HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021/12/13 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
DEC. 13, 2021
The St. Louis Park City Council is meeting in person at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka
Blvd. in accordance with the most recent COVID-19 guidelines. Members of the public can
attend in person or watch via webstream at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil and on local cable (Comcast
SD channel 17 and HD channel 859). Visit bit.ly/slpccagendas to view the agenda and reports.
Special EDA 6 p.m.; Special city council meeting at 6:30 p.m. – council chambers
Members of the public who want to address the city council during the special city council
meeting about items on the agenda can attend the meeting in person or call the number noted
below next to the corresponding item. Call when the meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. and follow
instructions provided. Comments will be taken during each item in the order they are received
and must relate to an item on the current city council agenda.
•952.562.2886 – consent agenda items 4a -4c
•952.562.288 7 – item 8a – 2022 budget, final property tax levies, and 2022-2031 CIP
•952.562.288 8 – item 8b – 2022 non -union employee compensation
•952.562.2886 – item 8c – Recognition of Councilmember Rachel Harris
The s tudy session will immediately follow the special city council meeting in council chambers.
6:00 p.m. SPECIAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – council chambers
1.Call to order
2.Roll call
3.Approval of EDA minutes -- None
5.Approval of agenda and items on EDA consent calendar
5a. Elmwood Village Tax Increment District interfund loan
Recommended action: Motion to adopt EDA Resolution authorizing an interfund loan
for advance of certain costs in connection with the Elmwood Village Tax Increment
Financing District.
7. New business
7a. 2022 final HRA levy certification and budget adoption
Recommended action: Motion to adopt EDA Resolution authorizing the 2022 final HRA
levy.
7b . 2022 preliminary EDA Levy certification
Recommended action: Motion to recommend adoption of the 2022 EDA levy by the city
council.
Meeting of Dec. 13, 2021
City c ouncil agenda
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING – council chambers
1.Call to order
1a. Pledge of allegiance
1b. Roll call
2.Presentations -- None
3.Approval of minutes
3a. Special city council meeting minutes of Nov. 8, 2021
3b. Study session minutes of Nov. 8, 2021
3c. City council meeting minutes of Nov. 15, 2021
3d. Special study session minutes of Nov. 15, 2021
4.Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar
Recommended action:**Motion to approve agenda as presented and items listed on the consent
calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or
remove items from agenda, or move items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion.)
4a. Approve the 2022 neighborhood grants.
4b. Adopt Resolution designating polling places for the 2022 election cycle.
4c. Adopt Resolution approving the memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the State of
Minnesota and local governments and authorizing participation in national opioid settlements.
5.Boards and commissions – None
6.Public hearings -- None
7.Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – None
8.Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items
8a. 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital
improvement plan (CIP) Recommended action:
•Motion to adopt Resolution approving the 2022 budgets and authorizing the 2022
final property tax levy.
•Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing the 2022 final HRA levy.
•Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing the 2022 final EDA levy.
•Motion to adopt Resolution approving the 2022-2031 capital improvement plan.
8b . 2022 non-union employee compensation
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution confirming a 3% general increase
for non-union employees effective Jan. 1, 2022.
8c. Recognition of Councilmember Rachel Harris
Recommended action: On behalf of the city council and city manager, the mayor is
asked to recognize Rachel Harris for her years of service as Councilmember Ward 3 of
the St. Louis Park City Council from Jan. 2, 2018 to Jan. 3, 2022.
9.Communications – None
**NOTE: The consent calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need
no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a councilmember or
a member of the public, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
Meeting of Dec. 13, 2021
City c ouncil agenda
Immediately following the special city council meeting - STUDY SESSION – council chambers
Discussion items
1. 30 min. Overview of 2022 sustainability division programs
2. 30 min. Climate emergency resolution
5 m in. Communications/updates (verbal)
W ritten reports
3. Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
4. Solar energy systems ordinance amendment
5. Daycare ordinance amendment
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular city council meetings are carried live on civic TV cable channel 17
and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at
www.parktv.org, and saved for video on demand replays. 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 .2525.
Meeting: Special economic development authority
Meeting date: December 13, 2021
Consent agenda item: 5a
Executive summary
Title: Elmwood Village Tax Increment District interfund loan
Recommended action: Motion to adopt EDA Resolution authorizing an interfund loan for
advance of certain costs in connection with the Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing District.
Policy consideration: Does the EDA wish to retain the option for utilizing tax increment
proceeds from the Elmwood Village Tax Increm ent Financing District to pay for certain q ualifi ed
costs by increasing the existing interfund loan?
Summary: On De c. 10, 2010, the EDA previously adopted an interfund loan (IFL) resolution for
certain capital costs relate d to construction of the Wooddale Avenue and Highway 7 interchange
and the West 36th Street s treetscap e, in the ma ximum amount o f $5,000,000. On Dec. 4, 2017,
the EDA adopted a new interfund loan for up to $7,000,000 to cover additional expenditures
including the Wooddale bridge, pursuant to special authority granted by the Minnesota
legislature.
During our annual tax increment management review on November 8, 2021 with Ehlers, one of
the recommendations was to increase the interfund loan up to $20,000,000 to fund additional
infrastructure proj ects with the Elmwood Village Tax I ncrement revenues from the legally
authorized pooling amount.
Financial or budget considerations: The n ew resolution w ill allow tax in crement f rom Elmwood
Village Tax I ncrem ent District to f und additional public infrastructure improvements in and
adjacent to the District as identified in the city’s CIP. The interfund loan will maintain the 4%
interest rate the previous resolution had in place.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: EDA Resolution
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, e conomic development manager
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director, EDA executive director
Approved by: Kim K eller, city manager
Page 2 Special economic development authority meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Elmwood Village Tax Increment District interfund loan
EDA Resolution No. 21 - ____
Resolution authorizing an interfund loan for advance of certain
costs in connection with the Elmwood Village Tax Increment
Financing District
Whereas, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "City"), previously
established the Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District") within
Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project"), and adopted a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the
"TIF Plan") for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project, all pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended (the “TIF Act”); and
Whereas, by resolution adopted on December 20, 2010, the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the “EDA”) approved an interfund loan for certain capital costs related
to construction of the Wooddale Avenue and Highway 7 Interchange and the West 36th Stre et
streetscape, in the maximum principal amount of $5,000,000, pursuant to Section 469.178,
Subd. 7 of the TIF Act; and
Whereas, by resolution adopted on Dece. 4, 2017, the EDA approved an increase of the
interfund loan to fund additional projects , resulting in an interfund loan in the maximum
principal amount of $7,000,000, pursuant to Section 469.178, Subd. 7 of the TIF Act; and
Whereas, the EDA has determined to use additional tax increments from the TIF District
to pay for certain additional infrastructure projects (collectively, the "Qualified Costs") in a
maximum principal amount of $13,000,000, which additional costs may be financed on a
temporary basis from EDA funds available for such purposes; and
Whereas, under Section 469.178, Subd . 7 of the TIF Act, the EDA is authorized to
advance or loan money from the EDA's general fund or any other fund from which such
advances may be legally authorized, in order to finance the Qualified Costs; and
Whereas, the EDA intends to reimburse itself for the additional Qualified Costs from tax
increments derived from the TIF District in accordance with the terms of this resolution (which
terms are referred to collectively as the "Interfund Loan"), constituting an amendment of and
increase to the interfund loan previously approved by the EDA.
Now therefore be it resolved by the Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the St.
Louis Park Economic Development Authority as follows:
1.The EDA hereby authorizes the advance of up to $20,000,000, or so much thereof as may
be paid as Qualified Costs, from any legally authorized EDA fund. The EDA shall reimburse
itself for such advances together with interest at the rate of 4% per annum. Interest
accrues on the principal amount from the date of each advance. The interest rate is no
more than the greatest of the rates specified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40
or Section 549.09, both in effect for calendar year 2021, and will not fluctuate.
2.Principal and interest ("Payments") on the Interfund Loan shall be paid semi-annually on
each August 1 and February 1 (each a "Payment Date"), commencing on the first
Payment Date on which the EDA has Available Tax Increment (defined below), or on any
P age 3
othe r dates determined by the Executive Director of the EDA, through the date of last
receipt of tax increment from the TIF District.
3.Payments on this Interfund Loan are payable solely from "Available Tax Increment,"
which shall mean, on each Payment Date, tax increment available pursuant to Laws 2017,
First Special Session, Chapter 1, Article 6, Section 21, or as determined by the Executive
Director of the EDA, generated in the preceding six (6) months with respect to the
property within the TIF District and remitted to the EDA by Hennepin County, all in
accordance with the TIF Act. Payments on this Interfund Loan may be subordinated to
any outstanding or future bonds, notes or contracts secured in whole or in part with
Available Tax Increment, and are on parity with any other outstanding or future interfund
loans secured in whole or in part with Available Tax Increment.
4.The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Interfund Loan are pre -
payable in whole or in part at any time by the EDA without premium or penalty. No
partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular payment
otherwise required to be made under this Interfund Loan.
5.This Interfund Loan is evidence of an internal borrowing by the EDA in accordance with
Section 469.178, Subd. 7 of the TIF Act, and is a limited obligation payable solely from
Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under this resolution. This
Interfund Loan and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general
obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including,
without limitation, the EDA. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision
thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on this Interfund Loan or
other costs incident hereto except out of Available Tax Increment, and neither the full
faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or any political
subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on this
Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto. The EDA shall have no obligation to pay
any principal amount of the Interfund Loan or accrued interest thereon, which may
remain unpaid after the final Payment Date.
6.The EDA may amend the terms of this Interfund Loan at any time by resolution of the
Board, including a determination to forgive the outstanding principal amount and
accrued interest to the extent permissible under law.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority December 13, 2021
Karen Barton, e xecutive director Tim Brausen, president
Attest
Melissa Kennedy, secretary
Special economic development authority meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Elmwood Village Tax Increment District interfund loan
Meeting: Special economic development authority
Meeting date: December 13, 2021
Action agenda item: 7a
Executive summary
Title: 2022 final HRA levy certification and budget adoption
Recommended action: Motion to adopt EDA Resolution authorizing the 2022 final HRA levy.
Policy consideration: Does the EDA desire to continue to levy the full 0.0185% of estimat ed
market value allowable for HRA purposes of $1,517,799.
Summary: The preliminary levy was approved on Sept. 20, 2021 and no changes are being
recommended for the final approval.
The HRA levy was originally implemented in St. Louis Park due to legislative changes in 2001
which significantly reduced future tax increment revenues. The city council elected at that time
to use the levy proceeds for future infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. By
law, these funds could also be used for other housing and redevelopment purposes. Given the
council’s d esire f or h ousing activiti es, staff recommends the HRA Levy continue at the
maximum allow ed by law for t he 2021 budget year.
The HRA Levy cannot exceed 0.0185% of t he estimated market value of the city. Therefore,
staff has calculated the maximum HRA Levy for 2022 to be $1,517,799 based on valuation data
from Hennepin County which is an increase of $80,619 from 2021.
The EDA is allowe d to authorize the HRA levy and then forward this recommendation to the city
council. Council action is required before certification.
Financial or budget considerations: The proposed levy is $1,517,799 for taxes payable 2022.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: EDA Resolution and 2022 final HRA levy and budget
Prepared by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, executive director EDA
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Page 2 Special economic development authority meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 7a)
Title: 2022 final HRA levy certification and budget adoption
EDA Resolution No. 21 -____
Authorizing the final levy of
a special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033,
subdivision 6 and approval of a final budget for fiscal year 2022
Whereas, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA Act”),
the City Council o f the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority (the "Authority"); and
Whereas, pursuant to the EDA Act, the city council granted to the Authority all of the
powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the
Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and
Whereas, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, of the HRA Act permits the Authority to levy and
collect a special benefit levy of up to 0.0185 percent of estimated market value in the city upon
all taxable real property within the city; and
Whereas, the Authority desires to levy a special benefit levy in the amount of up to 0.0185
percent of estimated market value in the city for taxes payable in 2022; and
Whereas, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.065, the Authority is required to
adopt a proposed budget and a proposed tax levy and submit the same to the County Auditor by
December 28; and
Whereas, the Authority has before it for its consideration a copy of a proposed budget
for its operations for the fiscal year 2022 and the amount of the proposed levy for collection in
2022 shall be based on this budget and the long-range financial management plan, subject to
any adjustments in the budget as finally approved prior to certification of the final special
benefit levy.
Now therefore be it resolved, be it resolved by the Board of Commissioners of the St.
Louis Park Economic Development Authority:
1.The proposed budget of $1,517,799 for the operations of the Authority in fiscal year
2022, as presented for consideration by the city council, is hereby in all respects
approved, subject to final approval by the Authority before certification of the tax
levy under Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.07.
2.Staff of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to file the proposed
budget with the city in acco rdance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033,
Subdivision 6.
3.The proposed special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033,
Subdivision 6, is hereby approved in a maximum amount equal to 0.0185 percent of
Page 3
estimated market value in City of St. Louis Park, currently estimated to be
$8,164,996,400, with respect to taxes payable in calendar year 2022, subject to final
approval by the Authority before certification of the special benefit levy pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.07.
4.Staff of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to seek the approval by
resolution of the city council of the levy of special benefit taxes payable in 2022 and
to take such other actions as are necessary to bring before the Board the final
budget and levy to be sent to the county auditor on or before five working days after
Dec. 13, 2021.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority, Dec. 13, 2021
Tim Brausen, president Karen Barton, executive director
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, secretary
Special economic development authority meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 7a)
Title: 2022 final HRA levy certification and budget adoption
P age 4
2021 Budget 2022 Budget
Revenues:
Property Tax Levy 1,437,180 1,517,799
Pooled TIF 428,000 368,500
Special Assessments 638,000 549,322
Interest Income 29,375 40,000
Transfers In 299,944 397,133
Total Revenue 2,832,499 2,872,754
Expenditues:
Personal Services 299,944 397,133
Services and Other Charges 740,162 2,609,773
Misc Expense 1,500 1,500
Transfer out (Housing Rehab)299,944 388,517
Transfer out (Housing Trust Fund)1,122,236 397,133
Total Expenditures 2,163,842 3,396,923
Net Change 668,657 (524,169)
HRA Levy
2022 Final Budget
Special economic development authority meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 7a)
Title: 2022 final HRA levy certification and budget adoption
Meeting: Special economic development authority
Meeting date: December 13, 2021
Action agenda item: 7b
Executive summary
Title: 2022 preliminary EDA Levy certification
Recommended action: Motion to recommend adoption of the 2022 EDA levy by the city council.
Policy consideration: Does the EDA desire to approve as a levy 0.00610% of estimated market
value allowable for EDA purposes (or $500,000)?
Summary: An EDA levy in the amount of $500,000 or approximately .00610% of estimated market
value is being proposed for 2022. Creation of an EDA levy is being proposed for two purposes.
Funding for salaries in the development fund and creating additional capacity to fund climate
investment projects.
The development fund proposed budget for 2022 is as follows:
Revenue $10,593,960
Expense $ 5,675,476
Much of the revenue being budgeted in 2022 (around $8.9 million) is for anticipated property
sales of Beltline station and Wooddale station sites. These may not sell in 2022 leaving a deficit
as is common in the development fund. Expenses include $1.5 million in potential property
acquisition costs in 2022, also with no guarantee this money will be spent. Salaries make up
around $750,000 each year. We pay for salaries out of the development fund for staff working
on developments or programs within the fund, per government accounting best practices.
The EDA Levy cannot exceed 0.01813% of the estimated market value of the City. The request
for the EDA levy for 2022 is $500,000, or approximately .00610% of market value based on
valuation data from Hennepin County.
The EDA is asked to approve a motion to recommend a final EDA levy and then forward this
recommendation to the city council. Council action is required before certification. All special
taxing districts levies must be certified to the county auditor by Dec. 28, 2021.
Financial or budget considerations: The proposed levy is $500,000 for taxes payable 2022.
Strategic priority consideration: All areas of the strategic priorities are impacted by the city’s budget.
•St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to
create a more just and inclusive community for all.
•St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship.
•St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood-
oriented development.
•St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way
around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
•St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through
community engagement.
Prepared by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager
Meeting: Special city council
Meeting date: December 13, 2021
Minutes: 3a
Unofficial minutes
Special city council meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Nov. 8, 2021
1.Call to order
Mayor Spano called the special meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.
1a. Roll call
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Lynette Dumalag, Rachel Harris,
Larry Kraft, and Margaret Rog
Councilmembers absent: Nadia Mohamed
Staff present: City Manager (Ms. Keller), City Clerk (Ms. Kennedy), and Elections Specialist (Mr.
Sund)
Guests: none
2.Resolutions, ordinance, motions, and discussion items
2a. Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021, municipal general election. Resolution No. 21-
131
Mayor Spano stated the post-election audit is open to the public, as well as pre-election
processes.
Elected for City Council:
•Margaret Rog
•Tim Brausen
•Lynette Dumalag
•Susan Budd
Ms. Kennedy stated overall the election process went well and there was a good turnout
of voters and participation given what was on the ballot.
Councilmembers Rog and Kraft noted they were pleased with the election process and
how well things were run.
Mayor Spano stated candidates and issues drive voters to the polls. He noted the
number under and over voting seemed fairly low and asked for details on this from
Page 2 Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Special city council meeting minutes of November 8, 2021
staff’s perspective. Ms. Kennedy stated staff has been very thoughtful and deliberate on
educating voters about how to vote a ranked-choice ballot and working to ensure
election workers are communicating the same messages on Election Day. She stated the
extra work and intentionality around voter outreach and education has resulted in many
positive outcomes, including lower error rates on ballots.
Mayor Spano thanked all those who ran for office and added his appreciation for the
work by elections staff.
It was moved by Councilmember Harris, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to adopt
Resolution No. 21-131 declaring results of the Nov. 2, 2021, Municipal General Election
and set the date and time for post-election review.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Mohamed absent).
Ronald Warner, Lake Forest community, stated he is concerned about the lack of
candidates for both council and school board and his neighbor did not vote because the
race was uncontested. He opined an uncontested election diminishes the democratic
process in a community, which is robust in its involvement. He also noted no one
showed up for the public hearing on NordicWare and there was no public participation
at the planning commission meeting on the same topic either. He contrasted this with
the City of Minneapolis where there were multiple contested and diverse candidates,
and stated he was envious of this. He believed there was something wrong with the
direction the city is being run and the obsessiveness with creating multi-story rental
properties, because renters do not have as much concern for the city as homeowners.
He stated democracy dies under these conditions, something is wrong, and asked the
council to put together a task force to address this issue.
3. Adjournment
The special meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
Meeting: Special city council
Meeting date: December 13, 2021
Minutes: 3b
Unofficial minutes
City council study session
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Nov. 8, 2021
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Lynette Dumalag, Rachel Harris,
Larry Kraft, and Margaret Rog
Councilmembers absent: Nadia Mohamed
Staff present: City Manager (Ms. Keller), CIO (Mr. Pires), Interim Deputy City Manager/Director
of Operations and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), Community
Development Director (Ms. Barton), Economic Development Manager (Mr. Hunt), and Elections
Specialist (Mr. Sund)
Guests: Vic Moore, city lobbyist, Stacy Kvilvang, Martha Ingram; Ehlers
1.2022 draft legislative positions and priorities
Councilmember Brausen asked about legislative redistricting. Mr. Moore stated this is being
worked on and the deadline is Feb. 15, 2022, but the likelihood of reaching an agreement
between the house and legislature is not good.
Mayor Spano asked if there would be big changes on redistricting. Mr. Moore stated generally
rural areas are losing populations and some seats will be lost in other areas. He stated the outer
ring suburbs will likely have the most changes.
Councilmember Harris asked about local option sales tax and when that is discussed at the
legislature. Mr. Moore stated the referendum must be done first by the city before it goes to
the legislature.
Councilmember Rog asked if there are any bonding requests St. Louis Park is involved in. Mr.
Moore stated he has not seen anything. Councilmember Rog asked how long it takes to go
through this process. Mr. Moore explained it can be an ongoing process and could take years.
Mayor Spano asked if the council’s document to the legislature is helpful. Mr. Moore stated it is
helpful, but he does have a sense of what council’s priorities are ongoing. He added he
monitors legislation for the council to keep them aware of certain bills.
Mr. Moore explained he does use the document, but the council does not have to do it just for
him, noting it is a lot of work. He stated the document is fine as is, but council could include
what they do and do not want passed.
Page 2 Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 3b)
Title: Study session minutes of November 8, 2021
Councilmember Rog asked about keeping the local newspaper publishing requirement included
in the report. Mr. Moore noted that not every community has a local newspaper, and
publishing requirements are a source of reliable revenue for them, so it is helpful to have it as a
priority.
Councilmember Dumalag stated she would like to see it remain as a priority for those
community members who rely on it.
Councilmember Kraft stated he appreciates the report, and the advanced state energy code
would be a priority to keep on the list, as well as statewide data collection. Related to climate,
he would like to see more on phasing out fossil gas and have the legislature help do this as well
as provide a state match. He asked if this could involve a climate trust fund through the state.
Mr. Moore stated they are not yet sure on funding for infrastructure in the bill, and much of the
federal money has not been spent, so maybe this funding could come from that.
Councilmember Dumalag commented on development along the corridor and asked where
there can be more tree and canopy infrastructure. Mr. Moore stated he can help to put
emphasis on this.
Mayor Spano referenced comments on state funding and stated the city already has a standard
with data collection, so he does not want to lose that standard if the state develops a different
standard. He added given SWLRT, it seems like it is time to get more information on this and
time is passing so he has concerns. Mr. Moore stated this is a good observation and should be
pursued.
Councilmember Harris asked to include continued assistance to the city’s small businesses,
noting long-term effects. She stated local funds were used to help but she would like this to be
a priority and a state request.
Councilmember Rog asked about passing a resolution related to universal healthcare on the
city’s legislative priorities.
Councilmember Harris stated the processes and services provided by the county and city are
blurry lines. She noted with the city’s community values as national topics come forward,
council should approach policy that is comprehensive.
Councilmember Dumalag stated she likes the approach taken with legislative priorities but is
not interested in passing a resolution related to it.
Councilmember Kraft stated he is in favor of it being on the legislative priorities list, but not
interested in a resolution.
Mayor Spano stated there does not seem to be consensus on having a resolution related to
universal healthcare.
Councilmember Harris stated she has concerns about equity.
Councilmember Rog asked if this could still be added to the list of priorities.
Page 3
Mr. Sund stated council’s final list of legislative priorities will not be due until the beginning of
2022.
2.Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF Policy
Ms. Kvilvang presented a report.
Councilmember Kraft stated TIF is very complex and difficult to understand. He stated it feels
opaque to him with money in lots of places. He suggested staff look to summarize this, show
how much we are investing, the total amount of tax structure, how much goes to the city, and
where are dollars going. He asked what TIF gets the city, noting it is hard to get to the
information and allow for basic understanding.
Councilmember Kraft stated a lot of positive is done with TIF, but it does overstate and does
not consider inflation, nor does it consider another development.
Councilmember Kraft asked about the tax rate and how it is calculated. Ms. Kvilvang explained
the tax rate is what it takes to run everything in the city and is applied against all the taxable
market value.
Councilmember Kraft asked how much of the pooled TIF for affordable housing should be
deposited in the AHTF on an annual basis. Ms. Kvilvang stated it’s up to the EDA to decide, but
the legislature requires the pooled TIF must be spent on homes, residents, or housing projects.
She added she liked Councilmember Kraft’s challenge about presenting information more
simply.
Councilmember Rog asked about putting funds into affordable housing annually and if there are
not projects, would it be best to build up reserves. She added right now the funds are sitting
there. Mr. Hunt stated there are city-approved developments planning to submit their final TIF
requests.
Councilmember Rog asked about the but/for requirement for a dollar-to-dollar comparison,
and how this is derived. Ms. Kvilvang explained the existing value and future market value are
both looked at and then an estimated market value is developed. She added the numbers are
based on today’s values to future assessed values and then the tax increment is applied.
Councilmember Rog stated she wasn’t 100% clear on this as there is no way to know what
might have been developed if TIF wasn’t used.
Mr. Hunt noted the former Santorini site could have been developed as several other things,
that would not have required TIF assistance, but would not have met the city’s vision or
strategic priorities. By providing TIF, the city is able to incent developments that help achieve
the city’s strategic priorities and make optimal use of the property.
Ms. Kvilvang stated commercial typically does not provide as much tax revenue as multi-family
housing.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 3b)
Title: Study session minutes of November 8, 2021
Page 4
Councilmember Brausen stated developers asking for TIF are not guaranteed to get it, however,
TIF has allowed the city to increase affordable housing options and meet the city’s strategic
priorities. He also noted TIF lets the council have more influence on what the city would like
included in each development and is in support.
Councilmember Harris asked how the threshold can be reduced to offer a lower TIF amount.
Ms. Kvilvang stated the city is very supportive of funding and the city’s track record is helpful.
Councilmember Harris noted green policies can be achieved through TIF as well as increased
affordable housing. She appreciated making TIF adjustable. She stated she’d like to see what
the city receives as a result of using TIF in staff reports.
Mr. Hunt stated staff provides council with a list of the benefits of providing TIF in every TIF
application staff report.
Councilmember Harris stated she is supportive of TIF for affordable housing purposes, adding
she is very enthusiastic about the affordable housing program as well as larger units.
Councilmember Dumalag stated she supports TIF, the proposed restated TIF policy, and is
interested in the racial diversity aspects of TIF.
Mayor Spano stated the council is responsible for the high-level policy of TIF, not the details. He
stated council is missing the big picture and the details should be left to staff. He agrees that
how this is explained to residents is important.
Councilmember Rog feels this is an important conversation to have, especially so she can be
more comfortable when responding to her constituents regarding TIF. She stated going
forward, she would like council to think more strategically about what can go back into the
general fund.
Councilmember Rog would like to look, in the future, at affordable rentals for the disabled. She
would also like to discuss what happens after the 25 years of TIF for developments. She would
also like to look at undocumented folks as part of the inclusionary housing policy.
It was the consensus of the council to continue to support using pooled TIF for affordable
housing purposes and to support the proposed amended and restated TIF Policy. The racial
equity piece and inclusion policy is currently being drafted but is referenced in the TIF Policy.
3.Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
It was noted that meetings will be held on Nov. 15 and 22, 2021, with no meeting on Nov. 29,
2021.
Communications/meeting check-in (verbal)
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 3b)
Title: Study session minutes of November 8, 2021
Page 5
Ms. Keller noted postcards will go out next week relating to snow emergency information and
stated Thursday, Nov. 11 is veteran’s day and city offices will be closed.
Mayor Spano noted the Just Deeds discussion taking place on November 16, 2021. He stated
that this is related to racial covenants and the program will be using his home as an example
and documenting the process.
Councilmember Rog noted the Just Deeds discussion will be at Beth-EL from 6:30-8:30 p.m.
Councilmember Kraft noted a Friends of the Arts fundraiser on November 17, 2021, from 5-7
p.m. at Westwood Hills Nature Center.
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
Councilmember Rog asked about the status of the SWLRT as it relates to the Sherman
Associates proposed development and parking stalls proposed. Ms. Barton responded that staff
worked on the reduced number of parking spaces, and at Beltline, the developers are planning
to go above and beyond on parking requirements.
4 Sept. 2021 monthly financial report
5.Third quarter investment report (July – Sept. 2021)
6.Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Blvd. station redevelopment
7.Sustainability division update for Q4 2021
8.Parking ordinance update
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 3b)
Title: Study session minutes of November 8, 2021
Meeting: Special city council
Meeting date: December 13, 2021
Minutes: 3c
Unofficial minutes
City council meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Nov. 15, 2021
1.Call to order
Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
1a. Pledge of allegiance
1b. Roll call
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Lynette Dumalag, Rachel Harris,
Larry Kraft, Nadia Mohamed, and Margaret Rog
Councilmembers absent: none
Staff present: City Manager (Ms. Keller), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Director of Building and
Energy (Mr. Hoffman), City Clerk (Ms. Kennedy), Finance Manager (Ms. Sledge) Associate
Planner (Ms. Kramer), Planning Manager (Mr. Walther)
Guests: none
2. Presentations
2a. Police officer oath of office
City Clerk Kennedy administered a ceremonial police officer oath of office to Officers
Matthew McNeely, Caroline Bjorge, Madeline Turnquist, Christian Howse, Bobby
Brewer, and Joseph LeFevere.
2b. 2021 Small Business Saturday proclamation
Mayor Spano read the proclamation designating Saturday Nov. 27, 2021, as Small
Business Saturday in St. Louis Park.
3.Approval of minutes
3a. Study session minutes of Oct. 11, 2021
Councilmember Kraft stated on page 3 the following corrections should be included:
“…6.97% should be 6.927%” and “…at 4.5-6 % are above rate of inflation and will require
justification and can’t keep doing this forever as it will require people’s disposable
income” and “…the SIP document.”
Page 2 Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 3c)
Title: City council meeting minutes of November 15, 2021
Councilmember Dumalag noted on page 5 it should read, “…operating budget” and on
page 8 it should read, “…looks forward to TIF discussion.”
Councilmember Rog noted on page 1 it should read, “…the city will contribute $2.5
million” and on page 5 it should read, “...around climate action is in being a leader and
she hopes the focus of climate investments can be on modeling leadership.”
It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Kraft, to approve the
Study Session minutes of Oct. 11, 2021, as amended.
The motion passed 7-0.
3b. City council meeting minutes of Oct. 18, 2021
Councilmember Dumalag noted on page 5 it should read “Mr. Hedberg” and not “Mr.
Edwards.”
Councilmember Rog stated on page 5 it should read, “…low-income renters…” on page 7
it should read “…will not support the future TIF request and added in her view this
project does not support… ” and on page 8 it should read “…protect the dignity of native
American art planned for…”
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Dumalag, to
approve the city council meeting minutes of Oct. 18, 2021, as amended.
The motion passed 7-0.
3b. Special study session minutes of Oct. 18, 2021
Councilmember Kraft noted on page 1 it should read, “…the total miles of sidewalk in
the city” and “in order of magnitude more than twice the amount of sidewalks cleared
today” and “we could relax…” and “…linear cost approach and check how to do a linear
approach vs. and exponential approach.”
It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Mohamed, to
approve the special study session minute of Oct. 18, 2021, as amended.
The motion passed 7-0.
4.Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar
4a. I. Adopt Resolution No. 21-136 to approve recommended property owner budget
and service charges for Special Service District No. 1.
II.Adopt Resolution No. 21-137 to approve recommended property owner budget
and service charges for Special Service District No. 2.
III.Adopt Resolution No. 21-138 to approve recommended property owner budget
and service charges for Special Service District No. 3.
Page 3
IV.Adopt Resolution No. 21-139 to approve recommended property owner budget
and service charges for Special Service District No. 4.
V.Adopt Resolution No. 21-140 to approve recommended property owner budget
and service charges for Special Service District No. 5.
VI.Adopt Resolution No. 21-141 to approve recommended property owner budget
and service charges for Special Service District No. 6.
4b. Adopt resolution authorizing execution of a contract with Summit
Envirosolutions, Inc. (Summit) for 2022 consultant services related to the
implementation of the amended Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (Reilly) Consent
Decree/Remedial Action Plan (CD/RAP). (Moved to Regular item 8d).
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 21-132 providing preliminary approval for the issuance of
multifamily housing revenue bonds to finance the Beltline Station Housing
project.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 21-133 accepting work and authorizing final payment in
the amount of $12,781.95 for the Dakota Avenue Bikeway with S.M. Hentges &
Sons, Inc. – city contract No. 91-20.
4e. Approve the memo of understanding for school resource officer services
provided to the St. Louis Park School District. (Moved to Regular item 8e).
