HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022/07/25 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study Session AGENDA
JULY 25, 2022
Members of the public can attend the meeting in person, watch by webstream at
bit.ly/watchslpcouncil, or watch on local cable (Comcast SD channel 17/HD channel 859).
Recordings are available to watch on the city’s YouTube channel at
https://www.youtube.com/user/slpcable, usually within 24 hours of the end of the council
meeting or study session.
6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – council chambers
Discussion items
1. 60 min. Connect the Park update
5 min. Communications/updates (verbal)
Written reports
2. Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study
3. Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-
1100)
4. June 2022 monthly financial report
5. Second quarter investment report (April – June 2022)
6. Quarterly development update – 3rd quarter 2022
7. Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development 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 after noon on Friday on the city’s website.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952.924.2505.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: July 25, 2022
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: Connect the Park update
Recommended action: None. The purpose of this report is to provide updates to the council
regarding the Connect the Park goals, strategies, and metrics.
Policy consideration: Does the council wish to implement the additional data collection and
wayfinding efforts as directed in previous council study sessions?
Summary: In 2020 and 2021, there was an ongoing series of council discussions related to the
Connect the Park implementation plan. During these discussions, council provided staff
feedback and direction regarding the following topics:
• Goals and strategies
• Metrics
• Feasibility review
This report focuses on several items related to the Connect the Park implementation plan. The
specific items and the topics they relate to:
1. Feasibility Review for Connect the Park segments
2. Metrics: Data collection for bikeways and sidewalks usage
3. Strategy: Wayfinding signage to promote pedestrian and bicycle routes
4. Strategy: New website for getting around town
To provide background on these topics, we have linked the reports from the March 1, 2021 and
April 19, 2021 council study sessions.
Financial or budget considerations: Funds are budgeted in the capital improvement plan (CIP)
for Connect the Park segments. Implementing the data collection and wayfinding efforts will
require additional funding. More information on the financial requests can be found in the
discussion section of the report.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion, Bikeway Feasibility Report, Sidewalk Feasibility Report,
Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Program Manual, Bike Direction Map from Google, Getting
Around webpage, March 1, 2021 study session report, April 19, 2021 study session report
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Connect the Park update
Discussion
Background: The Connect the Park capital improvement plan (CIP) creates a comprehensive
citywide system of bikeways, sidewalks, and trails. The purpose of the implementation plan is
to make it easier for people to move around the city and region without a single-occupancy
vehicle. It builds on existing council policies, strategic priorities, and the Connect the Park goals
to set a course for the implementation of the non-motorized transportation system for the
community.
This report provides an update on components of Connect the Park that came out of the
discussion with council during study sessions on March 1, 2021 and April 19, 2021. Those study
session reports are linked for reference. This report also provides additional information on
costs associated with the requested additions to the Connect the Park initiative. The specific
items and the topics they relate to are:
1. Feasibility Review for Connect the Park segments
2. Metrics: Data collection for bikeways and sidewalks usage
3. Strategy: Wayfinding signage to promote pedestrian and bicycle routes
4. Strategy: New website for getting around town and other digital efforts
1. Feasibility review for Connect the Park segments
Connect the Park feasibility reviews were discussed with the city council at the April 19, 2021
study session. Staff presented a feasibility review framework to be used to evaluate future
Connect the Park segments. It was used for the first time during the approval process for the
2022 Pavement Management project in the Fern Hill neighborhood. The feasibility reports
created for the bikeways and sidewalks in the Fern Hill neighborhood are attached to this
report.
The feasibility review includes using the following criteria to determine return on investment
(ROI).
• Scope – Understanding the scope of the project is key to putting together the impacts
and costs.
• Data – Engineering staff gathers a large set of data, including pedestrian/bicycle, vehicle,
roadway, and land use
• Design – Stand along sidewalk, bikeway, or trail
• Impacts/costs – Physical impacts to the environment and adjacent property. Financial
impacts such as capital costs, operations, and maintenance costs are included.
• Public input – Providing the public the opportunity to be involved in the design and
provide feedback
These five criteria were then placed into a matrix to help evaluate destinations connected and
the ROI for the selected bikeway and sidewalk infrastructure.
Present considerations:
Now that the first feasibility reviews have been completed, staff would like to know if the
council found these reports to be helpful in making decisions on the recommended
infrastructure improvements. The variety of bikeway facility types, such as bike lanes and
separated facilities, require significant effort to develop the bikeway feasibility review.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: Connect the Park update
Sidewalks and trails have standardized design types and do not require as much time to put
together the evaluation.
These reports summarize the project information that is gathered through the preliminary
design process and documents staff’s engineering judgment. We estimate that the reports took
four staff a total of about 200 hours to put together. Due to the effort involved in creating
these reports, we would like feedback to understand if the feasibility reports were a beneficial
addition to the project approval process.
• Did the reports help to inform your decision?
• Did the reports meet your expectations from our initial discussions?
• Did the reports provide the right amount of information?
• Was the format of the reports helpful?
• Do you have any changes or recommendations that you’d like to see implemented in
these reports?
Staff recommendation:
Unless council does not need such a deep level of information, staff is not recommending
changes to the feasibility reports. If council would like to see modifications to our feasibility
reports, staff will be able to incorporate the requested changes the next time Connect the Park
segment is brought to council.
2. Metrics: Data collection for bikeway and sidewalk usage
Throughout the implementation of the Connect the Park plan, there have been questions
regarding whether the additional infrastructure has increased the number of users and what
type of user is on our system. To get at this question, a set of metrics was discussed at the
March 1, 2021 study session. One of the metrics that staff recommended was to start an annual
pedestrian and bicycle count program that would provide data to help measure the progress
toward Connect the Park “Goal 1: Make progress toward cleaner air, less traffic and noise and
more livable neighborhoods by providing convenient and safe ways to use low-carbon and no-
carbon travel methods.”
The purpose of this program is to count the entire Connect the Park network on an annual basis
to monitor the use and develop trends in biking and walking as it relates to the build-out of the
system. To develop this program, staff engaged Toole Design Group to create a count manual
for the city based on nationwide industry best practices and information learned from local
counting programs in Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis. The Bicycle and Pedestrian
Count Program manual is attached to this report for reference.
Some count locations are on Connect the Park facilities that are not yet constructed. This is by
design, as counting at the same locations for the entire duration of the count program will
allow analysis of trends and before and after data of specific Connect the Park facilities. This will
help us to better understand the demand and patterns of active transportation users
throughout the city.
Staff recommendation:
Staff has determined what resources are needed to implement the bicycle and pedestrian
count program as directed by the city council.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Title: Connect the Park update
Following are a few details of the proposed count program:
• Video counts are recommended so that, in addition to counting users, we can observe
demographic information. This is also a metric that was included in the report.
• There are 52 video count locations on the Connect the Park system on a yearly basis.
The cost is estimated to be $55,000 per year for a consultant to collect the data.
• Ten automatic stationary counters would be installed strategically around the
community to provide continuous counting. Bicycle and pedestrian counts are highly
susceptible to seasonal factors such as weather. These stationary counters are needed
to extrapolate the manual counts at the 52 locations into estimated average annual
daily counts. The stationary counters are estimated to cost $350,000 to implement in all
10 locations.
• Pedestrians and bicyclists will be counted at each location.
The data collected would be used to inform the remaining Connect the Park feasibility reviews
and to track the city’s progress on our Connect the Park Goals and the city’s strategic priority of
providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely
and reliably.
Present considerations:
The above-mentioned costs of a one-time capital cost of $350,000 for the stationary counters
and the yearly $55,000 are not in the city’s capital improvement plan or in the engineering
budget and would need to be part of the 2023 budget.
3. Strategy: Wayfinding signage to promote pedestrian and bicycle routes
The goals of Connect the Park were updated as part of the March 1, 2021 study session. Each of
the updated goals had a set of strategies to help achieve the goal. The use of wayfinding
signage throughout the city to promote the use of pedestrian and bicycle routes was identified
as a strategy for achieving “Goal 1: Reducing vehicle miles traveled from single-occupancy
vehicles”. Wayfinding is also a strategy for our Climate action plan “Goal 6.4 Enable reduction
of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from single-occupancy vehicles.”
Staff recommendation:
The first step in wayfinding is to ensure that people know where our bikeways are and what
they connect. To do this, staff is recommending two types of signs. The first would be switching
out standard street signs (Figure 1) with street signs that indicate bikeways (Figure 2) with bike
symbols on the signs. This is consistent with how Minneapolis denotes their bikeway streets.
This would be done on all bikeways throughout the city that were installed prior to 2021.
Bikeways installed in 2021 had these signs installed as a part of the construction. Moving
forward, these signs will be included in all future bikeway segment construction.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Title: Connect the Park update
Figure 1 - Traditional street sign
Figure 2 - Street sign with bike symbol
The other wayfinding would be to use city-owned signal cabinets and electrical cabinet wraps
to provide wayfinding maps for users. Examples of this type of wrap would be the art wrap that
has occurred at other locations in St. Louis Park and as shown in Figure 3 and 4.
Figure 3 - Signal cabinet wrap wayfinding
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1) Page 6
Title: Connect the Park update
Figure 4 – Preliminary mockup of signal cabinet wayfinding
Present considerations:
Replacing standard street signs would be completed using a sign contractor. The estimated
cost, including engineering, is $76,800 to replace approximately 300 street signs.
Signal and electrical cabinet wraps are estimated to cost $2,500 each. Staff has identified six
key locations within the city that could be enhanced with this type of wayfinding map. The
estimated cost, including engineering, would be $15,000. The preliminary mockup in Figure 4
would be refined by our graphic designer.
The above-mentioned costs are not in the city’s capital improvement plan. If council would like
to move forward with this item, staff is recommending that this be added to the 2023 CIP.
This would be the first step. As we move forward with the citywide attitude surveys, we will ask
the community to find out what additional wayfinding could be helpful.
4. Strategy: New website for getting around town and other digital efforts
One of the updated Connect the Park goals discussed as part of the March 1, 2021 study session
is to make progress toward cleaner air, less traffic and noise and more livable neighborhoods by
providing convenient and safe ways to use low-carbon and no-carbon travel methods.
Another way we are promoting walking and biking by wayfinding is the use of digital technology
to provide convenient and quick access to inform users of the city’s network of sidewalks,
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1) Page 7
Title: Connect the Park update
bikeways, and trails. We’ve recently created an interactive map that shows all the current
sidewalks, share-the-road segments, bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, one-way cycle tracks, and
paved trails through the community. This map will be updated as each new bikeway, sidewalk
and trail is constructed.
In addition, we have been working with online mapping applications to provide them with
information on our new bikeway, sidewalk, and trail infrastructure. This is so that people that
use these applications to get directions will be better able to plan their trips without using a
car. This effort has had some success; we recently got the Dakota/ Edgewood trail bridge on the
map. Attached is a screenshot of a map showing directions to get from Peter Hobart to Home
Depot by bike (Google maps).
Summary financial considerations: To achieve the goals of Connect the Park, the city council
directed staff to collect data on the number and type of users using our bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure. In addition, one of the strategies to promote biking and walking was to install
wayfinding. The following additions to our budget and CIP would be needed to move forward
with these programs.
Data collection for bikeways and sidewalks usage
Automated stationary counters $350,000
Yearly counts $55,000
subtotal $405,000
Wayfinding signage to promote pedestrian and bicycle routes
Replacement of street signs with bike symbol $76,800
Wrapping signal/electrical cabinet with wayfinding $15,000
subtotal $91,800
Total $496,800
Next steps: If data collection and wayfinding is added to the 2023 budget, data collection and
wayfinding implementation would occur in the second half of 2023 to provide time to hire
consultants to help develop plans, and install stationary counters and signage.
Bikeway Feasibility Review
Pavement Management Area 8, Fern Hill
Project no. 4021-1000
Introduction: The engineering department has completed the design of the 2022 Pavement
Management Project. This project includes rehabilitation of several miles of local residential
streets in the Fern Hill neighborhood. As part of the project development, sidewalks and
bikeways identified in the city’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) have been evaluated for
inclusion into the project.
The following feasibly review focuses on the bikeways identified as part of the Connect the Park
CIP. As a part of project development, the alignments that were included in the Connect the
Park plan was evaluated as well as an alternate route that meets the criteria (discussed later in
this report) of an interim design and the interested but concerned cyclist.
Feasibility review: The process includes using the following criteria to determine return on
investment (ROI).
1.Scope
Understanding the scope of the project is key for putting together the impacts and costs.
This report is a feasibility review for proposed Connect the Park bikeway segments; the
original alignment is shown on exhibit A.
All but one of the bikeway segments, 26th Street (Quentin Avenue to France Avenue), are
on streets included in the 2022 Pavement Management project, which provides greater
design flexibility, is more cost-effective and limits the construction impact to one season.
During the initial review of the Connect the Park alignment for this bikeway, it became
apparent that an alternate alignment should be reviewed. The reasons for this are discussed
in the next section. The alternate alignment is shown on exhibit B. The bikeway segment on
28th Street (Monterey Parkway to France Avenue) is outside the scope of the 2022
pavement management project.
26th Street (Quentin Avenue to France Avenue) and 28th Street (Monterey Parkway to
France Avenue) are parallel routes through the neighborhood. 26th Street carries a higher
volume of traffic and is also used as a transit route.
2.Data
Before beginning design, data is collected to help inform the bikeway design
recommendations. For the segments of the bikeway on streets included in the 2022
Pavement Management project, this data was collected as a part of the larger project.
However, the bikeway segments on 26th Street (Quentin Avenue to France Avenue) and
28th Street (Monterey Parkway to France Avenue) were not scheduled for pavement
replacement. To understand how much additional data needed to be collected for the
bikeway segments not scheduled for pavement replacement, we first needed to identify the
recommended bikeway design.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 8
Page 2 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
The Connect the Park plan was developed with the premise that the city would install on-
street bike lanes. Since the approval of the plan in 2013, bikeway design and the
expectations of the bikeway facilities within the community have evolved.
Bikeway facility type is informed by an understanding of the different types of bicyclists and
consideration of the relationship between the bicyclist and the street network.
Characteristics commonly used to classify design user profiles are comfort level, bicycling
skill and experience, age, and trip purpose. Selecting the design user profile is often the first
step in assessing the type of bicycle facility.
A study by researchers at Portland State University found that of adults who are interested
in bicycling, there are three types of potential and existing bicyclists as shown in Figure 1:
highly confident bicyclists, somewhat confident bicyclists, and interested but concerned
bicyclists. Each user has a different tolerance for traffic stress when bicycling.
Figure 1- Bicyclist Design User Profiles
source: Bikeway Selection Guide (Federal Highway Administration)
To determine the bikeway design recommendations, staff did an initial review of roadway
characteristics to establish the level of traffic stress. To appeal to the most potential riders,
consideration would be given to the interested but concerned bicyclist.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 9
Page 3 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
The level of traffic stress (LTS) is a way to evaluate the stress a bike rider will experience
while riding. Whether or not people will bicycle is heavily influenced by the stresses they
encounter on their trip. Motor vehicle speed and volume increase the LTS for bicyclists. It is
used to categorize roads by the types of riders who will be willing to use them based on
traffic speed, volume, and the type of bike facility. In general, the user served is dependent
on the LTS, and the LTS can be reduced by the type of facility constructed.
Due to the interdependence of user served and bicycle facilities, staff first reviewed the LTS
for the individual road segments. Staff consulted industry design guidance to determine the
type of bikeway facility for each LTS. This includes numerous sources such as the National
Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT), and Municipal State Aid
manual.
In some cases, a bicycle facility will meet the minimum design guidance but may fall short of
the interested but concerned criteria. In most cases, the minimum design guidance bikeway
will still reduce the level of traffic stress on the roadway. See Table 1 below for types of
bicycle facilities needed to meet the minimum design guidance and the interested but
concerned design:
Figure 2: LTS and bicycle user profiles
source: Minnesota Bicycle Facility Design Manual
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 10
Page 4 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
Table 1
Level of Traffic
Stress
(LTS)
Minimum design
guidance
Interested but concerned design
1 Share the road Share the road
2 Share the road /
bicycle lane
Bicycle lane/ buffered bicycle lane/
protected bicycle lane
3 Bicycle lane Buffered bicycle lane/ protected
bicycle lane/ shared-use trail
4 Protected bicycle lane/
separated bicycle lane/
shared-use trail
Protected bicycle lane/ separated
bicycle lane/ shared-use trail
For this project, staff evaluated two alignments for the proposed bikeway: the alignment
that was identified in the Connect the Park plan (Table 2) and an alternate alignment (Table
3) through the neighborhood. The following is a list of roadway characteristics and the
associated LTS for each bikeway alignment:
Table 2
Connect the Park alignment
Segment Vehicle
volume
Average
speed
Level of
traffic
stress
Toledo Avenue (28th Street to 27th Street) 103 21 1
Toledo Avenue (27th Street to 26th Street) 114 21 1
Ottawa Avenue S (Minnetonka Blvd to 29th Street) 720 21 1
Ottawa Avenue S (29th Street to 28th Street) 452 20 1
Quentin Avenue (28th Street to 27th Street) 957 23 1
Quentin Avenue (27th Street to 26th Street) 693 20 1
28th Street (Quentin Avenue to Princeton Avenue) 752 23 1
28th Street (Princeton Avenue to Ottawa Avenue) 785 25 1
26th Street (Toledo Avenue to Salem Avenue) 157 19 1
26th Street (Salem Avenue to Raleigh Avenue) 560 26 1
26th Street (Raleigh Avenue to Quentin Avenue) 1,043 21 1
26th Street (Quentin Avenue to France Avenue)* 2,600 32 3
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 11
Page 5 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
Table 3
Alternate alignment
Segment Vehicle
volume
Average
speed
Level of
stress
Toledo Avenue (28th Street to 27th Street) 103 21 1
Toledo Avenue (27th Street to 26th Street) 114 21 1
Ottawa Avenue S (Minnetonka Blvd to 29th Street) 720 21 1
Ottawa Avenue S (29th Street to 28th Street) 452 20 1
Quentin Avenue (28th Street to 27th Street) 957 23 1
Quentin Avenue (27th Street to 26th Street) 693 20 1
28th Street (Toledo Avenue to Salem Avenue)* 89 19 1
28th Street (Salem Avenue to Raleigh Avenue)* 199 22 1
28th Street (Raleigh Avenue to Quentin Avenue)* 340 22 1
28th Street (Quentin Avenue to Princeton Avenue) 752 23 1
28th Street (Princeton Avenue to Ottawa Avenue) 785 25 1
28th Street (Ottawa Avenue to France Avenue)* 680 25 1
26th Street (Toledo Avenue to Salem Avenue) 157 19 1
26th Street (Salem Avenue to Raleigh Avenue) 560 26 1
26th Street (Raleigh Avenue to Quentin Avenue) 1,043 21 1
*segments that differ between the two alignments
In general, a share the road bikeway design will meet the needs of the interested but
concerned bicyclist on LTS 1 streets (low-speed/low-volume streets). The data for the LTS 1
streets is similar and is summarized in Table 4:
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 12
Page 6 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
Table 4
Toledo Avenue (26th Street to 28th Street)
Ottawa Avenue (Minnetonka Boulevard to 28th Street)
Quentin Avenue (26th Street to 29th Street)
26th Street (Toledo Avenue to France Avenue)
28th Street (Toledo Avenue to Quentin Avenue)
Level of Traffic Stress 1
Traffic volumes 103-1,043 vehicles/day
Traffic speeds (average) Less than 26 mph
(Data collected prior to 20 mph posted speed limit)
Existing right of way 50 to 60 feet
Street width The available space in the right of way varies from street
to street and even between each side of the street on a
block. Usually, it is 11 feet to 17.5.
Space between curb and
right of way
The available space in the right of way varies from street
to street and even between each side of the street on a
block. Usually, it is 11 feet to 17.5.
Existing sidewalk/trails There are streets with existing sidewalks on one or both
sides of the streets. This includes streets with gaps in the
sidewalk system. Some blocks have no sidewalks on either
side.
Trees There are trees in the boulevard along all street segments
Topography of boulevard While generally flat, there are areas where the slope
results in the need to construct retaining walls.
Driveways The number of driveways varies from 1 to 12 driveways
for each street segment.
Utilities in right of way There are power poles and fiber handholes. Other utilities
that could be observed are gas and communications lines.
Drainage There is adequate drainage throughout the neighborhood.
Destinations Schools, places of worship, transit, commercial buildings,
and parks. See exhibit A for specific facilities within this
neighborhood.
Building setbacks All homes are at least 30 feet from the right of way.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 13
Page 7 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
The Connect the Park alignment includes a bikeway segment on 26th Street (Quentin
Avenue to France Avenue). The data for this LTS 3 street shown in Table 5 is significantly
different for this road when compared to the rest of the segments.
Table 5
26th Street (Quentin Avenue to France Avenue)
Level of Traffic Stress 3
Traffic volumes 2,600 vehicles/day
Traffic speeds (50th
percentile)
32 mph
(Data collected before city went to 20 mph posted speed
limit)
Existing right of way 60 feet (Barry Street to Monterey Avenue)
40 to 50 feet (Monterey Avenue to France Avenue)
Street width 32 feet (Barry Street to Monterey Avenue)
29.5 feet (Monterey Avenue to France Avenue)
Space between curb and
right of way
North side: 0 to 5 feet
South Side: 6 to 15 feet
Existing sidewalk/trails North Side (Barry Street to Monterey Avenue) and
(Huntington Avenue to France Avenue): 6-foot wide
sidewalk, with a 5-foot grass boulevard. The sidewalk
along Twin Lakes Park is at the back of the curb, with no
grass boulevard.
South side (Monterey Avenue to France Avenue): There is
a sidewalk along the south side of this street, between
Monterey and France avenues. The sidewalk is 6 feet wide
and is at the back of the curb. There is not a grass
boulevard.
Trees There are approximately 25 trees public trees within the
right of way along this street segment.
Topography of boulevard While generally flat, there are areas where the slope
results in the need to construct retaining walls.
Driveways There are 20 driveways on this street segment.
Utilities in right of way There are power poles and fiber handholes. Other utilities
that could be observed are gas and communications lines.
Drainage There is adequate drainage throughout the neighborhood.
Destinations Schools, places of worship, transit, commercial buildings,
and parks. See exhibit A for specific destinations within
this neighborhood.
Building setbacks There are 23 homes between Monterey Avenue and
France Avenue. Fourteen of them are less than 20 feet
from the curb.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 14
Page 8 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
3. Design
The city council has asked staff to bring forward options for bikeway types. As a part of this
feasibility review, staff will evaluate options for an interim and interested but concerned
bikeway design for both the Connect the Park alignment and the alternate alignment.
• Interim bikeway design – Many Connect the Park bikeways are proposed to be
installed on road segments not scheduled for pavement replacement. When this
happens, staff will look for an interim design. This design would strike a balance with
the existing roadway and context of the surrounding area while still meeting the
industry design guidance. In most cases, the interim bikeway will reduce the traffic
stress on the roadway for bicyclists. In some cases, it will also meet the needs of the
interested but concerned bicyclist.
• Interested but concerned bikeway design – this is the bikeway type that will provide
the most comfort for people who want to use it. On LTS 3 and 4 streets, it can also
require significant changes to the roadway corridor.
Table 6 identifies the recommended bikeway type for the Connect the Park alignment and
Table 7 identifies the recommended bikeway for the Alternative alignment.
Table 6
Connect the Park alignment
Bikeway segment Level of
traffic
stress
Interim bikeway
type
Interested but
concerned
bikeway type
Toledo Avenue (28th Street to 27th Street) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
Toledo Avenue (27th Street to 26th Street) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
Ottawa Avenue S (Minnetonka Blvd to 29th
Street)
1 Share the Road Share the Road
Ottawa Ave S (29th Street to 28th Street) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
Quentin Ave (28th Street to 27th Street) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
Quentin Ave (27th Street to 26th Street) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
26th Street (Toledo Ave to Salem Ave) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
26th Street (Salem Ave to Raleigh Ave) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
26th Street (Raleigh Ave to Quentin Ave) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
26th Street (Quentin Ave to France Ave)* 3 Bicycle lane/
shared-use trail
Buffered bicycle
lane/ protected
bicycle lane/
shared-use trail
*segments that differ between the two alignments
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 15
Page 9 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
Table 7
Alternate alignment
Segment Level of
stress
Interim bikeway
design
Interested but
concerned
bikeway design
Toledo Avenue (28th Street to 27th Street) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
Toledo Avenue (27th Street to 26th Street) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
Ottawa Ave S (Minnetonka Blvd to 29th
Street)
1 Share the Road Share the Road
Ottawa Ave S (29th Street to 28th Street) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
Quentin Ave (28th Street to 27th Street) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
Quentin Ave (27th Street to 26th Street) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
28th Street (Toledo Ave to Salem Ave)* 1 Share the Road Share the Road
28th Street (Salem Ave to Raleigh Ave)* 1 Share the Road Share the Road
28th Street (Raleigh Ave to Quentin Ave)* 1 Share the Road Share the Road
28th Street (Quentin Ave to Princeton Ave) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
28th Street (Princeton Ave to Ottawa Ave) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
28th Street (Ottawa Ave to France Ave)* 1 Share the Road Share the Road
26th Street (Toledo Ave to Salem Ave) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
26th Street (Salem Ave to Raleigh Ave) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
26th Street (Raleigh Ave to Quentin Ave) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
*segments that differ between the two alignments
4. Impacts and cost
Often on streets with a high level of traffic stress, the bikeway design will change with the
corridors. These changes include physical impacts to the environment, private and public
property. There are also financial considerations, including cost, operation, maintenance,
and general levy. Below is a summary of this information for the different options reviewed.
Connect the Park alignment: Interim design
Staff is not recommending an interim design for the Connect the Park (CTP) bikeway
alignment. This is primarily due to the segment of 26th Street between Monterey
Avenue and France Avenue. Due to the level of stress, a share the road bicycle facility
does not meet the minimum design guidance for this road. While bicycle lanes meet the
design guidance for this segment, the road is not wide enough to accommodate them.
To fit two bicycle lanes and two driving lanes requires a street that is at least 30 feet
wide. This street segment is only 29.5 feet wide, so there is not adequate room to install
bicycle lanes without widening the street.
Since this road has a bus route, the road would have to be further widened by 10 feet at
each bus stop to provide space for the bus to pick up and drop off riders without
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 16
Page 10 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
blocking the bike lane. The road sits in 40 to 50 feet of right of way. The bus pull-offs
would require the road to be 38 feet wide at a single bus stop, and 46 feet wide where
there are bus stops across from each other on the road. There is not adequate right of
way for this design. Purchasing the necessary right of way would result in significant
impacts to private property. These impacts are discussed as a part of the interested but
concerned bicycle design.
Connect the Park alignment: Interested but concerned design
In general, most of the CTP alignment is on roads with a LTS of 1. A share the road
bikeway design will meet the needs of the interested but concerned bicyclist on LTS 1
streets (low-speed/low-volume streets). This type of bicycle facility will fit within the
existing road footprint and there will be no impacts to public or private property. Due to
this, we did not include a table showing the impacts on these street segments.
However, 26th Street (Quentin Avenue to France Avenue) has an LTS 3 and interested
but concerned bicyclists will be looking for a buffered bicycle lane, protected bicycle
lane, or shared-use trail. Due to the presence of a bus route on this road and limited
right of way, no on-street bikeways were evaluated for this design. The bikeway design
that would meet the needs of the interested but concerned users is a shared-use trail.
The following options were reviewed and the impacts are shown in Table 8:
• Shared use trail (north side): the existing sidewalk on the south side of the street
would remain and a 10-foot-wide trail would be constructed on the north side of the
road at the back of the curb. To fit this design into the existing right of way, the
street would be narrowed by 6 feet.
• Shared use trail (south side): the existing sidewalk on the south side would be
removed and a 10-foot-wide trail constructed in its place. To fit this design into the
existing right of way, the street would be narrowed by 4 feet.
Table 8
Interested but concerned design
26th Street (Quentin Avenue to France Avenue)
Physical impacts-
environmental
Shared-use trail (north side) Shared-use trail (south side)
Tree removal 52 trees would be removed. This
includes both public and private
trees.
58 trees would be removed.
This includes both public and
private trees.
Impervious change Increase by 10% (13,120 SF) to
the impervious that is directly
connected to the storm sewer
system.
The street is being narrowed to
accommodate the trail. This
results in no increase to directly
connected impervious.
Physical impacts -private Shared-use trail (north side) Shared-use trail (south side)
Total private properties 14 properties 19 properties
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 17
Page 11 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
Driveway parking The driveways at two homes
would be too short to park cars
in without blocking the trail:
2538 Kipling Avenue and 2544
Lynn Avenue
The driveways at four homes
would be too short to park cars
in without blocking the trail:
2601 Monterey Avenue, 2600
Lynn Avenue, 2601 Lynn
Avenue, and 2600 Kipling
Avenue
Right of way acquisition 1 to 5 feet of right of way would
need to be purchased from 14
properties: 2517 Quentin Court,
2509 Princeton Court, 2552
Monterey Avenue, 2563
Monterey Avenue, 2544 Lynn
Avenue, 2541 Lynn Avenue,
2538 Kipling Avenue, 2537
Kipling Avenue, 2538 Joppa
Avenue, 2537 Joppa Avenue,
2536 Inglewood Avenue, 2537
Inglewood Avenue, 2544
Huntington Avenue, and 2545
Huntington Avenue
1 to 5 feet of right of way
would need to be purchased
from 16 properties: 2600
Glenhurst Avenue, 2601
Huntington Avenue, 2600
Huntington Avenue, 2601
Inglewood Avenue, 2600
Inglewood Avenue, 2601 Joppa
Avenue, 2600 Joppa Avenue,
2600 Kipling Avenue 2601 Lynn
Avenue, 2600 Lynn Avenue,
2601 Monterey Avenue, 2600
Monterey Avenue, 4801 26th
Street, 2601 Princeton Avenue,
2600 Princeton Avenue, and
2600 Quentin Avenue
Building setbacks House setback would be
reduced and the trail would be
less than 10 feet from 4 houses:
2541 Lynn Avenue,2544 Lynn
Avenue, 2537 Kipling Avenue
and 2538 Kipling Avenue.
There would be significant
impact to 2544 Lynn Ave. The
trail would be 8 feet from the
front door of the home. It may
not be possible to maintain
access to their front door. Due
to this, it may require purchase
of the home
House setback would be
reduced and the trail would be
less than 10 feet from 13
houses: 2600 Huntington
Avenue, 2601 Inglewood
Avenue, 2601 Joppa Avenue,
2600 Joppa Avenue, 2600
Kipling Avenue, 2601 Lynn
Avenue, 2601 Lynn Avenue,
2600 Lynn Avenue, 2601
Monterey Avenue, 2600
Monterey Avenue, 2601
Princeton Avenue, 2600
Princeton Avenue, and 2600
Quentin Avenue
Fences Three fences would need to be
removed and relocated at: 2552
Monterey Avenue, 2541 Lynn
Avenue, and 2537 Joppa Avenue
Nine fences would need to be
removed and relocated at:
2600 Glenhurst Avenue, 2600
Huntington Avenue, 2600
Inglewood Avenue, 2601 Joppa
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 18
Page 12 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
Avenue, 2600 Joppa Avenue,
2600 Kipling Avenue, 2601
Monterey Avenue, and 2603
Quentin Avenue
Landscaping Seven private landscaping areas
would need to be removed at:
2544 Huntington Avenue, 2537
Inglewood Avenue, 2538 Kipling
Avenue, 2544 Lynn Avenue,
2563 Monterey Avenue, 2552
Monterey Avenue, and 2509
Princeton Court
Eight private landscaping areas
would need to be removed at:
2600 Joppa Avenue, 2600
Kipling Avenue, 2601 Lynn
Avenue, 2600 Lynn Avenue
4801 26th Street, 2601
Princeton Avenue, 2603
Quentin Avenue, and 2600
Quentin Avenue
Private utility relocations There are three power poles
that will need to be relocated
There are 18 power poles that
will need to be relocated
Physical impacts - public Shared-use trail (north side) Shared-use trail (south side)
Street modifications:
Lane width reduction,
change of number of lanes
or street width
The road would be narrowed by
6 feet.
The road would be narrowed by
4 feet
On-street parking On-street parking: Parking would be restricted between Barry
Street and Monterey Avenue on the south side of the road. Parking
on the north side of the road at Twin Lakes Park would be
preserved.
Currently, there is no parking allowed on either side of the road
between Monterey Avenue and France Avenue.
Retaining walls needed There are 2 locations where an
existing retaining wall will need
to be removed and
reconstructed: 2544 Lynn
Avenue and 2563 Monterey
Avenue
The 4 locations where a new
retaining wall is required due to
slope of the boulevard:
2544 Huntington Avenue, 2537
Inglewood Avenue, 2536
Inglewood Avenue, and 2537
Joppa Avenue
There are 9 locations where an
existing retaining wall will need
to be removed and
reconstructed: 2600 Glenhurst
Avenue, 2601 Huntington
Avenue, 2600 Huntington
Avenue, 2600 Inglewood
Avenue, 2600 Joppa Avenue,
2601 Lynn Avenue, 2601
Monterey Avenue, 2600
Monterey Avenue, and 2600
Quentin Avenue
The 5 locations where a new
retaining wall is required due to
slope of the boulevard:
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 19
Page 13 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
2600 Glenhurst Avenue, 2601
Huntington Avenue, 2665
Natchez Avenue, 2600 Natchez
Avenue, and 2600 Quentin
Avenue
Financial Shared-use trail (north side) Shared-use trail (south side)
Cost The estimated cost to design and build either trail is $2,200,000.
This does not include the cost to purchase right of way and replace
private landscaping.
The cost to install the Share the road bikeway on the other
segments in the neighborhood is $115,000.
Total bikeway cost $2,315,000.
Budget vs. estimated costs The CIP estimate to install this bikeway is $300,000.
Operations and
maintenance costs
Snow removal on the new trail
would be the city’s
responsibility.
Since this option removes a
sidewalk and replaces it with a
trail, there are no additional
operations and maintenance
costs.
General levy If general obligation bonds are used to pay for the bikeway, there
would be an increase in the general levy over what has been
factored into the council’s budget discussions to date.
Social capital
• Neighborhood
reception/ acceptance
• Community reception/
acceptance
• Public input
Most of the feedback received for bikeways has been from
residents that live along the streets scheduled for pavement
replacement and with focus on those segments.
We have received no community feedback on these bikeway
segments and have not met with impacted property owners.
Due to this, if council would like to pursue a bikeway on 26th
Street east of Ottawa, staff recommends additional community
engagement.
Alternate alignment:
All segments of the alternate alignment are on roads with an LTS of 1. A share the road
bikeway design will meet the needs of the interested but concerned bicyclist on LTS 1
streets (low-speed/low-volume streets). Therefore, we are not evaluating an interim
bikeway for the alternate alignment. This type of bicycle facility will fit within the
existing road footprint and there will be no impacts to public or private property. See
Table 9 for impacts and costs.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 20
Page 14 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
Table 9
Interested but concerned design
Alternate alignment
Physical impacts-
environmental
Tree removal None
Impervious change
Physical impacts -private
Driveway parking None
Right of way acquisition None
Building setbacks None
Fences None
Landscaping None
Private utility relocations None
Physical impacts - public
Street modifications:
Lane width reduction,
change of number of lanes
or street width
None
On-street parking None
Retaining walls needed None
Financial
Cost The estimated cost to design and build the Share the road
bikeway is $300,000
Budget vs. estimated costs The city’s CIP estimate to install this bikeway is $300,000.
Operations and maintenance
costs
There are no additional operations and maintenance costs.
General levy The estimated cost is within the budget for this project. As a
result, general levy impacts have already been factored into
council budget discussions.
Social capital
• Neighborhood
reception/ acceptance
• Community reception/
acceptance
• Public input
Most of the feedback received for bikeways has been from
residents that live along the streets scheduled for pavement
replacement. The most common question was would the
bikeway remove on-street parking, which is not necessary to
install a share the road bikeway. We have received no
community feedback on these bikeway segments.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 21
Page 15 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
5. Returns
Destinations Connected: Exhibit A shows the various destinations connected with the
Connect the Park alignment. Exhibit B shows the various destinations within the
neighborhood that the alternate route will connect. Both alignments connect many
important destinations within and adjacent to the Fern Hill neighborhood.
Population served: The Connect the Park and alternate alignment bikeway routes serve the
following populations. The table includes residents within St. Louis Park (SLP) and
Minneapolis (Mpls) due to the 0.5-mile buffer of the east end of the 26th Street and 28th
Street bikeways.
Table 10
Population served
(within 0.5 mile)
Connect the Park Alignment Alternate Alignment
Within SLP Within Mpls Within SLP Within Mpls
Number of residents
within 0.5 mile 8868 804 8761 1851
Age
Under 5 years 6% 6% 6% 3%
5 - 19 years 14% 7% 14% 3%
20 - 64 years 67% 49% 67% 75%
65 and up 13% 38% 13% 19%
Race
White 77% 90% 77% 88%
BIPOC 23% 10% 23% 12%
Gender
Male 48% 49% 48% 53%
Female 52% 51% 52% 47%
Barriers overcome: Highway 100 is a barrier to the west of the neighborhood. There is an
existing bicycle/ pedestrian bridge over the highway at 28th Street. There is a bikeway on
France Avenue. This bikeway will create a connection to this bridge for users, promoting a
safe, comfortable, low-carbon/ no-carbon travel method option for travel through this
neighborhood.
Safety: The recommended bikeways offer a convenient, low-stress access to local
destinations through the neighborhood. This route is designed for people of all ages and
abilities. The bikeway will increase comfort for users and promote safety. Designating a
bikeway through the neighborhood will raise awareness for drivers to watch for bicycles.
6. Return on investment (ROI)
At past study sessions, the council discussed the importance of determining the cost-
effectiveness and return on investment (ROI) the recommended bikeway alignment
provides to the city. Staff evaluated the impacts, costs, and returns for the recommended
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 22
Page 16 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
bikeways to develop a ROI for this project. This feasibility report provided this analysis for
the following bikeway options.
1. Connect the Park alignment – shared-use trail (north side)
2. Connect the Park alignment – shared-use trail (south side)
3. Alternate alignment – share the road bikeway
The conclusion from the evaluation is that staff is recommending option 3. This
recommendation is based on the relatively low impacts and lower costs. This route directly
connects destinations, while still serving approximately the same population as the Connect
the Park alignment.
Staff does not recommend installing a bikeway on the original Connect the Park alignment;
this is due to the extensive impacts to private properties in the corridor, tree removal, and
high cost.
The installation of this bikeway is consistent with city’s updated Connect the Park goal of a
more livable neighborhoods that provide convenient and safe ways to use low-carbon and
no-carbon travel methods.
Additionally, the installation of the bikeway is consistent with city’s strategic priorities to
“be committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the
city, comfortably, safely, and reliably.”
This bikeway will provide the most comfort for potential users while still providing a
bikeway connection through the neighborhood. For these reasons, the alternate alignment
bikeway creates a positive return on investment for the Fern Hill neighborhood and the
community.
