance to the Wooddale Station
Development as outlined to enable it to proceed.
Next steps: Provided the EDA is supportive of facilitating the proposed development with tax
increment assistance at the recommended level, the next steps in the TIF approval process
would be as follows:
1. Schedule public hearing date for establishment of the proposed TIF district.
2. Negotiation and review of business terms for the provision of tax increment assistance.
3. Finding that the sale of property is consistent with the comprehensive plan – planning
commission.
4. Elimination of 5950 36th Street W property from Wooddale Station TIF District – EDA.
5. Consideration of TIF district plan – EDA .
6. Hold public hearing on the establishment of the TIF District – city council.
7. Consideration of redevelopment contract – EDA.
In addition, the Developer will be applying for several land use and zoning entitlements,
including a preliminary and final plat to create one buildable lot, and a preliminary and final
planned unit development to establish the zoning for the site.
A neighborhood meeting was held in February 2021 and additional neighborhood and local
meetings will be held as part of the planning process.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: November 22, 2021
Written report: 6
Executive summary
Title: Aldersgate resolution of support for Minnesota Housing Finance
Recommended action: No action at this time. Staff will bring the resolution of support for the
bond application on the Dec. 6, 2021 consent agenda.
Policy consideration: Does the city council support Real Estate Equities’ application for housing
facility revenue bonds?
Summary: Real Estate Equities has requested city council pass a resolution of support for an
application for housing facility revenue bonds for redevelopment of the Aldersgate Church site
(3801 Wooddale Avenue). The bonds would help finance construction of a proposed 114-unit
multifamily rental housing building and facilities functionally related, to be located in the city
for occupancy by individuals and families of low and moderate income.
The multifamily housing revenue bonds would be issued in a maximum amount not to exceed
$19,200,000. This is the first step of the process for Real Estate Equities LLC to secure an allocation
of housing bonds from Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB). If the council approves to
serve as the conduit for these bonds, Real Estate Equities LLC will submit an application to MMB
by Jan. 1, 2022. City council support for the MMB application does not signal or obligate the city
to support any planning and zoning applications required for the development, nor financial
assistance, and action on this request should not be construed as such.
Financial or budget considerations: Issuance of these bonds would not impact the city’s debt
capacity, would not constitute a general or moral obligation of the city, and would not be
secured by the taxing powers of the city or any assets or property of the city. If the financing
goes forward, Real Estate Equities LLC will pay an administration fee in the amount of 1/8th of
1% (.125%) of the outstanding principal of the bonds.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: None
Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner
Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, interim deputy city manager/operations and recreation director
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: November 22, 2021
Written report: 7
Executive summary
Title: West Metro Home Remodeling Fair Joint Powers Agreement
Recommended action: No action required at this time. This report is being provided to inform
council of the West Metro Home Remodeling Fair Joint Powers Agreement in preparation for
the council report and resolution scheduled for Dec. 6, 2021.
Policy consideration: Does the city council support entering into a Joint Powers Agreement for
the West Metro Home Remodeling Fair?
Summary: The West Metro Home Remodeling Fair is a free event sponsored by the Cities of
Golden Valley, St. Louis Park, and Minnetonka, as well as Hopkins and St. Louis Park Community
Education. The goal is to provide residents with ideas, information, and resources to promote
improvements to housing in each community.
The fair features a wide variety of exhibitors with products and services related to home
improvement, including remodeling contractors, architects, landscapers, financial lenders, and
more. City inspectors and zoning staff are also on hand to answer questions about permits and
other project requirements.
The West Metro Home Remodeling Fair began in 1993. The fair is held at the Eisenhower
Community Center annually with the exception of 2021. Prior to 2015, there were no formal
agreements in place related to the fair. The committee and leadership from the cities and
schools determined a more formal agreement was needed in relation to the finances. The City
of St. Louis Park has been the fiscal agent since November 2015 for the 2016 fair. The city
managers of the participating cities had further discussions over the years and requested a
more formal partnership be outlined in a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). The JPA was drafted by
the Golden Valley City Attorney, Maria Cisneros. Exhibit A to the JPA is intentionally left blank
and will be updated on an annual basis as outlined in the JPA.