4f. Approve for filing fire civil service commission minutes of Sept. 13, 2021.
Councilmembers Kraft and Brausen requested that consent calendar item 4b and 4e be
removed and placed on the regular agenda to 8d and 8e.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Kraft, to approve
the agenda and items listed on the consent calendar as amended to move consent
calendar item 4b and 4e to the regular agenda as item 8 d and 8e; and to waive reading
of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5.Boards and commissions - none
6.Public hearings
6a. First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022
Ms. Sledge presented the staff report.
Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Spano
closed the public hearing.
Mayor Spano asked about the Bassett Creek watershed if that was passthrough, and if
that fee goes to the residents. Ms. Sledge explained it is based on the budget, the fee is
allocated in the budget, and it is money collected but not kept by the city.
Councilmember Harris asked how many total additions were added and where are they
to be found. Ms. Sledge stated they are on the website, in appendix A of the city code.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 3c)
Title: City council meeting minutes of November 15, 2021
Page 4
Councilmember Harris asked if there could be an addition on the website of “new
updates”. Ms. Sledge stated she will discuss this with communications staff.
Councilmember Brausen stated he was contacted about the fee schedule and asked
about incentives or reductions based on installation of solar systems. He stated there
will be substantial savings for solar installations, so he will support this and appreciated
citizens sharing these concerns.
Councilmember Kraft appreciated this being simplified as well. He stated there was a
question of the fee schedule being less or not from users’ perspective. He asked for
clarification related to solar installation and with solar sundown continuing into next
year, does the federal benefit decrease next year. Mr. Hoffman explained solar sundown
has been successful, will remain the same in 2022, but it does reduce in 2023. With the
program, it is up to the city to provide whatever type of incentive it wants, and this will
be discussed.
Councilmember Kraft stated he would like to see a waiver of permit fees as an incentive
for solar sundown. Mr. Hoffman explained the state building code is used for this as the
state allows the city to charge a service fee, and these are not intended to be used for
incentives or waiving fees. He added there has been a lot of discussion on this at the
legislature and the city does want to do this, but when subsidizing, sometimes it does
not end, so that is why the city has pursued solar sundown. He noted this makes it a
cleaner way to incentivize versus using the permit fees.
Mr. Hoffman stated the program provides for owners of larger commercial buildings to
submit data to the city. He noted the penalty fine of $100 has been successful and can
be doubled and doubled again, and if not paid the fees are assessed to the taxes. He
stated fees can be high if not paid each year, noting there is an appeal process. He
stated this is a tool that can be used.
Councilmember Kraft stated he is supportive of the fees put in place for this year. He
does have concerns that the increase seen this year is the same over the next 10 years.
He stated this cannot be done forever as it takes more of people’s disposable income.
He added that with climate change and excess rain events, he can see why that will be
higher. He likes the city promoting conservation and would like to see more percentage
increases at higher usage levels and lower percentage increases at the lower usage
levels.
Councilmember Dumalag stated she wanted to flag that with solar, there is much
infrastructure that goes along with it; however, she is supportive of these fees for 2022.
Councilmember Rog asked why there might be a $150 building permit to replace a roof
and a $250 permit fee for panels. Mr. Hoffman explained permit fees are determined by
valuation, which can sometimes be misstated by contractors. He added when looking at
solar panel installs last year, the valuations seemed irregular and were overstated with
no need. He noted with a flat fee, the valuation then does not matter.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 3c)
Title: City council meeting minutes of November 15, 2021
Page 5
Councilmember Rog asked how $250 was settled on. Mr. Hoffman stated $250 was in
place for building permits and $150 was added for electrical.
Councilmember Rog stated she feels this is overcharging people and her request is to be
on par with other cities, not more. She added most cities in the area have lower fees
than St. Louis Park and that seems counter to the promotion the city is doing on solar
and could be a disincentive.
Councilmember Rog asked why electrical, and building cannot be put together into one
fee. Mr. Hoffman explained state code requires that electrical be permitted solely by the
electrician. Usually, the electrical work is subcontracted and needs its own permit, so
that is why fees are not combined. He added he is not sure how other cities are
combining them as this is a state requirement.
Councilmember Rog commented she has lived in St. Louis Park for 30 years and before
being on council, she had not thought about fees. She added for many people the
impact is difficult. She asked how else the city finds out about increases and impacts to
them, as well as what the fees pay for. Ms. Sledge stated when utility rates change,
residents are notified by receiving an insert with their bill. The city also has informative
meetings, a public hearing, and any questions that come from the public are responded
to by staff directly.
Councilmember Rog stated in future she would like to suggest the city be more
proactive to understand rate increases, impacts, and what is being paid for.
Mayor Spano thanked staff for their presentation. He stated no one likes to see fees or
increases and the city tries to keep them low but living in a city where infrastructure was
built out years ago, there are many things that need to be replaced now.
Mr. Mattick advised the law says the permit fees are not income generators or
profitable. Fees are meant to cover the city’s cost of services. So, if fees are waived,
then there will be consequences with other fees. Each fee is meant to pay for itself, so
expenses are accounted for.
Councilmember Kraft stated when he talked about waiving, he assumed it would come
from the climate action fund.
Mr. Hoffman added permit costs are borne by the contractor, but with solar sundown,
the benefits go to the homeowner, so cost sharing is helpful here.
It was moved by Councilmember Harris, seconded by Councilmember Rog, to approve
first reading of ordinance adoption fees for 2022 and set second reading for Dec. 6,
2021.
The motion passed 7-0.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 3c)
Title: City council meeting minutes of November 15, 2021
Page 6
7.Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – none
8.Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items
8a. First reading of ordinance amending City Code Chapter 3 related to prohibited
conditions for liquor licenses
Ms. Kennedy presented the staff report.
Councilmember Harris stated she is in support of this amendment to the city code.
Councilmember Mohamed stated Muslims cannot drink alcohol and having the
provision related to religious organizations is helpful.
Councilmember Rog stated this business is in ward 1 and owned by an immigrant owner
so she is pleased for him and hopes this action will activate this in the whole Walker
Lake area.
It was moved by Councilmember Harris, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to
approve the first reading of an ordinance amending St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 3
related to prohibited conditions for liquor licenses.
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. Assessment of delinquent charges. Resolution No. 21-134
Ms. Sledge presented the staff report.
Mayor Spano asked why delinquent charges are the lowest they have been in 5 years,
and what does staff do to notify residents. Ms. Sledge stated she would do more
research as to why it is much lower this year. She noted that during COVID, late
penalties were waived, and many received assistance to pay fees through various
programs.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mohamed, to
adopt Resolution No. 21-134 to assess delinquent water, sewer, storm water, refuse,
abatement of tree removals, false alarms, mowing, and citation charges against the
benefiting property.
The motion passed 7-0.
8c. Zoning text amendment – parking requirements
Ms. Kramer presented the staff report.
Mayor Spano asked for clarification on the trigger for outdoor parking requirements.
Ms. Kramer explained outdoor seating less than 500 sq. ft. or 10% of the gross floor area
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 3c)
Title: City council meeting minutes of November 15, 2021
Page 7
of the principal use, does not require additional parking, not necessarily 10% of the
whole building.
Councilmember Rog stated she supports these changes in principle but has concerns
around market rate larger apartments, as these are typically occupied by singles with
their own cars. She asked if there is any value in being more discerning around whether
income restricted or market rate. Ms. Kramer stated these parking requirements are
just a minimum and council has the option of revising those requirements up or down
for individual projects seeking city approval.
Councilmember Rog asked how it can be the same number of parking requirements
whether sitting inside or outside a restaurant. Mr. Walther stated this is what they are
seeing, and it is not a perfect science but is aligned with city observations.
Councilmember Rog asked what happens to level 1 EV chargers and if they are not used,
are they then converted to level 2. Ms. Kramer stated it depends on the conduit
installed. She explained they can be converted to level 2 but would not have to be
converted unless they were reconstructing their parking lot. Mr. Walther added now
newer EV vehicles take longer to reach a full charge, so the proposed changes are in part
based on updating to code to reflect current technology.
Councilmember Rog asked what level is used for charging electric bikes. Mr. Walther
stated level 1 chargers.
Councilmember Kraft stated he appreciates these changes, noting this ordinance that
was completed in 2019 has been phenomenally successful with well over 100 EV
chargers installed. He appreciates that, especially with 50% parking requiring conduit, as
that is where the market is going.
Councilmember Harris stated these are positive changes and she appreciated staff’s
response to these changes. She also noted that parking is expensive and has many
indirect costs. She asked what dollar value will be saved, noting some of these savings
could be used for sidewalk clearance or other projects. She thanked staff for this
presentation.
Councilmember Dumalag thanked staff and the planning commission for their work on
this.
It was moved by Councilmember Mohamed, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to
approve first reading of ordinance amending Section 36 pertaining to parking
requirements and set and second reading for Dec. 6, 2021.
The motion passed 7-0.
8d. Authorizing execution of a contract with Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. (Summit)
for 2022 consultant services related to the implementation of the amended
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 3c)
Title: City council meeting minutes of November 15, 2021
Page 8
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (Reilly) Consent Decree/Remedial Action Plan
(CD/RAP). Resolution No. 21-135
Councilmember Brausen stated this is for authorizing contract services for the Reilly Tar
site. He noted staff worked on this for a long time and were able to negotiate a $69,000
reduction on the contract, which is important to recognize as staff continues to help the
city save money. He complimented staff for this work.
Councilmember Brausen made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mohamed, to
adopt Resolution No. 21-135 authorizing execution of contract with Summit
Envirosolutions, Inc. (Summit) for 2022 consultant services related to the implementation
of the amended Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (Reilly) Consent Decree/Remedial Action
Plan (CD/RAP), as presented.
The motion passed 7-0.
8e. Memo of understanding for school resource officer services provided to the St.
Louis Park School District
Councilmember Kraft stated this was an excellent idea and asked the council to think
about this for the next policing discussion. He noted this used to be an item paid for by
the school district until a few years ago and now the city pays for this. He asked does the
school district value SROs, what is that, and is the city providing this as a favor to the
school district, or are these funds being used to the betterment of the city. He also
asked if it might be time to ask the school district to assist in paying for this cost, adding
he does not know the answer to this, but wondered what value the school district
places on this.
Councilmember Mohamed stated she wants to talk about the history of this. She noted
some are asking if SROs are needed in the schools, but the district does value this and
the city has respected that. She stated many of the issues that come out in schools are
related to having police officers in schools and she is happy police officers are working
to build relationships in St. Louis Park schools.
Councilmember Mohamed stated there are studies that show having police officers in
schools causes friction with students of color. She is not arguing against the police being
in schools, but again stated police need to be working on building relationships with
students. She added she does not agree with the school district paying for SROs as there
are better uses for their monies.
Councilmember Rog agreed with both comments. She has concerns about assumed
ongoing costs that council may not be aware of at times, and this is one example. She
asked that in the future, this type of cost be pointed out to council as it is important to
analyze all costs and understand what the city is getting. She also had concerns about
whether there was a student voice in schools with SROs and about body worn cameras
in schools. She stated that while she does support the school superintendent, she does
feel compelled to support the students’ concerns.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 3c)
Title: City council meeting minutes of November 15, 2021
Page 9
Councilmember Brausen stated SROs are student resource officers and MOUs are
memos of understanding. He suggested this is a topic for the joint meeting with the
school district for further discussion.
Mayor Spano stated the question about what the city spends in partnership with the
school is a good one, noting it is a two-way street. He is interested in the discussion with
the school district as well. He added he appreciates that this is the school district’s
decision, and he noted the school superintendent does include student input and knows
that students in St. Louis Park do appreciate SROs in the schools.
Councilmember Kraft made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mohamed to
approve the memo of understanding for school resource officer services provided to the
St. Louis Park School District.
The motion passed 7-0.
9.Communications
•December 6, 2021, next vaccination clinic at schools for children ages 5-11.
•Westwood Hills Nature Center is hosting a St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts event on
Wednesday Nov. 17, 2021, 5-7 p.m.
•Beth EL will be hosting a screening of a documentary on Tuesday Nov. 16, 2021,
which discusses racially based covenants in Minnesota. There will be a panel
discussion with Mayor Spano and others, and more information is available on the
city website. Masks and vaccination record or proof of negative covid test required.
•Thursday Nov. 18, 2021, is Give to the Max Day and there are many non-profits
within St. Louis Park that can be donated to, including Lenox and STEP.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 3c)
Title: City council meeting minutes of November 15, 2021
Meeting: Special city council
Meeting date: December 13, 2021
Minutes: 3d
Unofficial minutes
City council special study session
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Nov. 15, 2021
The meeting convened at 5:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Lynette Dumalag, Rachel Harris,
Larry Kraft, Nadia Mohamed, and Margaret Rog
Councilmembers absent: none
Staff present: City Manager (Ms. Keller) and Interim Deputy City Manager/Director of
Operations and Recreation (Ms. Walsh)
Guests: none
1.Use of shipping containers or other similar structures for the purpose of food service
in the parks
Ms. Walsh presented the report.
Councilmember Rog asked if there is openness to allow entrepreneurs, at their own expense, to
create gathering spaces within city parks. She noted that this is not an ask for funding, but it will
involve staff time, and this concept of commercial activity in parks would be dependent on
updated ordinances and at the business owners’ risk.
Councilmember Rog stated regarding food trucks, while she supports them having long-term
presence in parks, she is not sure this works for their business. She has concerns about
greenhouse gases and generator noise pollution. She stated if there were an environmentally
sustainable idea that a food truck owner could provide, that would be helpful.
Councilmember Rog noted shipping containers are becoming more of the norm now and could
be used for food service businesses in parks. She stated they are increasingly more affordable.
Councilmember Rog asked the council to consider authorizing a pilot project in one park for 180
days to gather input from the community to see if there is interest. Specifically, the Browns
Park neighborhood is interested in this currently. She asked staff to help the council understand
a pilot on this, what challenges and opportunities exist for this, and how data gathered could be
used to pursue this idea.
Councilmember Harris stated this is an exciting idea. She added when she applies an equity lens
to this idea, she is curious about financial aspects and how could those with lower means be
able to have access to participating in this project.
Page 2 Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 3d)
Title: Special study session minutes of November 15, 2021
Councilmember Mohamed stated this is a nice idea, but wants to be sure we are opening this
opportunity to the BIPOC community as well, and it’s not only the usual people that have
access to do this type of project.
Councilmember Kraft stated he likes this idea of more spaces and places for neighborhoods to
gather together and would like to look at a pilot. He does understand the concerns of others,
adding he would not want to allow a generator to run for days and days. He stated the city
would not be involved in the marketing of this and would assume the business would be doing
marketing.
Councilmember Dumalag added she is always in favor of trying things out. She would like to
know if the city has equipment to assist in running this and keeping the park clean. She asked in
the future how would we allow for others outside of the pilot to pursue a business like this,
especially when looking through an equity lens.
Councilmember Brausen stated he would not want to exclude anyone from being able to have a
business in the park. He also has concerns about infrastructure within the park chosen to do
this.
Councilmember Mohamed stated for the pilot, if council is in charge of inviting businesses to
set up, there will be a way to control the equity part better. She stated this would require more
staff time and energy to seek businesses to invite. She would like staff to do more research on
inviting so the city can be more equitable with this project.
Mayor Spano stated he is familiar with this type of project from his work in St. Paul. He stated
there was a lot of time spent on contracts, process, and procedures. He would be willing to
support this but agreed with the point on generators mentioned by Councilmember Kraft as
well as other comments made about equity. He stated he is supportive of the pilot and would
like to have a conversation with the neighborhood first.
Mayor Spano asked how to build relationships with those who might need financial aid and
what conversations has staff had with Edina regarding Braemar and the restaurant in that
clubhouse.
Ms. Walsh stated the city has contractual obligations with vendors. She noted in Edina, they
provide the infrastructure, and the vendor comes in, at Braemar.
Ms. Walsh stated before staff could do a pilot project, they would need to do more research,
especially for public purpose to occur, as well as how to provide accessibility to people. She
added they would need to look at public process first, and if it should go to the parks and
recreation commission. She stated she would speak to the city attorney and look at vendor
selection and the RFP process. Staff will also talk to the residents who had the proposal to gain
more information.
Councilmember Rog thanked the council for their comments and agreed with staff doing more
research first. She asked how diversity in a neighborhood is defined and stated this could be a
way for BIPOC business owners to be supported because this is a strategic priority of the city.
Page 3
She understands concerns if a problem arises and would hope the city would police or manage
that as they do other issues.
Mayor Spano stated the real issues are what is the public process, legal implications, and what
will residents in the area think about the concept.
Ms. Keller stated while staff can investigate this further, they are not ready to do a pilot. She
recommended staff visit with residents and look further into shipping containers as food service
structures, before committing to develop a pilot program.
Ms. Walsh stated she would like to bring this to the parks commission for discussion. She added
staff needs to do further research and she has concerns about deciding on a location without
doing this research and taking time to be thoughtful.
It was the consensus of the council to have staff research this further and report back to council
with more information.
The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 3d)
Title: Special study session minutes of November 15, 2021
Meeting: Special city council
Meeting date: December 13, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4a
Executive summary
Title: 2022 neighborhood revitalization program grants
Recommended action: Motion to approve the 2022 neighborhood grants.
Policy consideration: Does council wish to approve the allocation of neighborhood grants for
2022?
Summary: Each year grant funding is made available to neighborhood associations to promote
strong neighborhoods and enhance community connections by bringing neighbors together.
Grant applications from 20 neighborhoods were received in this year’s grant cycle. On
Wednesday, December 4, Darius Gray, community organizer, facilitated the grant review
process with Yariet Montes-Huerta, racial equity and outreach specialist, Darla Monson, senior
accountant, and Laura Smith, volunte er and wellness coordinator. The grant review committee
met to review the grant applications and make funding recommendations to the city council.
Attached are the 2022 grant guidelines that include a rubric for scoring which the grant review
committee used when evaluating and scoring the submissions.
Financial or budget considerations: The city has budgeted $52,000 for grant funds in 2022. The
grant review committee recommends approval of $44,865 to fund 20 neighborhood grants.
The total amount includes special funding request totaling $6,250. The grant review committee
recommends the approval of $6,250 to fund the special funding request for 15 neighborhoods.
Special funding is derived from projects that work towards racial equity and environmentalism.
The grant review committee recommends the approval of $3,800 to fund insurance purchases
for 12 neighborhoods.
Strategic priority considerati on:
•St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create
a more just and inclusive community for all.
•St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship
•St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through
community engagement.
Supporting documents: Discussion
2022 neighborhood grant guidelines
Prepared by: Darius Gray, community organizer
Reviewed by: Ali Timpone , interim HR officer
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: 2022 neighborhood revitalization program grants
Discussion
Background: Each year, grant funding is made available to neighborhood associations to
promote stronger neighborhoods and enhance community connections by bringing neighbors
together. The city council appropriated $52,000 in grant funds for the 2022 neighborhood
grant program. Several structural changes were implemented over the past five years to the
gran t program to ensure the grant was aligned with city priorities and inclusive of all
communities. These changes have resulted in greater attention to equity and inclusion from
neighborhood associations and wider participation in association activities by more residents.
Neighborhood associations are responsible for providing insurance when planning
neighborhood events in parks that bring outside equipment into the park such as, but not
limited to, moonwalks, petting zoos, food trucks, etc. Neighborhood associations can apply for
a maximum of $500 in addition to the standard grant to assist with purchasing insurance.
G rant applications from 20 neighborhoods were received. The total grant request for 2022 was
$44,865, and the review committee is recommending the allocation of this amount to the
requesting neighborhoods. Eight of these neighborhoods applied for additional insurance
reimbursements totaling $3,800. 15 neighborhoods applied for special funding. The total
amount applied for under the environmental component came in at $3,250 with 17
neighborhoods seeking that funding. Of those seeking special funding, 13 neighborhoods
applied for the racial equity funding totaling $3,000.
The 2020 and 2021 grant term pres ented several unique challenges as a result of the covid -19
pandemic. It demanded that neighborhoods alter a majority of initial activities outline d in their
original grant applications. This crisis has put many in-person events on hold, which has
required neighborhood associations to adapt with flexibility. Despite the current moment, most
neighborhoods have been active in some way during the 2021 grant cycle and utilize d a portion
of their grant money. City staff have allowed some leeway in terms of altering plans for using
grant funds. This is a trend that is anticipated for the 2022 grant cycle with so much uncertainty
around the trajectory of the pandemic. Therefore, grant administrators will work with
neighborhoods to approve alternative uses for their grant monies and ensure alignment with
grant guidelines as needed.
The grant applications came in $7,135 under budget. The committee did an excellent job
evaluating each grant against the grant guidelines and scoring criteria. In doing so, they met the
goal of the grant program which is to support neighborhoods and enhance community
connections by bringing neighbors together.
Assuming approval of the review committee’s recommendation, a portion of the excess funding
is intended to be used for the neighborhood start up grants for neighborhoods seeking to
organize in the 2022 year.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Title: 2022 neighborhood revitalization program grants
Total funds requested by neighborhood is listed below. The grant committee recommends
approval of these requests.
Neighborhood Grant Request Neighborhood Grant Request
Birchwood $2900 Eliot View $1650
Blackstone $2350 Elmwood $2900
Bronx Park $1700 Lake Forest $1100
Brooklawn $1510 Minikahda Oaks $2950
Brookside $1925 Minikahda Vista $2225
Browndale $2900 Minnehaha $2400
Cedar Manor $2950 Sorensen $2400
Cobblecrest $1900 TexaTonka $2900
Creekside $2900 Westwood Hills $2400
Crestview $1205 Wolfe Park $1700
Next steps: Neighborhoods will be notified of grant awards the week of Dec. 20, 2021, pending
the approval of grants by city council. Following award notice, each neighborhood must sign their
contract and submit back to the city’s community organizer before they may begin using funds
from 2022 grants.
2022 neighborhood revitalization program grant guidelines are attached.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4a) Page 4
Title: 2022 neighborhood revitalization program grants
NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
2022 GRANT GUIDELINES
Purpose
In 1996, the City of St. Louis Park established this grant program to support neighborhoods and enhance
community connections by bringing neighbors together. Financial support is provided for special
projects initiated by neighbors to address issues, implement ideas or create opportunities that are
meaningful and important to their neighborhoods. This purpose still applies today and supports the
city’s strategic priority: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital
through community engagement. In 2022, the city expects to award up to $52,000 in grants.
Grant term
The grant term will be January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022. Reimbursement can be issued for cost s
incurred within the grant term. All work must be completed within this timeframe. The last invoice
should be submitted no later than January 17, 2023. Applications are due by Friday, October 17, 2021.
Who we fund
Eligible applicants include organized St. Louis Park neighborhood associations recognized as a
neighborhood association.
T o be recognized as a neighborhood association, you must demonstrate the following:
•Have at least three elected officers from the neighborhood
•Have a method of transferring leadership from one year to the next
•Have written bylaws approved by its membership, which must be reviewed annually
•Hold an annual neighborhood meeting.
Projects should be the idea of, and championed by, residents of the neighborhood area with input from
residents.
What we fund
Creative community projects that focus on the following criteria will be considered for funding:
•Enhances the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
•Provides a clear community benefit.
•Accessible to all members of the community.
•Addresses a known neighborhood deficiency.
•Strengthens existing community assets .
•Increases sense of community.
•Activates community improvements or spaces.
•Focuses on community involvement.
•Helps inform neighborhood or city projects.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4a) Page 5
Title: 2022 neighborhood revitalization program grants
Special funding
Special grant funding is strictly for the use of environment, racial equity and inclusion and insurance.
Funds cannot be used for any other reimbursement.
Environmental
Neighborhood associations may apply for additional grant funding up to $250 that incorporate an
environmental component either in conjunction with an existing event or adding a new program/event.
This new grant element ties to the strategic priorities: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Racial equity and inclusion
Neighborhood associations may apply for additional grant funding up to $250 that incorporate a racial
equity and inclusion component either in conjunction with an existing event or adding a new
program/event. This new grant element is tied to the strategic priorities: St. Louis Park is committed to
being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for
all.
Insurance
Neighborhood associations may apply for additional grant funding up to $500 to assist with purchasing
additional insurance.
Note: When planning neighborhood events in parks, you may be required to make provisions to use
your own insurance. Neighborhood associations are responsible for providing outside insurance when
planning neighborhood events in parks that bring outside equipment into the park such as, but not
limited to, moonwalks, petting zoos, etc. Without clear delineation of who is responsible in case of
accidents, neighborhood leaders may be held liable.
Matching grant funds
To qualify for a grant, a neighborhood must demonstrate how it will contribute to or leverage the
neighborhood revitalization grant funds. A match of neighborhood resources maximizes the use of
limited city funds and confirms the commitment from each neighborhood. Neighborhoods should
provide at least a 50% (dollar for dollar) match to the grant amount. Any combination of sources is
acceptable in calculating the neighborhood match. These can be in the form of:
• Cash raised through fundraising .
• Fees collected at activities .
• Donations from businesses, civic groups, etc.
• In-kind services or sweat equity.
What are the grant program terms and contract requirements?
• The city retains sole discretion in determining whether or not applications are eligible.
• Necessary permits or other approvals must be obtained by t he applicant prior to starting projects.
Examples of projects that need permits include but are not limited to, permanent improvements
within the public right of way or on private property or activities requiring a street closure.
• Projects must be accessible and inclusive.
• Award maximum is $2,950 per year.
- Grant request maximum amount $2,000.
Group activities, social events and meetings are considered for funding up to a maximum of
$700 per activity.
- Environmental request maximum amount $250.
- Racial equity and inclusion maximum amount $250.
- Insurance maximum amount $500.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4a) Page 6
Title: 2022 neighborhood revitalization program grants
• Only one Neighborhood Revitalization Grant per neighborhood association per year.
• Projects may require a design review as a condition of the grant award.
• Projects must be completed within the grant’s calendar year.
• Grants do not carry over from year to year. Previous 2021 grant accounts must be closed by January
17, 2022 before new grant funds are to be used.
How are grants distributed for awarded projects?
• Applicants who are selected (“grantee”) must sign a contract before implementation of their
project. Contracts can be signed before January 1, 2022.
• Grantees are required to pay for expenses upfront and will be reimbursed by the city.
• Receipts and invoices for project costs must be submitted as proof of expenses.
• Invoices will be processed on the 15th of the month for reimbursement. The last invoice will be
accepted January 17, 2023, t he month following conclusion of the grant term.
• Reimbursement may not exceed total grant a ward.
• Reimbursement for a previous 2021 grant will not be accepted or reimbursed after January 17,
2022.
What are the reporting requirements?
• When submitting an invoice, a status report will be required.
• All grantees will have a mid-grant year in-pers on/phone meeting with the city’s community organizer.
• Evaluation report along with a complete expense report will be due at end of grant year.
What types of expenses are covered by grant funds?
The city urges neighborhood leaders to think creatively when brainstorming about projects and types of
community involvement. Neighborhood leaders are encouraged to be creative in assessing their needs
and determining the projects they want to undertake as a neighborhood. Neighborhood leaders are
required to include neighborhood resident input for proposed projects. How you choose to receive
this input must be included in the grant application. Projects that demonstrate greater community
input and inclusion will be considered with more favor.
The following types of projects will be favorably considered:
• Neighborhood identity (brochures, signs, festivals and education of neighborhood history).
• Neighborhood leadership training and development .
• Start -up funds for specific neighborhood projects (newsletters, emailing services).
• Publicity of special events (community cleanups).
• Beautification (committee will only consider Minnesota -friendly/bee-friendly planting).
• Social events that bring neighbors together (block party, youth event, art, holiday party).
• Deepening reach and connections with historically underrepresented community members .
• Purchasing environmentally friendly products for neighborhood events .
Note: Physical improvements to any public property must be coordinated with the appropriate city
department. It should not conflict with or duplicate a project in the city’s capital improvements
program. A letter of feasibility must be included with a grant application that requests funding for park
improvements. This letter should confirm that the appropriate city department has reviewed the
proposed improvements, that the proposal is feasible and that the project budget is a reasonable
estimate of project cost s.
City department contact for capital improvements is Parks Superintendent Rick Beane, 952.928.2854.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4a) Page 7
Title: 2022 neighborhood revitalization program grants
What types of expenses are NOT covered by grant funds?
• Routine maintenance (mowing and snow removal).
• General maintenance of public infrastructure (s idewalks, streetlights, alleys, street trees).
• On-going operating expenses (administration costs, office supplies).
• Payment for services provided by neighborhood residents such as babysitters, attendants (this
should be counted as in-kind services).
• Advert isements for non-neighborhood related events .
• Activities that duplicate a city service already in place.
• Improvements to private property, of any kind.
Grant application scoring criteria
The city retains sole discretion in determining how proposed projects , programs and activities meet the
program guidelines and criteria. The nature of proposed projects can vary greatly. Therefore, the
following scoring criteria are not absolute; rather they are intended to provide guidance for applicants
while preparing their applications and for city staff in scoring them.
1. Scope of work/project/creativity: 0 – 35 points
• Defines scope of projects/activities, timeline, goals, process and measurable outcomes .
• Identifies leaders/organizers of project .
• Project timeline.
• Project creativity and innovation.
• Visibility, accessibility and inclusion.
• Identifies future maintenance for permanent improvements, if applicable .
• Defines budget, contributions and/or pledges for the project .
2. Community benefit: 0 – 25 points
• Defines who will benefit from the project and how they will benefit .
• Issue(s) addressed and problem(s) documented.
• Creative and workable solutions .
• Identifies long and/or short -term benefits .
3. Neighborhood/community participation: 0 – 25 points
• Documentation of neighborhood/surrounding residents’ approval of project .
• Neighborhood/resident involvement in all project phases .
• Participation level of residents .
• Strengthens and/or builds new partnerships with other entities or groups .
• Matching funds or in-kind goods/services .
4. Consistency with city policies and adopted plans: 0 – 15 points
• Implements recommendations from or is consistent with city plans .
• Complies with city regulations .
• Understanding of permissions and permits necessary to implement project .
5. Additional considerations: 0 – 10 points
• Projects that include a funding match will receive an additional 5 points.
• Projects that include an environmental component will receive an additional 10 points.
• Projects that include a racial equity and inclusion component will receive an additional 10
points.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4a) Page 8
Title: 2022 neighborhood revitalization program grants
Note: We have 28 organized neighborhoods eligible for funds ; the process is competitive. Neighborhood
leaders are advised to request funds for their most important needs. During the grant review process,
greater consideration will be given to proposals that enhance community connections and show a
greater match amount. Lesser consideration will be given to proposals for park improvements and
proposals that show a large expenditure for a single activity. Garage sales will be given the lowest
priority. If grant requests exceed the amount available for funding, garage sales will not be funded.
The city’s community organizer, Darius Gray, is available to answer questions and provide assistance as
grant proposals are developed. See contact information below.
Grant process steps
1. Apply
Applications must be received by Sunday, Oct ober 17, 2021. Email applications to
dgray@stlouispark.org , or mail to:
Darius Gray, Community Organizer
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Note: Applications received after the deadline will not be eligible to receive a grant.
2. Grant committee review
A committee will review the grant proposals and make recommendations for approval to the city
manager.
3. Final approval
Final authorization of the awards will be approved at a city council meeting mid-December.
4. Signed agreements
Within two weeks of approval, each recipient neighborhood will receive a grant agreement from the
city. The agreement must be signed and returned prior to any funds being released.
Pre -application assistance
Applicants are strongly encouraged to talk to city staff as they work to identify projects and complete their
applications. This will help ensure applications are complete and accurate and will streamline the application
review.
Questions?
Contact Darius Gray, Community Organizer
952.923.0265
dgray@stlouispark.org
Meeting: Special city council
Meeting date: December 13, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4b
Executive summary
Title: Designate polling places for the 2022 election cycle
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution designating polling places for the 2022
election cycle.