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Connect the Park bikeway alignment: Destinations connected
Exhibit B: Alternate bikeway alignment: Destinations connected
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 23
HHIIGGHHWWAAYY110000SSIINNGGLLEEWWOOOODDAAVVEESSGGLLEENNHHUURRSSTTAAVVEESSCEDAR LAKE AVECEDAR LAKE AVE
MINNETONKA BLVDMINNETONKA BLVDOTTAWA AVE SOTTAWA AVE SJOPPA AVE SJOPPA AVE SNATCHEZ AVE SNATCHEZ AVE S28TH ST W28TH ST W
29TH ST W29TH ST W
SSUUNNSSEE TT BB LLVV DD
2277TTHH SSTT WW
22 66 TT HH SSTT WW
CEDAR SHOR
E
CEDAR SHORE
DRDR
CEDAR
S
T
CEDAR
S
T
FRANCE AVE SFRANCE AVE SKIPLING AVE SKIPLING AVE SHUNTINGTON AVE SHUNTINGTON AVE SMONTEREY AVE SMONTEREY AVE SLYNN AVE SLYNN AVE SSSEERRVVIICCEEDDRRHHIIGGHHWWAAYY110000SSTOLEDO AVE STOLEDO AVE SRALEIGH AVE SRALEIGH AVE SQUENTIN AVE SQUENTIN AVE SPRINCETON AVE SPRINCETON AVE SSALEM AVE SSALEM AVE SMMOONNTTEERREEYYPPKKWW YYCC OO UU NN TT YY RR OO AA DD 22 55
BARRY STBARRY ST
CarpenterCarpenter
ParkPark
Twin LakesTwin Lakes
ParkPark
Fern HillFern Hill
ParkPark
Legend
Connect The Park alignment
Existing bikeway
Minneapolis existing and planned bikeway
Existing trail
METRO bus stop
METRO bus route 17
METRO bus route 25
Faith center
Parks
Municipal boundary
Connect the Park alignment: destinations connected
M i n n e a p o l i sBeth El SynagogueBeth El Synagogue
Exhibit A
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 24
HHIIGGHHWWAAYY110000SSIINNGGLLEEWWOOOODDAAVVEESSGGLLEENNHHUURRSSTTAAVVEESSCEDAR LAKE AVECEDAR LAKE AVE
MINNETONKA BLVDMINNETONKA BLVDOTTAWA AVE SOTTAWA AVE SJOPPA AVE SJOPPA AVE SNATCHEZ AVE SNATCHEZ AVE S28TH ST W28TH ST W
29TH ST W29TH ST W
SSUUNNSSEE TT BB LLVV DD
2277TTHH SSTT WW
22 66 TT HH SSTT WW
CEDAR SHORE
CEDAR SHORE
DRDR
CEDAR
S
T
CEDAR
S
T
FRANCE AVE SFRANCE AVE SKIPLING AVE SKIPLING AVE SHUNTINGTON AVE SHUNTINGTON AVE SMONTEREY AVE SMONTEREY AVE SLYNN AVE SLYNN AVE SSSEERRVVIICCEEDDRRHHIIGGHHWWAAYY110000SSTOLEDO AVE STOLEDO AVE SRALEIGH AVE SRALEIGH AVE SQUENTIN AVE SQUENTIN AVE SPRINCETON AVE SPRINCETON AVE SSALEM AVE SSALEM AVE SMMOONNTTEERREEYYPPKKWW YYCC OO UU NN TT YY RR OO AA DD 22 55
BARRY STBARRY ST
CarpenterCarpenter
ParkPark
Twin LakesTwin Lakes
ParkPark
Fern HillFern Hill
ParkPark
Legend
Alternate alignment
Existing bikeway
Minneapolis existing and planned bikeway
Existing trail
METRO bus stop
METRO bus route 17
METRO bus route 25
Faith center
School
Parks
Municipal boundary
Alternate alignment: destinations connected
M i n n e a p o l i sTorah Academy Torah Academy
of Minneapolisof Minneapolis
Congregation Congregation
Bedek HabayisBedek Habayis
Beth El SynagogueBeth El Synagogue
Exhibit B
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 25
Sidewalk Feasibility Review
Pavement Management Area 8, Fern Hill
Project no. 4021-1000
Introduction: The engineering department has completed the design of the 2022 Pavement
Management Project. This project includes rehabilitation of several miles of local residential
streets in the Fern Hill neighborhood. As part of the project development, sidewalks and
bikeways identified in the city’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) have been evaluated for
inclusion into the project.
The following feasibly review focuses on the sidewalks identified as part of the Connect the
Park CIP. Consistent with the Living Streets policy, staff has evaluated the existing sidewalk
network as a part of this transportation project to identify gaps. This has resulted in the
consideration of a few sidewalk gap segments as a part of this project.
In addition to the Connect the Park and gap sidewalks, several neighborhood residents have
asked the city to explore the construction of additional sidewalks to provide more north-south
walking options to the various destinations near the neighborhood.
Together the recommended system of sidewalks creates the recommended sidewalk network
shown in exhibit C.
Feasibility review: The process includes using the following criteria to determine return on
investment (ROI).
1. Scope
Understanding the scope of the project is key for putting together the impacts and costs.
This report is a feasibility review for proposed sidewalks. These sidewalk segments are
associated with the 2022 Pavement Management project, which provides greater design
flexibility, is cost-effective and limits impacts to residents to one construction season.
2. Data
Before beginning design, staff collected data to help make design recommendations. Table
1 below is a summary of this information. Exhibit A and B contain specific information for
each sidewalk segment broken out block by block.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 26
Page 2 of 6
Sidewalk Feasibility Review
Table 1
Traffic Volumes 100 to 1,000 vehicles/day
Traffic Speeds (average) 19 to 25 mph
(Data collected prior to 20 mph speed limits)
Existing right of way 50 to 60 feet
Space between curb and
right of way
The available space in the right of way for sidewalk
varies from street to street and even between each side
of the street on a block. Staff found this distance varied
from 11 feet to 17.5 for the recommended sidewalk
segments.
Existing sidewalk There are streets with existing sidewalks on one or both
sides of the streets. This includes streets with gaps in the
sidewalk system. Some blocks have no sidewalks on
either side.
Trees There are approximately 45 trees in the boulevard on
the recommended sidewalk segments.
Topography of boulevard While generally flat, there are areas where the slope
results in the need to construct retaining walls.
Driveways The number of driveways varies from 1 to 12 driveways
for each sidewalk segment. The driveway slopes and
lengths are adequate on the recommended sidewalk
segments to construct a compliant sidewalk.
Utilities in right of way There are power poles and fiber handholes. Other
utilities that could be observed are gas and
communications lines.
Drainage There is adequate drainage throughout the
neighborhood.
Destinations Schools, places of worship, transit, commercial
buildings, and parks. See exhibit C for specific
destinations within this neighborhood.
Building setbacks All homes are at least 30 feet from the right of way.
3. Design
The type of facility will guide the base design. The standard design for a sidewalk is a 6-foot-
wide concrete sidewalk with a 5-foot-wide grass boulevard for community sidewalks. The
width of the concrete sidewalk is reduced to 5 feet for neighborhood sidewalks. The extra
foot of concrete on the community sidewalks assists the city with snow removal due to the
width of their equipment. This typical design is applied to the corridor and adjustments are
made, where possible, to minimize impacts. For this project, the adjustments result in the
boulevard varying from 0 to 11.25 feet to protect existing trees.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 27
Page 3 of 6
Sidewalk Feasibility Review
4. Impacts and cost
The design results in impacts. These include physical impacts to the environment, private
and public property. There are also financial considerations, including cost, operation,
maintenance, and general levy. Below is a summary of this information. Exhibit B contains
specific information for each sidewalk segment broken out block by block.
Table 2
Physical impacts- environmental
Tree removal Out of the 45 boulevard trees, there are 19 trees that will be
removed to build the recommended sidewalk. When
evaluating the sidewalk network and making individual
segment recommendations, staff placed a priority on saving
mature, higher-value trees.
To support our urban forest, trees removed will be replaced
based on size (caliper inch). Two hundred fifty-four (254)
caliper inches of trees will be planted to replace the trees
removed.
Impervious change The sidewalk is designed to drain to the grass boulevard and
infiltrate into the ground. As a result, in most areas, there is
no increase to the impervious directly connected to the
storm sewer system due to sidewalk construction.
On 28th Street between Princeton Avenue and Monterey
Parkway, the street will be reduced from 30-34 feet wide to
28 feet wide to add a grass boulevard between the existing
sidewalk and the street. This impervious reduction will offset
the areas of sidewalk that were moved to the back of curb to
protect trees.
Physical impacts -private
Parking changes There are no on-street parking changes due to
recommended sidewalks.
Right of way acquisition There are no right of way acquisition needs due to
recommended sidewalks.
Fences There are no impacts to fences due to recommended
sidewalks.
Landscaping There will be impacts to four private landscaping areas due
to recommended sidewalks. Staff will work with residents on
impacts limits and timing in order to salvage landscaping as
necessary.
Private utility relocations There are four power poles and two communication hand
holes that will need to be relocated due to the
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 28
Page 4 of 6
Sidewalk Feasibility Review
recommended sidewalks. Staff will work with private utility
companies on relocations.
Physical impacts - public
Street modifications:
lane width reduction,
change of number of lanes,
or street widths
On all new sidewalks, there is not a need to change the
street width to minimize impacts for sidewalk construction.
On 28th Street between Princeton Avenue and Monterey
Parkway, the street will be reduced from 30-34 feet wide to
28 feet wide to add a grass boulevard between the existing
sidewalk and the street.
Note, there are street width reductions due to watermain
construction and street right-sizing; these are recommended
regardless of sidewalk construction.
Retaining walls needed There are two locations where an existing retaining wall will
need to be removed and reconstructed for the
recommended sidewalk. There is one location where a new
retaining wall is required due to slope of the boulevard. The
new retaining wall will require railing on the top due to the
height of the wall (approx. 4 feet tall)
Social capital
• Neighborhood
reception/ acceptance
• Community reception/
acceptance
• Public input
The public input received for each sidewalk segment and
sidewalks in general can be found in exhibit B. Most of this
feedback is from neighborhood residents. We have received
very little community feedback on these sidewalks segments.
Financial
Cost The cost to design and build the recommended sidewalks is
$815,120
Budget vs. estimated costs The city’s CIP includes $831,600 for new sidewalk
construction.
Operations and
maintenance costs
The additional operations and maintenance costs are
planned for in the budget.
General levy The estimated cost is within the budget for this project. As a
result, general levy impacts have already been factored into
council budget discussions.
5. Returns
The returns of a project are quantified in the destinations connected, the population
served, the removal of barriers to non-vehicle travel and the improvements to safety.
Destinations connected: Exhibit C shows the important destinations within and adjacent to
the neighborhood that these sidewalks will connect.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 29
Page 5 of 6
Sidewalk Feasibility Review
Population served: The recommended sidewalk network serves the population shown in
Table 3.
Table 3: Population served (within 0.25 mile)
Number of residents within 0.25 mile 3141
Age
Under 5 years 7%
5 - 19 years 14%
20 - 64 years 67%
65 and up 12%
Race
White 76%
BIPOC 24%
Gender
Male 47%
Female 53%
Barriers overcome: Many of the street segments in this neighborhood do not have
sidewalks on either side of the road. In addition, there are blocks where the sidewalk is not
continuous, creating gaps in the sidewalk network. Installing the recommended sidewalks
will remove these barriers.
Safety: In this neighborhood, the north-south roads carry higher volumes of vehicle traffic.
Building a dedicated pedestrian network on at least one side of the road on many of the
north-south roads in the neighborhood will create a safe space for pedestrians.
6. Return on investment (ROI)
At past study sessions, the council discussed the importance of determining the cost-
effectiveness and return on investment (ROI) the recommended sidewalk network provides
to the city. Staff evaluated the impacts, costs, and returns for the recommended sidewalks
to develop a ROI for this project.
Staff has refined the design of the recommended sidewalks to minimize the overall impacts
to the neighborhood. These impacts are typical for this type of project and the costs are
within the CIP budget.
The installation of the recommended sidewalks is consistent with city’s updated Connect
the Park goal of more livable neighborhoods that provide convenient and safe ways to use
low-carbon and no-carbon travel methods.
Additionally, the installation of the recommended sidewalks is consistent with city’s
strategic priorities to “be committed to providing a variety of options for people to make
their way around the city, comfortably, safely, and reliably.” The expanded network of
sidewalks removes barriers by filling in sidewalk gaps and creates connections to the
destinations in the Fern Hill neighborhood and beyond.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 30
Page 6 of 6
Sidewalk Feasibility Review
Furthermore, the recommended sidewalks respond to requests from residents to have
additional sidewalks within the neighborhood. Building sidewalks along at least one side of
the north-south blocks creates a robust network of sidewalks in the Fern Hill neighborhood.
The resulting network created by the addition of these sidewalk segments removes barriers to
walking, creates a connected sidewalk network and is consistent with the vision for the
community. For these reasons, the recommended sidewalks create a positive return on
investment for the Fern Hill neighborhood and the community.
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Sidewalk map
Exhibit B: Sidewalk segment matrix
Exhibit C: Recommended sidewalk network: Destinations connected
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 31
MONTEREY AVE SMONTEREY AVE SMINNETONKA BLVDMINNETONKA BLVD OTTAWA AVE SOTTAWA AVE S26TH ST W26TH ST W
NATCHEZ AVE SNATCHEZ AVE S28TH ST W28TH ST WUTICA AVE SUTICA AVE S29TH ST W29TH ST W
27TH ST W27TH ST W
31ST ST W31ST ST WHIGHWAY 100 SHIGHWAY 100 STOLEDO AVE STOLEDO AVE SRALEIGH AVE SRALEIGH AVE SQUENTIN AVE SQUENTIN AVE SPRINCETON AVE SPRINCETON AVE SSALEM AVE SSALEM AVE SMMOONNTTEERREEYYPPKKWW YYCarpenterCarpenter
ParkPark
Twin LakesTwin Lakes
ParkPark
Fern HillFern Hill
ParkPark
´
2022 Pavement Management Project
Staff recommendations: sidewalks and snow removal responsibility
Legend
Sidewalk not recommended
Sidewalk recommended
Existing sidewalk
Existing trails
Sidewalk/trail snow removal by citySW #1SW #2SW #3SW #4SW #5SW #6SW #7SW #8SW #9SW #10SW #11SW #12SW #13SW #14SW #15SW #16SW #17SW #18SW #19SW #20SW #21
SW #22
SW #23
Exhibit A
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 32
Exhibit B: Page 1 of 23
Segment #1
Toledo Avenue (west side) – 2600 Block
Gap sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 114 vehicles/day
Average speed 20 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 16 feet
Proposed boulevard width 6 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 6 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 76 feet (12%)
Existing sidewalk length 540 feet (88%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 1 tree
Trees removed 1 tree (16 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 1 residential property
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping None
Retaining walls Replace 70 feet of existing retaining wall
Private utility relocations Relocate 1 power pole
Financial:
Construction cost $12,233.74
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $160.97 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Completion of sidewalk on west side of the
street would provide a sidewalk connection
between Minnetonka Boulevard and
destinations throughout the neighborhood.
Exhibit B
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 33
Exhibit B: Page 2 of 23
Segment #2
Toledo Avenue (east side) – 2600 Block
Connect the Park sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 114 vehicles/day
Average speed 20 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 12.5 feet
Proposed boulevard width 5.75 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 6 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 35 feet (6%)
Existing sidewalk length 540 feet (94%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard None
Trees removed None
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 1 residential property
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping None
Retaining walls Replace 95 feet of existing retaining wall
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $5,241.75
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $149.76 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Completion of sidewalk on east side of the
street would provide a sidewalk connection
between Minnetonka Boulevard and
destinations throughout the neighborhood.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 34
Exhibit B: Page 3 of 23
Segment #3
Salem Avenue (west side) – 2600 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 399 vehicles/day
Average speed 22 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 16.5 to 17.5 feet
Proposed boulevard width 8 to 11.25 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 617 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 9 trees
Trees removed 2 trees (30 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 9 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping None
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $41,839.22
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $67.81 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Salem Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. There is more right of way on
the west side and less tree impacts.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 35
Exhibit B: Page 4 of 23
Segment #4
Salem Avenue (east side) – 2600 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 399 vehicles/day
Average speed 22 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 13 to 14 feet
Proposed boulevard width 6 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 620 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 9 trees
Trees removed 9 trees (155 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 9 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) New sidewalk would result in 3 steep
driveway grades
Landscaping None
Retaining walls Install 56 feet of new retaining wall
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $64,589.96
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $104.18 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Salem Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. There is more right of way on
the west side and less tree impacts.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 36
Exhibit B: Page 5 of 23
Segment #5
Salem Avenue (west side) – 2700 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 489 vehicles/day
Average speed 25 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 12.5 to 14.5 feet
Proposed boulevard width 4.25 to 8 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 619 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 7 trees
Trees removed 2 trees (60 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 9 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping 1 property (vegetation)
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $52,621.96
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $85.01 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? No
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Salem Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. There is more right of way on
the east side and less tree impacts (by
caliper inches).
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 37
Exhibit B: Page 6 of 23
Segment #6
Salem Avenue (east side) – 2700 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 489 vehicles/day
Average speed 25 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 14 to 16 feet
Proposed boulevard width 3 to 5 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 619 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 5 trees
Trees removed 3 trees (24 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 10 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping None
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations Relocate one power pole and one handhole
Financial:
Construction cost $55,046.08
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $88.93 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Salem Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. There is more right of way on
the east side and less tree impacts (by
caliper inches).
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 38
Exhibit B: Page 7 of 23
Segment #7
Salem Avenue (west side) – 2800 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 565 vehicles/day
Average speed 21 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 15.5 to 17.5 feet
Proposed boulevard width 0 to 5 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 631 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 3 trees
Trees removed 1 tree (50 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 7 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping 1 property (vegetation)
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $77,546.95
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $122.90 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Salem Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. There is more right of way on
the west side and impacts to driveway at
5132 28th Street would cause a steep
driveway that would make access difficult.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 39
Exhibit B: Page 8 of 23
Segment #8
Salem Avenue (east side) – 2800 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 565 vehicles/day
Average speed 21 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 11 to 13 feet
Proposed boulevard width 3 to 5 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 629 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 3 trees
Trees removed 2 trees (15 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 7 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) New sidewalk would result in 1 steep
driveway grade
Landscaping 1 property (brick pavers, fireplace, bench)
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $85,829.98
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $136.45 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? No
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Salem Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. There is more right of way on
the west side and impacts to driveway at
5132 28th Street would cause a steep
driveway that would make access difficult.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 40
Exhibit B: Page 9 of 23
Segment #9
Raleigh Avenue (west side) – 2700 Block
Gap sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 844 vehicles/day
Average speed 24 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 15 feet
Proposed boulevard width 3 to 7 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 565 feet (90%)
Existing sidewalk length 60 feet (10%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 10 trees
Trees removed 1 tree (8 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 9 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping None
Retaining walls Install 136 feet of new retaining wall
Private utility relocations Relocate 2 power poles and 1 handhole
Financial:
Construction cost $76,864.88
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $123.18 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? No
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Raleigh Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. The sidewalk on the east side
required less changing of the boulevard
width to save trees, less root damage to
existing trees, less tree impacts (by caliper
inches) and no retaining wall.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 41
Exhibit B: Page 10 of 23
Segment #10
Raleigh Avenue (east side) – 2700 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 844 vehicles/day
Average speed 24 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 14 feet
Proposed boulevard width 5 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 621 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 1 tree
Trees removed 1 tree (5 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 9 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping 1 property (vegetation)
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations Relocate 1 handhole
Financial:
Construction cost $67,235.51
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $108.27 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Raleigh Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. The sidewalk on the east side
required less changing of the boulevard
width to save trees, less root damage to
existing trees, less tree impacts (by caliper
inches) and no retaining wall.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 42
Exhibit B: Page 11 of 23
Segment #11
Raleigh Avenue (west side) – 2800 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 849 vehicles/day
Average speed 25 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 15 to 17 feet
Proposed boulevard width 5 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 626 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 1 tree
Trees removed 1 tree (12 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 7 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping None
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations Relocate 1 power pole
Financial:
Construction cost $71,147.77
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $113.65 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Raleigh Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. There is more right of way on
the west side and less tree impacts
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 43
Exhibit B: Page 12 of 23
Segment #12
Raleigh Avenue (east side) – 2800 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 849 vehicles/day
Average speed 25 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 11.5 to 14 feet
Proposed boulevard width 5 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 626 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 6 trees
Trees removed 5 trees (103 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 6 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping None
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $63,126.25
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $100.84 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? No
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Raleigh Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. There is more right of way on
the west side and less tree impacts.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 44
Exhibit B: Page 13 of 23
Segment #13
Raleigh Avenue (west side) – 2900 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 918 vehicles/day
Average speed 24 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 13.5 to 15.5 feet
Proposed boulevard width 4 to 5 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 602 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 13 trees
Trees removed None
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 9 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping None
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $38,474.23
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $63.91 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Raleigh Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. The west side has no tree
impacts, where the east side has tree
impacts, landscaping impacts and would
require a new retaining wall.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 45
Exhibit B: Page 14 of 23
Segment #14
Raleigh Avenue (east side) – 2900 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 918 vehicles/day
Average speed 24 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 15.5 to 17.5 feet
Proposed boulevard width 5 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 602 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 4 trees
Trees removed 2 trees (12 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 7 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) New sidewalk would result in 1 steep
driveway grade and 1 driveway shorter than
20 feet.
Landscaping 1 property (vegetation)
Retaining walls Install 117 feet of new retaining wall
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $67,890.39
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $112.77 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? No
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Raleigh Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. The west side has no tree
impacts, where the east side has tree
impacts, landscaping impacts and would
require a new retaining wall.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 46
Exhibit B: Page 15 of 23
Segment #15
Quentin Avenue (west side) – 2600 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 693 vehicles/day
Average speed 20 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 16.25 feet
Proposed boulevard width 5 to 9 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 619 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 4 trees
Trees removed None
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 12 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping 1 property (vegetation)
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $45,071.28
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $72.81/ foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested the
construction of a sidewalk on the west side
of Quentin Ave. This sidewalk on would
provide continuous sidewalk between
Minnetonka Boulevard and destinations
throughout the neighborhood.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 47
Exhibit B: Page 16 of 23
Segment #16
Quentin Avenue (east side) – 2600 Block
Connect the Park sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 693 vehicles/day
Average speed 20 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 14.25 feet
Proposed boulevard width 3 to 5 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 6 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 619 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Community sidewalk (city)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 4 trees
Trees removed 3 trees (45 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 9 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping 1 property (vegetation)
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $60,475.39
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $97.70/ foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Construction of sidewalk on east side of
street that would provide a sidewalk
between Minnetonka Boulevard and
destinations throughout the neighborhood.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 48
Exhibit B: Page 17 of 23
Segment #17
Quentin Avenue (east side) – 2700 Block
Connect the Park sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 957 vehicles/day
Average speed 22 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 14 feet
Proposed boulevard width 5 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 6 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 157 feet (26%)
Existing sidewalk length 462 feet (74%)
Snow removal responsibility Community sidewalk (city)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard None
Trees removed None
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 1 residential property
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping None
Retaining walls Install 142 feet of new retaining wall
Private utility relocations Relocate one power pole
Financial:
Construction cost $47,244.45
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $300.92/ foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Construction of sidewalk on east side of
street that would provide a sidewalk
between Minnetonka Boulevard and
destinations throughout the neighborhood.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 49
Exhibit B: Page 18 of 23
Segment #18
Ottawa Avenue (west side) – 2800 Block
Connect the Park sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 452 vehicles/day
Average speed 19 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 50 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 10.75 to 11.25 feet
Proposed boulevard width 4 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 6 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 624 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 13 trees
Trees removed 13 trees (229 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 7 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping 3 properties (stone, vegetation)
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations Relocate one power pole
Financial:
Construction cost $57,122.78
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $91.54/ foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? No
Recommendation based on Due to traffic volumes and resident
feedback, staff recommends sidewalk on
this block. Due to limited right of way and
tree impacts, staff recommends sidewalk on
only the east side of the street. The east side
has significantly less tree and landscaping
impacts.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 50
Exhibit B: Page 19 of 23
Segment #19
Ottawa Avenue (east side) – 2800 Block
Connect the Park sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 452 vehicles/day
Average speed 19 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 50 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 11.25 to 12 feet
Proposed boulevard width 4 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 6 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 624 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Community sidewalk (city)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 7 trees
Trees removed 7 trees (72 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 8 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping None
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $51,918.88
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $83.20/ foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Due to traffic volumes and resident
feedback, staff recommends sidewalk on
this block. Due to limited right of way and
tree impacts, staff recommends sidewalk on
only the east side of the street. The east side
has significantly less tree and landscaping
impacts.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 51
Exhibit B: Page 20 of 23
Segment #20
Monterey Parkway (west side) – 2800 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 110 vehicles/day
Average speed 19 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 50 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 6 to 13 feet
Proposed boulevard width 0 to 6.25 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 750 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 7 trees
Trees removed 3 trees (40 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 8 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) New sidewalk would result in 1 steep
driveway grade
Landscaping 1 property (vegetation)
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $71,738.32
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $95.65/ foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? No
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalk on Monterey Parkway. Due to
lower traffic volumes, private property
impacts, tree impacts and limited right of
way that requires sidewalk at back of curb
for parts of the block, staff is not
recommending this sidewalk at this time.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 52
Exhibit B: Page 21 of 23
Segment #21
Monterey Parkway (east side) – 2800 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 110 vehicles/day
Average speed 19 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 50 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 6 to 11.5 feet
Proposed boulevard width 0 to 4 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 807 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 8 trees
Trees removed 2 trees (10 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 9 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping 1 property (bushes)
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations Relocate 1 power pole
Financial:
Construction cost $78,624.08
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $97.43/ foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? No
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalk on Monterey Parkway. Due to
lower traffic volumes, private property
impacts, tree impacts and limited right of
way that requires sidewalk at back of curb
for parts of the block, staff is not
recommending this sidewalk at this time.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 53
Exhibit B: Page 22 of 23
Segment #22
28th Street (north side) – Between Toledo and Salem avenues
Gap sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 89 vehicles/day
Average speed 19 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 66 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 16.75 feet
Proposed boulevard width 8 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 6 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 152 feet (51%)
Existing sidewalk length 144 feet (49%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 5 trees
Trees removed 2 trees (15 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 1 residential property
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping 1 property (wall, vegetation)
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $14,519.91
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $95.53/ foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? No
Recommendation based on There already is an existing sidewalk on
south side of 28th Street that is continuous.
This sidewalk segment would only complete
a sidewalk gap on one block of the north
side.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 54
Exhibit B: Page 23 of 23
Segment #23
27th Street (south side) – Between Hwy 100 and Toledo Avenue
Gap sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes No data
(Low volume, estimated <50 vehicles/day)
Average speed No data
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 13.5 feet
Proposed boulevard width 5 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 6 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 92 feet (49%)
Existing sidewalk length 97 feet (51%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard None
Trees removed None
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 1 residential property
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping None
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations Relocate one power pole
Financial:
Construction cost $15,089.79
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $164.02/ foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? No
Recommendation based on Low traffic volumes and lack of connection
to destinations or existing sidewalks.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 55
HHIIGGHHWWAAYY110000SSIINNGGLLEEWWOOOODDAAVVEESSGGLLEENNHHUURRSSTTAAVVEESSCEDAR LAKE AVECEDAR LAKE AVE
MINNETONKA BLVDMINNETONKA BLVD OTTAWA AVE SOTTAWA AVE SJOPPA AVE SJOPPA AVE SNATCHEZ AVE SNATCHEZ AVE S28TH ST W28TH ST W
29TH ST W29TH ST W
SSUUNNSS EE TT BB LLVV DD
2277TTHH SSTT WW
22 66 TT HH SS TT WW
CEDAR SHORE
CEDAR SHORE
DRDR
CEDAR
S
T
CEDAR
S
T
FRANCE AVE SFRANCE AVE SKIPLING AVE SKIPLING AVE SHUNTINGTON AVE SHUNTINGTON AVE SMONTEREY AVE SMONTEREY AVE SLYNN AVE SLYNN AVE SSSEERRVVIICCEEDDRRHHIIGGHHWWAAYY110000SSTOLEDO AVE STOLEDO AVE SRALEIGH AVE SRALEIGH AVE SQUENTIN AVE SQUENTIN AVE SPRINCETON AVE SPRINCETON AVE SSALEM AVE SSALEM AVE SMMOONNTTEERREEYYPPKKWW YYCC OO UU NN TT YY RR OO AA DD 22 55
BARRY STBARRY ST
CarpenterCarpenter
ParkPark
Twin LakesTwin Lakes
ParkPark
Fern HillFern Hill
ParkPark
Legend
Recommended sidewalk
Existing trails
Existing sidewalk
METRO Bus stop
METRO bus route 17
METRO bus route 25
Apartment
Commercial
Faith center
School
Parks
Municipal boundary
Recommended sidewalks: destinations connected
M i n n e a p o l i sCongregation Congregation
Bedek HabayisBedek Habayis
Beth El SynagogueBeth El Synagogue
Congregation Congregation
Bais YisroelBais YisroelCongregation Congregation
Darchei NoamDarchei Noam
Torah Academy Torah Academy
of Minneapolisof Minneapolis
St. George's St. George's
Episcopal ChruchEpiscopal Chruch
The Minneapolis The Minneapolis
Community KollelCommunity KollelMikvah Mikvah
MinneapolisMinneapolis
Exhibit C
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 56
ST. LOUIS PARK “CONNECT
THE PARK” BICYCLE AND
PEDESTRIAN COUNT
PROGRAM MANUAL
3/3/2022 | DRAFT
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 57
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
St. Louis Park is implementing a bicycle and pedestrian count program to better understand the demand and
patterns of active transportation users throughout the City. This document provides an overview of the counting
methodology and an implementation guide.
The purpose of this count program is to count across the entire Connect the Park network at regular intervals
through the completion of the network in 2037, and provides an overview of the recommended count locations,
counting technique, and analysis procedure. This guide also contains appendices covering case studies and best
practice recommendations for counts in a variety of locations for both cyclists and pedestrian, a catalogue of
count devices and technology to streamline the collection, analysis, and storing of count data, and information on
count data factoring methodologies.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 58
3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................. 2
Count Program Details ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Count Program Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................................... 7
Count Program Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Roles and Responsibilities ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Count Program Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 8
Count Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Appendix A: Key Terms ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Appendix B: State of the Practice ......................................................................................................................... 11
National ................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Minnesota ............................................................................................................................................................. 11
Challenges ............................................................................................................................................................ 12
Appendix C: Case Studies ..................................................................................................................................... 13
The Wichita Bicycle Count Program .................................................................................................................... 13
North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority Pedestrian Count Program ...................................................... 13
Appendix D: Program Design ................................................................................................................................ 14
Short-Duration Counts .......................................................................................................................................... 14
Permanent Automated Counts ............................................................................................................................. 15
Where to Count ..................................................................................................................................................... 16
Who to Count ........................................................................................................................................................ 16
Equity Considerations ........................................................................................................................................... 17
Data Sharing ......................................................................................................................................................... 18
Appendix E: Count Technologies ......................................................................................................................... 19
Appendix F: Analysis and Reporting Methods .................................................................................................... 29
Adjustment Factors ............................................................................................................................................... 29
AADT .................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Performance Measures to Evaluate Investments ................................................................................................. 29
Appendix G: Factor Group Framework ................................................................................................................ 30
Conventional Factoring Approach ........................................................................................................................ 30
Day-of-Year Factoring Method ............................................................................................................................. 32
Recommended Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 32
Appendix H: Quality Control ................................................................................................................................. 35
Corrupted Data ..................................................................................................................................................... 35
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 59
4
Systemic Undercounting ....................................................................................................................................... 35
Unexpected Events Reflected in Data .................................................................................................................. 36
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 60
5
COUNT PROGRAM DETAILS
This Pedestrian and Bicycle Count Program Manual will instruct the City of St. Louis Park on recommendations,
best practices, and ongoing management for conducting bicycle and pedestrian counts to monitor the benefits of
the City’s “Connect the Park” program. This document also provides background information on count programs
in Minnesota, Hennepin County, and Minneapolis, lessons learned from several case studies, and recommended
methodologies for count data factoring and adjustment.
Following are a few details of the count program:
• All proposed count locations will use video recording technology to conduct the counts.
• Pedestrians and bicyclists will be counted at all locations, regardless of facility type.
• All counts should be at least 48 hours in duration, ideally including at least 1 weekday and at least 1
weekend day.
Some count locations are located at Connect the Park facilities that are not yet constructed. This is by design, as
counting at the same locations for the entire duration of the count program will allow analysis of trends and
before/after effects of specific Connect the Park facilities.
Following is a map of proposed count locations. Count locations were determined in cooperation with the City of
St. Louis Park, and generally aim to monitor active transportation activity levels throughout the entire Connect the
Park network along all critical bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 61
6
Figure 1: Proposed Count Locations
Short-duration counts (SDCs) will be performed at each of the 52 locations mapped above at regular intervals,
producing a unified dataset showing active transportation levels throughout St. Louis Park along the entire
Connect the Park network. Wherever possible, counters should be placed at intersections, to allow for the capture
of bicycle and pedestrian traffic counts in all directions. Count data will be gathered by a video count data
vendor/provider, under direct contract with the City of St. Louis Park.
Count data analysis should be performed by a professional consulting firm, if St. Louis Park does not have the
staff availability and/or capability to perform count data factoring, expansion, referencing, and analysis informed
by industry best practices. This database setup and annual analysis can be performed by Consultant on an
ongoing, annual basis, or Consultant can perform initial-year database setup and analysis, and provide detailed
instructions and documentation on how to amend the count data database with additional years of data in the
years following. St. Louis Park should choose the count data analysis management framework in accordance with
project budget(s), staff capabilities, and City internal policy.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 62
7
Count Program Goals and Objectives
Document active transportation use trends and patterns: Understanding bicycle and walking use trends and
patterns will allow the City to track its progress, to measure the impact of future infrastructure improvements in the
Connect the Park plan, and to generate additional metrics based upon walking and ridership levels.
Inform and review investment decisions: Understanding walking and bicycling travel patterns will equip the
City to make informed infrastructure investment decisions based on anticipated changes in bicycle and pedestrian
use.
Assess Connect the Park network performance: Accurate count data reflecting the levels of bicycling and
walking in St. Louis Park along the Connect the Park network will assist the city in its evaluation of the program.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 63
8
COUNT PROGRAM ANALYSIS
Roles and Responsibilities
The following table outlines the roles and responsibilities for implementing the Connect the Park count program,
and the responsible parties/organizations for each task.
Table 2: Connect the Park Count Program Roles and Responsibilities
Role/Responsibility Responsible Party
Program/Project Management, ongoing City of St. Louis Park, Engineering Department
Count data collection, pre-processing,
initial quality control, and exporting data
to Excel, annual basis
Count data vendor, under contract with City of St. Louis Park
Setup and annual update maintenance
for Relational Count Database Consultant, under contract with City of St. Louis Park
Initial year count data factoring,
expansion, and analysis Consultant, under contract with City of St. Louis Park
Subsequent years count data factoring
and analysis, as addenda to database
Consultant, under contract with City of St. Louis Park; or City of St.
Louis Park, following guidance and instructions produced by
Consultant
Count Program Recommendations
Strategy 1: count each Connect the Park facility at regular intervals
Strategy 2: count bicycles, pedestrians, and micromobility users by video
Strategy 3: develop unified relational count data database for analysis
Count Data Analysis
In order to properly estimate Annual Average Daily Bicycle Traffic (AADBT) and Annual Average Daily Pedestrian
Traffic (AADPT) on roadway, bicycle facility, and sidewalk segments, the SDC data must first be referenced to
Permanent Count Stations placed at locations similar to the SDC locations. Once expansion factors are derived
from analysis of the Permanent data, the factors are applied to the SDC data to expand the counts into estimated
Annual Averages for each SDC location.
Expansion Factors derived from Permanent data should (1) be based upon multiple years of Permanent count
data to account for fluctuations on a monthly level, and (2) be updated every few years to reflect macro-level
trends in bicycling and walking levels. For the implementation of the St. Louis Park Connect the Park Count
Program, we recommend updating the Permanent data factors every three years, referenced from permanent
count locations within Hennepin County. The expansion factors are then based upon three consecutive years of
permanent data, updated every three years.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 64
9
Further details of recommended specific count factoring methodologies and count data analysis frameworks are
given in Appendices F and G.
Count Program Outcomes
When successfully implemented, the Connect the Park Count Program will yield a detailed understanding of how
many people are using the Connect the Park facilities throughout the City, and in particular will allow analysis and
a data-driven assessment of the costs and benefits associated with each Connect the Park facility. By assessing
impacts through counting at key times throughout the network buildout, the City will be able to measure impacts
and benefits to people biking and walking in “real-time”, allowing for assessment of progress-to-date. The St.
Louis Park Connect the Park Count Program will serve as a model example for other similar communities wishing
to adopt data-driven assessment approaches in the planning and engineering processes for active transportation
networks.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 65
10
APPENDIX A: KEY TERMS
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS: Calculations used to estimate annual volume from short-duration counts. Factors are
derived from permanent (year-round) counter data.
ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY BICYCLE TRAFFIC (AADBT): The daily total volume of bicycle traffic at a specific
location averaged across a count year.
BMT: Bicycle miles traveled
CALIBRATION: Adjusting the sensitivity of an automated counter (e.g., inductive loops or pneumatic tubes) to
reduce under or over counting.
DAF: Daily adjustment factor
DIVERSION: Undercounting caused by bicyclists avoiding a detection zone.
FACTOR GROUP: A set of locations with similar hour-of-day, day-of-week, and seasonal bicycling activity
patterns.
FACTOR GROUP REFERENCE SITE: Location with a permanent counter installed that establishes the
adjustment factors for a factor group
HAF: Hourly adjustment factor
MADT: Monthly Average Daily Traffic
MAF: Monthly adjustment factor
MS2 NONMOTORIZED DATABASE SYSTEM (NMDS): MS2’s platform for storing nonmotorized volume data.
MS2 TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT MODULE (TMC): MS2’s platform for storing turning movement or
intersection data, including pedestrian and bicycle volume data.
OCCLUSION: Undercounting caused by certain technologies’ inability to sense when two people are bicycling
side- by-side.
PERMANENT AUTOMATED COUNTERS: Counters installed at fixed locations that continuously monitor traffic,
with the primary goal of understanding time-related activity patterns.
PMT: Pedestrian miles traveled
PROBE DATA: Data that is generated by monitoring the position of individual vehicles (i.e., probes) over space
and time rather than measuring characteristics of vehicles or groups of vehicles at a specific place and time. 2
SHORT-DURATION COUNT (SDC): Counts conducted over a limited duration, often between two hours and two
weeks, with the primary goal of increasing the spatial coverage of the monitoring program.
TMAS: Federal Highway Administration’s Travel Monitoring Analysis System
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 66
11
APPENDIX B: STATE OF THE PRACTICE
National
In recent years, cities and states throughout the United States have increased the amount of data they collect on
their transportation systems, with large growth in bicycle and pedestrian data collection systems.
In 2015, the FHWA began a one-year pilot project intended to increase the capacity for Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) to collect and use pedestrian and bicyclist data.1. The project resulted in several lessons
learned for MPOs in developing count programs, which are summarized below:
» Ensure sufficient staff time and resources are available for count programs.
» Involve partners in all steps of establishing and running a count program.
» Select count technology best suited to identified locations.
» Validate automatic count data with manual spot checks.
In addition to the FHWA’s pilot project, other national efforts have developed useful guidance for institutionalizing
bicycle and pedestrian traffic monitoring programs, methods to collect volume data, and approaches to analyzing
the resulting data. While practices for monitoring motorized traffic are very well established, bicycle and
pedestrian traffic have some essential distinctions from motorized traffic that require special consideration in
developing a count program:
» Bicyclists and pedestrians are more difficult to accurately and consistently monitor than motor vehicles
because they do not follow constrained paths, may obstruct one another from the sensors, and are
more difficult to detect reliably.
» Bicycle and pedestrian traffic variability is more complicated than motorized traffic, and these patterns
are not thoroughly understood.2
» Bicycle and pedestrian traffic count technologies are often different from those used for motorized
traffic, and therefore may require additional staff training, maintenance, and data management.
Minnesota
Statewide
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) began monitoring bicycle and pedestrian traffic in 2013
using technologies and procedures similar to those used to monitor vehicular traffic. From 2013 through 2015,
MnDOT procured and installed 13 continuous, automated counters at nine index sites throughout the state.
MnDOT has a combination of automated continuous and short-duration counters. They also support local
agencies collecting both automated and manual counts. MnDOT operates a lending library of portable automated
counting equipment for partner agencies to borrow and conduct SDCs. In 2019, MnDOT developed a strategic
plan for its count program and is working toward building a centralized repository for statewide count data.
Hennepin County
1. Federal Highway Administration. 2016. “Bicycle-Pedestrian Count Technology Pilot Project: Summary Report.”
2. For example, it is well established that bicycle trips are less likely during precipitation, but the extent to which this varies by geography, trip
purpose, and time of day is less well studied. Practically, this means that factoring methods might need to be different from established
practices for motorized traffic.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 67
12
Hennepin County collects a variety of bicycle and pedestrian data through automated bicycle counters and
volunteers. The county collects 48-hour bicycle counts, alternating sites in the northern and southern half of the
county. Staff look to six permanent counter locations across the county, which provide year-round data, in order to
calculate Average Annual Daily Bicyclists (AADB) volumes for 48-hour count sites.
Since 2015 the County has released four annual reports documenting changes in bicycle ridership based on
count data. Hennepin County also maintains an interactive map that displays AADT, including for bicyclists and
pedestrians. The County has conducted some limited bicycle and pedestrian counts in St. Louis Park.
Minneapolis
Minneapolis Public Works conducts pedestrian and bicyclist counts each year at a variety of locations including
bicycle paths, pedestrian shortcuts, local streets, downtown streets, on bridges, in parks, near schools and transit
stations. Minneapolis maintains an interactive map of daily pedestrian and bicyclist traffic counts conducted by
Minneapolis Public Works from 2007 to 2017. Since 2007, Public Works has released an annual report on its
pedestrian and bicyclist traffic count data.
Challenges
On the surface, it would seem simple to bridge the data collection gap for non-motorized modes by adding
pedestrian and bicycle volumes to existing motor vehicle traffic monitoring programs. However, while these
programs are a useful starting point, there are unique challenges associated with the collection of non-motorized
volume data that require careful consideration and, in some cases, entirely new approaches. These challenges
are described in more detail below.
Facility Characteristics: Bicyclists and pedestrians may enter or exit a facility at any point along a segment.
They also travel along a facility in a less predictable manner (e.g., a bicycle may travel within the roadway, or may
instead travel on the sidewalk or an adjacent path) that is difficult to account for. The complexity and diversity of
facility types and path of travel makes identification of appropriate detection zones a challenge.
Physical and Behavioral Differences: Bicycles and pedestrians are not prescribed design controls — unlike
motor vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists come in all shapes, sizes, and abilities. The slower variable speeds and
unpredictable paths of travel create challenges for effective detection and classification.
Local/seasonal Variability: Seasonal patterns can vary greatly and short duration weather events greatly
influence the choice to ride a bicycle or walk on any given day. The volume and distribution of bicycle and
pedestrian travel can vary significantly in different parts of a community, depending on the land use context and
local norms. As a result, the transferability of pedestrian and bicycle usage patterns from one facility to another on
the basis of facility characteristics or other easily identified features is questionable without additional validation.
Lack of Historical Data: Very little historical data is available for bicycle and pedestrian volumes. This lack of
historical data makes it difficult to answer simple questions, such as what a “typical” level of pedestrian or bicycle
travel on a particular facility is, or whether a specific design treatment will result in an increase in the amount of
bicycling or pedestrian activity.
Unique Challenges for Pedestrian Monitoring and Data Usage: Pedestrians are less constrained than
bicyclists in terms of their ability to travel outside the confines of a particular facility — they often cut through
parking lots, cross the street at midblock locations, or otherwise walk in locations without a designated facility.
Furthermore, every trip begins and ends with some amount of pedestrian travel. Pedestrian trips are relatively
short and volume can vary greatly over short distances.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 68
13
APPENDIX C: CASE STUDIES
The Wichita Bicycle Count Program
Wichita, KS has experience collecting bicycle counts using both manual and automated data collection practices.
The City’s bicycle counting program began with volunteers collecting manual counts at a small number of
locations and expanded to include automated counts in 2006, when the City’s Parks Department purchased three
TRAFx infrared counters. The TRAFx counters were placed along shared-use paths at three locations. The
addition of the automated TRAFx counters greatly increased the amount of data collected through the program,
while also bringing new challenges. Because the TRAFx counters cannot distinguish between pedestrian and
bicycle traffic, they are of limited value for developing estimates of bicycle volumes at these shared use path
locations. The City purchased two EcoCounters and two Metro Counters in 2013. Of the four counters purchased,
three count only bicyclists and one counts both bicyclists and pedestrians.
The City also uses additional data sources to supplement its bicycle count program. In particular, the City
leverages Census and American Community Survey, Strava 3, and local bike share data, which provides a window
into commuter and recreational bicycling trips around some of Wichita’s busiest streets. The City of Wichita
participates in, and receives count data from, the annual Wichita Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
(WAMPO) bicycle and pedestrian counts. Since 2012 WAMPO has collected bicycle and pedestrian counts at 35
locations across the WAMPO region. Volunteers collect manual counts over two-hour time periods. WAMPO uses
the data to understand bicycling and walking trends and to plan for future system improvements.
North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority Pedestrian Count Program
The NJTPA recently implemented a process to choose 100 locations for counting throughout its 15 subregions,
taking into account many contextual variables including population density, land-use context, bicycle and
pedestrian crash risk, and presence of Environmental Justice communities, among others. Following are a few
Lessons Learned from the process that may be applicable to counting in St. Louis Park.
Anticipate tradeoffs between comprehensive vs. targeted counts
In initial program setup and counting, achieving a more comprehensive and representative set of count locations
is important; however at later times, it may be efficient to conduct additional counts at targeted locations where
new facilities have been recently installed, new land-use patterns have emerged or changed, or activity levels are
anticipated to have changed.
Revise and improve methodology
It is important to keep the location selection methodology nimble over time, to respond to changing land-use
patterns, bicycle and pedestrian activity levels, and updates to the bicycle and pedestrian networks. Provide
enough time to adjust the methodology – the season in which counts are collected is important – so the final
locations should be identified at least a month in advance of field implementation. Consider also counting at new
locations each time, that fill in historical gaps in count and location type.
3 https://metro.strava.com/
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 69
14
APPENDIX D: PROGRAM DESIGN
There are two basic types of bicycle and pedestrian counts: continuous or permanent counts and short-duration
counts (SDCs). For both permanent counts and SDCs, agencies increasingly rely on automated counters, rather
than manual counts. Automated counters typically use infrared, piezoelectric technology, or pneumatic tubes to
detect bicyclists and pedestrians. Video is also used in some applications but is more labor-intensive to process
than other methods.
Continuous counts and SDCs are both necessary to develop a complete picture of non-motorized activity.
Continuous counts provide an in-depth understanding of travel patterns at a single site, whereas SDCs contribute
to a breadth of coverage across the geographic area of interest.
Short-Duration Counts
SDCs are conducted for limited durations, typically between two hours and two weeks,4 and may be performed
manually or with automated equipment. The primary function of SDCs is to expand the geographic coverage of a
count program. Volume data provided by SDCs can be extrapolated to develop annual estimates using factors
identified from permanent counters within the same factor group.
Manual SDCs provide a low-cost way to begin counting bicyclists and pedestrians and to collect behavioral and
demographic data that is difficult or impossible to obtain through automated counting technologies. However,
manual SDCs have significant limitations due to the extremely short counting interval, and they require significant
staff or volunteer time to enter and manage data.
Automated SDCs often cover a longer period than manual counts, resulting in a richer dataset that can illustrate
daily and weekly patterns of travel. Short-duration automated counts are most effective when they are
implemented as part of a systematic program that involves rotating the counters across a set of locations over a
given time interval, such as every three years. However, as-needed counts performed in response to stakeholder
requests or planning needs (e.g., to observe patterns before or after new projects are implemented, or at high-
crash locations) are an essential element of a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian count program. As-needed
counts can be performed manually or using SDC automated counters.
Permanent Automated Counts
Permanent automated counters are installed at fixed locations and continuously monitor bicycle and pedestrian
traffic. Their primary function is to understand the temporal variations in bicycle and pedestrian activity at a given
location. The continuous data provided by permanent counters can be used to understand how levels of bicycling
and walking are influenced by the season, day of the week, time of day, temperature, special events, or other
factors. Such analyses can be conducted with continuous data from at least one year of counting. Moreover, the
patterns identified from permanent counters serve as the basis for developing adjustment factors. Data from
several permanent counters can be used in combination to identify trends over time.
4. The amount of needed data depends on its intended use. Two hours of data is common for manual counts, due to their logistical limitations,
and may be appropriate for peak hour crossing counts, simple benchmarking, or manual observation of behavioral or demographic attributes.
Shorter automated counts (e.g., 24 hour) may be appropriate for regular, ongoing seasonal data collection efforts to support general
monitoring programs. For more data intensive analysis, such as the development of bicycle or pedestrian crash factors or comparing before-
after project activity levels, two weeks of data are needed.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 70
15
Installing permanent automated counters entails some ongoing cost for equipment maintenance and upkeep, data
management and reporting, and contracting with equipment and data management vendors. These costs should
not necessarily deter St. Louis Park from pursuing such initiatives, but the City should leverage partnerships with
and resources from other agencies to make permanent automated counters a feasible option.
Where to Count
Short-Duration Counts
SDCs are focused on expanding the geographic coverage of the programing, more count sites allow for a greater
understanding of travel patterns, additional analysis opportunities, and greater confidence in the data overall.
St. Louis Park and its partner agencies should conduct SDCs at locations that best represent the variety of
facilities, land use densities, and conditions of the total counting area. Short-duration counts should be taken at
locations that are anticipated to yield a range of volumes, not just at high-volume locations. Failing to also count at
low volume locations will yield biased results in any analysis conducted based on the count data.
Research into pedestrian and bicyclist monitoring programs has not determined an ideal number of short-duration
sites. Resource limitations are likely to be the determining factor in how many SDCs can be undertaken. To
maximize extrapolation accuracy, SDCs should be installed for at least one day (24 hours), and ideally for one to
two weeks to observe the full day-of-week patterns at the count site. When shorter counts are necessary,
consider monitoring both one mid-week day (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) and one weekend day
(Saturday or Sunday) to capture the weekday/weekend split at that location. The City can maximize the accuracy
of its SDCs by counting during high volume periods, such as during the summer months and during seasonably
mild, dry weather conditions.5 Unless the purpose of the SDC is to understand event-related traffic, unusually
large or atypical events that are not representative of typical travel patterns should be avoided for SDC.
It is recommended that the City identify SDC locations based on upcoming infrastructure projects, high-crash
locations, and available staffing and resource levels for managing the counting technology and data. When
undertaking a series of SDCs, agencies that have the requisite resources or technical expertise often develop
sophisticated methods for identifying a sample of count locations that are representative of the transportation
network.
Permanent Automated Counts
One of the prime objectives in locating permanent count sites is “representativeness” – the degree to which all of
the permanent count sites collectively represent the temporal patterns of St. Louis Park’s bicycling and walking
activity. To be representative, permanent count sites should be located across a variety of contexts. To achieve a
representative coverage of permanent count sites, the locations should not be limited to high volume locations as
this will bias traffic estimates inferred from the program. Permanent counters should be placed at a variety of
location types to capture variation in traffic patterns, and at location with at least some level of known bicycle and
walking activity. While it may be intuitive to want to place all permanent counters in locations with extremely high
activity levels, the counters should be distributed at locations with a diverse mix of observed activity levels and
5. SDC locations should not be limited to high volume locations. At the same time, greater accuracy can be achieved by performing SDC
during higher volume times of year (e.g., spring/fall). This is not a contradiction; volumes during higher-volume periods are typically more
stable, while low winter volumes can be highly volatile. Even at a low volume location, counting during its higher volume season leads to better
results.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 71
16
patterns to develop representative extrapolation factors. However, permanent counters should not be placed in
areas with very low volumes (i.e., less than approximately 100 users/day) unless significant land use and
infrastructure changes are planned, as these counters will not yield a meaningful pattern to be used for factor
development. Instead, SDCs can be used to provide initial counts prior to investing in a permanent counter at that
location.
For pedestrian and bicyclist traffic, the TMG recommends between three and five permanent counters be installed
per factor group. The TMG recommends initially establishing three-factor groups (recreational, commuting, and
mixed factor groups), so this implies a need for between nine and 15 permanent count sites to develop robust
factor groups. This proposal assumes that the three groups suggested below provide a thorough understanding of
patterns. However, the number of factor groups could increase as a better understanding of patterns is achieved.
A lower number of continuous counters could be adequate for certain factor groups if patterns appear to be
consistent across locations.
Permanent sites should be chosen deliberately. Pinch points such as bridges, trail heads, and other locations that
funnel users to one place often make for strong permanent count locations.6
When to Count
Generally, SDC data collection should occur during warm weather months, from May to September, to capture
peak pedestrian and bicyclist activity. The duration of a specific count site or set of sites depends on the
technology being used and the resources available. For example, video counts are typically higher cost and may
only be feasible for 12 to 48 hours, whereas pneumatic tubes (for bicyclists only) are relatively low cost and can
remain in one location for up to a month.
If a site is being counted for less than one week, it is preferable to collect both weekday (Tuesday, Wednesday, or
Thursday) and weekend counts, as well as AM and PM counts.
Who to Count
Selecting the appropriate count technology depends on who you intend to count. Table 3 shows which count
technologies can detect people walking, bicycling, or both. In addition to pedestrian and bicyclists, there are other
types of road users, both within the active transportation umbrella or adjacent to it, that many communities
consider worthy of monitoring. These include:
People with assistive mobility devices – To determine whether they are adequately serving people with
disabilities in compliance with ADA, many agencies collect information on the number of people using
assistive mobility devices: manual and electric wheelchairs, walkers, canes, etc.
People using micromobility devices – These users, which include electric scooters, e-bicycles, bikeshare
bicycles, and skateboards; Segway personal transporters; monowheels; and hoverboards, may have
different operating characteristics than both bicyclists and pedestrians.
6 Washington Department of Transportation. 2017. “Collecting Network-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Data: A Guidebook for When and Where
to Count.” https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/875-1.pdf
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 72
17
Vehicles – It is important to capture motorized traffic data in conjunction with active transportation
patterns. These data provide context for biking and walking levels and are especially important for
intersection counts, where most conflicts between users occur.
Table 3. Count Technologies Summary
Bikes Peds SDC Permanent
Video ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Infrared ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Pneumatic
Tubes
✔ ✔
Inductive
Loops
✔ ✔
Piezoelectric
Strips
✔ ✔
The two count methodologies appropriate for the St. Louis Park Connect the Park count program are Video and
Infrared.
Equity Considerations
As a part of the city’s strategic priorities and goals, a race equity lens should be applied to all city work and city
decisions. Race is a factor in the safety outcomes of road users of all modes. Many agencies are increasingly
recognizing the importance of understanding walking and bicycling travel patterns in Environmental Justice (EJ)
communities, where active transportation mode share is especially high, and where a disproportionate number of
people are killed while using walking and bicycling. Collecting count data is a proven data-driven method to
provide more equitable outcomes for EJ communities by ensuring that they are accounted for. However,
transportation practitioners must also recognize the importance of treating people’s lived experiences as essential
data, and seek ways to balance more quantitative analyses with genuine and thoughtful community engagement.
This section discusses several equity considerations related to bicycle and pedestrian count programs.
Collecting Demographic Data
Video count data offer a previously unattainable level of detail when it comes to who is walking and bicycling.
Some agencies have collected race data as part of their count programs, however there are several major
caveats to pursuing such an effort. Generally, race should be self-reported as it is a way that people identify
themselves. That said, there are racial signifiers, most obviously skin tone, that lead to assumptions about
someone’s race. It is not unheard of to use these assumptions in lieu of better data (e.g. in crash reporting),
however, this data would not be a reliable source and should be used with extreme caution and in combination
with other data sources. This is of even greater concern when the assumptions are being made based on a video
recording or machine learning. The data must be assumed to be inaccurate therefore it would not be useful for
any analysis. If another data source is available and can be used to validate video count data, then it could be of
more use.
Conducting Outreach Before Counting
Many communities of color, especially Black and immigrant populations, are understandably wary of any
surveillance. Therefore, installing cameras or other recording equipment in certain EJ communities may evoke
fear or mistrust from local residents without proper explanation. While some count equipment is inconspicuous
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 73
18
and may go unremarked, it is safer to explain the purpose of installing such technology before it appears. This will
also allow the City to verify its chosen count locations with residents, who are familiar with local travel patterns.
Data Sharing
The City will need to consider how to share pedestrian and bicycle data with researchers, advocacy
organizations, developers, consultants, and members of the public. There are a variety of ways the data might be
shared. From the perspective of a non-City user, the most accessible method may be to post the data on a
website. The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission’s pedestrian and bicycle count portal is an example
of a very robust platform for pedestrian and bicycle count data. The portal provides AADPT and AADBT estimates
for count locations throughout the DVRPC region as well as the underlying short duration count data, including
counts by day and hour. Users can access the data through an interactive map or download it through a link to
the DVRPC’s ArcGIS server. In addition to sharing data with others, an online portal might also be used to store
manual count data.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 74
19
APPENDIX E: COUNT TECHNOLOGIES
St. Louis Park will rely mainly on vendors to collect count data, which is more cost effective than purchasing
equipment. To support the City in identifying the best vendor for its needs, the following list includes a short
description of major count equipment, data management, and analysis vendors with a presence in Minnesota.7
Eco-Counter is a widely used platform for nonmotorized data collection. MnDOT purchased Eco-Counter
counters for both permanent and short-duration monitoring, as well as its equipment loan program. MnDot
selected Eco-Counter due to their relative accuracy and reliability and their integrated, online systems for
data analysis and reporting, as well as their capacity to provide counters to match different settings. (e.g.
inductive loops for roadways; passive infrared devices for sidewalks), daily internet uploads of traffic
counts for all counters for in-office viewing, and customized, integrated reporting for all permanent and
portable counters in MnDOT’s fleet, without the need for electrical power service to individual counters.8
Quality Counts offers both video and tube counts. Its inventory includes more than 900 video recording
systems to collect data in any condition. All video is processed manually, which is more accurate and
efficient than automated processing.
Miovision offers both SDC and permanent count services. Its TrafficLink software uses Artificial
Intelligence (AI) to monitor roadway activity in all types of weather conditions. Typically only one camera
is needed for an entire intersection, which can reduce installation and maintenance needs.
Metrocount uses pneumatic tubes for monitoring bicycles on roadways, which are available from MnDOT
upon request.
Chambers uses radio beam counters for monitoring bicycles and pedestrians on shared use paths and
sidewalks, which are available from MnDOT upon request.
TrailMaster uses active infrared monitors, which are available from the MnDOT Office of Transit
TrafX uses infrared counters to monitor people on trails, paths, and sidewalks. These can be installed for
either SDCs or permanent count locations.
Sensys uses networked wireless sensors to collect real-time bicycle count data that helps agencies
gauge the effectiveness of their existing bikeway investments.
St. Louis Park and its partner agencies should select technology and vendors that are appropriate based on the
context and duration of the count. The critical distinguishing factors between different technologies include their
suitability to a given context, ability to differentiate mode (i.e. pedestrians from bicyclists), ability to distinguish
direction of travel, accuracy, installation requirements, and cost. Where possible, technologies that differentiate
modes and directionality should be preferred. Some technologies are not capable of distinguishing bicyclists or
pedestrians in specific contexts. For example, passive infrared sensors placed on a shared-use path will capture
a combined pedestrian and bicyclist count and require supplemental count technology to identify separate bicycle
and pedestrian volumes. Table 4 presents preferred and alternative count technologies for various settings and
both short-duration and permanent installations.
7 This list is for informational purposes only and inclusion does not represent an endorsement of any vendor’s work or availability to perform
the work. Toole Design Group, LLC holds no responsibility for the actions of any vendor, regardless of inclusion in the list, who engages in
work for St. Louis Park, which is at the sole discretion and responsibility of the City.
8 Lindsey, G. (2017). The Minnesota Bicycle and Pedestrian Counting Initiative: Institutionalizing Bicycle and Pedestrian Monitoring. Humphrey
School of Public Affairs University of Minnesota. https://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/reports/2017/201702.pdf
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 75
20
Table 4. Recommended Count Technologies by Context and Duration
Context Permanent Short-Duration Automated
Bicycles in Bicycle Lane » Induction Loops
» Piezoelectric Strips
» Automated Video
» Pneumatic Tubes
» Automated Video
Bicycles in Mixed Traffic* » Piezoelectric Strips
» Automated Video
» Pneumatic Tubes
» Automated Video
Pedestrians on a Sidewalk » [Passive/Active] Infrared
» Automated Video
» Passive Infrared
» Active Infrared
» Automated Video
Pedestrians in a Crosswalk » Automated Video » Automated Video
Bicycles and Pedestrians on Multi-
Use Trail (separate counts)
» Passive Infrared + Induction
Loops
» Passive Infrared + Piezoelectric
Strips
» Automated Video
» Passive Infrared + Pneumatic
Tubes
» Automated Video
Bicycles and Pedestrians on Multi-
Use Trail (combined counts)
» Passive Infrared
» Active Infrared
» Passive Infrared
» Active Infrared
*Bicycle volume data collection in mixed traffic conditions should be limited to low-volume sites with 5,000 ADT or less.
The remainder of this Appendix provides much more detailed information on the variety of count technologies
available to agencies implementing active transportation count programs. For additional information on count
technologies, see NCHRP 797 and the accompanying NCHRP Web-Only Document 229, which includes revised
results and additional technologies not tested in the original study.26F
9 Chapter 4 of the FHWA’s TMG also provides
a good starting point for understanding the available technologies.27F
10
9. Ryus, P., A. Butsick, F.R. Proulx, R.J. Schneider, and T. Hull. 2016. “NCHRP Web-Only Document 229: Methods and Technologies for
Pedestrian and Bicycle Volume Data Collection- Phase 2.” http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/175860.aspx
10. Federal Highway Administration. 2016. “Traffic Monitoring Guide.” https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/tmguide/.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 76
21
Automated Video
» Description: Video footage is taken in the field, and
computer algorithms are used to identify individual
pedestrians or bicyclists. In some cases, the video may
be reviewed by vendor staff to classify pedestrians or
bicyclists.
» Recommended Duration: 24 hours to permanent.
» Recommended Context: Shared use path, on-street
bicycle lane, on-street mixed traffic, intersection.
» Applicable Count Type: Permanent, short-duration
automated.
Pros Cons
» Can be used to capture specific attributes, such as
user movements or other characteristics.
» Video can be saved and referred to later for further
observations.
» Wide detection width (up to 75’ depending on the
quality of images).
» Portable.
» Easy to install.
» Because of the proprietary nature and need for third
party processing, the full accuracy and effectiveness
of automated processing technology are unknown.
» High cost.
Special Considerations
» Mounts overhead at an angle; can be used for screenline (midblock) or intersection counting.
» Lighting and weather conditions can affect the video image.
» Potential for privacy concerns.
» Avoid:
Locations with poor lighting conditions (glare, heavy shadowing, etc.).
Locations where temporary obstructions may occlude data collection (delivery truck parking, etc.).
Automated video (Source: Iteris)
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 77
22
Infrared Detectors (Passive and Active)
» Description: There are two types of infrared detectors,
active and passive. In the case of passive infrared
detectors, people passing the sensor are identified and
counted based on the heat profiles they emit. In the case
of active infrared detectors, an infrared beam is
established across the facility between a transmitter and
receiver. When the beam is broken, a count is recorded.
» Recommended Duration: 2 weeks to permanent.
» Recommended Context: Shared use path.
» Applicable Count Type: Permanent, short-duration
automated.
Pros Cons
» Relatively low cost.
» Portable.
» Easy to install.
» Sensors are unable to distinguish between bicyclists
and pedestrians.
» Subject to undercounting due to occlusion (two or
more bicyclists and pedestrians traveling side by
side counted as one).
» Counters may be subject to vandalism or theft.
Special Considerations (Passive Detectors) Special Considerations (Active Detectors)
» Sensitive to ambient background temperatures.
» The sensor should be mounted at the edge of a
path around 30 to 40 inches above the ground
(some overhead models are available).
» The sensor should be directed perpendicular to the
path of travel.
» Avoid:
Directing sensors at doors, windows, or metallic
surfaces in direct sunlight.
Directing sensors at vegetation or objects prone
to movement.
Locations where pedestrians are likely to linger
(bus stops, entryways, kiosks, etc.).
Locations where snow storage or debris may
block the sensor.
» Mount sender and receiver perpendicular to the path
of travel.
» Avoid:
Locations where any motorized traffic can travel
between the sender/receiver.
Locations where pedestrians are likely to linger
(bus stops, entryways, kiosks, etc.).
Locations where animals are likely to encounter
the sensor.
Locations where snow storage or debris may
block the sensor.
Passive infrared detector
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 78
23
Pneumatic Tubes
» Description: A rubber tube or pair of tubes is nailed or
taped to the road or trail surface. When the tubes are
compressed, an air pulse in the tube triggers a count to
be recorded. Bicyclists are identified based on the
sequence of pulses recorded. Note that bicycle-specific
pneumatic tubes count bicyclists more accurately than
general traffic tubes.
» Recommended Duration: Several hours to a month.
» Recommended Context: Shared use path, on-street
bicycle lane, on-street mixed traffic.
» Applicable Count Type: Short-duration automated.
Pros Cons
» Relatively low cost.
» Portable.
» Easy to install.
» Not appropriate for data collection in snowy
conditions.
» Counts motor vehicles that drive over the tubes.
» Only counts bicyclists, not pedestrians.
Special Considerations
» The surface of the detection area should be relatively flat and perpendicular to the travel flow.
» Specific procedures for shared roadways vs. bike lanes or shoulders.
» Not appropriate for use in snowy conditions.
» Maybe prone to vandalism or avoidance where tubes are installed conspicuously.
» Additional installation equipment (tools) needed.
» Avoid:
Locations where stopping may occur (intersections, traffic control locations, etc.).
Locations where vehicles park or truck load/unload (parking areas, bus stops, loading zones, etc.).
Installation in locations or in ways that may cause bicyclists to navigate around the tubes.
Pneumatic tubes
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 79
24
Inductive Loop Detectors
» Description: Wire loops are installed on or under the
road or trail surface with a current running through them.
When the magnetic field produced by these loops is
disturbed by a vehicle, including a bicycle, a count is
recorded. This technology is similar to the induction loops
used for traffic signal actuation and vehicle counts,
although bicycle-specific loops are designed to maximize
counting accuracy.
» Recommended Duration: Permanent.
» Recommended Context: Shared use path, on-street
bicycle lane, on-street mixed traffic.
» Applicable Count Type: Permanent.
Pros Cons
» Good for collecting bicycle only counts.
» Durable, low-maintenance, and theft-proof.
» Does not create a bump in the bikeway that
bicyclists might seek to avoid.
» Not reusable.
» Some bicycle types may not be registered due to
their material composition.
» Repaving may impair function.
» High installation costs.
» Only counts bicyclists, not pedestrians.
Special Considerations
» Best in locations with a predictable path of travel for bicycle traffic (bicycle lane, path, etc.).
» The presence of overhead or buried utilities may interfere with the inductive loop.
» May require permitting and/or utility coordination.
» Temporary or "surface Loops" are available to avoid cuts where needed (less permanent installation).
» Avoid:
Locations with overhead or buried utilities.
Locations where bicyclists may ride outside of the loop detector.
Inductive loop detector
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 80
25
Piezoelectric Strips
» Description: Piezoelectric materials produce an electric current
when they are compressed. This technology involves two strips
of piezoelectric material installed on the surface of the road or
trail. Counts are recorded when the piezoelectric strips are
compressed. The strips’ compression can detect bicycle volume,
direction, and travel speeds.
» Recommended Duration: Permanent.
» Recommended Context: Shared use path, on-street bicycle
lane.
» Applicable Count Type: Permanent.
Pros Cons
» Suitable for collecting bicycle only counts.
» Durable, low-maintenance, and theft-proof.
» Does not create a bump in the bikeway that
bicyclists might seek to avoid.
» High installation cost.
» Only counts bicyclists, not pedestrians.
Special Considerations
» May require permitting and/or utility coordination.
» Install perpendicular to bicyclist path of travel.
» Avoid locations where motor vehicles may travel across sensors.
Piezoelectric strips
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 81
26
Combination Pneumatic Tubes/Infrared Detectors
» Description: Pneumatic tubes and a passive infrared
sensor are installed at a single location to detect
bicyclists and pedestrians and classify movements by
mode. The passive infrared detector is used to obtain a
combined count of pedestrians and bicyclists. The
pneumatic tubes are used to obtain a bicycle-only
count. Pedestrian counts can be derived by subtracting
the bicycle-only number from the combined number.
» Recommended Duration: Several hours to a month.
» Recommended Context: Shared use path.
» Applicable Count Type: Short-duration automated.
Pros Cons
» Detects bicyclists and pedestrians and can be used
to generate bicycle-only and pedestrian-only
counts.
» Relatively low cost.
» Portable.
» Easy to install.
» Not appropriate for data collection in snowy
conditions.
» Subject to undercounting due to occlusion (two or
more bicyclists and pedestrians traveling side by
side counted as one).
» Counters may be subject to vandalism or theft.
Special Considerations
» The surface of the detection area should be relatively flat and perpendicular to the travel flow.
» Not appropriate for use in snowy conditions.
» Maybe prone to vandalism or avoidance where tubes are installed conspicuously.
» Additional installation equipment (tools) needed.
» Sensitive to ambient background temperatures.
» The sensor should be mounted at the edge of a path around 30 to 40 inches above the ground (some
overhead models are available).
» The sensor should be directed perpendicular to the path of travel.
» Avoid:
Directing sensors at doors, windows, or metallic surfaces in direct sunlight.
Directing sensors at vegetation or objects prone to movement.
Locations where pedestrians are likely to linger (bus stops, entryways, kiosks, etc.).
Locations that may cause pedestrians or bicyclists to navigate around the tubes or sensor.
Locations where snow storage or debris may block the sensor.
Pneumatic tubes and infrared detector on a
post installation
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 82
27
Combination Inductive Loop/Infrared Detectors
» Description: An inductive loop sensor and a passive
infrared sensor are installed at a single location to
detect bicyclists and pedestrians and classify
movements by mode. The passive infrared detector is
used to obtain a combined count of pedestrians and
bicyclists. The loop detector is used to obtain a bicycle-
only count. Pedestrian counts can be derived by
subtracting the bicycle-only number from the combined
number.
» Recommended Duration: Permanent.
» Recommended Context: Shared use path.
» Applicable Count Type: Permanent.
Pros Cons
» Detects bicyclists and pedestrians and can be used
to generate bicycle-only and pedestrian-only
counts.
» High installation cost.
Special Considerations
» Best in locations with a predictable path of travel for mixed traffic (pinch points or bridge approaches best).
» The presence of overhead or buried utilities may interfere with the inductive loop.
» May require permitting.
» Sensitive to ambient background temperatures.
» The sensor should be mounted at the edge of a path around 30 to 40 inches above the ground (some
overhead models are available).
» The sensor should be directed perpendicular to the path of travel.
» Avoid:
Directing sensors at doors, windows, or metallic surfaces in direct sunlight.
Directing sensors at vegetation or objects prone to movement.
Locations where pedestrians are likely to linger (bus stops, entryways, kiosks, etc.).
Locations that may cause pedestrians bicyclists to navigate around the loops or sensor.
Locations where snow storage or debris may block the sensor.
Inductive loop and infrared detector on a post
installation
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 83
28
Manual Field Data Collection
» Description: Data collectors manually record counts of pedestrians
and/or bicyclists, either directly in the field or based on video footage.
» Recommended Duration: 2-4 hour intervals focused on peak travel
hours.
» Recommended Context: Any context.
» Applicable Count Type: Manual.
Pros Cons
» Can be used to develop baseline user information
(e.g., perceived age or sex) and understand user
behavior (e.g., helmet use, sidewalk riding).
» Can be used to calibrate automated counts.
» Can be conducted by volunteers, if available.
» Resource-intensive due to number of hours
required for training, data collection, and data entry.
» Requires staff to manage and process data.
» Limited usefulness due to short data collection
periods.
Special Considerations
» The safety and comfort of data collectors should be considered before performing field counts.
» Extrapolation of manual counts to annual estimates is subject to a high margin of error.
Manual field data collection form
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 84
29
APPENDIX F: ANALYSIS AND REPORTING
METHODS
Adjustment Factors
The primary reason for establishing factor groups is to identify temporal patterns that can be used to develop
estimates of Annual Average Daily Bicycle Traffic (AADBT) and Annual Average Daily Pedestrian Traffic
(AADPT), generally referred to as AADT, at locations where SDCs have been collected. The resulting adjustment
factors are intended to account for differences in the underlying patterns at the count locations, or differences in
when the counts were taken with respect to hour-of-day, day-of-week, and even seasonal changes. As factoring
for pedestrian and bicyclist traffic is an active area of research, the optimal method has not been determined. Two
factoring approaches are provided in the Factoring Approaches section in Appendix G, with a recommendation
for best and most appropriate method.
AADT
The factoring process enables AADT to be estimated based on a SDC. AADT estimates represent the volume of
bicycle or pedestrian traffic over an average 24-hour period at a specific location during a count year.11 St. Louis
Park can use AADT estimates to monitor bicycling and pedestrian trends and patterns where short-duration or
permanent counts have been conducted. AADT is a desirable metric because it makes volumes observed at
different locations comparable, even if they were taken at different times of the year or if the underlying temporal
patterns substantially differ.
Performance Measures to Evaluate Investments
Evaluating and tracking the impact of St. Louis Park’s investments on walking and bicycling behaviors is a key
motivator for the bicycle and pedestrian count program. Understanding the impacts of infrastructure investments
requires monitoring usage along active transportation corridors. While the City can expect to see different impacts
from bicycle and pedestrian facility projects based on the facility type and local land use context, over time, St.
Louis Park will be able to use the findings to compare the effectiveness of different investment decisions and to
evaluate the likely impact of future funding proposals.
The City may choose to begin this effort by collecting “before” bicycle and pedestrian volume data on key
upcoming bicycle and pedestrian facility projects, and “after” counts on high-profile, recently completed projects.
“After” data from recently completed projects without “before” data is still useful for benchmarking purposes, and
in some cases, third-party data can be used to generate before data estimates. “After” data collection should be
collected at regular intervals immediately following the project’s opening, six months after, one year after, and two
years after the project’s completion.
11. Federal Highway Administration. 2016. “Traffic Monitoring Guide.” https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/tmguide/
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 85
30
APPENDIX G: FACTOR GROUP FRAMEWORK
Conventional Factoring Approach
The FHWA’s Traffic Monitoring Guide outlines an approach for factoring SDCs based on motor vehicle traffic
monitoring principles. It requires the application of three types of expansion factors: seasonal factors, day-of-week
factors, and hour-of-day factors.
A seasonal adjustment factor is needed to account for the time of year a SDC was collected. Day-of-week and/or
hour-of-day adjustment factors are needed to account for cases in which the SDC period was shorter than one
week or one day, respectively. Estimated AADBT from counts less than a week in duration are subject to
significant error, but a method for factoring can still be useful.
The steps involved in factoring SDCs vary depending on the duration of available SDC data. Example factoring
scenarios are illustrated in Table 5.
Table 5. SDC Factoring Process
SDC period covered Steps Example
Two months or more
(complete months)
1. Identify AADT for factor group reference sites.
2. Identify MADT for each month at factor group
reference sites.
3. Divide ADT by MADT to determine MAFs.
4. Identify MADT for SDC site.
5. Multiply MAF by SDC site’s MADT to estimate
AADT at the SDC site; divide by number of
months to estimate AADT at the SDC site.
6. AADTR(1) = 1,000;
AADTR(2) = 500;
AADTR(3) = 1,250;
AADTR(1-3) = 917 ([1,000+500+1,250] / 3)
7. MADTR(January) = 420;
MADTR(February) = 394;
8. MAFR(January) = 2.18 (917/420);
MAFR(February) = 2.33 (917/394)
9. MADTSDC(January) = 1,700;
MADTSDC(February) = 1,350
10. AADTSDC = 3,426 ([1,700 × 2.18]) + [1,350 ×
2.33]) / 2
One month
(complete month)
11. Identify AADT for factor group reference
sites.
12. Identify MADT at factor group reference
sites.
13. Divide ADT by MADT to determine MAF.
14. Identify MADT for SDC site.
15. Multiply MAF by SDC site’s MADT to
estimate AADBT at the SDC site.
16. AADTR(1-3) = 917
17. MADTR(January) = 420
18. MAFR(January) = 2.18
19. MADTSDC(January) = 1,700
20. AADBTSDC = 3,706 (1,700 × 2.18)
One week
(any 7 consecutive
full days within
same month)
21. Identify AADT for factor group reference
sites.
22. Identify MADT at factor group reference
sites.
23. Divide ADT by MADT to determine MAF.
24. Identify WADT for SDC site.
25. Multiply MAF by SDC site’s WADT to
estimate AADBT at the SDC site.
26. AADTR(1-3) = 917
27. MADTR(January) = 420
28. MAFR(January) = 2.18
29. WADTSDC(January) = 1,450
30. AADBTSDC = 3,161 (1,450 × 2.18)
Multiple full days
within same month
31. Identify AADT for factor group reference
sites.
32. Identify ADT for each day of week at factor
group reference sites.
33. Divide reference site’s AADT by month/day
ADT to determine DAF for each month/day
combination.
34. Identify daily counts for SDC site.
36. AADTR(1-3) = 917
37. ADTR(January, Monday) = 265;
ADTR(January, Tuesday) = 215
38. DAFR(January, Monday) = 3.46 (917/265);
DAFR(January, Tuesday) = 4.26 (917/215)
39. Count Monday 1/7/2019 = 850;
Count Tuesday 1/8/2019 = 733
40. AADTSDC = 3,302 ([850 × 3.46] + (733 ×
4.26]) / 2
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 86
31
SDC period covered Steps Example
35. Multiply DAF by SDC site’s daily count;
divide by number of days to estimate AADT at the
SDC site.
One full day
(12 am to 11:59 pm)
41. Identify AADT for factor group reference
sites.
42. Identify ADT for day of week at factor group
reference sites.
43. Divide reference site’s AADBT by
month/day ADT to determine DAF for month/day
combination.
44. Identify 24-hour count for SDC site.
45. Multiply DAF by SDC site’s daily count to
estimate AADT at the SDC site.
46. AADTR(1-3) = 917
47. ADTR(January, Monday) = 265
48. DAFR(January, Monday) = 3.46
49. Count Monday 1/7/2019 = 850
50. AADTSDC = 2,941 (850 × 3.46)
One or more hours
(may cross days)
51. Identify AADT for factor group reference
sites.
52. Identify AHT for each day of week and hour
combination at factor group reference sites.
53. Divide reference site’s AADT by AHT for
month/day/hour combination to determine HAF for
each month/day/hour combination.
54. Identify hourly counts for SDC site.
55. Multiply HAFs by SDC site’s hourly counts
and divide by the number of hours to estimate
AADT at the SDC site.
56. AADTR(1-3) = 917
57. AHTR(January, Monday, 7am) = 22;
AHTR(January, Monday, 8am) = 25;
AHTR(January, Monday, 11am) = 19;
AHTR(January, Monday, 12pm) = 32;
AHTR(January, Monday, 4pm) = 26;
AHTR(January, Monday, 5pm) = 35
58. HAFR(January, Monday, 7am) = 41.7 (917/22);
HAFR(January, Monday, 8am) = 36.7 (917/25);
HAFR(January, Monday, 11am) = 48.3 (917/19);
HAFR(January, Monday, 12pm) = 28.7 (917/32);
HAFR(January, Monday, 4pm) = 35.3 (917/26);
HAFR(January, Monday, 5pm) = 26.2 (917/35)
59. Count Monday 1/7/2019, 7am = 78;
Count Monday 1/7/2019, 8am = 86;
Count Monday 1/7/2019, 11am = 72;
Count Monday 1/7/2019, 12pm = 102;
Count Monday 1/7/2019, 4pm = 80;
Count Monday 1/7/2019, 5pm = 112
60. AADTSDC = 3,096 ([78 × 41.7] + [86 × 36.7]
+ [72 × 48.3] + [102 × 28.7] + [80 × 35.3] + [112 ×
26.2]) / 6
AADTR(x): Annual Average Daily Traffic at reference site x;
AADTR(1-3): Combined Annual Average Daily Traffic at reference sites 1-3;
AADTSDC: Estimated Annual Average Daily Traffic at SDC site;
ADTR(m, d): Observed Average Daily Traffic at reference sites for month m, day d;
AHTR(m, d, h): Observed Average Hourly Traffic at reference sites for month m, day d, hour h;
Count date: Observed 24-hour count at SDC site on indicated date;
DAFR(m, d): Monthly/Daily Adjustment Factor for reference sites for month m and day d;
HAFR(m, d, h): Monthly/Daily/Hourly Adjustment Factor for reference sites for month m, day d, and hour h;
MADTR(m): Observed Monthly Average Daily Traffic at reference sites for month m;
MADTSDC(m): Observed Average Daily Traffic at SDC site for month m;
MAFR(m): Monthly Adjustment Factor for reference sites for month m;
WADTSDC(m): Observed Weekly Average Daily Traffic at SDC site during month m
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 87
32
Day-of-Year Factoring Method
The day-of-year adjustment factor method is a relatively recent development in pedestrian and bicyclist traffic
monitoring.12, 13 In this approach, each day of the calendar year’s daily traffic is evaluated against the AADT for
the permanent counter site, providing an adjustment factor for each calendar day. Factors are recalculated every
year so that contextual information such as the day of week, holidays, and weather are implicitly captured in the
factors. This approach replaces the seasonal and day-of-week factors in the conventional approach and has been
shown to outperform that method when working with permanent counters in relatively close proximity to the SDC
sites. However, it can still be used with data collected for periods less than 24 hours by first applying hour-of-day
factors.
The steps to estimating AADT for a SDC site using the day-of-year factoring method are as follows (example
values from Table 5 above are shown in parentheses):
1. Identify Combined AADT at reference sites (2,750).
2. Identify the SDC period study dates (1/1/2019-1/7/2019 and 7/1/2019-7/6/2019).
3. Summarize count totals from the reference site during the study period (48,883).
4. Determine the study period AADT for reference sites (3,760).
5. Calculate the ratio of AADT to the study period AADBT for reference sites (0.73).
6. Identify study period AADT for SDC site (4,131).
7. Multiply results from steps 5 and 6 to estimate AADT for short-duration site (3,015).
Recommended Approach
Development of St. Louis Park-specific factor groups and associated adjustment factors is an iterative process
that will evolve as data is collected and evaluated. As a starting point, the City could categorize sites into three
groups, according to their activity patterns. Activity patterns identified from collected data will indicate whether the
site is characterized by recreation, commute, or mixed trip types. More specifically, the following metrics are used
to determine the activity pattern of a given site:14
» Hour-of-day: AM peak-to-midday index (AMI). The average hourly volume during weekday morning
commute periods (7 am to 9 am) divided by the average midday volume (11 am to 1 pm).15
» Day-of-week: Weekend-to-weekday index (WWI). The average weekday volume divided by the average
weekend volume.
The combination of hour-of-day and day-of-week metrics suggests an overall activity pattern for the site. The
specific thresholds for commute and recreation activity patterns should be defined based on a review of data
collected from several sites. Initially, suggested thresholds are offered in Figure 2.
12. Hankey, S., Lindsey, G., & Marshall, J. 2014. “Day-of-year scaling factors and design considerations for nonmotorized traffic monitoring
programs.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2468), 64-73.
13. Nosal, T., Miranda-Moreno, L., & Krstulic, Z. 2014. Incorporating Weather: Comparative Analysis of Annual Average Daily Bicyclist Traffic
Estimation Methods. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2468), 100-110.
14. Miranda‐Moreno, L.F., T. Nosal, R.J. Schneider, and F. Proulx. 2013. “Classification of Bicycle Traffic Patterns in Five North American
Cities.” In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2339. Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., pp. 68–79
15. Pedestrian count locations in dense, downtown areas may have a significant midday peak due to office workers breaking for lunch. It may
be appropriate to override the AMI classification based on professional judgment if this type of condition is present.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 88
33
Figure 2. Initial Recommended Factor Group Assignment Thresholds
In addition to reviewing the hour-of-day and day-of-week patterns, the City of St. Louis Park may wish to consider
seasonal variation in its factor groups. For sites with a full year of data, a seasonal distribution metric may be
calculated as follows:
» Seasonal distribution: Warm Month Index. The average daily count for May through September divided
by average daily count for October through April for a given year.16
Including the seasonal distribution would introduce an additional layer to the factor group assignment process,
resulting in a total of six-factor groups (assuming two seasonal patterns are identified). Factor groups should be
reevaluated annually.
Adjustment Factors
The primary reason for establishing factor groups is to identify temporal patterns that can be used to develop
estimates of Annual Average Daily Bicycle Traffic (AADBT) and Annual Average Daily Pedestrian Traffic
(AADPT), generally referred to as AADT, at locations where SDCs have been collected. The resulting adjustment
factors are intended to account for differences in the underlying patterns at the count locations, or differences in
when the counts were taken with respect to hour-of-day, day-of-week, and even seasonal changes. As factoring
for pedestrian and bicyclist traffic is an active area of research, the optimal method has not been determined.
AADT
The factoring process enables AADT to be estimated based on a SDC. AADT estimates represent the volume of
bicycle or pedestrian traffic over an average 24-hour period at a specific location during a count year.17 St. Louis
Park can use AADT estimates to monitor bicycling and pedestrian trends and patterns where short-duration or
permanent counts have been conducted. AADT is a desirable metric because it makes volumes observed at
16. Nordback, K. 2019. “Estimating Non-motorized Traffic Accurately: How Many Counters Do We Need?”
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59480f9cc534a57e3a1b9f15/t/5b2aa0e42b6a28a0fc3cc763/1529520365914/Krista+Nordback_Estimati
ng+Non-motorized+Traffic_How+Many+Counters+Do+We+Need.pdf
17. Federal Highway Administration. 2016. “Traffic Monitoring Guide.” https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/tmguide/
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 89
34
different locations consistent, even if they were taken at different times of the year or if the underlying temporal
patterns substantially differ.
Permanent Reference Locations
Following is a list of the six permanent counter locations in Hennepin County 18, that should be considered for
SDC referencing and factor grouping.
• Central Avenue north of Lowry Avenue (urban, in Minneapolis)
• Franklin Avenue Bridge (urban, in Minneapolis, and on a network chokepoint)
• Park Avenue north of 28th St (urban, in Minneapolis)
• Rush Creek Trail east of Douglas Drive (suburban trail context)
• Shadywood Road south of W Lafayette Rd (small town context on constrained land in/around Lake
Minnetonka)
• West River Parkway south of 32nd St (urban, in Minneapolis)
18 https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/transportation/biking/2016-biking-report-northern-hc.pdf
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 90
35
APPENDIX H: QUALITY CONTROL
Raw bicycle and pedestrian count data typically need to be adjusted before they can be used. Generally, there
are two types of errors that occur when automated counters are used to collect data – corrupted data and
systematic undercounting. Additionally, atypical but non-erroneous data may also be identified during quality
control procedures.
Corrupted Data
There are several causes of corrupted data, including equipment malfunctions due to a problem with the
equipment itself, improper installations, or subsequent damage or vandalism to the equipment after installation.
External events that cause the sensor to either count too few or too many people also generate corrupted data.
For instance, plowed snow may cover the sensor for an infrared counter, resulting in missed counts for several
days or more.
Adjustments to the data, such as by substituting count data from a similar period or a counter within the same
factor group, can address many of these problems but should be noted on any subsequent reports or analyses.
Quality control checks or visual inspection of count data results can help identify where data should be adjusted.
Possible QC rules include:
» Check for a maximum consecutive number of 0 values in the data, such as 48 consecutive hours with
zero pedestrians or bicyclists counted.
» Check for a maximum percentage deviation between sequentially recorded ADT values at a given site
(note that this rule does not work well for low-volume sites and should be reserved for sites with an
average of at least 100 users per day).
» Check for a maximum hourly volume.
» Check for a maximum ADT.
» Check for excessive daily directional splits (i.e., the difference between the two directions of traffic).
» Check for count value deviations from a specified “normal” range, such as a specified multiple of the
interquartile range for the count period .19
Some errors cannot be compensated for, such as if there are extended periods of corrupted or lost data. Routine
data downloads are particularly important to minimize the risk of data loss under such circumstances.
Systemic Undercounting
Systematic undercounting occurs almost uniformly across all devices and is inherent in many automated counting
technologies. Occlusion is the most common problem and is caused by the inability of certain technologies to
sense when two people are walking or bicycling side-by-side. In this case, the device will register just one person.
Another source of error is diversion, which occurs when bicyclists detour or deviate around a detection zone.
Routine calibration of counters will allow for adjustments to be made to correct for known systematic errors.
19. Turner, S., and Lasley, P. 2013. “Quality Counts for Pedestrians and Bicyclists: Quality Assurance Procedures for Nonmotorized Traffic
Count Data.” Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2339 No. 1, pp. 57–67.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 91
36
Unexpected Events Reflected in Data
Sometimes special events or other unique circumstances may generate unexpected levels of walking and
bicycling activity that may appear as an error but is accurate. For example, an organized walk or run might
produce atypical directional splits (high volumes in one direction only). Additionally, irregular or one-off events like
championship games or protests can show as anomalously high levels of activity. While less likely, shorter or
medium-length durations of consecutive zero counts could be caused by severe weather events that force people
to stay inside their homes. Such data should be handled on a case-by-case basis and will require research or
local knowledge to address. Ultimately, counting agencies should consider whether the event or circumstance is a
regular occurrence that should be reflected in count data, or whether it skews or undermines the rest of the
results for how the data will be used.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 92
Directions to get from Peter Hobart to Home Depot by bike (Google Maps)
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 1)
Title: Connect the Park update Page 93
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: July 25, 2022
Written report: 2
Executive s ummary
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study
Recommended action: None at this time. This report is intended to provide an overview of the
West End trail bridge feasibility study and share staff’s recommendations for implementation.
Policy consideration: Does the city council support the construction of a bicycle/ pedestrian
connection over the BNSF railroad in the vicinity of TH100?
Summary: As part of Vision St. Louis Park in 2007, the city worked with community members to
create an Active Living: Sidewalks and Trails Plan. This plan became the basis for the Connect
the Park (CTP) initiative, which will implement many of the elements of the plan. The purpose
of this implementation plan is to make it easier for people to move around the city and region
without a single-occupancy vehicle. It builds on existing council policies and plans to set a
course for the implementation of the non-motorized transportation system for the community.
The city council approved the individual Connect the Park segments in 2013. The plan included
the construction of trail bridges at three locations.
• Minnehaha Creek trail bridge: This bridge was constructed in partnership with
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District as a part of their Minnehaha Creek Preserve trail
project in 2014. It is in the Meadowbrook neighborhood and crosses Minnehaha Creek.
• Dakota/ Edgewood trail bridge: This bridge crosses the BNSF railroad adjacent to Peter
Hobart elementary school, which was completed in fall 2021.
• West End trail bridge: The final bridge in the plan will cross the BNSF railroad, in the
vicinity of TH100. It is currently scheduled for construction in 2035.
To gain a better understanding of options and cost for this bridge, the city received a bikeway
planning grant from He nnepin County to complete a feasibility study. The intended outcome of
the study was to explore conceptual routes, identify impacts to surrounding properties, and
provide high-level cost estimates. This information will help with applying for construction
grants. The final study is attached.
After careful review of costs, constructability and connections, staff is recommending
Alternative 4: Old Hwy 100 & Bridge 27787 rehabilitation for implementation.
Financial or budget considerations: Details regarding the estimated cost for the different
bridge alternatives are included in the discussion section of the report. The funding source for
Connect the Park is general obligation bonds. The study cost $40,000: $20,000 was paid
through a grant from Hennepin County, the rest paid for by the city.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion, BNSF Trail crossing feasibility study, Alternative 4 location
map
Prepared by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Reviewed by: Jack Sullivan, engineering project manager
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study
Discussion
Background: The BNSF railroad is just to the south and parallel to Cedar Lake Road. It extends
from the west boundary of the city all the way to the east boundary. There are very few ways to
get across the tracks for all users. Due to this, the roads that cross the tracks carry high volumes
of vehicles and they were built many years ago with a focus on vehicles.
National guidance indicates that providing connections at 0.5-mile spacing encourages biking as
a mode choice, making the decision to use a bicycle more attractive because it is faster and
easier than using a car. Consistent with this national guidance, the Connect the Park CIP
includes the creation of bicycle connections at about 0.5-mile spacing.
One of the challenges to create connections at 0.5-mile spacing in our community is the barrier
that is created by the railroads. The following is a summary of the locations and user types that
can cross the BNSF railroad:
User
Location Bicycle Pedestrian Vehicle
TH169 Not allowed Not allowed X
Virginia Avenue X Sidewalk on east
side
X
Louisiana Avenue X Sidewalk on both
sides
X
Dakota/ Edgewood trail
bridge
Dedicated
connection
Dedicated
connection
Not allowed
TH100 Not allowed Not allowed X
East TH100 Frontage Road X Allowed, but no
sidewalk
X
Cedar Lake Road trail bridge Dedicated
connection
Dedicated
connection
Not allowed
The Connect the Park plan includes a bikeway on Virginia Avenue and Louisiana Avenue, as well
as trail bridges to create the connections at Dakota Park and at TH100 (with bikeways
connected to the bridges). While bicyclists can use Virginia Avenue and Louisiana Avenue, they
also carry a high volume of vehicles, creating stress. To reduce this stress, the Connect the Park
implementation plan includes the creation of dedicated bikeways on these roads. Until there is
a dedicated bikeway created, they are not comfortable for users of all ages and abilities.
The distance between the bicycle and pedestrian crossings included in the Connect the Park
plan are:
• Virginia Avenue and Louisiana Avenue – 0.65 mile
• Louisiana Avenue and Dakota/ Edgewood trail bridge – 0.47 mile
• Dakota/ Edgewood trail bridge and TH100 – 0.87 miles
• TH100 and Cedar Lake Road trail bridge – 0.5 miles
Adding a trail bridge in the vicinity of TH100 will decrease the distance for bicycle/ pedestrians
to cross the BNSF barrier between Louisiana Avenue and the Cedar Lake trail bridge. Creating
opportunities for people to get around town more quickly by walking and biking when
compared to the same trip in their car.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study
Present considerations: The West End trail bridge over the BNSF railroad adjacent to TH100 is
included in the city’s capital improvement plan in 2035, with an estimated cost of $13,251,000.
This estimate assumes the construction of a standalone bridge adjacent to TH100. This bridge
will have similar design considerations to the Dakota Edgewood trail bridge completed in 2021,
so that cost was used as a basis for the estimate in the CIP.
Staff is planning on applying for federal money to assist with the cost to build this bridge. To do
this, we wanted a better understanding of options, alignments, and cost for this bridge. To gain
this understanding, staff applied for and received a bikeway planning grant from Hennepin
County to complete a feasibility study. The intended outcome of the study was to explore
conceptual routes, identify impacts to surrounding properties, and provide high-level cost
estimates. The study summarizing these efforts is attached.
The study explored four different standalone bridge alignments; in addition, an alternative was
also identified that utilizes MnDOT’s existing frontage road bridge over the railroad. This
alternative creates a trail connection by reallocating space on the existing frontage road bridge
and installing a barrier to separate users from vehicles. This protected space would serve the
interested but concerned user.
Financial considerations: A summary of the cost estimates for all alternatives that were
identified as a part of this study. All costs assume 2035 construction.
Cost estimate*
Alternative 1A: Overpass west of TH 100 $12.8 Million
Alternative 1B: Overpass west of TH 100 spanning Cedar Lake Rd $14.6 Million
Alternative 2: Overpass east of TH 100 $13.7 Million
Alternative 3: Underpass west of TH 100 $15.4 Million
Alternative 4: Old Hwy 100 & Bridge 27787 rehabilitation $2.3 Million
*Cost estimates do not include easement and right of way acquisition, utility relocation,
permitting, inspection or construction management, environmental documentation, special site
remediation, insurance, or the cost of ongoing maintenance. The cost estimates do include
design and construction engineering services which were estimated as 20% of the construction
cost.
Community development, Public Works, and Engineering staff worked with the consultant,
Toole Design. The two alternatives that were the most feasible were Alternative 1A and
Alternative 4.
The costs in the study are for design, engineering services and construction only. Based on our
experience with the construction of the Dakota/ Edgewood trail bridge (2021) and the Cedar
Lake Road reconstruction project (2019), staff believes that the costs for Alternatives 1A could
be $5 to 10 million dollars higher than those shown above. This would result in a total cost of
$17.8 to 22.8 million. This is due to additional anticipated costs associated with engineering,
right of way acquisition, billboard relocation, utility relocation, special site remediation and
railroad coordination. A summary:
• Engineering: Toole used 20% for design and construction engineering services. Our
experience with projects is that 25% is more appropriate due to our expectations for
public process. Also, if there is federal money, these costs can be as high as 35% due to
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study
the additional requirements associated with their process. This would add $1-2 million
to the cost.
• Right of way acquisition: right of way will need to be purchased on the north side of the
railroad and the south side of W 23rd Street. Estimated cost $1 million.
• Billboard relocation: Property on the north side of the railroad includes an existing
billboard; billboard removal costs are estimated at $1.5-$2 million.
• Utility relocation: there are overhead power lines that would conflict with the bridge
span over the tracks. Estimated cost $1 million.
• Special site remediation: During the construction of Cedar Lake Road in 2019, we
encountered contaminated soil under the TH 100 bridge. Much of the construction will
be in this same area. It is anticipated that there will be $1-2 million in remediation.
• Railroad coordination: work in the railroad right of way requires permits, an easement,
and a railroad representative to oversee construction near their tracks. This will add
about $1 million to the project.
The other standalone bridge alternatives will also have the same challenges resulting in the
same anticipated increase to the cost.
The only anticipated increase to the Alternative 4 cost would be for engineering. An increase
from 20% to 35% would only be around $350,000, resulting in an overall cost of $2.65 million.
All alternatives will require coordination and appropriate approvals from MNDOT due to
proximity to TH100.
Staff recommendation: Community development, Public Works, and Engineering staff worked
with the consultant, Toole Design, on the study. The two alternatives that were the most
feasible were Alternative 1A and Alternative 4. Both alternatives had challenges; however, due
to cost, constructability, and connections, staff recommends Alternative 4. A summary of the
pros and cons of this alternative:
Pros
• No new structure construction is required
• No real estate acquisition is anticipated
• Easy access to North Cedar Lake Regional Trail
• Does not require railroad coordination
• Does not require utility relocation
• Limited excavation needed, no site remediation is anticipated
• Most cost-effective option
Cons
• Of the alternatives, it is the longest overall distance to travel from the North Cedar Lake
Regional Trail to the trail along Cedar Lake Road.
• Due to constraints caused by the existing bridge cross-section and adjacent retaining
walls, the trail is narrower than the preferred 10 feet wide on the bridge. However, it
does meet the minimum width for a trail, which is 8 feet.
• Public works will need to identify a plan for snow removal and sweeping of the segment
of trail on the bridge. This is due to the width being 8 feet or 8 feet 10 inches wide, with
barriers on both sides. The equipment that we would normally use on a trail is too wide.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study
Staff believes that this is a feasible solution that meets the needs of the interested but
concerned user and recommends it in place of a standalone bridge. In addition, this alternative
provides an opportunity to fill in a gap and improve the safety of the bicycle/ pedestrian
connection on the east side of Highway 100. This gap in our bicycle/ pedestrian network and
associated safety concerns were brought to staff’s attention by residents during the Fern Hill
Pavement management project public process.
The stretch of frontage road between Benilde St. Margaret and Cedar Lake Road currently has a
5-foot-wide sidewalk at the back of the curb between 28th Street and Parkwoods Drive; from
there, it widens out an 8-foot-wide trail at the back of curb. This connects to a trail on 23rd
Street that leads down to the North Cedar Lake regional trail.
The vehicle bridge over the railroad tracks between 23rd Street to Cedar Lake Road has no
sidewalk or trail; however, people still use it as a bicycle/ pedestrian connection to get to West
End. This alternative will create a dedicated space for those users, make it safer and more
comfortable.
The existing sidewalk and trail that lead to the bridge are at the back of curb. Due to traffic
volumes and speeds on this frontage road, it is not a comfortable experience to use them. To
complete the connection, staff recommends that the existing sidewalk be removed and
replaced by a shared use trail that is at least 5 feet away from the curb. The existing trail should
also be removed and reconstructed with a 5-foot buffer from the road. To provide shade and
influence traffic speeds, trees could be planted in the buffer. This will provide a more
comfortable experience for walkers and bikers.
Adding these improvements to the existing bicycle/ pedestrian infrastructure along the
frontage road would add about $1.25 million to the cost of Alternative 4. Increasing the total
cost of this alternative to $3.9 million.
Next steps: If the council supports the staff recommendation, staff will review the overall
Connect the Park plan to determine if this trail bridge could be moved up in the CIP to be
completed sooner than 2035. The bridge was moved out to 2035 due to the cost. It was
anticipated that this was when the debt service would fall off for the Cedar Lake Road and
Louisiana Avenue improvements, reducing the impact to the city’s general levy.
Pursuing the recommended Alternative 4 would not prevent us from constructing a standalone
bridge in the future if there are major changes in land use or if MnDOT were to reconstruct
TH100 in this location.
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | i
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING
FEASIBILITY STUDY
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
December 2021 Final Report
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 6
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | ii
CONTENTS
Introduction & Overview 1
Study Area Limits 2
Existing Conditions 3
Phase 1: Alignment Alternative Feasibility Analysis 3
Design Assumptions and Standards 4
Phase 1 Alternative Screening 5
Phase 2: Concept Design 5
Alternatives Analysis 5
Alternative 1A: Overpass West of TH 100 6
Alternative 1A: Phase 1 Overview 6
Design Assumptions and Standards 7
Alternative 1A: Phase 2 8
Alternative 1B: Overpass West of TH 100 spanning Cedar Lake Road 10
Alternative 1B: Phase 1 Overview 10
Design Assumptions and Standards 11
Alternative 2: Overpass East of TH 100 12
Alternative 2: Phase 1 Overview 12
Design Assumptions and standards 13
Alternative 3: Underpass West of TH 100 14
Alternative 3: Phase 1 Overview 14
Design Assumptions and Standards 15
Alternative 4: Old Hwy 100 & Bridge 27787 Rehabilitation 17
Alternative 4: Phase 1 Overview 17
Design Assumptions and Standards 19
Alternative 4: Phase 2 20
Future Considerations 24
Planning-Level Opinions of Probable Cost 25
Study Summary 26
Appendices
Appendix A: Concept Plans – Alternative 1A and Alternative 4
Appendix B: Concept Cost Estimates
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 7
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | iii
Information contained in this document is for planning purposes and should not be used for final design of any
project. All results, recommendations, concept drawings, cost opinions, and commentary contained herein are
based on limited data and information and on existing conditions that are subject to change. Existing conditions
have not been field-verified. Further analysis and engineering design are necessary prior to implementing any of
the recommendations contained herein.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 8
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 1
INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW
The City of St. Louis Park’s ‘Connect the Park’ Plan - the City's implementation plan to add more bikeways,
sidewalks, and trails throughout the community - identified the need for a study that analyzed the feasibility of a
trail crossing of the BNSF Railway Wayzata Subdivision line near TH (Trunk Highway) 100 and Cedar Lake Road.
The City of St. Louis Park initiated this study to analyze several options for a trail crossing that would connect
existing trails on both sides of the BNSF railroad.
This report includes an overview of the existing conditions of the study limits, an analysis of five potential trail
crossing alternatives, standards and design assumptions used as part of the feasibility analysis during the study,
and cost opinions. This study was broken up into two phases:
• In Phase 1, five trail crossing alignment alternatives were developed, which included pros and cons and
planning-level cost opinions for each alternative. At the conclusion of Phase 1, two of the five alignments
were selected to be carried into Phase 2 for further analysis.
• In Phase 2, the two selected alignment alternatives were further evaluated with conceptual plan layouts,
additional stakeholder meetings, and conversations with City staff.
Figure 1: The North Cedar Lake Regional Trail runs east-west through the study area, parallel to the BNSF railway.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 9
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 2
STUDY A REA LIMITS
The study area limits include the area surrounding the crossing of TH 100 over the North Cedar Lake Regional
Trail, BNSF railroad tracks, and Cedar Lake Road (Figure 2). Land use within the project area is primarily
commercial west of TH 100 and a mix of commercial and single and multi-family home residential east of TH 100.
Property owners within the study area are also identified in Figure 2. Benilde-St. Margaret’s School is located just
south of the study area, and The Shops at West End commercial area is located northwest of the study limits.
Figure 2: Study limits and property owners within the study area.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 10
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 3
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project area is sharply divided into four quadrants – east and west of TH 100, and north and south of the
BNSF railroad tracks. The North Cedar Lake Regional Trail – a very popular trail both locally and regionally –
parallels the BNSF railroad tracks on the south side and runs underneath TH 100. The railroad creates a
significant barrier for people walking and biking within the study area, making it very challenging to travel north
and south. Currently, the nearest existing pedestrian and bicycle crossing of the BNSF railroad to the west of TH
100 is the recently completed Dakota Edgewood Trail Bridge, which is approximately 0.75 miles west of TH 100.
The nearest crossing to the east of TH 100 is a pedestrian and bicycle bridge 0.5 miles east of TH 100.
Travelling east-west is much easier for people walking and biking in the study area. In addition to the
aforementioned North Cedar Lake Regional Trail, there are trails that were recently constructed north of the
railroad along the south side of Cedar Lake Road, and along the east side of Quentin Ave S between Cedar Lake
Road and Old Cedar Lake Road.
In addition to the bridges carrying TH 100 traffic over the railroad, MnDOT Bridge 27787, located just east of TH
100, carries local frontage road traffic over the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail, BNSF railroad, and Cedar Lake
Road. In 2017, the eastern frontage road (M-522) had an AADT (average annual daily traffic) of 13,800 and has a
posted speed limit of 35 MPH. The AADT on Cedar Lake Road was 12,900 in 2017 and it has a posted speed
limit of 30 MPH. The speed limits reflect the citywide speed limit changes that were made at the end of 2021. The
BNSF Wayzata Subdivision line carried 17 trains per day at a maximum speed of 60 MPH as of 2015.
PHASE 1: ALIGNMENT AL TERNATIVE
FEASIBILITY A NALYSIS
Several different types of crossings were evaluated in Phase 1 of this study. Five alignment alternatives were
identified and analyzed, and each alternative analysis concluded with a list of pros and cons and a planning-level
cost opinion. Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 2 all evaluate a new pedestrian/bicycle overpass structure either west or
east of TH 100. Alternative 3 evaluates a new underpass structure under the existing railroad to the west of TH
100. Alternative 4 evaluates retrofitting Old Highway 100 (east frontage road) and the bridge (#27787) to add
pedestrian/bicycle accommodations.
An alternative that considered a new at-grade crossing over the railroad was precluded by BNSF policy and was
therefore removed from consideration and not analyzed during this study. Per Chapter 19 of the BNSF Public
Projects Manual, any pedestrian/bicycle pathways or multi-use crossings of BNSF tracks must be adjacent to an
existing public at-grade crossing. Stand-alone at-grade trail crossings of BNSF tracks are not allowed.
Figure 3 shows the conceptual alignment of each alternative that was analyzed during Phase 1.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 11
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 4
Figure 3: General alignments of the five alternatives analyzed in the study
DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND STANDARDS
A list of assumptions and standards were developed for each alternative. In addition to the assumptions and
standards specific to each alternative, some design standards apply to all the alternatives, which are listed below
in Table 1:
Table 1: Design Standards Applying to all Alternatives
Maximum Trail Grade 5%
Approach Trail Width 12 feet
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 12
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 5
To meet ADA requirements, the maximum grade is assumed to be 5% (instead of using a steeper grade with
landings). Per the MnDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual, an approach path width of 12 feet is the preferred
width for typical two-way shared use paths/trails.
PHASE 1 ALTERNATIVE SCREENING
Following the completion of the Phase 1 feasibility analysis in the fall of 2021, the alternatives were reviewed
based on existing conditions, technical feasibility, planning level cost opinions, and information from previous City
of St. Louis Park design and construction projects. Based on that information and analysis, the City of St. Louis
Park selected the following alternatives to be carried into Phase 2:
• Alternative 1A: Overpass West of TH 100
• Alternative 4: Old Hwy 100 & Bridge 27787 Rehabilitation
The alternatives that were carried into Phase 2 were selected because they were the most technically feasible
and/or the most cost-effective alternatives at the time of the analysis in 2021. However, it is important to note that
the alternatives that were not carried into Phase 2 should not be dismissed from consideration in the future. Many
factors could change in the future that may increase or decrease the feasibility of any of the alternatives,
including:
• Future land use development on parcels adjacent to or near the alternatives
• Changes to roadway design standards, rules, and regulations
• The willingness of property owners to sell right-of-way on portions of their property
• New grant funding opportunities
• BNSF Future Planning – Accommodation for Future Tracks
• Future MnDOT projects on TH 100 bridges and roadway
• Future pedestrian/bicycle/vehicle traffic patterns
PHASE 2: CONCEPT DESIGN
Phase 2 of the study included additional analysis, refinement, and conceptual design plans for two of the five
alternatives evaluated in Phase 1. Conceptual plans were developed in CAD over existing aerial photographs of
the project area (See Appendix A for concept plans). This step allowed the project team to refine the alignments
by reviewing plan view linework, which provided greater detail and more precise measurements compared to the
simple and crude sketched alignments that were completed in Phase 1. The conceptual design plans also
provided more clarity around potential conflicts, challenges, or design opportunities. Each of the two concepts
built upon the initial feasibility analysis completed in Phase 1 and is described in more detail below. The same
design assumptions and standards from Phase 1 were carried into Phase 2.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
For each alternative, an overview of the alternative developed during Phase 1 is described. Additionally, the
design assumptions and standards used in developing the alternative are provided along with a list of identified
pros and cons at the conclusion of Phase 1. For alternatives carried into Phase 2, a summary of the concept
design is provided which includes changes to the alternative based on the design process and feedback from the
City and MnDOT.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 13
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 6
ALTERNATIVE 1A : OVERPASS WEST OF TH 100
ALTERNATIVE 1A: PHASE 1 OVERVIEW
Alternative 1A provides a trail crossing on the west side of TH 100 that would span W. 23rd Street, the North
Cedar Lake Regional Trail, and the BNSF railroad (Figure 4). On the north side of the railroad, the trail would tie
in with the trail on the south side of Cedar Lake Road. On the south side of the railroad, due to limited available
right of way, approach bridge spans were assumed to tie in with the existing trail south of W 23rd Street. On the
north approach, a combination of approach spans and a retaining wall are proposed to tie in with the existing trail
along Cedar Lake Road. Directly off the main span, approximately 150 feet of approach bridge spans were
assumed. A retaining wall is proposed on the south and west sides of the trail to minimize impacts to the adjacent
lifetime fitness property and to maintain clearance from the existing railroad. On the north and east sides of the
trail, embankment slopes are proposed to tie in with the existing elevations.
Figure 4: Trail crossing alignment of Alternative 1A.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 14
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 7
DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND S TANDARDS
Standards and basis for assumptions are in Table 2 and a typical section is shown in Figure 5. With the required
23 feet 6 inches vertical clearance over the railroad tracks and the maximum 5% grade on the trail, the trail
distance required to meet that vertical clearance is approximately 470 feet.
Table 2: Standards for Pedestrian Overpass
Bridge Clear
Width 14 feet
Vertical
Clearance over
RR
23 feet 6 inches
Rail/Fence
Height
Curved: 8 feet
Straight: 10 feet
Figure 5: Pedestrian Overpass Typical Section
A bridge clear width of 14 feet was used for Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 2 in accordance with the recommendations
from the MnDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual. BNSF requires the minimum vertical clearance of 23 feet 6
inches be met from the top of rail to the low point on the overhead structure. Additionally, BNSF has requirements
for railing heights which are based on the geometry of the rail/fence.
Pros
• Good connection to trail along Cedar Lake Road (north of railroad) without street crossing.
• Less than 1,000 feet to North Cedar Lake Regional Trail from the end of the proposed trail.
• Utilizes existing crosswalk across W 23rd St. to access North Cedar Lake Regional Trail.
Cons
• Due to the required minimum grades, cannot tie in at the existing pedestrian crossing on W 23rd .
Right-of-way acquisition would be required to tie back in with existing ground (Luther Company Car
Dealership).
• Longer main bridge span to extend over 23rd St, North Cedar Lake Regional Trail, and BNSF railroad.
• Private property acquisition is required on the north side of the railroad and the south side of W 23rd
Street.
• Property on the north side of the railroad includes an existing billboard; billboard removal costs are
estimated at $1.5-$2 million.
• The existing trail on the west side of 23rd St is only 8 feet and future widening would be very difficult.
• Conflict with existing overhead power lines.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 15
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 8
ALTERNATIVE 1A: PHASE 2
Alternative 1A Concept Design
During the concept design process, Alternative 1A was refined. Initially, during Phase 1, retaining walls were
proposed on the north side of the alternative to reduce the overall bridge approach span length. Per BNSF
guidance, retaining walls are precluded from use on the existing railroad right of way or within 50 feet of the
centerline of railroad tracks without approval by BNSF Railway. With the existing property on the north side of the
alterative currently owned by BNSF Railway, it was decided to eliminate the retaining walls from this alternative
and instead use approach spans that covered the full length of the approach.
Accommodation of future railroad tracks was also considered as part of the concept design. It was assumed that if
a new set of tracks was added, they would be added north of the existing tracks. The main bridge span length
was extended from Phase 1 so that all proposed piers would be offset a minimum of 27 feet from the centerline of
the existing tracks. This assumption maintains a similar distance from a pier to the centerline of the existing tracks
as the adjacent TH 100 bridge piers east of this alternative. This was done to avoid creating a more constrained
cross-section than currently exists for future track placement.
During the concept design, existing utilities and potential conflicts were reviewed for the proposed concept.
Currently, there are potential light pole conflicts with the proposed concept along the south approach. Additionally,
there are overhead power lines that cross the BNSF railroad west of TH 100 as well as power lines running
parallel to the railroad between the tracks and the N. Cedar Lake Regional Trail.
On the south side of the alternative, an at-grade level switchback is proposed to minimize right-of-way impacts to
the adjacent car dealership property and to connect the crossing back to the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail. To
provide more space and comfort for people walking and bicycling, the width of the trail was increased at this
location to 18 feet as shown in Figure 13. This allows more room for trail users making a tight turn and heading
south to W. 23rd Street.
Figure 6: Alternative 1A Proposed At-Grade Switchback Geometry
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 16
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 9
Future Considerations
This alternative was reviewed and evaluated based on existing design standards and the assumptions stated
above. Knowing that the proposed design phase is not anticipated to be in the immediate future, the following
considerations and coordination will assist in determining a preferred alternative:
• Coordination with BNSF Railway on future track accommodations, real estate on the northwest quadrant
of the alternative, and the use of retaining walls with the railroad right of way.
• Future land use of the properties within the project limits.
• Revisit the location of existing utilities and identify potential conflicts within the project limits.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 17
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 10
ALTERNATIVE 1B: OVERPASS W EST OF TH 100
SPANNING C EDAR L AKE R OAD
ALTERNATIVE 1B: PHASE 1 OVERVIEW
Similar to Alternative 1A, Alternative 1B also provides an overpass crossing on the west side of TH 100; however,
this alternative spans across Cedar Lake Road and touches down on the north side of Cedar Lake Road (Figure
6). This alternative assumes future redevelopment of the property at 5102 Cedar Lake Road to accommodate the
new bridge and ramp structure. The south side of this alternative matches Alternative 1A. The main bridge span
would be longer than Alternative 1A and would span W 23rd Street, the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail, the
BNSF railroad, and Cedar Lake Road. On the north side of Cedar Lake Road, the bridge approach spans would
parallel Cedar Lake Road and ramp down to the west. A mid-block crossing is proposed on Cedar Lake Road to
allow a connection to the existing trail on the south side of Cedar Lake Road.
Figure 7: Trail crossing alignment of Alternative 1B.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 18
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 11
DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND S TANDARDS
The design standards and assumptions for Alternative 1B are the same as those in Alternative 1A. See Table 2
and Figure 5 for more details.
Pros
• Utilizes existing crosswalk across W 23rd St. to access North Cedar Lake Regional Trail.
• Less than 1,000 feet to North Cedar Lake Regional Trail from the end of the proposed trail.
• No impact to existing billboards.
• Future flexibility in location on the north side if concurrent with property redevelopment.
Cons
• Longer main span to cross Cedar Lake Road.
• The existing trail on the west side of 23rd St is only 8 feet and future widening would be very difficult.
• Conflict with existing overhead power lines.
• Private property acquisition is required on the north side of Cedar Lake Road and the south side of W
23rd Street.
• Requires mid-block crosswalk of Cedar Lake Road to access multi-use trail on the south side of Cedar
Lake Road.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 19
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 12
ALTERNATIVE 2 : OVERPASS EAST OF TH 100
ALTERNATIVE 2: PHASE 1 OVERVIEW
Alternative 2 provides a trail crossing to the East of TH 100 (Figure 7). This alternative would run parallel to the
North Cedar Lake Regional Trail on the south side of the trail and then cross over both the trail and the BNSF
railroad tracks. Initially, an option was reviewed that limited real estate impacts on the north side of the crossing to
the vacant property at 4903 Cedar Lake Rd. To achieve this, a helical bridge approach alignment was proposed.
Helical approach spans are not preferred by MnDOT, so alternative options for the north approach were
investigated. The revised alternative shown assumes the redevelopment of the property at 5001 Cedar Lake
Road and the north ramp alignment would run parallel to the BNSF tracks before connecting in with the existing
trail on the south side of Cedar Lake Road.
Figure 8: Trail crossing alignment of Alternative 2.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 20
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 13
DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND STANDARDS
The design standards and assumptions for Alternative 2 are the same as those used with Alternatives 1A/1B.
Please see Table 2 and Figure 5 for more details.
Pros
• Good connection to trail along Cedar Lake Road (north of railroad) without street crossing.
• Provides access to both North Cedar Lake Regional Trail and W. 23rd Street on the south side of the
crossing.
• Future flexibility in location on the north side if concurrent with property redevelopment.
Cons
• Conflict with existing utility poles south of the proposed trail.
• The majority of the south side of the proposed trail approach is classified as either a Freshwater Forested
Wetland or a Freshwater Emergent Wetland. It may be more challenging to build approach spans over
wetlands.
• Private property acquisition is required on the north side and south side of the railroad. Includes three
properties on the north side and property joint ownership on the south side of the crossing.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 21
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 14
ALTERNATIVE 3 : UNDERPASS WEST OF TH 100
ALTERNATIVE 3: PHASE 1 OVERVIEW
Alternative 3 provides a new underpass trail crossing west of TH 100 (Figure 8). As shown in Figure 9, the
proposed underpass would have a clear width of 14 feet and a vertical clearance of 10 feet. The west side of TH
100 was favorable for an underpass because the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail on the south side of the BNSF
railroad tracks is several feet lower than the top of rail in the existing condition. Retaining walls would be used on
both sides of the pedestrian underpass as the trail elevation is brought back up to the existing ground elevation.
This option would tie directly into the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail on the south approach and the trail along
Cedar Lake Road on the north approach.
Building a pedestrian underpass under an active rail line poses a unique construction challenge. Railroad
companies typically do not permit long-term closures of their tracks and would likely require that a temporary
bypass track (known as a “shoofly”) be constructed to maintain railroad traffic during underpass construction.
Given the high speeds and traffic volumes of the existing railroad mainline, the shoofly may need to be up to
2,000 feet in length.
Figure 9: Trail crossing alignment of Alternative 3.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 22
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 15
DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND S TANDARDS
A pedestrian underpass that goes under the existing railroad was included in the feasibility analysis; standards for
this alternative are detailed in Table 3, and a typical section is shown in Figure 9.
Table 3: Standards for Alternative 3: Pedestrian Underpass
Underpass Clear Width 14 feet
Underpass Vertical Clearance 10 feet
Top of Rail to Bottom of Top Slab 4 ft
Figure 10: Pedestrian Underpass Typical Section
An underpass clear width of 14 feet was used for Alternative 3 in accordance with the recommendations from the
MnDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual. This allows for a 10-foot trail and two-foot clearances on either side. The
proposed vertical clearance of the underpass is 10 feet which accommodates bicyclists, emergency vehicles, and
most maintenance vehicles. Four feet were assumed for the depth from the top of the rail to the bottom of the top
slab which will include the height of the rail, ballast, and top slab thickness.
Pros
• Requires less grade change than the overpass alternatives by 9.5 feet.
• Good connection to trail along Cedar Lake Road (north of railroad) without street crossing.
• Underpass option has the shortest structure length and provides a shorter crossing for trail users
• Underpass structures typically require less long-term maintenance than bridges.
Cons
• May require constructing a shoofly and staging the underpass to avoid impacts to BNSF railroad tracks
during construction.
o Significant cost to construct shoofly and temporary shoring to maintain rail traffic during
construction. Staged underpass construction is also more costly.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 23
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 16
• Requires the most excavation. Historically, contaminated soils have been encountered along railroad
properties; however, there are no identified Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) sites within
project limits.
• Construction operations on the south side of the crossing would be under existing overhead utilities.
• It may be difficult to provide stormwater drainage for the underpass because it would sit lower than the
adjacent terrain and may conflict with existing groundwater levels.
• Subject to providing accommodations for future operating needs including future adjacent tracks (longer
structure) as determined by BNSF.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 24
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 17
ALTERNATIVE 4 : OLD HWY 100 & BRIDGE 27787
REHABILITATION
ALTERNATIVE 4: PHASE 1 OVERVIEW
Alternative 4 provides a crossing of the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail, BNSF railroad tracks, and Cedar Lake
Road by utilizing the existing Old Highway 100 frontage road (M-522) and MnDOT bridge #27787, which is just
east of TH 100 (Figure 10). The existing trail along the west side of W. 23rd Street would be widened to meet the
standard 12 feet width, and a new trail would be added on the south side of Old Cedar Lake Road west of
Quentin Ave. The free right turn at the intersection of Old Cedar Lake Rd and Quentin Ave is proposed to be
eliminated, which would help slow motor vehicle speeds and increase trail user safety. The trail would cross
Quentin Ave. and tie into the new trail built on the east side of Quentin Ave, adjacent to the new Quentin
Apartment complex.
Figure 11: Trail crossing alignment of Alternative 4.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 25
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 18
On the existing bridge, a 1 feet x 8 inches curb with flexposts was proposed to separate vehicular traffic from the
trail. Flexposts will allow flexibility so that a stalled vehicle would have room to open a car door as opposed to a
concrete barrier. To meet BNSF Railway standards, the existing fence on top of the concrete barrier will need to
be removed and a taller fence installed to the top or back face of the existing barrier. The total height of the barrier
and fence is required to be 10 feet. In addition to the cross-section on the bridge, the cross-sections of the
approach roadways were reviewed. In some areas north of the bridge, the roadway width based on as-built plans
is reduced to just under 32 feet. A potential cross-section in that constrained area is shown in Figure 12. The
flexposts/concrete curb to separate trail users and motor vehicle traffic would also be proposed on Old Hwy 100
north of the bridge, where the cross-section is limited by the adjacent retaining wall.
Figure 12: Constrained Cross Section - North Approach
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 26
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 19
DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND S TANDARDS
Bridge 27787 carries a local frontage road over the BNSF railroad, Cedar Lake Road, and the North Cedar Lake
Regional Trail. The following tables detail the assumptions for the cross-section of the approach roadway and the
cross-section on the structure. These tables also include the state aid standard for comparison and background
on the proposed widths.
Initially, the requirements for the roadway approaches leading up to the bridge were reviewed to determine the
proposed standard widths for the traffic lanes and required curb reaction distance for the local road. This type of
roadway does not have a minimum shoulder requirement.
Table 4: Proposed Frontage Road Approach Widths
State Aid Standard
(8820.9936)
Proposed Typical Standard
Width Background
Travel Lane Width 10-11 feet
(8820.9936) 10 feet Proposed to meet/exceed State
Aid Standard
Curb Reaction
Distance
1-2 feet
(8820.9936) 2 feet Proposed to meet/exceed State
Aid Standard
Following an evaluation of the proposed approach widths, standards and guidance for the cross-section on the
bridge were reviewed and travel lane widths, shoulder widths, and trail widths were proposed.
Table 5: Proposed Widths on Existing Structure
State Aid Standard Proposed Typical Standard
Width Background
Travel Lane Width 11-12 feet
(8820.9920) 12 feet Proposed to meet/exceed State
Aid Standard
Shoulder Width 6 feet
(8820.9920) 0 feet *State Aid Variance Required
Trail Width 8 feet
(8820.0995) 8 - 10 feet Proposed to meet/exceed State
Aid Standard
*Shoulder Width Variance Assumption Background: The MnDOT Performance-Based Practical Design Process and Design Guidance was
reviewed for required shoulder widths on bridges. The guidance states that bridges less than 250 feet in length should match the existing
approach roadway width. Additionally, the guidance recommends that shoulders only be used on urban streets as parking lanes and bicycle
facilities. The AASHTO Green Book was also reviewed and recommended that bridges with ADT>2000 should match the approach roadway
width and lists no requirements for providing a shoulder-width on urban local streets. Based on this guidance, the study team believes that a
variance would be appropriate in this situation because of the short length of the bridge at this location.
Pros
• No new structure construction is required.
• Most cost-effective option.
• No real estate acquisition is anticipated.
• Easy access to North Cedar Lake Regional Trail.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 27
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 20
• Provides an opportunity to improve safety operations for pedestrians and bicyclists at Old Cedar Lake
Road/Quentin Ave by eliminating the free right turn. Squaring up this intersection would slow down right-
turning vehicles and provide a safer crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Cons
• The longest overall distance to travel from the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail to Cedar Lake Road.
• Constrained by existing bridge cross-section and adjacent retaining walls; results in less than preferred
trail width across the structure.
• Maintenance Concerns: City currently has no way to maintain a trail that is 8 feet or 8 feet 10 inches wide
(i.e. plow, sweep).
ALTERNATIVE 4: PHASE 2
Alternative 4 Concept Design
This concept was refined during phase 2 through the development of concept layouts, discussions with the City of
St. Louis Park, and following coordination meetings with MnDOT design and state-aid staff. Below is a summary
of the design assumptions, standards, and revisions made to Alternative 4 during phase 2 from both the design
process and based on coordination with the City and MnDOT.
Design/Control Vehicle
For the concept design of the intersections of Old Cedar Lake Road with the frontage road and Quentin Road, the
passenger car was used as the design vehicle and the WB-62 was used as a control vehicle to determine the
geometry of the proposed raised truck aprons. This large interstate vehicle was selected as the control vehicle to
accommodate trucks traveling to the adjacent car dealership on Quentin Ave.
Outside Truck Apron
The proposed concept includes two raised outside truck aprons as depicted in red in the concept plan view
(Appendix A). Truck aprons were proposed to reduce passenger vehicle turning speeds at these intersections
while still accommodating the turning needs of larger trucks. The proposed concept includes the use of colored or
stamped concrete to differentiate between the adjacent roadway and to clarify the path of travel for pedestrians
and bicyclist.
Existing Constraint: Snow Maintenance and Storage
Through evaluation of this alternative, maintenance during winter months was discussed with the City of St. Louis
Park. After review, it is anticipated that for small snow events, the concept roadway could be plowed as normal,
and the roadway would be salted. Typically, the trail would not be salted but with the trail on the bridge deck, it
should be evaluated whether salting of the trail on the bridge is required during events. For large snow events,
snow removal would need to be done at night with flaggers due to the narrow nature of the road and the way
snow removal operations occur. Snow blowing and hauling would occur at least 4 days after a snow event. If
multiple snow events occurred within the 4-day window, the snow blowing and hauling timeframe will be pushed
back further, up to an additional 4-7 days while crews clear the new snowfall. During larger or "back to back"
snow events, the snow could pile up and impact travel lane widths before snow removal and hauling could occur.
Along the west side of the frontage road, north of the existing sign structure footing, the median in front of the
retaining wall is paved concrete and this area is currently used for snow storage during the winter months. At the
concept phase, it was assumed the existing curb line adjacent to the concrete shoulder will remain in place for
snow storage after small snow events.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 28
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 21
Figure 13: Existing Snow Storage Concrete Median - Looking South
MnDOT Coordination
Meetings with MnDOT staff were held to discuss the feasibility of this option to retrofit the existing bridge 27787,
which is currently owned by MnDOT. In addition to the bridge, the team discussed the existing retaining wall and
sign structure located north of the bridge and proposed improvements as part of the concept design. On the
bridge, options for separation between vehicle travel lanes and the trail were discussed, as well as options for
increasing the fence height on the existing concrete barrier to meet BNSF requirements. The following
assumptions were incorporated into the concept design
Bridge 27787
Following discussion with the MnDOT bridge office, the following bridge improvements assumed for this concept
are described below. Figure 14 shows the proposed cross-section at the bridge.
• P-1 Rail: A P-1 rail is proposed between the vehicle travel lanes and the trail. This will serve as the MASH
tested barrier for vehicle traffic. It is assumed that the rail will be anchored to the existing deck and the
wearing surface will be removed from the deck before placement of the new concrete rail.
• Replace Expansion Joints: To anchor the ends of the P-1 rail to the existing bridge deck, the expansion
joints are assumed to be replaced as part of the rehabilitation. This will allow the parapet reinforcement to
be cast in place at the ends of the bridge.
• A Fence on Existing Exterior Barrier: BNSF requires a minimum 10 feet total height protection adjacent to
a pedestrian/bicycle facility on a bridge over a railroad. With the existing 2 feet 10 inches concrete barrier,
it is assumed that a fence of a minimum of 7 feet 2 inches will be attached to the existing parapet. Since
the P-1 rail is being proposed as the MASH tested rail, the fence can be mounted directly on top of the
existing barrier.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 29
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 22
Figure 14: Bridge 27787 Phase 1 Proposed Typical Section
Retaining Wall
The existing retaining wall north of the bridge has a railing mounted on top of the concrete barrier. This fencing
extends for a portion of the length of the wall but stops short of the end of the wall. In the existing condition,
approximately 250 feet of the retaining wall has no fencing on top of the parapet. For this study, it is assumed that
the existing railing will be removed, and a new fence will be attached to the back face of the existing concrete
barrier. Following discussion with MnDOT, the existing rail poses a snag hazard, and mounting to the back face
would eliminate that hazard. The existing concrete barrier is 2 feet 10 inches. A fencing with a minimum height of
1 foot 8 inches will be assumed to maintain a 4 feet 6 inches overall height from the trail elevation.
Existing Sign Structure Footing
Sign structure S-51-100 is a cantilever sign structure for the EB 394 exit ramp from NB TH 100. The base of the
footing is adjacent to the frontage road, and the footing creates the most constrained cross-section along the
frontage road (31 feet 5 inches in width). Through discussions with MnDOT, there are no current plans for
maintenance or replacement of this existing sign structure. If warranted, the City could examine options to
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 30
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 23
relocate the sign structure to the south, where the median is wider. However, the existing sign structure base is
integral with the adjacent retaining wall, so removal of the existing sign blister would be difficult and would likely
require rehabilitation work to the existing retaining wall. For this concept design, it was assumed that the sign
structure would remain in place as part of the proposed alternative improvements.
State Aid / MnDOT Coordination
Keeping future funding options open was a primary goal during this study. With this in mind, the project team
reviewed state aid standards and evaluated what design variances may be required if this roadway were to
become a state aid route in the future. Currently, the existing local route is not a state aid route; however, W 23rd
Street and Old Cedar Lake Road are both existing state aid routes on the north and south termini of this proposed
alternative, as shown in Figure 14.
Figure 15: Project Area State Aid Route Map
Following up on the project team's initial review of state aid standards and rules, the team met with staff from
the MnDOT Metro District State Aid office to discuss the study and the alternatives under consideration.
Conversations from this meeting in Fall 2021 indicated that it is very unlikely that the local frontage road would
be designated as a state aid route in the future due to two primary reasons:
• It is directly adjacent to TH 100
• It is within the existing MnDOT right-of-way
Bridge 27787 is currently a MnDOT owned structure, but the frontage road is a local road. The project team met
with MnDOT staff and discussed the advantages of having MnDOT maintain ownership of the bridge. A few
assumptions for the maintained MnDOT ownership include simplified coordination for required bridge inspection
and maintenance needs with the adjacent HWY 100 bridges. Additionally, the abutments for bridge 27787 are
connected to the adjacent HWY 100 northbound bridge with dowels tying the structures together.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 31
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 24
FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
This alternative was reviewed and evaluated based on existing design standards and the assumptions stated
above. Knowing that the proposed design phase is not anticipated to be in the immediate future, the following
considerations and coordination will assist in determining a preferred alternative:
• Future land use of the properties within the project limits.
• Design/Control Vehicle based on traffic and land use.
• Future Trail Development on Old Hwy 100 north of Old Cedar Lake Road
• Future Maintenance Considerations:
• Snow removal/sweeping on the trail.
• Snow removal/snow storage. With this proposed alternative, maintenance and snow removal
would need to be revisited both for along the vehicle travel lanes as well as along the proposed
trail. The city does not currently own equipment to plow the narrow trail widths proposed.
• Existing Bridge 27787
• Ownership – revisit ownership of this structure and coordinate with MnDOT staff on proposed
work if owned by MnDOT
• Confirm the bridge load rating is adequate with the proposed changes.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 32
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 25
PLANNING-LEVEL OPINIONS OF
PROBABLE COST
Planning-level opinions of probable cost were developed for each alternative based on reviewing the potential
improvements and establishing a unit cost for anticipated improvements. During phase 1, alternatives were hand-
sketched on aerial photos to assist in the development of the cost opinions, and no CAD drafting was completed.
In phase 2, Alternatives 1A and 4 were refined, and CAD linework was developed to allow for more detailed cost
opinions for those alternatives.
Opinions of probable cost were developed by identifying major pay items (e.g., pavement, bridges, retaining walls,
etc.) and establishing rough quantities to determine an order of magnitude cost. Additional pay items have been
assigned approximate lump sum prices based on a percentage of the anticipated construction cost. Planning-level
cost opinions include a 30% contingency to cover items that are undefined or are typically unknown early in the
planning phase of a project. Unit costs are based on 2020 dollars and were assigned based on historical cost
data from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the estimator’s experience and judgment.
Cost opinions do not include easement and right of way acquisition, utility relocation, permitting, inspection or
construction management, environmental documentation, special site remediation, insurance, or the cost of
ongoing maintenance. The overall cost opinions are intended to be general and used only for planning purposes.
Toole Design Group, LLC makes no guarantees or warranties regarding the cost opinions herein. Construction
costs will vary based on the ultimate project scope, actual site conditions and constraints, schedule, and
economic conditions at the time of construction.
Table 6 gives an opinion of probable cost for each alternative and includes a straight 4% escalation factor to the
proposed construction year of 2035. A more detailed breakdown of the cost opinions can be found in Appendix B.
Note that Alternatives 1B, 2, and 3 are based on phase 1 analysis, and Alternatives 1A and 4 are based on phase
2 analysis.
Table 6: Planning Level Cost Opinions
Alternative Planning Level
Cost Opinions*
Alternative 1A: Overpass West of TH 100
$12.8 Million
Alternative 1B: Overpass West of TH 100 spanning Cedar Lake Rd
$14.6 Million
Alternative 2: Overpass East of TH 100
$13.7 Million
Alternative 3: Underpass West of TH 100
$15.4 Million
Alternative 4: Old Hwy 100 & Bridge 27787 Rehabilitation
$2.3 Million
*Cost opinions do not include easement and right of way acquisition, utility relocation, permitting, inspection or
construction management, environmental documentation, special site remediation, insurance, or the cost of
ongoing maintenance. The cost opinions do include design and construction engineering services which were
estimated as 20% of the construction cost.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 33
BNSF TRAIL CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY | PROJECT REPORT
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study | 26
STUDY SUMMARY
The purpose of the BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study was to identify potential trail connections over the BNSF
Railroad tracks near the vicinity of TH 100 in St. Louis Park. Phase 1 of the study identified and evaluated five
different alternatives, including three different overpass alternatives, an underpass alternative, and an alternative
that utilizes the existing Old Highway 100 frontage road and MnDOT bridge #27787. An alternative that
considered a new at-grade crossing over the railroad was precluded by BNSF policy and was therefore removed
from consideration and not analyzed during this study.
Following an initial analysis of pros, cons, opinions of probable costs, and general implementation feasibility of
each of the alternatives, City of St. Louis Park staff narrowed the alternatives down to two alternatives that were
analyzed further in Phase 2 of the study. The two alternatives included in Phase 2 of the study were:
• Alternative 1A: Overpass West of TH 100
• Alternative 4: Old Hwy 100 & Bridge 27787 Rehabilitation
The two alternatives above were further refined in Phase 2 with conceptual plans and additional meetings with
various stakeholders (See Appendix A for concept plans). These two alternatives were selected because they
were the most technically feasible and/or the most cost-effective alternatives at the time of the analysis in 2021.
However, it is important to note that the alternatives that were not carried into Phase 2 should not be dismissed
from consideration in the future. Many factors could change in the future that may increase or decrease the
feasibility of any of the alternatives, including:
• Future land use development on parcels adjacent to or near the alternatives
• Changes to roadway design standards, rules, and regulations
• The willingness of property owners to sell right-of-way on portions of their property
• New grant funding opportunities
• BNSF Future Planning – Accommodation for Future Tracks
• Future MnDOT projects on TH 100 bridges and roadway
• Future pedestrian/bicycle/vehicle traffic patterns
Given the vast number of unknown variables that could influence the development of a trail crossing in the future,
there was no ‘preferred alternative’ or ‘recommendation’ identified in this study. The City of St. Louis Park should
continue to monitor the variables that could impact the future feasibility of each of the five alternatives, continue to
coordinate with stakeholders and potential project partners and explore funding opportunities for the future design
and implementation of a trail crossing over the BNSF railroad within the study area.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 34
APPENDIX A
CONCEPT PLANS – ALTERNATIVE 1A AND ALTERNATIVE 4
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 35
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 36
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 37
APPENDIX B
CONCEPT COST ESTIMATES
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 38
City of St. Louis Park Prepared By: MM
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study Date: 11/15/2021
Preliminary Concept Phase 2 - Alternative 1A Checked By: MAH
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
Clearing & Grubbing, Demolition, and Site Preparation 1 LS $9,500.00 $9,500
Bituminous Trail 671 SY $21.00 $14,093
Curb Ramps 1 EA $7,000.00 $7,000
Excavation 190 CY $8.00 $1,520
Embankment 190 CY $5.50 $1,045
Bridge - Main Span 3360 SF $275.00 $924,000
Bridge - Approach Spans 11200 SF $240.00 $2,688,000
Staircase (included on either side of Bridge) 1 LS $550,000.00 $550,000
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) 1 EA $30,000.00 $30,000
Railroad Flagging 1 LS $250,000.00 $250,000
Removal of Contaminated Soils (1%) 1 LS $45,000.00 $45,000
Drainage Modifications/Adjustments (1%) 1 LS $45,000.00 $45,000
Lighting (1%) 1 LS $45,000.00 $45,000
Turf Establishment and Erosion Control (3%) 1 LS $134,000.00 $134,000
Mobilization (8%) 1 LS $380,000.00 $380,000
Maintenance of Traffic (3%) 1 LS $142,000.00 $142,000
SUBTOTAL = $5,266,158
CONTINGENCIES
30% CONTINGENCY = $1,579,848
DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
20% DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING = $1,369,201
TOTAL = $8,215,207
ESCALATION
YEARS UNTIL CONSTRUCTION (2035 Construction Year) = 14
ESCALATION (4.0%/YEAR) = $4,600,516
GRAND TOTAL COST = $12,815,723
General Assumptions and Exclusions:
3. The opinion does not include construction administration and inspection services.
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
This opinion of probable construction cost was developed by identifying pay items and establishing quantities based on the
current preliminary design. Additional pay items have been assigned approximate lump sum prices based on a percentage of
the anticipated construction cost. Preliminary cost opinions include a 30% contingency to cover items that are undefined or
are typically unknown prior to final design. Unit costs are based on 2020-2021 dollars and were assigned based on historical
cost data from MnDOT and regional bid tabs. This cost opinion does not include easement and right-of-way acquisition;
permitting, inspection, or construction management; escalation; or the cost for ongoing maintenance. This cost opinion is
provided for the Client’s information, and is based on the design professional’s recent experience, adjusted for factors known
at the time of preparation. Toole Design Group, LLC has no control over the cost of labor and material, competitive bidding, or
market conditions; and makes no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy of the opinion as compared to
actual bids or cost to the Client.
1. Unit prices are based on historical bid pricing from MNDOT, using the most recent available data from this
time period, and engineering judgement.
2. The opinion does not include environmental permitting, wetland mitigation, easement, or property acquisition.
4. The opinion does not include public outreach, funding planning, or client management services.
6. The opinion does not include utility adjustments or street light adjustments.
5. The Drainage and Utility Modifications lump sum unit prices assume minor modifications and potential
conflicts.
9. Assume straight escalation percentage per year based on 2020 cost.
7. Bridge lump sum cost includes foundations, columns, railing.
8. Items such as crosswalk striping, shared use path striping, wayfinding signage, are assumed to be included in
contingency.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 39
City of St. Louis Park Prepared By: MAH
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study Date: 9/7/2021
Preliminary Phase 1 Concept - Alternative 1B Checked By: KMS
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
Clearing & Grubbing, Demolition, and Site Preparation 1 LS $1,800.00 $1,800
Bituminous Trail 260 SY $21.00 $5,460
Excavation 90 CY $8.00 $720
Bridge - Main Span 3850 SF $275.00 $1,058,750
Bridge - Approach Spans 13440 SF $240.00 $3,225,600
Staircase (included on both sides of Bridge) 1 LS $550,000.00 $550,000
Railroad Flagging 1 LS $250,000.00 $250,000
Removal of Contaminated Soils (1%)1 LS $51,000.00 $51,000
Drainage Modifications/Adjustments (1%)1 LS $51,000.00 $51,000
Lighting (1%)1 LS $51,000.00 $51,000
Turf Establishment and Erosion Control (3%)1 LS $153,000.00 $153,000
Mobilization (8%)1 LS $432,000.00 $432,000
Maintenance of Traffic (3%)1 LS $162,000.00 $162,000
SUBTOTAL = $5,992,330
CONTINGENCIES
30% CONTINGENCY = $1,797,699
DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
20% DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING = $1,558,006
TOTAL = $9,348,035
ESCALATION
YEARS UNTIL CONSTRUCTION (2035 Construction Year) = 14
ESCALATION (4.0%/YEAR) = $5,234,899
GRAND TOTAL COST = $14,582,934
General Assumptions and Exclusions:
3. The opinion does not include construction administration and inspection services.
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
This opinion of probable construction cost was developed by identifying pay items and establishing quantities based on the
current preliminary design. Additional pay items have been assigned approximate lump sum prices based on a percentage of
the anticipated construction cost. Preliminary cost opinions include a 30% contingency to cover items that are undefined or are
typically unknown prior to final design. Unit costs are based on 2020-2021 dollars and were assigned based on historical cost
data from MnDOT and regional bid tabs. This cost opinion does not include easement and right-of-way acquisition; permitting,
inspection, or construction management; escalation; or the cost for ongoing maintenance. This cost opinion is provided for the
Client’s information, and is based on the design professional’s recent experience, adjusted for factors known at the time of
preparation. Toole Design Group, LLC has no control over the cost of labor and material, competitive bidding, or market
conditions; and makes no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy of the opinion as compared to actual bids
or cost to the Client.
1. Unit prices are based on historical bid pricing from MNDOT, using the most recent available data from this
time period, and engineering judgement.
2. The opinion does not include environmental permitting, wetland mitigation, easement, or property acquisition.
4. The opinion does not include public outreach, funding planning, or client management services.
6. The opinion does not include utility adjustments or street light adjustments.
5. The Drainage and Utility Modifications lump sum unit prices assume minor modifications and potential
conflicts.
8. Items such as crosswalk striping, shared use path striping, wayfinding signage, are assumed to be included in
contingency.
7. Bridge lump sum cost includes foundations, columns, bridge, railing.
9. Cost Estimate assumes redevelopment of 5120 Cedar Lake Road and assumes parking lot removals, etc.
included in redevelopment and not included in this cost.
10. Assume straight escalation percentage per year based on 2020 cost.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 40
City of St. Louis Park Prepared By: MAH
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study Date: 8/5/2021
Preliminary Phase 1 Concept - Alternative 2 Checked By: KMS
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
Clearing & Grubbing, Demolition, and Site Preparation 1 LS $7,730.00 $7,730
Common Excavation 100 CY $8.00 $800
Bituminous Trail 300 SY $21.00 $6,300
Bridge - Main Span 2800 SF $275.00 $770,000
Bridge - Approach Spans 13440 SF $240.00 $3,225,600
Staircase (included on both sides of Bridge) 1 LS $550,000.00 $550,000
Railroad Flagging 1 LS $250,000.00 $250,000
Removal of Contaminated Soils (1%) 1 LS $48,000.00 $48,000
Drainage Modifications/Adjustments (1%) 1 LS $48,000.00 $48,000
Lighting (1%) 1 LS $48,000.00 $48,000
Turf Establishment and Erosion Control (3%) 1 LS $144,000.00 $144,000
Mobilization (8%) 1 LS $408,000.00 $408,000
Maintenance of Traffic (3%) 1 LS $153,000.00 $153,000
SUBTOTAL = $5,659,430
CONTINGENCIES
30% CONTINGENCY = $1,697,829
DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
20% DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING = $1,471,452
TOTAL = $8,828,711
ESCALATION
YEARS UNTIL CONSTRUCTION (2035 Construction Year) = 14
ESCALATION (4.0%/YEAR) = $4,944,078
GRAND TOTAL COST = $13,772,789
General Assumptions and Exclusions:
3. The opinion does not include construction administration and inspection services.
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
This opinion of probable construction cost was developed by identifying pay items and establishing quantities based on the
current preliminary design. Additional pay items have been assigned approximate lump sum prices based on a percentage of
the anticipated construction cost. Preliminary cost opinions include a 30% contingency to cover items that are undefined or are
typically unknown prior to final design. Unit costs are based on 2020-2021 dollars and were assigned based on historical cost
data from MnDOT and regional bid tabs. This cost opinion does not include easement and right-of-way acquisition; permitting,
inspection, or construction management; escalation; or the cost for ongoing maintenance. This cost opinion is provided for the
Client’s information, and is based on the design professional’s recent experience, adjusted for factors known at the time of
preparation. Toole Design Group, LLC has no control over the cost of labor and material, competitive bidding, or market
conditions; and makes no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy of the opinion as compared to actual bids
or cost to the Client.
1. Unit prices are based on historical bid pricing from MNDOT, using the most recent available data from this
time period, and engineering judgement.
2. The opinion does not include environmental permitting, wetland mitigation, easement, or property acquisition.
4. The opinion does not include public outreach, funding planning, or client management services.
6. The opinion does not include utility adjustments or street light adjustments.
5. The Drainage and Utility Modifications lump sum unit prices assume minor modifications and potential
conflicts.
8. Items such as crosswalk striping, shared use path striping, wayfinding signage, are assumed to be included in
contingency.
7. Bridge lump sum cost includes foundations, columns, railing..
9. Assume straight escalation percentage per year based on 2020 cost.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 41
City of St. Louis Park Prepared By: MAH
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study Date: 9/7/2021
Preliminary Phase 1 Concept - Alternative 3 Checked By: KMS
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
Clearing & Grubbing, Demolition, and Site Preparation 1 LS $880.00 $880
Excavation 2000 CY $8.00 $16,000
Bituminous Trail 660 SY $21.00 $13,860
Pedestrian Underpass 80 LF $2,500.00 $200,000
Retaining Wall 1 LS $703,000.00 $703,000
Railroad Shoo - fly 1 LS $4,000,000.00 $4,000,000
Railroad Flagging 1 LS $250,000.00 $250,000
Removal of Contaminated Soils (5%)1 LS $259,000.00 $259,000
Drainage Modifications/Adjustments (1%)1 LS $52,000.00 $52,000
Lighting (1%)1 LS $52,000.00 $52,000
Turf Establishment and Erosion Control (3%)1 LS $156,000.00 $156,000
Mobilization (8%)1 LS $456,000.00 $456,000
Maintenance of Traffic (3%)1 LS $171,000.00 $171,000
SUBTOTAL = $6,329,740
CONTINGENCIES
30% CONTINGENCY = $1,898,922
DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
20% DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING = $1,645,732
TOTAL = $9,874,394
ESCALATION
YEARS UNTIL CONSTRUCTION (2035 Construction Year) = 14
ESCALATION (4.0%/YEAR) = $5,529,661
GRAND TOTAL COST = $15,404,055
General Assumptions and Esclusions:
3. The opinion does not include construction administration and inspection services.
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
This opinion of probable construction cost was developed by identifying pay items and establishing quantities based on the
current preliminary design. Additional pay items have been assigned approximate lump sum prices based on a percentage of
the anticipated construction cost. Preliminary cost opinions include a 30% contingency to cover items that are undefined or are
typically unknown prior to final design. Unit costs are based on 2020-2021 dollars and were assigned based on historical cost
data from MnDOT and regional bid tabs. This cost opinion does not include easement and right-of-way acquisition; permitting,
inspection, or construction management; escalation; or the cost for ongoing maintenance. This cost opinion is provided for the
Client’s information, and is based on the design professional’s recent experience, adjusted for factors known at the time of
preparation. Toole Design Group, LLC has no control over the cost of labor and material, competitive bidding, or market
conditions; and makes no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy of the opinion as compared to actual bids
or cost to the Client.
1. Unit prices are based on historial bid pricing from MNDOT, using the most recent available data from this time
period, and engineering judgement.
2. The opinion does not include environmental permitting, wetland mitigation, easement, or property acquisition.
4. The opinion does not include public outreach, funding planning, or client management services.
6. The opinion does not include utility adjustments or street light adjustments.
5. The Drainage and Utility Modifications lump sum unit prices assume minor modifications and potential
conflicts.
8. Items such as crosswalk striping, shared use path striping, wayfinding signage, are assumed to be included in
contingency.
7. Bridge lump sum cost includes foundations, columns, bridge lighting, railing..
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 42
City of St. Louis Park Prepared By: MM
BNSF Trail Crossing Feasibility Study Date: 11/15/2021
Preliminary Phase 2 Concept - Alternative 4 Checked By: MAH
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
Removals (path, concrete median, curb/gutter, pavement)1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000
Truck Aprons 256 SY $56.00 $15,000
New Pavement 2250 SY $39.00 $88,000
Excavation 410 CY $8.00 $4,000
Bituminous Trail 1218 SY $21.00 $26,000
Curb Ramps 7 EA $7,000.00 $49,000
1' Concrete Median (off bridge)850 LF $40.00 $34,000
Concrete Curb and Gutter 900 FT $29.00 $26,100
New Light Pole 1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000
Bridge Rehabilitation Work/Median 1 LS $200,000.00 $200,000
Railing (along retaining wall) 1 LS $135,000.00 $135,000
Railroad Flagging 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000
Drainage Modifications/Adjustments (5%)1 LS $37,000.00 $37,000
Striping (3%)1 LS $22,000.00 $22,000
Turf Establishment and Erosion Control (3%)1 LS $18,000.00 $18,000
Mobilization (8%)1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000
Maintenance of Traffic (5%)1 LS $41,000.00 $41,000
SUBTOTAL = $920,100
CONTINGENCIES
30% CONTINGENCY = $276,030
DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
20% DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING = $239,226
TOTAL = $1,435,356
ESCALATION
YEARS UNTIL CONSTRUCTION (2035 Construction Year) = 14
ESCALATION (4.0%/YEAR) = $803,799
GRAND TOTAL COST = $2,239,155
General Assumptions and Exclusions:
3. The opinion does not include construction administration and inspection services.
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
This opinion of probable construction cost was developed by identifying pay items and establishing quantities based on the current
preliminary design. Additional pay items have been assigned approximate lump sum prices based on a percentage of the anticipated
construction cost. Preliminary cost opinions include a 30% contingency to cover items that are undefined or are typically unknown prior
to final design. Unit costs are based on 2020-2021 dollars and were assigned based on historical cost data from MnDOT and regional
bid tabs. This cost opinion does not include easement and right-of-way acquisition; permitting, inspection, or construction management;
escalation; or the cost for ongoing maintenance. This cost opinion is provided for the Client’s information, and is based on the design
professional’s recent experience, adjusted for factors known at the time of preparation. Toole Design Group, LLC has no control over the
cost of labor and material, competitive bidding, or market conditions; and makes no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the
accuracy of the opinion as compared to actual bids or cost to the Client.
1. Unit prices are based on historical bid pricing from MNDOT, using the most recent available data from this time
period, and engineering judgement.
2. The opinion does not include environmental permitting, wetland mitigation, easement, or property acquisition.
4. The opinion does not include public outreach, funding planning, or client management services.
6. The opinion does not include utility adjustments or street light adjustments.
5. The Drainage and Utility Modifications lump sum unit prices assume minor modifications and potential conflicts.
7. Assume straight escalation percentage per year based on 2020 cost.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 43
UTICAAVES26TH ST W
25THSTWHIGHWAY 100 SNATCHEZ AVE SQUENTIN
AVE
S
MONTEREYAVESCEDARL
AKE
R
D
HIGHWAY 100 SPARK PLACE BLVDPA R K D ALE D R PARKDALE DR
OLD CEDAR LAK E R D
PARKLANDS
L
N
C E D A R WOODRD
ALLEYUTICAAVESH I L L LNS
BARRY ST WESTRIDGE LNPRINCETON AVE S27TH ST W QUENTIN AVE STOLEDO AVE SSALEM AVE SRALEIGH AVE SLYNNAVESHIGH W AY 1 0 0 S
WESTSIDE DR
VERNON AVE SPARKLANDSRDCEDAR L A K E R D
PARKW OO D S R D
2 3 R D S T W
Twin LakesTwin Lakes
ParkPark
0 500 1,000250
Feet
Alternative 4: Location Map
Legend
Alternative 4
Existing trails
Planned trails
Bikeways
Planned bikeways
Sidewalks
Planned sidewalks
Intersection improvements
Date: 7/19/2022
Reconstruct existing
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 2)
Title: Connect the Park: West End trail bridge feasibility study Page 44
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: July 25, 2022
Written report: 3
Executive summary
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)
Recommended action: The purpose of this report is to provide the city council with an update
on the 2023 and 2024 Municipal State Aid (MSA) road projects.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to continue to pursue the bikeway, sidewalk
and street improvements for these road rehabilitation projects?
Summary: Since January 2022, staff has been working on the public engagement for the Cedar
Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue improvement project. In addition to engaging the public, the
city’s consultant, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., has been working on design options for
these roadways and their associated cost estimates. These cost estimates have increased since
the last time this project was discussed with council. Prior to starting the next round of public
engagement for this project, we wanted to share these updated costs with the city council.
The two Municipal State Aid capital projects are:
1. Cedar Lake Road rehabilitation (TH169 to Nevada Avenue) – Project no. 4023-1100
o 2021 cost $8.6 million
o Updated cost $10.5 million
o Construction year 2023/ 2024
2. Louisiana Avenue (Wayzata Boulevard to BNSF railroad) and Cedar Lake Road (Nevada
Avenue to Kentucky Avenue) rehabilitation – Project no. 4024-1100
o 2021 cost $9.5 million
o Updated cost $10.7 million
o Construction year 2024/ 2025
Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city’s capital improvement
plan (CIP) for 2023, 2024 and 2025. At this time, the project is proposed to be financed using
general obligation bonds, municipals state aid funds, and utility funds. For various reasons, the
updated project cost is greater than the estimates provided to the council in September 2021.
Additional information on project costs is discussed later in this report.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Sept. 13, 2021 study session report
Location map
Public engagement summaries
Prepared by: Joe Shamla, engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)
Discussion
Background: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue are proposed to be improved over 3 years
2023-2025. In 2023/2024, Cedar Lake Road is expected to be upgraded between Highway 169
and Nevada Avenue. In 2024/2025, Louisiana Avenue will be improved between Wayzata
Boulevard and the BNSF railroad bridge located just south of Cedar Lake Road. The 2024/2025
project also includes Cedar Lake Road between Nevada Avenue and Kentucky Avenue (see
attached project map). The projects have been combined into one public engagement initiative
and preliminary design process because they create a connected system.
Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue are important corridors in our community. These are
Municipal State Aid (MSA) roads which are eligible for state gas tax dollars to help pay for
improvement projects. Due to the limited availability of these funds, the primary funding
source for these projects is general obligation bonds. The costs for these projects will have
impacts to future levies. A summary of the CIP project scope and costs was provided to council
in a report on Sept. 13, 2021. To qualify for MSA funding in the future, the roads will be
constructed to state aid standards.
Project scope: The two Municipal State Aid projects are:
1. Cedar Lake Road rehabilitation (TH169 to Nevada Avenue) – Project no. 4023-1100
o Private utility work in 2023
o Construction 2024
2. Louisiana Avenue (Wayzata Boulevard to BNSF railroad) and Cedar Lake Road (Nevada
Avenue to Kentucky Avenue) rehabilitation – Project no. 4024-1100
o Private utility work in 2024
o Construction 2025
The following items are included in the overall project scope. See study session report for
additional detail:
• New pavement
• Accommodations for bicycles
• Filling in gaps in the sidewalk network
• Enhancements for people walking and rolling, including curb extensions, raised medians,
enhanced crosswalks and upgrades to ensure ADA compliance
• Intersection improvements
• Repair/replace sanitary sewer, storm sewer and watermain as needed
Bikeway: Bikeways along these routes are a part of Connect the Park; consistent with past
council direction, a feasibility review is being conducted. Understanding that the council is
interested in a bikeway that serves the needs of the interested but concerned cyclist, staff are
considering several different types of bikeway, including cycle track, trail, and on-street
buffered bike lanes. Community feedback will be solicited on the type of bikeway as well as
potential alternate routes. The most expensive of the bikeway options, the cycle track, has had
its cost included in the CIP and factored into the updated cost outlined in this report. If a
different facility type or alternate route is ultimately pursued, the project costs will not exceed
the 2021 cost estimate.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)
Watermain: Both Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue have a 12-inch watermain that was
installed in 1951. Watermains along these segments do not have a history of breaks. Even so,
staff is working with vendors to see if there is assessment that can be done on watermains
along the project. We are planning to have this done before the project comes to council for
approval. Depending on the assessments, staff may recommend adding watermain
replacement on this project. These costs are not included in the updated estimate.
Community engagement: Staff has been working with the community engagement consultant
to provide multiple opportunities to engage with residents. Please see the summary below of
engagement to date. These opportunities fall into the consult area of the Spectrum of Public
Participation continuum (i.e. IAP2). Attached are engagement summaries with more
information:
• Two virtual open houses were provided in February. The open houses were recorded
and available on the project website for people who were not available during the
scheduled open houses.
• An online survey was provided with specific questions to get input. (126 responses)
• An interactive map was provided on the project website. This allowed people to provide
input on a specific location within the project corridor. (419 comments received)
• There have been four pop-up events to date to allow residents attending other events
within the community to provide feedback. The project team attended the State of the
Community, Bike to Work Day, and Ecotacular. They also coordinated with staff at the
Hamilton House to get feedback from their residents via a meeting in the community
room.
Social media has also been utilized to connect with and inform residents. Communications have
been sent via NextDoor, Facebook, Twitter, etc. In addition, there is an email list that has
regularly been used to send out updates to all people who have signed up.
An article was also included in the Park Perspective. Letters have been sent out to ensure that
people who may not have access to computers or are not as comfortable using them can
provide feedback by phone. These letters were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of
the project limits. Staff also included the homes along the length of the Louisiana Avenue
corridor between Pennsylvania Avenue and Hampshire Avenue. Properties along the corridor
located south of Cedar Lake Road to the railroad tracks were also included.
The next round of community engagement is scheduled for August; this will include open
houses and online feedback. As a part of this, two layouts will be shared with the community.
These will show the different types of bikeway types described above and alternate routes. To
get online feedback, an interactive map will be used. This feedback will help inform staff
recommendations when this project is brought to the council for approval in late 2022/early
2023.
Financial considerations: Staff has been monitoring the costs of this project and wanted to
provide an update based on additional information. There are many factors that have
contributed to increased costs.
The soils consultant completed the soil borings and pavement review. It was determined that
there were large areas of subgrade that needed to be rebuilt to support the curb, road, and
bikeway. Due to this, we are changing our recommendation on Cedar Lake Road from a mill and
overlay to a complete pavement replacement. This will create a stable base for the road and
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)
the new infrastructure being constructed. The approximate additional cost for this work is
$1,000,000.
Costs have been rising due to inflation. To prepare the CIP estimates, staff used an inflation
factor of 3% per year. Using cost estimates from recently bid-out projects, the current inflation
rate is between 8-9%. In addition, the project was delayed a year to accommodate utility
relocation and to try to take advantage of federal funding grant opportunities that came online
due to the Federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act bill approved late last year. The
approximate additional cost due to inflation is approximately $1,350,000.
Staff has been reviewing concept work provided by the consultant and has identified safety
improvements for pedestrians, buses, and vehicles. Staff is proposing to add concrete bus
pullouts for an approximate cost of $350,000. In addition, staff is proposing safety access
modifications and side street realignments. The approximate costs for these items are
$400,000.
These resulted in a total cost increase of $3,100,000.
1. Cedar Lake Road rehabilitation (TH169 to Nevada Avenue) – Project no. 4023-1100
a. 2021 cost $8.6 million
b. Updated cost $10.5 million
c. Cost increase = $1.9 million
2. Louisiana Avenue (Wayzata Boulevard to BNSF railroad) and Cedar Lake Road (Nevada
Avenue to Kentucky Avenue) rehabilitation – Project no. 4024-1100
a. 2021 cost $9.5 million
b. Updated cost $10.7 million
c. Cost increase = $1.2 million
Federal funding update: Staff has applied for several grants to fund all or a portion of these
projects. These include USDOT Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and
Equity (RAISE) grant, Metropolitan Council Roadway modernization grant, and Congressionally
directed spending. We will know if we are successful with these applications before the end of
the year.
Next steps: While these are two separate projects proposed for construction in 2023/24 and
2024/25, staff has been completing the community engagement initiative for both projects at
the same time because of the connected system that they create and overlapping audience for
engagement.
Staff is planning to present two preliminary layouts to the community in late summer. Preferred
preliminary layouts will be brought to council for approval in late 2022/early 2023.
The updated costs will be included in the 2023 budget and CIP process.
CEDARMANOR LAKE
HANNAN LAKE VICTORIA LAKE
COBBLECREST LAKE
WESTWOODLAKE
WESTLING POND
MINNETONKA BLVDHIGHWAY 16914TH ST W
WAYZATA BLVD
28TH ST W
C E D A R L A K E R D TEXAS AVE SINTERSTATE 394
Q UEBECAVES16TH ST W
27TH ST W
18TH ST W
PENNSYLVANIAAVESVIRGINIAA
V
E
S
22ND ST W22NDSTW
CLUB RD
24TH ST W LOUISIANA AVE S25 TH S T W PENNSYLVANIA AVE SBOONE AVE SOREGON AVE S16TH ST W
VIRGIN IA CIRN
LOUISIANAC
T
RHODE ISLAND AVE S18TH ST W
C
AVELL
AVESUTAHAVES24TH LN W
24TH ST WFLAG AVE S24TH ST W
25T H S T W
ZINRAN AVE SFRANKLINAVEW
VICTORIA W
AYUTAHDR
VIRGINIAAVESTEXAS AVE SKENTUCKYAVESWE
S
T
WOODHILLSDRBURD PLWESTWOODHIL L S RD
PENNSYLVANIA AVE SGETTYS
BURGAVES
WAYZATA BLV D
QUEB
EC
A
V
E
S
OREGON AVE SNEVADA AVE SSUMTER AVE SMARYLAND AVE SFRANKLIN AVE W
KENTUCKY AVE S18TH ST W
16TH ST W13THLNW
RH
O
D
E
ISLANDAVES2 6 T H S T W18TH ST WHIL
L
S
B
O
R
OAVESFAIRWAYLNFRAN K L I N A V E W
23RD ST W
BOONEAVES PENNSYLVANIAAVESJORDANAVESHILLSBOROAVES2 2 N D ST WFLAGAV
E
S
WESTMORELA
NDLN13TH LN W
OR EGONCTVIRGINIAA
VES
QUEBECDR
AQUILAAVES16TH STW
MARYLAND AVE SNEVADA AVE SDECATUR AVE SVIRGINIA CIR S
QUEBEC AVE SQUEBEC AVE SGETTYSBURGAVESFLAG AVE S28TH ST W NEVADA AVE S22ND LN W
Y UKONAVES23RD ST W
T E X A TONKAAVEVIRGINIAAVES
14TH ST W
UTAHAVESSUMTERAVES22ND ST W
S T A NLEN RD
X YLONAVESWESTWOODHILLSCU RV28TH ST W
Northside
Park
Lamplighter
Park
Cedar
Knoll Park
Westwood Hills
Nature Center
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue Improvements
Legend
2023-2024 construction
2024-2025 construction
Municipal boundary
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)Page 5
St. Louis Park Engineering Department • 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416
www.stlouispark.org • Phone: 952.924.2656 • Fax: 952.924.2662 • TTY: 952.924.2518
Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue Improvements
Round 1 Engagement Summary – as of 7/20/2022
Engagement Strategies and Approach
Three rounds of engagement are planned for the Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue Improvements
project. The city of St. Louis Park has completed the first round of engagement for the project. In this
round, the city introduced the project, shared existing conditions information, and asked the public
about their experiences using Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue and their visions for these
corridors.
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Timing Spring/Summer 2022 Late-Summer/Fall 2022 Late-Fall/Winter 2022
Focus Project introduction
and understanding
Present design
concepts and tradeoffs,
design data, and
information about data
collection process
Presentation of
recommended layouts
Input goals Challenges and
opportunities of using
the corridor today
Prioritization of what
elements are
important for the
future
Gauging how well
design concepts help
fulfill goals of the
community and the city
Potential impacts of
design concepts
Final feedback
documented for layout
presentation to city
council
Informs this project
action/next steps
Develop design
concepts
Initial layout for each
corridor
Recommended layouts
presented for city
council approval
This document summarizes the feedback received during the first round of engagement, including a
summary of responses from the online survey, interactive feedback map, virtual open houses, and
general comments.
To-date, project staff have engaged with the public about the project through the following:
• Virtual open houses
• February 23, 2022; 2 p.m.
• 25 attendees
• February 24, 2022; 6 p.m.
• 10 attendees
• Recordings of virtual open house meetings
• Virtual open house website
• Click-through slides featuring project information and resources
• Online survey
• 126 responses
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)Page 6
Page 2
• Interactive feedback map
• 419 comments
• Project introduction letters
• Approximately 500 mailed
• Email blasts to project distribution list
• Posts on the city’s social media outlets
• General phone/email comments
• 7 comments
Common Themes
Below are common themes that emerged from the feedback received during round 1 engagement.
Round 1 – Project introduction and understanding
• Need for pedestrian safety improvements and traffic calming on both corridors – often motorists
travel too fast, don’t stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk; no sidewalk exists in some places
• Pick-up/drop-off at Park Spanish Immersion causes traffic back ups down Cedar Lake Rd; need for
better/safer traffic movements through this area
• Issues with business access at Cedar Lake Rd/Louisiana Ave intersection (e.g., Walgreens parking lot)
due to restricted turn movements
• Bicycling on these corridors doesn’t feel safe; lack of separation between motorists and cyclists;
need for bicycle infrastructure and safety improvements
• Need for improved traffic signal timing at Cedar Lake Rd/Louisiana Ave intersection and Louisiana
Ave/Franklin Ave intersection
• Traffic calming needed at Cedar Lake Rd/Virginia Ave intersection; feels dangerous for all modes,
particularly bicyclists and pedestrians
Online Survey
As of July 20, 2022, we received 126 online survey responses. Results of the surveys are displayed
below. A list of common themes and responses received were summarized for open ended questions.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)Page 7
Page 3
Cedar Lake Road
What is/are your purpose(s) for using this stretch of Cedar Lake Road? Select all that apply.
Other (please specify):
• To get to schools (e.g., Park Spanish Immersion, the Middle School)
• Daily commute to work
• For recreation – walk/bike the corridor
How do you travel along this stretch of Cedar Lake Road? Select all that apply.
5%
61%
46%
0%1%
73%
0%
15%
I live on
Cedar Lake
Road
I live within a
few blocks of
Cedar Lake
Road
I
shop/receive
services there
I
own/operate
a business on
Cedar Lake
Road
I work there I use it to get
somewhere
else
I don’t use
Cedar Lake
Road
Other (please
specify)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
48%
1%
53%
7%5%
99%
2%
Walk/run Use a
wheelchair,
walker, or
other mobility
device
Bike Roll (e.g.,
skateboard,
rollerblade,
scooter)
Take transit Drive Other (please
specify)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)Page 8
Page 4
What barriers, if any, do you experience to using this stretch of Cedar Lake Road?
• Motorists travel too fast
• Lack of pedestrian safety
o Motorists don’t stop for pedestrians crossing
o Lack of sidewalk on the south side of Cedar Lake Rd; walking on the shoulder on the
south side is dangerous
o Few designated crosswalks/difficulty crossing where there isn’t a traffic signal, especially
with young children
o Narrow sidewalks in 4-lane section near Louisiana Ave
o Streets are wide to cross
o Existing pedestrian environment discourages from choosing to walk to run errands/pick
up food at Cedar Lake Rd/Louisiana Ave intersection; choose to drive instead
• Poor bicycle infrastructure
o Bicycle path is narrow and has potholes; don’t feel comfortable biking with family
o Lack of a bike lane west of Louisiana Ave is a pain
o Inconsistent separation from cars for bicycling; need for dedicated protected bike lanes
to foster more use
o Lack of bike lane as you get closer to Hwy 169(e.g., Texas to Virginia)
• Traffic back-ups/delays
o At Park Spanish Immersion during pick up/drop off and concern about how this will be
affected during construction
• Hard to access this stretch from Louisiana Avenue (south of Minnetonka Blvd) any other way
than by car
• Virginia Ave S/Cedar Lake Rd intersection is dicey when turning for all users
• Long traffic signal times at Cedar Lake Road/Louisiana intersection
• Issues turning in out/out of Walgreens and hardware store parking lots
Louisiana Avenue
What is/are your purpose(s) for using this stretch of Louisiana Avenue? Select all that apply.
Other (please specify):
7%
52%52%
0%0%
78%
0%6%
I live on
Louisiana
Avenue
I live within a
few blocks of
Louisiana
Avenue
I
shop/receive
services there
I
own/operate
a business on
Louisiana
Avenue
I work there I use it to get
somewhere
else
I don’t use
Louisiana
Avenue
Other (please
specify)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)Page 9
Page 5
• Commute to work
• To get to schools, shops, parks/recreation areas
• For recreation
How do you travel along this stretch of Louisiana Avenue? Select all that apply.
What barriers, if any, do you experience to using this stretch of Louisiana Avenue?
• Lack of pedestrian safety
o Difficult to cross the street
o Unpleasant to be on the Louisiana Ave sidewalk south of Cedar Lake Rd; lack of
division/space between pedestrians and vehicle traffic
o Bridge over the railroad has very narrow sidewalks; feels like a highway
• Motorists speed
• Bicycling on Louisiana Ave (particularly at Cedar Lake intersection) doesn’t feel safe
o There’s no room for bicyclists
o Roadway is designed as a “stroad” encouraging motorists to drive faster than posted
speed
o Lack of bike lanes/clear divisions between bicyclists and moving traffic
o It’s unpleasant to bike on Louisiana Ave bridge over the railroad; need for protected
bike lanes here
• Don’t want more bike lanes; few people use the existing bike lanes
• Feel that northbound right lane should be turn only to prevent forced merge when shifting from
two to one lane; drivers race to beat light and then cut vehicles off north of Minnetonka where
it merges
• Traffic signal timing:
o Traffic signal at Louisiana Ave/Franklin Ave halts major north/south traffic for cars
simply turning right to go southbound on Louisiana Ave
45%
1%
35%
2%4%
98%
2%
Walk/run Use a
wheelchair,
walker, or
other mobility
device
Bike Roll (e.g.,
skateboard,
rollerblade,
scooter)
Take transit Drive Other (please
specify)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)Page 10
Page 6
o Traffic signal at Louisiana Ave/Cedar Lake is very busy and takes a long time; many back-
ups/delays at this intersection
• Need for left turn lanes
• Business access:
o Difficult to enter/exit Walgreens parking lot
o Difficult to turn left from Pizza Hut shopping center
o Too many restrictions accessing side streets (can only go northbound when leaving
library)
How close do you live to the project area?
41%
26%
32%
1%0%
Within a block or two Further than two
blocks but within six
blocks
Further than six blocks Not sure Prefer not to say
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)Page 11
Page 7
Which race and ethnic group(s) do you identify with? Select all that apply.
To which gender do you most identify?
0%0%
85%
2%0%1%
11%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
50%
43%
0%0%
6%
1%
Female Male Non-binary Transgender Prefer not to say A gender not
listed (please
specify):
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)Page 12
Page 8
Which category below include your age?
What is your annual household income?
0%0%
14%
32%
20%
29%
5%
Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55 or older Prefer not to
say
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0%
6%6%
11%
58%
19%
Less than $25,000 $25,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$99,999
$100,000 or more Prefer not to say
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)Page 13
Page 9
How many cars does your household have?
When was the last time you participated in a community engagement process with the City of St.
Louis Park?
1%
22%
68%
6%
3%
0 1 2 3 4 or more
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
6%
35%
32%
1%
25%
Always Within the last year Within the last 5
years
Within the last 10
years
Longer than 10 years
ago
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)Page 14
Page 10
Interactive Feedback Map
As of July 20, 2022, the interactive feedback map had 419 comments. Users could select a pin and drop
it in a location on the project corridors where they wanted to provide feedback. Pin categories included:
• Bicycle Safety/Access
• Pedestrian Safety/Access
• Transit Service or Amenity
• Vehicle Safety/Access
Map feedback are summarized by comment pin category.
Bicycle Safety/Access
• Need to expand Cedar Lake Road project to extend west of Hwy 169; approach to and bridge
over Hwy 169 is very dangerous for bicyclists; very little room for bicyclists and must share
narrow lanes with cars
• Bike lanes on Cedar Lake Road are too narrow
o Need bike lanes on both sides of the road; reduce width of roads to slow cars and create
space for bike lanes
o Lanes need to be widened, physically separated from cars (e.g., curb protection, bollards
at busy intersections), maintained year-round, and safe for school children biking to
Park Spanish Immersion
o Don’t put manhole covers in the bike lanes or make them flush with the road surface;
manhole covers that aren’t flush with the surface force bicyclists out into the traffic
lanes to avoid hitting them
• Consider adding bike parking near Westwood Lutheran Church
• Ensure ease of access by bike to businesses near Cedar Lake Rd/Louisiana Ave intersection
• Ensure ease of access to Northside Park from bike lane on Louisiana Ave, not just for bikes but
also strollers/anything on wheels
• Would like bike lanes on Louisiana Ave to be protected from vehicle traffic, especially between
Cedar Lake Rd and Franklin
• Cedar Lake Rd from Texas to Virginia is a key bike route for bicyclists traveling to/from Cedar
Lake Trail; this stretch, and the Cedar Lake Rd/Virginia Ave intersection in particular, is
dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists and needs improvements
• The Cedar Lake Rd/Texas Ave intersection needs better/safer infrastructure to support cyclists
turning from Cedar Lake Rd to Texas Ave
• The intersection of Cedar Lake Rd/Quebec Ave needs bike lane/crossing support for cyclists
coming from the north side onto Cedar Lake Rd in both directions; route used to travel between
North Cedar Lake Trail, Lamplighter Pond, Golden Valley
• Mixed feedback about whether bike infrastructure improvements/use they will get justify the
cost
• (outside scope of project): Would like a bike lane that connects Cedar Lake Rd to Franklin Ave
path (e.g., crossing Cedar Lake Rd from Franklin to get to Edgewood)
• (outside scope of project): Franklin Ave path is too steep and narrow; consider separating bikes
and pedestrians
• (outside scope of project): Need for easier bike/pedestrian access from Louisiana Ave bridge to
Cedar Lake LRT Trail; Louisiana Ave bridge doesn’t need to have four travel lanes; dedicate space
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)Page 15
Page 11
to pedestrians and bicyclists; currently bridge feels too narrow unsafe for pedestrians and
bicyclists
Pedestrian Safety/Access
• Supportive of adding sidewalk on south side of Cedar Lake Rd
• Supportive of adding sidewalk on east side of Louisiana Ave
• Need for traffic calming and pedestrian improvements (e.g., marked protected crossings) on
Louisiana Ave at 22nd St, Franklin Ave, 18th St, 16th St, 14th St, south of 23rd
o At Franklin Ave, motorists run red lights or often stop on top of the crosswalks
o Cars often don’t stop for pedestrians in the crosswalks
o At 22nd St, need a marked/protected pedestrian crossing; very difficult to cross with a
stroller
o South of 23rd sidewalk is too narrow, steep, and unprotected from traffic
• Need for traffic calming and pedestrian improvements (e.g., protected crossings) on Cedar Lake
Rd at Virginia Ave, Zinran Ave S, Quebec Ave S, Louisiana Ave, near Park Spanish Immersion
o At Virginia Ave, cars often do not stop; if they do, following cars often speed around
o At Park Spanish Immersion, heavy traffic and high speeds; disregard for pedestrians in
crosswalk
o Need for protected pedestrian crossing west of Cedar Lake Rd/Louisiana Ave
intersection to connect residents on both sides of Cedar Lake Rd to the Walgreens and
Westwood Liquors strip mall
• Excessive wait times for pedestrians crossing at the Cedar Lake Rd/Louisiana Ave intersection
• Ensure pedestrians have safe/easy access to businesses at Cedar Lake Rd/Louisiana Ave
intersection
Transit Service or Amenity
• Intersections of Franklin Ave/Louisiana Ave and Virginia Ave/Cedar Lake Rd are congested and
busy; feel that transit stops should be shifted away from the intersection
• Need for bus stop improvements at bus stop at Cedar Lake Rd/Louisiana Ave intersection and at
stops along Cedar Lake Road (e.g., shelter, transit information, better pedestrian access)
• Need for better crossings or bus stop consolidation on Louisiana Ave/22nd St intersection;
difficult to cross the street during rush hour
Vehicle Safety/Access
• Park Spanish Immersion
o Need better solution for school pick-up/drop off times; causes back ups down Cedar
Lake Rd; cars pass in turn lane to get on Hwy 169
o Need for reduced speed during pick-up/drop off times
o Need a wide shoulder with no parking during school hours to avoid having waiting cars
block traffic
o At traffic signal on W 28th St, entrance/exit signaling is unclear
• Turn lane on Cedar Lake Rd at Flag Ave S is necessary; mixed feedback about whether on-street
parking is needed here
• Too much speeding and high traffic volumes; need for traffic calming at:
o Cedar Lake Rd/Virginia Ave – difficult to turn from Virginia onto Cedar Lake Rd; need
better traffic control here; high volumes of pedestrians and bicyclists, consider
roundabout here
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)Page 16
Page 12
o Cedar Lake Rd/Texas Ave – too many rolling stops, consider roundabout here
• On Cedar Lake Rd near Walgreens and strip mall with Westwood Liquors
o There are too many curb cuts
o Need for a left turn lane into the strip mall and apartments/Walgreens; two travel lanes
aren’t needed until closer to the Cedar Lake Rd/Louisiana Ave intersection
o Walgreens parking lot is difficult to get in/out of since you can only go south on
Louisiana Ave or west on Cedar Lake Rd; many people make illegal turns
• Need for right turn only lane from Louisiana Ave onto Cedar Lake Rd
• Mixed feedback about putting a roundabout in at Cedar Lake Rd and Louisiana Ave
o Supportive of roundabout because there’s too much idling at red lights; a roundabout
calms traffic speeds but keeps traffic flowing
o Unsupportive of roundabout because this intersection is too busy and many drivers
don’t understand roundabouts
• Consider eliminating/moving the Louisiana Ave entrances for the Westwood Liquors and Family
dollar parking lots
• Traffic signals across the city need to be retimed (e.g., signal at Cedar Lake Rd/Louisiana Ave has
too long of wait times, increasing emissions)
• The southbound merge on Louisiana Ave south of 23rd St causes issues; feel that southbound
should be a single lane until left turn lane is called for; make more space for bikes and
pedestrians
• New development at Texas Ave/Minnetonka Blvd may cause additional northbound through
traffic through Texas Ave/Virginia Ave
• Need for traffic calming and infrastructure/prioritized signals for pedestrians and cyclists at
Franklin Ave/Louisiana Ave intersection
• Mixed feedback about whether the traffic signal at Franklin Ave/Louisiana Ave intersection is
too sensitive to traffic coming from Franklin Ave and needs to be retimed
• Issues with motorists passing on the right to get around left turning vehicles on Louisiana Ave
near W 18th St
• Need to add turn lanes on Louisiana Ave at 16th/18th Streets
• (outside scope of project): At Louisiana Ave/31st, driver ignore the left-turn preventing medians
and make left turns on to/off of Louisiana Ave anyway; medians make neighborhood access
difficult
General Phone/Email Comments
As of July 20, we’ve received 1 phone call and 6 comments via email. They are summarized below.
• Concern about project’s impacts to the entrance and exit at Park Spanish Immersion
o There are already traffic issues during school drop-off/pick-up times
o What measures will the city take to ensure this isn’t more of a challenge during
construction/after improvements have been made?
• There is no safe way to walk to Park Spanish Immersion
o No sidewalk on south side of Cedar Lake Road
o Traffic does not stop for pedestrians crossing
• On street parking near west end of Cedar Lake Rd:
o Would like to keep parking and turn lane
o Would like to move parking to the north side of the road
• Would like to convert Louisiana Ave to a four lane roadway, two lanes in each direction
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)Page 17
Page 13
• Would like a fence added back to property on Louisiana Ave; city asked property owner to
remove at one time due to fence blocking sight lines
• Concern about impacts to trees if sidewalk is added on south side of Cedar Lake Rd, particularly
between Willow Park and Virginia
• Many people make illegal turns going in/out of the Walgreens and Jerrys lot; medians make it
difficult to turn into either lot causing safety issues
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)Page 18
Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue Improvements
Pop-up Events Engagement Summary – from months of May and June
This document summarizes the feedback received during the following four pop-up events held during
the months of May and June:
• State of the Community – May 15, 2022 from 1 - 4pm
• Hamilton House – May 19, 2022 from 2 - 4pm
• Bike to Work Day – May 20, 2022 from 6:30 – 9am
• Ecotacular – June 19, from 2 – 6pm
Survey Results
We received 15 responses from the pop-up events above. Results of the survey are displayed below:
Cedar Lake Road
What is/are your purpose(s) for using this stretch of Cedar Lake Road? Select all that apply.
57%
43%43%
0%
7%
43%
0%0%
I live on
Cedar Lake
Road
I live within a
few blocks of
Cedar Lake
Road
I
shop/receive
services
there
I
own/operate
a business on
Cedar Lake
Road
I work there I use it to get
somewhere
else
I don’t use
Cedar Lake
Road
Other
(please
specify)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)Page 19
How do you travel along this stretch of Cedar Lake Road? Select all that apply.
What barriers, if any, do you experience to using this stretch of Cedar Lake Road?
• Unsafe for cycling – critical cycling artery that should have bike lanes (versus path)
Louisiana Avenue
What is/are your purpose(s) for using this stretch of Louisiana Avenue? Select all that apply.
21%
64%
36%
0%7%
50%
7%
0%
I live on Louisiana Avenue I shop/receive services
there
I work there I don’t use Louisiana
Avenue
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
57%
36%
7%
0%
29%
50%
0%
Walk/run Use a
wheelchair,
walker, or
other mobility
device
Bike Roll (e.g.,
skateboard,
rollerblade,
scooter)
Take transit Drive Other (please
specify)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)Page 20
How do you travel along thing stretch of Louisiana Avenue? Select all that apply.
Other (please specify):
• Not enough time for street line to stay on to walk across for bus. Put in bus shelter from bad
weather element.
What barriers, if any, do you experience to using this stretch of Louisiana Avenue?
• No responses
How close do you live to the project area?
29%29%
0%0%
29%
57%
7%
Walk/run Use a
wheelchair,
walker, or
other mobility
device
Bike Roll (e.g.,
skateboard,
rollerblade,
scooter)
Take transit Drive Other (please
specify)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
83%
0%
17%
0%0%
Within a block or
two
Further than two
blocks but within
six blocks
Further than six
blocks
Not sure Prefer not to say
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)Page 21
What race and ethnic group(s) do you identify with? Select all that apply.
To which gender do you most identify?
0%
62%
31%
0%
8%
0%0%0%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
73%
27%
0%0%0%0%
Female Male Non-binary Transgender Prefer not to
say
A gender not
listed (please
specify):
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)Page 22
Which category below includes your age?
What is your annual household income?
0%0%
8%
0%
17%
75%
0%
Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55 or older Prefer not to
say
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
58%
8%
0%
8%8%
17%
Less than
$25,000
$25,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$99,999
$100,000 or
more
Prefer not to
say
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)Page 23
How many cars does your household have?
When was the last time you participated in a community engagement process with the City of St.
Louis Park?
46%
38%
8%8%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 or more
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
8%
23%
8%
23%
38%
Always Within the last year Within the last 5
years
Within the last 10
years
Longer than 10
years ago
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana improvement project update (4023-1100 and 4024-1100)Page 24
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: July 25, 2022
Written report: 4
Executive s ummary
Title: June 2022 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 50% of the annual
budget at the end of June. General fund expenditures are 4% under at approximately 46% of
budget. Revenues tend to be harder to measure in the same way since they aren’t spread as
evenly during the year, examples of which include property taxes and State aid payments. A
summary of revenues and departmental expenditures compared to budget is included with a
few variance comments provided below.
License and permit revenues are at 80% of the annual budget halfway through the year. Some
of the larger commercial permits issued through June include Beltline Residences and Risor.
Other applications that have been submitted but permits not yet issued include The Mera
(formerly Platia Place), Rise on 7, Wooddale Ave Apartments and Beltline Station, so permit
revenue will soon exceed the annual budget.
The other income of 70% is primarily private activity revenue bond fees. With the receipt of
additional bond fees for Rise on 7 and Arbor House/Wooddale Avenue Apartments in July, bond
fee revenue will also exceed the annual budget.
Most department expenditures continue to be at or under budget. Organized recreation shows
a temporary overage from the full payment of the annual community education contribution of
$187,400 to the school district early in the year. Engineering has a variance due to the portion
of staff hours allocated to capital project funds.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Summary of revenues and departmental expenditures – General Fund
Prepared by: Darla Monson, accountant
Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt, finance director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Summary of Revenues & Departmental Expenditures - General Fund As of June 30, 202220222022202020202021202120222022Balance YTD Budget Budget Audited Budget Audited Budget YTD Jun Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes28,393,728$ 28,635,694$ 29,601,811$ 29,446,907$ 30,532,470$ 30,532,470$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits4,660,811 5,294,310 4,621,829 4,997,980 4,750,604 3,831,993 918,611 80.66% Fines & Forfeits280,000 126,192 231,000 150,965 231,000 56,794 174,206 24.59% Intergovernmental1,760,082 2,061,267 1,661,549 1,773,949 1,748,770 502,617 1,246,153 28.74% Charges for Services2,273,824 1,600,806 2,013,834 2,278,004 2,284,483 1,147,766 1,136,717 50.24% Rents & Other Miscellaneous1,456,102 1,201,119 1,499,091 1,472,637 1,589,934 890,179 699,755 55.99% Transfers In2,038,338 2,049,976 2,055,017 2,054,819 2,198,477 1,046,489 1,151,989 47.60% Investment Earnings 210,000 486,468 200,000 (314,347) 200,000 3,673 196,327 1.84% Other Income621,280 3,442,900 593,300 606,695 526,829 370,999 155,830 70.42% Use of Fund Balance25,000 250,000 250,000 Total General Fund Revenues41,694,165$ 44,898,732$ 42,502,431$ 42,467,610$ 44,312,567$ 7,850,510$ 36,462,057$ 17.72%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration1,868,599$ 1,472,421$ 1,617,882$ 1,362,006$ 2,010,605$ 547,413$ 1,463,192$ 27.23% Finance1,124,045 1,194,828 1,129,591 1,190,180 1,178,516 521,908 656,608 44.29% Assessing808,171 792,277 798,244 767,705 821,530 402,988 418,542 49.05% Human Resources823,209 796,088 837,736 823,448 882,849 332,493 550,356 37.66% Community Development1,571,894 1,536,657 1,576,323 1,443,624 1,606,474 731,218 875,256 45.52% Facilities Maintenance1,265,337 1,246,439 1,349,365 1,413,873 1,407,116 718,065 689,051 51.03% Information Resources1,709,255 1,596,487 1,683,216 1,650,478 1,622,619 571,817 1,050,802 35.24% Communications & Marketing828,004 710,334 970,934 807,217 974,064 497,919 476,145 51.12%Total General Government9,998,514$ 9,345,531$ 9,963,291$ 9,458,531$ 10,503,773$ 4,323,822$ 6,179,952$ 41.16% Public Safety: Police10,853,821$ 10,611,141$ 11,307,863$ 11,347,597$ 11,846,760$ 5,700,480$ 6,146,280$ 48.12% Fire Protection5,040,703 4,764,337 4,998,636 5,066,383 5,364,179 2,673,913 2,690,266 49.85% Building 2,696,585 2,321,664 2,571,968 2,493,832 2,712,400 1,340,161 1,372,239 49.41%Total Public Safety18,591,109$ 17,697,142$ 18,878,467$ 18,907,812$ 19,923,339$ 9,714,554$ 10,208,785$ 48.76% Operations: Public Works Administration273,318$ 216,899$ 249,256$ 239,575$ 255,766$ 118,549$ 137,217$ 46.35% Public Works Operations3,331,966 3,168,538 3,285,820 2,957,465 3,523,669 1,474,530 2,049,139 41.85% Vehicle Maintenance1,278,827 1,207,998 1,303,159 1,259,534 1,368,929 683,764 685,165 49.95% Engineering551,285 531,801 523,547 655,722 556,115 325,473 230,642 58.53%Total Operations5,435,396$ 5,125,236$ 5,361,782$ 5,112,296$ 5,704,479$ 2,602,316$ 3,102,163$ 45.62% Parks and Recreation: Organized Recreation1,637,002 1,369,309 1,639,358 1,516,192 1,769,060 933,352 835,708 52.76% Recreation Center2,061,394 1,864,459 2,082,697 2,198,272 2,274,043 1,018,943 1,255,100 44.81% Park Maintenance1,906,363 1,802,534 1,916,643 1,857,392 2,034,509 972,876 1,061,633 47.82% Westwood Nature Center748,683 606,378 736,515 652,505 794,170 363,432 430,738 45.76% Natural Resources504,143 433,362 496,497 412,015 612,110 284,671 327,439 46.51%Total Parks and Recreation6,857,585$ 6,076,042$ 6,871,710$ 6,636,376$ 7,483,892$ 3,573,273$ 3,910,619$ 47.75% Other Depts and Non-Departmental: Racial Equity and Inclusion 314,077$ 272,994$ 341,293$ 185,280$ 292,194$ 37,658$ 254,536$ 12.89% Sustainability497,484 244,655 432,043 297,217 404,890 180,167 224,723 44.50% Transfers Out4,878,845 4,878,845 Contingency and Other144,860 225,000 Total Other Depts and Non-Departmental811,561$ 662,509$ 5,877,181$ 5,361,342$ 697,084$ 217,826$ 479,258$ 31.25%Total General Fund Expenditures41,694,165$ 38,906,460$ 46,952,431$ 45,476,356$ 44,312,567$ 20,431,790$ 23,880,777$ 46.11%Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 4) Title: June 2022 monthly financial reportPage 2
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: July 25, 2022
Written report: 5
Executive s ummary
Title: Second quarter investment report (April – June 2022)
Recommended action: No action required at this time.
Policy consideration: Reporting on investments each quarter is part of our financial
management policies.
Summary: The quarterly investment report provides an overview of the City’s investment
portfolio, including the types of investments held, length of maturity and yield.
Financial or budget considerations: The total portfolio value on June 30, 2022 was $80.7
million. Approximately $40 million of the portfolio is invested in securities that include
certificates of deposit, U.S. Treasury notes, Federal agency bonds and municipal debt securities.
The other half of the portfolio is invested in money market accounts so that cash is available for
capital project expenditures, debt service and operating cashflow needs between property tax
settlements, as well as future investment opportunities. Interest rates on both money market
accounts and new securities purchased increased in the second quarter. The overall yield to
maturity increased to 1.24% compared to .79% last quarter and .52% at the end of 2021.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Investment Portfolio Summary
Prepared by: Darla Monson, accountant
Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt, finance director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Second quarter investment report (April – June 2022)
Discussion
Background: The City’s investment portfolio is focused on cash flow needs and investment in
longer term securities in accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A and the City’s investment
policy objectives of: 1) preservation of capital; 2) liquidity; and 3) return on investment.
Present considerations: The total portfolio value increased by about $3.7 million to $80.7 million
on June 30 from $77 million on March 31, 2022. The 70% advance payment of the 1st half property
tax settlement in the amount of $14.9 million was received from Hennepin County on June 21,
and the remainder of the first half property tax and TIF settlements were received on July 6.
Interest rates started to improve in the first quarter and continued this quarter. The overall yield
to maturity of the portfolio increased to 1.24% at June 30, from .79% on March 31 and .52% at
the end of 2021. This is the combined yield including both liquid funds held in money market
accounts and long-term investments. Interest rates on money markets had been near zero since
early 2020 but are now at just under 1%. As securities mature in the portfolio and are replaced
with new investments, the yield should continue to increase. The two-year Treasury, a
benchmark used by cities for yield comparison of their portfolio, has increased from .73% at
December 31, 2021 to 2.92% on June 30.
The money market accounts ensure there is cash available for payroll, operating and capital
project expenses between the June/July and December property tax settlements. Debt service
payments and pay as you go TIF note payments will be due August 1, and cash will be needed for
the loan to STEP and the purchase of the commercial building at 4300 36 ½ Street this next
quarter.
One CD and $2.6 million of treasury securities reached maturity during the quarter. New
investments purchased to replace the maturities included 3 CDs with rates of 3% - 3.1% and 6
municipal debt securities with rates to maturity of 2.6% - 3.63%.
A breakdown of the portfolio is shown below and in more detail in the attachment.
Next steps: None at this time.
3/31/22 6/30/22
<1 Year 67% 67%
1-2 Years 4% 9%
2-3 Years 12% 12%
3-4 Years 11% 6%
>4 Years 6% 6%
3/31/22 6/30/22
Money Markets/Cash $37,005,750 $40,611,751
Commercial Paper/Other $5,000,000 $5,000,000
Certificates of Deposit $2,605,806 $3,028,813
Municipal Debt $5,831,156 $8,292,881
Agencies/Treasuries $26,558,224 $23,736,044
City of St. Louis Park
Investment Portfolio Summary
June 30, 2022
Institution/Broker Investment Type CUSIP
Maturity
Date
Yield To
Maturity Par Value
Market Value at
6/30/2022
Estimated Avg
Annual Income
4M Fund Liquid Asset Money Market 0.92%15,431,688 15,431,688 141,354
4M Fund Plus Money Market 0.94%18,038,493 18,038,493 170,283
UBS Institutional Money Market 0.95% 373,486 373,486 3,548
UBS Institutional Money Market (bond proceeds)0.95% 6,768,084 6,768,084 64,297
40,611,751
4M Fund Collateral - Pentagon Federal Credit Union, VA 01/20/2023 0.50% 5,000,000 5,000,000 25,000
4M Fund CD - Western Alliance / Torrey Pines Bnk, CA 11/16/2022 0.20% 249,400 249,400 499
4M Fund CD - Greenstate Credit Union, IA 11/16/2022 0.20% 249,500 249,500 499
UBS CD - Texas Exchange Bk TX 88241TNG1 02/04/2025 1.35% 245,000 232,789 3,308
UBS CD - Amer Express Natl UT 02589ABM3 03/03/2025 1.80% 245,000 235,232 4,410
UBS CD - Goldman Sachs Bank UT 38149M3C5 03/16/2026 2.00% 245,000 233,392 4,900
UBS CD - Comenity Bank DE 981993FX1 03/18/2026 2.00% 200,000 186,740 4,000
UBS CD - Capital One Bank VA 14042TFV4 05/04/2026 3.00% 245,000 241,879 7,350
UBS CD - Capital One Bank VA 14042RQZ7 05/04/2026 3.00% 245,000 241,879 7,350
UBS CD - National Bank WI 633368GC3 06/03/2026 3.10% 245,000 242,778 7,595
UBS CD - State Bank of Indi NY 856285E98 02/01/2027 1.75% 245,000 227,879 4,288
UBS CD - Beal Bank NV 07371CG37 02/17/2027 1.85% 245,000 228,685 4,533
UBS CD - Beal Bank Plano TX 07371AYL1 02/17/2027 1.85% 245,000 228,685 4,533
UBS CD - Medallion Bank UT 58404DNF4 03/08/2027 2.00% 245,000 229,974 4,900
3,028,813
UBS Muni Debt - Minnesota State Txble GO 60412ASE4 08/01/2022 1.76% 200,000 200,160 3,520
UBS Muni Debt - San Jose CA Txbl GO 798135H51 09/01/2023 2.13% 650,000 645,710 13,845
UBS Muni Debt - Westminster CO Pub Schools 960666AC9 12/01/2023 2.60% 840,000 806,971 21,840
UBS Muni Debt - New York St Urban Dev Co Txbl Bds 64985TAZ4 03/15/2025 1.90% 300,000 289,959 5,712
UBS Muni Debt - S. Washington Co Sch Dist 840610QK8 06/01/2025 3.29% 250,000 258,775 8,235
UBS Muni Debt - S. Washington Co Sch Dist 840610QK8 06/01/2025 3.25% 375,000 388,163 12,191
UBS Muni Debt - University Calif Txbl Bds 91412GU94 07/01/2025 2.51% 600,000 594,504 15,042
UBS Muni Debt - New York City Trans Fin Auth Bds 64971XAW8 08/01/2025 3.42% 240,000 235,733 8,208
UBS Muni Debt - Calif St Univ Txble Bds 13077DQD7 11/01/2025 1.51% 750,000 686,685 11,355
UBS Muni Debt - Nassau Cnty NY Interim Fin Auth 631663RF0 11/15/2025 3.39% 140,000 127,838 4,743
UBS Muni Debt - Massachusetts St Sch Bldg Bds 576000ZF3 08/15/2026 3.00% 700,000 633,619 21,000
UBS Muni Debt - North Dakota Pub Fin Auth Tax 65887PWD3 12/01/2026 1.35% 500,000 459,250 6,755
UBS Muni Debt - New York City Trans Fin Auth Bds 64971XLS5 05/01/2027 3.63% 160,000 149,618 5,805
UBS Muni Debt - La Habra CA Pension Oblig Txble 503433AF1 08/01/2027 1.90% 500,000 456,085 9,510
UBS Muni Debt - Alabama Fed Aid Hwy Fin Tax 010268CP3 09/01/2027 1.50% 700,000 635,362 10,521
UBS Muni Debt - Connecticut St Health Txbl 20775DLB6 11/01/2027 2.22% 500,000 449,485 11,080
UBS Muni Debt - New York NY GO Bonds 64966ML31 12/01/2027 2.23% 400,000 397,340 8,928
UBS Muni Debt - San Ramon Valley CA Uni Tax 7994082H1 08/01/2028 1.69% 500,000 443,035 8,450
UBS Muni Debt - New York NY City Transit Txbl 64971XD47 08/01/2028 1.95% 500,000 434,590 9,735
8,292,881
UBS US Treasury Note 912828TJ9 08/15/2022 2.76% 430,000 430,095 11,868
UBS US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.78% 925,000 923,196 25,715
UBS US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.51% 2,550,000 2,545,028 64,005
UBS US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.55% 1,675,000 1,671,734 42,713
UBS FHLB 3130AJ7E3 02/17/2023 1.44% 620,000 614,904 8,928
UBS US Treasury Note 912828R69 05/31/2023 2.53% 1,000,000 988,480 25,300
UBS US Treasury Note 912828R69 05/31/2023 1.83% 350,000 345,968 6,405
UBS US Treasury Note 912828T91 10/31/2023 1.55% 75,000 73,740 1,163
UBS US Treasury Note 912828T91 10/31/2023 1.48% 450,000 442,440 6,660
UBS FHLB 3130AFW94 02/13/2024 2.58% 500,000 496,660 12,900
UBS US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.55% 1,050,000 1,030,932 16,275
UBS US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.66% 1,150,000 1,129,116 19,090
UBS US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 0.85% 260,000 255,278 2,210
UBS US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.36% 350,000 343,644 4,760
UBS US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.66% 1,150,000 1,129,116 19,090
UBS US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 0.41% 475,000 466,374 1,948
UBS FHLB 3130AGWK7 08/15/2024 1.55% 175,000 169,633 2,713
UBS US Treasury Note 91282CCT6 08/15/2024 0.41% 850,000 804,814 3,485
UBS US Treasury Note 912828YY0 12/31/2024 0.32% 1,900,000 1,843,076 6,080
UBS Fannie Mae 3135G0X24 01/07/2025 1.69% 650,000 628,141 10,985
UBS Freddie Mac 3137EAEP0 02/12/2025 1.52% 750,000 721,545 11,400
UBS US Treasury Note 912828ZW3 06/30/2025 0.36% 150,000 138,258 540
UBS US Treasury Note 912828ZW3 06/30/2025 0.58% 725,000 668,247 4,205
UBS US Treasury Note 912828ZW3 06/30/2025 0.39% 3,300,000 3,041,676 12,870
UBS US Treasury Note 912828ZW3 06/30/2025 0.72% 575,000 529,989 4,140
UBS US Treasury Note 91282CBC4 12/31/2025 0.75% 725,000 661,534 5,438
UBS US Treasury Note 91282CBC4 12/31/2025 0.70% 750,000 684,345 5,250
UBS US Treasury Note 91282CBC4 12/31/2025 0.82% 350,000 319,361 2,870
UBS US Treasury Note 91282CBC4 12/31/2025 0.57% 700,000 638,722 3,990
23,736,044
GRAND TOTAL 80,669,488 1,002,114
Current Portfolio Yield To Maturity 1.24%
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: Second quarter investment report (April - June 2022)Page 3
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: July 25, 2022
Written report: 6
Executive s ummary
Title: Quarterly development update – 3rd Quarter 2022
Recommended action: None. The attached report summarizes the status of major development
projects in St. Louis Park.
Policy consideration: Not applicable. Contact staff with any questions.
Summary: The attached report is meant to keep the EDA/city council informed on a quarterly
basis as to the metrics and tentative schedule of major development projects occurring in the
city. For clarity, “Proposed developments” are those that are working through the planning
entitlement process such as platting, PUDs, variances, and have not yet been approved.
“Approved developments” are those whose planning applications have been approved by the
city council and have not yet commenced construction (but whose financial assistance
agreements may or may not yet have been approved). “Completed developments” are those
which have received their certificates of occupancy.
More detailed information can be found on the interactive development dashboard made in
collaboration with the city’s GIS coordinator, which replaces the previous interactive map of St.
Louis Park Developments on the city’s website.
The dashboard provides project metrics for all large developments or additions that have been
approved, under construction, or completed within the city since 2010. The dashboard includes
website links, market rate and affordable unit counts by bedroom size, parking information for
overall stalls, bike facilities, and electric vehicle charging stations, and more.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Major developments in St. Louis Park – 3rd Quarter 2022
Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, redevelopment administrator
Greg Hunt, economic development manager
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director, EDA executive director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: Quarterly development update – 3rd Quarter 2022
Major Developments in St. Louis Park
3rd Quarter 2022
Multifamily housing development summary Total Market rate Affordable
Proposed units 323 252 71
Approved units 1,102 679 423
Units under construction 1,101 868 233
Recently completed units (last two years) 469 439 30
All units 2,995 2,238 757
Total Development Costs (TDC)* $875.4 million
*TDC includes all developments in the above categories to the extent known
For additional information please see Development Projects on the city’s web site.
Proposed developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
OlyHi
Wooddale Ave Station
redevelopment site
5950 W. 36th St.
& 5802 36th St.
Saturday Properties
and Anderson
Companies
Mixed-use, mixed income, transit-oriented development next
to SWLRT Wooddale Avenue Station.
Two, six-story, mixed use buildings with a total of 315
apartment units.
• 252 market rate units.
• 32 units affordable to households @ 50% AMI.
• 31 units affordable to households @ 60% AMI.
• 12,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space.
• 3,500 square feet of co-working/community space.
• 17,000 square feet public plaza for public events, site
amenities, and public art.
Estimated total development cost: $88.7 million
Planning
applications
being considered
July 18 and
August 1, 2022.
TIF request to be
considered upon
securing additional
grants by Q1,
2023.
Construction
commencement
Q2, 2023.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Title: Quarterly development update – 3rd Quarter 2022
Minnetonka Blvd
redevelopment
5707 – 5639
Minnetonka Blvd.
GMHC (Greater
Metropolitan Housing
Corporation) &
(WHAHLT) West
Hennepin Affordable
Housing Land Trust
Proposed is the removal of four modest single-family houses
and construction of four twin homes (eight-units), providing
eight affordable home-ownership opportunities.
Estimated total development cost $3.7 million
Website: NA – too early in the process.
Project plans could
be presented to
council by Q2
2022.
Construction
commencement
Q1, 2023 upon
securing LIHTC
financing.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 6) Page 4
Title: Quarterly development update – 3rd Quarter 2022
Approved developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
2625 Louisiana Avenue
2625 Louisiana Ave.
Web Development LLC
Largely vacant parcel adjacent to North Cedar Lake Regional
Trail to be redeveloped with a 57-unit, four-story, mixed-use
market-rate building with approximately 4,000 square feet of
ground floor commercial space along with underground and
surface parking. Project includes a public path connecting
Louisiana Avenue to the Regional Trail.
Estimated total development cost: $TBD
Planning
entitlements
approved.
Construction
commencement by
Q3, 2022.
9920 Wayzata
9808 & 9920 Wayzata
Blvd.
Bigos Management
Redevelopment of former Santorini’s restaurant property at
northwest quadrant of I-394 & US 169.
Six-story, 233-unit, mixed income apartment building with
20% (47) of the units affordable to households at 50% AMI.
Estimated total development cost: $68.6 million
Planning and TIF
entitlements
approved.
Construction
commencement by
November 30,
2022.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 6) Page 5
Title: Quarterly development update – 3rd Quarter 2022
Approved developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Arbor House
3801 Wooddale Ave. S.
Real Estate Equities LLC
Redevelopment of former Aldersgate Church property
adjacent to Burlington Coat/Micro Center and Highway 100.
All affordable housing development includes 114-units, with
205 parking stalls, of which 117 stalls would be underground.
• Five units affordable to households at 30% AMI
• Five units affordable to households at 50% AMI
• 104 units affordable to households at 60% AMI
Estimated total development cost $30.1 million
Awarded $17.5
million in LIHTC
bonds January
2022.
Planning
applications
approved on
April 18, 2022.
Financial assistance
request approved
by EDA/CC on
June 6, 2022.
Construction
commencement by
August 31, 2022.
Arlington Row
East & West
7705 Wayzata Blvd. &
7905 Wayzata Blvd.
Melrose Company
Two development sites:
• 7905 Wayzata includes two three-story apartment
buildings with 34 units total and off-street parking
covered by a solar power carport.
• 7705 Wayzata includes a three-story apartment building
with 27 units and surface parking.
Estimated construction cost: $TBD
Planning
applications
approved.
Tentative
construction
commencement
TBD.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 6) Page 6
Title: Quarterly development update – 3rd Quarter 2022
Approved developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Beltline Blvd Station
Site
SE quadrant of CSAH 25
& Beltline Blvd.
Sherman Associates
Major mixed-use, mixed income, transit-oriented,
multi-phase development adjacent to
SWLRT Beltline Blvd. Station.
Building I includes:
• Seven-story mixed-use building with six levels of market
rate housing (156 units) and 19,500 square feet of
neighborhood commercial space, potentially anchored
by a grocer.
• A 592-stall parking ramp, which would include 268 park
& ride stalls, 326 residential stalls and approximately
1,800 square feet of commercial space.
Estimated development cost: $55 million
Building 2 includes:
• Four-story all affordable apartment building with 82
units, 77 units will be affordable to households at 60%
AMI and five units will be affordable to households at
30% AMI. 22 units will have three-bedrooms.
Estimated development cost: $25 million
Building 3 includes:
• Five-story market rate apartment building with 146
units.
Estimated development cost: $47 million
Altogether, the multi-phase redevelopment will have
384 apartment units of which 82 (21%) would be affordable.
Estimated total development cost: $150 million
Awarded $13.7
million in LIHTC
bonds January
2022 for affordable
component.
Planning
applications
approved
April 18, 2022.
Financial assistance
agreements
approved June 20,
2022, with
remaining
agreements
expected Q3, 2022.
Anticipated
construction:
• Grading September
2022
• Building 2 Q4, 2022
• Building 1 Q4, 2022
• Building 3 Q2, 2023
• Ramp Q2, 2023
Construction
completion all
phases Q4, 2024.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 6) Page 7
Title: Quarterly development update – 3rd Quarter 2022
Approved developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Bremer Bank
7924 Hwy. 7
Frauenshuh The retail building containing Knollwood Liquor and Papa
Murphy’s Pizza to be removed and replaced with a two-story,
5,850 square foot office building to be occupied by Bremer
Bank.
Developer’s
conditional use
permit extended to
June 15, 2023.
Rise on 7
8115 Hwy. 7
CommonBond Redevelopment of former Prince of Peace church property
across from Shops at Knollwood. Includes a four-story,
120-unit, all affordable apartment building with income
restrictions ranging between 30%-80% AMI along with a
6,600 square foot “affordable” early childhood center.
Estimated total development cost: $40.7 million
Planning
applications
approved in
July 2021.
Awarded $17.7
million in LIHTC
bonds January
2022.
Financial assistance
approved
June 6, 2022.
Construction
commencement
summer 2022.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 6) Page 8
Title: Quarterly development update – 3rd Quarter 2022
Approved developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Union Park Flats
3700 Alabama Ave. &
6027 37th St. W.
PPL (Project for Pride in
Living)
Redevelopment of the north portion of the Union
Congregational Church property with a three story, 60-unit
affordable apartment building on the north half of the
property. All unit rents would be affordable to households
ranging from 30%-80% AMI. Union Congregational Church
plans to remain on the south portion of the property.
Estimated total development cost: $22.2 million
Planning
applications
approved
July 6, 2020.
Applying for
additional funding
from MHFA June
2022 and from
SLP AHTF in
fall 2022.
Construction
commencement
Q1, 2023 upon
securing additional
financing.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 6) Page 9
Title: Quarterly development update – 3rd Quarter 2022
Under construction
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Beltline Residences
3440 Beltline Blvd.
Opus Group Five-story, 250-unit mixed-use, mixed income development
with two retail spaces totaling 7,445 square feet and
six live/work units. 10% of the units (25) will be affordable to
households at 50% AMI.
Estimated total development cost: $78.1 million
Construction
commencement
March 2022 to be
completed by
February 1, 2024.
Risor
3510 Beltline Blvd.
Roers Company Six-story, 170-unit apartment building with 4,100 square feet
of ground floor commercial space and 14 ground floor live-
work units. The development will be an age restricted (55+)
community with 10% (18) of the units affordable to
households at 50% AMI.
Estimated construction cost: $56.5 million
Construction
commencement
April 2022.
Louisiana Crossing
3745 Louisiana Ave.
Loffler Companies
Warehouse
operations moved
in Q4, 2021.
Office renovation
expected to be
completed in
Q3, 2022.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 6) Page 10
Title: Quarterly development update – 3rd Quarter 2022
Under construction
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Loffler Companies is renovating the 132,485 square foot
former Sam’s Club building. The Midwest’s largest office-
technology and IT-services company is consolidating its
headquarters and warehouse operations at this new location
resulting in over 500 jobs. Loffler is leasing out 30,000 square
feet in the building and may eventually sell the south end of
the 13-acre property for multifamily housing.
Estimated construction cost: $TBD
Luxe Residential
5235 Wayzata Blvd.
(Phase VI of
Central Park West)
Greystar Real Estate
Partners
Redevelopment of former Olive Garden property in The West
End area.
Luxe Residential is a six-story, 207-unit, apartment building
(including eight units affordable to households at 60% AMI)
along with two levels of underground parking. The
development also includes a new pocket park along 16th
Street and pedestrian improvements connecting the
apartment building to the rest of The West End area.
Estimated construction cost: $51.8 million
Construction
commencement
October 2021 to be
completed by
September 30,
2023.
Parkway Residences
W 31st St. between
Inglewood Ave. &
Glenhurst Ave.
Sela Group & Affiliates
Phase I (Parkway
Place) commenced
May 2020
completed
April 30, 2022.
Phase II (Parkway
Commons) under
construction.
Anticipated
completion
August 31, 2022.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 6) Page 11
Title: Quarterly development update – 3rd Quarter 2022
Under construction
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Multi-phase redevelopment includes four, multi-family
buildings with 211 units. The affordable housing includes 24
rehabilitated units at 50% AMI, and six new units at 60% AMI.
Phase I:
• Parkway Place: Four-story, 95-unit apartment building.
• Parkway Flats: Six-unit apartment building.
• Rehab of 24 NOAH apartment units.
Estimated development cost: $40.6 million
Phase II: Parkway Commons: Four-story, 37-unit apartment
building.
Estimated development cost: $14.6 million
Phase III: Eleven-story, 73-unit apartment building.
Estimated total development cost: $36.2 million
Estimated total development cost (all phases): $91.4 million
Phase III
commencement
Spring 2024.
Volo at Texa-Tonka
NE corner Texas Ave. &
Minnetonka Blvd.
Paster Development
Mixed income redevelopment includes 101 apartment units
in a three- to four-story building, and 11 walk-up style
townhome units located in two two-story buildings on the
northern end of the site. Twenty percent (23) of the units
would be affordable to households at 50% AMI.
Estimated total development cost: $26.6 million
Construction
commencement
September 2021
to be completed by
October 31, 2023.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 6) Page 12
Title: Quarterly development update – 3rd Quarter 2022
Under construction
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
VIA Sol
SE quadrant Hwy. 7 &
Wooddale Ave.
5855 Hwy. 7
PLACE Mixed-use, mixed-income, transit-oriented development
including a five-story, 217-unit apartment bldg (65 market
rate units, 22 units affordable to households at 50% AMI, and
130 units affordable to households at 80% AMI),
e-generation, wind turbine, solar panels, and one-acre urban
forest.
Estimated total development cost: $88.4 million
Commenced
January 2020.
Closed on
additional
financing January
2022.
Complete
apartments by
September 30,
2022.
Complete
E-Generation
building by
June 30, 2023.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 6) Page 13
Title: Quarterly development update – 3rd Quarter 2022
Recently completed developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
10 West End
(Phase IV of
Central Park West)
1601 Utica Ave. S.
Excelsior Group and
Ryan Co.
Award winning eleven story, 343,000 square foot Class A,
LEED certified, office building with 3,500 square feet of
ground floor commercial space, 5,000 square feet of shared
outdoor amenity space and 1,214 stall parking structure.
Estimated construction cost: $55.8 million
Completed
January 2021.
The Elmwood
5605 W. 36th St.
Main Street Companies
Five story, 70-unit, mixed-use, mixed income, age restricted
development (53 market rate and 17 units affordable to
households at 60% AMI), 4,400 square feet of ground floor
office/commercial space.
Estimated total development cost: $24.6 million
Completed
August 2021.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 6) Page 14
Title: Quarterly development update – 3rd Quarter 2022
Recently completed developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
The Quentin
4900 Cedar Lake Rd.
Crowe Companies LLC Project included the removal of three substandard buildings
and construction of a five story, 79-unit sustainable
apartment building that includes two levels of structured
parking. The housing includes eight units affordable to
households at 50% AMI.
Estimated total development cost: $21.3 million.
Completed
August 2021.
Xchange Medical Office
6009 Wayzata Blvd.
Davis Group Three-story, Class A, medical office development fronting
I-394. Ear Nose & Throat Specialty Care (ENTSC) and Surgical
Care Affiliates (SCA) anchor the 77,996-square foot medical
office building. Includes one level of underground parking
with 51 stalls and 253 surface parking stalls on the building’s
south side.
Estimated construction cost: $13 million
Completed
November 2021.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 6) Page 15
Title: Quarterly development update – 3rd Quarter 2022
Recently completed developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Nordic Ware
expansions
Buildings 8 & 9
5005 CSAH 25
Dalquist Properties LLC
21,853-square-foot warehouse and loading dock addition to
Building 8. 45,000 square foot warehouse and loading dock
addition to Building 9 along with a small café and outdoor
patio on the property’s south side facing the regional trail.
Estimated construction cost: $11.6 million
Completed
Q2, 2022.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: July 25, 2022
Written report: 7
Executive s ummary
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement
Recommended action: No action at this time. The development agreement resolution is
scheduled for August 1, 2022.
Policy consideration: No action at this time. The council established the Bridgewalk HIA at the
June 20, 2022 meeting and authorized execution of contract for private development.
Summary: The city is authorized by state statute to establish HIAs as a finance tool for private
housing improvements. An HIA is a defined area within a city where housing improvements are
made and the cost of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed on the
properties within the area. The city adopted an HIA policy in 2001 and has previously
established eight HIAs.
The city council adopted ordinance 2652-22 and resolution 22-092 on June 20, 2022
establishing the Bridgewalk HIA based on the new list of proposed improvements, interest rate
and total project budget of $5.98 million. The ordinance allows for a 45-day veto period. At the
June 20 council meeting, the council also authorized execution of a contract for private
development by the mayor and city manager, between the city and the Bridgewalk
Condominium Homeowners’ Association, in a form consistent with the terms of the ordinance
and resolution.
Financial or budget considerations: The HIA will be funded with a combination of bonds and an
EDA internal loan. Total project cost, including soft costs is $5.98 million. The EDA loan and
bonds will be approved August 15.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Draft development agreement
Prepared by: Marney Olson, housing supervisor
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement
Discussion
Background: The city is authorized by state statute to establish HIAs as a finance tool for private
housing improvements. An HIA is a defined area within a city where housing improvements are
made and the cost of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed on the
properties within the area. The city adopted an HIA policy in 2001 and has previously
established eight HIAs.
The city council adopted ordinance 2652-22 and resolution 22-092on June 20, 2022 establishing
the Bridgewalk HIA based on the new list of proposed improvements, interest rate and total
project budget of $5.98 million. The ordinance allows for a 45-day veto period. At the June 20
council meeting, the council also authorized execution of a contract for private development by
the mayor and city manager, between the city and the Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’
Association, in a form consistent with the terms of the ordinance and resolution.
The city will enter into a contract for private development with the Bridgewalk association after
the 45-day veto period expires. Kennedy & Graven drafted the private development agreement
and staff worked with Kennedy & Graven and association board members on any revisions. Any
final revisions will be made prior to the August 1 council meeting.
The major components of the development agreement include:
• Association will provide ongoing financial reports & records for the term of the loan.
• Association will provide its assets (in the form of dues, fees, assessments, and
covenants) as security to the city.
• Association will retain a replacement reserve fund agreed upon by the city and
association for the term of the loan.
• Association will ensure improvements are completed according to specific
requirements.
• Monies will be disbursed as work is verified by city representatives as being
completed.
• Association will provide notice of fee to prospective buyers.
Next steps: The draft development agreement is attached to this report. The final development
agreement will be approved by council August 1. The EDA loan and sale of bonds will be
approved August 15.
Sixth draft, July 20, 2022
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Between
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
and
BRIDGEWALK CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC.
Dated: __________________________, 2022
This document was drafted by:
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, Chartered (MNI)
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 700
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Telephone: (612) 337-9300
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 3
SA140\139\781896.v6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREAMBLE ........................................................................................................................................ 1
ARTICLE I
Definitions
Section 1.1. Definitions ...................................................................................................... 3
ARTICLE II
Representations and Warranti es
Section 2.1. Representations by the City .......................................................................... 7
Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties by the Association ...................................... 7
ARTICLE III
Financing; Disbursement of Proceeds
Section 3.1. Financing ........................................................................................................ 9
Section 3.2. Terms of Internal Loan .................................................................................. 9
Section 3.3. Terms of Bonds ............................................................................................ 10
Section 3.4. Deposit of Funds by Association ................................................................. 10
Section 3.5. Application of Project Fund Balance ............................................................ 11
Section 3.6. Application of Fee Revenues or Fund Balance ........................................... 11
Section 3.7. Conditions Precedent to Initial Disbursement ............................................... 11
Section 3.8. Further Conditions Precedent to All Disbursements ..................................... 12
Section 3.9. Requests for Disbursement ............................................................................ 13
Section 3.10. Conditions Precedent to the Final Disbursement .......................................... 14
Section 3.11. Waiver ............................................................................................................ 14
ARTICLE IV
Construction of Housing Improvements
Section 4.1. Construction of Housing Improvements ....................................................... 15
Section 4.2. Construction Plans ........................................................................................ 15
Section 4.3. Commencement and Completion of Construction ....................................... 16
Section 4.4. Certificate of Completion.............................................................................. 16
ARTICLE V
Insurance
Section 5.1. Insurance ....................................................................................................... 18
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 4
SA140\139\781896.v6
ARTICLE VI
Special Covenants
Section 6.1. No Warranty of Condition or Suitability, Indemnification .......................... 20
Section 6.2. Financial Statements ..................................................................................... 20
Section 6.3. Financial Plan; Annual Reports ..................................................................... 21
Section 6.4. Records and Inspection .................................................................................. 21
Section 6.5. Maintenance of Property; Replacement Reserve Fund ................................. 21
Section 6.6. Covenant to Maintain Net Revenues Available for Debt Service ................. 21
Section 6.7. Assignment of Association Assets ................................................................ 22
Section 6.8. Association to Maintain its Existence; Conditions Under
Which Exceptions Permitted ......................................................................... 23
Section 6.9. Prohibition Against Assignment of Agreement ............................................. 23
Section 6.10. Noti ce of Fee Upon Transfer of Housing Units ............................................ 23
Section 6.11. Experienced Property Manager ..................................................................... 24
Section 6.12. Change in Association Bylaws ...................................................................... 24
Section 6.13. Overdue Association Dues ............................................................................. 24
ARTICLE VII
Events of Default
Section 7.1. Events of Default Defined ............................................................................ 25
Section 7.2. Remedies on Default ..................................................................................... 25
Section 7.3. No Remedy Exclusive .................................................................................. 25
Section 7.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver ............................................ 25
ARTICLE VIII
Additional Provisions
Section 8.1. Conflict of Interests; City Representatives Not
Individually Liable ........................................................................................ 26
Section 8.2. Equal Employment Opportunity ................................................................... 26
Section 8.3. Provisions Not Merged With Deed............................................................... 26
Section 8.4. Titles of Articles and Sections ...................................................................... 26
Section 8.5. Notices and Demands ................................................................................... 26
Section 8.6. Counterparts .................................................................................................. 27
Section 8.7. Recording ...................................................................................................... 27
Section 8.8. Binding Effect ................................................................................................ 27
Section 8.9. Amendment .................................................................................................... 27
TESTIMONIUM & SIGNATURES ................................................................................................. 28
SCHEDULE A Description of Property
SCHEDULE B Housing Improvements
SCHEDULE C Disbursement Requisition of Authorized Corporation Representative
SCHEDULE D Reserve Study Funding Plan Summary
SCHEDULE E Certificate of Completion
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 5
1
SA140\139\781896.v6
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, made on or as of the 1st day of August, 2022
(“Agreement”), by and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Min nesota municipal
corporation and political subdivision duly organized and existing under its Charter and the
Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota (the "City") and BRIDGEWALK
CCONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation
(the "Association").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, th e City is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21,
as amended (the "Act"), to establish by ordinance a housing improvement area within which
housing improvements are made or constructed and the costs of such improvements are paid i n
whole or in part from fees imposed within the area; and
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 2652-22, adopted June 20, 2022 (the "Enabling Ordinance"),
the City Council of the City (the “Council”) established the Bridgewalk Condominium
Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (the “Hou sing Improvement Area”) in order
to facilitate certain improvements to property known as Bridgewalk Condominiums, which property
is legally described in Schedule A attached her eto and is hereinafter referred to as the "Property;"
and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 22-092, adopted June 20, 2022 (the "Fee Resolution"), the
Council imposed a housing improvement fee on Housing Units (as hereinafter defined) in the
Housing Improvement Area in order to finance certain housing improvements in that area (the
“Housing Improvements”); and
WHEREAS, the Act authorizes the City to issue bonds (the “Bonds”) in the amount
necessary to defray all or a portion of the expense to be incurred in making the Housing
Improvements, which Bonds are payable primarily from the proceeds of the fee imposed under the
Fee Resolution an d may be further secured by the pledge of the City’s full faith, credit, and taxing
power; and
WHEREAS, the Act further authorizes the City to make an internal loan (the “Internal
Lo an”) in the amount necessary to defray all or a portion of the expense to be incurred in making
the Housing Improvem ents, which Internal Loan is payable primarily from the proceeds of the fee
imposed under the Fee Resolution; and
WHEREAS, prior to adoption of the Fee Resolution by the Council, the Association
submitted to the City a financial plan in accordance with the Act that provides for the Association to
finance maintenance and operation of the common elements in the Association and a long -range
plan to conduct and finance capital improvements therein; and
WHEREAS, the City believes that development of the improvem ents to the Property
pursuant to this Agreement, and fulfillment generally of this Agreem ent, are in the vital and best
interests of the City and health, safety, morals and welfare of its residents, and in accord with the
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 6
2
SA140\139\781896.v6
publ ic purposes and provisions of the applicable State and local laws and requirements under which
the Housing Improvement Area has been undertaken.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations of the parties hereto, each
of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 7
3
SA140\139\781896.v6
ARTICLE I
Definitions
Section 1.1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears
from the context:
"Act" means Minnesota St atutes, Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21, as amended.
“Administrative Costs” means the costs of legal and fiscal consultants’ fees, administration
of the Bonds, city staff services, and inspection fees related to the Housing Improvem ents.
"Agreement " means this Development Agreement, as the same may be from time to time
modified, amended, or supplemented.
"Annual Debt Service" means the aggregate amount of principal and interest payable on the
Bonds and Internal Loan on any August 1 and the next succeeding February 1.
"Association" means Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association, Inc., or its
permitted successors and assigns.
"Association's Authorized Representative" means during construction and prior to the
delivery of a Certificate of Completion, Doug Strandness of Dunbar Strandness, the Association’s
Management Consultant, and after a Certificate of Completion is delivered, the President or
Treasurer of the Association, or any successor designated by written notice from the Association to
the City.
“Authority” means the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority.
"Bon ds" means the taxable general obligation bonds or obligations issued by the Ci ty under
Section 3.2 hereof to finance the Housing Improvements pursuant to the Act, and any bonds or
obligations issued to refund any Bonds.
"Bond Fund” m eans the debt service fund for the Bonds to be established under the Bond
Reso lution.
"Bond Resolution" means the resolution to be approved by the Council awarding the sale
and establishing the terms of the Bonds.
"City" means the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
"City’s Authorized Representative” means the Director of Community Development or a
person designated in writing by said Director.
“City Building Official” means the City’s chief building inspector or a person designated in
writing by said chief building inspector.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 8
4
SA140\139\781896.v6
"Certificat e of Completion" means the certification provi ded to the Association, pursuant to
Section 4.4 hereof.
"Completion Date" means the date of actual completion of the Housing Improvements as
certified by the City Building Official pursuant to Section 4.4 hereof.
“Construction Contract” means the construction contract between the Association and the
Contractor.
“Construction Manager” has the meaning provided in Section 4.3(b).
"Construction Plans" means the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents on
the construct ion work to be performed by the Association on the Property which shall be as det ailed
as the City may reasonably request to allow it to ascertain the nature and quality of the proposed
construction work.
"Contractor" means any person, including subcontractors, who shall be engaged to work on,
or to furnish materials and supplies for the Housing Improvements.
"Council" means the City Council of the City.
"County" means the County of Hennepin, Minnesota.
“Deferred Fees” means any Fee imposed o n a Housing Unit in the Housing Improvement
Area which is deferred pursuant to City policy on hardship deferrals in effect at the time of
execution of this Agreement.
"Draw Request" means the form, substantially in the form of Schedule C attached hereto,
which is submitted to the City when a disbur sem ent is requested and which is referred to in Section
3.9 hereof.
"Enabling Ordinance" means Ordinance No. 2652 - 22, adopted by the Council on June 20,
2022, which establishes the Housing Improvem ent Area.
"Ev ent of Default" means an action by the Association listed in Article VII hereof.
"Fee" means the housing improvement fee imposed on all Housing Units in the Housing
Improvement Area pursuant to the Fee Resolution.
"Fee Resolution" means Resolution No. 22-092, adopted by the Council on June 20, 2022,
which imposes the Fee.
"F ee Revenues" means all proceeds of the Fee payable to the City.
"Financial Plan" means the long-term replacement reserve and the long-term financial plan
prepared by Reserve Advisors, submitted to the City, as amended annually pur suant to Section 6.3
hereof as summarized in Schedule D hereof.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 9
5
SA140\139\781896.v6
“Fisc al Year” means any year commencing January 1 and ending December 31.
"Housin g Improvement Area" means the real property located within the Bridgewalk
Condominium Homeowners’ Association H ousing Improvement Area as established by the
Enabling Ordinance.
"Housing Improvements" means the improvements to the Property as set forth in the
Enabling Ordinance and in Schedule B attached hereto.
"Housing Unit" means a Unit as described in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 515B, or a Unit as
described in the Declaration for Bridgewalk Condominium, dated as of November 14, 1983.
"Independent", when used with reference to an attorney, engineer, architect, certified public
accountant, or other professional per son, means a person who (i) is in fact indepen dent, (ii) does not
hav e any material financial interest in the Association or the transaction to which his or her
certificate or opinion relates (other than the payment to be received for professional services
rendered), and (iii) is not connected with the City or the Association as an officer, director or
employee.
"Inspecting Engineer" means a professional representative hired by the Association for
services in conjunction with enfor cement of this Agreement.
"Internal Loan" means the loan made by the Ci ty to the Association from the development
fund administered by the Authority in connection with the Housing Improvement Area.
“Internal Loan Fund” means the fund to be established for the Internal Loan.
"Internal Loan Resol ution" means the resolution to be approved by the City approving the
terms of the Internal Loan.
"Management Consultant" means Dunbar Strandness, or another person or entity,
experienced in the study and management of condominium housing and havi ng a favorable
reputation throughout the United S tates or the State of Minnesot a for skill and experience in such
work and, unless otherwise specified herein, retained or employed by the Association and
acceptable to the City whose acceptance sh all not be unreasonably withheld.
"Mat urity Date" means the date that the Bonds and the Internal Loan have been fully paid,
defeased or redeemed in accordance with their terms.
"Municipal Advisor" means Ehlers and Associates, Inc. or any successor Independent
municipal advisory firm retained by the City.
"Net Reve nues Available for Deb t Service" means, as of the date of calculation, the Fee
Revenues received by the City in the six-month period prior to the relevant Payment Date, together
with any balance of Fee Reven ues previously received by the City in excess of the amounts needed
to pay all prior payments on the Bonds.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 10
6
SA140\139\781896.v6
"Payment Date" means any date on which principal and/or inter est on the Bonds and
Internal Loan is due and payable, currently expected to be each February 1 and August 1,
commencing August 1, 2023 and continuing through the Maturity Date.
"Project Fund" means the Project Fund to be created by the Bond Resolution and Internal
Loan Resolution.
"Property" means the real property described in Schedule A attached hereto.
“Property Manager” means FirstService Residential, or another entity approved and
designated by the City.
"Replacement Reserve Fund" means the reserve fund to be maintained by the Association in
accordance with Section 6.5 hereof.
"St ate" means the State of Minnesota.
"Unavoidable Delay s" means delays beyond the reasonable control of the party seeking to
be excused as a result thereof which are the direct result of strikes, other labor troubles, fire or other
casualty to the Housing Improvements, litigation commenced by third parties which, by injunction
or other similar judicial action, directly result s in delays, acts of war or terrorism, pandemic, or acts
of any federal, state or local governmental unit (other than the City in exerci sing its rights under this
Agreement) which directly result in delays. Unavoidable Delays shall not includ e delays in t he
Association's obtaining of permits or governmental approvals necessary to enable construction of
the Housing Improvements by the dates such construction is required under Section 4.3 of this
Agreement, unless such approvals are within the sol e control of the City.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left bl ank.)
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 11
7
SA140\139\781896.v6
ARTIC LE II
Representations and Warranties
Section 2.1. Representations by the City. The City makes the following representations as
the basis for the undertakings on it s part herein contained:
(a) The City is a municipal corporation and political subdivision duly organized and
existing under its Charter and the Constitut ion and laws of the State and has the power to enter into
this Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder.
(b) The City’s undertakings in connection with the Housing Improvements are
aut horized by the Act.
(c) On June 6, 2022 after receipt of p etitions by owners of at least 70 percent of the
Housing Units in the Housing Improvement Area and due publication and mailing of notice of
hearing, the Council held a public hearing on the adoption of the Enabling Ordinance and on the
adoption of the Fee Resolution, and approved the first reading of the Enabling Ordinance.
(d) On June 20, 2022, after a second reading of the Enabling Ordinance, the Council
adopted the Fee Resolut ion and the Enabling Ordinance.
(e) The veto periods for both the Enabling Ordinance and the Fee Resolution have
ended w ithout objection by owners of at least forty-five percent (45%) of the Housing Units in the
Housing Improvement Area, all in accordance with the Act.
(f) To finance costs of the Housing Improvements, the City proposes to issue the Bonds
and to make the Internal Loan, and to disburse the proceeds t hereof to the Association pursuant to
the Bond Resolution, the Loan Resolution, and this Agreement. The City will issue the Bonds and
make the Internal Loan in the aggregat e principal amount as described in Article III hereof. The
Bonds shall be in the form and shall be subject to the terms and provisions set forth in this
Agreement and the Bonds Resolution, and the Internal Loan shall be in the form and shall be subject
to the terms and provisions set forth in thi s Agreement and the Loan Resolution.
(g) There is no litigation pending or, to the best of its knowledge, threatened against the
City relating to the Housing Improvements or to the Bonds, making the Internal Loan or questioning
the powers or authority of the City under the Act, or questioning the corporate existence or
boundaries of the City or the title of any of the present officers of the City to their respective offices.
(h) The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement does not violate any
agreement or any court order or judgment in any litigation to which the City is a party or by which it
is bound.
Section 2.2. Representat ions and Warranties by the Association. The Association
represents and warrants that:
(a) The Association is a nonprofit corporation, duly organized and in good standing
under the laws of the State, is not in violation of any provisions of its articles of incorporation,
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 12
8
SA140\139\781896.v6
byl aws or the laws of the State, is duly authorized to transact business within the State, has power to
enter into this Agreement and has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this
Agreement by proper action of its board of directors.
(b) The Association will construct, operate and maintain the Housing Improvements in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Financial Plan, and all lo cal, State and federal
laws and regulations (including, but not limited to, environmental, zoning, building code and public
health laws and regulations, the City stormwater management plan and watershed district
requirements).
(c) The Associat ion has received no notice or communication from any local, State or
federal official that the activities of the Association or the City in the Housing Improvement Area
may be or will be in violation of any environmental law or regulation (other than those notices or
communications of which the City is aware). The Association is aware of no facts the existence of
which would cause it to be in violation of or give any person a valid claim under any local, State or
federal en vironmental law, regulation or review procedure.
(d) The Association will construct the Housing Improvements in accordance with all
local, State or federal energy -conservation laws or regulations.
(e) The Association will obtain, in a timely manner, all required permits, licenses and
approvals, and will meet, in a timely manner, all requirements of all applicable local, State and
federal laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before the Housing Improvements may
be lawfully constructed.
(f) Neith er the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the
transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement is prevented, limited by or conflicts with or results in a breach of, the
terms, conditions or provisions of a ny corporate restriction or any evidences of indebtedness,
agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Association is now a party or by which it
is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing.
(g) Whenever any Event of Default occurs and if the City shall employ attorneys,
municipal advisors or other consultants, or incur other expenses for the collection of payments due
or to become due or for the enforcement of performance or observance of any obligation or
agreemen t on the part of the Association under this Agreement, the Association agrees that it shall,
within ten (10) day s of written demand by the City pay to the City the reasonable fees of such
attorneys, municipal ad visors or consultants, and such other expenses so incurred by the City.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 13
9
SA140\139\781896.v6
ARTIC LE III
Financing; Disbursement of Proceeds
Section 3.1. Financing. In order to provide funds to defray the costs of the Housing
Improvements, the City will (i) make an Internal Loan from funds legally available for such
purposes, in the maximum principal amount of $800,000 (“Loan Amount”), and (ii) issue Bonds in
the maximum principal amount described in Section 3.3 (the "Bond Amount"). The parties agree
and understand that the Bonds and the Internal Loan will be repaid from Fee Revenues. The terms
of the Internal Loan and of the Bonds shall be as specified in this Article.
Section 3.2. Terms of Internal Loan. (a) As of the date of this Agreement, the source of
funds for the Internal Loan is the development fund administered and controlled by the Authority.
The Authority has agreed to make such funds available to the City for purposes of making the
Internal Loan, all pursuant to the Internal Loan Resolution to be approved by the Authority in
conjunction with approval of issuance of the Bonds. The Internal Loan Resolution will specify that
interest accrues on the Loan Amount at a fixed annual interest r ate equal to the interest rate o n the
Bonds, with interest accrual beginning on the date of disbursement of the Internal Loan; and will
specify payment dates and other terms consistent with the terms of the Fee Resolution and this
Agreement.
(b) The Loan Amount will be in the total aggregate amount of Deferred Fees and will be
deposited in the Project Fund to be applied for disbursement to pay Housing Improvem ent costs and
Administrative Costs if necessary. Internal Loan moneys in the Project Fund shall be subject to
withdrawal only for the purposes of paying the costs of Housing Improvements (and any
Administrative Costs, if necessary) or subject to any applicable provision of law, for payments
theretofore made by the Association for such costs. None of the funds in the Project Fund shall
be used for any purposes other than payment or reimbursement of such costs, except as otherwise
provided in Sections 3.3 and 3.6 hereof.
Administrative Costs may be disbursed from the Project Fund at any time after the effective
date of t he Internal Loan Resolution.
(c) As Deferred Fees are repaid by owners of Housing Units subject to such Deferred
Fees, such Deferred Fees, together with interest accrued to the date of repayment, will be appl ied as
repaym ent of the Internal Loan in accordance with the terms of the Internal Loan Resolution, and
will be credited by the City to the Authority fund from whi ch the Internal Loan was derived.
(d) The City and Association agree, and the Internal Loan Resolution shall provide, that
interest earnings on funds in the Project Fund and any other revenue fund established under the
Internal Loan Resolution shall be credited to the Authority fund that was the source of the Internal
Loan.
Section 3.3. Terms of Bonds. (a) The City shall issue the Bonds in the maximum
principal amount that is supported by the Fee Revenues and that will, in conjunction with the Loan
Amount and all Fee Revenues prepaid by owners of Housing Units prior to issuance of the Bonds in
accordance with the Fee Resolution, produce total funds in the maximum amount of $5,980,000
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 14
10
SA140\139\781896.v6
At closing on issuance of the Bonds, proceeds (net of capitalized interest and costs of
issuance) together with prepaid Fee Revenues and proceeds of the Internal Loan as described in
Section 3.2 hereof, shall be deposited by the City into the Project Fund for disbursement to the
Association in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Bond proceeds in the Project Fund
shall be subject to withdrawal from time to time only for the purposes of paying the costs of
Housing Improvements and Administrative Costs, or subject to any applicable provision of law, for
payments theretofore made by the Association for su ch costs. None of the Bond proceeds in the
Project Fund shall be used for any purposes ot her than payment or reimbur sement of such costs of
Housing Improvements, except as otherwise provided in the Bond Resolution and Section 3.6
hereof. The City will issue the Bonds by October 1, 2022, subject to Unavoidable Delays and the
City's ability to issue the Bonds under existing laws and market conditions.
(b) The Bond Resolution will establish a Project Fund, a Debt Service Fund, a Cost of
Issuance Fund, and a Surplus Fund. At closing on the issuance of the Bonds, proceeds will be
applied as follows: into the Debt Service Fund will be deposited accrued interest on the Bonds (if
any); into the Cost of Issuance Fund will be deposited amounts necessary to pay costs of issuance of
the Bonds (including, but not limited to, rating agency fees, municipal advising fees, bond counsel
fee, and other costs directly related to the issuance of the Bonds); and into the Project Fund will be
deposited the balance of proceeds of the Bonds together with all prepaid Fee Revenues.
(c) Under the Bond Resolution, on each payment date, all Fee Revenues in excess of the
amount necessary to pay when due the principal, interest and redemption pr emium, if any, on the
Bon ds and the principal of and interest on the Internal Loan will be applied for deposit in the
Surplus Fund established under the Bond Resolution and maintained by the City until the Maturity
Date. Subject to the prior pledge of Fee Revenues to payment of principal and interest on the Bonds
and Internal Loan, the City may at its sole discretion apply funds in su ch Surplus Fund: (i) to pay
registrar and paying agent fees, if any, in connection with the Bonds; (ii) to pay other administrative
costs in connection with the Bonds or the Housing Improvement Area, to the extent not paid from
proceeds of the Internal Loan; (iii) to pay costs in connection with enforcement by the City of the
Associati on's obligations under thi s Agreement (provided that nothing in this Section 3.3(b) shall be
construed to require the City to pay costs of enforcement in the first instance as provided herein);
and (iv) in accordance with Section 3.6 hereof.
(d) The City and Association agree, and the Bond Resolution shall so provide, that
interest earnings on funds in the Project Fund, the Bond Fund, and any other r evenue fund
established under the Bond Resolution, shall be deposited in and cr edited to the respective fund
from which the interest was derived.
(e) The Bonds will be taxable general obligation bonds, primarily secured by the Fee
Revenues and further secured by the City’s full faith, credit, and taxing power. The parties agree
and understand that interest on any general obligation bonds issued by the City to provide
permanent financing for the Housing Improvements will be includable in the gross income of
bondholders for purposes of federal and state income taxes, and the City makes n o warranty or
representation that the Bonds will be tax-exempt under federal or State law. The interest rate on the
Bonds will be determined by market conditions. The City shal l also have the option to purchase its
Bonds. If the City chooses to buy the Bonds, the interest rate wi ll be no more than the interest rates
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 15
11
SA140\139\781896.v6
of publicly sold similarly situated bond issues (based on market inform ation provided by the City’s
municipal bond advisor).
(f) The City may at any time, in its sole discretion, refinance the Bonds through
issuance of Bonds issued under the Act.
Section 3.4. Deposit of Funds by Association. If the City shall at any time in good faith
determine that the amount of funds then on deposit in the Project Fund, combined, together with
expected earnings thereon, is less than the amount required to pay all costs and expenses of any kind
which reasonably may be anticipated in connection with the completion of the Housing
Improvements and shall thereupon send written notice thereof to the Association specifying the
additional amount required to be deposited by the Association to provide sufficient funds to
complete the Housing Improvements, the Association agrees that it will, within ten (10) calendar
days of receipt of any such notice, deposit with the City the amount of funds specified in the notice
and shall authorize the City to disburse such funds prior to disbursement of any additional proceeds
of the Bonds or Internal Loan.
Section 3.5. Application of Project Fund Balance. Any amounts remainin g in the Project
Fund upon completion of the Housing Improvements shall be applied in accordance with Section
3.6 hereof.
Section 3.6. Application of Fee Revenues or Fund Balance. In the event th at, (a) any
balance remains in the Project Fund upon the final disbursement therefrom for costs of the Housing
Improvements; (b) there is any balance in the Surplus Fund described in Section 3.3(c), or (d) at any
time before the Maturity Date the City has available to it Fee Revenues (excluding the proceeds of
any refunding Bonds), together with amounts on hand in any funds or accounts under the Bond
Resolution, in the amount sufficient to redeem or defease the Bonds or Internal Loan in advance of
their maturity, as determined by the City's Financial Advisor, the City may, in its sole discretion:
(a) apply such excess Fee Revenues or fund balance to redeem or defease all or any
portion of the Bonds or Internal Loan; or
(b) by resolution of the Council, specif y additional housing improvements (as defined in
the Enab ling Ordinance) and transfer all or any portion of such excess Fee Revenues or Project
Fund balance, as the case may be, in the amount of the cost of such improvement s into a project
fund (the "Suppl emental Project Fund"). Amounts in the Supplemental Proj ect Fund shall be
disbursed to the Association to pay the cost of the housing improvements specified by the City, in
accordance with all the disbursement procedures set forth in Sections 3.7 and 3.8 hereof; provided
that before making any disbursement of funds from the Supplemental Project Fund, the Association
shall submit written plans and cost estimates for such additional housing improvements to the City’s
Authorized Representative, which plans shall be deemed approved unless rejected in writing by the
City’s Authorized Represent ative within 30 days after receipt thereof; or
(c) by resolution of the Council, disburse all or any portion of such excess Fee
Revenues or Project Fund balance, as the case may be, to the Associatio n for deposit into the
Replacement Reserve Fund maintained by the Associ ation. The Association shall establish and
maintain a separate subaccount in the Replacement Reserve Fund (the "Excess Revenue
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 16
12
SA140\139\781896.v6
Subaccount") in which excess Fee Revenues or any Project Fund balance deposited hereunder,
together with interest earnings thereon, shall be maintained. Amounts in the Excess Revenue
Subaccount of the Replacement Reserve Fund shall be expended only for housing improvements (as
defined in the Enabling Ordinance) that are selected by the Association; provided that before
making any disbursement of funds from the Excess Revenue Subaccount, the Association shall
submit written plans and cost estimates for such housing improvements to the City’s Authorized
Represent ative, which plans shall be deemed approved unless reject ed in writing by the City’s
Authorized Representative within thirty (30) days after receipt thereof; or
(d) any combination of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) above.
Any balance remaining after the Maturity Date in the Bond Fund or any other fund into
which Fee Revenues have been deposited shall be transferred by the City to the Association for
deposit into the Supplemental Project Fund. Expenditures from the Supplemental Project Fund
shall be subject to the conditions described in clause s (b) and (c) above. All covenants and
obligations of the Association under this Section shall survive the Maturity Date.
Section 3.7. Conditions Precedent to Initial Disbursement. The obligation of the City to
make the initial Disbursement hereunder shall be subject to the condition precedent that the
Association shall be in compliance with the conditions contained in Section 3.8 hereof and the
further condition precedent that the City shall have received, on or before the date of such initial
disbursement hereunder, the following:
(a) A copy of the Construction Plans, approved by the City Building Official in
accordance with Section 4.2 hereof and in detail sufficient to enab le the Association to authorize
commencement of construction of the Housing Improvements, certified by the City Building
Official and the Association;
(b) Copies of the Construction Contracts, and such subcontracts as may be reasonably
requested from time to time by the City;
(c) A sworn construction statement duly executed by the Contractors for the Housing
Improvements showing estimates of all anticipated Contractors' contract s or subcontracts for
specific portions of the work on the Housing Improvements and the amounts anticipated to become
due each such Contractor, including all costs and expenses of any kind incurred and to be incurred
in construction the Housing Improvements;
(d) A total project cost statement, incorporating estimates of the construction costs as
shown on the sworn co nstruction statement described in clau se (c) above and setting forth all other
costs and expenses of any kind anticipated to be incurred in completion of the Housing
Improvements and sworn to by the Association to be a true, complete and accur ate account of all
costs actually incurred and a reasonably accurate estimate of all costs to be incurred in the future;
(e) A copy of the executed contract with the Construction Manager, approved by the
City under Section 4.3(b) hereof ;
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 17
13
SA140\139\781896.v6
(f) Copies of any licenses and permi ts which the City’s Authorized Representative
certifies as necessary and sufficient to construct the Housing Improvements, including all
foundation and grading permits and building permits from time to time necessary for such
construction.
(g) No Event of Default under this Agreement or event which would constitute such an
Event of Default but for the requirement that notice be given or that a period of grace or time elapse,
shall have occurred and be continuing.
(h) An opinion letter addressed to the City from the Association’s att orney opining that
(i) all legal requirements have been complied with in the formation of the Association; (ii) all legal
requirements have been completed that are necessary for the Association’s execution of all
docum ents relating to the financing and the Housing Improvements; and (iii) all of the documents
relating to the financing and the Housing Improvements are fully enforceable against the
Association, subject to reasonable exceptions and qualifications.
(i) The City has received insurance certificates from the Association demonstrating
compliance with Section 5.1 hereof.
Section 3.8. Further Conditions Precedent to All Disbursements. The obligation of the City
to make the initial Disbursement hereunder and each su bsequent Disbursement her eunder shall be
subject to the condition precedent that the Association shall be in compliance with all conditions set
forth in Section 3.7 hereof, and the further condition precedent that on the date of such
disbursement:
(a) The City has received a written statement from the Association's Authorized
Representative and the Construction Manager certifying with respect to each payment: (i) that none
of the items for which the payment is proposed to be made has formed the basis for any payment
theretofore made from the Project Fund; (ii) that each item for which the payment is proposed to be
made is or was necessary in connection with the Housing Improvements; (iii) that following such
proposed payment sufficient moneys will remain on deposit in the Project Fund to provide for
payment in full of all remaining costs estimated to be incurred in order to complete the Housing
Improvements, and (iv) that the current balance in the Replacement Reserve Fund meets the
requirements in Section 6.5. In the case of any co ntract providing for the retention of a portion of
the contract price, there shall be paid from the Project Fund only the net amount remaining after
deduction of any such portion.
(b) No Event of Default under this Agreement or event which would constitute such an
Event of Default but for the requirement that notice be given or that a period of grace or ti me elapse,
shall have occurred and be continuing.
(c) No determination shall have been made by the City’s Authorized Representative that
the amount of undisbursed moneys, together with expected earnings ther eon and any amount of
other funds deposited in the Project Fund by the Association or to be deposited under Sections 3.2
and 3.3 hereof, are insufficient to pay expenses of any kind which reasonably may be anticipated in
connection with the completion of the Housing Improvements; or if such a determinati on has been
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 18
14
SA140\139\781896.v6
made and notice thereof sent to the Association, the Association has deposited the necessary funds
with the City in accordance with Section 3.4 hereof.
(d) The disbursement requirements set forth in Section 3.9 hereof have been satisfied.
(e) If requested by the City’s Authorized Representative, the City shall be furnished
with a statement of the Association and of any Contractor, in form and substance satisfactory to the
City’s Authorized Representative setting forth the names, addresses and amounts due or to become
due as well as the amounts previously paid to every Contractor, subcontractor, person, firm or
corporation furnishing materials or performing labor enteri ng into the construction of any part of the
Housing Improvements.
(f) No license or permit necessary for the construction of the Housing Improvements
shall have been revoked or the issuance thereof subjected to challenge before any court or other
governmental authority having or asserting jurisdiction thereover.
Section 3.9. Request s for Disbursement. (a) Whenever the Association desires a
disbursement to be made, which shall be no more often than monthly, the Association shall submit
to the City a Draw Request in substantially the f orm attached as Schedule C hereto, duly executed
on behalf of the Association, setting forth the information requested therei n. Each Draw Request
shall be limited to amounts equal to (i) the total of such costs actually incurred and owing (or
previously paid) by the Association to the date of such Draw Request for work performed on and
materials used in the Housing Improvements, plus (ii) the cost of materials and equipment not
incorporated in the Property, but delivered to and suitably stored at the Property; less, (iii) (a) a
minimum retainage of five percent, and (b) at all times less prior disbursements. Notwithstanding
anything herein to the contrary, no disbursements for materials stored at the Property will be
authorized unless the Association shall provide adequate security for such storage. Each Draw
Request shall constitute a representation and warranty by the Association that all representations
and warranties set forth in this Agreement are true and correct as of the date of such Draw Request.
(b) At the time of submission of each Draw Request, the Association shall submit the
following to the City’s Authorized Representative:
(i) A written lien waiver from each Contract or for work done and mat erials supplied by
it which were paid for pursuant to the next preceding Draw Request.
(ii) Such other supporting evidence as may be requested by the City to substantiate all
payments which are to be made out of the relevant Draw Request and/or to
substantiate all payments then made with respect to the Housing Improvements.
(c) If on the date a disbursement is desired, the Association has performed all of its
agreements and complied with all requirements theretofore to be performed or compl ied with
hereunder, including satisfaction of all applicable conditions precedent contained in Article III
hereof, upon approval by the Council the City’s Authorized Representative shall make a
disbursement to the Association in the amount of the request ed disbursement, or such lesser amount
as shall be approved.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 19
15
SA140\139\781896.v6
Section 3.10. Con ditions Precedent to the Final Disbursement. The making of the final
disbursement by the City from the Project Fund shall be subject to the condition precedent that the
Association shall be in compliance with all conditions set forth in Sections 3.7 through 3.9 hereof
and, further, that the following conditions shall have been satisfied prior to the Completion Date:
(a) The Housing Improvements have been substantially completed in accordance with
the Construction Plans and Art icle IV hereof, and the City shall have received a certificate of
completion from the Association’s Authorized Representative and the City Building Official,
certifying that to the best of their knowledge (i) work on the Housing I mprovements has been
completed in accordance with the Co nstruction Plans and all other labor, services, materials and
supplies used in such wo rk have been paid for ; (ii) the completed Housing Improvements conform
with all applicable building laws and regul ations of the governmental authorities having jurisdiction
over the Housing Improvements; and (iii) lien waivers subm itted to the City under Section 3.7(b)
cover all labor, services materials and supplies in connection with the Housing Improvements.
(b) The City’s Authorized Representative shall have received satisfactory evidence that
all work requiring inspection by municipal or other governmental authorities having jurisdiction has
been duly inspected and approved by such authorities and by the bureau, corporation or office
having jurisdiction, and that all r equisite certificates of occupancy and other approvals have been
issued.
(c) The City’s Authorized Representative has received a lien waiver from each
Contractor for all work done and for all material s furnished by it for the Housing Improvements,
along with a certification of the Association that lien waivers submitted to the City under this
Section 3.10(c) are sufficient to cover all labor, services, materials, and suppli es in connection with
the Housing Improvements.
(d) No Event of Default under this Agreement or event which would constitute such an
Event of Default but for the requirement that notice be given or that a period of grace or time elapse,
shall have occurred and be continuing.
Section 3.11. Waiver. The City’s Authorized Representative may, in his or her sole
discretion, without notice to or consent from any other party, waive any or all conditions for
disbursement set forth in this Article. However, the making of any disbursement prior to fulfillment
of any condition therefor shall not be construed as a waiver of such condition, and the City’s
Authorized Repr esentative shall have the right to require fulfillment of any and all such conditions
prior to authorizing any subsequent disbursement.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 20
16
SA140\139\781896.v6
ARTICLE IV
Construction of Housing Improvements
Section 4.1. Construction of Housing Improvements. The Associati on agrees that it will
construct the Housing Improvements on the Property in accordance with the approved Construction
Plans and at all times prior to the Maturity Date will operate and maintain, preserve and keep the
Housing Improvements or cause the Housing Improvements to be maintained, preserved and kept
with the appurtenances and every part and parcel thereof, in good repair and condition, all in
accordance with Article VI hereof.
Section 4.2. Construction Plans. (a) Before the commencement of constr uction of the
Housing Improvements, the Association shall submit the Construction Plans to the City Bu ilding
Official, who shall review such plans on behalf of the City. The Construction Pl an s shall provide
for the construction of the Housing Improvements and shall be in conformity with this Agreement,
and all applicable State and local laws and regulations. The City Building Official will approve the
Construction Plans in writing if: (i) the Construction Plans conform to the terms and conditions of
this Agreement; (ii) the Construction Plans conform to all applicable federal, state and local laws,
ordinances, rules and regulations; (iii) the Construction Plans are adequate to provide for
construction of the Housing Improvements; and (iv) no Event of Default has occurred. No approval
by the City Building Official shall relieve the Association of the obligation to comply with the terms
of this Agreement, applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, or to
construct the Housing Impr ovements in accordance therewith. No approval by the City Building
Official shall constitute a waiver of an Event of Default. If approval of the Construction Plans is
requested by the Association in writing at the time of submission, such Construction Plans shall be
deemed approved unless rejected in writing by the City Building Official, in whol e or in part. Such
rejections shall set forth in detail the reasons therefor and shall be made within thirty (30) days after
the date of their receipt by the City Building Official. If the City Building Official rejects any
Construction Plans in whole or in part, the Association shall submit new or corrected Construction
Plans within thirty (30) days after written notification to the Association of the rejection. The
provisions of this Section relating to approval, rejection and resubmission of corrected Co nstruction
Plans shall continue to apply until the Construction Plans have been approved by the City Building
Official. The City Building Official’s approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Said approval
shall constitute a conclusive determination that the Construction Plans (and the Housing
Improvements, constructed in accordance with said plans) comply to the City Building Official’s
satisfaction with the provisions of this Agreement relating thereto.
(b) If the Association desires to make any mater ial change in the Construction P lans
after their approval by the City Building Official, the Association shall submit the proposed change
to the City Building Official for approval. For the purposes of this Section, a "material change"
means any change that (i) increases or decreases the total cost of the Housing Improvements by
more than $50,000, or (ii) involves any change in construction materials or design that reasonably
requires review for compliance with state and local laws and regulations. If the Constru ction Plans,
as modified by the proposed change, conform to the requirements of this Section with respect to
such previously approved Construction Plans, the City Building Official shall approve the proposed
change and notify the Association in writing of its approval. Such change in the Construction Plans
shall, in any event, be deemed approved by the City Building Official unless rejected, in whole or in
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 21
17
SA140\139\781896.v6
part, by written notice by the City Building Official to the Association, setting forth in detail the
reasons therefor. Such rejection shall be made within ten (10) days after receipt of the notice of
such change. The City Building Official’s approval of any such change in the Construction Plans
will not be unreasonably withheld.
Section 4.3. Completion of Construction. (a) Subject to Unavoidable Del ays, the
Association shall complete the construction of the Housing Improvements by July 1, 2023. All
work with respect to the Housing Improvements to be constructed or provided by the Association
on the Property shall be in conformity with the Construction Plans as submitted by the Association
and approved by the City. If the completion of construction of the Housing Improvements is
delayed due to unexpected conditions or Unavoidable Delays, the City will work cooperatively with
the Association to extend the completion date.
(b) Prior to completion of construction, the Association shall retain a professional
construction manager (“Construction Manager”) to supervise construction of the Housing
Improvements. Before executing a contract with the Construction Manager, the Association sh all
submit the name of the entity and a proposed scope of work and budget to the City. The City’s
Authorized Representative shall, within 10 days after receipt, approve the Construction Manager
and the scope of work or shall reject the Construction Manager with reasons for such rejection.
(c) The Association agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, and every successor in
interest to the Property, or any part thereof, th at the Association, and such successors and assigns,
shall promptly begin and diligently prosecute to completion the construction of the Housing
Improvements thereon, and that such construction shall in any event be commenced and completed
within the period specified in this Section. Until construction of the Housing Improvements has
been completed, the Association shall make reports, in such commercially reasonable detail and at
such times as may reasonably be requested by the City as to the actual progress of the Association
with respect to such construct ion.
Section 4.4. Certificate of Completion. (a) Promptly after substantial completion of the
Housing Improvements in accordance with those provisions of this Agreement relating solely to the
obligations of the Association to construct the Housing Improvements (including the dates for
beginning and completion thereof), the City will furnish the Association with an appropriate
instrument so certifying. Such certification by the City shall be a conclusive det ermination of
satisfaction and termination of the agreements and covenants i n this Agreement with respect to the
obligations of the Association, and its successors and assigns, to construct the Housing
Improvements and the dates for the beginning and completion thereof. Such certification and such
determination shall not constitute evidence of compliance with or satisfaction of any obligation of
the Association under Article VI hereof.
(b) The certificate provided for in this Section shall be in such form as will enable it to
be recorded in the proper office for the recordation of deeds and other i nstruments pertaining to the
Property. If the City shall refuse or fail to provide any certification in accordance with the
provisions of this Section, the Ci ty shall, within thirty (30) days after written request by the
Association, provide the Association with a written statement, indicating in adequate detail in what
respects the Association has failed to complete the Housing Improvements in accordance wit h the
provisions of this Agreement, or is otherwise in default, and what measures or acts it will be
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 22
18
SA140\139\781896.v6
necessary, in the opinion of the City, for the Association to take or perform in order to obtain such
certification.
(c) The construction of the Housing Im provements shall be d eemed to be substantially
completed as determined by the City Building Official, who may execute the Certificate of
Completion on behalf of the City.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 23
19
SA140\139\781896.v6
ARTICLE V
Insu rance
Section 5.1. Insurance. (a) The Association will provide and maintain or cause to be
provided and maintained at all times during the process of constructing the Housing Improvements
an All Risk Broad Form Basis Insurance Policy and, from time to time during t hat period, at the
request of the City, furnish the City with proof of payment of premiums on policies covering the
following:
(i) Comprehensive general liability insurance (including operations, contingent
liability, operations of subcontractors, completed operations and contractual liability
insurance) together with an Owner's Contractor's Policy with limits against bodily injury and
property damage of not less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence (to accomplish the above-
required limits, an umbrella excess liability policy may be used); and
(iii) Workers' compensation insurance provided by all Contractors.
(b) Upon completion of construction of the Housing Improvements and prior to the
Maturity Date, the Association shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, at its cost and expense, at
the request of the City but no more often than annually shall furnish proof of the payment of
premiums on, insurance as follows:
(i) Insurance against loss and/or damage to the Property and the Housing
Improvements under a poli cy or policies covering such risks as are ordinarily insur ed
against by similar condominium associations, and that names the City as an additional
insured.
(ii) Comprehensive general public liability insurance, incl uding personal injury
liability (with employee exclusion deleted), against liability for injuries to persons and/or
property, in the amount for each occurrence and for each year of $1,000,000, naming the
City as additional insured.
(iii) Such other insurance, including workers' compensation insurance respecting
all employees of the Association, in such amount as is customarily carried by like
organizations engaged in like activities of comparable size and liability exposure; provided
that the Association may be self -insured with respect to all or any part of its liability for
workers' compensation.
(c) All insurance required in this Article shall be taken out and maintained in
responsible insurance companies selected by the Association which are authorized under the laws of
the State to assume the risks covered thereby. Upon request, the Association will deposit annually
with the City policies evidencing all such insur ance, or a certificate or certificates or binders of the
respective insurers stating that such insurance is in force and effect. Unless otherwise provided in
this Article each policy shall contain a provision that the insurer shall not cancel nor modify it in
such a way as to reduce the coverage provided below the amounts required herein without giving
written notice to the Association and the City at least thirty (30) days before the cancellation or
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 24
20
SA140\139\781896.v6
modification becomes effective. In lieu of separate policies, the Association may m aintain a single
policy, blanket or umbrella policies, or a combination thereof, having the coverage required herein,
in which event the Association shall deposit with the City a certificate or cer tificates of the
respective insurers as to the amount of coverage in force upon the Housing Improvements.
(d) The Association agrees to notify the City immediately in the case of damage
exceeding $100,000 in amount to, or destruction of, the Property, the Housing Improvements or any
portion thereof resulting from fire or other casualty. In such event the Association will for thwith
repair, reconstruct and restore th e Housing Improvements to substantially the same or an improved
condition or value as it existed prior to the event causing such damage and, to the extent necessary
to accomplish such repair, reconstruction and restoration, the Association will apply the net
proceeds of any insurance relating to such damage received by the Association to the payment or
reimbursement of the cost s thereof.
The Association shall complete the repair, reconstruction and restoration of the Housing
Improvements and the Property, whether or not the net proceeds of insurance received by th e
Association for such purposes are sufficient to pay for the same. Any net proceeds remainin g after
completion of such repairs, construction and restoration shall be the property of the Association. In
the event damage or loss to the Property, Housing Improvements, or any construction materials, the
Association understands and agrees City shall not be responsible for paying any costs or expenses
associated therewith including but not limited to costs or expenses associated with repairing,
reconstructing, replacing or restoring any of the foregoing.
(e) The Association and the City agree that all of the insurance provisio ns set forth in
this Article shall terminate upon the earlier of the Maturity Date or termination of this Agreement.
(The remainder of this pa ge is intentionally left blank.)
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 25
21
SA140\139\781896.v6
ARTICLE VI
Special Covenants
Section 6.1. No Warranty of Condition or Suitability, Indemnification. (a) The City does not
make any warranty, either express or implied, as to the design or capacity of the Housing
Improvements, as to the suitability for oper ation of the Housing Improvements or that they will be
suitable for the Association's purposes or needs. The Association releases the City from, agrees that
the City shall not be liable for, and agrees to hold the City, its Council and its respective officers and
employees, harmless against, any claim, cause of action, suit or liability for any loss or damage to
property or any injury to or death of any person that may be occasioned by any cause whatsoever
pertain ing to the Housing Improvements or the Property or the use thereof, except for those that
arise from the wil lful misconduct of the City. The Association releases the City from, agrees that
the Ci ty sh all not be liable for, and agrees to hold the City, its Council and its respective officers and
employees, harmless against, any claim, cause of action, suit, liability, any loss or damage to
property, or other proceeding whatsoever by any person or entity whatsoever arising or
purportedly arising from the actions or inactions of the Association (or if other persons acting on
its behalf or under its direction or control including its contractor) under this Agreement, or the
transactions contemplated hereby or the construction, installation, ownership, and operation of
the Housing Improvements.
(b) Th e Association further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers and
employees against any and all losses, claims, damages or liability to which the City, its officers and
employees may become subject under an y law arising out of any act, omission, representation or
misrepresentation of the Associ ation in connection with the Internal Loan, the Bonds, and the
carrying out of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, and to reimburse the City, its
officers and employees for any out -of-pocket legal and other expenses (including reasonable
counsel fees) incurred by the City, its officers and employees, in connection with investigating any
such losses, claims, damages or liabilities or in connection with defen ding any actions relating
thereto. The City agrees, at the request and expense of the Association, to cooperate in the making
of any investigation in defense of any such claim and promptly to assert any or all of the rights and
privileges and defenses whi ch may be available to the City. The provisions of this Section shall
survive the Maturity Date.
(c) All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the City contained
herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promise s, agre ements and obligations of
the City and not of any governing body member, officer, agent, servant or employee of the City in
the individual capacity thereof.
Section 6.2. Financial Statements. The Association shall provide to the City a copy of the
annual audited financial statements of the Asso ciation for the preceding Fisc al Year, including a
balance sheet and operating statements, audited by an Independent certified publ ic accountant, by
no later than October 1 of each year, commencing October 1, 2023, until the later of the Maturity
Date or the date all excess Fee Revenues and fund balances, if any, shall have been expended in
accordance with Section 3.5 hereof. Such financial statements shall be accompanied by a separate
written statement from such Independent certified public accountant preparing such report that such
Independent accountant has obtained no knowledge of any default by the Associati on in the
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 26
22
SA140\139\781896.v6
fulfillment of any of the terms, covenants, provisions or conditions of this Agreement or if such
accountant shall have obtained knowledge of any such default the accountant shall disclose in such
statement the default and the nature thereof, but such accountant shall not be liable directly or
indirectly to any party for failure to obtain knowledge of any default. The Association and the City
agree and understand that compliance with this Section constitutes compliance with Section 7.01 of
the En abling Ordinance.
Section 6.3. Financial Plan; Annual Reports. The Association agrees to furnish to the Ci ty,
by no later than August 15 in each calendar year described below:
(a) 2023 and every year ther eafter until the later of the Maturity Date or the Date all excess
Fee Revenues and Project Fund balance, if any, have been expended in accordance with Section 3.5
her eof, an updated Financial Plan for the Property prepared by a Management Consultant or another
property management professional acceptable to the City, in substantially the form of the Financial
Plan and providing plans for capital improvements t o the Property through the Maturity Date;
(b) in 2023, 2024 and every other year thereafter until the date all excess Fee Revenues and
Project Fund balance, if any, have been expended in accordance with Section 3.5 hereof, a written
report by an Independent engineer or another property management professional acceptable to the
City, describing the physical condition of the Property and the Housing Improvements as of the end
of the preceding calendar year, with detail sufficient to enable the City to evaluate adequacy of
compliance with the Association's obligations under this Agreement.
Section 6.4. Records and Inspection. The Association shall maintain (i) copies of federal,
State, municipal and other licenses and permits obtained by the Association relating to the operation
of the Property and the Housing Improvements, (ii) financial books and records reflecting the
operations of the Property and the Housing Improvement s, and (iii) all other documents,
instruments, reports and records required by any provision of this Agreement or the Financial Plan
or by law relating to the Property or the affairs of the Association. The City shall have the right to
inspect all such materials, except any materials made private or confidential by federal or State law
or regulation, and the Property at all reasonable times and to make such copies and extracts as it
may desire. At the request of the City the Association shall furnish to the City, at the Association's
expense, a copy of any such materials which are required by the Ci ty in t he performance of its
duties under this Agreement, the Enabling Ordinance, the Fee Resolution or the Act.
Section 6.5. Maintenance of Property; Replacem ent Reserve Fund. (a) The Association
agrees that so long as the Bonds and Internal Loan are outstanding, the Association will keep or
cause to be kept the Property and the Housing Improvements in good repair and good operating
condition at its own cost.
(b) The Association shall maintain at all times prior to the Maturity Date a “Replacement
Reserve Fu nd,” the moneys in which shall be available to pay the costs of maintenance and repair of
the Property and to make any other payment that may be requir ed under this Agreement, including
without limitation any payment to the City under Section 6.6 hereof. By the date of the first
disbursement from the Project Fund under Section 3.2 hereof, in 2022, the balance in the
Replacement Reser ve Fund shall be at least $148,353. By December 31, 2023 and by December 31
of each year thereafter through 2043, the balance in the Replacement Reserve fund shall increase in
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 27
23
SA140\139\781896.v6
accordance with the Funding Plan Summary of the Reserve Study Funding Plan set forth in
Schedule D at tached hereto. The Association shall provide documentation showing compliance
with these requirements at the time that the Financial Plan and Annual Reports are furnished to the
City as d escribed in Section 6.3.
Section 6.6. Co venant to Maintain Net Revenues Available for Debt Service. (a) In the
event that, ten (10) business days before any P ayment Date, the Net Revenues Av ailable for Debt
Service are less than the total principal and interest due on the Bonds on such Payment Date, the
City will provide written notice to the Association of such fact and the amount of the d eficiency.
Within ten (10) days after receipt of such notice of deficiency in Net Revenues Available for Debt
Service, the Association shall be liable for and shall pay the City such deficiency. Failure on the
part of the City to provide the notice of the deficiency at the time specified herein shall not relieve
the Association of its obligation to make the required payment ten (10) days after the actual not ice
of the deficiency is provided by the City to the Association. Failure on the part of the Associat ion to
make the required payment under this Section within ten (10) days after receipt of notice thereof
shall entitle the City to exercise its remedies u nder this Agreement, notwithstanding any cure period
provided in Article VII hereof.
(b) In the event that the Association makes a payment to the City under Section 6.6(a) and,
ten (10) business days before any Payment Date thereafter the City determines t hat Net Revenues
Availabl e for Debt Service, excluding the amount of all prior payments by the Association under
Section 6.6(a), exceed the total princi pal and interest due on the Bonds on such Payment Date, the
City shall promptly return to the Association the amount of the Net Revenues Available for Debt
Service in excess of the amount due on the Bonds on that Paym ent Dat e. Nothing in this Section
shall be construed to relieve the obligation of the Association to make an y payment required under
Section 6.6(a) hereof.
Section 6.7. Assignment of Association Assets. (a) As security for the Association's
obligations under Section 6.6 hereof, the Association does hereby bargain, sell, assign and set over
unto the City, all the fees and assessments and other income of any type owing to the Association
from owners of Housing Units, together with all cash, investments and secur ities of any type held
by the Association now or hereafter in any operating or reserve accounts (the "Accounts"). The
fees, assessments, and Accounts are referred to collectively as the "Association Assets". This
assignment shall con stitute a perf ected, ab solute and present assignment, provided that the
Association may, so long as no Event of Default with respect to Section 6.6 hereof occurs, collect ,
retain, and make appropriate payment from all Association Assets.
The provisions of thi s Section are int en ded to be a mere license in favor of the Association
and a mere deferral of the City's exercise of its perfected, absolute and present rights hereunder, and
sh all not be construed to be a future assignment thereof.
(b) The Association hereby covenants and warrants to the City that the Association has not
executed any prior assignments of any Association Assets, nor has it performed any act or executed
any other instrument that might prevent the Association from operating under any of the terms and
conditions of this assignment or that would limit the Association in such operation.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 28
24
SA140\139\781896.v6
(c) The Association hereby agrees that, so long as the Association's obligations under
Section 6.6 hereof remain outstanding the Association will not, without the written consent of the
City, make any other assignment, pledge or other disposition of any of the Association Assets, or
consent in any assignment of same; and any such act s, if done without the written consent of the
City, shall be null and void.
(d) Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default with respect to Section 6.6 hereof, the City
sh all have the right to withdraw funds from, and liquidate any securities in any Accounts, and
collect the fees and assessments from the owners of Housing Units, and apply the same for deposit
in the Project Fund. This assignment shall be binding upon the owners of Housing Units from the
date of filing by the City in the office or offices where this Agreement is filed that an Event of
Default under Section 6.6 hereof has occurred and i s continuing and service of a copy of that notice
upon the owners of the Housing Units. The expenses, including any attorney's fees, and municipal
consultant’s fees reasonably incurred pursuant to the powers herein contained shall be deemed to be
immediately due and payable by the Association to the City and shall be secured hereby. The City
sh all not be liable to account to the Association for any action taken pursuant hereto other than to
account for any Association Assets actually received by the City.
(e) The City shall not be obligated to perform or discharge, nor does it undertake to perf orm
or discharge, any obligation, duty or li ability under any agreement between the Association and
owners of Housing Unit s, and the Association hereby agrees to defend and indemnify the City and
hold it harmless for any and all liability, loss or damage which it may or might incur under or by
reaso n of this assignment and from any and all claims and demands whatsoever which may be
asserted again st it by reason of any alleged obligation or undertaking on its part to perform or
discharge any of the terms or covenants contained in any agreement by and among the Association
and the owners of Housing Units, except such claims and demands that arise ou t of the willful
misconduct of the City, its officers, employees and agents. Should the City incur any such liability,
loss or damage under or by reason of this assignment, or in the defense against any such claims or
demands arising out of thi s assignmen t, the amount thereof, including costs, expenses and
reasonable attorneys' fees, together with interest thereon at the rate of interest on the Internal Loan,
shall be secured hereby, and the Association shall reimburse the City therefore immediately upon
demand.
Section 6.8. Assoc iation to Maintain its Existence; Conditions Under Which Exceptions
Permitted. The Association agrees that, so lo ng as the Internal Loan is outstanding, it will maintain
its existence as a nonprofit corporation under the laws of Minnesota; will not dissol ve or otherwise
dispose of all or substantially all of its assets; and will not consolidate with or merge into another
corporation or permit one or mor e other corporations to consolidate with or merge into it.
Section 6.9. Prohibition Against Assignment of Agreement. The Association represents
and agrees that prior to the Maturity Date the Association has not made or created and will not make
or create or suffer to be made or created any total or partial sale, assignment, conveyance, or any
trust or power, or transfer in any other mode or form of or with respect to the Asso ciation's rights,
interests or obligations under this Agreement or any part thereof, or any contract or agreement to do
any of the same, without the prior wr itten approval of the City.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 29
25
SA140\139\781896.v6
Section 6.10. Notice of Fee Upon Transfer of Housing Units. The Association agrees that it
will use its best efforts to ensure that owners of each Housing Unit upon which a Fee is imposed
under the Fee Resolution provide notice of the Fee to prospective buyers or transferees upo n any
sale or transfer of the Housing Unit. Such efforts by the Association shall include, but are not
limited to ensuring that Housing Unit owners include a description of the Fee in each disclosure
certificate provided to the purchaser or transferee as required under Minnesota Statutes,
Section 515B.4-107 or any successor statute.
Section 6.11. Experienced Property Manager. So long as the Bonds Internal Loan is
outstanding, the Association agrees to maintain “experienced professional property management”
for the Property. For purposes of this subsection, “experienced professional management” shall
mean the Property Manager or another property manager acceptable to the City who meets th e
following cr iteria:
(i) has demonstrated knowledge of accounting, financial reporting, budgeting
and related issues; and
(ii) does not have an ownership interest in any Housing Unit and is not the
spouse, child, parent or sibling of anyone who has an ownership interest.
Section 6.12. Change in A ssociation Bylaws. Until the later of the Maturity Date or the
date all excess Fee Revenues and fund balances, if any, have been expended in accordance with
Section 3.5 hereof, any changes to the Association’s bylaws must be a pproved by the City prior to
approval and adoption of such changes by the Association.
Section 6.13. Overdue Association Dues. If any time twenty percent (20%) or more of the
aggregate total dues payable to the Association by owners of Housing Units are past due, the
Association shall notify the City within thirty (30) days.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 30
26
SA140\139\781896.v6
ARTICLE V II
Ev ents of Default
Section 7.1. Events of Default Defined. The following shall be "Events of Default" under
this Agreement and the term "E vent of Default" shall m ean, whenever it is used in this Agreement
(unless the context otherwise provides), any failure by any party to observe or perf orm any
covenant, condition, obligation or agreement on its part to be obser ved or performed hereunder.
Section 7.2. Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default referred to in
Section 7.1 hereof occurs, the non -defaulting party may exercise its ri ghts under this Section after
providing thirty (30) days written notice to the defaulting party of the Ev ent of Default, but only if
the Event of Default has not been cured within said thirty (30) days or, if the Event of Default is by
its nature incurable within thirty (30) days, the defaulting party does not provide assurances
reasonably satisfactory to the non-defaulting party that the Event of Default will be cured and will
be cured as soon as reasonably possible:
(a) Suspend its performance under this Agreement until it receives assurances that the
defaulting par ty will cure its default and continue its performance under this Ag reement.
(b) Take whatever action, including legal, equitable or administrative action, which m ay
appear necessary or desirable to collect any payments due under this Agreement, or to enforce
performance and observance of an y obligation, agreement, or covenant under this Agreement.
(c) The City may ex ercise its remedies pursuant to Section 6.7 hereof.
(d) The City may seek specific performance of the obligations of the Association
pursuant to this Agreement, including without limitation payments due from the Association
hereunder, or seek damages to th e extend otherwise set forth herein as to any obligation, agreement,
or covenant of the Association under this Agreement.
Section 7.3. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to the
City or Association is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each
and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given
under thi s Agreement or now or hereaft er existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or
omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or
power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised
from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. In order to entitle the City to exercise
any remedy reserved to it, it shall not be necessary to give notice, other than such notice as may be
required in this Article.
Section 7.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any agreement
contained in this Agreement should be breached by either part y and thereafter waived by the other
party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deem ed to
waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 31
27
SA140\139\781896.v6
ARTICLE VIII
Additional Provisions
Section 8.1. Conflict of Interests; City Represe ntatives Not Individually Liable. The City
and the Associat ion, to the best of their respective knowledge, represent and agree that no member,
official, or employee of the City shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this
Agreement, nor shall any such member, official, or employee participate in any decision relating to
this Agreement which affects his or her per sonal interests or the interests of any corpor ation,
partnership, or association in which he or she is, directly or indirectly, interested. No member,
official, or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Association, or any successor in
interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due
to the Association or successor or on any obligations under the terms of this Agreement.
Section 8.2. Equal Employment Opportunity. The Association, for itself and its successors
and assigns, agrees that during the construction of the Housing Improvemen ts provided for in this
Agreement it will comply with all applicable federal, State, and local equal employm ent and non-
discrimination laws and regulations.
Section 8.3. Provisions Not Merg ed With Deed. None of the provisions of this Agreement
are intended to or shall be merged by reason of any deed transferring any interest in the Property
and any such deed shal l not be deemed to affect or impair the provisions and covenants of this
Agreement.
Section 8.4. Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles of the several parts, Articles, and
Sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded
in construing or interpreting any of its provisions.
Section 8.5. Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this
Agreement, a notice, demand, or other communication under this Agreement by either party to the
other shall be suffici ently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally; and
(a) in the case of the Association, is addressed to or delivered personally to the
Association at:
Bridgewaik Condominium Homeowners’ Association
450 Ford Road
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
Attention: President
(b) in the case of the City, is addressed to or delivered personally to t he City at
5005 Minnetonk a Boulevard
St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2216
Attention: Director of Community Development
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 32
28
SA140\139\781896.v6
or at such other address with resp ect to either such party as that party may, from time to time,
designate in writing an d forward to the other as provided in this Section.
Section 8.6. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall constitut e one and the same instrument.
Section 8.7. Recording. Either party may record this Agreement and any amendments
thereto with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. The Association shall pay all
costs for recording.
Section 8.8. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall i nure to the benefit of and shall be
binding upon the City and the Association and their respective successors, heirs and assigns.
Section 8.9. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended onl y by written agreement of
the parties hereto.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 33
29
SA140\139\781896.v6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Agre ement to be duly executed in its
name and behalf and its seal to be hereunto duly affixed and the Asso ciation has caused this
Agreement to be duly executed in its name and behalf on or as of the date first above written.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ___________,
2022, by Jake Spano, the Mayor of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a municipal corporation,
on behalf of the City.
____________________________________
Not ary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ___________,
2022, by Kim Keller, the City Manager of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a municipal
corporation, on behalf of t he City.
____________________________________
Notary Public
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 34
30
SA140\139\781896.v6
BRIDGEWALK CONDOMINIUM
HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC.
By
Its President
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF __________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of _____________,
_______, by the President of Bridgewalk Condominium
Homeowner s’ Association, Inc., a Minnesota no nprofit corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 35
A-1
SA140\139\781896.v6
SCHEDULE A
DESCRIPTION OF PROP ERTY
That part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 5, Shelard Park, lying westerly of a line drawn from a point on
the Northerly line of said Lot 1, distant 32.5 feet easterly of the most Westerly corner thereof, to
a point on the Southerly line of said Lot 2, distant 32.5 feet westerly of the most Easterly corner
thereof; and lying easterly of a line drawn from a point on the Northerly line of said Lot2, distant
153.75 feet easterly of the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 2, to a point on the curved
Southeasterly line of said Lot 2, an arc distance of 72.47 feet northeasterly from the most
Southerly corner thereof.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 36
B-1
SA140\139\781896.v6
SCHEDULE B
HOUSING IMPROVEMENTS
The ordinance defines the “housing improvem ents” as the following improvemen ts to housing
units and common areas within the Bridgewalk HIA:
Exterior building elements, including improvements to, replacement of or repair of flat
roofs over portions of the pool area, north and south buildings and vestibule; main entry
improvements including but not limited to an ADA access ramp at the main entrance;
balconies; exterior siding; masonry; and common area windows and doors.
Interior building elements, including improvements to the lobby vestibule and doors and
common area carpeting and paint.
Building service elements, including improvements to, replacement of or repair of electrical
panel in boiler room and upgrading the control system for heating boilers.
Pool elements, including west wall replacement and pool HVAC improvements.
Garage elements, including improvements to, replacement of and repair to exhaust and
heating systems.
Property site elements, including improvements to retaining walls.
Unit elements, including improvements to or replacement of unit windows and patio doors
(low-E glass).
Additional improvements: Should there be additional HIA funds left over after all proposed
improvements are complete, the Association may use the remaining funds for the following
additional improvements: an overhaul of the south elevator, upgrades to the life safety
system, painting the stairwells and replacing stairwell railings, and replacing the concrete
ramps to the parking garages.
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 37
C-1
SA140\139\781896.v6
SCHEDULE C
DISBURSEMENT REQUISITION OF
ASSOCIATION'S AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TATIVE
DRAW REQUEST NO. ___
TO: CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2216
Attention: Director of Community Development
DISBURSEMENT DIRECTION
The u nder signed Authorized Representative of BRID GEWALK CCONDOMINIUM
HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Association"),
hereby aut horizes and requests you to disburse from the Project Fund held by you pursuant to the
Development Agreement between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS P ARK, MINNESOTA and
Association, dated as of August _, 2022 (the "Agreement "), the following amount to the following
person and for the following proper Housing Improvements cost and purpose:
1. Amou nt:
2. Payee:
3. Purpose:
all as defined and provided in said Agreem ent. The undersigned further certifies that (i) none of the
items for which payment is proposed to be made has formed the basis for any payment theretofore
made from the Project Fund, and (ii) each item for which the payment is proposed to be made is or
was necessary in connection with the Housing Improvements, and (iii) the amount of funds to
remain on deposit in the Project Fund following this disbursement is currently estimated to be
sufficient to pay all future costs of Housing Improvements.
Dated: ____________________
____________________________________
Association's Authorized Representative
Acknowledged and Agreed to by Construction Manager:
_____________________________
[NAME OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGER]
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 38
D-1
SA140\139\781896.v6
SCHEDULE D
RESERVE STUDY FUNDING PLAN SUMMARY
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 39
E-1
SA140\139\781896.v6
SCHEDULE E
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “Ci ty”) and Bridgewalk
Condominium Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (the “Association”) entered into a certai n
Development Agreement dated as of ________________, 2022 (the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Agreement contains certain covenants and restrictions set forth in
Articles III and IV thereof related to constructing certain Housing Impr ovements; and
WHEREAS, the Association has performed said covenants and conditions insofar as it is
able in a manner deemed sufficient by the City to permit the execution of this certification;
NOW, THEREFORE, this is to certify that all construction and other physical
improvements related to the Housing Improvements specified to be done and made by the
Association have been completed and the agreements and covenants in Articles III and IV of the
Agreement relating to such construction have been performed by the Associatio n, and this
Certificate is intended to be a conclusive determination of the satisfactory termination of the
covenants and conditions of Articles III and IV of the Association related to completion of the
Housing Improvements, but any other covenants in the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.)
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 40
E-2
SA140\139\781896.v6
Dated: _______________, 20__. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
By
City Building Official
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _____________
20__, by _____________________, the __________________ of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, a municipal corporation and political subdivision organized pursuant to its charter
and the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the municipal corporation.
Notary Public
This document was drafted by:
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, Chartered (GAF)
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: 337-9300
Study session meeting of July 25, 2022 (Item No. 7)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association HIA development agreement Page 41