Financial or budget considerations: Fair operations shall be financed from funds and resources
collected from vendor registration fees of other grants or donations. The fair shall be self-
sustaining without the need for monetary contributions from the participants. If the need for
monetary contributions arises the participating cities and school districts will agree in writing to
the terms of such contributions.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Joint Powers Agreement for West Metro Home Remodeling Fair
Prepared by: Marney Olson, housing supervisor
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, housing manager/deputy community development director
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, interim deputy city manager/operations and recreation director
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: West Metro Home Remodeling Fair Joint Powers Agreement
Joint Powers Agreement Between
Golden Valley, Minnetonka, Saint Louis Park,
Hopkins Community Education, and Saint Louis Park Community Education for
West Metro Home Remodeling Fair
This Joint Powers Agreement (“Agreement”) is made by and between the City of Golden Valley
(“Golden Valley”), the City of Minnetonka (“Minnetonka”), the City of Saint Louis Park (“St.
Louis Park”), Hopkins Community Education (“Hopkins Community Ed.”), and Saint Louis Park
Community Education (“St. Louis Park Community Ed.”) (referred to herein as the “Party” or
“Participant” individually, and collectively as the “Parties” or “Participants”) and effective as of
________________, 2021.
RECITALS
1.The Parties are units of government responsible for housing and redevelopment and
community education in their respective communities.
2.The Parties desire to jointly host an annual West Metro Home Remodeling Fair (the “Fair”).
3.The goal of the Fair is to provide residents with ideas, information, and resources to
promote improvements to housing in the participating communities. The Fair features a
wide variety of exhibitors with products and services related to home improvement,
including remodeling contractors, architects, landscapers, financial lenders, and City
inspectors.
4.The Parties believe the Fair serves an important purpose in the community by encouraging
reinvestment in the existing housing stock and providing information to residents regarding
local home remodeling resources and opportunities.
5.The Parties wish to reinforce their positive and collaborative relationship by entering into
this Agreement.
TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING
1.Purpose.
The Parties wish to host the Fair annually to promote improvements to housing and
provide community education opportunities in the participating communities.
2.Authority.
The Parties enter into this Agreement pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
section 471.59.
3.The Participants.
a.Participation. The Parties shall be the initial Participants. Additional governmental
entities may become a Participant upon approval by all of the then existing
Participants and execution by the new entity of this Agreement.
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Title: West Metro Home Remodeling Fair Joint Powers Agreement
b. Change in Participation.
i. Any Participant may withdraw from this Agreement upon 30 days’ written
notice.
ii. The Participants may involuntarily terminate a Participant for any reason
upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the then existing Participants.
A withdrawing or involuntarily terminated party is entitled to the return of its own
property, but is not entitled to any share or portion of Fair funds or assets. In the
event of withdrawal or involuntary termination by any member, this Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect as to all remaining members.
4. The Parties’ Roles and Responsibilities. The Participants agree to assume the roles and
responsibilities set forth in the attached Exhibit A. Each year no later than November first,
the Participants shall prepare an updated Exhibit A setting forth the Fair location and each
Participant’s obligations for the upcoming year. Updates to Exhibit A shall not require the
approval of the Participants’ governing bodies, but all such updates shall be agreed upon by
staff annually and filed with the Fair’s official records.
5. Administration. The Participants shall meet at least once annually to discuss work
completed during the past year, work proposed for the following year, and any proposed
changes to this Agreement or Exhibit A. The Participants agree that records created
pursuant to this Agreement shall be retained in a manner that meets each Participant’s
respective records retention schedule and shall be subject to the Minnesota Government
Data Practices Act.
6. Funding and Finances.
a. Fair operations shall be financed from funds and resources collected from vendor
registration fees or other grants or donations. The Fair shall be self-sustaining
without the need for monetary contributions from the Participants. If the need for
monetary contributions arises, no Participant shall be required to contribute funds
unless all Participants have agreed in writing to the terms of such contributions.