Policy consideration: Does the proposed resolution fulfill the statutory requirement to declare
polling places by December 31?
Summary: In 2017, the state legislature amended State Statute 204B.16, Subd. 1 to require the
governing body of each municipality to designate by resolution a polling place for each election
precinct by December 31 of each year.
Due to the delay in the redistricting process at the federal and state levels, the city has not
been able to finalize or adopt individual precinct boundaries. Until the city can complete the
redistricting process and finalize how each precinct will be configured, we do not know with
absolute certainty which facilities would best serve the voters in each precinct and meet all
statutory and federal requirements.
The Secretary of State’s office has advised that, despite the delay in redistricting, cities are still
required to comply with the statutory provision to adopt a resolution declaring polling places by
December 31. The state recognizes that this is a performative requirement given that cities will
not be able to complete redistricting until the 1st quarter of 2022. The polling places designated
in this resolution are being reviewed and vetted as a part of the redistricting process. When the
city council is asked to adopt ward and precinct boundaries in 2022, a new resolution declaring
polling places for the election cycle will also be brought forward for approval. We anticipate
that some of the facilities will change at that time.
State law requires polling places be located within one (1) mile of a precinct boundary, be fully
accessible, large enough to accommodate election activities, free of other non-election
activities, smoking free, liquor free and not adjacent to a liquor service area. When evaluating
facilities staff considers many additional factors including, but not limited to: availability, voter
convenience, number of voters to be served at the facility, accessibility and ADA standards,
racial equity and inclusion impacts, parking, traffic, safety, security, and staffing needs.
Financial or budget considerations: Fees associated with use of facilities are included in the
2022 budget, including the costs to formally notify voters of changes to their polling location .
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Pre pared by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager
Page 2 Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Designate polling places for the 2022 election cycle
Resolution No . 21 -____
Resolution designating polling places
for the 2022 election cycle
Whereas, the State Primary election will be held on August 9, 2022 and the State
G eneral election will be held on November 8, 2022;
Now, therefore, be it resolved, by the St. Louis Park City Council that all elections in
2022, as well as any required special elections, will take place at the following precinct polling
locations:
Ward 1 Precinct 1 – Beth El Synagogue, 5225 Barry St. W.
Ward 1 Precinct 2 – Wat Thai Buddhist Center, 2544 Highway 100 South
Ward 1 Precinct 3 – St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
Ward 1 Precinct 4 – Central Community Center, 6300 Walker St.
Ward 2 Precinct 5 – Union Congregational Church, 3700 Alabama Ave. S.
Ward 2 Precinct 6 – St. Louis Park Recreation Center, 3700 Monterey Dr.
Ward 2 Precinct 7 – Vista Lutheran Church, 4003 Wooddale Ave. S.
Ward 2 Precinct 8 – Aldersgate United Methodist Church, 3801 Wooddale Ave S
Ward 3 Precinct 9 – St. Louis Park Municipal Service Center, 7305 Oxford St.
Ward 3 Precinct 10 – Lenox Community Center, 6715 Minnetonka Blvd.
Ward 3 Precinct 11 – St. Louis Park Senior High School, 6425 33rd St. W.
Ward 3 Precinct 12 – Aquila Elementary School, 8500 31st St. W.
Ward 4 Precinct 13 – Westwood Lutheran Church, 9001 Cedar Lake Road
Ward 4 Precinct 14 – Park Harbor Church, 1615 Texas Ave. S.
Ward 4 Precinct 15 – Peace Presbyterian Church, 7624 Cedar Lake Road
Ward 4 Precinct 16 – St. Louis Park Middle School, 2025 Texas A ve. S.
Be it further resolved, the city clerk is authorized to make any changes as deemed
necessary in the case of an emergency, or if a polling place has become unavailable.
Reviewed for administration Adopted by city council December 13, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: Special city council
Meeting date: December 13, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4c
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in n ational opioids s ettl ements
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution approving the memorandum of agreement
(MOA) between the State of Minnesota and local governments and authorizing participation
in national opioid settlements.
Policy consideration: Does the city council want to participate in a proposed settlement to
sev eral lawsuits concerning the o pioid crisis?
Summary: Minnesota, along with a broad coalition of states across the country, has reached
agreements with f our compani es to resolve legal claims for th eir role in the opioid crisis:
manufacturer Johnson & Johnson, and major pharmaceutical distributors Amerisource Bergen,
Cardinal Health, and McKesson. The total settlement is over $26 billion. Minn esota’s maximum
share of the settlements is projected to be $296 million o v er 18 y ears.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and his office worked with a coalition of partners
including legislators, public health experts, the League of Minnesota Cities, and others to forge
a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on the distribution and use of funds. Participation in this
agreement requires cities to sign on to the memorandum of agreement and settlement
docum ents b y J an. 2, 2022. Potential uses for those funds and the projecte d amount are
outlined in the MOA along with agreements to collaborate with state, county, and regional
partners. The League of Minnesota Cities, city attorney, and the State Attorney General’s office
have all recommende d participation. The final amount of funds that state will receive is
determined by a formula, which is dependent on the number of participating cities and
counties.
Financial or budget considerations: Funds from these settlements may be provided to the city
for abatement programing, which will need to fit within guidance from the MOA
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicabl e.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolution
Minnesota opioid settlements - letter from attorney general
Minnesota state-subdivision memorandum of agreement
Minnesota opioid settlement executive summary
Minnesota state-subdivision agreement overview
Minnesota opioid settlements FAQ
Minnesota opioid settlement checklist
Prepared by: Michael Sund, elections specialist
Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements
Discussion
Background: Along with other Attorneys General, Minnesota State Attorney General Keith Ellison
has participated in a lawsuit against several distributors and manufacturers of opioids. The State
of Minnesota has been tracking the severe harm done to communities and families from the
opioid epidemic and found these parties to be responsible. The resulting proposed settlement
requires that participating political subdivisions register and sign participation agreements by Jan.
2, 2022. The League of Minnesota Cities, city attorney and the State Attorney G eneral’s office
have all recommended participation. The final amount of funds is determined by a formula which
is dependent on the number of participating cities and counties.
The city manager was sent information by the State Attorney General’s office in November,
which encouraged cities and counties to opt-in to the settlement. The city manager completed
the city’s registration and has been waiting to receive the Memorandum of Agreement and
corresponding resolution authorizing participation. Both documents were received by the city
on De c. 9, 2021, at the same time the League of Minnesota Cities outlined the requirements for
the city to participate in the settlement. The passage of a resolution and signatures on all three
documents were requested and encouraged by members of the coalition of state partners.
The settlement funds are intended to abate the opioid epidemic. The design and
implementation of any programming funded by the settlement would ultimately be the
responsibility of the city, in conjunction with other communities and non-profit partners under
the direction of a county public health official. Annual meetings on abatement efforts are
required with all participating communities. Exhibit A of the MOA outlines potential examples
of remediation and abatement programing.
The total settlement amount nationwide is 21 billion dollars over 18 years from the listed
distributors and 5 billion over 9 years from manufacturer J&J, totaling 22.7 billion for states and
subdivisions. Minnesota’s maximum share of the settlements is estimated to be $296 million
but could be as little as half that amount if cities and counties do not sign on as participants. Of
that total, per the MOA, 75% of that amount will go directly to cities of populations greater
than 30,000 and counties. The remaining 25% will go to the state to aid in administration.
Because this final amount is dependent on participation , an approximate distribution cannot be
calculated at this time . Exhibit B of the MOA lists the portion of the total amount going to the
City of St. Louis Park as 0.1476314588229% which could be estimated as an amount less than
$500,000.
Funds can begin to flow to states and local governments as early as April 2022. These are not
class action opt-out settlements. Instead, these settlements require that a critical mass of both
state and local governments opt-in prior to the deadline of Jan. 2, 2022.
M N Health Department Drug Overdose Dashboard
Minnesota Attorney General site
League of MN Cities site
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements
Resolution No. 21-____
Resolution approving the memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the State
of Minnesota and local governments and authorizing participation in national
opioid settlements
Whereas, the State of Minnesota, Minnesota counties and cities, and their people, have
been harmed by misconduct committed by certain entities that engage in the manufacture,
marketing, promotion, distribution, or dispensing of opioids; and
Whereas, the State of Minnesota and numerous Minnesota cities and counties joined
with thousands of local governments across the country to file lawsuits against opioid
manufacturer and pharmaceutical distribution companies and hold those companies
accountable for their misconduct; and
Whereas, representatives of local Minnesota governments, the League of Minnesota
Cities, the Association of Minnesota Counties, the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, the
State of Minnesota, and the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office have negotiated and
prepared a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to provide for the equitable distribution of
proceeds to the State of Minnesota and to individual local governments from recent
settlements in the national opioid litigation; and
Whereas, by signing onto the MOA, the state and local governments maximize
Minnesota’s share of opioid settlement funds, demonstrate solidarity in response to the opioid
epidemic, and ensure needed resources reach the most impacted communities; and
Whereas, it is in the best interests of the State of Minnesota and the residents of the City
of St. Louis Park, and the County of Hennepin, that the city participates in the national opioid
litigation settlements.
N ow, therefore , be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park Minnesota:
1.Participation in the opioid litigation settlements promotes the public health,
safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of St. Louis Park.
2.The City of St. Louis Park supports and opts-in to the national opioid litigation
settlements with the distributors McKesson, Cardinal Health, and Amerisource
Bergen, and with the manufacturer Johnson & Johnson.
3.The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the State of Minnesota and
local governments relating to the distribution of settlement funds is hereby
approved by the City of St. Louis Park.
4.The city manager is hereby authorize d to take such measures as necessary to
sign the MOA and otherwise participate in the national opioid settlements,
including executing the participation agreement and accompanying release.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Page 4
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council December 13, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
December 8, 2021
Dear Minnesota Cities and Counties:
I’m pleased to announce that counties, cities, and the State of Minnesota have reached an agreement that
will govern how funds from recently announced settlements with opioid companies will be distributed within
Minnesota. In order to finalize this agreement, I am asking you to sign the enclosed State-Subdivision
Memorandum of Agreement (MN MOA) and also to join both settlements with opioid distributors McKesson,
AmerisourceBergen, and Cardinal Health, and opioid manufacturer Johnson & Johnson by January 2, 2022.
Minnesota stands to receive more than $300 million from these settlements, the vast majority of which will go to
cities and counties, but we need your cities and counties to sign on to the settlements to maximize the resources
to fight the epidemic. Simply put, the more cities and counties that sign on by January 2, 2022, the more money
we will have for treatment, prevention, and a whole host of programs and strategies to abate this crisis.
Over the last few months, my Office has been working tirelessly with cities and counties to come to an
agreement on allocation and distribution of opioid settlement funds. We have been working alongside the
Association of Minnesota Counties, the League of Minnesota Cities, the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities,
representatives from litigating cities and counties, members of the Opioid Epidemic Response Advisory Council,
the Governor’s Office, and numerous state agencies, among others. The MN MOA is the result of this work.
Since 2000, the opioid epidemic has cost more than 5,400 Minnesotans their lives, and has torn families
apart and ravaged communities. The last year has been especially hard, as the COVID-19 pandemic has caused
a surge in opioid overdoses, both fatal and nonfatal. No amount of money will ever be enough to make up for the
damage and destruction caused by these companies, but these historic agreements are at least a measure of
accountability, if not justice.
Enclosed with this letter are several documents with more information about these agreements. Additional
information about the settlements and how they will be implemented in Minnesota can be found on our website
at www.ag.state.mn.us/opioids. Also, please do not hesitate to contact my Office with any questions you may
have. You can send an email to opioids@ag.state.mn.us, or leave a voicemail at (612) 429-7126.
Sincerely,
KEITH ELLISON
Attorney General
Enclosures: Minnesota Opioids State-Subdivision Memorandum of Agreement
Executive Summary
One-Page Overview
Frequently Asked Questions
Checklist
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 5
1
MINNESOTA OPIOIDS STATE-SUBDIVISION MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, Minnesota counties and cities, and their people have been
harmed by misconduct committed by certain entities that engage in or have engaged in the
manufacture, marketing, promotion, distribution, or dispensing of an opioid analgesic;
WHEREAS, certain Minnesota counties and cities, through their counsel, and the State, through
its Attorney General, are separately engaged in ongoing investigations, litigation, and settlement
discussions seeking to hold opioid manufacturers and distributors accountable for the damage
caused by their misconduct;
WHEREAS, the State and Local Governments share a common desire to abate and alleviate the
impacts of the misconduct described above throughout Minnesota;
WHEREAS, while the State and Local Governments recognize the sums which may be available
from the aforementioned litigation will likely be insufficient to fully abate the public health crisis
caused by the opioid epidemic, they share a common interest in dedicating the most resources
possible to the abatement effort;
WHEREAS, the investigations and litigation with Johnson & Johnson, AmerisourceBergen,
Cardinal Health, and McKesson have resulted in National Settlement Agreements with those
companies, which the State has already committed to join;
WHEREAS, Minnesota’s share of settlement funds from the National Settlement Agreements will
be maximized only if all Minnesota counties, and cities of a certain size, participate in the
settlements;
WHEREAS, the National Settlement Agreements will set a default allocation between each state
and its political subdivisions unless they enter into a state-specific agreement regarding the
distribution and use of settlement amounts;
WHEREAS, this Memorandum of Agreement is intended to facilitate compliance by the State
and by the Local Governments with the terms of the National Settlement Agreements and is
intended to serve as a State-Subdivision Agreement under the National Settlement Agreements;
WHEREAS, this Memorandum of Agreement is also intended to serve as a State-Subdivision
Agreement under resolutions of claims concerning alleged misconduct in the manufacture,
marketing, promotion, distribution, or dispensing of an opioid analgesic entered in bankruptcy
court that provide for payments (including payments through a trust) to both the State and
Minnesota counties and cities and allow for the allocation between a state and its political
subdivisions to be set through a state-specific agreement; and
WHEREAS, specifically, this Memorandum of Agreement is intended to serve under the
Bankruptcy Resolutions concerning Purdue Pharma and Mallinckrodt as a qualifying Statewide
Abatement Agreement.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 6
2
I.Definitions
As used in this MOA (including the preamble above):
“Approved Uses” shall mean forward-looking strategies, programming, and services to
abate the opioid epidemic that fall within the list of uses on Exhibit A. Consistent with
the terms of the National Settlement Agreements and Bankruptcy Resolutions, “Approved
Uses” shall include the reasonable administrative expenses associated with overseeing and
administering Opioid Settlement Funds. Reimbursement by the State or Local
Governments for past expenses are not Approved Uses.
“Backstop Fund” is defined in Section VI.B below.
“Bankruptcy Defendants” mean Purdue Pharma L.P. and Mallinckrodt plc.
“Bankruptcy Resolution(s)” means resolutions of claims concerning alleged misconduct in
manufacture, marketing, promotion, distribution, or dispensing of an opioid analgesic by
the Bankruptcy Defendants entered in bankruptcy court that provide for payments
(including payments through a trust) to both the State and Minnesota counties and
municipalities and allow for the allocation between the state and its political subdivisions
to be set through a state-specific agreement.
“Counsel” is defined in Section VI.B below.
“County Area” shall mean a county in the State of Minnesota plus the Local Governments,
or portion of any Local Government, within that county.
“Governing Body” means (1) for a county, the county commissioners of the county, and
(2) for a municipality, the elected city council or the equivalent legislative body for the
municipality.
“Legislative Modification” is defined in Section II.C below.
“Litigating Local Governments” mean a Local Government that filed an opioid lawsuit(s)
on or before December 3, 2021, as defined in Section VI.B below.
“Local Abatement Funds” are defined in Section II.B below.
“Local Government” means all counties and cities within the geographic boundaries of the
state of Minnesota.
“MDL Matter” means the matter captioned In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation,
MDL 2804, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
“Memorandum of Agreement” or “MOA” mean this agreement, the Minnesota Opioids
State-Subdivision Memorandum of Agreement.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 7
3
“National Settlement Agreements” means the national opioid settlement agreements with
the Parties and one or all of the Settling Defendants concerning alleged misconduct in
manufacture, marketing, promotion, distribution, or dispensing of an opioid analgesic.
“Opioid Settlement Funds” shall mean all funds allocated by the National Settlement
Agreements and any Bankruptcy Resolutions to the State and Local Governments for
purposes of opioid remediation activities or restitution, as well as any repayment of those
funds and any interest or investment earnings that may accrue as those funds are
temporarily held before being expended on opioid remediation strategies.
“Opioid Supply Chain Participants” means entities that engage in or have engaged in the
manufacture, marketing, promotion, distribution, or dispensing of an opioid analgesic,
including their officers, directors, employees, or agents, acting in their capacity as such.
“Parties” means the State and the Participating Local Governments.
“Participating Local Government” means a county or city within the geographic boundaries
of the State of Minnesota that has signed this Memorandum of Agreement and has executed
a release of claims with the Settling Defendants by signing on to the National Settlement
Agreements. For the avoidance of doubt, a Local Government must sign this MOA to
become a “Participating Local Government.”
“Region” is defined in Section II.H below.
“Settling Defendants” means Johnson & Johnson, AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health,
and McKesson, as well as their subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, and directors named in a
National Settlement Agreement.
“State” means the State of Minnesota by and through its Attorney General, Keith Ellison.
“State Abatement Fund” is defined in Section II.B below.
II.Allocation of Settlement Proceeds
A.Method of distribution. Pursuant to the National Settlement Agreements and any
Bankruptcy Resolutions, Opioid Settlement Funds shall be distributed directly to the State
and directly to Participating Local Governments in such proportions and for such uses as
set forth in this MOA, provided Opioid Settlement Funds shall not be considered funds of
the State or any Participating Local Government unless and until such time as each annual
distribution is made.
B.Overall allocation of funds. Opioid Settlement Funds will be initially allocated as follows:
(i) 25% directly to the State (“State Abatement Fund”), and (ii) 75% directly to abatement
funds established by Participating Local Governments (“Local Abatement Funds”). This
initial allocation is subject to modification by Sections II.F, II.G, and II.H, below.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 8
4
C.Statutory change.
1.The Parties agree to work together in good faith to propose and lobby for legislation
in the 2022 Minnesota legislative session to modify the distribution of the State’s
Opiate Epidemic Response Fund under Minnesota Statutes section 256.043,
subd. 3(d), so that “50 percent of the remaining amount” is no longer appropriated
to county social services, as related to Opioid Settlement Funds that are ultimately
placed into the Minnesota Opiate Epidemic Response Fund (“Legislative
Modification”).1 Such efforts include, but are not limited to, providing testimony
and letters in support of the Legislative Modification.
2.It is the intent of the Parties that the Legislative Modification would affect only the
county share under section 256.043, subd. 3(d), and would not impact the provision
of funds to tribal social service agencies. Further, it is the intent of the Parties that
the Legislative Modification would relate only to disposition of Opioid Settlement
Funds and is not predicated on a change to the distribution of the Board of
Pharmacy fee revenue that is deposited into the Opiate Epidemic Response Fund.
D.Bill Drafting Workgroup. The Parties will work together to convene a Bill Drafting
Workgroup to recommend draft legislation to achieve this Legislative Modification. The
Workgroup will meet as often as practicable in December 2021 and January 2022 until
recommended language is completed. Invitations to participate in the group shall be
extended to the League of Minnesota Cities, the Association of Minnesota Counties, the
Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, state agencies, the Governor’s Office, the Attorney
General’s Office, the Opioid Epidemic Response Advisory Council, the Revisor’s Office,
and Minnesota tribal representatives. The Workgroup will host meetings with Members of
the Minnesota House of Representatives and Minnesota Senate who have been involved in
this matter to assist in crafting a bill draft.
E.No payments until August 1, 2022. The Parties agree to take all steps necessary to ensure
that any Opioid Settlement Funds ready for distribution directly to the State and
Participating Local Governments under the National Settlement Agreements or
Bankruptcy Resolutions are not actually distributed to the Parties until on or after August
1, 2022, in order to allow the Parties to pursue legislative change that would take effect
before the Opioid Settlement Funds are received by the Parties. Such steps may include,
but are not limited to, the Attorney General’s Office delaying its filing of Consent
Judgments in Minnesota state court memorializing the National Settlement Agreements.
This provision will cease to apply upon the effective date of the Legislative Modification
described above, if that date is prior to August 1, 2022.
1 It is the intent of the Parties that counties will continue to fund child protection services for
children and families who are affected by addiction, in compliance with the Approved Uses in
Exhibit A.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 9
5
F.Effect of no statutory change by August 1, 2022. If the Legislative Modification described
above does not take effect by August 1, 2022, the allocation between the Parties set forth
in Section II.B shall be modified as follows: (i) 40% directly to the State Abatement Fund,
and (ii) 60% to Local Abatement Funds. The Parties further agree to discuss potential
amendment of this MOA if such legislation does not timely go into effect in accordance
with this paragraph.
G.Effect of later statutory change. If the Legislative Modification described above takes
effect after August 1, 2022, the allocation between the Parties will be modified as follows:
(i) 25% directly to the State Abatement Fund, and (ii) 75% to Local Abatement Funds.
H.Effect of partial statutory change. If any legislative action otherwise modifies or
diminishes the direct allocation of Opioid Settlement Funds to Participating Local
Governments so that as a result the Participating Local Governments would receive less
than 75 percent of the Opioid Settlement Funds (inclusive of amounts received by counties
per statutory appropriation through the Minnesota Opiate Epidemic Response Fund), then
the allocation set forth in Section II.B will be modified to ensure Participating Local
Governments receive 75% of the Opioid Settlement Funds.
I.Participating Local Governments receiving payments. The proportions set forth in
Exhibit B provide for payments directly to: (i) all Minnesota counties; and (ii) all
Minnesota cities that (a) have a population of more than 30,000, based on the United States
Census Bureau’s Vintage 2019 population totals, (b) have funded or otherwise managed
an established health care or treatment infrastructure (e.g., health department or similar
agency), or (c) have initiated litigation against the Settling Defendants as of December 3,
2021.
J.Allocation of funds between Participating Local Governments. The Local Abatement
Funds shall be allocated to Participating Local Governments in such proportions as set
forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which is based
upon the MDL Matter’s Opioid Negotiation Class Model.2 The proportions shall not
change based on population changes during the term of the MOA. However, to the extent
required by the terms of the National Settlement Agreements, the proportions set forth in
Exhibit B must be adjusted: (i) to provide no payment from the National Settlement
Agreements to any listed county or municipality that does not participate in the National
Settlement Agreements; and (ii) to provide a reduced payment from the National
Settlement Agreements to any listed county or city that signs on to the National Settlement
Agreements after the Initial Participation Date.
K.Redistribution in certain situations. In the event a Participating Local Government merges,
dissolves, or ceases to exist, the allocation percentage for that Participating Local
2 More specifically, the proportions in Exhibit B were created based on Exhibit G to the National
Settlement Agreements, which in turn was based on the MDL Matter’s allocation criteria. Cities
under 30,000 in population that had shares under the Exhibit G default allocation were removed
and their shares were proportionally reallocated amongst the remaining subdivisions.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 10
6
Government shall be redistributed equitably based on the composition of the successor
Local Government. In the event an allocation to a Local Government cannot be paid to the
Local Government, such unpaid allocations will be allocated to Local Abatement Funds
and be distributed in such proportions as set forth in Exhibit B.
L.City may direct payments to county. Any city allocated a share may elect to have its full
share or a portion of its full share of current or future annual distributions of settlement
funds instead directed to the county or counties in which it is located, so long as that county
or counties are Participating Local Governments[s]. Such an election must be made by
January 1 each year to apply to the following fiscal year. If a city is located in more than
one county, the city’s funds will be directed based on the MDL Matter’s Opioid
Negotiation Class Model.
III.Special Revenue Fund
A.Creation of special revenue fund. Every Participating Local Government receiving Opioid
Settlement Funds through direct distribution shall create a separate special revenue fund,
as described below, that is designated for the receipt and expenditure of Opioid Settlement
Funds.
B.Procedures for special revenue fund. Funds in this special revenue fund shall not be
commingled with any other money or funds of the Participating Local Government. The
funds in the special revenue fund shall not be used for any loans or pledge of assets, unless
the loan or pledge is for an Approved Use. Participating Local Governments may not
assign to another entity their rights to receive payments of Opioid Settlement Funds or their
responsibilities for funding decisions, except as provided in Section II.L.
C.Process for drawing from special revenue funds.
1. Opioid Settlement Funds can be used for a purpose when the Governing Body
includes in its budget or passes a separate resolution authorizing the expenditure of
a stated amount of Opioid Settlement Funds for that purpose or those purposes
during a specified period of time.
2.The budget or resolution must (i) indicate that it is an authorization for expenditures
of opioid settlement funds; (ii) state the specific strategy or strategies the county or
city intends to fund, using the item letter and/or number in Exhibit A to identify
each funded strategy, if applicable; and (iii) state the amount dedicated to each
strategy for a stated period of time.
D.Local government grantmaking. Participating Local Governments may make contracts
with or grants to a nonprofit, charity, or other entity with Opioid Settlement Funds.
E.Interest earned on special revenue fund. The funds in the special revenue fund may be
invested, consistent with the investment limitations for local governments, and may be
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 11
7
placed in an interest-bearing bank account. Any interest earned on the special revenue
funds must be used in a way that is consistent with this MOA.
IV.Opioid Remediation Activities
A.Limitation on use of funds. This MOA requires that Opioid Settlement Funds be utilized
only for future opioid remediation activities, and Parties shall expend Opioid Settlement
Funds only for Approved Uses and for expenditures incurred after the effective date of this
MOA, unless execution of the National Settlement Agreements requires a later date.
Opioid Settlement Funds cannot be used to pay litigation costs, expenses, or attorney fees
arising from the enforcement of legal claims related to the opioid epidemic, except for the
portion of Opioid Settlement Funds that comprise the Backstop Fund described in Section
VI. For the avoidance of doubt, counsel for Litigating Local Governments may recover
litigation costs, expenses, or attorney fees from the common benefit, contingency fee, and
cost funds established in the National Settlement Agreements, as well as the Backstop Fund
described in Section VI.
B.Public health departments as Chief Strategists. For Participating Local Governments that
have public health departments, the public health departments shall serve as the lead
agency and Chief Strategist to identify, collaborate, and respond to local issues as Local
Governments decide how to leverage and disburse Opioid Settlement Funds. In their role
as Chief Strategist, public health departments will convene multi-sector meetings and lead
efforts that build upon local efforts like Community Health Assessments and Community
Health Improvement Plans, while fostering community focused and collaborative
evidence-informed approaches that prevent and address addiction across the areas of public
health, human services, and public safety. Chief Strategists should consult with
municipalities located within their county in the development of any Community Health
Assessment, and are encouraged to collaborate with law enforcement agencies in the
county where appropriate.
C.Administrative expenses. Reasonable administrative costs for the State or Local
Government to administer its allocation of the Opioid Settlement Funds shall not exceed
actual costs, 10% of the relevant allocation of the Opioid Settlement Funds, or any
administrative expense limitation imposed by the National Settlement Agreements or
Bankruptcy Resolution, whichever is less.
D.Regions. Two or more Participating Local Governments may at their discretion form a
new group or utilize an existing group (“Region”) to pool their respective shares of
settlement funds and make joint spending decisions. Participating Local Governments may
choose to create a Region or utilize an existing Region under a joint exercise of powers
under Minn. Stat. § 471.59.
E.Consultation and partnerships.
1.Each county receiving Opioid Settlement Funds must consult annually with the
municipalities in the county regarding future use of the settlement funds in the
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 12
8
county, including by holding an annual meeting with all municipalities in the
county in order to receive input as to proposed uses of the Opioid Settlement Funds
and to encourage collaboration between Local Governments both within and
beyond the county. These meetings shall be open to the public.
2.Participating Local Governments within the same County Area have a duty to
regularly consult with each other to coordinate spending priorities.
3.Participating Local Governments can form partnerships at the local level whereby
Participating Local Governments dedicate a portion of their Opioid Settlement
Funds to support city- or community-based work with local stakeholders and
partners within the Approved Uses.
F.Collaboration. The State and Participating Local Governments must collaborate to
promote effective use of Opioid Settlement Funds, including through the sharing of
expertise, training, and technical assistance. They will also coordinate with trusted
partners, including community stakeholders, to collect and share information about
successful regional and other high-impact strategies and opioid treatment programs.
V.Reporting and Compliance
A.Construction of reporting and compliance provisions. Reporting and compliance
requirements will be developed and mutually agreed upon by the Parties, utilizing the
recommendations provided by the Advisory Panel to the Attorney General on Distribution
and Allocation of Opioid Settlement Funds.
B.Reporting Workgroup. The Parties will work together to establish a Reporting Workgroup
that includes representatives of the Attorney General’s Office, state stakeholders, and city
and county representatives, who will meet on a regular basis to develop reporting and
compliance recommendations. The Reporting Workgroup must produce a set of reporting
and compliance measures by June 1, 2022. Such reporting and compliance measures will
be effective once approved by representatives of the Attorney General’s Office, the
Governor’s Office, the Association of Minnesota Counties, and the League of Minnesota
Cities that are on the Workgroup.
VI.Backstop Fund
A.National Attorney Fee Fund. The National Settlement Agreements provide for the payment
of all or a portion of the attorney fees and costs owed by Litigating Local Governments to
private attorneys specifically retained to file suit in the opioid litigation (“National
Attorney Fee Fund”). The Parties acknowledge that the National Settlement Agreements
may provide for a portion of the attorney fees of Litigating Local Governments.
B.Backstop Fund and Waiver of Contingency Fee. The Parties agree that the Participating
Local Governments will create a supplemental attorney fees fund (the “Backstop Fund”)
to be used to compensate private attorneys (“Counsel”) for Local Governments that filed
opioid lawsuits on or before December 3, 2021 (“Litigating Local Governments”). By
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 13
9
order 3 dated August 6, 2021, Judge Polster capped all applicable contingent fee agreements
at 15%. Judge Polster’s 15% cap does not limit fees from the National Attorney Fee Fund
or from any state backstop fund for attorney fees, but private attorneys for local
governments must waive their contingent fee agreements to receive payment from the
National Attorney Fee Fund. Judge Polster recognized that a state backstop fund can be
designed to incentivize private attorneys to waive their right to enforce contingent fee
agreements and instead apply to the National Attorney Fee Fund, with the goals of
achieving greater subdivision participation and higher ultimate payouts to both states and
local governments. Accordingly, in order to seek payment from the Backstop Fund,
Counsel must agree to waive their contingency fee agreements relating to these National
Settlement Agreements and first apply to the National Attorney Fee Fund.
C.Backstop Fund Source. The Backstop Fund will be funded by seven percent (7%) of the
share of each payment made to the Local Abatement Funds from the National Settlement
Agreements (annual or otherwise), based upon the initial allocation of 25% directly to the
State Abatement Fund and 75% directly to Local Abatement Funds, and will not include
payments resulting from the Purdue or Mallinckrodt Bankruptcies. In the event that the
initial allocation is modified pursuant to Section II.F. above, then the Backstop Fund will
be funded by 8.75% of the share of each payment made to the Local Abatement Funds
from the National Settlement Agreements (annual or otherwise), based upon the modified
allocation of 40% directly to the State Abatement Fund and 60% directly to the Local
Abatement Funds, and will not include payments resulting from the Purdue or Mallinckrodt
Bankruptcies. In the event that the allocation is modified pursuant to Section II.G. or
Section II.H. above, back to an allocation of 25% directly to the State Abatement Fund and
75% directly to Local Abatement Funds, then the Backstop Fund will be funded by 7% of
the share of each payment made to the Local Abatement Funds from the National
Settlement Agreements (annual or otherwise), and will not include payments resulting from
the Purdue or Mallinckrodt Bankruptcies.
D.Backstop Fund Payment Cap. Any attorney fees paid from the Backstop Fund, together
with any compensation received from the National Settlement Agreements’ Contingency
Fee Fund, shall not exceed 15% of the total gross recovery of the Litigating Local
Governments’ share of funds from the National Settlement Agreements. To avoid doubt,
in no instance will Counsel receive more than 15% of the amount paid to their respective
Litigating Local Government client(s) when taking into account what private attorneys
receive from both the Backstop Fund and any fees received from the National Settlement
Agreements’ Contingency Fee Fund.
E.Requirements to Seek Payment from Backstop Fund. A private attorney may seek payment
from the Backstop Fund in the event that funds received by Counsel from the National
Settlement Agreements’ Contingency Fee Fund are insufficient to cover the amount that
would be due to Counsel under any contingency fee agreement with a Litigating Local
Government based on any recovery Litigating Local Governments receive from the
National Settlement Agreements. Before seeking any payment from the Backstop Fund,
3 Order, In re: Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., Case No. 17-MD-02804, Doc. No. 3814 (N.D. Ohio
August 6, 2021).
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 14
10
private attorneys must certify that they first sought fees from the National Settlement
Agreements’ Contingency Fee Fund, and must certify that they agreed to accept the
maximum fees payments awarded to them. Nothing in this Section, or in the terms of this
Agreement, shall be construed as a waiver of fees, contractual or otherwise, with respect
to fees that may be recovered under a contingency fee agreement or otherwise from other
past or future settlements, verdicts, or recoveries related to the opioid litigation.
F.Special Master. A special master will administer the Backstop Fund, including overseeing
any distribution, evaluating the requests of Counsel for payment, and determining the
appropriate amount of any payment from the Backstop Fund. The special master will be
selected jointly by the Minnesota Attorney General and the Hennepin County Attorney,
and will be one of the following individuals: Hon. Jeffrey Keyes, Hon. David Lillehaug;
or Hon. Jack Van de North. The special master will be compensated from the Backstop
Fund. In the event that a successor special master is needed, the Minnesota Attorney
General and the Hennepin County Attorney will jointly select the successor special master
from the above-listed individuals. If none of the above-listed individuals is available to
serve as the successor special master, then the Minnesota Attorney General and the
Hennepin County Attorney will jointly select a successor special master from a list of
individuals that is agreed upon between the Minnesota Attorney General, the Hennepin
County Attorney, and Counsel.
G.Special Master Determinations. The special master will determine the amount and timing
of any payment to Counsel from the Backstop Fund. The special master shall make one
determination regarding payment of attorney fees to Counsel, which will apply through the
term of the recovery from the National Settlement Agreements. In making such
determinations, the special master shall consider the amounts that have been or will be
received by the private attorney’s firm from the National Settlement Agreements’
Contingency Fee Fund relating to Litigating Local Governments; the contingency fee
contracts; the dollar amount of recovery for Counsel’s respective clients who are Litigating
Local Governments; the Backstop Fund Payment Cap above; the complexity of the legal
issues involved in the opioid litigation; work done to directly benefit the Local
Governments within the State of Minnesota; and the principles set forth in the Minnesota
Rules of Professional Conduct, including the reasonable and contingency fee principles of
Rule 1.5. In the interest of transparency, Counsel shall provide information in their initial
fee application about the total amount of fees that Counsel have received or will receive
from the National Attorney Fee Fund related to the Litigating Local Governments.
H.Special Master Proceedings. Counsel seeking payment from the Backstop Fund may also
provide written submissions to the special master, which may include declarations from
counsel, summaries relating to the factors described above, and/or attestation regarding
total payments awarded or anticipated from the National Settlement Agreements’
Contingency Fee Fund. Private attorneys shall not be required to disclose work product,
proprietary or confidential information, including but not limited to detailed billing or
lodestar records. To the extent that counsel rely upon written submissions to support their
application to the special master, the special master will incorporate said submission or
summary into the record. Any proceedings before the special master and documents filed
with the special master shall be public, and the special master’s determinations regarding
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 15
11
any payment from the Backstop Funds shall be transparent, public, final, and not
appealable.
I.Distribution of Any Excess Funds. To the extent the special master determines that the
Backstop Fund exceeds the amount necessary for payment to Counsel, the special master
shall distribute any excess amount to Participating Local Governments according to the
percentages set forth in Exhibit B.
J.Term. The Backstop Fund will be administered for (a) the length of the National Litigation
Settlement payments; or (b) until all Counsel for Litigating Local Governments have either
(i) received payments equal to the Backstop Fund Payment Cap above or (ii) received the
full amount determined by the special master; whichever occurs first.
K.No State Funds Toward Attorney Fees. For the avoidance of doubt, no portion of the State
Abatement Fund will be used to fund the Backstop Fund or in any other way to fund any
Litigating Local Government’s attorney fees and expenses. Any funds that the State
receives from the National Settlement Agreements as attorney fees and costs or in lieu of
attorney fees and costs, including the Additional Restitution Amounts, will be treated as
State Abatement Funds.
VII.General Terms
A.Scope of agreement. This MOA applies to all settlements under the National Settlement
Agreements with Settling Defendants and the Bankruptcy Resolutions with Bankruptcy
Defendants.4 The Parties agree to discuss the use, as the Parties may deem appropriate in
the future, of the settlement terms set out herein (after any necessary amendments) for
resolutions with Opioid Supply Chain Participants not covered by the National Settlement
Agreements or a Bankruptcy Resolution. The Parties acknowledge that this MOA does
not excuse any requirements placed upon them by the terms of the National Settlement
Agreements or any Bankruptcy Resolution, except to the extent those terms allow for a
State-Subdivision Agreement to do so.
B.When MOA takes effect.
1.This MOA shall become effective at the time a sufficient number of Local
Governments have joined the MOA to qualify this MOA as a State-Subdivision
Agreement under the National Settlement Agreements or as a Statewide Abatement
Agreement under any Bankruptcy Resolution. If this MOA does not thereby
qualify as a State-Subdivision Agreement or Statewide Abatement Agreement, this
MOA will have no effect.
2.The Parties may conditionally agree to sign on to the MOA through a letter of intent,
resolution, or similar written statement, declaration, or pronouncement declaring
4 For the avoidance of doubt, this includes settlements reached with AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal
Health, and McKesson, and Janssen, and Bankruptcy Resolutions involving Purdue Pharma L.P.,
and Mallinckrodt plc.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 16
12
their intent to sign on to the MOA if the threshold for Party participation in a
specific Settlement is achieved.
C.Dispute resolution.
1.If any Party believes another Party has violated the terms of this MOA, the alleging
Party may seek to enforce the terms of this MOA in Ramsey County District Court,
provided the alleging Party first provides notice to the alleged offending Party of
the alleged violation and a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged violation.
2.If a Party believes another Party, Region, or individual involved in the receipt,
distribution, or administration of Opioid Settlement Funds has violated any
applicable ethics codes or rules, a complaint shall be lodged with the appropriate
forum for handling such matters.
3.If a Party believes another Party, Region, or individual involved in the receipt,
distribution, or administration of Opioid Settlement Funds violated any Minnesota
criminal law, such conduct shall be reported to the appropriate criminal authorities.
D.Amendments. The Parties agree to make such amendments as necessary to implement the
intent of this MOA.
E.Applicable law and venue. Unless otherwise required by the National Settlement
Agreements or a Bankruptcy Resolution, this MOA, including any issues related to
interpretation or enforcement, is governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. Any
action related to the provisions of this MOA must be adjudicated by the Ramsey County
District Court. If any provision of this MOA is held invalid by any court of competent
jurisdiction, this invalidity does not affect any other provision which can be given effect
without the invalid provision.
F.Relationship of this MOA to other agreements and resolutions. All Parties acknowledge
and agree that the National Settlement Agreements will require a Participating Local
Government to release all its claims against the Settling Defendants to receive direct
allocation of Opioid Settlement Funds. All Parties further acknowledge and agree that
based on the terms of the National Settlement Agreements, a Participating Local
Government may receive funds through this MOA only after complying with all
requirements set forth in the National Settlement Agreements to release its claims. This
MOA is not a promise from any Party that any National Settlement Agreements or
Bankruptcy Resolution will be finalized or executed.
G.When MOA is no longer in effect. This MOA is effective until one year after the last date
on which any Opioid Settlement Funds are being spent by the Parties pursuant to the
National Settlement Agreements and any Bankruptcy Resolution.
H.No waiver for failure to exercise. The failure of a Party to exercise any rights under this
MOA will not be deemed to be a waiver of any right or any future rights.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 17
13
I.No effect on authority of Parties. Nothing in this MOA should be construed to limit the
power or authority of the State of Minnesota, the Attorney General, or the Local
Governments, except as expressly set forth herein.
J.Signing and execution. This MOA may be executed in counterparts, each of which
constitutes an original, and all of which constitute one and the same agreement. This MOA
may be executed by facsimile or electronic copy in any image format. Each Party
represents that all procedures necessary to authorize such Party’s execution of this MOA
have been performed and that the person signing for such Party has been authorized to
execute the MOA in an official capacity that binds the Party.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 18
14
This Minnesota Opioids State-Subdivision Memorandum of Agreement is signed
this ___day of ____________, ______ by:
____________________________________________
Name and Title: _______________________________
On behalf of: _________________________________
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 19
1
EXHIBIT A
List of Opioid Remediation Uses
Settlement fund recipients shall choose from among abatement strategies, including but not
limited to those listed in this Exhibit. The programs and strategies listed in this Exhibit are not
exclusive, and fund recipients shall have flexibility to modify their abatement approach as
needed and as new uses are discovered.
PART ONE: TREATMENT
A.TREAT OPIOID USE DISORDER (OUD)
Support treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (“OUD”) and any co-occurring Substance Use
Disorder or Mental Health (“SUD/MH”) conditions through evidence-based or evidence-
informed programs 5 or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, those that:6
1.Expand availability of treatment for OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions, including all forms of Medication for Opioid Use Disorder
(“MOUD”)7 approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
2.Support and reimburse evidence-based services that adhere to the American
Society of Addiction Medicine (“ASAM”) continuum of care for OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions.
3.Expand telehealth to increase access to treatment for OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, including MOUD, as well as counseling, psychiatric
support, and other treatment and recovery support services.
4.Improve oversight of Opioid Treatment Programs (“OTPs”) to assure evidence-
based or evidence-informed practices such as adequate methadone dosing and low
threshold approaches to treatment.
5 Use of the terms “evidence-based,” “evidence-informed,” or “best practices” shall not limit the
ability of recipients to fund innovative services or those built on culturally specific needs. Rather,
recipients are encouraged to support culturally appropriate services and programs for persons with
OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
6 As used in this Exhibit, words like “expand,” “fund,” “provide” or the like shall not indicate a
preference for new or existing programs.
7 Historically, pharmacological treatment for opioid use disorder was referred to as “Medication-
Assisted Treatment” (“MAT”). It has recently been determined that the better term is “Medication
for Opioid Use Disorder” (“MOUD”). This Exhibit will use “MOUD” going forward. Use of the
term MOUD is not intended to and shall in no way limit abatement programs or strategies now or
into the future as new strategies and terminology evolve.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 20
2
5.Support mobile intervention, treatment, and recovery services, offered by
qualified professionals and service providers, such as peer recovery coaches, for
persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions and for persons
who have experienced an opioid overdose.
6.Provide treatment of trauma for individuals with OUD (e.g., violence, sexual
assault, human trafficking, or adverse childhood experiences) and family
members (e.g., surviving family members after an overdose or overdose fatality),
and training of health care personnel to identify and address such trauma.
7.Support detoxification (detox) and withdrawal management services for people
with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, including but not limited to
medical detox, referral to treatment, or connections to other services or supports.
8.Provide training on MOUD for health care providers, first responders, students, or
other supporting professionals, such as peer recovery coaches or recovery
outreach specialists, including telementoring to assist community-based providers
in rural or underserved areas.
9.Support workforce development for addiction professionals who work with
persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH or mental health conditions.
10.Offer fellowships for addiction medicine specialists for direct patient care,
instructors, and clinical research for treatments.
11.Offer scholarships and supports for certified addiction counselors, licensed
alcohol and drug counselors, licensed clinical social workers, licensed mental
health counselors, and other mental and behavioral health practitioners or
workers, including peer recovery coaches, peer recovery supports, and treatment
coordinators, involved in addressing OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH or
mental health conditions, including, but not limited to, training, scholarships,
fellowships, loan repayment programs, continuing education, licensing fees, or
other incentives for providers to work in rural or underserved areas.
12.Provide funding and training for clinicians to obtain a waiver under the federal
Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (“DATA 2000”) to prescribe MOUD for
OUD, and provide technical assistance and professional support to clinicians who
have obtained a DATA 2000 waiver.
13.Dissemination of web-based training curricula, such as the American Academy of
Addiction Psychiatry’s Provider Clinical Support Service–Opioids web-based
training curriculum and motivational interviewing.
14.Develop and disseminate new curricula, such as the American Academy of
Addiction Psychiatry’s Provider Clinical Support Service for Medication–
Assisted Treatment.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 21
3
B.SUPPORT PEOPLE IN TREATMENT AND RECOVERY
Support people in recovery from OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions
through evidence-based or evidence-informed programs or strategies that may include,
but are not limited to, the programs or strategies that:
1.Provide comprehensive wrap-around services to individuals with OUD and any
co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, including housing, transportation, education,
job placement, job training, or childcare.
2.Provide the full continuum of care of treatment and recovery services for OUD
and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, including supportive housing, peer
support services and counseling, community navigators, case management, and
connections to community-based services.
3.Provide counseling, peer-support, recovery case management and residential
treatment with access to medications for those who need it to persons with OUD
and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
4.Provide access to housing for people with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions, including supportive housing, recovery housing, housing assistance
programs, training for housing providers, or recovery housing programs that allow
or integrate FDA-approved medication with other support services.
5.Provide community support services, including social and legal services, to assist
in deinstitutionalizing persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions.
6.Support or expand peer-recovery centers, which may include support groups,
social events, computer access, or other services for persons with OUD and any
co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
7.Provide or support transportation to treatment or recovery programs or services
for persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
8.Provide employment training or educational services for persons in treatment for
or recovery from OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
9.Identify successful recovery programs such as physician, pilot, and college
recovery programs, and provide support and technical assistance to increase the
number and capacity of high-quality programs to help those in recovery.
10.Engage non-profits, faith-based communities, and community coalitions to
support people in treatment and recovery and to support family members in their
efforts to support the person with OUD in the family.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 22
4
11.Provide training and development of procedures for government staff to
appropriately interact and provide social and other services to individuals with or
in recovery from OUD, including reducing stigma.
12.Support stigma reduction efforts regarding treatment and support for persons with
OUD, including reducing the stigma on effective treatment.
13.Create or support culturally appropriate services and programs for persons with
OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, including but not limited to new
Americans, African Americans, and American Indians.
14.Create and/or support recovery high schools.
15.Hire or train behavioral health workers to provide or expand any of the services or
supports listed above.
C.CONNECT PEOPLE WHO NEED HELP TO THE HELP THEY NEED
(CONNECTIONS TO CARE)
Provide connections to care for people who have—or are at risk of developing—OUD
and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions through evidence-based or evidence-informed
programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, those that:
1.Ensure that health care providers are screening for OUD and other risk factors and
know how to appropriately counsel and treat (or refer if necessary) a patient for
OUD treatment.
2.Fund Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (“SBIRT”)
programs to reduce the transition from use to disorders, including SBIRT services
to pregnant women who are uninsured or not eligible for Medicaid.
3.Provide training and long-term implementation of SBIRT in key systems (health,
schools, colleges, criminal justice, and probation), with a focus on youth and
young adults when transition from misuse to opioid disorder is common.
4.Purchase automated versions of SBIRT and support ongoing costs of the
technology.
5.Expand services such as navigators and on-call teams to begin MOUD in hospital
emergency departments.
6.Provide training for emergency room personnel treating opioid overdose patients
on post-discharge planning, including community referrals for MOUD, recovery
case management or support services.
7.Support hospital programs that transition persons with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, or persons who have experienced an opioid overdose, into
clinically appropriate follow-up care through a bridge clinic or similar approach.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 23
5
8.Support crisis stabilization centers that serve as an alternative to hospital
emergency departments for persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions or persons that have experienced an opioid overdose.
9.Support the work of Emergency Medical Systems, including peer support
specialists, to connect individuals to treatment or other appropriate services
following an opioid overdose or other opioid-related adverse event.
10.Provide funding for peer support specialists or recovery coaches in emergency
departments, detox facilities, recovery centers, recovery housing, or similar
settings; offer services, supports, or connections to care to persons with OUD and
any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions or to persons who have experienced an
opioid overdose.
11.Expand warm hand-off services to transition to recovery services.
12.Create or support school-based contacts that parents can engage with to seek
immediate treatment services for their child; and support prevention, intervention,
treatment, and recovery programs focused on young people.
13.Develop and support best practices on addressing OUD in the workplace.
14.Support assistance programs for health care providers with OUD.
15.Engage non-profits and the faith community as a system to support outreach for
treatment.
16.Support centralized call centers that provide information and connections to
appropriate services and supports for persons with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions.
D.ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE-INVOLVED PERSONS
Address the needs of persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions who
are involved in, are at risk of becoming involved in, or are transitioning out of the
criminal justice system through evidence-based or evidence-informed programs or
strategies that may include, but are not limited to, those that:
1.Support pre-arrest or pre-arraignment diversion and deflection strategies for
persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, including
established strategies such as:
1.Self-referral strategies such as the Angel Programs or the Police Assisted
Addiction Recovery Initiative (“PAARI”);
2.Active outreach strategies such as the Drug Abuse Response Team
(“DART”) model;
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 24
6
3.“Naloxone Plus” strategies, which work to ensure that individuals who
have received naloxone to reverse the effects of an overdose are then
linked to treatment programs or other appropriate services;
4.Officer prevention strategies, such as the Law Enforcement Assisted
Diversion (“LEAD”) model;
5.Officer intervention strategies such as the Leon County, Florida Adult
Civil Citation Network or the Chicago Westside Narcotics Diversion to
Treatment Initiative; or
6.Co-responder and/or alternative responder models to address OUD-related
911 calls with greater SUD expertise.
2.Support pre-trial services that connect individuals with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions to evidence-informed treatment, including
MOUD, and related services.
3.Support treatment and recovery courts that provide evidence-based options for
persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
4.Provide evidence-informed treatment, including MOUD, recovery support, harm
reduction, or other appropriate services to individuals with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions who are incarcerated in jail or prison.
5.Provide evidence-informed treatment, including MOUD, recovery support, harm
reduction, or other appropriate services to individuals with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions who are leaving jail or prison or have recently left
jail or prison, are on probation or parole, are under community corrections
supervision, or are in re-entry programs or facilities.
6.Support critical time interventions (“CTI”), particularly for individuals living with
dual-diagnosis OUD/serious mental illness, and services for individuals who face
immediate risks and service needs and risks upon release from correctional
settings.
7.Provide training on best practices for addressing the needs of criminal justice-
involved persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions to law
enforcement, correctional, or judicial personnel or to providers of treatment,
recovery, harm reduction, case management, or other services offered in
connection with any of the strategies described in this section.
E.ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THE PERINATAL POPULATION, CAREGIVERS,
AND FAMILIES, INCLUDING BABIES WITH NEONATAL OPIOID
WITHDRAWAL SYNDROME.
Address the needs of the perinatal population and caregivers with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions, and the needs of their families, including babies with
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 25
7
neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (“NOWS”), through evidence-based or evidence-
informed programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, those that:
1.Support evidence-based or evidence-informed treatment, including MOUD,
recovery services and supports, and prevention services for the perinatal
population—or individuals who could become pregnant—who have OUD and
any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, and other measures to educate and provide
support to caregivers and families affected by Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal
Syndrome.
2.Expand comprehensive evidence-based treatment and recovery services, including
MOUD, for uninsured individuals with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions for up to 12 months postpartum.
3.Provide training for obstetricians or other healthcare personnel who work with the
perinatal population and their families regarding treatment of OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions.
4.Expand comprehensive evidence-based treatment and recovery support for
NOWS babies; expand services for better continuum of care with infant-caregiver
dyad; and expand long-term treatment and services for medical monitoring of
NOWS babies and their caregivers and families.
5.Provide training to health care providers who work with the perinatal population
and caregivers on best practices for compliance with federal requirements that
children born with NOWS get referred to appropriate services and receive a plan
of safe care.
6.Provide child and family supports for caregivers with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, emphasizing the desire to keep families together.
7.Provide enhanced support for children and family members suffering trauma as a
result of addiction in the family; and offer trauma-informed behavioral health
treatment for adverse childhood events.
8.Offer home-based wrap-around services to persons with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions, including, but not limited to, parent skills
training.
9.Provide support for Children’s Services—Fund additional positions and services,
including supportive housing and other residential services, relating to children
being removed from the home and/or placed in foster care due to custodial opioid
use.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 26
8
PART TWO: PREVENTION
F.PREVENT OVER-PRESCRIBING AND ENSURE APPROPRIATE
PRESCRIBING AND DISPENSING OF OPIOIDS
Support efforts to prevent over-prescribing and ensure appropriate prescribing and
dispensing of opioids through evidence-based or evidence-informed programs or
strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following:
1.Funding medical provider education and outreach regarding best prescribing
practices for opioids consistent with the Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for
Chronic Pain from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including
providers at hospitals (academic detailing).
2.Training for health care providers regarding safe and responsible opioid
prescribing, dosing, and tapering patients off opioids.
3.Continuing Medical Education (CME) on appropriate prescribing of opioids.
4.Providing Support for non-opioid pain treatment alternatives, including training
providers to offer or refer to multi-modal, evidence-informed treatment of pain.
5.Supporting enhancements or improvements to Prescription Drug Monitoring
Programs (“PDMPs”), including, but not limited to, improvements that:
1.Increase the number of prescribers using PDMPs;
2.Improve point-of-care decision-making by increasing the quantity, quality,
or format of data available to prescribers using PDMPs, by improving the
interface that prescribers use to access PDMP data, or both; or
3.Enable states to use PDMP data in support of surveillance or intervention
strategies, including MOUD referrals and follow-up for individuals
identified within PDMP data as likely to experience OUD in a manner that
complies with all relevant privacy and security laws and rules.
6.Ensuring PDMPs incorporate available overdose/naloxone deployment data,
including the United States Department of Transportation’s Emergency Medical
Technician overdose database in a manner that complies with all relevant privacy
and security laws and rules.
7.Increasing electronic prescribing to prevent diversion or forgery.
8.Educating dispensers on appropriate opioid dispensing.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 27
9
G.PREVENT MISUSE OF OPIOIDS
Support efforts to discourage or prevent misuse of opioids through evidence-based or
evidence-informed programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
1.Funding media campaigns to prevent opioid misuse, including but not limited to
focusing on risk factors and early interventions.
2.Corrective advertising or affirmative public education campaigns based on
evidence.
3.Public education relating to drug disposal.
4.Drug take-back disposal or destruction programs.
5.Funding community anti-drug coalitions that engage in drug prevention efforts.
6.Supporting community coalitions in implementing evidence-informed prevention,
such as reduced social access and physical access, stigma reduction—including
staffing, educational campaigns, support for people in treatment or recovery, or
training of coalitions in evidence-informed implementation, including the
Strategic Prevention Framework developed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (“SAMHSA”).
7.Engaging non-profits and faith-based communities as systems to support
prevention.
8.Funding evidence-based prevention programs in schools or evidence-informed
school and community education programs and campaigns for students, families,
school employees, school athletic programs, parent-teacher and student
associations, and others.
9.School-based or youth-focused programs or strategies that have demonstrated
effectiveness in preventing drug misuse and seem likely to be effective in
preventing the uptake and use of opioids.
10.Create or support community-based education or intervention services for
families, youth, and adolescents at risk for OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions.
11.Support evidence-informed programs or curricula to address mental health needs
of young people who may be at risk of misusing opioids or other drugs, including
emotional modulation and resilience skills.
12.Support greater access to mental health services and supports for young people,
including services and supports provided by school nurses, behavioral health
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 28
10
workers or other school staff, to address mental health needs in young people that
(when not properly addressed) increase the risk of opioid or another drug misuse.
H.PREVENT OVERDOSE DEATHS AND OTHER HARMS (HARM REDUCTION)
Support efforts to prevent or reduce overdose deaths or other opioid-related harms
through evidence-based or evidence-informed programs or strategies that may include,
but are not limited to, the following:
1.Increased availability and distribution of naloxone and other drugs that treat
overdoses for first responders, overdose patients, individuals with OUD and their
friends and family members, schools, community navigators and outreach
workers, persons being released from jail or prison, or other members of the
general public.
2.Public health entities providing free naloxone to anyone in the community.
3.Training and education regarding naloxone and other drugs that treat overdoses
for first responders, overdose patients, patients taking opioids, families, schools,
community support groups, and other members of the general public.
4.Enabling school nurses and other school staff to respond to opioid overdoses, and
provide them with naloxone, training, and support.
5.Expanding, improving, or developing data tracking software and applications for
overdoses/naloxone revivals.
6.Public education relating to emergency responses to overdoses.
7.Public education relating to immunity and Good Samaritan laws.
8.Educating first responders regarding the existence and operation of immunity and
Good Samaritan laws.
9.Syringe service programs and other evidence-informed programs to reduce harms
associated with intravenous drug use, including supplies, staffing, space, peer
support services, referrals to treatment, fentanyl checking, connections to care,
and the full range of harm reduction and treatment services provided by these
programs.
10.Expanding access to testing and treatment for infectious diseases such as HIV and
Hepatitis C resulting from intravenous opioid use.
11.Supporting mobile units that offer or provide referrals to harm reduction services,
treatment, recovery supports, health care, or other appropriate services to persons
that use opioids or persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 29
11
12.Providing training in harm reduction strategies to health care providers, students,
peer recovery coaches, recovery outreach specialists, or other professionals that
provide care to persons who use opioids or persons with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions.
13.Supporting screening for fentanyl in routine clinical toxicology testing.
PART THREE: OTHER STRATEGIES
I.FIRST RESPONDERS
In addition to items in section C, D and H relating to first responders, support the
following:
1.Law enforcement expenditures related to the opioid epidemic.
2.Education of law enforcement or other first responders regarding appropriate
practices and precautions when dealing with fentanyl or other drugs.
3.Provision of wellness and support services for first responders and others who
experience secondary trauma associated with opioid-related emergency events.
J.LEADERSHIP, PLANNING AND COORDINATION
Support efforts to provide leadership, planning, coordination, facilitations, training and
technical assistance to abate the opioid epidemic through activities, programs, or
strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following:
1.Statewide, regional, local or community regional planning to identify root causes
of addiction and overdose, goals for reducing harms related to the opioid
epidemic, and areas and populations with the greatest needs for treatment
intervention services, and to support training and technical assistance and other
strategies to abate the opioid epidemic described in this opioid abatement strategy
list.
2.A dashboard to (a) share reports, recommendations, or plans to spend opioid
settlement funds; (b) to show how opioid settlement funds have been spent; (c) to
report program or strategy outcomes; or (d) to track, share or visualize key opioid-
or health-related indicators and supports as identified through collaborative
statewide, regional, local or community processes.
3.Invest in infrastructure or staffing at government or not-for-profit agencies to
support collaborative, cross-system coordination with the purpose of preventing
overprescribing, opioid misuse, or opioid overdoses, treating those with OUD and
any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, supporting them in treatment or recovery,
connecting them to care, or implementing other strategies to abate the opioid
epidemic described in this opioid abatement strategy list.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 30
12
4.Provide resources to staff government oversight and management of opioid
abatement programs.
5.Support multidisciplinary collaborative approaches consisting of, but not limited
to, public health, public safety, behavioral health, harm reduction, and others at
the state, regional, local, nonprofit, and community level to maximize collective
impact.
K.TRAINING
In addition to the training referred to throughout this document, support training to abate
the opioid epidemic through activities, programs, or strategies that may include, but are
not limited to, those that:
1.Provide funding for staff training or networking programs and services to improve
the capability of government, community, and not-for-profit entities to abate the
opioid crisis.
2.Support infrastructure and staffing for collaborative cross-system coordination to
prevent opioid misuse, prevent overdoses, and treat those with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions, or implement other strategies to abate the opioid
epidemic described in this opioid abatement strategy list (e.g., health care,
primary care, pharmacies, PDMPs, etc.).
L.RESEARCH
Support opioid abatement research that may include, but is not limited to, the following:
1.Monitoring, surveillance, data collection and evaluation of programs and
strategies described in this opioid abatement strategy list.
2.Research non-opioid treatment of chronic pain.
3.Research on improved service delivery for modalities such as SBIRT that
demonstrate promising but mixed results in populations vulnerable to
opioid use disorders.
4.Research on novel harm reduction and prevention efforts such as the
provision of fentanyl test strips.
5.Research on innovative supply-side enforcement efforts such as improved
detection of mail-based delivery of synthetic opioids.
6.Expanded research on swift/certain/fair models to reduce and deter opioid
misuse within criminal justice populations that build upon promising
approaches used to address other substances (e.g., Hawaii HOPE and
Dakota 24/7).
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 31
13
7.Epidemiological surveillance of OUD-related behaviors in critical
populations, including individuals entering the criminal justice system,
including, but not limited to approaches modeled on the Arrestee Drug
Abuse Monitoring (“ADAM”) system.
8.Qualitative and quantitative research regarding public health risks and
harm reduction opportunities within illicit drug markets, including surveys
of market participants who sell or distribute illicit opioids.
9.Geospatial analysis of access barriers to MOUD and their association with
treatment engagement and treatment outcomes.
M.POST-MORTEM
1.Toxicology tests for the range of opioids, including synthetic opioids, seen in
overdose deaths as well as newly evolving synthetic opioids infiltrating the drug
supply.
2.Toxicology method development and method validation for the range of synthetic
opioids observed now and in the future, including the cost of installation,
maintenance, repairs and training of capital equipment.
3.Autopsies in cases of overdose deaths resulting from opioids and synthetic
opioids.
4.Additional storage space/facilities for bodies directly related to opioid or synthetic
opioid related deaths.
5.Comprehensive death investigations for individuals where a death is caused by or
suspected to have been caused by an opioid or synthetic opioid overdose, whether
intentional or accidental (overdose fatality reviews).
6.Indigent burial for unclaimed remains resulting from overdose deaths.
7.Navigation-to-care services for individuals with opioid use disorder who are
encountered by the medical examiner’s office as either family and/or social
network members of decedents dying of opioid overdose.
8.Epidemiologic data management and reporting to public health and public safety
stakeholders regarding opioid overdose fatalities.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 32
1
EXHIBIT B
Local Abatement Funds Allocation
Subdivision Allocation Percentage
AITKIN COUNTY 0.5760578506020%
Andover city 0.1364919450741%
ANOKA COUNTY 5.0386504680954%
Apple Valley city 0.2990817344560%
BECKER COUNTY 0.6619330684437%
BELTRAMI COUNTY 0.7640787092763%
BENTON COUNTY 0.6440948102319%
BIG STONE COUNTY 0.1194868774775%
Blaine city 0.4249516912759%
Bloomington city 0.4900195550092%
BLUE EARTH COUNTY 0.6635420704652%
Brooklyn Center city 0.1413853902225%
Brooklyn Park city 0.2804136234778%
BROWN COUNTY 0.3325325415732%
Burnsville city 0.5135361296508%
CARLTON COUNTY 0.9839591749060%
CARVER COUNTY 1.1452829659572%
CASS COUNTY 0.8895681513437%
CHIPPEWA COUNTY 0.2092611794436%
CHISAGO COUNTY 0.9950193750117%
CLAY COUNTY 0.9428475281726%
CLEARWATER COUNTY 0.1858592042741%
COOK COUNTY 0.1074594959729%
Coon Rapids city 0.5772642444915%
Cottage Grove city 0.2810994719143%
COTTONWOOD COUNTY 0.1739065270025%
CROW WING COUNTY 1.1394859174804%
DAKOTA COUNTY 4.4207140602835%
DODGE COUNTY 0.2213963257778%
DOUGLAS COUNTY 0.6021779472345%
Duluth city 1.1502115379896%
Eagan city 0.3657951576014%
Eden Prairie city 0.2552171572659%
Edina city 0.1973054822135%
FARIBAULT COUNTY 0.2169409335358%
FILLMORE COUNTY 0.2329591105316%
FREEBORN COUNTY 0.3507169823793%
GOODHUE COUNTY 0.5616542387089%
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 33
2
Subdivision Allocation Percentage
GRANT COUNTY 0.0764556498477%
HENNEPIN COUNTY 19.0624622261821%
HOUSTON COUNTY 0.3099019273452%
HUBBARD COUNTY 0.4582368775192%
Inver Grove Heights city 0.2193400520297%
ISANTI COUNTY 0.7712992707537%
ITASCA COUNTY 1.1406408131328%
JACKSON COUNTY 0.1408950443531%
KANABEC COUNTY 0.3078966749987%
KANDIYOHI COUNTY 0.1581167542252%
KITTSON COUNTY 0.0812834506382%
KOOCHICHING COUNTY 0.2612581865885%
LAC QUI PARLE COUNTY 0.0985665133485%
LAKE COUNTY 0.1827750320696%
LAKE OF THE WOODS COUNTY 0.1123105027592%
Lakeville city 0.2822249627090%
LE SUEUR COUNTY 0.3225703347466%
LINCOLN COUNTY 0.1091919983965%
LYON COUNTY 0.2935118186364%
MAHNOMEN COUNTY 0.1416417687922%
Mankato city 0.3698584320930%
Maple Grove city 0.1814019046900%
Maplewood city 0.1875101678223%
MARSHALL COUNTY 0.1296352091057%
MARTIN COUNTY 0.2543064014046%
MCLEOD COUNTY 0.1247104517575%
MEEKER COUNTY 0.3744031515243%
MILLE LACS COUNTY 0.9301506695846%
Minneapolis city 4.8777618689374%
Minnetonka city 0.1967231070869%
Moorhead city 0.4337377037965%
MORRISON COUNTY 0.7178981419196%
MOWER COUNTY 0.5801769148506%
MURRAY COUNTY 0.1348775389165%
NICOLLET COUNTY 0.1572381052896%
NOBLES COUNTY 0.1562005111775%
NORMAN COUNTY 0.1087596675165%
North St. Paul city 0.0575844069340%
OLMSTED COUNTY 1.9236715094724%
OTTER TAIL COUNTY 0.8336175418789%
PENNINGTON COUNTY 0.3082576394945%
PINE COUNTY 0.5671222706703%
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 34
3
Subdivision Allocation Percentage
PIPESTONE COUNTY 0.1535154503112%
Plymouth city 0.1762541472591%
POLK COUNTY 0.8654291473909%
POPE COUNTY 0.1870129873102%
Proctor city 0.0214374127881%
RAMSEY COUNTY 7.1081424150498%
RED LAKE COUNTY 0.0532649128178%
REDWOOD COUNTY 0.2809842366614%
RENVILLE COUNTY 0.2706888807449%
RICE COUNTY 0.2674764397830%
Richfield city 0.2534018444052%
Rochester city 0.7363082848763%
ROCK COUNTY 0.2043437335735%
ROSEAU COUNTY 0.2517872793025%
Roseville city 0.1721905548771%
Savage city 0.1883576635033%
SCOTT COUNTY 1.3274301645797%
Shakopee city 0.2879873611373%
SHERBURNE COUNTY 1.2543449471994%
SIBLEY COUNTY 0.2393480708456%
ST LOUIS COUNTY 4.7407767169807%
St. Cloud city 0.7330089009029%
St. Louis Park city 0.1476314588229%
St. Paul city 3.7475206797569%
STEARNS COUNTY 2.4158085321227%
STEELE COUNTY 0.3969975262520%
STEVENS COUNTY 0.1439474275223%
SWIFT COUNTY 0.1344167568499%
TODD COUNTY 0.4180909816781%
TRAVERSE COUNTY 0.0903964133868%
WABASHA COUNTY 0.3103038996965%
WADENA COUNTY 0.2644094336575%
WASECA COUNTY 0.2857912156338%
WASHINGTON COUNTY 3.0852862512586%
WATONWAN COUNTY 0.1475626355615%
WILKIN COUNTY 0.0937962507119%
WINONA COUNTY 0.7755267356126%
Woodbury city 0.4677270171716%
WRIGHT COUNTY 1.6985269385427%
YELLOW MEDICINE COUNTY 0.1742264836427%
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 35
Minnesota Opioid Settlement Executive Summary
Minnesota has joined a broad multistate coalition in reaching nationwide settlements with the three
largest opioid distributors – AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, and McKesson – and opioid
manufacturer Johnson & Johnson. The settlements resolve investigations and lawsuits against
these companies for their role in the opioid crisis. If the settlements are fully adopted nationally,
the distributors will pay $21 billion over 18 years and Johnson & Johnson will pay $5 billion over
10 years. Most states have already joined the settlements, but for the agreements to become
effective, a critical mass of cities and counties must sign onto the settlements by January 2, 2022.
Settlement Structure
If a critical mass of subdivisions sign on and the settlements become effective:
Minnesota will be eligible to receive more than $296 million over 18 years. Up to $222
million of that will be paid directly to Minnesota cities and counties. The total amount of
payments to Minnesota will be determined by the overall degree of participation by cities
and counties. The more cities and counties that join, the more money everyone in
Minnesota will receive. Distribution within Minnesota will be determined by the state-
subdivision agreement (see below).
o Each state’s share of the funding was determined by agreement among the states
using a formula that takes into account the impact of the crisis on the state—the
number of overdose deaths, the number of residents with substance use disorder,
and the number of opioids prescribed—and the population of the state.
Payments will begin to flow to the state and cities and counties as soon as April 2022. The
Johnson & Johnson settlement provides for payments to be accelerated if cities and
counties sign on early.
The vast majority of the settlement funds must be used to support any of a wide variety of
strategies to fight the opioid crisis. The Attorney General’s Office convened an expert
panel of local, state, and community providers with experience and expertise in public
health and delivery of health care services to determine the best and most effective use of
the settlement funds. The panel selected a comprehensive list of future opioid abatement
and remediation programs that will benefit all regions of the state.
In addition to the financial components, the settlements also require the companies to make
changes in how opioids are distributed and sold. The companies will be subject to far more
oversight and accountability throughout that process to prevent deliveries of opioids to
pharmacies where diversion and misuse occur. The distributors will be required to
establish and fund a centralized, independent clearinghouse using detailed data analytics
to keep close track of opioid distribution throughout the country and raise red flags for
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 36
2
suspicious orders. Johnson & Johnson will be prohibited from selling or promoting opioids
for ten years.
Minnesota Framework
Minnesota has been preparing for these settlements and the opportunity they present to deliver
substantial funding to needed abatement and remediation programs. In 2019, the Legislature
passed the Opiate Epidemic Response bill, creating a special opioid abatement account and the
Opioid Epidemic Response Advisory Council, which will oversee the spending of the state’s
share of settlement funds.
Additionally, a months-long partnership between the state and cities and counties has resulted in
a state-subdivision agreement (or “Minnesota Memorandum of Agreement”) that is designed to
maximize the settlement funds coming to the State of Minnesota and get them to where they are
needed most. The state-subdivision agreement details how the settlement money will be
allocated within the state and also sets out a structure for the distribution of opioid abatement
funds from pending bankruptcy plans with Purdue Pharma and Mallinckrodt. A copy of the
state-subdivision agreement can be found on the Attorney General’s website at
www.ag.state.mn.us/opioids.
Pursuant to the state-subdivision agreement—and assuming maximum payments—
approximately $296 million in funds paid to Minnesota and its cities and counties from the
Distributor and Johnson & Johnson settlements, as well as tens of millions of additional dollars
from the Purdue Pharma and Mallinckrodt bankruptcies, will be allocated as follows:
Local Government Abatement Fund. Seventy-five percent (75%) of the abatement
funds will be paid directly to counties and certain municipalities that participate in the
settlement. Local government funds will be directly allocated to all participating
counties, and all participating municipalities that: (a) have populations of 30,000 or more,
(b) have filed lawsuits against the settling defendants, or (c) have public health
departments. To promote efficiency in the use of abatement funds and limit the
administratively burdensome disbursements of amounts that are too small to add a
meaningful abatement response, smaller, non-litigating municipalities will not receive a
direct allocation of settlement funds. The allocation percentages for each county and
municipality were determined by counsel for the subdivisions negotiating the national
settlement agreements and were calculated using data reflect the impact of the opioid
crisis on the subdivision.
State Fund. Twenty-five percent (25) of the abatement funds will be paid directly to the
State. Pursuant to state law, these funds will go into the special opioid abatement account
to be overseen and distributed by the Opioid Epidemic Response Advisory Council.
Under current law, after certain appropriations are made, approximately 50% of the funds
paid into the opioid abatement account are distributed to county social service agencies to
provide child protection services to children and families who are affected by addiction.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 37
3
The state-subdivision agreement anticipates a change to this law to allow counties to
receive their share of the settlement funds directly. The agreement requires the state and
subdivisions to work together to achieve this change in law during the 2022 legislative
session, and includes a provision changing the allocation between state and local
governments if the statutory change is not accomplished.
Some municipalities in Minnesota retained attorneys on a contingency fee basis to file lawsuits
against the opioid companies. The national settlements establish an Attorney Fee Fund for
attorneys representing cities and counties that join the settlements. The settlements require
attorneys who recover from this fund to waive enforcement of their contingency fee agreements.
The state-subdivision agreement includes a Backstop Fund, which will be overseen by a Special
Master, that will allow for the payment of reasonable attorney fees to private attorneys to make
up for the difference between what they receive from the national fund and their contingency fee
agreements, which are capped at 15%. Any funds that remain in the Backstop Fund after
payment of reasonable attorney fees will revert to cities and counties for abatement.
Subdivision Participation
It is vital for subdivisions to join the settlements during the initial sign-on period, which ends
January 2, 2022. First, very high levels of subdivision participation nationally are necessary for
the companies to move forward with the settlements and for everyone to benefit from them.
Second, cities or counties cannot receive any portion of the direct settlement funds if they do not
sign on to the settlements. Third, in order to maximize the settlement payments that come to
Minnesota, full joinder by certain categories of counties and cities is needed. Finally, joinder
during the initial sign-on period maximizes the amount of funds available to an individual city or
county.
Next Steps
Now: Cities and counties should have received a settlement notice with additional information
about the sign on process, which begins by registering on the national settlement website:
www.nationalopioidsettlement.com. Registering is a necessary step toward participation in the
settlements. The notice each subdivision received by mail and email provides its unique
subdivision registration code, which must be used to register. Registering does not mean that the
subdivision has accepted the terms of the national settlement agreements or the state-subdivision
agreement.
Next: Each subdivision, via its local legislative body, should adopt a resolution that authorizes a
representative of the subdivision to execute Minnesota’s state-subdivision agreement and both
subdivision settlement participation forms (Distributors and Johnson & Johnson), which are
required to join the settlements. Cities and counties can obtain model resolutions by contacting
the Association of Minnesota Counties or the League of Minnesota Cities. The resolutions
should be submitted to the subdivisions’ legislative body (i.e., county commission or city
council) for approval.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 38
4
By January 2, 2022: After the appropriate resolution is passed by each subdivision, the
authorized representative should sign the Minnesota Memorandum of Agreement, the Distributor
Agreement, and the Johnson & Johnson Agreement. The Distributor and Johnson & Johnson
agreements can be signed electronically via DocuSign. Subdivisions should receive an email
with a link to sign electronically upon registering at www.nationalopioidsettlement.com.
Subdivisions are encouraged to sign onto the Minnesota Memorandum of Agreement and the
settlement agreements as soon as possible to avoid scheduling challenges and to ensure that we
meet the national subdivision participation threshold for the settlements to become effective.
Additional information about the settlements and how they are implemented in Minnesota can be
found on the Attorney General’s website: www.ag.state.mn.us/opioids. Subdivisions that are
represented by an attorney with respect to opioid claims should consult with their attorney.
Additionally, specific questions for the Attorney General’s Office can be emailed to
opioids@ag.state.mn.us, or left via voicemail at (612) 429-7126.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 39
Minnesota Opioid State-Subdivision Agreement Overview
What It Is
The Minnesota Memorandum of Agreement (MN MOA) governs how Minnesota will distribute
settlement funds from two national settlements with opioid distributors McKesson, Cardinal
Health, and AmerisourceBergen and opioid manufacturer Johnson & Johnson. These settlements
could bring more than $296 million to Minnesota over an 18-year period to support state and local
efforts to fight the opioid epidemic.1
How It Works
Enables Minnesota to maximize resources to fight the epidemic. For Minnesota to receive the
maximum payout under the two national settlements, cities and counties must join the state and
sign on to the MN MOA and the settlement agreements. To maximize resources flowing to
communities on the front lines of the epidemic, the MN MOA directs settlement funds as follows:
75 percent to local governments, including all counties and 33 cities.
25 percent to the state, to be overseen and distributed by the Opioid Epidemic Response
Advisory Council.
Dedicates funds to addressing the opioid epidemic. The Attorney General’s Office convened
an expert panel of local, state, and community providers with experience and expertise in public
health and delivery of health care services to determine the best and most effective use of the
settlement funds. The panel selected a comprehensive list of future opioid abatement and
remediation programs to which these settlement funds must be dedicated.
Why It Matters
Personal Cost. More than 5,400 Minnesotans have died of opioid overdoses since 2000. The
epidemic has torn families apart and ravaged communities, particularly American Indian
populations and communities of color. Individuals, families, and communities continue to suffer,
as the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a surge in both fatal and nonfatal overdose deaths.
Accountability. Opioid manufacturers and distributors created and fueled the opioid epidemic
with irresponsible and misleading marketing and inadequate monitoring of these dangerous
products. In addition to potentially over $296 million to fight the epidemic, settlements with the
three largest drug distributors in the country, as well as one of the largest manufacturers, will shine
a light on these companies’ conduct and help make sure nothing like this ever happens again.
1 The MN MOA also governs how opioid abatement funds from the bankruptcy resolutions with
Purdue Pharma and Mallinckrodt are distributed within Minnesota. The $296 million figure does
not include payments from the Purdue Pharma and Mallinckrodt bankruptcies, which are not yet
finalized.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 40
1
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT SETTLEMENTS WITH OPIOID
DISTRIBUTORS AND JOHNSON & JOHNSON
This document is intended to assist Minnesota subdivisions evaluating the settlement agreements
resolving opioid claims with the three largest opioid distributors—McKesson, Cardinal Health,
and AmerisourceBergen (“Distributors”)—and opioid manufacturer Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and
its parent company, Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) (collectively, the “Settlements”). This document
is subject to being updated as additional information is gathered. The terms of the Settlements and
the Minnesota Opioids State-Subdivision Memorandum of Agreement (“MN MOA”) are
controlling and are not amended or in any way affected by this document. Copies of these
settlements, agreement, and other materials can be found at the Attorney General’s website:
www.ag.state.mn.us/opioids.
1.My city or county received a notice in the mail and by email about two opioid
settlements. What do we do with this and how do we join the Settlements?
The notice your city or county received relates to two Settlements resolving opioid claims
against the country’s three largest drug distributors, McKesson, Cardinal Health, and
AmerisourceBergen, and opioid manufacturer Johnson & Johnson for their role in the
opioid epidemic. The notice went out to all Minnesota counties, as well as cities that have
a population greater than 10,000 and those that have filed lawsuits against these companies.
Under the Settlements, Minnesota and its cities and counties stand to receive up to $296
million in Opioid Settlement Funds to fight the opioid crisis over the next 18 years, starting
in early to mid-2022. The more cities and counties that join, the more the Distributors and
J&J will pay under the Settlements.
The Notice you received should have a unique subdivision registration code. The Attorney
General’s Office also sent your city or county a letter attaching this same registration code.
Cities or counties must visit www.nationalopioidsettlement.com and use that code to
register to receive participation agreements for the Settlements. You will then receive
information about how to submit your Subdivision Settlement Participation Forms
electronically via DocuSign. You must submit two forms, one for each Settlement.
2.How large are the Settlements?
Under the terms of the Settlements, the Distributors and J&J will provide up to $26 billion
to states, cities, and counties throughout the country. The Distributors will make payments
over a period of 18 years, and J&J will make payments over nine years.
3.Is there a deadline for cities and counties to join the Settlements?
Yes. Cities and counties should complete their Subdivision Settlement Participation Forms
by January 2, 2022. Cities and counties that join after that date risk reducing the entire
amount that goes to the State of Minnesota as well as having their own payments reduced.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 41
2
4.How many Minnesota cities and counties are engaged in litigation against the
Distributors and J&J?
Twenty-six counties and seven cities have filed lawsuits against the Distributors and/or
J&J. Under the MN MOA (see additional information below), all 87 counties and every
city that meets the eligibility criteria would receive settlement payments regardless of
whether they filed lawsuits, but they must join the Settlements. The Settlements prohibit
payments to counties or cities that do not join the Settlements.
5.What is the status of these cases?
All Minnesota city and county cases have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings into a
Multi-District Litigation (MDL) in federal court in Cleveland, Ohio. The opioid MDL has
roughly 3,000 lawsuits from nearly every state. The lawsuits allege that opioid
manufacturers misrepresented the risks associated with prescription opioids; that opioid
distributors did not properly monitor shipments of prescription opioids to pharmacies
across the country; and that these actions contributed to the opioid epidemic that continues
to ravage Minnesota and the rest of the country. Until the Settlements are finalized, these
cases will remain pending.
6.Has the State of Minnesota joined the Settlements?
Yes. The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, together with the majority of state
Attorneys General across the country, has signed on to the Settlements. Those Attorneys
General, lawyers representing thousands of municipalities in the national opioid litigation,
and the Association of Minnesota Counties, League of Minnesota Cities, and the Coalition
of Greater Minnesota Cities strongly encourage cities and counties to join. Cities and
counties that join will be helping to bring additional abatement resources to communities
and families throughout the state for substance use prevention, harm reduction, treatment,
and recovery.
7.How much will Minnesota receive from the Settlements?
Minnesota is eligible to receive a maximum payment of approximately $296 million under
the Settlements with the Distributors and J&J. The settlement funds are allocated among
states based on population and the impact of the opioid crisis on each state, taking into
account several public health measures. The precise amount of settlement funds Minnesota
as a whole receives is highly dependent on the level of city and county participation and
the avoidance of penalties that would result from cities or counties filing new lawsuits.
8.What is the Minnesota Opioids State-Subdivision Memorandum of Agreement?
The MN MOA governs how Minnesota will distribute settlement funds from the
Settlements with Distributors and J&J. It also governs how opioid abatement funds from
the bankruptcy resolutions with Purdue Pharma and Mallinckrodt are distributed within
Minnesota. The Purdue Pharma and Mallinckrodt bankruptcies are not yet finalized, and
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 42
3
it is not yet known how much money will be coming to the state from these bankruptcies,
although the Attorney General’s Office expects the figure to be in the tens of millions.
9.Why is it so important to join the Settlements and the MN MOA?
The opioid epidemic has taken the lives of more than 5,400 Minnesotans since 2000. The
epidemic has torn families apart and ravaged communities, particularly American Indian
populations and communities of color. Individuals, families, and communities continue to
suffer, as the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a surge in both fatal and nonfatal overdose
deaths.
The epidemic was fueled by irresponsible marketing and inadequate monitoring on the part
of opioid makers and distributors. In addition to potentially over $296 million to fight the
epidemic, settlements with the Distributors and J&J will shine a light on these companies’
conduct and help make sure nothing like this ever happens again. The MN MOA is an
important step forward in holding these companies accountable and directing much-needed
resources to communities across the state.
10.What are the most important features of the MN MOA?
The Settlements require state and local governments to use the vast majority of settlement
funds to address the opioid epidemic. Consistent with this principle, the MN MOA
dedicates funds to that purpose. The Attorney General’s Office convened an expert panel
of local, state, and community providers with experience and expertise in public health and
delivery of health care services to determine the best and most effective use of the
settlement funds (the “Advisory Panel to the Attorney General on Distribution and
Allocation of Opioid Settlement Funds” or the “panel”). The panel selected a
comprehensive list of future opioid abatement and remediation programs to which these
settlement funds must be dedicated, whether those funds are received by the State, cities,
or counties.
The MN MOA also enables Minnesota to maximize resources to fight the epidemic. The
MN MOA was designed to incentivize cities and counties to join in order to earn the
maximum amount of payments from the Settlements. To maximize resources flowing to
communities on the front lines of the epidemic, the MN MOA directs settlement funds as
follows:
75 percent to local governments, including all counties and 33 cities.
25 percent to the state, to be overseen and distributed by the Opioid Epidemic
Response Advisory Council.
11. How does my city or county sign onto the MN MOA?
The county board, city council, or equivalent legislative body can pass a resolution stating
its intent to sign onto the MOA and directing the appropriate county or city official to
execute the MOA. Sample resolutions are available from the Association of Minnesota
Counties and the League of Minnesota Cities.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 43
4
12.If my city or county signs onto the MN MOA, does that mean it automatically signs
onto the Settlements with the Distributors or J&J?
No. A city or county that signs the MN MOA is agreeing to a framework for how
settlement funds will flow in the event the Settlements become effective. However, the
city or county must separately sign on to the Settlements in order to receive payments
pursuant to the MN MOA.
13.If my city or county joins the Settlements, will we receive direct payments?
It depends. All counties that join are set to receive direct allocation under the terms of the
MN MOA, as well as all cities that join and meet the following eligibility criteria:
Have a population of 30,000 or more, based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s Vintage
2019 population totals;
Have funded or otherwise managed an established health care or treatment
infrastructure (e.g., health department or similar agency); or
Have initiated litigation against the Distributors or J&J as of December 3, 2021.
The population threshold for non-litigating cities to receive a direct allocation of funds
recognizes that the efficient delivery of opioid abatement services is hindered if the funds
are divided into hundreds of small allocations. Even with potentially upwards of $300
million coming into Minnesota, allocating funds among several hundred smaller cities and
towns would result in minimal payments for most subdivisions, in many cases less than a
few dollars a year. For that same reason, under the MN MOA cities allocated a share may
elect to have their full share or a portion of their share instead directed to the county in
which the city is located.
Although not all cities will receive a direct allocation of opioid abatement funds, those
cities will still benefit from the opioid remediation efforts that take place in their
communities. Moreover, under the MN MOA, each county receiving opioid settlement
funds must consult annually with the cities in the county regarding use of the settlement
funds. Finally, cities that are not eligible for a direct share may also request grants for
opioid remediation programs from the state’s opioid remediation fund, which are
distributed via the Opioid Epidemic Response Advisory Council and the Department of
Human Services.
14.If my city or county joins, how much money will we receive?
Under the terms of the MN MOA, local governments (including cities and counties) that
join the Settlements will directly receive 75% of the total abatement funds, divided among
the counties and eligible cities in the percentages reflected in Exhibit B to the MN MOA.
The percentages reflected in Exhibit B are based upon the MDL’s Opioid Negotiation Class
Model. Experts and attorneys representing local governments in the MDL developed the
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 44
5
allocation model based on nationally available federal data on opioid use disorder,
overdose deaths, and opioid shipments into Minnesota, by region and community.
15.When will my city or county get payments?
Payments from the Settlements will begin to flow to the state and directly to cities and
counties as soon as April 2022. The Distributors will make payments over a period of 18
years, and J&J will make payments over nine years. The J&J settlement provides for
payments to be accelerated if cities and counties sign on early.
16.How much money will the State receive, and where will it go?
Under the terms of the MN MOA, the statewide abatement share is 25% of the total
abatement funds. By statute, these funds will go into a special opioid abatement account
and are designated to be used solely for opioid abatement purposes pursuant to the
Approved Uses in the MN MOA, overseen and distributed by the Opioid Epidemic
Response Advisory Council.1
17.What about attorney fees?
The state’s investigation and litigation against the opioid industry is handled by
government lawyers in the Attorney General’s Office. No money from these Settlements
will go to pay any state lawyers. Some cities and counties in Minnesota retained attorneys
on a contingency fee basis to file lawsuits against the opioid companies. The national
settlements establish an Attorney Fee Fund for attorneys representing cities and counties
that join the settlements. The settlements require attorneys who recover from this fund to
waive enforcement of their contingency fee agreements. The MN MOA includes a
Backstop Fund, which will be overseen by a Special Master, that will allow for the payment
of reasonable attorney fees to private attorneys to make up for the difference between what
they receive from the national fund and their contingency fee agreements, which are capped
at 15%. The Backstop Fund is funded by a percentage of the local government share of
settlement funds, and any funds that remain in the Backstop Fund after payment of
reasonable attorney fees will revert to cities and counties for abatement.
18.How will the money coming into Minnesota be tracked?
The Advisory Panel to the Attorney General on Distribution and Allocation of Opioid
Settlement Funds agreed upon a set of reporting and compliance recommendations to make
1 Under current law, after certain appropriations are made, approximately 50% of the funds paid
into the opioid abatement account are distributed to county social service agencies to provide child
protection services to children and families who are affected by addiction. The state-subdivision
agreement anticipates a change to this law to allow counties to receive their share of the settlement
funds directly. The agreement requires the state and subdivisions to work together to achieve this
change in law during the 2022 legislative session, and includes a provision changing the allocation
between state and local governments if the statutory change is not accomplished.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 45
6
sure that the abatement money coming into Minnesota is effectively tracked and spent on
strategies and programs that have a real impact in the state. The MN MOA will be
supplemented to include provisions that will be mutually agreed upon by the State and
cities and counties utilizing the panel’s recommendations.
19.Can a city join the Settlements even if it does not receive a direct allocation of
abatement funds?
Yes. The Settlements allow for all cities and counties to join, even ones that are not directly
allocated amounts from the 75% local government share. For cities with populations
greater than 10,000, joining the Settlements will assist Minnesota in earning the maximum
amount possible.
Non-litigating cities with populations under 10,000 were not sent notices and are not able
to use the DocuSign process, but may still want to join the Settlements. If such cities want
to join the settlements, they can contact the Attorney General’s Office to receive the
subdivision joinder forms by emailing opioids@ag.state.mn.us.
20.Does the MN MOA apply to matters other than the Distributor and J&J Settlements?
Yes. The MN MOA replaces default provisions in the Purdue Pharma L.P. and
Mallinckrodt plc bankruptcy plans. The Attorney General’s Office anticipates that the
Purdue Pharma and Mallinckrodt bankruptcy proceedings will provide tens of millions of
additional dollars to Minnesota to support state and local efforts to address the opioid
epidemic across the state. These funds will be distributed throughout the state according
to the provisions MN MOA, just like the settlement funds from the Distributor and J&J
Settlements.
21.Do the Settlements require the companies to do more than pay money?
Yes. In addition to paying billions of dollars, the companies are also required to make
changes in how opioids are distributed and sold. The companies will be subject to far more
oversight and accountability throughout that process to prevent deliveries of opioids to
pharmacies where diversion and misuse occur. The Distributors will be required to
establish and fund a centralized, independent clearinghouse using detailed data analytics
to keep close track of opioid distribution throughout the country and raise red flags for
suspicious orders. J&J will be prohibited from selling or promoting opioids for ten years.
22.How do the Settlements and the MN MOA relate to the McKinsey settlement that was
announced in February?
The McKinsey settlement is separate from the Settlements with the Distributors and J&J,
and from the Purdue and Mallinckrodt bankruptcy proceedings.
In February 2021, Attorney General Keith Ellison and other attorneys general from across
the country reached a $573 million settlement with one of the world’s largest consulting
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 46
7
firms, McKinsey & Company, over the company’s role in advising opioid companies how
to promote their drugs and profit from the opioid epidemic.
As part of the settlement with McKinsey, Minnesota will receive nearly $8 million, $6.6
million of which has already been paid. The remainder will be paid over four years. The
entire settlement sum will be placed into the special opioid abatement account and used to
abate the opioid crisis in the state.
23.Apart from the Distributors and J&J Settlements, the Purdue and Mallinckrodt
bankruptcy proceedings, and the recent McKinsey settlement, is there other opioid-
related litigation brought by state and local governments?
Yes. In addition to these cases, the Attorney General’s Office continues to be engaged in
multistate investigations and settlement negotiations with numerous other pharmaceutical
manufacturers and distributors for violations of state consumer protection laws. The Office
is leading nationwide efforts to ensure public disclosure of opioid-related documents,
which are designed to achieve accountability, transparency, and prevention of future
harm. The Office is also coordinating with the Opioid Epidemic Response Advisory
Council to ensure any potential settlement funds are used as effectively as possible
throughout Minnesota to remedy the ongoing opioid crisis.
24.Where can I get more information about the Settlements?
Cities or counties that hired attorneys to file opioid litigation should consult their attorneys.
Additional information on the Settlements can be found at the national settlement website,
www.nationalopioidsettlement.com, or the Attorney General’s website:
www.ag.state.mn.us/opioids. To speak with someone on the Attorney General’s opioids
team, email opioids@ag.state.mn.us or call (612) 429-7126 and leave a voicemail.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 47
Minnesota Opioids Settlement Checklist
Cities and counties must complete the following steps:
☐Register your city or county on the national settlement website:
www.nationalopioidsettlement.com.
a.Notice with a unique registration code was sent to cities and counties in late
September. If your city or county did not receive this notice or cannot find its
unique registration code and wishes to participate in the settlements, contact the
Attorney General’s Office.
b.Once registered, your designated contact will receive settlement participation
packets, including two (2) Subdivision Settlement Participation Forms – one for
each of the Distributors and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) settlements. The
settlement sign-on forms can be completed electronically via DocuSign.
☐Adopt a county board or city council resolution authorizing a representative of the
subdivision to execute the following:
a.The Minnesota Opioids State-Subdivision Memorandum of Agreement (MN
MOA)
b.The Distributor Subdivision Settlement Participation Form
c.The Janssen Subdivision Settlement Participation Form
☐Have the authorized representative execute the following documents:
a.The MN MOA
b. The Distributor Subdivision Settlement Participation Form (via DocuSign)
c.The Janssen Subdivision Settlement Participation Form (via DocuSign)
☐Return the following documents to the Attorney General’s Office by email to
opioids@ag.state.mn.us:
a.Copy of the completed resolution passed by your city or county
b. Executed signature page for the MN MOA
Additional information about the settlements and how they are implemented in Minnesota can be
found on the Attorney General’s website: www.ag.state.mn.us/opioids. Subdivisions that are
represented by an attorney with respect to opioid claims should consult with their attorney.
Additionally, specific questions for the Attorney General’s Office can be emailed to
opioids@ag.state.mn.us, or left via voicemail at (612) 429-7126.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Resolution authorizing participation in national opioids settlements Page 48
Meeting: Special city council
Meeting date: December 13, 2021
Action agenda item: 8a
Executive summary
Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital
improvement plan (CIP)
Recommended action:
• Motio n to adopt Resolution approving the 2022 budgets and authorizing the 2022 final
property tax levy.
• Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing the 2022 final HRA levy.
• Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing the 2022 final EDA levy.
• Motion to adopt Resolution approving the 2022-2031 capital improvement plan.
Policy consideration:
• Is the city council in support of setting the 2022 final property tax levy at $38,365,750,
which is a 5.58% increase over the 2021 property tax levy?
• Is the city council in support of setting the maximum HRA levy allowed by state statute at
$1,517,799?
• Is the council in support of setting an EDA levy in the amount of $500,000, which is lower
than the maximum allowable?
• Is the city council in support of setting the 2022 budgets for general, enterprise, internal
service, special revenue, and select capital project funds?
• Is the city council in support of setting the 2022-2031 capital improvement plan which is
updated on an annual basis?
Summary: Included is information pertaining to the adoption of the 2022 property tax levy,
budgets, HRA levy, EDA levy, and 2022-2031 CIP. Information is also provided on the tax
impacts to a residential homestead property.
Financial or budget considerations: The proposed tax levies, budgets, and utility rates will help
support city services, capital improvements, and debt service obligations for fiscal year 2022.
Strategic priority consideration: All areas of strategic priorities are supported by the city’s budget.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolutions
2022-2031 CIP project by funding source
Prepared by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP)
Discussion
Background: The 2022 budget was developed with the council’s strategic priorities, Vision 3.0,
and the comprehensive plan in mind. The budget addresses the need to maintain our
infrastructure (city roads, parks, building etc.), technology, debt service, and responsive and
high -quality service to the residents and businesses, which includes personnel costs for police,
fire and city staff.
• On April 19, 2021 staff and council met to review government accounting and how St
Louis Park’s accounting structure is set up. Also took a high level look at future
levy/budget assumptions.
• On May 10, 2021 staff and council met to start discussing budget assumptions. Debt,
CIP, and Long-Range Financial Management Plan were also discussed in relation to the
budget.
• At the June 14, 2021 study session, staff and council had a financial discussion on our
current fund health and the CARES act monies. In addition to recommendations for fund
balance transfers, staff brought forward an EDA levy and sales tax as options to raise
funds for future City needs. The council directed staff to investigate an EDA levy during
the budget process.
• At the July 12, 2021 meeting, the council received an update on the budget process and
tax impacts. The HRA and a proposed EDA levy was discussed.
• The Aug. 23, 2021 study session was a discussion on multiple levy increase levels and the
financial impacts long term. The council directed staff to prepare a preliminary property
tax levy change in the 6% range when compared to the 2021 final property tax levy. In
addition, the council directed staff to prepare the preliminary HRA levy at the 0.0185%
which is the maximum allowed by state statute and prepare a preliminary EDA levy for
$500,000.
• On Sept. 13, 2021 a written report was in the council packet with information on levy
(6.5% general, HRA, EDA) and tax impacts from the direction given to staff at the August
meeting.
• On Sept. 20,2021 the EDA and council adopted the 2022 preliminary HRA levy of
$1,517,799, preliminary EDA levy of $500,00. Also, the council adopted the 2022
preliminary property tax levy of $38,695,821, which is approximately 6.5% change over
the 2021 final property tax levy.
• On Oct. 11, 2021 the council reviewed the budget decisions to date, 2022 proposed
service levels, 2022-2026 capital improvement plan (CIP), and proposed utility rates.
• On Dec. 6, 2021 the council held the Truth and Taxation public hearing.
Budget communication: We continue to strive for the most transparent budget process
possible. Information is provided through the webpage and the city has an active e -mail
address for any questions that arise from residents. We received several e-mail comments this
year and included them in the public record for the truth in taxation hearing. This is in addition
to other communications, including the Park Perspective and a flyer insert in the Truth and
Taxation notices.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP)
Summary: 2022 preliminary adopted levy and updated 2022 levy
1. The 2022 preliminary property tax levy was adopted on Sept. 20 at $38,695,821, which is
approximately 6.5% more than the 2021 f inal Levy.
2. The updated property tax levy being considered on Dec. 6 at $38,365,750, which is
approximately 5.58% more than the 2021 final levy.
The proposed breakdown of the 5.58% proposed 2022 property tax levy by fund
2022 Budgets: The council will consider a resolution for adoption that includes summary
budget data for the General, Enterprise, Internal Services, Special Revenue, and select Capital
Project Funds. These funds are consistent with our long-range financial management plan and
Capital Improvement Plans.
HRA Levy: The HRA levy is recommended to be set at the maximum allowed of 0.0185% of
estimated market value, which is consistent with previous years. The amount for 2022 is
estimated at $1,517,799. The HRA levy is being directed to fund direct housing related salaries
to run the housing programs and programs in the affordable housing trust fund.
EDA Levy: Looking at our development fund needs and climate action goals, the EDA levy is
being recommended as a funding source for long term sustainability. The EDA levy will be used
as a sustainable funding source for our development fund where none currently exists. A figure
of $500,000 was chosen based on the needs of the development fund.
2022-2031 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP): The CIP is one of the long -range planning tools that
the city utilizes. The CIP is a ten-year plan that is updated annually as priorities, projects, and
funding sources change. The CIP is only an estimate of future projects, as only the current year
(2022) projects are authorized during the next year. Years 2023-2031 are for planning purposes.
Any project in the CIP estimated to cost more than $175,000 will be formally bid and brought
back for acceptance by the City Council.
2021 2022
adopted proposed
Fund levy levy $%
Tax capacity based tax levy
General fund 29,601,811$ 30,532,470$ 930,659$ 3.14 %
Debt service 4,410,814 5,248,040 837,226 18.98 %
Capital replacement fund 1,312,700 1,575,240 262,540 20.00 %
Park improvement fund 860,000 860,000 - 0.00 %
Employee benefits fund 150,000 150,000 - 0.00 %
Total 36,335,325$ 38,365,750$ 2,030,425$ 5.588 %
2021 to 2022
Increase (decrease)
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP)
The City Council reviewed the Capital plan during an August work session. We revise the long-
range plan on utility and capital project funds every year as needed. The Capital plan ultimately
tie s into the long-range financial management plan and our debt modeling.
The 2022-2031 CIP summary is as follows:
• $268 million in planned investment over the next ten years.
• $236 million of these costs are being paid from sources or revenue streams the City has
direct control of such as franchise fees, tax levy dollars, utility rates, future bonding, etc.
• $31.8 million of this is planned as non-city resources such as federal and state
governmental, including Municipal Sate Aid (MSA).
Estimated city impact for 2022 – example on median value home: Based on a 5.58% levy
increase (proposed levy) on a median value residential homestead property with a value that
increased from $306,400 to $330,500, the city’s portion of the property taxes (general, HRA, &
EDA) were estimated to increase by about $160.48 in 2022, or $13.37 per month.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP)
Resolution N o. 21-____
Resolution adopting the 2022 general fund budget, other 2022 budgets and
authorizing the 2022 final property tax levy
Whereas, The City of St. Louis Park is required by Charter and State law to approve a
resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor; and
Whereas, Minnesota Statutes currently in force require approval of a property tax levy
and a budget in December of each year; and
Whereas, the City Council has received the budget information;
Whereas, there are sufficient funds on hand, the 2022 debt levy is reduced from
$5,618,732 to $5,248,040;
Now therefore, be it resolved, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, that the
2022 General Fund Budget and 2022 Budgets are adopted as presented; and
2021 2022
Adopted Proposed $%
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 29,601,811$ 30,532,470$ 930,659$ 3%
Licenses and Permits 4,621,829 4,750,604 128,775 3%
Fines & Forfeits 231,000 231,000 - 0%
Intergovernmental 1,661,549 1,748,770 87,221 5%
Charges for Services 2,013,834 2,284,483 270,649 13%
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,499,091 1,589,934 90,843 6%
Transfers In 2,055,017 2,198,477 143,460 7%
Investment Earnings 200,000 200,000 - 0%
Other Income 618,300 526,829 (91,471) -15%
Use of Fund Balance - 250,000 250,000 0%
Total General Fund Revenues 42,502,431$ 44,312,567$ 1,810,136$ 4.3%
Summary of Budgeted Revenues
Difference
2021 Adopted 2022 Proposed
Budget Budget
General Fund Expenditures:
General Government 10,961,627$ 11,200,857$ 239,230$ 2.2%
Public Safety 18,878,467 19,923,339 1,044,872 5.5%
Operations & Recreation 12,233,492 13,188,371 954,879 7.8%
Non-Departmental 428,845 - (428,845)
Total General Fund Expenditures 42,502,431$ 44,312,567$ 1,810,136$ 4.3%
Summary of Budgeted Expenditures
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP)
2021 2022
Adopted Proposed
Special Revenue
Housing Rehabilitation Fund
Total Housing Rehab Revenues 1,327,694$ 1,339,955$
Total Housing Rehab Expenditures 1,420,616 1,746,923
CDBG Fund
Total CDBG Revenues 150,000 165,000
Total CDBG Expenditures 150,000 165,000
Cable TV Fund
Total Cable TV Revenues 559,250 759,500
Total Cable TV Expenditures 572,266 664,902
Climate Investment Fund
Total Climate Investment Fund Revenues - 300,000
Total Climate Investment Fund Expenditures - 391,000
Housing Trust Fund
Total Housing Trust Fund Revenues 1,558,361 1,532,799
Total Housing Trust Fund Expenditures 1,650,000 2,047,133
Capital Project
Development Fund
Total Development Fund Revenues 6,317,881 10,593,960
Total Development Fund Expenditures 11,451,400 5,675,476
Enterprise
Water Utility Fund
Total Water Revenues 8,156,395 8,390,627
Total Water Expenses 8,216,509 7,925,491
Sewer Utility Fund
Total Sewer Revenues 8,252,919 8,493,920
Total Sewer Expenses 8,125,986 9,631,024
Solid Waste Utility Fund
Total Solid Waste Revenues 4,234,350 4,170,097
Total Solid Waste Expenses 4,065,052 4,281,322
Storm Water Utility Fund
Total Storm Water Revenues 3,251,676 3,478,527
Total Storm Water Expenses 3,622,383 3,972,077
Internal Service
Employee Benefits Fund
Total Employee Benefits Revenues 931,656 451,500
Total Employee Benefits Expenses 649,153 817,431
Uninsured Loss Fund
Total Uninsured Loss Revenues 66,250 70,000
Total Uninsured Loss Expenses 244,628 246,810
Special Revenue, Select Capital Project Funds,
Summary of Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures
Enterprise and Internal Service Funds
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP)
Be it further resolved, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, that the following
sums of money be levied in 2021, collectible in 2022, upon the taxable property in said City of
St. Louis Park for the following purposes:
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 13, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
2022
Tax Capacity Based Levy Final Tax Levy
General Levy 30,532,470$
Debt Service 5,248,040
Capital Replacement Fund 1,575,240
Park Improvement Fund 860,000
Employee Benefits Fund 150,000
Total Tax Levies 38,365,750$
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP)
Resolution N o. 21-____
Resolution authorizing the 2022 final HRA levy
Whereas, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA Act”),
the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority (the "Authority"); and
Whereas, pursuant to the EDA Act, the City Council granted to the Authority all of the
powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and
Whereas, Section 469.033, subdivision 6 of the Act authorizes the Authority to levy a
tax upon all taxable property within the City to be expended for the purposes authorized by the
HRA Act; and
Whereas, such levy may be in an amount not to exceed 0.0185 percent of taxable
market value of the City; and
Whereas, for 2022, the Final HRA Levy amount will be $1,517,799; and
Whereas, the Authority has filed its budget for the special benefit levy in accordance
with the budget procedures of the City; and
Whereas, based upon such budgets the Authority will levy all or such portion of the
authorized levy as it deems necessary and proper;
Now therefore , be it resolved by the St. Louis Park City Council: That approval is hereby
given for the Authority to levy, for taxes payable in 2022, such tax upon the taxable property of
the City as the Authority may determine, subject to the limitations contained in the HRA Act.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 13, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP)
Resolution No. 21-____
Resolution authorizing the 2022 Final Tax Levy for
Economic Development Authority Purposes pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.107
Whereas, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 through 469.1082, as
amended (the “Act”), the City established the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the
“EDA”); and
Whereas, Section 469.107, subdivision 1 of the Act authorizes the City, at the request of
the EDA, to levy and collect a tax of up to 0.01813% of the estimated market value of taxable
property within the City, levied upon all taxable real property within the City, for economic
development purposes; and
Whereas, the EDA has requested that the City approve such a levy in the amount of
.00610% of the estimated market value of taxable property within the City, and the City finds that
such a levy is in the best interest of the City and EDA because it will facilitate economic
development.
Now therefore be it resolved that the City Council hereby approves the final levy of a tax
for economic development purposes pursuant to Section 469.107, subdivision 1 of the Act in
the amount equal to .00610% of the estimated marke t value of taxable property within the City
(expected to be approximately $500,000) with respect to taxes payable in calendar year 2022.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 13, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP)
Resolution N o. 21-____
Resolution adopting the 2022 - 2031
Capital Improvement P lan (CIP)
Whereas, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, has received a report
from the chief financial officer related to proposed capital spending for 2022 - 2031; and
Whereas, it is necessary for the City to maintain and replace its capital assets in order to
enhance the City’s attractiveness to residents and businesses; and
Whereas, good planning is a necessary part of the stewardship that the City Council and
staff exercise over the capital assets of the City;
Now therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, that:
1. The 2022 - 2031 Capital Improvement Plan is hereby adopted.
2. The city manager is authorized to purchase or undertake the items included in the fiscal
year 2022 funded portion of the plan as allowed by the City Charter and state statutes.
3. All purchases required to be competitively bid must come before the City Council for final
approval.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopt ed by the City Council December, 13, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Capital Improvement ProgramCity of St. Louis Park, MNPROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT2022 2031thruTotal2022 2023 2024 2025 2026Department2027 2028 2029 2030 2031# PriorityBuildings25,00025,000City Hall ITE & Gould Elect Panel Replacement31230001335,00035,000City Hall Generator Head Gasket3124000118,0008,000City Hall Stair Carpet Replacement31240002510,00010,000City Hall Water Heater31240003385,00085,000City Hall Bridge31240004327,00010,000 17,000City Hall/Police Campus Landscaping31240005135,00035,000City Hall 2nd Floor Celing Tile Replacement31240006525,00025,000City Hall EV Chargers for Fleet312400073200,000200,000CH Windows, Ext. Coatings and Caulking Replacement31250001n/a15,00015,000City Hall Window Blinds31250002580,00080,000City Hall Timber Retaining Walls31250003135,00035,000City Hall First Floor Carpet Replacement312600013100,000100,000CH Access Control System Replacement, City Wide31260002315,00015,000CH Update HVAC Controls3127000231,000,0001,000,000City Hall Council Remodel31300001520,00020,000Police Parking and Training Feasability Study32180004325,00025,000Police Report Writing Room Remodel32220002385,00085,000Police Station Remodel Restrooms32220003115,00015,000Police Station Entry Planter Brick Face32220004310,00010,000Police Lobby Furniture3222000515,0005,000Police Station Evidence Gate Doorway322200063250,000250,000Police Station Exterior Bullet Resistant Glass32240001325,00025,000Police Station Blind Replacement322400023140,000140,000PD Indivdual Office32240004338,00038,000Police Station VAV Replacement322400051Wednesday, December 8, 2021Page 12021-2030 Capital Improvement PlanSpecial city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP)Page 11
Total2022 2023 2024 2025 2026Department2027 2028 2029 2030 2031# Priority15,00015,000Police Station Exercise Equipment Replacement32250001520,00020,000Police Station Replace Ceiling Tile32250002315,00015,000Police Station Range Targeting System32250003550,00050,000Police Parking Gate32250004590,00090,000Police Station Replace Carpet32260001365,00065,000Police Station Exterior Masonry Maintenance32270001318,00018,000Police Station Water Heaters32270002112,00012,000PD Replace HVAC Controls322700033110,000110,000Police Locker Replacement32280001375,00075,000Police Station New Carpet32280002335,00035,000Police Replace Training Room Divider322900015500,000500,000PD Roof Replacement32310001160,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000MSC & Fire Stations CO Nox Sensor Replacement33140002170,00070,000MSC 2nd Bay-Sealant33220001323,00011,000 12,000MSC Campus Landscaping33220002310,00010,000MSC Natural Resources Manager Office332200033250,000250,000MSC Heat Exchanger Ventilation33230002320,00020,000MSC Traffic Shop Floor Sealant33230004520,00020,000MSC Convert Exterior HID to LED33230005350,00050,000MSC 3rd Bay Sealant and Stripping33230006145,00045,000MSC Bays LED Upgrade33240001325,00025,000MSC Paint Booth Maintenance332500013600,000600,000MSC Bays 1, 2 & 3 Roofing33250003312,00012,000MSC Replace HVAC Controls332600013250,000250,000MSC Office Remodel33280001318,00018,000MSC Carpet Replacement33280002385,00085,000MSC Roof Top HVAC Units332900013100,000100,000MSC Boiler Replacement332900023120,000120,000Fire Stations 1 & 2 Apparatus bay floor coating34160002135,00035,000Fire Stations Replace Exercise Equipment34220001515,00015,000Fire 1&2 Mattresses342200023250,000250,000Fire Station 1 Decontamination Laundry34230004326,00010,000 16,000Fire Station #1 and #2 Landscaping34240001118,00018,000Fire 1&2 Water Heaters34240002310,00010,000Fire Station #2 Water Heater Replacement34240003335,00035,000FS #1 and #2 Carpet Replacement34240004112,00012,000Fire Stations Replace HVAC Controls342400055Wednesday, December 8, 2021Page 22021-2030 Capital Improvement PlanSpecial city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP)Page 12
Total2022 2023 2024 2025 2026Department2027 2028 2029 2030 2031# Priority45,00045,000Fire Station # 1 Entry Canopy34240006350,00050,000Fire Station #1 Training Tower modifications34250001560,00060,000Fire Station #1 light fixture replacements342600011100,000100,000Fire Station Office Furniture34270001380,00080,000Fire 1&2 Boilers342800013120,000120,000Fire 1&2 AC34290001315,00015,000Fire Station 1&2 Mattress replacement34330001145,00045,000Fire Station #2 Replace light fixtures35250001120,00020,000Westwood Fresh Air Cross Ventilation36220001320,00020,000Westwood Multi-purpose Rooms Tile36260001312,00012,000Westwood Replace Projectors36260002320,00020,000Westwood Replacement Rental Tables36290001320,00020,000Westwood Public Furniture36290002315,00015,000Westwood Landscaping36300001515,00015,000Westwood Carpet Replacement363100013485,000485,000Rec Center Solar372200013140,000140,000Rec Center Remodel Offices372900015Buildings Total6,734,000705,000 700,000 882,000 1,235,000 344,000 210,000 548,000 580,000 1,015,000 515,000Cable TV20,00020,000Van Camera Cases11151002313,00013,000Van Camera Cables11151003310,00010,000Tripods for On Location11151007340,00040,000Council Chambers HD pan/tilt cameras11172007135,00035,000Replacement edit systems111910091140,000140,000Van Cameras11201001320,00020,000Van Camera Cases11201002313,00013,000Van Camera Cables11201003312,00012,000Tripods for On Location11201010114,00014,000Production switcher112010151Cable TV Total317,00014,000 33,000 270,000Engineering12,862,71410,362,714 2,500,000SWLRT- Park and Ride Ramp at Beltline Station401990061161,000161,000Storm Water - Hannon Lake subwatershed4020400137,391,3877,391,387Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)402110001Wednesday, December 8, 2021Page 32021-2030 Capital Improvement PlanSpecial city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP)Page 13
Total2022 2023 2024 2025 2026Department2027 2028 2029 2030 2031# Priority287,500287,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB402200031721,000721,000Alley Construction402215003540,000540,000Sanitary Sewer- Lining402230001236,900236,900Storm Water- Lamplighter Pond Rehab40224001155,00055,000Storm Water- BMP maintenance40224300150,00050,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards4022450036,658,6256,658,625Street- W 36th Street/ Wooddale Rehab402260001287,500287,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB4023000317,158,1367,158,136Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)4023100011,529,2811,529,281Street - Commercial Street Rehab4023105018,622,5708,622,570Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR TH169 to Nevada)402311001494,400494,400Street - Maintenance Project (Area 6)402312001734,000734,000Alley Construction402315003326,150326,150CTP Bikeway - Sidewalk - Trail402320005560,000560,000Sanitary Sewer- Lining4023300011,828,500159,000 1,669,500Storm Water- Webster Park WQ Improvements40234000320,00020,000Storm Water - Carpenter Park Maintenance40234200158,00058,000Storm Water- BMP maintenance40234300150,00050,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards4023450034,010,000250,000 250,000 1,220,000 2,290,000County - Mtka Blvd (Hwy 100 to France)402370001287,500287,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB4024000317,428,9457,428,945Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)4024100011,789,7841,789,784Street - Commercial Street Rehab4024105019,587,6409,587,640Street - MSA Street Rehab (Lou and CLR)402411001412,000412,000Street - Maintenance Project (Area 8)402412001660,000660,000Alley Construction40241500370,62070,620Parking Lot - MSC402416003580,000580,000Sanitary Sewer- Lining402430001438,725438,725Storm Water- Louisiana Oaks & South Oak Pond Rehab40244000194,01394,013Storm Water- Park Glen Improvements40244001187,74587,745Storm Water- Twin Lake outfall replacement40244002159,50059,500Storm Water- BMP maintenance40244300152,00052,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards402445003287,500287,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB4025000317,252,5007,252,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)4025100011,268,4501,268,450Street - Commercial Street Rehab402510501576,800576,800Street - Maintenance Project (Area 1)402512001Wednesday, December 8, 2021Page 42021-2030 Capital Improvement PlanSpecial city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP)Page 14
Total2022 2023 2024 2025 2026Department2027 2028 2029 2030 2031# Priority464,000464,000Alley Construction40251500317,85017,850Parking Lot - Fire Stn #140251601312,60012,600Parking Lot - Fire Stn #2402516023600,000600,000Sanitary Sewer- Lining402530001675,000675,000Sanitary sewer - Glenhurst LS #1940253100161,00061,000Storm Water- BMP maintenance40254300152,00052,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards402545003287,500287,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB4026000315,307,5475,307,547Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)4026100012,873,0682,873,068Street - Commercial Street Rehab402610501473,800473,800Street - Maintenance Project (Area 7)402612001466,000466,000Alley Construction402615003630,200630,200CTP Bikeway - Sidewalk - Trail402620005620,000620,000Sanitary Sewer- Lining4026300011,983,7501,983,750Storm Water- Ainsworth Park WQ Improvements40264000320,00020,000Storm Water - Carpenter Park Maintenance40264200162,50062,500Storm Water- BMP maintenance40264300152,00052,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards402645003287,500287,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB4027000317,219,8347,219,834Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)4027100012,360,0152,360,015Street - Commercial Street Rehab402710501515,000515,000Street - Maintenance Project (Area 2)402712001598,000598,000Alley Construction4027150031,532,0501,532,050CTP Bikeway - Sidewalk - Trail402720005640,000640,000Sanitary Sewer- Lining402730001339,250339,250Storm Water- Otten Pond Rehab402740001101,775101,775Storm Water- Shelard Sediment Basin Rehab40274001164,00064,000Storm Water- BMP maintenance40274300155,00055,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards402745003287,500287,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB4028000317,921,3287,921,328Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)402810001566,500566,500Street - Maintenance Project (Area 3)4028120013,814,0723,814,072Bridge - Meadowbrook @ Minnehaha Creek402817001688,000688,000CTP Bikeway - Sidewalk - Trail402820005660,000660,000Sanitary Sewer- Lining402830001104,363104,363Storm Water- Minnehaha Creek Equalizer Pipe40284000565,50065,500Storm Water- BMP maintenance402843001Wednesday, December 8, 2021Page 52021-2030 Capital Improvement PlanSpecial city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP)Page 15
Total2022 2023 2024 2025 2026Department2027 2028 2029 2030 2031# Priority55,00055,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards402845003287,500287,500Concrete Replacement - SW-C&G-CB4029000317,488,0857,488,085Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)4029100016,283,3136,283,313Street - MSA Street Rehab (Oxford/Edgwd/Cambridge)402911001659,200659,200Street - Maintenance Project (Area 4)4029120012,628,1252,628,125Bridge - 34th Street @ Minnehaha Creek402917001487,000487,000CTP Bikeway - Sidewalk - Trail402920005680,000680,000Sanitary Sewer - Lining402930001631,250631,250Sanitary sewer - Browndale LS #54029310012,139,0002,139,000Storm Water- Louisiana Station Area Improvements40294000320,00020,000Storm Water - Carpenter Park Maintenance40294200167,00067,000Storm Water- BMP maintenance40294300155,00055,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards402945003287,500287,500Concrete Replacement - SW-C&G-CB4030000317,824,5787,824,578Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)4030100011,672,7001,672,700Street - Commercial Street Rehab4030105012,746,8552,746,855Street - MSA Rehab (Lake and Wooddale)403011001751,900751,900Street - Maintenance Project (Area 5)403012001300,000300,000CTP Bikeway - Sidewalk - Trail403020005680,000680,000Sanitary Sewer - Lining403030001219,075219,075Storm Water- Hampshire Pond Rehab403040001365,125365,125Storm Water- Westdale Sed Basin Rehab40304001168,50068,500Storm Water- BMP maintenance40304300157,50057,500Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards403045003287,500287,500Concrete Replacement - SW-C&G-CB4031000317,965,4647,965,464Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)4031100011,837,6611,837,661Street - Commercial Street Rehab403110501813,700813,700Street - Maintenance Project (Area 6)4031120011,415,2001,415,200CTP Bikeway - Sidewalk - Trail403120005720,000720,000Sanitary Sewer - Lining40313000170,00070,000Storm Water- BMP maintenance40314300157,50057,500Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards403145003Engineering Total177,676,11826,873,126 24,259,537 22,768,472 13,557,700 12,776,365 13,712,424 14,162,263 21,425,473 14,973,733 13,167,025Fire24,0008,000 8,000 8,000Thermal Imagers65990001121,00021,000Outside Warning Sirens659900021Wednesday, December 8, 2021Page 62021-2030 Capital Improvement PlanSpecial city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP)Page 16
Total2022 2023 2024 2025 2026Department2027 2028 2029 2030 2031# Priority337,642337,642SCBA65990003180,00045,000 35,000Hydraulic Rescue Tool65990004573,00018,000 55,000Auto-CPR Device659900051100,0000 100,000 0Turnouts65990006118,00018,000Helmets/Boots65990007312,5006,000 6,500Air Monitors65990008339,00039,000AED's65990009124,00012,000 12,000Body Armor65990010315,0007,200 7,800RAD 5765990011512,00012,000Training Equipment Cache6599001236,00006,000Firefighting Barrier Hoods65990013116,0006,000 10,000Ice/Water Rescue Cache65990014325,00025,000Technical Rescue Cache65990016317,0008,000 9,000Hose/Nozzle65990017138,0008,000 30,000Ventilation Fans65990019344,50021,500 23,000EMS - MED Kits659900203Fire Total902,64213,200 389,642 60,800 84,000 120,000 55,000 45,000 56,000 79,000Operations & Recreation20,00020,00040th & France Master Plan21176501310,00010,000Trail Reconstruction212009121345,000345,000Dakota Park LED Baseball Field Light Replacement21201801315,00015,000Trail Reconstruction - Keystone Park21203013115,00015,000Historical Society Depot Renovation21209902n/a74,66274,662Trail Reconstruction - Bass Lake Park21210411110,00010,000Batting Cages - Cedar Knoll Park / Carlson Field21211303114,00014,000Court Resurface - Bass Lake Tennis2121280401324,42124,421Trail Reconstruction - Louisiana Oaks Park21213614348,35048,350Trail Reconstruction - Oak Hill Park212144153490,000490,000Webster Park Construction21216101n/a75,00075,000Trail Reconstruction - Wolfe Park21216416324,00024,000Trail Reconstruction - Jordan212199133172,500172,500Dakota Bridge21221806175,00075,000Trail Reconstruction - Dakota Park21221815150,00050,000Trail Reconstruction - Minnehaha Creek21224109388,00088,000Radio's Operations & Recreations212299011Wednesday, December 8, 2021Page 72021-2030 Capital Improvement PlanSpecial city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP)Page 17
Total2022 2023 2024 2025 2026Department2027 2028 2029 2030 2031# Priority500,000500,000Court Reconstruction - Aquila Park Tennis (w/BSM)21230301n/a35,00035,000Court Reconstruction - Browndale Park21231001n/a30,00030,000Trail Reconstruction - Otten Pond2123461138,0008,000Court Resurface - Pennsylvania Park Basketball21234801310,00010,000Trail Reconstruction - Roxbury Park21235112310,00010,000Court Reconstruction - Twin Lakes Park Basketball21235813375,00075,000Trail Reconstruction - Aquila Park21240317350,00050,000Trail Reconstruction - Carpenter Park21241118330,00030,000Trail Reconstruction - Jersey Park2124271916,0006,000Court Resurface - Minikahda Vista Park Basketball21244001330,00030,000Trail Reconstruction - Westwood Hills NC, wldflr/t2124620235,0005,000Court Resurface - Fern Hill Park Tennis212521013100,000100,000Wolfe Park Amphitheater Pavers21256403351,50051,50040th & France Fencing & Parking Lot2125932023100,000100,000Trail Reconstruction212599033150,000150,000Park Shelter Replacement - various parks212599053100,000100,000Trail Lighting2125990636,0006,000Court Resurface - Birchwood Basketball212606013100,000100,000Park Parking Lot Resurface212699013130,000130,000Trail (new), Hampshire Park to Otten Pond21269903n/a14,00014,000Court Resurface - Aquila Park Basketball212703013200,000200,000Carpenter Park LED Ballfield Replacement Pole/lte21271101317,50017,500Court Resurface - Carpenter Park Tennis21271105314,00014,000Court Resurface - Northside Park Tennis2127430136,0006,000Court Resurface - Twin Lakes Park Basketball21275801323,00023,000Court Resurface - Wolfe Park (Pklbll & Bsktbll)212764033200,000200,000Park Building Upgrades-Electric furnaces212799033300,000300,000Cedar Knoll Park - Carlson Field LED replacement2128130134,0004,000Court Resurface - Shelard Park Basketball212852013100,000100,000Park Parking Lot Resurface212999013112,000112,000Park Hockey Rink LED Light Replacement21299902340,00040,000Trail Reconstruction - Lamplighter Park213134013Wednesday, December 8, 2021Page 82021-2030 Capital Improvement PlanSpecial city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP)Page 18
Total2022 2023 2024 2025 2026Department2027 2028 2029 2030 2031# Priority75,00075,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Ainsworth Park + concrete219901011100,000100,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Aquila Park21990301170,00070,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Blackstone Park21990711170,00070,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Bronx Park21990902180,00080,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Browndale Park21991002170,00070,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Carpenter Park21991102170,00070,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Cedarhurst Park21991503170,00070,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Parkview Park21991712170,00070,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Dakota Park21991801170,00070,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Hampshire Park21992401170,00070,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Jackley Park21992611170,00070,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Jersey Park21992706170,00070,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Jorvig Park21992801170,00070,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Justad Park21992907170,00070,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Knollwood Green219932171105,000105,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Louisiana Oaks Park21993601170,00070,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Nelson Park21994205170,00070,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Oak Hill Park (Tot eqpt)219944021105,000105,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Oak Hill Park (Big eqpt)21994403170,00070,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Oregon Park21994502170,00070,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Sunset Park21995403165,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Webster Park219961121120,000120,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Wolfe Park (big eqpt)219964011100,000100,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Wolfe Park EVOS/Rock Climb21996402170,00070,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Wolfe Park (tot)219964031100,00020,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000Landscaping - City Entrance Signs & MSC Bldg219999013300,00030,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000Playground Woodchips219999021400,000125,000 125,000 150,000Trail Restoration21999907325,00025,000Knollwood Canoe Landing - Dredge and Rebuild221732031790,00075,000 75,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000Tree Replacement (80% blvd + 20% parks)229999013250,00025,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000Buckthorn Management22999903340,00040,000Westwood Hills NC Rotary Deck Rebuild23206201125,00025,000Westwood Hills NC Trail Sign Replacement232062141Wednesday, December 8, 2021Page 92021-2030 Capital Improvement PlanSpecial city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP)Page 19
Total2022 2023 2024 2025 2026Department2027 2028 2029 2030 2031# Priority48,00048,000Westwood Hills NC Garage (new)23226201125,00025,000Westwood Hills NC Water Garden Repair/Trl mtce23226210515,00015,000Westwood Hills NC Staircase Railing23246202150,00050,000Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Deck Repl, Ph 3232462201100,000100,000Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Deck Repl, Ph 1,Wside23256203350,00050,000Westwood Hills NC Waterfall liner repair23256204510,00010,000Westwood Hills NC Exhibit Wall23286201520,00020,000Westwood Hills NC Waterfall Deck Redecking23286203125,00025,000Westwood Hills NC North Water Feature Rplcmnt linr23306201525,00025,000Westwood Hills NC Parking Lot Basin & Pavers23306202n/a215,000215,000Rec Center Parking Lot Replacement24215005170,00070,000Rec Center Parking Lot Light Replacement w/poles24225004140,00040,000Rec Center East Arena Painting242250061290,000290,000Rec Center Arena Rubber Floor242250071200,000200,000Rec Center Signage (2 entrance signs)24225008325,00025,000Rec Center Elevator Updates24225010130,00030,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Sun Shelter Addition24225011175,00075,000Rec Center Arenas,Water Trtmnt Repl (to make ice)24235008175,00075,000Rec Center West Arena Painting242350091500,000500,000Rec Center Generator Replacement24245004125,00025,000Rec Center Banquet Room Carpet Replacement242550033800,000100,000 700,000Rec Center West Arena Roof Replacement242550101300,000300,000Rec Center West Arena Locker Room Remodel2426500331,000,0001,000,000Rec Center Boiler Replacement242650041150,000150,000Rec Center Restroom Plumbing24275001n/a150,000150,000Rec Center Cooling Tower Replacement242750031400,000400,000Rec Center East Arena Dehumidification242750041100,000100,000Rec Center/ROC Scoreboard Replacement242950011300,000300,000Rec Center Lobby Tile24295002140,00040,000Rec Center Arena Hot Water Heaters242950031100,000100,000Rec Center Parking Lot Resurface243050011Wednesday, December 8, 2021Page 102021-2030 Capital Improvement PlanSpecial city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP)Page 20
Total2022 2023 2024 2025 2026Department2027 2028 2029 2030 2031# Priority450,000150,000 150,000 150,000Rec Center/ROC Dasher Board Replacement24995003175,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000Rec Center Arena Refrigeration Maintenance249950061125,00050,000 75,000Rec Center Dasher Board Repair249950083220,00020,000 15,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000Rec Center Landscaping (woodchips)24995017310,00010,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Feasibility Study25210203370,00070,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Locker Room Remodel252202053100,000100,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Sand/Play/Gazebo252350031250,000250,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Pool Gutters252402011250,000250,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Pool Heaters252402021100,000100,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Slide Recoating252402031200,000100,000 100,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Feature(s)25270204375,00075,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Pump Replacement25280201370,00010,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Deck Furniture25990212135,0005,000 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500Rec Center Aquatic Park Concession Eqpt. Rplcmt25990215350,00050,000ROC Storage272266011255,000160,000 95,000ROC Turf Replacement (w/turf tiles)27236604140,00010,000 10,000 10,000 10,000ROC Roof Assessment272466031250,000250,000ROC Restrooms272966013185,000185,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2022)502241011360,000360,000Street Light Replacement, SSD1b502241111150,000150,000Replace Bus Shelters, SSDs 1-450224201155,00055,000Edge Mill & Overlay: Wooddale (In-House)502244021190,000190,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2023)502341011195,000195,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2024)502441011320,000320,000Street Light Replacement, SSD2a502441101200,000200,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2025)502541011280,000280,000Street Light Replacement, SSD2b502541101205,000205,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2026)502641013750,000750,000Replace Street Light Bases/Wiring; Shelard Park502641023250,000250,000Street Light Replacement, SSD3a502641101210,000210,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2027)502741013270,000270,000Street Light Replacement, SSD3b502741101215,000215,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2028)502841013380,000380,000Street Light Replacement, SSD4a502841101Wednesday, December 8, 2021Page 112021-2030 Capital Improvement PlanSpecial city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP)Page 21
Total2022 2023 2024 2025 2026Department2027 2028 2029 2030 2031# Priority220,000220,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2029)502941013240,000240,000Replace Street Light Bases/Wiring; Meadowbrook502941023400,000400,000Street Light Replacement, SSD4b502941101225,000225,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2030)503041013320,000320,000Street Light Replacement, E&G Area (a)503041101230,000230,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2031)503141013260,000260,000Street Light Replacement, E&G Area (b)50314110180,00080,000Water Well Rehab (SLP11)53225001345,00045,000Water Well Rehab (SLP10)532350013140,000140,000WTP8 Roof Replacement53235002170,00070,000GAC Replacement (WTP1)53235003155,00055,000Water Well Rehab (SLP16)532450013520,000520,000Water Treatment Plant Rehab, WTP153245002150,00050,000Water Well Rehab (SLP8)53245003385,00085,000Water Well Rehab (SLP12)53255001374,00074,000GAC Replacement (WTP1)532550031460,000460,000Water Treatment Plant Rehab, WTP653255004155,00055,000Water Well Rehab (SLP4)53265002345,00045,000Water Well Rehab (SLP15)532650033400,000400,000Water Treatment Plant Rehab, WTP853265004178,00078,000GAC Replacement (WTP1)532750021500,000500,000Water Treatment Plant Rehab, WTP1053275003185,00085,000Water Well Rehab (SLP13)532850013515,000515,000Water Treatment Plant Rehab, WTP1653285002160,00060,000Water Well Rehab (SLP14)53295002382,00082,000GAC Replacement (WTP1)5329500419,500,0009,500,000Water Project - WTP #6 Treatment Upgrade53305010586,00086,000GAC Replacement (WTP1)53315001122,098,8031,937,605 2,340,559 1,800,941 1,714,914 2,348,538 3,761,982 2,840,992 1,894,268 2,694,889 764,115Annual Equipment Replacement ProgramE - XX011Operations & Recreation Total57,049,7364,942,538 4,603,559 4,231,941 4,072,914 7,189,538 6,726,982 5,638,992 4,315,768 3,989,889 11,337,615Police150,000150,000911 Server Replacement13995069120,00010,000 10,000SWAT Rifle replacement20180001124,00024,000SWAT Robot20180002314,0007,000 7,000SWAT Ballistic Shields20180003117,00017,000Gas Mask Fit Testing Equipment20190100136,00012,000 12,000 12,000Evidence.com / CAD Interface202000021Wednesday, December 8, 2021Page 122021-2030 Capital Improvement PlanSpecial city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP)Page 22
Total2022 2023 2024 2025 2026Department2027 2028 2029 2030 2031# Priority54,00054,000Dispatch Consollettes20210001141,00011,500 29,500Laser/Radar and Message Board609900013Police Total356,00023,500 198,500 46,000 54,000 7,000 27,000Technology4,344,698476,500 364,875 409,761 684,660 427,068 360,491 458,926 437,273 316,835 408,309Tech Hardware and Replacement13995101113,790,1001,095,254 1,639,146 1,164,008 1,198,009 1,633,068 1,269,218 1,311,490 1,649,925 1,394,557 1,435,425Tech Software and Maintenance1399510214,122,749353,000 398,590 374,497 385,733 397,306 409,223 462,501 434,145 447,169 460,585Tech Network Equipment and Replacement1399510311,571,144124,532 150,042 139,060 143,232 147,529 179,955 156,514 161,209 166,045 203,026Body / Dash Cams and Security Support1399510411,342,000287,000 100,000 766,000 80,000 61,000 48,000Public Safety 800 MHz Radios139951051Technology Total25,170,6912,049,286 2,552,653 2,374,326 2,511,634 3,370,971 2,298,887 2,450,431 2,730,552 2,324,606 2,507,34534,620,650 32,736,891 30,633,539 21,515,248 23,800,874268,206,187GRAND TOTAL23,003,293 22,851,686 29,134,793 22,382,228 27,526,985Report criteria:Active ProjectsAll Address data All CategoriesAll DepartmentsAll ContactsAll From Street data All Priority LevelsAll ProjectsAll Source TypesAll Street Name data Wednesday, December 8, 2021Page 132021-2030 Capital Improvement PlanSpecial city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP)Page 23
Meeting: Special city council
Meeting date: December 13, 2021
Action agenda item: 8b
Executive summary
Title: 2022 non-union e mployee compensation
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution confirming a 3% general increase for non-
union employees effective Jan. 1, 2022.
Policy consideration: Does city council wish to confirm the recommended 2022 non-union
employee compensation as outlined in this report?
Summary: This report details staff’s recommendation for setting non-union employee
compensation for 2022. Based on a recommendation from the city’s compensation consultant,
staff is asking council to confirm a 3% standard adjustment to the compensation plan for non-
union employees, allowing for regular progression through pay ranges.
Financial or budget considerations: The amount recommended has been included in the 2022
budget.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Timpone, interim HR officer
Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Title: 2022 non-union employee compensation
Discussion
Background
Non-union employee compensation – 3% general increase e ffective Jan. 1, 2022: Our
compensation plan, which was adopted in 1997 and revised in 2017, allows the city manager to
approve the standard adjustment based on information such as market value data, the CPI, and
the general financial condition of the city. Our positions are reviewed on a regular basis and
compared to the market, which includes metro area cities (suburbs) with populations over
25,000 but less than 90,000, as required by our compensation plan approved by city council. As
a reminder, our non-union compensation plan was updated in 2017 to reflect target pay at the
85th percentile of the market based on above average employee performance.
Saado Abboud, principal consultant with Keystone Compensation Group, has re viewed our pay
plan and made a recommendation for 2022 pay increases. Mr. Abboud has recommended that
pay maximums for St. Louis Park would remain competitive in 2022 if increased by 3%.
Employee performance and pay: The increase for non-union employees will be applied in
accordance with our compensation plan. In our plan, a non-probationary employee (probation
is typically six months) with above average performance receives up to double the standard
increase to progre ss through the pay range until they reach the pay line (maximum). Positions
at the maximum, employees on probation, and employees who do not have above average
performance will receive the standard adjustment of 3%. Employees with unsatisfactory
performance do not receive an annual increase in pay. Directors are responsible for making
recommendations to the city manager on employee performance. The city manager makes final
determination on employee pay increases based on performance.
City manager salary: The contract for the city manager states that the council will consider an
increase to the city manager’s compensation after a successful six -month performance
evaluation.
The city manager’s pay range is established based on recommendation of the compensation
consultant in accordance with the city’s established compensation plan and pay must comply
with the state’s salary limits on local government compensation. More information on the 2022
recommended pay range and salary for the city manager will be provided to the council after
the city manager’s six -month performance evaluation.
G eneral comment: Copies of the compensation plan are available from the city clerk.
Special city council meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Title: 2022 non-union employee compensation
Resolution N o. 21-___
Resolution confirming 2022 compensation for non-union employees
Whereas the city council established and approved, by Resolution 17-012, the Position
Classification and Compensation Plan for the City of St. Louis Park, and Section V III-C of such
plan directs the city manager to approve the standard adjustment to the plan; and
Whereas the city council wishes to adopt policies for city employees and has conferred
upon the city manager the power to establish and administer additional administrative policies
and rules as may be appropriate for the employment practices of the city;
Now therefore be it resolved that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park confirms
the city m anager’s decision to implement a standard adjustment of 3%, effective Jan. 1, 2022
for non-union employees in accordance with the Position Classification and Compensation Plan.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council December 13, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: Special city council
Meeting date: December 13, 2021
Action agenda item : 8c
Executive summary
Title: Recognition of Councilmember Rachel Harris
Recommended action: On behalf of the city council and city manager, the mayor is asked to
recognize Rachel Harris for her years of service as Councilmember Ward 3 of the St. Louis Park
City Council from Jan . 2, 2018 to Jan. 3, 2022.
Summary: Rachel Harris has served as Ward 3 Councilmember since 2018. She has worked
collaboratively with her colleagues for the last four years to lead policy initiatives to enhance
climate resiliency, affordable housing, and racial equity and inclusion. She is a St. Louis Park
High School graduate and lives in the Texa-Tonka Neighborhood. She has been serving on
nonprofit and professional boards since high school. Her other city experience includes serving
as chair and co-founder of the St. Louis Park Environment and Sustainability Commission, host
for neighborhood National Night Out block parties, co-founder and champion of Health in the
Park, and member of the St. Louis Park Vision 3.0 steering team.
We are grateful for Rachel’s dedication, leadership and countless hours of service to the City of
St. Louis Park.
Supporting documents: None
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant
Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: December 13, 2021
Discussion item : 1
Executive summary
Title: Overview of 2022 sustainability division programs
Recommended action: No action required. This topic has been placed on the agenda to
summarize proposed 2022 climate action programs.
Policy consideration: Does council support moving forward with the proposed 2022
sustainability division programs?
Summary: The November 2021 greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis revealed that
St. Louis Park’s carbon emissions decreased 5% from 2
015 to 2019 and an additional 17% from 2019 to 2020. While these trends are promising,
significant work remains to address emissions, particularly from building energy use.
Staff is proposing to continue some existing programs and launch new programs in 2022. The
chosen programs reflect both the continued adherence to the Climate Action Plan (CAP)
implementation schedule and a targeted response to the greenhouse gas emissions inventory.
When combined with existing policies and internal projects, these programs are projected to
set the city on a path towards continuous and accelerated emissions reductions.
An overview of 2022 sustainability programs is attached for council’s review, as well as the
proposed 2022 Climate Investment Fund budget.
Financial or budget considerations: All participation incentives for sustainability programs are
proposed to be funded from the newly established Climate Investment Fund. Staffing,
consulting, and general expenses will continue within the proposed 2022 sustainability
operating budget.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Attachment A: Overview of 2022 sustainability programs
Attachment B: Climate Investment Fund budget
Prepared by: Emily Ziring, sustainability manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, director of building and energy
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Overview of 2022 sustainability division programs
Discussion
Background: As discussed at the November 22 city council study session as part of the
greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis review, the city’s emissions are trending in the
right direction due to both the city’s efforts and to external policy efforts. Howeve r, more
recent reductions were due in large part to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the city
will need additional, aggressive climate action for these reductions to be sustained, particularly
as the city population is projected to grow.
Present considerations: Staff is proposing to continue some existing programs and launch new
programs in 2022. The chosen programs reflect both the continued adherence to the CAP
implementation schedule and a targeted response to the greenhouse gas emissions invent ory.
The 22-year implementation schedule was drafted in 2017 as part of the CAP and therefore
does not include innovations developed since the CAP was adopted. While the implementation
schedule provides a helpful guide to reaching emissions reduction targets, staff recognizes that
some technologies and programs—particularly in the area of building energy—must be added
or moved up in the schedule in order to accelerate reductions. This is especially true given that
goal 3 (“by 2030, design all new construction to be net-zero energy”) was intended to be met
primarily through the state adoption of a “green building stretch code,” which has yet to occur.
Overview of 2022 Sustainability Programs
There are four primary ways that cities can reach their climate action goals: 1) engagement, 2)
incentivization , 3) leading by example , and 4) (to a lesser extent) regulation. These four
categories overlap and interdepend on one another; for example, a solar workshop may engage
and excite the public but without financial incentives, residents may not install solar.
Recognizing these categories, the sustainability division has multiple program, project and
policy initiatives planned for 2022.
Sustainability division -administe re d programs will continue to focus primarily on building
energy efficiency and renewables (CAP goals 1-5) for a few reasons. Divisions within Operations
& Recreation design and administer programs related to solid waste, natural resources, and
parks (CAP goal 7 and Advanced Strategies), while Engineering designs and administers travel-
related programs (CAP goal 6). Sustainability staff will continue to collaborate with staff in these
departments to assist as needed, particularly with respect to promotion of electric vehicles and
citing of EV infrastructure . Beyond these organizational reasons, building energy use make s up
60 percent of the city’s emissions —with 2/3 coming from commercial and industrial buildings—
and must be a continued focus of programs, as council recognized during the November 22
study session. Within the building energy sector, improving existing buildings will continue to
be the most important path for reaching energy goals, as new buildings will make up a small
fraction of the city’s total building stock and are likely to be significantly more efficient than
existing buildings. Additionally, while the electricity grid grows cleaner by the day, the
emissions factor of natural gas/fossil gas does not fluctuate, which means that programs that
reduce and/or eliminate natural gas consumption must be a priority.
Study session meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: Overview of 2022 sustainability division programs
Programs that reduce and/or eliminate natural gas/fossil gas consumption can either promote
and incentivize efficiency and conservation (i.e., retrofitting/weatherization with tighter
building envelopes and better insulation, and improving appliance and equipment efficiency) or
electrification (i.e., replacing fossil gas -fueled HVAC equipment and appliances with electricity-
powered alternatives).
Climate Champions will continue to be the primary tool for promoting electricity and natural
gas efficiency and conservation. An electric heating and cooling pilot is also slated for 2022.
While electrification (also known as fuel switching) is listed in the CAP as one of the post -2030
“Advanced Strategies,” staff recognizes that replacing fossil gas-fueled HVAC equipment and
appliances with electricity -powered alternatives will need to begin sooner if the city is to reach
its building energy emissions targets. The pilot will be designed under the guidance of the Rocky
Mountain Institute/World Resources Institute as part of a technical assistance program with a
cohort of Minnesota cities. Participating communities will develop campaigns which combine
heat pump bulk-purchasing with community education to accelerate heat pump adoption for
space heating/cooling and water heating, particularly in underserved and overburdened
neighborhoods. A cost share incentive element of the program is included in the Climate
Investment Fund budget but its launch will be dependent on availability of utility incentives that
can be matched.
A complete list of sustainability divisio n program, project and policy initiatives planned for 2022
can be found in attachment A. Highlights include:
• Climate Champions energy assessment, cost share, and recognition program for
commercial, industrial, and multifamily property owners.
• Building Ope rations Champions cost share program to offset the cost of Building
Operator Certification (BOC) training for commercial, industrial and multifamily building
maintenance personnel in efficient operations.
• Solar Sundown, a continuing cost share program to offset the costs of rooftop solar for
all property owners.
• ReLeaf SLP, a tree growing program to incentivize property owners to plant and take
care of trees to capture and store carbon dioxide, balancing the carbon that is emitted
through buildings, waste and travel.
Additional programs and priorities include: an idling reduction fleet policy and public education
campaign, climate equity map and Environmental Stewardship dashboard, and an Electric
Vehicle Master Plan (dependent on external partners ). All of the financial incentive cost sharing
programs will be funded using the new Climate Investment Fund (attachment B).
There are a number of approaches to cost sharing budgeting. Budgets can be goal- or
participation -driven , or they can be limited by total funds available. When determining the cost
sharing budget for each program, staff weighed the annual goal of each CAP strategy against
the historic or projected participation in the program. For example, $115,000 was expended on
the 2021 Solar Sundown program, and a similar level of participation is projected for 2022. That
$115,000 successfully leveraged $2.7 million in private investment, driv ing approximately 1.25
MW of additional rooftop solar.
Study session meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Title: Overview of 2022 sustainability division programs
While an additional 1.25 MW of rooftop solar is a step toward reaching the city’s renewable
energy goals, the in -boundary renewable energy goal in the CAP calls for 37 MW total, or an
additional 3.7 MW pe r year (the CAP notes that rooftop generation potential was calculated
using a GIS mapping tool and may overestimate the available resource). On the other hand,
very little was spent on Climate Champions in 2021 but staff anticipates that additional projects
will be taken on in 2022 once supply chain issues, contractor availability and economic
conditions improve. The Climate Investment Fund budget will be reviewed throughout the year
and adjusted for the 2023 budget.
The city’s legislative efforts last ye ar resulted in a bill passing that now allows the city to provide
funding for local commercial and multifamily buildings for making energy improvements, with
repayment assessed to the property taxes. The assessment financing option will be integrated
into the Climate Champions program and the Solar Sundown program and may be used for
improving the building envelope and installing high efficiency HVAC and solar panels. Program
details are still being developed between Sustainability and Finance. Staff is currently
considering a program range of $10,000 - $60,000 per building based on available fund balance,
with an assessment period of up to 10 years and interest rate as used for other city
assessments. The 2021 interest rate, for example, has been 2.5%. The program will be internally
administered and can fill a current void in financing options as PACE for commercial is intended
for larger projects and begins at $50,000.
A second sustainability specialist to be hired in 2022 will provide the capacity to help design,
administer, engage and communicate these programs throughout the community and beyond.
This position will be funded entirely from the general fund.
The Environment and Sustainability Commission has reviewed and discussed the proposed 2022
programs and their feedback has been incorporated.
Measuring program outcomes
There are a number of ways that Climate Action Plan-related data is tracked so that outcomes
are known.
•Regional Indicators . Greenhouse gas emissions data is tracked by sector (energy, travel
and waste) and updated annually in the Regional Indicators tool, a public website which is
used to gauge overall emissions reduction progress in cities across Minnesota.
•Climate Metric Tracker. Sustainability division staff tracks city program data at a granular
level using an internal tool called the Climate Metric Tracker. The tool was created by the
Great Plains Institute in early 2021 to provide a place for communities to track deeper
climate metrics over time, including metrics such as annual participation in utility energy
efficiency programs and number of electric vehicles registered in St. Louis Park.
•Environmental Stewardship dashboard. In 2022, a public-facing Environmental
Stewardship dashboard (similar to the Multifamily Housing dashboard) will be created to
display climate action-related metrics to the community.
As many of the proposed 2022 programs will be new, outcomes will not be available until late
2022 at the earliest. Staff will update data in each of the websites and tracking tools as it
becomes available and will make adjustments to program designs and budgets as needed.
Study session meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Title: Overview of 2022 sustainability division programs
Multiplying the city’s impact
Leading by example, collaborating with other cities, and sharing St. Louis Park’s successes with
peer networks are key ways the city has multiplied its climate impact. Sustainability staff
regularly share updates about initiatives with staff in Minnesota communities and beyond
through a number of channels, including:
•Urban Sustainability Directors Network (USDN)
•Minnesota GreenStep Cities
•Cities Charging Ahead Electric Vehicle cohort
•Community Energy Network (Minnesota cities)
•Recharge Minnesota
•Resilient Cities Coalition
•American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy ’s Sustainable States network
•Rocky Mountain Institute/World Resources Institute cohorts
•US EPA’s Green Power Partnership
Staff also present regularly to nearby cities and local community groups, including Hennepin
County, the City of Roseville, the Minneapolis Regional Chamber/St. Louis Park Business
Council, the Lenox Men’s Club, and others.
Financial considerations: All participation incentives for sustainability programs are proposed
to be funded from the newly established Climate Investment Fund. Staffing, consulting, and
general expenses will continue within the proposed 2022 sustainability operating budget. The
proposed Climate Investment Fund budget for 2022 is $388,000; any changes to the proposed
EDA levy will impact the dollar amount available from the general fund to establish the CIF.
Funds remaining will maintain a cash balance in the fund and will carry over into future years.
Next steps: Staff will design and implement these programs and projects for 2022
implementation.
1
Appendix A: Overview of 2022 sustainability programs
Program name: Climate Champions
CAP goal(s): 1, 2 and 4
Description : Energy assessment, cost share, and recognition program for property owners who
elect to participate
Sectors : Commercial & industrial (current), multifamily (planned)
Equity component: Larger cost share amounts for properties in environmental justice area of
concern
Risks : Success depends on appetite of commercial property owners to invest time and money in
energy efficiency
CAP strategies’ annual targe t: 20 commercial buildings retrofit
Proposed budget: $65,000 (Climate Investment Fund)
Program name: Building Operations Champions
CAP goal(s): 1 and 2
Description : Cost share for commercial property owners who pay for their building operators to
attend Building Operator Certification (BOC) level 1 or multifamily training and pass the
certification exam. The cost share and utility rebates bring down the cost from $1,200 to $50-
100.
Sectors : C&I, multifamily
Equity component: Larger cost share amounts for trainees from traditionally underrepresented
groups
Risks : Success depends on appetite of commercial property owners to invest time and money in
training, and availability of facilities maintenance workforce
CAP strategies’ annual target: 38 commercial buildings engaged in building operations BMPs
Proposed budge t: $3,000 (Climate Investment Fund)
Program name: Solar Sundown
CAP goal(s): 5
Description : Cost share program for property owners who elect to install rooftop solar
Sectors : All
Equity component: Larger cost share amounts for properties in environmental justice area of
concern
Risks : May not capture many additional property owners beyond those who participated in
2021
CAP strategies’ annual target: 3.7 MW additional rooftop solar
Proposed budget: $125,000 (Climate Investment Fund)
Page 6 Study session meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Overview of 2022 sustainability division programs
2
Program name: Solar for Vouchers pilot (in coordination with CD)
CAP goal(s): 5
Description : Offers larger cost share for property owners who install solar and agree to provide
a certain number of units to low-income households through the housing voucher program for
5 years
Sectors : Multifamily
Equity component: Focus on income -qualified households
Risks : Still under development; may be revised after further research and discussion with
Housing to identify barriers
CAP strategies’ annual target: 3.7 MW additional in -boundary rooftop solar
Proposed budget: $25,000 (Climate Investment Fund)
Program name: Energy Efficient rebate match (in coordination with CD)
CAP goal(s): 4
Description : Rebate matching/cost share program for energy efficient HVAC and water heaters
as well as air sealing and insulation projects . For property owners who elect to participate
(administered by Housing Division)
Sectors : 1-4 unit residential
Equity component: Households with incomes at or below $120,650 (115% AMI for a family of
four) eligible for 50% match; households above eligible for 25% match
Risks : Success depends on appetite of residential property owners to invest in energy efficiency
CAP strategies’ annual target: 900 single -family households complete retrofits/weatherization;
1,782 households replace electrical equipment and 720 households replace natural gas
equipment with high efficiency
Proposed budget: $25,000 (Climate Investment Fund)
Program name: Home Energy Squad (in coordination with CD)
CAP goal(s): 4
Description : Subsidized e nergy assessment program for property owners who elect to
participate (administered by Housing Division)
Sectors : 1-4 unit residential
Equity component: Recently changed program rules so that city pays the full cost of Home
Energy Squad visits for households earning up to 80% AMI (formerly limited to up to 60% AMI)
Risks : Carbon reduction depends on converting assessments to energy efficiency projects ; data
on electrical equipment replacements is not available and cannot be tracked
CAP strategies’ annual target: 900 single -family households complete retrofits /weatherization;
1,782 households replace electrical equipment and 720 households replace natural gas
equipment with high efficiency
Proposed budget: $10,000 (Climate Investment Fund)
Page 7 Study session meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Overview of 2022 sustainability division programs
3
Program name: Electrify heating and cooling pilot
CAP goal(s): Advanced strategies
Description: Create pilot program that will support and promote replacement of gas-fired
furnaces and water heaters with electric heat pumps. The pilot will be designed under the
guidance of the Rocky Mountain Institute/World Resources Institute (funding dependent) as
part of a technical assistance program with a cohort of cities. Participating communities will
develop campaigns which combine heat pump bulk-purchasing with community education to
accelerate heat pump adoption for space heating/cooling and water heating, particularly in
underserved and overburdened neighborhoods. Cost share program element is budgeted for
but will be dependent on availability of future utility incentives for fuel switching.
Sectors: Multifamily, 1-4 unit residential
Equity component: TBD
Risks: Success depends on multiple external factors, such as property owner comfort with
technology, cost of electricity, appetite of property owners to invest time and money in fuel
switching, contractor familiarity with technology, availability of equipment
CAP strategies’ annual target: N/A (no targets listed for Advanced Strategies)
Proposed budget: $50,000 (Climate Investment Fund, depending on availability of utility
incentives; funds for any bulk purchasing, contractor training and public education may come
from operating budget)
Program name: ReLeaf SLP (in coordination with Ops & Rec)
CAP goal(s): Advanced strategies
Description: Tree planting to capture and store carbon dioxide, enhancing property values and
aesthetics and reducing owners’ utility costs through increased shading and reduced flooding
Sectors: All
Equity component: Larger cost share amounts for properties located where high surface temps
and low tree canopy overlap
Risks: Success depends on property owners desire for addition al trees and investment in tree
maintenance
CAP strategies’ annual target: N/A (no targets listed for Advanced Strategies); staff set goal of
additional 300 trees, doubling the annual number planted on private property
Proposed budget: $60,000 (Climate Investment Fund)
Program name: Depaving cost share pilot (in coordination with Engineering, Ops & Rec)
CAP goal(s): Advanced strategies
Description: Offers cost share for commercial property owners to turn unused parking spaces into
green space , lowering surface temperatures, improving air quality and reducing stormwater runoff
Sectors: C&I, multifamily
Equity component: Larger cost share for areas experiencing higher surface temperatures (urban
heat island)
Risks: Success depends on property owners’ willingness to demolish parking spaces
CAP strategies’ annual target: N/A (no targets listed for Advanced Strategies)
Proposed budget: $25,000 (Climate Investment Fund)
Page 8 Study session meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Overview of 2022 sustainability division programs
4
Other projects, programs and policies under development or consideration
•Green Building Policy amendment (in coordination with CD)
•Idling reduction fleet policy and public educational campaign
•Efficient Building Benchmarking ordinance administration
•Climate equity map and Environmental Stewardship dashboard
•Rec Center solar project installation
•Additional public EV chargers
•Study to inform design of Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) incentive
program that addresses solar and weatherizatio n
•EV Charging Master Plan (in coordination with external partners)
•Energy assistance programs – coordinating providers and advocating for improvements
•Internal professional development workshops and incorporating sustainability into
onboarding
Page 9 Study session meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Overview of 2022 sustainability division programs
Attachment B Climate Investment Fund FY2022 budget
Program Description Budget
Solar Sundown
Continuation of Solar Sundown program, which reimburses
property owners 4% or 6% for the cost of installing rooftop
solar. Rooftop solar reduces electricity bills by generating
power on-site and can increase property values.125,000$
Solar for Vouchers - Multifamily pilot (TBD)
Offers larger cost share for property owners who install
solar and agree to provide a certain number of units to low-
income households through the Section 8 program for 5
years.25,000$
Climate Champions (business and
multifamily)
Continuation of cost share program for properties that take
action to improve energy efficiency, including lighting
retrofits, HVAC and equipment replacement. Energy
improvements will reduce utility bills and can improve
aesthetics and security. 65,000$
Building Operations Champions
Offers cost share for commercial property owners who pay
for their building operators to attend Building Operator
Certification (BOC) level 1 or multifamily training and pass
the exam.3,000$
Energy Efficient rebate match and Home
Energy Squad visits
Cost share for residential energy efficiency programs under
Housing Division. Includes Home Energy Squad program
and residential energy efficient rebate match program.35,000$
ReLeaf SLP tree planting/carbon banking
program
Carbon biosequestration--tree planting to capture and
store carbon dioxide, enhancing property values and
aesthetics and reducing owners' utility costs through
increased shading and reduced flooding.60,000$
Depaving pilot
Offers cost share for commercial property owners to turn
unused parking spaces into green space 25,000$
Electrify heating and cooling pilot (TBD)
Program design will be based on cohort direction and
future utility incentives for cold climate air source heat
pumps. Considering cost share in addition to bulk
purchasing, contractor training, and public education.50,000$
TOTAL 388,000$
12/9/2021
Page 10 Study session meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Overview of 2022 sustainability division programs
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: December 13, 2021
Discussion item : 2
Executive summary
Title: Climate emergency resolution
Recommended action: No action required. This topic has been placed on the agenda to
introduce a draft climate e mergency resolution.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to declare a climate emergency in coordination
with other Minnesota communities in January 2022?
Summary: A climate emergency resolution template has been developed by the Minnesota
Cities Climate Caucus, a group of municipal and county elected officials from across the state
working together on solutions to the climate crisis. As many as 20 communities within the
caucus are in discussion with their own elected officials and leadership to declare the joint
climate emergency in January 2022 in an effort to send a unified message and deepen impact.
The re solution template has been adapted and approved by the city’s Environment and
Sustainability Commission (ESC) to include St. Louis Park-specific climate concerns and climate
action.
The draft resolution as approved by the ESC is attached for council consideration.
Financial or budget considerations: None at this time.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Draft climate emergency resolution
Prepared by: Annie Pottorff, sustainability specialist
Emily Ziring, sustainability manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, director of building and energy
Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Climate emergency resolution
Discussion
Background:
Climate Emergency resolution
A t the August 23, 2021 city council study session, Councilmembers Kraft and Rog presented a
study session topic proposal on declaring a climate emergency. Staff researched the impact of
other local climate emergency declarations, what the appreciable differences would be
between declaring a climate emergency and business as usual, and what actionable steps are
suggested should the council proceed with the declaration.
In the months following that study session, Councilmember Kraft has coordinated with the
Minnesota Cities Climate Caucus, a voluntary, statewide , non-partisan group of elected officials
and leaders to draft and coordinate a joint climate emergency declaration . Other cities
proposing a climate e mergency declaration as part of this effort include neighboring Edina,
Eden Prairie, and Golden Valley, and greater Minnesota communities including Grand Rapids,
Moorhead, and Rochester. By issuing a joint declaration, these communities (as many as 20)
seek to amplify impact to urge local, state , and federal action.
To date , over 2,000 jurisdictions in 34 countries have declared a climate e mergency, including
three in Minnesota: Crystal Bay Township, Minneapolis, and Duluth. Around the globe, this
effort has been largely led by The Climate Mobilization , a nonprofit that provides templates and
support for individuals to advocate for local climate emergency declarations.
Minneapolis Climate Emergency
The City of Minneapolis declared a climate emergency in 2019 after modeling revealed the city
would not meet emissions reductions targets by 2050. Mayor Jacob Frey stated it was largely
symbolic but that it “helps to articulate a clear problem and one that needs to be acted upon.”
Two additional pieces of policy were passed in conjunction with the declaration: a citywide
social cost of carbon policy and a sustainable building policy.
A ccording to Minneapolis city staff, in practice the emergency declaration has been used to
justify funding of sustainability initiatives and is often referenced by the mayor, council, and the
public to advocate for further climate action. The declaration did not in itself increase funding
to the sustainability division or create new programs.
Duluth Climate Emergency
The City of Duluth declared a climate e mergency earlier this year, which charged city staff with
developing a Climate Action Work Plan that would reduce the city’s emissions by 80% by 2050
and increase community resiliency. Duluth city staff state that the climate emergency provided
a renewed sense of urgency and encouraged the city to not just meet but exceed the 80%
reduction by 2050 goal. No additional funding was announced with the declaration.
Study session meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Climate emergency resolution
Environment and Sustainability Commission considerations
I n August 2019, the St. Louis Park Environment and Sustainability Commission considered
urging council to declare a climate e mergency. The commission recognized the need for greater
urgency on climate action , but ultimately felt that there would be more power in a regional
declaration and did not move forward with recommending a declaration at that time. Similar
sentiments have been expressed by other Minnesota communities , who have hesitated to
declare a climate emergency.
Present considerations: Minnesota is already witnessing the impacts of climate change,
including drought, higher annual temperatures, sustained heat waves, flooding, and forest fires.
After the end of COP26, the recent 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, a Climate
Action Tracker analysis found if official targets submitted to the U.N. were achieved, the world
would still likely heat up by about 2.4 degrees C (4.3 degrees F), a devastating amount of
warming. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said that the outcomes achieved were still
important, but “not enough. It’s time to go into emergency mode.” Meanwhile cities around
the world , including St. Louis Park, are leading action to implement the Paris Agreement goals
by joining the Cities Race to Zero campaign. Over 800 cities have pledged to reduce carbon
emissions by 50% or more by 2030.
Communities across the state are witnessing this international call for action, as well as
experiencing the need to immediately curb local emissions. The Minnesota Cities Climate
Caucus is coordinating this joint climate emergency declaration to increase visibility for climate
action and leverage state and federal assistance.
There are three main purposes of the declaration:
1.Increase awareness of the current climate crisis and shared opportunity for change.
People feel more empowered when they feel what they do matters and that they are
part of something larger than themselves. This highly visible action with communities
across the state will both inform and unify.
2.Send a message to the entire Minnesota legislature that constituents across the state
are ready for bold climate action. By issuing the declaration in January, a few weeks
before the start of the Minnesota legislativ e session, representatives will be urged to
make policy decisions that support a healthy environment, more efficient buildings, and
dedicated funding for climate action efforts.
3.Underscore that there is a climate action role to play for every resident, employee,
business owner, and visitor to St. Louis Park. While recognizing the urgency of this
moment, the declaration will also increase awareness of city sustainability programs and
resources, giving the community a menu of ways to be part of the solution.
The attached Climate Emergency Resolution drafted by the Cities Climate Caucus and modified
and approved by the St. Louis Park Environment and Sustainability Commission outlines how
scientific research indicates that to achieve the goal of limiting temperature increase to 1.5
degrees Celsius, carbon emissions must be halved by 2030 and reach net zero global emissions
by 2050, and how a well-planned transition can lead to job opportunities. The resolution
declares that a clim ate emergency threatens our city, region, state, nation, humanity, and the
natural world.
Study session meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Climate emergency resolution
Depending on where a given community currently stands in their climate work, they can adapt
the resolution to include next steps applicable to them, such as creating a Climate Action Plan
or establishing an environmental commission. The resolution highlight s St. Louis Park 2022
projects, previews a “2022 Year of Climate Action ,” calls for continued collaboration from the
caucus, and renews the city’s commitment to equitable and just climate action —including
advocat ing for implementation of the federal Justice40 guidelines.
Note that a Climate Emergency resolution differs from other types of local, state , and federal
emergency declarations, which are typically issued in response to acute disasters. On March 16,
2020, Mayor Spano issued a local emergency declaration to respond to COVID-19. This
declaration unlocked emergency relief funding, closed city facilities to the public, and directed
staff to work in facilities in a limited capacity. These protocols would not apply when declaring a
Climate Emergency. Rather, this resolution is a tool to increase awareness and send a clear
united message with communities across Minnesota.
Next steps: Staff will work internally to make any necessary language adjustments to the
Climate Emergency resolution should the council wish to proceed. The resolution will be
presented at a January city council meeting for a vote . The coordinated date chosen by the
Cities Climate Caucus for councils to consider this is January 24; as a study session falls on this
date , it may necessitate a special council meeting be established for that date.
To build on the momentum of the resolution, staff will use the opportunity to present the city’s
2022 sustainability programs to the community. Many of these will provide ongoing cost-sharing
incentives for residents and business owners for a range of projects, including energy efficiency
improvements, solar panel installation, and tree planting, making sustainable actions more
affordable across the community. The presentation will demonstrate that there is role for every
resident, employee, business owner, and visitor to St. Louis Park in fighting climate change.
Resolution No. 21-____
Resolution
Declaring a Climate Emergency in St. Louis Park , Minnesota
January __, 2022
Whereas, St. Louis Park has just this past year experienced numerous climate change
related impacts including a record June heat wave, dangerous air quality from drought-fueled
forest fires where even healthy people were encouraged to remain inside, and water
restrictions from the same drought, making it clear that the climate crisis is not only a future
issue — it is affecting us here and now; and
Whereas, extreme weather will create new challenges for St. Louis Park’s infrastructure
and finances and will pose a threat to the economic vitality of our residents and businesses; and
Whereas, the greatest burden from an inadequate response to the climate crisis will be
felt by historically marginalized or underserved communities as well as the youngest
generation, including the children and grandchildren of St. Louis Park; and
Whereas, in Minnesota, the ten warmest and wettest years ever recorded have all
occurred since 1998, warming surface waters are leading to a significant loss of fish habitat for
many prominent species as well as increasing the risk of harmful algae blooms, forests are
ch anging as native northern species are strained by warming temperatures, crops are stressed
by cycles of drought and floods, home insurance rates are rising far faster than the national
average from an average of $368 in 1998 to $1348 in 2015, and faster warming winters are
leading to new pests as well as shorter winter recreation seasons; and
Whereas, the bi-partisan Next Generation Energy Act, passed by the Minnesota State
Legislature and signed by then Governor Tim Pawlenty in 2007, committed our State to
achieving to an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 and with interim
goals of 15% and 30% below 2005 GHG emissions levels by 2015 and 2025, respectively, with
cities being key drivers of achieving these goals; and
Whereas, our State did not meet its 2015 goal, and is not yet on track to reach our future
targets; and
Whereas, in April 2016 world leaders from 175 countries, including the United States,
recognized the threat of climate change and the urgent need to combat it by signing the Paris
Agreement, agreeing to “pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees
Celsius”; and
Page 5 Study session Meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title Climate emergency resolution
Study session Meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Title Climate emergency resolution
Whereas, we have already reached a temperature increase of nearly 1.1 degrees Celsius
(nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit) as compared to pre-industrial times and the death and
destruction already wrought by this level of global warming demonstrate that the Earth is
already too hot for a safe, just, and healthy life for many around the world, as attested by
increased and intensifying wildfires, floods, rising seas, diseases, droughts, and extreme
weather; and
Whereas, in August 2021 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the
United Nations body responsible for assessing the science related to climate change, released a
report that stated, “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere and
land,” and that “Human influence has warmed the climate at a rate that is unprecedented in at
least the last 2000 years,” and “with every additional increment of global warming, changes in
extremes continue to become larger”; and
Whereas, recent scientific research indicates that to achieve the goal of limiting
temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius, carbon emissions must be halved by 2030 and
reach net zero global emissions by 2050; and
Whereas, a transition to a clean energy economy, if not carefully planned, would have a
disruptive impact on the livelihoods of many in our community while a well-planned transition
may provide expanded job opportunities for local residents; and
Whereas, federal Justice40 guidelines and screening tools are forthcoming, which will
direct 40% of the overall benefits from federal investments in climate and clean energy to
disadvantaged communities; and
Whereas, local community organiz ations will have opportunities to receive Justice40
benefits, and the City of St. Louis Park can increase awareness of Justice40 and help build
capacity for organizations to take full advantage of Justice40; and
Whereas, St. Louis Park strategic priorities include commitments to being a leader in racial
equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all and in
environmental stewardship; and
Whereas, 2,012 jurisdictions in 34 countries including Minnesota leaders Duluth,
Minneapolis, and Crystal Bay Township, have already declared climate emergencies in order to
focus attention on the need for rapid action to address climate change;
Now therefore be it resolved that St. Louis Park declares that a climate emergency
threatens our city, region, state, nation, humanity and the natural world.
Be it further resolved St. Louis Park commits to working for a just transition and climate
emergency mobilization effort and will:
Study session Meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Title Climate emergency resolution
•Implement a range of innovative projects, programs, and public awareness campaigns
for businesses and residents throughout 2022 and beyond, including around solar
energy, energy efficiency, natural resources, and more.
•Use this declaration as the launch for a “2022 Year of Climate Action” in St. Louis Park
that will spur increased engagement through community-wide events.
•Collaborate with surrounding cities and local partners to identify larger, regional
sustainability projects, and when applicable, work together to pursue state and federal
climate action funding for those projects.
•Support the counties and cities across the state joining this declaration to meet
regularly, share ideas, and align goals to continue advocating for state and federal
legislation.
•Use all available tools to ensure climate action in St. Louis Park is equitable and just,
including but not limited to consideration of inclusive involvement and engagement,
policy and program design, populations and people who are more likely to benefit or be
burdened, and accessible communications.
•Advocate for the federal Justice40 guidelines and screening tool to be released as soon
as possible and communicate the importance of this initiative with fellow communities,
local leaders, and state representatives, while strengthening relationships with
community organizations that would benefit from Justice40 funding.
Be it further resolved St. Louis Park calls on the Minnesota legislature and executive
branch to immediately and aggressively take action through policymaking and funding to
support cities of all sizes around Minnesota to both mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate
change, including providing funding and resources for the development and implementation of
climate action plans.
Be it further resolved St. Louis Park calls on the federal government to immediately
commit resources to support the climate mitigation, adaptation and resiliency efforts of cities
large and small, to invest in the infrastructure needed for a sustainable future, to ensure that
investment is at the scale needed, and to provide the necessary global leadership to keep global
warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council (month/day), 2022
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: December 13, 2021
Written report: 3
Executive summary
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
Recommended action: No action at this time. This report is an update on the Bridgewalk
Condominium Homeowners’ Association’s request for the city to establish a Bridgewalk HIA.
Policy consideration: Does the city wish to authorize establish ment of the Bridgewalk HIA? The
city is authorized by the state to establish HIAs as a finance tool for private housing improvements.
The city adopted the HIA policy in 2001.
Summary: The Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association submitted an application
October 5, 2021 for $5.77 million dollars to create a Housing Improvement Area. With city fees
and soft costs, the total request is $5.97 million. Bridgewalk is a 92-unit condominium building
with one-, two- and three -bedroom units. Bridgewalk was built in 1972 and needs significant
improvements to the exterior, interior, mechanical and electrical system, pool, and garage. The
association hired a consultant, Doug Strandness of Dunbar Strandness, Inc., to work with them
on establishing the HIA.
The association does not have the reserve funds to make the necessary improvements and has
been turned down by two financial institutions for financing. The HIA is a last-resort financing
tool when associations have no other viable option for raising money for improvements. State
law requires at least 50% of the owners’ sign petitions requesting the city council hold public
hearings to establish the HIA and impose the fee. The city has imposed a 70% threshold for this
HIA due to the size of the funding request and fees.
The association undertook extensive outreach in August 2021 to education and inform
homeowners about the HIA project. 71 of the 92 homeowners (77%) submitted statements of
support to move forward with requesting the HIA. Housing, finance , and assessing staff have
reviewed the application and worked with Kennedy & Graven and Ehlers to prepare a petition.
If 70% of the homeowners sign the petition the next step will be a public hearing to establish
the HIA.
Financial or budget considerations: If approved the HIA would be funded with a combination of
bonds and an EDA internal loan. The maximum HIA amount is $5.97 million.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Marney Olson, housing supervisor
Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer,
Michele Schnitker, housing manager/deputy CD director
Karen Barton, CD director
Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager
Page 2 Study session meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 3)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Home owners’ A ssociation Housing Improvement A rea (HIA)
Discussion
Background: The city is authorized by the state to establish HIAs as a finance tool for private
housing improvements. A 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. HIAs are typically utilized by multi-family ownership housing
associations, such as townhome and condominium associations. The city adopted an HIA policy
in 2001 and has previously established eight HIAs. The Bridgewalk HIA proposal meets the
intent of the city policy.
The association hired a consultant, Doug Strandness of Dunbar Strandness, Inc., to work with
them on establishing the HIA. Mr. Strandness initially contacted the city in 2019 regarding the
city’s HIA policy. City staff did a walkthrough of the property in March 2020 with Mr. Strandness
and a board member to see the necessary improvements. The association submitted an
application on May 27, 2020 with a $6.9 million dollar request, that did not includ e the city’s
fees and soft costs. Based on the city’s uncertain budget situation related to the COVID-19
pandemic, the city was not in a position to consider the HIA at that time. In addition, the HIA
was complex , with fees significantly higher than any other HIA in the past and an infeasible
timeline. Staff informed Mr. Strandness that the city was not able to move forward with the HIA
request at that time but stated the request could be revisited in the future. The association
used the time to evaluate the scope of work and budget.
Present considerations: The Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association submitted an
application October 5, 2021 for $5.77 million dollars to create a Housing Improvement Area.
With city fees and soft costs, the total request is $5.97 million. Bridgewalk is a 92-unit
condominium building with one -, two- and three -bedroom units. Bridgewalk was built in 1972
and is in need of significant improvements to the exterior, interior, mechanical, and electrical
system, pool and garage. The association hired Encompass to evaluate the repairs needed at
Bridgewalk along with a budget estimate. The application also included a reserve plan, financial
plan and reserve study conducted by Reserve Advisors.
The association does not have the reserve funds to make the necessary improvements and has
been turned down by two financial institutions for financing. The HIA is a last resort financing
tool when associations have no other viable option for raising money for improvements. State
law requires at least 50% of the owners’ sign petitions requesting the city council hold public
hearings to establish the HIA and impose the fee. The city has imposed a 70% threshold for this
HIA due to the size of the funding request and fees.
Th e association undertook extensive outreach in August 2021 to educate and inform
homeowners about the HIA project. 71 of the 92 homeowners (77%) submitted statements of
support to move forward with requesting the HIA. Housing, finance and assessing staff have
reviewed the application and worked with Kennedy & Graven and Ehlers to prepare a petition.
If 70% of the homeowners sign the petition the next step will be a public hearing to establish
the HIA. Eleven homeowners are interested in seeking a hardship defe rral of the HIA fees.
P age 3
Proposed Scope of Work. The following work would be scheduled to begin in 2022:
Exterior building elements
Flat roofs: pool area excluding portion already replaced, north and south buildings
ADA Access Ramp at main entry
Main entry doors and vestibule
Balconies: structures including framing and decking, sidewalls and roof structures and railings
All exterior siding
Interior building elements
Lobby vestibule
Elevators – modernization (one elevator), cab finishes (one elevator)
Common area carpeting and paint finishes
Unit hallway doors
Locker rooms renovation
Party/community room reconfigure and renovate
Building service elements:
Electrical panel in boiler room
Security systems: fobs & upgraded video
Air handling units for all co mmon areas
Domestic hot water boilers along with storage tank
Boiler room upgrades
Life safety system
Pool elements
West wall replacement
Pool refurbishment (pool & hot tub interiors plus deck)
Pool equipment
Pool HVAC
Garage elements
Lighting
Water intrusion at north garage wall
Garage walls (paint)
Garage ceiling (scrub clean)
Exhaust and heating systems
Property site elements
Asphalt (mill & overlay)
Concrete bridge at southwest corner of building
Concrete ramps and aprons
Privacy fences between unit patios
Courtyard/patio reconfigure and improve
Unit elements
Unit windows and patio doors (low-E glass)
Study session meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 3)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Home owners’ A ssociation Housing Improvement A rea (HIA)
P age 4
Total Loan Amount
The total loan amount is $5,970,000: $5,770,000 primary purpose fund for construction and
soft costs , $145,400 for costs associated with bond issuance, and $54,600 for city
administrative, legal, financial costs , and rounding. Total common area costs (prepayment
amount) range from $41,253 to $112,833 per unit based on the ownership percentage.
The term of the loan and imposed fees would be 20 years. The loan will be repaid by a special
assessment attached to each property unit. The county will receive the payments through the
property tax system and pass back to the city. This is a low -risk way for the city to assist with
bringing the property up to date to ensure many years of continued use for current and future
owners.
P reliminary estimates of the fees to be imposed on housing units in the Bridgewalk
Condominium Homeowner’s Association are based on an interest rate of approximately 4.83%.
This interest rate is subject to change based on market conditions.
Affordable homeownership
The Bridgewalk Association has submitted a complete and thorough application for the creation
of a Housing Improvement Area. They have demonstrated the need for the improvements and
the city is the last resort financing option for these necessary improvements.
The average 2021 assessed value at Bridgewalk is $128,910 with assessed values ranging from
$95,600 to $183,900. All u nits at Bridgewalk, even with the HIA fees, will be affordable to
households at 80% Area Median Income (AMI) based on the affordable homeownership limit of
$316,000 set by the Metropolitan Council. The majority of the units will be below the 60% AMI
($245,300) or 50% AMI ($201,500) affordable homeownership limit.
The creation of the Bridgewalk HIA will preserve affordable homeownership in St. Louis Park.
Next steps: City staff are hosting two information sessions with homeowners the week of
December 16 to review the HIA process and the petition. Petitions are due January 5, 2022. If
more than 70% of homeowners submit a petition requesting the city council hold a public
hearing to establish the HIA and impose the fee staff will begin the public hearing, ordinance ,
and resolution process.
Study session meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 3)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Home owners’ A ssociation Housing Improvement A rea (HIA)
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: December 13, 2021
Written report: 4
Executive summary
Title: Solar energy systems ordinance amendment
Recommended action: None at this time. Send staff questions or provide input on the
proposed solar energy systems ordinance .
Policy consideration: Does council support the proposed solar energy systems ordinance?
Summary: The purpose of the ordinance is to establish regulations specific to solar energy
systems. The ordinance also relocates the accessory structure regulations from the yard
encroachme nt section to the accessory structure regulations section of the zoning code.
Background: SolSmart is a national designation program recognizing cities, counties, and
regional organizations that foster the development of mature local solar markets. In May of
2021, the City of St. Louis Park improved its rating from a bronze to silver designation under
SolSmart. We achieved this designation by utilizing solar on public buildings, demonstrating
that we have a streamlined permitting process that does not hinder issuing permits for solar
energy systems, and for providing information and encouragement for solar energy systems.
To achieve the gold designation, the highest level, the city must explicitly state in its zoning
code that solar energy systems are permitted as accessory uses in each major land use district
and demonstrate that there are no significant regulatory barriers to installing them. City staff
recognize that this aligns with the city’s climate action goals and is in the public interest. Staff
drafted the proposed ordinance to meet the requirements for the gold designation and help
advance this strategic priority.
The broader changes to better and more explicitly allow solar energy systems led to a code
review and clarifications for accessory structures, including swimming pools. While it was not
initially the purpose of the code review, the ordinance includes language clarifying how other
accessory structures are regulated.
The planning commission discussed the ordinance in study session on Nov. 3, 2021 and
conducted a public hearing on Dec. 8, 2021. City council is tentatively scheduled to hold a first
reading on Jan. 3, 2022.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, zoning administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager
Karen Barton, community development director
Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Solar energy systems ordinance amendment
Discussion
Background: Below is a list a summary of the changes proposed in the ordinance.
1.A uthorization to allow solar energy systems as an administrative amendment to approved
PUD and CUPs with the conditions listed below. Administrative approval allows the city to
approve permits for solar energy systems in a timely and cost-effective manner. Systems
that do not meet the conditions listed below will be processed as either minor or major
amendments depending on the impact to the PUD or CUP approvals. Providing a path for
administrative approval is a key criterion for meeting SolSmart Gold st atus.
•The amendments do not impact intentional landscaping elements approved as part of
the planned unit development or conditional use permit, such as landscaping plazas or
designed open spaces.
•The amendments do not impact landscaping required for screening purposes.
•The structure of the freestanding solar energy systems shall be screened from public
views.
•The required minimum number of trees and shrubs shall not be reduced.
•Existing trees are replaced as required by the tree replacement ordinance (which may
result in payment of fees to the city tree fund rather than plantings on site).
2.Establish a three-foot height exemption for solar energy systems attached to buildings. This
exemption is like the exemption for parapet walls.
3.Allow solar energy systems in all zoning districts as an accessory use on rooftops of
buildings and as accessory structures. As accessory structures, the solar energy systems are
allowed in the back yard and interior side yards only. The solar energy systems are required
to meet all existing setbacks and other criteria required in each zoning district. The
ordinance includes exemptions to maximum area and front yard and side yard abutting the
street limitations to allow solar energy systems over parking lots .
I f a property owner is not able to meet yard requirements for solar energy systems, then a
variance could be requested. State law allows access to solar as a consideration for granting
variances.
4.Es tablishes solar panels as a class 1 material in the architectural ordinance. As a result, sides
of a building could be covered with solar panels. The ordinance also exempts solar panels
from the rooftop screening requirements.
5.Creates a solar energy systems section within the zoning ordinance. This section establishes
the following:
•Require s a permit to install a solar energy system.
•Establishes standards for building-mounted solar energy systems. The standards
including requiring the system to meet the setbacks required for the building it is
mounted to, requiring the solar collector surfaces to be at least one foot from the roof
edge for every one foot the surface extends above the roof.
•Establishes standards for free -standing solar energy systems. Free -standing solar
energy systems are not permitted on residential properties in the R-1, R-2 and R-3
districts, except on sch ool, places of worship, or other non-residential properties in
Study session meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Solar energy systems ordinance amendment
these districts. Free -standing solar energy systems are permitted on all properties in
the R-4 and R-C districts with the condition that they are not allowed in the front or
side yard s abutting streets. The system cannot exceed five percent of multiple -family
property size and 15% of property size for all other uses with the exception of
freestanding solar energy systems as principal uses in the industrial districts where it is
limited to 70% of the parcel size.
Miscellaneous revisions. Along with the revisions described above, the ordinance proposes to
relocate regulations pertaining to accessory structures. This amendment changes where the
accessory structure regulations are found in the code but does not change the regulation s.
Next steps: Planning commission held a public hearing on the zoning ordinance amendment on
Dec. 8, 2021. A summary of that meeting and the commission’s recommendation will be
included in the staff report when city council holds a first reading of the ordinance amending
the zoning code on Jan. 3, 2022.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: December 13, 2021
Written report: 5
Executive summary
Title: Daycare ordinance amendment
Recommended action: None at this time. Send staff questions or provide input on the
proposed daycare ordinance .
Policy consideration: Does council support the proposed daycare ordinance?
Summary: The purpose of the ordinance is to reduce barriers in the zoning ordinance that make
it more difficult to locate a daycare in St. Louis Park than in many other cities, by amending the
zoning regulations pertaining to daycares in the following manner:
1.Follow state regulations applicable to outdoor activity areas.
2.Allow city parks to be utilized to meet a portion of the required outdoor activity area.
3.Eliminate the minimum distance requirement from principal arterial roads (major
highways such as Highways 100, 394, 169 and 7).
4.Create consistency across all zoning districts in how daycares are regulated.
Background: Over the past few years, staff has worked with several daycare operators wishing
to locate in St. Louis Park. Unfortunately, most have been unable to find a location that meets
all of the city’s zoning conditions, such as size of outdoor play area and minimum distance from
major highways. To accommodate the growing need for this valued service, staff recommends
the city consider a more flexible model.
The planning commission reviewed the proposed ordinance in study session on Nov. 3, 2021
and conducted a public hearing on Dec. 8, 2021.
Next Steps: If the planning commission recommends approval, the ordinance will be considered
by the council on Jan. 3, 2022.
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: Discussion
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, zoning administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Page 2 Study session meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 5)
Title: Daycare ordinance amendment
Discussion
Background: A license is required from the Minnesota Department of Human Services to
operate a commercial daycare center. Hennepin county licenses the family daycares operated
out of a home.
The city allows family daycares as an accessory use in each of our residential districts. The only
conditions applied to them is that they are limited to 14 children and may have only one
employee working at the daycare that does not also reside at the home. Staff does not propose
any changes to these regulations apart from minor rewording to be consistent in all districts.
Commercial daycare centers are currently allowed in nearly all zoning districts with conditions
that either exceed state minimum requirements or regulate additional criteria that are not
included in the state requirements. These additional requirements make it difficult for daycare
center operators to locate in St. Louis Park. Therefore, staff propose the following:
1.Review the city regulations and consider eliminating conditions that exceed state minimum
requirements or are in addition to the state requirements.
2.The city regulations vary from district to district. Staff propose to revise the regulations, so
they are uniformly applied in all districts.
Summary of proposed ordinance: The planning commission reviewed the proposed ordinance
in study session on Nov. 3, 2021. Below is a summary of the ordinance.
1.Reduce the required on-site outdoor activity area requirement. The ordinance proposes to
rely on the state requirements regarding the size of the on-site outdoor activity area. The
state requires at least 1,500 square feet of outdoor activity area. The maximum number of
children allowed in the outdoor activity area is determined by the size of the area. The
state requires at least 75 square feet of outdoor activity per child occupying the area at any
given time.
City code currently requires 40 square feet of outdoor activity area per child the center is
designed to accommodate at maximum occupancy. For example, if the maximum
occupancy of a daycare is 50 children, then the outdoor activity area needs to be at least
2,000 square feet. The city formula doesn’t acknowledge that all the children may not be
outside at the same time.
Th e state requirement offers more flexibility as it does not assume all children will be in
the outdoor activity area at the same time as the city does. Relying on state requirements
seems to be the more typical approach taken by cities, especially inner ring suburbs and
central cities.
2.Allow city parks to be used to meet a portion of the required outdoor activity area. The
state does not require the outdoor activity area to be located on and owned by the
daycare center site. It simply requires it to be within 2,000 feet of the center if the children
are walking to it, or within a half -mile if transportation is provided by the center. This
allows city parks to be used for the outdoor activity area.
Page 3 Study session meeting of December 13, 2021 (Item No. 5)
Title: Daycare ordinance amendment
The ordinance proposes to allow city parks to be use d to meet a portion of the required
outdoor activity area with the following conditions:
•At least 50% of the required outdoor activity area be met on-site . The state requires at
least 1,500 square feet; therefore, the daycare center would have to have at least 750
square feet on-site. The state also requires at least 75 square feet of outdoor activity
area per child utilizing the area at any given time. This means the 750 square foot
minimum area would have a maximum capacity of 10 children. The daycare operator
could build a larger on-site outdoor activity area.
•Require a sidewalk or improved trail connect the daycare center to the park to be
utilized to meet the outdoor activity area requirement.
•The playground must have age -appropriate equipment.
The proposal was presented to the parks and recreation advisory commission on Dec. 8,
2021 for comment. Their comments will be presented to the council on Jan. 3, 2022 if the
planning commission makes a recommendation on Dec. 8, 2021.
I f a city park does not meet the conditions for playground equipment, then that would be
cause for denial of the daycare center’s application to reduce the play area provided on-
site . Alternatively, the daycare center operator could work with the city to make
improv ements to the park that would meet the conditions. This w ould be considered on a
case -by-case basis with the involvement of the parks and recreation department.
3.Remov e the requirement that outdoor activity areas be located at least 200 feet from a
prin cipal arterial. Many commercial properties are located along a principal arterial, so this
requirement is a significant barrier to daycare centers locating in St. Louis Park. The
ordinance proposes to remove this condition. The ordinance would continue the to require
daycare centers’ on-site outdoor activity areas to be enclosed with a fence.
4.Remove daycare centers as principal uses from the industrial districts and continue to allow
them as accessory uses to a business if the daycare is used primarily for its employees. The
ordinance proposes to remove daycare centers from the industrial parks as principal uses
and continue to allow them as accessory uses with the condition that they are used
primarily for its employees.
5.Clarify that daycare centers are allowed on the ground floor of multi-story buildings and
limited to up to 50% of the ground floor area in the Business Park zoning district. The
ordinance proposes to clarify that daycare centers should be limited to the ground floor of
multi-story buildings and abide by the 50% maximum ground floor requirement.
Next steps: Planning commission held a public hearing on the zoning ordinance amendment on
Dec. 8, 2021. Additionally, the parks and recreation advisory commission reviewed the proposal
to allow city parks to meet the outdoor activity area requirement. A summary of both meetings
and the commission’s recommendation will be included in the staff report when city council
holds a first reading of the ordinance amending the zoning code on Jan. 3, 2022.