b. St. Louis Park shall serve as the Fair’s fiscal agent and shall be responsible for the
following tasks:
1. Serve as the sole administrator of all funds contributed by the Participants or
otherwise received to support the Fair, and in such capacity receive all funds for
deposit and make disbursements therefrom;
2. Accept grants and donations on behalf of the Fair;
3. Maintain current and accurate records of all obligations and expenditures of
Fair funds in accordance with fiscal agent policy and generally accepted
accounting principles;
4. Enter into agreements on behalf of the Fair;
5. Prepare regular financial reports as relevant for the duration of the planning,
execution, and follow-up of the Fair and disseminate them to the Participants;
and
6. Prepare annual financial reports which include the following information:
a. The financial condition of the Fair
b. The status of all Fair projects
c. The business transacted by the Fair
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 7) Page 4
Title: West Metro Home Remodeling Fair Joint Powers Agreement
d. Other matters related to the Fair that affect the interests of the Parties.
c. The Participants shall each provide all salary, compensation, and benefits to their
separate employees.
7. Limitation of Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, actions by the Participants
pursuant to this Agreement are intended to be and shall be construed as a “cooperative
activity,” and it is the intent of the Participants that they shall be deemed a “single
governmental unit” for the purposes of liability, all as set forth in Minn. Stat. Section
471.59, Subd. 1a(a). Each Participant agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and
the acts of its employees and any liability resulting therefrom to the extent authorized by
law and, for purposes of §471.59, each Participant expressly declines responsibility for the
acts or omissions of any other Participant.
8. Insurance. Each Participant acknowledges and agrees that it is insured or self-insured
consistent with the requirements of Minnesota law. Each Participant agrees to promptly
notify all other Participants if it becomes aware of any potential claims related to the Fair.
9. Term. This Agreement shall continue until terminated in the manner provided herein.
10. Termination.
a. This Agreement may terminate upon the occurrence of any one of the following
events, whichever occurs first:
i. When necessary due to failure to obtain necessary funding from the
Participants; or
ii. When a majority of Participants agree to terminate the Agreement upon a
certain date.
b. Upon termination of this Agreement, the Participants shall provide for the
distribution of all Fair funds and assets in the following manner:
i. The Parties may determine to sell and liquidate non-monetary assets prior
to distribution; and
ii. Assets and funds shall be distributed to the Participants in proportion to
their contributions. Property owned by the Participants shall be returned to
the owner upon termination. A Participant who ceases participation prior to
termination of this Agreement is entitled to the return of its own property,
but is not entitled to any share or portion of Fair funds or assets.
11. Amendment. The Participants may amend this Agreement by mutual written agreement.
Any such amendment shall only be effective if duly executed by the authorized
representatives of each Participant.
12. Applicable Law and Venue. The laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern the
interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement and any actions arising out of or relating
to this Agreement shall be brought in Hennepin County District Court in the state of
Minnesota.
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 7) Page 5
Title: West Metro Home Remodeling Fair Joint Powers Agreement
Executed the day and year first above written, by the parties as follows:
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY: CITY OF MINNETONKA:
By: _________________________________
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
By: _________________________________
Brad Wiersum, Mayor
By: _________________________________
Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager
By: _________________________________
Mike Funk, Acting City Manager
CITY OF SAINT LOUIS PARK:
HOPKINS COMMUNITY EDUCATION:
By: _________________________________
Jake Spano, Mayor
By: _________________________________
Rhoda Mhiripiri-Reed, Superintendent
By: _________________________________
Kim Keller, City Manager
By: _________________________________
Jen Bouchard, School Board Chair
ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY EDUCATION:
By: _________________________________
Astein Osei, Superintendent
By: _________________________________
Mary Tomback, School Board Chair
Study session meeting of November 22, 2021 (Item No. 7) Page 6
Title: West Metro Home Remodeling Fair Joint Powers Agreement
Exhibit A
Roles & Responsibilities
Event Date
Event Location
Task Responsible Party
Provide at least one staff member to work at the
Home Remodeling Fair on the day of the event (duties
assigned in advance)
Graphic design
Marketing – i.e. sharing social media posts, City
newsletters, Community Ed brochures, electronic
billboards, and other platforms
Signage printing (rotate printing of new signage)
Coordinate and recruit volunteers
Site operations – need to determine need for Saturday
set up; phase out for Jigsaw to take over in the future
City/School District booths
Event weekend tech support and café coordination
Reserve officers to assist with parking and other day of
event duties
Idea Center
Seminars
Operation Rescue Room
Photography on event day
Videography to record seminars on event day
Develop ideas for articles for the website
Special Circumstances: