HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024/04/15 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
APRIL 15, 2024
5:30 p.m. Local Board of Appeal and Equalization - Council Chambers
Action item
1. Reconvene the St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
6:20 p.m. Economic Development Authority meeting - Council Chambers
1.Call to order
a.Roll call
2.Approve agenda.
3.Minutes
a.Minutes of April 1, 2024 EDA meeting
4.Consent item
a.Resolution approving environmental investigation grant application – Loffler
Companies – Ward 2
5.Public hearings – none.
6.Regular business – none.
7.Communications and announcements – none.
8.Adjournment.
6:30 p.m. City council meeting - Council Chambers
1.Call to order
a.Roll call.
b.Pledge of Allegiance.
2.Approve agenda.
3.Presentations
a.Recognition of Timothy Williams on his retirement
b.Proclamation designating May 2024 "Bike Month"
4.Minutes
a.Minutes of March 18, 2024 city council meeting
b.Minutes of March 25, 2024 study session
c.Minutes of March 25, 2024 special city council meeting
Agenda LBAE, EDA, city council meeting and special study session of April 15, 2024
5.Consent items
a.Resolution recognizing retirement of Timothy Williams, Public Works Information
Systems Specialist
b.Resolution approving agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard
(4023-7000) - Ward 1
c.Approve bid for 2024 Concrete Replacement project (4024-0003)
d.Resolutions modifying parking restriction on Xenwood Avenue south of 36th Street
-Ward 2
e.Resolution returning unspent Municipal Broadband Expansion Fund grant money to
Hennepin County
f.Resolution to commence eminent domain action for Phase 2 - Cedar Lake Road/
Louisiana Avenue (city project no. 4024-1100) - Ward 4
6.Public hearings – none.
7.Regular business
a.First reading of zoning text amendment to C-1 neighborhood commercial zoning
district
8.Communications and announcements – none.
9.Adjournment.
Immediately following city council meeting – special study session - Community
Room
Discussion item
1. Infrastructure Project Development Process
Written reports
2. Speed limit evaluation
3. Basket weave stop signs
Members of the public can attend St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and city council
meetings in person. Official minutes of meetings are available on the city website once approved.
Watch St. Louis Park and Economic Development Authority or regular city council meetings live
at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil or at www.parktv.org, or on local cable (Comcast SD channel 14/HD
channel 798). Recordings of the meetings are available to watch on the city's YouTube channel at
www.youtube.com/@slpcable, usually within 24 hours of the end of the meeting. City council
study sessions are not broadcast.
The council chambers are equipped with Hearing Loop equipment and headsets are available to borrow.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952.924.2505.
Meeting: Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Meeting date: April 15, 2024
Action agenda item: 1
2024 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Reconvene – April 15, 2024
PROPOSED AGENDA
1.Reconvene the St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
2.Roll Call – Declaration of Quorum
3.Acknowledgement of Trained Members (Nadia Mohamed & Sue Budd)
4.Review of Properties in Appeal
A. Board Action – Not resolved, to be heard by the Local Board
B. Board Action – To be sustained, referral to the County Board
C.Board Action – To be sustained, (inspection refusal, non-response, or withdrawal)
D.Board Action - Appellant & Assessing Staff are in Mutual Agreement
For appeals in groups a-b-c, it is suggested that the board review each parcel individually,
discuss as you will and make individual board rulings. For the mutual agreement category,
each parcel should be read into the record and the board may take one group action per
DOR direction (April 2016).
5.Instruct Assessor to Complete Record of Changes for Submittal
6.Instruct Assessor to Inform Appellants of Board Action via Mail
7.Complete the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Certification Form
8.Adjourn if Board business is completed
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: 2024 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
BACKGROUND for the 2024 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
All property owners are entitled to the right of appeal regarding their classification and market
value. The City is required by statute to conduct a Local Board of Appeal & Equalization meeting
to hear appeals or conduct an open book meeting. Owner options also include the County
Board of Appeal & Equalization and ultimately the Minnesota State Tax Court.
The focus for the board is: the property classification which is determined by use; and the
market value which is based on the characteristics of the real estate and market conditions as
of the date of the assessment (January 2, 2024). Minnesota statute requires all properties to be
assessed at full market value, fee simple. The dominant definitions of market value are:
MN Statute 272.03 – “Market value” means the usual selling price at the place where the
property to which the term is applied shall be at the time of assessment; being the price
which could be obtained at a private sale or an auction sale, if it is determined by the
assessor that the price from the auction sale represents an arm’s length transaction. The
price obtained at a forced sale shall not be considered.
Appraisal Institute – The most probable price, as of a specified date, in cash or in terms
equivalent to cash, or in other precisely revealed terms, for which the specified property
rights should sell after reasonable exposure in a competitive market under all conditions
requisite to a fair sale, with the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably,
and for self-interest, and assuming that neither is under undue duress. (The Appraisal of
Real Estate, 13th Edition, Appraisal Institute [2008], page 23)
The Board convened on April 1, 2024 at which meeting a total of fifteen (15) parcels were
recognized to be under appeal. The Board set the process and scheduled the reconvene
meeting as April 15 to review the merit of each appeal and to rule on them.
A few housekeeping observations are made for the reference of the board.
• One trained and certified Board member (Mohamed and/or Budd) must be present at
each meeting the Board is in session. Best practice is for multiple trained members.
• Timeline of the assessment: All valuations are set as of January 2, 2024, relative to
market activity in the preceding year. Value influences due to changing conditions have
been reviewed from the perspective of market reactions in setting the assessment.
• The time window for the board to conclude business is 20 days after convening.
• It is essential that the Board rules on each question before it and likewise that the Board
recognizes that it can reduce, sustain, or increase valuations as deemed necessary.
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: 2024 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
• Important – DOR directive: “It is the board’s responsibility to hear all appeals presented
until the board adjourns. A property owner can present their appeal at the initial
meeting or at any of the reconvene meetings. The board must hear that appeal and
make a decision. The board cannot dismiss the property owner’s appeal, unless the
meeting is adjourned.” The Hennepin County Assessor has reviewed that language and
requested that Local Boards accept appeals until final adjournment.
• At the writing of this Board packet, staff has added five (5) additional appeals to the
roster and endeavored to respond in a timely fashion.
• Prior to adjourning, the board should instruct the assessor to submit a record of their
actions on the Department of Revenue required form.
• Finally, the Local Board of Appeal Certification Form must be signed at each meeting by
all Board members present. The Hennepin delegate takes the form at meeting end.
Background to Valuation Methodologies: The modeling associated with the mass assessment
accommodates variations between neighborhoods, within neighborhoods and includes
consideration of location, age, style, size, finish materials, condition, updating, etc. depending
on the information available. Adjustments and valuation change orders have been made where
necessary during the informal review process prior to the Board.
The Board process differs from mass valuation modeling in that the assessing staff re-appraises
the subject property individually by direct comparison to market transactions. As part of the
review process, staff routinely re-inspects properties to review the accuracy of attributes and
especially current condition which is a highly important variable. Next steps are staff engaging
the property owner in a candid conversation of the assessed value, local transactions and how
the transactions provide a fact-based market indication of the subject property value.
If staff believes a reduction is warranted, this is disclosed to the owner in an attempt to
mutually resolve the valuation question. Likewise, if staff concludes that the valuation is at
market or slightly below, we inform the owner/appellant and discuss the market information.
In cases where staff revaluation does not result in a conclusion satisfactory to the appellant, the
board process is outlined. Additional questions are very common for those owners who desire
to appear before the Board. As such, the Local Board depends on active participation from all
parties involved including the property owner, assessing staff and the board members. All
property owners are requested to state their basis of appeal, their opinion of the market value
and informed that they may present information in written form and by testimony supporting
their opinion of value and/or classification.
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Title: 2024 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Focal Points for the Board – Agenda as Indicated on Cover Sheet, decisions on:
A. Board Action – Appeals to be heard by the board. As of April 10, when this packet is
being prepared, there are no cases in this category. The Rationale for that statement is
dictated by timing for inspection, file work-up and active engagement with the
appellants. Should this status change between now and the time for reconvene, it will be
requested that the Board hear and decide the merits of the case. As always, we inform
the owner that the Board allows 5-10 minutes for their presentation followed by a 3–5
minute presentation by the assessing staff. The Board may adjust these time allowances
as needed.
B. Board Action – Appeals moving to County Board. There are three (3) appeals where the
appeal started late, and owner/representative have indicated preference to resolve the
question at the county board level. These are a mixture of scheduling conflicts and
timeline to arrange the inspection/re-valuation work-up. We therefore request that the
board sustain the valuation on the roster record … to preserve their right and eligibility
to move onward to the County Board.
C. Board Action – Inspection refusal, non-responsive or withdrawal. There are five (5)
appeals that the owner has chosen to withdraw. These are cases where staff has
engaged with the owner to re-inspect and re-assess the valuation. Discussion of the
value question has been resolved. The Board is reminded that some cases end up in this
category almost every year. We again ask that the board sustain the valuation on the
roster record.
D. Board Action – Resolved, board approval. Twelve (12) appeals have been reviewed with
the property owner and assessing staff reaching a mutually acceptable valuation (no
classifications were appealed). It is requested that assessing staff read each parcel
action into the meeting record after which the Board may take one group action to affirm
the mutually agreed upon valuations.
Per the DOR direction to accept appeals made after the notification date which has been
published and posted per legal requirements; they are highlighted in yellow on the reconvene
roster. Should there be additional latS appeals in the time between this board packet and the
date of reconvene, we will be requesting their addition to the roster with proviso that we may
not have completed the review due to time constraints
Following your decision, each property owner will be notified via letter of the Board action and
to remind them that they are eligible to appeal to the County Board. The Hennepin County
Board of Appeal and Equalization begins June 17, 2024. An application is requested by the
County no later than May 22nd. To appear before the County Board, all appellants must first
have appealed to the St. Louis Park Board of Appeal and Equalization. Property owners may
also appeal directly to the Minnesota State Tax Court.
Thank you for serving on the Board. Prepared by: St. Louis Park Assessing Staff
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Title: 2024 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Tab Summary
Background & Focal Points for the Board
Tab 1: Roster of All Appeals for Board Action – At Time of Packet Assembly
(the final roster update will be handed out to the Board at the meeting)
Appeals AFTER the April 1 Convene was recessedReference 2024 AppealedAssessing Owner / Rep Board Name Property Address Property ID #2023 Value Classification 2024 ValueRevaluation Indicated Action Nina Flats, LLC via owner Geoff Markham 6211 Hamilton St 16-117-21-32-0090 $921,000 A - Apartment $921,000 Inspect 4-12 TBD - To CBAE Holiday Station Stores, Inc. via Representative 7000 Lake St W 17-117-21-44-0039 $651,000 C - Commercial $680,000 Inspect ? To CBAE Holiday Station Stores, Inc. via Representative 5720 Excelsior Blvd 21-117-21-24-0040 $821,000 C - Commercial $858,000 Inspect ? To CBAE Jessica Drapacho 3986 Wooddale Ave #201 07-028-24-23-0178 $469,300 X - Condominium $526,900 Sustain Withdraw Susan Book 3980 Wooddale Ave #302 07-028-24-23-0187 $451,600 X - Condominium $507,000 Sustain Withdraw Patricia Bosacker 3970 Wooddale Ave #101 07-028-24-23-0213 $492,800 X - Condominium $553,300 Sustain Withdraw Chad & Beth Babcock 3970 Wooddale Ave #202 07-028-24-23-0216 $450,600 X - Condominium $505,900 Sustain Withdraw Lauren Schrock 4327 Brook La 21-117-21-34-0077 $819,900 R - Residential $832,700 Sustain Withdraw Emma DeRubeis 1829 Idaho Ave S 05-117-21-43-0022 $371,900 R - Residential $374,100 $333,700 Mutually Agreed Jessica Erickson & Sergio Sarmiento Ortega 3532 Glenhurst Ave 06-028-24-41-0039 $506,100 R - Residential $509,700 $450,000 Mutually Agreed Elizabeth Rochon3980 Wooddale Ave #101 07-028-24-23-0182 $561,700 X - Condominium $630,600 $560,000 Mutually Agreed Jennifer Schaidler3980 Wooddale Ave #102 07-028-24-23-0183 $633,400 X - Condominium $711,200 $576,000 Mutually Agreed Anna-Lisa Erickson3962 Wooddale Ave #302 07-028-24-23-0230 $490,500 X - Condominium $550,700 $532,000 Mutually Agreed Sulan Yen & Daniel Nichols4370 Dart Ave S07-028-24-34-0034 $850,000 R - Residential $874,800 $860,000 Mutually Agreed Timothy Larocque9108 24th St W07-117-21-24-0015 $384,400 R - Residential $398,400$350,000 Mutually Agreed Evan Rousseau7006 24th St W08-117-21-13-0074 $431,800R - Residential $420,400 $404,100 Mutually Agreed Logan Kinsel3031 Rhode Island Ave S 17-117-21-22-0044 $423,400 R - Residential $462,400 $400,000 Mutually Agreed Scott Snyder3310 Aquila La18-117-21-24-0027 $568,700 R - Residential $615,500 $445,000 Mutually Agreed Thomas Melcher3930 Alabama Ave S 21-117-21-23-0102$454,000 R - Residential $462,900 $415,000 Mutually Agreed Kun LI RE LLC-Ella Li6200 Excelsior Blvd #103 21-117-21-32-0135 $155,300 C - Commercial $160,400 $135,000 Mutually Agreed Roster - City of St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal & Equalization - Reconvene April 15, 2024Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 1) Title: 2024 Local Board of Appeal and EqualizationPage 6
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: April 15, 2024
Minutes: 3a
Unofficial minutes
EDA meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
April 1, 2024
1. Call to order.
President pro tem Budd called the meeting to order at 6:20 p.m.
a. Roll call
Commissioners present: Paul Baudhuin, Tim Brausen, Sue Budd, Yolanda Farris, and Margaret
Rog
Commissioners absent: Lynette Dumalag
Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), city attorney (Mr. Mattick), administrative services
director (Ms. Brodeen)
2. Approve agenda.
It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Baudhuin, to approve the
EDA agenda as presented.
The motion passed 6-0 (President Dumalag absent).
3. Minutes.
a. EDA meeting minutes of March 18, 2024
It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Rog, to approve the EDA
meeting minutes of March 18, 2024 as presented.
The motion passed 6-0 (President Dumalag absent).
4. Consent items.
a. Approve EDA disbursements
It was moved by Commissioner Baudhuin, seconded by Commissioner Brausen, to approve the
consent items as listed.
The motion passed 6-0 (President Dumalag absent).
5. Public hearings – none.
6. Regular business – none.
Economic development authority meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Economic development authority meeting minutes of April 1, 2024
7. Communications and announcements – none.
8. Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 6:22 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, EDA secretary Lynette Dumalag, EDA president
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: April 15, 2024
Consent agenda item: 4a
Executive summary
Title: Environmental investigation grant application on behalf of Loffler Companies – Ward 2
Recommended action: Motion to adopt EDA resolution authorizing the submission of a grant
application to the Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization Account on behalf of Loffler
Companies related to an environmental investigation at 3745 Louisiana Avenue.
Policy consideration: Does the EDA support submitting a grant application on behalf of Loffler
Companies to assist in a site contamination investigation at 3745 Louisiana Avenue?
Summary: In January 2021, Loffler Companies purchased the former Sam’s Club property
located at 3745 Louisiana. From 2021 through 2023, Loffler Companies completed a major
renovation of the building, which now serves as its corporate headquarters and consolidated
warehouse. The award-winning facility is home to more than 500 employees.
Prior to Loffler Companies’ purchase of the property, the city completed a planning study for
the 13-acre site, which envisioned portions of the large, southern parking lot be used for multi-
family residential and ground floor commercial spaces. Loffler Companies is interested in
pursuing additional development on their property, potentially along the lines of the city’s
vision. The first step in this process is to better understand the site’s environmental condition.
The property has a history of contamination due to its proximity to the former Reily Tar
facilities (the state’s first Superfund Site), and the former National Lead facility, as well as
adverse impacts left behind from former users of the site. The Metropolitan Council
contamination investigation grant dollars would be used to inform the cleanup required for any
future uses on the property and to provide guidance on the location of proposed buildings on
the site.
Financial or budget considerations: The EDA is the designated applicant for the grant but has
no financial obligations other than to serve as the conduit for any grant funds awarded. This
grant requires a 20 percent local match which Loffler has agreed to provide. No funds are being
requested from the EDA in connection with this grant application.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Map of property; resolution
Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, redevelopment administrator
Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, economic development manager
Karen Barton, community development director, EDA executive director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Economic development authority meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: Environmental investigation grant application on behalf of Loffler Companies – Ward 2
Economic development authority meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Title: Environmental investigation grant application on behalf of Loffler Companies – Ward 2
EDA Resolution No. 24 - ___
Authorizing application for the Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization
Account on behalf of Loffler Companies
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's
Housing Incentives Program for 2024 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is
therefore eligible to make application for funds under the Tax Base Revitalization Account; and
Whereas, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (authority) has identified
a contamination investigation project within the city that meets the Tax Base Revitalization
account's purposes and criteria and are consistent with and promote the purposes of the
Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the policies of the Metropolitan Council’s adopted
metropolitan development guide; and
Whereas, the authority has the institutional, managerial, and financial capability to
ensure adequate project administration; and
Whereas, the authority certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and
regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and
Whereas, the authority finds that the required contamination investigation will not
occur through private or other public investment within the reasonably foreseeable future
without Tax Base Revitalization Account grant funding; and
Whereas, the authority agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the
Tax Base Revitalization Account grant application submitted on May 1, 2024;
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the president and executive director are hereby
authorized to apply to the Metropolitan Council for a Tax Base Revitalization Account grant on
behalf of the authority and to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the
project on behalf of the applicant.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority April 15, 2024
Karen Barton, executive director Lynette Dumalag, president
Attest
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: April 15, 2024
Presentation: 3a
Executive summary
Title: Recognition of Timothy Williams on his retirement.
Recommended action: Read resolution and present plaque to Tim for his years of service to the
City of St. Louis Park.
Policy consideration: None at this time.
Summary: City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over 20
years of service will be presented with a resolution from the mayor, city manager and city
council.
Tim will be in attendance for the presentation at the beginning of the meeting. The mayor is
asked to read the resolution for Tim in recognition of his years of service to the city.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Resolution attached to consent item 5b
Prepared by: Barb Lamfers, HR technician
Reviewed by: Rita Vorpahl, HR director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: April 15, 2024
Presentation: 3b
Executive summary
Title: Proclamation designating May 2024 as "Bike Month"
Recommended action: Mayor to read the Bike Month proclamation.
Policy consideration: None
Summary: In partnership with Hennepin County and Three Rivers Park District, it is proposed
that the city formally proclaim May as Bike Month in St. Louis Park. Throughout the month,
businesses, community groups and individuals are encouraged to host and participate in events
and activities that encourage newer riders to try biking and riders of all abilities to try biking to
work, school or other destinations. St. Louis Park has been promoting Bike Month since 2017.
This year, the city will be engaging in the following events during Bike to Work Week (May 13-
19):
•The city will have a commuter “pit stop” to encourage and promote bicycling to work on
Bike to Work Day, Friday, May 17, from 6:30 to 9 a.m. The rest stop will be located on
the Cedar Lake Regional Trail near the trail bridge over Beltline Boulevard.
•Sustainability staff from the City of St. Louis Park will lead the second annual “Wheelie
Fun” community bike ride on Friday, May 17, at 4 p.m. This family-friendly, all ages and
abilities group ride will showcase the many bike facilities in the community. The route of
the ride, pending potential trail maintenance schedules, will be shared via city
communication channels closer to the event.
These events are intended to showcase the many benefits of bicycling in, around and through
St. Louis Park.
In addition to the events in St. Louis Park, Move Minneapolis has partnered with Hennepin
County and Minneapolis Public Works for a Bike Week celebration event on Thursday , May 16,
at Commons Park in downtown Minneapolis.
Financial or budget considerations: None
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Proclamation
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Page 2 City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 3b)
Title: Proclamation designating May 2024 as "Bike Month"
Proclamation declaring May 2024 as “Bike Month”
Whereas, throughout the month of May, the residents of St. Louis Park and its visitors
are encouraged to experience the joys of bicycling through commuting events or by simply
getting out and going for a ride; and
Whereas, the bicycle is an economical, healthy, convenient, equitable and
environmentally sound form of transportation and an excellent tool for recreation and
enjoyment of St. Louis Park; and
Whereas, St. Louis Park’s road, bikeway and trail systems attract bicyclists each year,
providing economic health, mobility and transportation; and
Whereas, creating a bicycle-friendly community is consistent with the city’s strategic
priorities and the established goals of the Climate Action Plan, our commitment to Racial Equity
and Inclusion and the Connect the Park capital improvement plan; and
Whereas, creating a bicycle-friendly community has been shown to improve citizens’
health, well-being and quality of life, grow the economy, improve safety and reduce pollution
and congestion; and
Whereas, Hennepin County, Three Rivers Park District and St. Louis Park will be
promoting bicycling during the month of May 2024; and
Whereas, greater public awareness of bicycle operation and safety education is needed
in an effort to reduce collisions, injuries and fatalities and improve health and safety for
everyone on the road; and
Now therefore, let it be known that the mayor and city council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, do hereby proclaim May 2024 as “Bike Month” in the City of St. Louis Park;
and
Let it be further known, that we urge all residents to support and grow the city’s
bicycling efforts.
Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the
Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be
affixed this 15th day of April 2024.
_________________________________
Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: April 15, 2024
Minutes: 4a
Unofficial minutes
City council meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Mar. 18, 2024
1. Call to order.
Mayor Mohamed called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m.
a. Pledge of allegiance – led by Scout Troop #379.
b. Roll call.
Council members present: Mayor Nadia Mohamed, Paul Baudhuin, Tim Brausen, Sue Budd,
Lynette Dumalag, Yolanda Farris, and Margaret Rog
Council members absent: none.
Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), city attorney (Mr. Mattick), deputy city manager (Ms.
Walsh), engineering director (Ms. Heiser), senior planner (Ms. Chamberlain), planning manager
(Mr. Walther), engineering project manager (Mr. Shamla), deputy city clerk (Ms. Scott-Lerdal)
Guests: Aaron Warford, Project Manager for Bolton & Menk, Inc.
2. Approve agenda.
The agenda was approved as presented by general consensus.
3. Presentations.
a. Proclamation honoring Mayor for a Day Essay winner Claire Westlund
Mayor Mohamed read a proclamation honoring Claire Westlund for her winning essay in the
League of Minnesota Cities “Mayor for a Day” contest.
Council Member Brausen observed that in her essay, Claire expressed a desire to clean up
Lamplighter Pond. He congratulated her for her insight and shared the pond will be cleaned up
this year, later in the winter, when the ground is more frozen to save the habitat.
Council Member Rog added her congratulations and thanked Claire for her essay, noting that
Claire had written that she would prioritize meeting with city staff to learn about their roles and
responsibilities.
4. Minutes.
a. Minutes of Feb. 12, 2024 city council study session
b. Minutes of Feb. 15 and 16, 2024 city council workshop
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: City council meeting minutes of March 18, 2024
c. Minutes of Feb. 20, 2024 city council meeting
d. Minutes of Mar. 4, 2024 boards and commission workshop
Council Member Rog requested a revision to page 2, paragraph 3, to state: “… noted those
funds had reduced value in today’s economy.”
It was moved by Council Member Brausen, seconded by Council Member Dumalag, to approve
the Feb. 12, 2024 city council study session minutes as amended; the minutes of the Feb. 15 and
16, 2024 city council workshop, the Feb 20, 2024 city council meeting and the Mar. 4, 2024
boards and commissions workshop minutes as presented.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Consent items.
a. Approve city disbursements
b. Approve bid for 2024 Alley Reconstruction project (4024-1500) – Wards 1 and 4
c. Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 2676-24 rezoning 6013 and 6019 Cedar
Lake Road-Ward 4. (This item was removed from the consent items and considered as
regular agenda item 7c.)
d. Approve temporary liquor license for Church of the Holy Family
e. Approve temporary extension of licensed premises – Copperwing Distillery
f. Authorize revised contract for multifunction printer equipment lease
g. Resolution No. 24-034 authorizing special use permit amendment – Joppa Lane
Apartments – Ward 1
Mayor Mohamed noted a request from the public to move consent item 5c to regular business
as item 7c.
It was moved by Council Member Rog, seconded by Council Member Baudhuin, to approve the
consent items as revised and to move consent item 5c to regular business as item 7c.
The motion passed 7-0.
6. Public hearings – none.
7. Regular business.
a. First reading of ordinance for planned unit development amendment – Zelia on Seven –
Ward 2
Ms. Chamberlain presented the staff report.
Council Member Dumalag asked if there was any TIF related to this project and if it was
attached to the affordable housing or green components of the project. Ms. Chamberlain
stated yes. The development complies with the inclusionary housing and green building policies
and city zoning regulations.
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Title: City council meeting minutes of March 18, 2024
Council Member Dumalag asked if the new plan meets the standards that were in the original
plan. Ms. Chamberlain confirmed the new plan meets the standards, and does so without the e-
generation building, solar and wind generation components.
Council Member Brausen stated he reviewed the finance package related to this project and
there is a $5.6 million TIF note related to this project. He stated it will be adjusted downward
slightly and was tied into environmental remediation at the site, inclusion of affordable housing
units and to the green building policy. He added it was not tied directly to the e-generation
facility, the proposed green house and bicycle shop or the other amenities no longer included in
this development.
Council Member Dumalag observed this has been a long project for this community, particularly
in Ward 2. She stated it is not the original project, but she is glad there is a buyer willing to take
it on and create affordable housing.
Council Member Brausen added he will support the planned unit development, and when this
project was first developed, big ideas were discussed with the prior developer. They were
seeking a transition at this site with affordable units, e-generation, a greenhouse, less parking
along the LRT line and a bike trail. Unfortunately, with the light rail train delays and realities of
the market, the full vision was not realized. He noted that there will be 217 new housing units,
77 of them designated as affordable at 50-60% area median income, and the new owner is
willing to invest in additional amenities to make this project work in today’s market. He noted
the market is also quite different than it was in 2017 when the project was first approved. He
stated the TIF, at $5.6 million, commits to future tax revenue when the city helps the developer
do this project. He views this project as a good payoff and noted to date this is the only LRT
project that has occurred and with financing becoming more challenging, the city will have to
partner with developers to reach goals on housing, green buildings, and labor and hiring
practices.
Council Member Baudhuin stated that he will support the planned unit development, and
noted the project started a long time ago. He stated the project has taken a while to develop
and he appreciates the work of the council and staff to keep it going. He asked that the solar
component be re-examined, noting the project is a candidate for rooftop solar, as soon as
possible.
Council Member Rog agreed and commended staff for making this project work and cutting
losses. She stated she is disappointed the original project did not develop, but noted she is
happy with the amenities added and offered congratulations to staff on getting the project
where it is today.
Mayor Mohamed agreed with the comments made by the council members.
It was moved by Council Member Dumalag, seconded by Council Member Brausen, to approve
the first reading of an ordinance amending the planned unit development for Zelia on Seven.
The motion passed 7-0.
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 4a) Page 4
Title: City council meeting minutes of March 18, 2024
b. Resolution No. 24-035 approving cooperative agreement for Minnetonka Boulevard
improvements with Hennepin County (4023-7000) – Ward 1
Mr. Shamla presented the staff report. Aaron Warford, the design consultant, was also
available for questions.
Council Member Rog stated this is a great plan that will make this a safer corridor and she
thanked staff for their work, adding she will support this agreement. She asked about the noise
of the concrete work and what folks can expect. Mr. Warford stated sawing concrete will be
done overnight, adding the 100-decibel level should be isolated and will be done over the
course of four to six nights in 2025, with further details forthcoming.
Council Member Rog asked if the permit is needed for the noise level or for the time of day. Mr.
Shamla stated the permit is needed for both the noise level and the time that the work is taking
place.
Council Member Rog asked about the cement’s curing time and if it can be driven on while it
continues to cure. Mr. Warford responded that generally, it can be driven and added traffic will
be shifted out of the paved areas for much of the time. He noted they will work to have
intersections and driveways open as quickly as possible, and communication will be especially
important.
Council Member Rog asked if there will be any assistance for businesses impacted by the
construction. Mr. Warford stated they are coordinating with businesses and working on an
access plan. He noted that traffic changes and access are all communicated in the project plan
and a designated contact will be available for businesses as well.
Council Member Rog referenced tree removal in the right-of-way to make way for the new
paths, and asked how many trees will be impacted. Mr. Warford stated he did know the exact
number, but the trees being removed this month are most of the trees being removed. He
noted they are on the eastern end of the project and very little remains to be done with tree
removals.
Council Member Rog stated her appreciation to Mr. Warford and the development team for
listening to community members that live in the construction area and supporting the safe
crossing on streets there, as well as the projects’ reasonable costs.
Council Member Budd asked about the ERUV. Mr. Shamla stated they recently met with Jewish
community leaders, and he is confident the plan they developed will work.
Council Member Budd asked about the water main coming in $900,000 less and if the city is
replacing less, or if the costs have come down. Mr. Shamla stated they are replacing the entire
length of the water main and noted the per unit costs may be a bit different. He added the
county is paying for all the surfaces now, and the amount is the same but at a lower per foot
cost.
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 4a) Page 5
Title: City council meeting minutes of March 18, 2024
Council Member Budd asked about decisions with lighting changes and improvements and how
costs were impacted. Mr. Shamla stated the lighting is within the budget and there were no
concessions made regarding lighting.
It was moved by Council Member Rog, seconded by Council Member Brausen, to adopt
Resolution No. 24-035, approving cooperative agreement for Minnetonka Boulevard
improvements with Hennepin County (4023-7000).
The motion passed 7-0.
c. Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 2676-24 rezoning 6013 and 6019 Cedar
Lake Road – Ward 4
Wade Church, 3000 Raleigh Ave., stated he was on the board of the HOA for Fernhill Place One
and Two, and knows the developer. He noted there were some issues at his building Fern Hill
Place, and he hopes that this project will not have any similar issues, but stated he has his
doubts. He stated there is extensive litigation history on Fern Hill Place including bankruptcy
and credibility of the developer and his actions in managing projects. He stated he wanted the
council to know of his and his neighbors’ concerns.
Council Member Brausen stated he appreciates these comments and added the council was
aware of and discussed these issues. He noted that staff will be monitoring the construction,
and the council is hopeful there will not be any issues. He stated litigation is helpful and is how
disputes are resolved in America, adding he knows there are always two sides to the story. He
stated all litigation was ultimately resolved and there is an outstanding judgement pending. He
noted the council is not judging the credit worthiness of the owner on a particular project, and
in this case, the developer was not asking for any financial support from the city but was asking
for a rezoning, and this seems appropriate.
Council Member Rog added she had and still has concerns about this project and this
developer. She does not fully understand her authority in this scenario, and she does defer to
staff on this, but approves with some caution. She agreed the developer is not asking for any
financial support from the city, which is helpful in moving the project forward, but she has
some concerns. She stated staff will keep an eye on this as they do all developments, noting the
project meets all the city’s standards. She stated she will support this as it does meet the need
of the city for this type of housing, but she regrets the experience of Mr. Church and hopes it
does not happen with this project.
Mr. Mattick advised this is a question of rezoning but the criteria that goes into this project is
limited to zoning and any discussion about private disputes is not appropriate for the council to
consider, given the absence of any financial requests. He stated staff made their
recommendation for approval of the rezoning based on that criteria.
Council Member Baudhuin stated he is in favor of this project but also with great reservation
based on what the residents in the area have presented regarding the management. He does
wonder what can be done about better or increased landlord accountability which is a problem
in many municipalities all over the nation. He added he would like further discussion in the
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 4a) Page 6
Title: City council meeting minutes of March 18, 2024
future about those who manage the city’s renters, who make up nearly half of the city’s
residents.
Ms. Keller stated a study session item can be set up regarding the rental license program and
she will discuss it with staff. She noted the city’s current policies are among the strictest in the
state.
Council Member Budd added she will support this project and thanked the city attorney for
clarification. She noted as frustrating as this may be, not all factors can be considered in this
situation, and she thanked Mr. Church for his comments.
Council Member Rog added that Fern Hill Place is a condominium.
It was moved by Council Member Brausen, seconded by Council Member Dumalag, to adopt
Ordinance No. 2676-24, approving rezoning of 6013 and 6019 Cedar Lake Road.
The motion passed 7-0.
8. Communications and announcements.
a. Connected infrastructure system introduction
b. Special Service Districts 101
Council Member Baudhuin celebrated that the Benilde St. Margaret girls’ basketball team won
their second state championship in a row. He congratulated the team and coaches, remarking
that their top player will be playing for Michigan next year.
Council Member Brausen agreed and congratulated the boys’ basketball team who lost in
double overtime. He noted several of the council members went to Washington, D.C. last week
and met with legislators and lobbyists during the National League of Cities Congressional Cities
Conference. The attendees worked to educate their legislators about projects taking place in St.
Louis Park, including funding opportunities. He noted President Biden made comments at the
general session. Council Member Brausen thanked staff for making the arrangements and
thanked the community for their support in allowing the council to attend these sessions.
Council Member Dumalag added she wanted to acknowledge the school board members who
are appointing a new school superintendent this evening, adding she is appreciative of all their
efforts and their leadership.
Council Member Rog also thanked the Scout Troup for attending the entire council meeting this
evening.
Mayor Mohamed noted this month is Ramadan and Muslims are fasting from sunrise to
sundown. She thanked everyone as she broke the fast.
9. Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 4a) Page 7
Title: City council meeting minutes of March 18, 2024
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: April 15, 2024
Minutes: 4b
Unofficial minutes
City council study session
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Mar. 25, 2024
The meeting convened at 5:37 p.m.
Council members present: Mayor Nadia Mohamed, Paul Baudhuin, Tim Brausen, Sue Budd,
Yolanda Farris, Lynette Dumalag, and Margaret Rog
Council members absent: none
Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), city attorney (Mr. Mattick), deputy city manager (Ms.
Walsh), finance director (Ms. Cruver), housing supervisor (Ms. Olson), community development
director (Ms. Barton), administrative services director (Ms. Brodeen), communications director
(Ms. Smith), deputy city clerk (Ms. Scott-Lerdal), park and recreation director (Mr. West), Lt.
Mikael Garland
Guests: St. Louis Park residents
Discussion items.
1. Pre-eviction notice ordinance amendment.
Ms. Barton and Ms. Olson presented the report.
Council Member Dumalag asked about the response rate on the survey to learn about the
outreach from staff. Ms. Olson stated 287 responses were submitted. Of these responses, 41
were from renters, 101 were from rental property owners or managers, 98 were from
community members, 31 were “other” and 16 responses were from advocates. She added of
the 101 rental property owners or managers, 19 identified as affordable housing, NOAH or
mixed-income owners. Staff attempted to reach out to non-profits, none responded.
Council Member Dumalag noted non-profits typically hold onto properties indefinitely and that
was why she asked for the distinction.
Council Member Brausen read a letter received from Common Bond, a non-profit organization
that manages affordable housing in the city.
Council Member Budd asked if the council is being asked to review the 30-day eviction notice
for non-payment only. Ms. Barton confirmed this specifically relates to non- payment of rent or
financial obligations. Council Member Budd asked if violence or property damage are exempt
from the 30-day eviction notice. Ms. Barton stated yes, it is purely for financial obligations.
Council Member Brausen asked how the court would know this. Ms. Barton replied that when
an eviction is filed, the owner must give a cause.
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Study session meeting minutes of March 25, 2024
Council Member Brausen asked how staff monitors this. Ms. Olson stated the court monitors
this. The court requires lots of documentation when a case is filed, including documents such as
notices and lease. There would also be a different type of notice for seeking an expedited
eviction.
Council Member Rog asked about the 30-day notice, what is the practicality or
opportunities/challenges around evicting single-family townhome, duplex, or condominium
residents and focusing on multi-family properties. Ms. Barton stated this would be challenging
for the courts to know when an eviction is filed and by the city ordinance if it applies to a single-
or multi-family unit, noting it would provide a layer of confusion.
Mayor Mohamed referenced the timeline that was shared and asked if staff could walk the
council through the 14 and 30-day notice period. Ms. Olson stated there are some assumptions
and it depends on when a landlord issues a notice. She reviewed the timeline included in the
staff report.
Council Member Rog thanked the housing team for their ongoing work for renters within the
community. Regarding the 30-day notice, her goal is to keep folks housed and not to prolong
the period of non-payment, but to stabilize. She noted she does support the landlords, but
stated the data shows it takes more than two weeks to resolve these issues, and 30 days gives a
greater likelihood to resolve issues. She added if dire outcomes are attained, then we can say it
did not work, but she will stand with the renters on the 30-day notice period.
Council Member Farris also thanked staff for their work on this and added when a renter first
rents an apartment, they are expected to pay one to two month’s rent as a security deposit,
depending on their credit score. She stated the landlord is not losing rent in this practice. She
went on to say that she wants to see people stay housed. Council Member Farris clarified that it
is not that she does not care about landlords, but if a renter loses their job, it is difficult to come
up with rent in 14 days. She stated if we care about our community, we need to go with 30
days’ notice.
Council Member Dumalag thanked housing staff for the report and their work. She spoke about
her experience on several non-profits housing boards. She stated an unintended consequence
of the eviction moratorium was that people did not pay rent, and regardless of the reason
behind nonpayment, the city was very close to losing some affordable non-profits. She stated
these non-profits did receive $15 million from the state in support, but these unintended
consequences could be detrimental.
Council Member Dumalag stated although the survey did not include affordable non-profits,
she spoke with some of the organizations. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the collection rate
for renters was 97% who paid on time, and now it is 85%. She added Via Sol just went through
receivership, and there is debt which comes the first of every month. Her concern is if these
properties will potentially sell, and the for-profit owners will be the only owners in town. She
added the city might see a preponderance of renters being asked for three month’s security
deposit. Evaluating this data is why she will not support the 30-day notice.
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Title: Study session meeting minutes of March 25, 2024
Council Member Brausen added he does not support extending the notice period to 30 days. He
stated that 30 days will pose a hardship to landlords over time, and they will be looking at
losing two months or more rent with an eviction. He stated he is also worried about the 30-day
notice driving up housing costs in St. Louis Park because landlords will look to make a profit on
their property. For-profit landlords will look to be made whole and will increase damage, rental
deposits or charge higher application fees. The vast majority of tenants will then be paying for
the ones that get evicted.
Council Member Brausen added the feedback from rental assistance resources like STEP and
Hennepin County indicated that the biggest issue in requesting rental assistance is the time
involved in getting full information from the tenants, and not about the county or STEP not
issuing the check soon enough. He stated that is hard to put together, but most landlords just
want to get paid and do not want to evict because it is costly every time. He added extending
the eviction notice period will not alleviate the situation but will just make it more pervasive as
people often avoid action in difficult situations until they must act. He stated that a notice of 14
days is just the start of the process, but the full action time to get a renter evicted is six weeks,
so there is time to pull funds together.
Council Member Brausen added staff did not recommend the proposed 30-day notice; it was
the city council who proposed it. The state of Minnesota proposed a 14-day notice and asked
the council to observe and then decide. Tenants in need of rental assistance can obtain it
through the city, the county and tenant advocacy organizations.
Council Member Budd stated she agreed with parts of Council Member Brausen’s comments
related to being in both parties’ interests. She noted the impact on the person being evicted,
especially when the case of an eviction on their record becomes a major obstacle in housing.
She added this is not the majority, and is an exception, but the impact it has on a landlord is
miniscule compared to the impact on the person being evicted. She stated she will support the
30-day notice. She stated getting the paperwork together for a renter is not an easy task. She
also pointed to 30 days being recognized by many organizations now in housing.
Council Member Baudhuin stated he appreciated the work staff did on gathering feedback from
residents. He noted there is a tendency to criminalize those who do not pay rent and a
tendency to portray property owners and landlords as greedy extortioners. He stated these
stereotypes trouble him and noted most property owners do want to work things out before
getting to an eviction. He added it is hard on landlords to carry out an eviction as well as being a
financial impact. He observed the effect of an eviction on a landlord’s bottom line but at the
same time, expressed frustration with the words “unintended consequences” adding they feel
like “premeditated consequences”. He pointed out that landlords conduct business, but they
are still making a choice to increase rents. Council Member Baudhuin regretted that the city
council had to make this decision.
Council Member Baudhuin went on to say that he has a hard time with the idea of profits over
people as well. He stated there is a downside to a free-market society whenever we talk about
profit margins going down versus the well-being of a person who needs housing. He stated a
longer warning time before an eviction goes on a renter’s record is needed and he noted he is
in favor of delaying that outcome versus impacts on profits.
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Title: Study session meeting minutes of March 25, 2024
Council Member Baudhuin stated the few people that do things poorly end up being the reason
for ordinances, and those who do things well, have their lives impacted. He stated he is in favor
of the 30-day notice as it will slow down things for those in hardship and allows them a
payment cycle to find all their documentation. He added that he had heard feedback from
renters and landlords.
Council Member Brausen noted the new statute allows the court to expunge evictions and
landlords are using the statute as a negotiation tool, so it will not automatically result in a bad
credit rating for a renter.
Council Member Dumalag asked if there would be any special circumstances for non-profits as
they do not sell their properties. Mr. Mattick stated there are pragmatic issues that he would
need to investigate further.
Council Member Brausen added there is no way to monitor if non-profits will continue to build
affordable housing in the city or if this will have an impact on them.
Council Member Rog requested that the council review this in a year, look at impacts, and see
whether those items of concern have manifested.
Council Member Dumalag stated the non-profits recently received $50 million from the state to
help with gaps under the eviction moratorium.
Council Member Baudhuin asked about the expungement process. Ms. Olson explained the
process and noted it becomes more accessible when the tenant prevails, when the case is
dismissed, if the parties agree to expungement, if the case is settled and the tenant fulfills the
terms, or if the expungement was ordered three or more years ago.
Mayor Mohamed stated in her experience, the more the city raises the standards, the more the
damage deposit will increase. She summarized that finding the sweet spot to have balance is
her concern, adding she would like to see renters not punished with eviction. She stated we do
need to be cognizant of everything and everyone, renters and landlords included. Mayor
Mohamed stated that she does not support the 30-days’ notice and would like staff to continue
to study the consequences of the proposed notice.
Mr. Mattick offered that the council can create a form for this process, but noted his concern
that a standard notice form will not simplify the process. It would likely result in multiple forms
being given to the renter due to legal requirements of the landlord and state.
Council Member Baudhuin asked about having a form that is clear and not in legal terminology
that states renters’ rights - in multiple languages. He stated he would like a uniform notice of
rights for renters. Ms. Keller stated the website will be updated with the current ordinance,
which is translated, and include information from advocacy groups.
Ms. Barton suggested that within the ordinance, a link to the city’s website with the most
updated information could be included in the language.
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 4b) Page 5
Title: Study session meeting minutes of March 25, 2024
Council Member Rog stated she would like to move away from eviction forms as they cause
unnecessary stress for renters, so the language could be better and clearer. Ms. Barton stated
the form per the ordinance from the city must have the title “pre-eviction” with the link to the
ordinance. She stated it would either be a standardized form or require that certain items be
included in the notice that landlords provide. She added the state will also have requirements.
Council Member Brausen stated he is opposed to the standardized forms for the notice.
Council Member Dumalag stated she would like the language to be clear and not upsetting for
the renter. Ms. Barton stated the language in the ordinance will be brought back to council for
review also.
Ms. Keller suggested the ordinance be brought back for a first reading and a policy question to
the council.
It was the consensus of the city council to move forward with implementing the 30-day eviction
notice.
Council Member Brausen made a motion to recess at 6:42 p.m., seconded by Council Member
Budd, to go into the special city council meeting.
The motion passed 7-0.
Recess and reconvene.
Council Member Brausen made a motion to return to the study session at 6:51 p.m., seconded
by Council Member Baudhuin.
The motion passed 7-0.
2. Boards and commissions purpose and structure.
Ms. Walsh and Ms. Brodeen presented the report.
Ms. Walsh opened the presentation with an observation that progress had been slow on the
revisioning process, which she regrets. She reminded the council of her long history with boards
and commissions. Last summer’s work with a consultant seemed to indicate that the city
council wanted change. She explained that staff then came back to council with suggestions for
a new structure recommendation. Some city council members were in favor of the changes,
and some were not. She added she is thankful for Ms. Brodeen’s leadership and apologized to
council if staff had any part in what has not gone right with the process. She added members
are asking when this process will be completed, and if council is not ready to make changes at
this time, that decision will be supported.
Ms. Brodeen presented the report and policy questions, expressing that boards and
commissions are also important to her. Her goal is to make their work more meaningful as well
as have inclusivity for those who are not at the table, while doing the best for residents.
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 4b) Page 6
Title: Study session meeting minutes of March 25, 2024
Ms. Brodeen reviewed the policy questions and explained staff is seeking direction on policy
questions around reporting structure and program purpose. In the future, staff will bring back
ordinance amendments, updated rules of procedure, revised appointment process, outreach,
onboarding and orientation.
Recess and reconvene.
Councilmember Rog made a motion, seconded by Council Member Dumalag to take a recess at
7:35 p.m. so those who observe Ramadan may break their fast.
The motion passed 7-0.
Councilmember Brausen made a motion, seconded by Council Member Rog, to return to the
meeting at 7:45 p.m.
The motion passed 7-0.
Boards and commissions purpose and structure. (continued)
Council Member Rog stated she feels the same tension as Ms. Walsh expressed. She stated
there are many options, including the models presented. However, many of the potential
outcomes are subjective, speculative and difficult to know. She has received clear feedback
from commissioners that they do not want to abolish the boards and commissions program and
create one strategic board that reports to the city manager. There has also been good
information from staff and consultants to guide the council on specific concerns from the
original assessment. In her view, the council has all the information it needs to move forward in
a way that addresses concerns and represents the community voice.
Council Member Rog noted barriers to communication. With the exception of virtual meetings,
all barriers can be addressed with a program that reports to the council, including
compensation, food, childcare, a consensus model, meeting frequency and cadence.
Council Member Rog added meaningful interaction with the city council should mean that
council gives the boards and commissions more time and makes them a priority by inviting
them in for regular dialogue. These interactions give the commissioners experience and
leadership development as well. She added if we prioritize these residents, let us prioritize their
time on council’s calendar, clarifying that council can decide on this time and staff can support.
She indicated that the council is spending time discussing items that could be reports. She
suggested written reports to address items that can be voted on without lengthy discussions.
She suggested if boards and commissions regularly meet with the council, that could change
the need for staff to attend every meeting.
Council Member Rog also noted cross-topic collaboration and asked how they do this as a
council. She observed that the council divides work around systems or topics, and they are
discussed independently but with consideration for overarching vision and priorities. She asked
if boards and commissions members could be trained to do the same. She also advocated for
annual meetings, as that was great way of sharing ideas in the past.
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 4b) Page 7
Title: Study session meeting minutes of March 25, 2024
Council Member Rog stated the city charter lays out the responsibilities of boards and
commissions to advise city council and this is what they say they want to do. She encouraged
the council to stay true to this course, adding there are many paths forward to address
participation and create deeply meaningful experiences for residents. Council Member Rog
asked the council to listen to and respect what members are saying about their work.
Council Member Baudhuin stated he has experience as a former commission chair. He thanked
staff for all work done on the revisioning over the last few years, and he stated he felt heard. He
added no matter how this decision turns out, that does not mean the work was in vain.
Council Member Baudhuin stated his discomfort when he hears comments such as intent to
“get rid of boards and commissions” and added the heart of this work is not to eliminate them,
but to put them in a different container. He added boards and commissions should be reporting
to the council, and he views them as members of the community at large that report to the
council. He agreed they should have a strong connection to the council, as this will take work
from the council also. Council Member Baudhuin asked if at-large council members could be
primary liaison between the boards and commissions and council. When he served on the
Human Rights Commission, he did feel they were held back by the process in some way.
Council Member Baudhuin referenced the chart in the presentation and asked how the single
strategic board would remove more barriers to the process than the current structure does.
Ms. Brodeen shared that during the assessment, staff often heard that the meetings are not
flexible or community centric. The structure that has been in place for many years tends to feel
accessible to some residents, but not to all. By shifting the structure, additional access and
flexibility would create a more community centric feel.
Council Member Baudhuin added that cross-collaboration can be created under the current
structure, with a quarterly meeting, and one person from each board or commission attending
the meeting to discuss collaborative topics which helps them connect more. He is concerned
about removing that community connection from council. Council Member Baudhuin pointed
out that making some change is necessary, and the change needs to make the structure better.
Council Member Baudhuin asked why the large group would not be subject to open meeting
law. Mr. Mattick advised the large group would be subject to open meeting law. He added that
committees and subcommittees are also governed by the open meeting law, per the state of
Minnesota’s guiding principles. He noted the differences between an ad hoc committee and a
standing committee that changes.
Council Member Budd thanked Ms. Walsh for pointing out the tension around this topic and
agreed with her. She noted the revisioning process has been positive and she appreciated the
operational changes like equitable recruitment, onboarding and orientation - items which can
be added to the process going forward. There are things that do need to be improved upon.
Because the council is an elected body and must connect with the community, this gives an
opportunity for those connections to happen in a unique way. She observed how boards and
commissions connecting with the community and providing feedback to the council is crucial.
She supports getting the groups back in front of the council more often.
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 4b) Page 8
Title: Study session meeting minutes of March 25, 2024
Council Member Budd noted the cross-topic collaboration works well right now and, as an
example, pointed to the dashboard that the police advisory commission designed. She stated
she supports model #3, with continuing boards and commissions reporting to the council and
keeping their current alignment. She supported not moving them into the strategic priority
categories, but with substantial changes to operational items.
Council Member Dumalag thanked staff and the community members for being at this meeting
and added the council received feedback from the boards and commissions members. She
agreed with Council Member Budd’s comments related to model #3 and added that strategic
priorities do also play a large role. She asked if cross-topic opportunities could be included to
assist the council in being better informed.
Council Member Brausen stated the council, staff and community have done a lot of study of
this topic. He noted he has served on boards and commissions as well, and recalled the reason
that the city council undertook this process is because the council got feedback from the
community that the process was not working. He noted prior to the pandemic, boards and
commissions and the council always had an annual dinner meeting. At this meeting, boards and
commissions members shared with council all they were working on, and cross-topic
discussions did occur. He added that the pandemic disrupted this whole process. He stated the
revisioning process is not about a lack of respect for boards and commissions. Council Member
Brausen shared that the process has been centered around how we can improve, engage the
community in their ideas and passions, and involve them in the decision-making process.
Council Member Brausen went on to say that this is not a frustration that is only heard in St.
Louis Park, observing that barriers to participation is happening in many other cities as well. He
stated he is happy to go along with the majority on whatever council decides as well as
improving the operations side.
Council Member Farris also thanked staff and the boards and commissions for their work on
this process. She stated she has received many emails and is trying to learn, noting she has not
had any connection with boards and commissions since she joined council, and added
something needs to change. She stated she will also go with the majority and added she has
heard the commissions and boards and their concerns.
Mayor Mohamed thanked staff and the commissioners for their work on the revisioning
process. She recalled that she is one of the council members that did not navigate into her work
with city council through a board or commission, but came through the multi-cultural
committee, which reported to the police department. She was a college student at that time,
seeking to have her life experiences validated, and was able to share her thoughts with the
committee. She saw how what she had to say about her experiences did show up with the
council, giving the example of the police department’s body camera policy.
Mayor Mohamed stated that commissioners’ comments were enlightening to listen to, and
noted she wants to respect that. She agreed that commissioners should report to council and
hopes to regain trust in processes and the relationship with council and staff – this trust had
been a bit lost during the pandemic. Mayor Mohamed added the lack of people of color serving
in our commissions is also an issue of concern and she does not see herself reflected in any of
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 4b) Page 9
Title: Study session meeting minutes of March 25, 2024
the commissions, as she did see herself reflected in the multi-cultural committee. She added
she is concerned about keeping the same structure in place for the next five years and not
seeing herself reflected on the boards and commissions. She stated this community has people
from all walks of life, and she would love to see that in the commissions and for the city to
achieve this representation. She stated she is challenging the commissioners to make this
happen and she hopes barriers do not continue.
Council Member Rog stated she agrees also with model #3 as well and this model takes other
outlying bodies into account.
It was the consensus of the city council to make operational updates as well as policy decisions
around budget and other changes, as well as cross topic discussions related to the strategic
priorities with all boards and commissions.
Ms. Keller stated the next steps will be to have conversations around roles, boards and
commissions procedures and operations and then bring things back to the council for final
review and approval. Ms. Brodeen stated this will likely be set for June 2024.
Written Reports.
2. 2024 market value update
Ms. Keller stated this update will be presented at the LBAE meeting on April 1, noting there
were very little changes in market values this year.
3. Bulk material containers in the right-of-way
Council Member Brausen stated he is in favor of the changes noted in the report.
Communications/meeting check-in (verbal)
The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: April 15, 2024
Minutes: 4c
Unofficial minutes
Special city council meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Mar. 25, 2024
1. Call to order.
Mayor Mohamed called the special meeting to order at 6:48 p.m.
a. Pledge of allegiance
b. Roll call
Council members present: Mayor Nadia Mohamed, Paul Baudhuin, Tim Brausen, Sue Budd,
Lynette Dumalag, Yolanda Farris, and Margaret Rog
Council members absent: none
Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), city attorney (Mr. Mattick), deputy city manager (Ms.
Walsh), finance director (Ms. Cruver), housing supervisor (Ms. Olson), community development
director (Ms. Barton), administrative services director (Ms. Brodeen), communications director
(Ms. Smith), deputy city clerk (Ms. Scott-Lerdal), park and recreation director (Mr. West), Lt.
Garland
2. Approve agenda.
It was moved by Council Member Brausen, seconded by Council Member Budd , to approve the
agenda as presented.
The motion passed 7-0.
3. Presentations – none.
4. Minutes – none.
5. Consent items.
a. Adopt Ordinance 2677-24 approving PUD amendment – Zelia on Seven
It was moved by Council Member Dumalag, seconded by Council Member Brausen, to approve
the consent agenda items as listed; and to waive reading of all ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
6. Public hearings – none.
7. Regular business – none.
8. Communications and announcements - none.
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: Special city council meeting of March 25, 2024
9. Adjournment.
The special meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: April 15, 2024
Consent agenda item: 5a
Executive summary
Title: Resolution recognizing retirement of Timothy Williams, Public Works Information Systems
Specialist
Recommended action: Read resolution and present plaque to Tim for his years of service to the
City of St. Louis Park.
Policy consideration: None
Summary: City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over 20
years of service will be presented with a resolution from the mayor, city manager and city
council.
Tim will be in attendance for the presentation at the beginning of the meeting. The mayor is
asked to read the resolution for Rick in recognition of his years of service to the city.
Financial or budget considerations: None applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Barb Lamfers, HR technician
Mike Okey, operations superintendent
Reviewed by: Rita Vorpahl, HR director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5a) Page 2
Title: Resolution recognizing retirement of Tim Williams, Public Works Information Systems Specialist
Resolution No. 24 - ___
Recognizing the contributions and expressing appreciation to
Timothy Williams
Whereas, Tim Williams began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park on May 23, 1988
and served over 35 years as a public service worker and information systems specialist in the
public works department; and
Whereas, Tim performed all aspects of traffic and street maintenance, there is not a city street
Tim has not played a role in the maintenance of; and
Whereas, Tim played a pivotal role in the launch, rollout and widespread use of Cartegraph
Asset Management software that serves all maintenance staff; and
Whereas, Tim provided maps, historical knowledge and a n intricate understanding of city
practices to assist in all aspects of asset management; and
Whereas, Tim’s dedicated service and work ethic to all aspects of public works has assisted staff
in their day to day work with his behind the scenes assistance with asset management, enabling
them to perform maintenance more efficiently; and
Whereas, Tim has assisted in compiling financial information as it pertains to labor and
equipment to aid with budgeting and planning; and
Whereas, Tim kept professionalism and respect at the forefront of everything he did through
decades of organizational changes; and
Whereas, Tim cared about and cultivated many personal relationships at the city with a big
heart and a genuine appreciation for others; and
Now therefore be it resolved that the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, by
this resolution and public record, would like to thank Public Works Information Systems
Specialist Timothy Williams for his great contributions and his over 35 years of dedicated service
to the City of St. Louis Park and wish him the best in his retirement.
Reviewed for administration Adopted by the city council May 15, 2024
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: April 15, 2024
Consent agenda item: 5b
Executive summary
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard (4023-7000)
– Ward 1
Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution with Xcel Energy to move the overhead
utilities underground for the Minnetonka Boulevard Improvement project (4023-7000).
Policy consideration: Does the city council support moving the overhead utilities underground
for the Minnetonka Boulevard project from Highway 100 to France Avenue?
Summary: Hennepin County will be reconstructing Minnetonka Boulevard from Highway 100 to
France Avenue in 2024 and 2025. There are many utility poles located on the south side of the
road. In order to construct the project, the utility poles either need to be relocated or the
overhead utilities moved underground. At the Jan. 22, 2024 study session, staff met with the
city council to discuss relocating the overhead utilities underground. The city council directed
staff to proceed with relocating the utilities underground and fund this work using a City
Requested Facility Surcharge (CRFS).
The cost for the city to relocate the overhead utilities underground on Minnetonka Boulevard is
lower if it is completed with this project. Xcel Energy has estimated that it would cost them
$300,000 to move the power poles within the right of way. In lieu of moving the power poles,
Xcel Energy is providing a credit of $300,000 to underground the overhead utilities. Also,
Hennepin County has agreed to contribute approximately $500,000 to move the overhead
utilities underground.
Financial or budget considerations: The total estimated cost to underground the overhead
utilities is $1,220,000. Today, council will be asked to approve a CRFS to cover the majority of
this total, $1,150,000. Upon completion of moving the overhead utilities underground,
Hennepin County will reimburse the city $500,000, which will be used to lower the total
charged through the CRFS to an estimated $650,000. The final charge will be based on actual
expenses after the completion of the project and will be spread out over a 36-month period.
Approximately $70,000 is needed to connect the existing customers to the new source of
power and the cost of restoring power to this handful of buildings will be paid for using city
funds.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Jan. 22, 2024 city council report
Attachment A: Agreement with Xcel Energy
Attachment B: CRFS tariffs
Attachment C: Xcel Energy letter
Prepared by: Joseph Shamla, engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Amelia Cruver, finance director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b) Page 2
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard (4023-7000) – Ward 1
Discussion
Background: Hennepin County will be reconstructing Minnetonka Boulevard from Highway 100
to France Avenue in 2024 and 2025. There are many utility poles located on the south side of
the road. In order to construct the project, the utility poles either need to be relocated or the
overhead utilities moved underground. At the Jan. 22, 2024 study session, staff met with the
city council to discuss relocating the overhead utilities underground. The city council directed
staff to proceed with relocating the utilities underground and fund this work using a City
Requested Facility Surcharge (CRFS).
Constructing overhead utilities underground: The cost for the city to relocate the overhead
utilities underground on Minnetonka Boulevard is lower if it is completed with this project. Xcel
Energy has estimated that it would cost them $300,000 to move the power poles within the
right of way. In lieu of moving the power poles, Xcel Energy is providing a credit of $300,000 to
underground the overhead utilities. Also, Hennepin County has agreed to contribute
approximately $500,000 to move the overhead utilities underground.
Financial considerations: A summary of the estimated costs and funding sources can be found
below:
Cost
Estimate to install overhead utilities underground $1,460,000
Xcel energy credit for not relocating poles -$300,000
City credit for design costs -$10,000
Connecting existing properties to new source of power $70,000
Total cost $1,220,000
Funding
Hennepin County funds $500,000
Xcel Energy CRFS $650,000
General funds $70,000
Total funding $1,220,000
The total cost, minus credits, to perform the work of moving the overhead utilities underground
is $1,150,000, which is detailed on the attached CRFS agreement from Xcel Energy. Xcel Energy
will not begin relocations unless the estimated cost is paid upfront or is covered by a CRFS
agreement. Staff has been in coordination with Xcel Energy and recommends that we complete
the CRFS agreement. Upon completion of the work and before completing the final CRFS
amounts, Hennepin County will pay the city $500,000 and the city will pay Xcel Energy
$500,000. This will lower the CRFS needed to pay for this project to the estimated cost of
$650,000, as discussed at the Jan. 22, 2024 study session.
The CRFS will pay the $650,000 city contribution for moving the overhead utilities underground
and each customer of Xcel Energy will receive a monthly surcharge added to their electric bill.
This surcharge is expected to last for 36 months. A typical residential property is estimated to
pay an additional $8.40 per year or $25.20 over 36 months. Residential low-income properties
are estimated to pay $3.00 per year or $9.00 over 36 months. The costs for other customer
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b) Page 3
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard (4023-7000) – Ward 1
classes are shown in the attached letter from Xcel Energy. General funds will be used to pay the
estimated $70,000 to reconnect existing customers to the new source of power. The estimated
costs for other customer classes are shown below.
CRFS based on $650,000
Customer class Monthly surcharge
Residential $0.70
Residential low income $0.25
Small C&I non-demand billed $0.70
Small C&I $2.10
Large C&I $2.80
Street lighting $0.70
Sm mun pump non-demand $0.70
Sm mun pump $2.10
Large mun pump $2.80
Xcel Energy will determine the final surcharge amount after calculating the actual cost of
undergrounding the overhead utilities. The CRFS will begin after Xcel Energy has completed all
of their work and determined the final cost.
Next steps: Xcel Energy will start the relocation of their overhead utilities in May 2024.
Hennepin County will begin the reconstruction of Minnetonka Boulevard and County Road 25 in
July 2024.
It is expected that the CRFS will not be charged until 2025.
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b) Page 4
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard (4023-7000) – Ward 1
Resolution No. 24 -____
Approving an agreement with
Xcel Energy to move the overhead utilities underground
for the Minnetonka Boulevard Improvement Project
City Project No. 4023-7000
Whereas, the city council approved the cooperative agreement with Hennepin County
on March 18, 2024; and
Whereas, the cooperative agreement included a payment from Hennepin County to the
city for $500,000 upon completion of moving the overhead utilities underground; and
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is responsible for the cost to move the overhead power
lines underground; and
Whereas, Xcel Energy has prepared an agreement with estimated costs to complete this
work.
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
that:
The City of St. Louis Park enters into this agreement with Xcel Energy to underground the
overhead power lines on Minnetonka Boulevard from Highway 100 to France Avenue.
It is further resolved that the mayor and the city manager are authorized to execute the
Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council April 15, 2024
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Page 1 of 5
ATTACHMENT A
SPECIAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
This “Engineering Estimate” provides estimated Excess Expenditures based on an
engineered design for a requested or ordered non-standard installation (Special
Facility). This estimate is only valid for the specific project information and
assumptions as detailed in this form.
This Engineering Estimate is Xcel Energy’s best evaluation of the Excess
Expenditures associated with this Special Facility. However, there will be many
factors that influence actual costs, such as: those associated with permitting;
inclement weather; winter construction costs; unexpected increases in material
costs; unexpected increases or changes in labor charges; scheduling, availability,
and/or mobilization; ability to schedule outages on the existing electric facilities
of Xcel Energy or other electric companies; emergencies occurring on the electric
systems of Xcel Energy or electric companies; and other factors not specifically
identified herein but allowed as an incremental cost for recovery. The actual
Excess Expenditures will be calculated using Xcel Energy’s actual costs, including
all allowed overheads.
REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Requestor:
Address:
City of Saint Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd Saint Louis
Park, MN 55416
Phone: 952-924-2500
PROJECT, PERMITTING AND SITING INFORMATION
Xcel Energy has relied on the Project Information, Project Assumptions
and Permitting Requirements detailed below to produce this engineering
estimate:
Project Information
Name:
Location:
CSAH 25/ Minnetonka Blvd/Hennepin County Project
2168100 CSAH 25/Minnetonka Blvd; State Highway 100 to
France Ave S
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b)
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard
(4023-7000) - Ward 1 Page 5
Page 2 of 5
Scope: This project requested by the City of Saint Louis Park includes the
removal of the existing overhead electrical distribution system
and its replacement with a new equivalent underground
distribution system along CSAH 25 (Minnetonka Blvd) from the E
side of State Highway 100 to the W side of France Ave S.
Project Assumptions: It is Xcel Energy’s understanding that the city will utilize the
City Requested Facilities Surcharge tariff for a portion of the total cost. The
project estimate includes all costs associated with the removal of the existing
overhead system and the installation of an equivalent underground distribution
system, including all underground cables, new terminal poles (and other poles
necessary to the project), new overhead transformers, and surface mounted
electrical equipment.
This estimate does not include: Repair and/or replacement of privately owned
sprinkler systems; additional costs incurred due to soil conditions (debris, rock or
any other obstruction encountered in the soil that increase the cost of
installation; restoration of existing ground cover (black soil, seed, sod) additional
installations costs due to frost and/or winter construction charges; repair of
customer owned underground facilities not located prior to construction;
replacement of privately owned shrubbery located in public right-of-way or utility
easements; any costs associated with the acquisition of additional right-of-way or
easements necessary to install underground facilities.
Permitting Requirements/Siting Issues
Xcel Energy has reviewed the permitting requirements and siting issues that may
be a factor for this project. These requirements must generally be satisfactorily
resolved prior to starting any field construction.
Right-of-way and private easements: It will be the
responsibility and at the expense of the City of Saint
Louis Park to acquire and record any additional
easements necessary to accommodate the
installation of new underground distribution
facilities.
.
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b)
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard
(4023-7000) - Ward 1 Page 6
Page 3 of 5
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Because costs increase over time, this Engineering Estimate may be considered
valid for ninety (90) days from the date below. Unless otherwise agreed, the
Requestor may be asked to prepay for Xcel Energy’s costs to prepare any
additional or revised Engineering Estimate necessary because of project scope
changes, delays, or other factors beyond the control of Xcel Energy.
These cost estimates do not include underground conversions for residential and
commercial customers.
COST ESTIMATES FOR STANDARD AND SPECIAL FACILITIES AND EXCESS
EXPENDITURES
$300,000
$1,460,000
$10,000
$1,150,000
$1,150,000
Estimate of Standard Facility Costs:
(Install/Removal Cost of Existing Overhead Facilities)
Estimate of Non-Standard Facility Costs:
(Install of New Underground Facilities)
Design/Engineering (DEDA) Paid - Credit
Engineering Estimate of Total Excess Expenditures:
(Non-Standard Costs minus Standard Costs minus DEDA Cost)
City of Saint Louis Park Estimated Payment per CRFS
Agreement (Non-Standard Costs minus Standard Costs minus
DEDA Cost)
Estimate Prepared by: __David Fitch Date: April 9, 2024
(Print name)
Estimate Prepared by: __________________________________
(Signature)
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b)
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard
(4023-7000) - Ward 1 Page 7
Page 4 of 5
Approved by City of St. Louis Park: ___________________________________
(Signature)
Date:____________________
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b)
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard
(4023-7000) - Ward 1 Page 8
Page 5 of 5
Blank page
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b)
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard
(4023-7000) - Ward 1 Page 9
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2
CITY REQUESTED FACILITIES SURCHARGE RIDER Section No.
7th Revised Sheet No.
5
131
10-01-17Date Filed: 11-02-15 By: Christopher B. Clark Effective Date:
President, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Docket No. E002/GR-15-826 Order Date: 06-12-17
APPLICABILITY
Applicable to bills for electric service provided under the Company’s retail rate schedules in a City ordering the installation of
non-standard underground Distribution Facilities. The Excess Expenditure costs for these Special Facilities are to be collected
from customers located within such City in accordance with the provisions in the General Rules and Regulations, Section 5.3,
SPECIAL FACILITIES.
The Company will provide notice to the affected City of any miscellaneous rate filing by Company under Minn. Stat. §216.B16,
Subd. 1 to establish a Special Facilities surcharge applicable to customers in such City.
RATE
In each applicable City, there shall be included in the monthly minimum billing on each customer’s bill a separately itemized
surcharge line item determined in accordance with this Rider entitled “City Req Fac Srchg”. The City Requested Special
Facilities Surcharge shall not be subject to current month billing adjustments or City surcharges and shall be subject to any
applicable sales taxes.
DETERMINATION OF CITY REQUESTED FACILITIES SURCHARGE
The City Requested Special Facilities Surcharge for each applicable City project shall be calculated by determining a Class
Facilities Surcharge to be applied to the Average Monthly Customers in the designated City such that the total Excess
Expenditure plus carrying charges in the City Project Tracker Account are recovered over the designated Recovery Period.
Average Monthly Customers shall be the projected average number of active customers in each applicable customer
classification located in the City for the designated Recovery Period.
Class Facilities Surcharge shall be the surcharge amount for each applicable customer classification determined in
accordance with the Rules for Application.
City Project Tracker Account is a regulatory asset account representing the sum of the following:
(1) The total Excess Expenditures for each Distribution Facilities undergrounding project in such City,
(2)Monthly carrying charges on the under recovered or over recovered monthly balance in the City Project Tracker
Account based on the overall rate of return from the Company’s most recent electric general rate case decision,
(3)Less the recovered project costs collected to date through the applicable City’s Facilities Surcharge.
Recovery Period is the number of months the City Requested Special Facilities Surcharge shall be applied to bills for a
designated City project determined in accordance with the Rules for Application.
Excess Expenditures shall be determined in accordance with the provisions in the General Rules and Regulations,
Section 5.3.
(Continued on Sheet No. 5-132)
Attachment B
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b)
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard
(4023-7000) - Ward 1 Page 10
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2
CITY REQUESTED FACILITIES SURCHARGE RIDER
(Continued)
Section No.
6th Revised Sheet No.
5
132
(Continued on Sheet No. 5-133)
10-01-17Date Filed: 11-02-15 By: Christopher B. Clark Effective Date:
President, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Docket No. E002/GR-15-826 Order Date: 06-12-17
RULES FOR APPLICATION
1. The Recovery Period shall not commence until the City Requested Facilities Surcharge to be applied to bills is at
least $0.25 per customer per month. A surcharge of $0.25 up to and including $1.00 per customer regardless of
customer class may be applied for a Recovery Period of exactly one month (e.g., a one-time surcharge).
2.For a Recovery Period greater than one month, the Class Facilities Surcharge per month per customer in each
non-residential customer class for any month in which a Residential Class Facilities Surcharge is applicable shall
be as follows:
a. Commercial & Industrial (C&I), Street Lighting and Municipal – Non-Demand Billed: Equal to the Residential
Class Facilities Surcharge.
b.Small C&I and Small Municipal – Demand Billed: Three times the Residential Class Facilities Surcharge.
c.Large C&I – Demand Billed (actual demand greater than 100 kW): Four times the Residential Class Facilities
Surcharge.
However, whenever the Non-residential Class Facilities Surcharges to be billed exceed the Customer Charge
applicable on a customer account, the Class Facilities Surcharge for that account shall be equal to such Customer
Charge.
3. A Residential Class Facilities Surcharge of $0.25 up to and including $1.00 per Residential customer per month
will be applied each month whenever the City Project Tracker Account balance to be collected allows for a
Recovery Period of 36 months or less.
4.A Residential Class Facilities Surcharge of over $1.00, up to and including $5.00, per Residential customer per
month will be applied each month for a Recovery Period of 36 months whenever the City Project Tracker
Account balance is uncollectable at a Residential Class Facilities Surcharge level of$1.00 or less, provided that the
surcharge amount for any Residential class customer account receiving a Low Income Energy Discount shall not
exceed $1.00 per month.
5. A Residential Class Facilities Surcharge of $5.00 per Residential customer per month for a Recovery Period of 36
months up to and including 60 months will be applied only when necessary to recover the City Project Tracker
Account balance, provided a surcharge of $5.00 may be collected pending Commission action on a Company
petition or City complaint to modify the design of the rate surcharge for a specific project which cannot be
recovered in 60 months.
Attachment B
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b)
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard
(4023-7000) - Ward 1 Page 11
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2
CITY REQUESTED FACILITIES SURCHARGE RIDER
(Continued)
Section No.
6th Revised Sheet No.
5
133
10-01-17Date Filed: 11-02-15 By: Christopher B. Clark Effective Date:
President, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Docket No. E002/GR-15-826 Order Date: 06-12-17
RULES FOR APPLICATION (Continued)
6. The Class Facilities Surcharges may be adjusted annually and in the last 6 months of the Recovery Period to more
closely recover the balance remaining in the City Project Tracker Account.
7.Subject to the limits on monthly surcharge amounts set forth above, the Class Facilities Surcharges may also be
increased at any time and the Recovery Period may be updated, with notice as provided in Section 5.3 of the
General Rules and Regulations, in order to recover Excess Expenditures associated with additional Distribution
Facilities undergrounding projects requested or ordered by City.
Attachment B
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b)
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard
(4023-7000) - Ward 1 Page 12
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK - MPUC NO. 2
GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS (Continued)Section No.
3rd Revised Sheet No.
6
27
(Continued on Sheet No. 6-27.1)
Date Filed: 05-02-11
Docket No.
08-11-10 By: Judy M. Poferl Effective Date:
President and CEO of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation E002/
M-10-878 Order Date: 05-02-11
S:\General-Offices-GO-01\PSF\RA\Rates\Current\Mn_elec\Me_6_27_r03.doc
5.2 GENERAL EXTENSION (Continued)
Non-refundable payments will be in the amount determined by subtracting from the total estimated installation cost the
product of three and one half (3.5) times the anticipated annual revenue, excluding the portion of the revenue representing
fuel-cost recovery, as set forth in Section 5.1, STANDARD INSTALLATION. Additional refundable payments may be required
where service is extended and where customer occupancy is expected to be delayed. In such cases, for each additional
customer served directly from the original contracted extension within five years from the date of its completion, the person
who made the advance payment will receive proportionate refunds as additional customers take occupancy. The total of such
refunds will in no event exceed the total refundable advance payment. Refunds will be made only for line extensions on private
property to a single customer served directly from the original contracted facilities.
5.3 SPECIAL FACILITIES
A.Definitions
For the purposes of Section 5.3 and the City Requested Facilities Surcharge Rider, the following definitions apply:
1. “Distribution Facilities” are defined as all primary and secondary voltage wires, poles, insulators, transformers,
fixtures, cables, trenches, ductlines, and other associated accessories and equipment, including substation
equipment, rated 35kV class and below, whose express function and purpose is for the distribution of electrical
power from the Company’s distribution substation directly to residential, commercial, and/or industrial customers.
Distribution Facilities exclude all facilities used primarily for the purpose of transferring electricity from a generator to
a substation and/or from one substation to another substation. As such, Distribution Facilities serve only customers
on the primary and secondary rates of the Company.
2.“Transmission Facilities” are defined as all poles, towers, wires, insulators, transformers, fixtures, cables, and other
associated structures, accessories and equipment, including substation equipment, rated 25kV class and above,
whose express function and purpose is the transmission of electricity from a generator to a substation or substations,
and from one substation to another.
3.“Municipality” is defined as any one of the following entities: a county, a city, a township or other unit of local
government.
4.“City” is defined as either a statutory city or a home rule charter city consistent with Minn. Stat. §410.015 and
§216B.02, Subd. 9.
T
T
T
T
Attachment B
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b)
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard
(4023-7000) - Ward 1 Page 13
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
and wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc. Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55401
MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2
GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS (Continued)Section No.
Original Sheet No.
6
27.1
(Continued on Sheet No. 6-27.2)
Date Filed: 11-02-05 By: Cynthia L. Lesher Effective Date: 02-01-07
5.3 SPECIAL FACILITIES (Continued)
A.Definitions (Continued)
5. "Standard Facilities" are those facilities whose design or location constitute the reasonable and prudent, least-cost
alternative that is consistent with the existing electric system configuration, will meet the needs of the Company's
customers and will maintain system reliability and performance under the circumstances. In determining the design or
location of a "Standard Facility", the Company shall use good utility practices and evaluate all of the circumstances
surrounding the proposal, including (i) public and employee safety in the installation, operation and maintenance of
the facility, (ii) compliance with the National Electrical Safety Code, other applicable engineering standards and electric
utility norms and standards, (iii) electric system reliability requirements, (iv) the presence, age, condition and
configuration of existing facilities in the affected area, (v) the presence and size of existing right-of-way in the affected
area, (vi) existing topology, soil, spacing, and any environmental limitations in the specific area, (vii) existing and
reasonably projected development in the affected area, (viii) installation, maintenance, useful life and replacement
cost factors, and (ix) other relevant factors under the particular circumstances.
6.“Special Facilities” are non-standard facilities or the non-standard design or location of facilities as provided in Section
5.3(B).
7.“Excess Expenditure” is defined as the total reasonable incremental cost for construction of Special Facilities,
including: the value of the un-depreciated life of existing facilities being removed and removal costs less salvage; the
fully allocated incremental labor costs for design, surveying, engineering, construction, administration, operations or
any other activity associated with said project; the incremental easement or other land costs incurred by the
Company; the incremental costs of immediately required changes to associated electric facilities, including backup
facilities, to ensure reliability, structural integrity and operational integrity of electric system; the incremental taxes
associated with requested or ordered Special Facilities; the incremental cost represented by accelerated replacement
cost if the Special Facility has a materially shorter life expectancy than the standard installation; the incremental
material cost for all items associated with said construction, less salvage value of removed facilities, and any other
prudent costs incurred by Company directly related to the applicable Special Facilities.
Docket No.
President and CEO of Northern States Power Company
E002/GR-05-1428 Order Date: 09-01-06
S:\General-Offices-GO-01\PSF\RA\Rates\Current\Mn_elec\Me_6_27-1_r01.doc
Attachment B
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b)
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard
(4023-7000) - Ward 1 Page 14
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
and wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc. Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55401
MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2
GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS (Continued)Section No.
Original Sheet No.
6
27.2
(Continued on Sheet No. 6-28)
By: Cynthia L. Lesher
President and CEO of Northern States Power Company
Effective Date: 02-01-07
Order Date: 09-01-06
5.3 SPECIAL FACILITIES (Continued)
B.General Rule
1. When the Company is requested by a customer, group of customers, developer, or Municipality to provide types
of service that result in an expenditure in excess of the Company designated standard service installation as
provided under Section 5.1, STANDARD INSTALLATION, or designated standard Distribution Facilities or
Transmission Facilities under Section 5.3 (A)(5) the requesting customer, group of customers, developer, or
Municipality will be responsible for such Excess Expenditure, unless otherwise required by law. Common
examples of Special Facilities include duplicate service facilities, special switching equipment, special service
voltage, three phase service where single phase service is adequate, excess capacity, capacity for intermittent
equipment, trailer park distribution systems, underground installations to wood poles, conversion from overhead
to underground service, specific area undergrounding, other special undergrounding, location and relocation or
replacement of existing Company facilities.
2.When requested under Section 5.3 (B)(1) the Company will evaluate the circumstances and determine the
Standard Facility(ies) that would be appropriate to the particular situation. From this evaluation, the Company
will determine the facilities design/configuration for the proposed project that meets the definition of a Standard
Facility. This design/configuration shall constitute the Standard Facility for purposes of determining the Excess
Expenditure associated with any requested or ordered Special Facility, including a Special Facility subject to a City
Requested Facilities Surcharge or other rate surcharge.
3.Subject to the requirements of applicable law, and subject to the Company’s previously scheduled or emergency
work, the Company will initially install Special Facilities or will replace, modify or relocate to a Company-approved
location or route its existing Distribution Facilities or Transmission Facilities (a) upon the request of a customer, a
group of customers, developer, or upon request or lawful order of a Municipality if the Company determines the
requested or ordered Special Facilities will not adversely affect the reliability, structural integrity, ability to
efficiently expand capacity or operational integrity of the Company's Distribution Facilities or Transmission
Facilities; and (b) the requesting or ordering customer, group of customers, developer, or Municipality arranges
for payment of the Excess Expenditures under Section 5.3(E)(1) or 5.3(E)(2), or a requesting or ordering City elects
that the Excess Expenditures for undergrounding of Distribution Facilities be recovered by surcharge under
Section 5.3(E)(3).
Date Filed: 11-02-05
Docket No. E002/GR-05-1428
S:\General-Offices-GO-01\PSF\RA\Rates\Current\Mn_elec\Me_6_27-2.doc
Attachment B
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b)
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard
(4023-7000) - Ward 1 Page 15
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
and wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc. Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55401
MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2
GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS (Continued)Section No.
1st Revised Sheet No.
6
28
(Continued on Sheet No. 6-29)
Date Filed: 11-02-05 By: Cynthia L. Lesher
President and CEO of Northern States Power Company
5.3 SPECIAL FACILITIES (Continued)
C.Special Facilities In Public Right-Of-Way
1. Whenever a Municipality as a governing body of public right-of-way orders or requests the Company to replace,
modify or relocate its existing Distribution Facilities or Transmission Facilities located by permit in said public
right-of-way to the extent necessary to avoid interference with construction on said public right-of-way, such
facilities will be replaced, modified or relocated at Company expense, provided the construction is the Standard
Facility(ies) installation designated by the Company.
2.If the Municipality requests or orders a facility other than the standard facility(ies) determined under 5.3(C)(1),
the Company will provide the Municipality notification of the Excess Expenditure compared to the Standard
Facility. If the Municipality requests or orders a type of construction with cost in excess of the Company
designated standard construction, recovery of such Excess Expenditures will be subject to Section 5.3(E).
3.Except in emergencies, the Company has no obligation to commence initial construction of new Special Facilities,
or to commence construction for replacement, modification, reconstruction or relocation of existing facilities,
until the Company receives a permit, or other written authorization, from the Municipality (or its designee)
having jurisdiction over use of the applicable public right-of-way, authorizing the construction at a Company-
approved reasonable location within the public right-of-way or at a location established by lawful order of the
Municipality.
4.The Company reserves the right to require an order from a Municipality if the Company determines the
requested Special Facilities constitute an improvement primarily for the benefit of a landowner or other group
and only an incidental benefit to public use of the right-of-way. The Company also reserves the right to challenge
the lawfulness of a Municipality's order.
CI.Underground Facilities Requirements
The following provisions apply when replacing overhead facilities with underground facilities:
1. The customer, at customer’s expense, must engage an electrician to adapt the customer’s electrical facilities
to accept service from Company underground facilities.
2.The Company will allow reasonable time for the customer to make the necessary alterations to their facilities,
before removal of the existing overhead facilities. The customer, group of customers, developer or
Municipality must provide Company reasonable notice of the undergrounding request so Company may
efficiently plan and install such facilities.
Effective
Date:
02-01-07
Order Date:
09-01-06
Docket No. E002/GR-05-1428
S:\General-Offices-GO-01\PSF\RA\Rates\Current\Mn_elec\Me_6_28_r02.doc
Attachment B
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b)
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard
(4023-7000) - Ward 1 Page 16
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
and wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc. Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55401
MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2
GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS (Continued)Section No.
1st Revised Sheet No.
6
29
(Continued on Sheet No. 6-29.1)
Date Filed: 11-02-05 By: Cynthia L. Lesher
President and CEO of Northern States Power Company
Effective Date: 02-01-07
Order Date: 09-01-06
5.3 SPECIAL FACILITIES (Continued)
D.Underground Facilities Requirements (Continued)
3. Perpetual easements will be granted Company at no cost to the Company whenever any portion of the
underground distribution system is located on private land. Said private easements also will allow the Company
access for inspection, maintenance, and repair of Company facilities.
4.The Company must receive, by franchise or permit, full access to its facilities installed underground for the
purpose of inspection, maintenance, and repair of such facilities, such right of access to include the right to open
public ways.
5.The Municipality will give sufficient notice and will allow the Company sufficient time to place its facilities
beneath public ways while the same are torn up for resurfacing. The Municipality shall provide Company with
access to the torn up public ways during such period so that Company will have unobstructed use of sufficiently
large sections of the public ways to allow installation of the underground facilities in an economic manner.
6.Secondary voltage service supplied from an underground distribution lateral installation will require that the
customer install, own, and maintain necessary conduits and secondary service conductors or bus duct to a point
designated by Company within or adjacent to the secondary compartment of the transformer or vault. Company
will make final connection of customer's secondary service conductors or bus duct to Company's facilities.
7.Secondary voltage service supplied from underground secondary service conductors require that the customer
install, own, or maintain necessary conduits on private property to a point designated by the Company at or near
the property line. The secondary service conductors usually will be installed by the customer in the customer’s
conduit, however, in some installations it may be preferred to have Company provide a continuous installation
from the Company facilities through the customer conduit to the customer’s service equipment. In these
installations the customer must pay the total installed cost of the Company's cable installed on private property.
The Company will make the final connection of customer's secondary service connectors to Company's facilities.
8.The customer, group of customers, developer or Municipality will be subject to any charges imposed as a result of
the conditions set forth in Section 5.1, STANDARD INSTALLATION and charges for Special Facilities as provided in
this Section 5.3.
Docket No. E002/GR-05-1428
S:\General-Offices-GO-01\PSF\RA\Rates\Current\Mn_elec\Me_6_29_r01.doc
Attachment B
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b)
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard
(4023-7000) - Ward 1 Page 17
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2
GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS (Continued)Section No.
1st Revised Sheet No.
6
29.1
(Continued on Sheet No. 6-29.2)
Date Filed: 05-02-11
Docket No.
08-11-10 By: Judy M. Poferl Effective Date:
President and CEO of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation E002/
M-10-878 Order Date: 05-02-11
S:\General-Offices-GO-01\PSF\RA\Rates\Current\Mn_elec\Me_6_29-1_r01.doc
5.3 SPECIAL FACILITIES (Continued)
E. Special Facilities Payments
1. Where the requesting or ordering party is required to prepay or agrees to prepay or arrange payment for Special
Facilities, the requesting or ordering party shall execute an agreement or service form pertaining to the
installation, operation and maintenance, and payment of the Special Facilities. Payments required will be made
on a non-refundable basis and may be required in advance of construction unless other arrangements are agreed
to in writing by the Company. The facilities installed by the Company shall be the property of the Company. Any
payment by a requesting or ordering party shall not change the Company’s ownership interest or rights.
Payment for Special Facilities may be required by either, or a combination, of the following methods as prescribed
by the Company: a single charge for the costs incurred or to be incurred by the Company due to such a special
installation or a monthly charge being one-twelfth of Company's annual fixed costs necessary to provide such a
special installation. The monthly charge will be discontinued if the special facilities are removed or if the
requester eventually qualifies for the originally requested Special Facilities.
2.Where Special Facilities are requested or ordered by a Municipality which is not a City, or in circumstances other
than those addressed in Section 5.3(E)(3), and payment is not made or arranged by the Municipality, the
Company may seek approval of the Commission to allow the Excess Expenditures to be the responsibility of the
Company's customers residing within the Municipality and may seek approval by the Commission pursuant to
Minn. Stat. §216B to allow recovery of such expenditures from those customers through a rate surcharge or other
method.
The Company will provide notice to an affected Municipality of any miscellaneous rate filing by Company under
Minn. Stat. §216B.16, Subd. 1, to establish a Special Facilities surcharge applicable to customers in such
Municipality. Customers in the applicable Municipality will be notified of (a) the implementation of the Special
Facilities surcharge through a bill message during the month preceding the month of implementation of such
surcharge, and (b) any change in the surcharge.
T
T
T
T
T
Attachment B
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b)
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard
(4023-7000) - Ward 1 Page 18
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2
GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS (Continued) Section No.
2nd Revised Sheet No.
6
29.2
(Continued on Sheet No. 6-29.3)
Date Filed: 05-02-11
Docket No.
08-11-10 By: Judy M. Poferl Effective Date:
President and CEO of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation E002/
M-10-878 Order Date: 05-02-11
S:\General-Offices-GO-01\PSF\RA\Rates\Current\Mn_elec\Me_6_29-2_r02.doc
SPECIAL FACILITIES (Continued)
E. Special Facilities Payments (Continued)
3. Where undergrounding of Distribution Facilities as a Special Facility is ordered by a City, and payment for excess
expenditure is not made or arranged by the City, the Excess Expenditures will be recovered from the Company’s
customers located in the City through a rate surcharge set forth in Section 5.3 (F) and the City Requested
Facilities Surcharge Rider subject to the following conditions:
a. The Company shall provide written notice to the City containing the following:
i. the estimated total excess expenditures required for the designated City
undergrounding project and an estimate of the resulting surcharge;
ii.notice to the City Clerk that the City has sixty (60) days from its receipt of the
notice to file with the Commission an objection to the proposed surcharge
under Minn. Stat. §216B.17 or other applicable law. The notice shall contain
a brief statement of facts and tariff or other legal authority on which the
Company bases its right to surcharge the ratepayers located in the City.
b.Within the sixty (60) day period noticed by the Company, the City may give written notice to the Company of
its intention to pay all, a portion or none of the estimated Excess Expenditures, or otherwise enter into an
agreement with the Company regarding payment of any Excess Expenditures. If the City does not respond in
writing within the sixty (60) days, it is deemed to have elected not to pay any portion of the Excess
Expenditures and will have waived its right to object to the Company’s right to surcharge ratepayers in the
City for the Excess Expenditures. Such failure, however, is not a waiver of the City’s right to object to the
Company’s Excess Expenditures surcharged to ratepayers in the City, which objection may be exercised
pursuant to other applicable law.
c.A rate surcharge set forth in Section 5.3(F) and the City Requested Facilities Surcharge Rider may be used to
recover the excess Expenditures of Distribution Facilities when such projects are initiated and controlled by
a City even if the City does not act within its police powers to require the undergrounding project to be
completed and the City and Company mutually agree in writing to using such a surcharge.
T
T
Attachment B
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b)
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard
(4023-7000) - Ward 1 Page 19
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2
GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS (Continued)Section No.
2nd Revised Sheet No.
6
29.3
(Continued on Sheet No. 6-29.4)
Date Filed: 05-02-11
Docket No.
08-11-10 By: Judy M. Poferl Effective Date:
President and CEO of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation E002/
M-10-878 Order Date: 05-02-11
S:\General-Offices-GO-01\PSF\RA\Rates\Current\Mn_elec\Me_6_29-3_r02.doc
SPECIAL FACILITIES (Continued)
E. Special Facilities Payments (Continued)
d. The City may bring its objection to the proposed surcharge to the Commission by filing a statement of
objection with the Commission and serving the Company within sixty (60) days. An objection
proceeding shall not halt or delay the project, except for good cause shown. Notice and
implementation of the surcharge shall be stayed until the Commission or a court of competent
jurisdiction issues a final order or judgment.
e.Nothing in this tariff is intended to establish or limit the rights of a Company customer that is a
member of the class of customers surcharged or proposed to be surcharged from pursuing its rights
under applicable law.
f.Customers in the applicable City will be notified of: (i) the implementation of a City Requested Facilities
Surcharge through a bill message during the month preceding the month the surcharge is commenced;
and (ii) any change in a preexisting surcharge. The Company shall provide the Department and City the
proposed notice to customers no less than sixty (60) days prior to the first day of the month in which
the Company intends to notify customers of the surcharge.
T
Attachment B
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b)
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard
(4023-7000) - Ward 1 Page 20
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
and wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc. Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55401
MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2
GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS (Continued)Section No.
Original Sheet No.
6
29.4
(Continued on Sheet No. 6-29.5)
Date Filed: 11-02-05 By: Cynthia L. Lesher Effective Date: 02-01-07
President and CEO of Northern States Power Company
Docket No. E002/GR-05-1428 Order Date: 09-01-06
SPECIAL FACILITIES (Continued)
F.Costs of Special Facilities Recovered by City Requested Facilities Surcharge
1. The Excess Expenditure required for any Special Facility undergrounding of Distribution Facilities requested or
ordered by a City shall be subject to surcharge in accordance with the provisions of this section and the City
Requested Facilities Surcharge (CRFS) Rider, if the City does not prepay or otherwise arrange payment. The
surcharge shall commence on such date as determined by the Company, but no earlier than the first full billing
month following at least 60 days notice to the applicable City of the planned implementation date of a surcharge.
2.City Project Tracker Account. The Company will establish a City Project Tracker Account for the applicable City in
order to track project cost recovery through customer collections. The initial balance in the Tracker Account will
be the Company-determined Excess Expenditure for the applicable Special Facilities. Excess Expenditures for
subsequent, additional City requested or ordered Special Facilities may be added to the Tracker Account balance
at any time to the extent additional Excess Expenditures are incurred by Company. The Tracker Account balance
shall be determined as follows:
a. The total Excess Expenditure (“EE”) for each City Special Facility undergrounding project to be recovered
through a CRFS surcharge. The EE will be adjusted to reflect actual Company costs and any direct payments
made by the City for the designated construction project;
b. Plus the Carrying Charge (“CC”) on the unrecovered or over-recovered monthly balance in the Tracker
Account based on the overall rate of return from the Company’s most recent electric general rate case
decision; and
c.Less the Recovered Project Costs (“RPC”) equal to the actual monthly amounts billed to customers in the
applicable city through the CRFS Rider, subject to subsequent reductions to account for uncollectibles,
refunds and correction of erroneous billings.
S:\General-Offices-GO-01\PSF\RA\Rates\Current\Mn_elec\Me_6_29-4.doc
Attachment B
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b)
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard
(4023-7000) - Ward 1 Page 21
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2
GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS (Continued)Section No.
1st Revised Sheet No.
6
29.5
Date Filed: 08-11-10 By: Judy M. Poferl Effective Date: 05-02-11
President and CEO of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
Order Date: 05-02-11 Docket No. E002/M-10-878
S:\General-Offices-GO-01\PSF\RA\Rates\Current\Mn_elec\Me_6_29-5_r01.doc
SPECIAL FACILITIES (Continued)
F. Costs of Special Facilities Recovered by City Requested Facilities Surcharge (Continued)
3. The Company may delay implementation of a surcharge for a City Project Tracker Account until the minimum
surcharge amount provided in the CRFS Rider is reached.
4.Any under or over recovery will be determined by the Tracker Account balance in the last month of the final
Recovery Period. Any under recovery will be expensed. The Company will limit over-recoveries to no more than
$1.00 per customer or $10,000 per City at the time the Tracker Account is terminated. Any over recovery above
the limit will be maintained in a Company liability account for no more than two
(2) years following the Recovery Period and applied as follows:
a. The over recovery will be credited to the Tracker Account balance for subsequent, additional City requested
or ordered Special Facilities, or
b.If the City does not use the CRFS process within two (2) years, the Company will refund the over recovered
amount to current customers of the City according to their billed surcharge amounts, plus interest per Minn.
R. 7825.3300, Methods and Procedures for Refunding. Interest will be calculated at the average prime rate.
5. Record Access and Reporting Requirements. The Company’s records associated with a City’s Tracker Account
shall be available for inspection by such City at reasonable times. If requested by a City, the Company shall
provide a report on the status and balance of the City Project Tracker Account as follows:
a. whenever Excess Expenditures for requested or ordered Distribution Facilities undergrounding are added to
the Tracker Account for a designated or new City project,
b.on or before the last business day of the month following the final month of the Recovery Period, or
c.annually if the Recovery Period is greater than 12 months.
6.The surcharge for a particular Special Facility Distribution Facilities undergrounding project may be of a different
design than set forth in the City Requested Facilities Surcharge Rider if approved in advance by Commission
order in response to a rate filing by the Company under Minn. Stat. §216B.16, or in response to a complaint filed
by the applicable City under Minn. Stat. §216B.17.
T
T
N
N
T
T
T
T
Attachment B
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b)
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard
(4023-7000) - Ward 1 Page 22
April 9, 2024
Joseph Shamala
Project Manager - Engineering
5005 Minnetonka Blvd
St. Louis Park, MN 55416 the
removal
Re: Engineering Estimate to City for Special Facilities Project
Your city has requested information from Northern States Power Company, a
Minnesota corporation (“Xcel Energy” or the “Company”) regarding removal
of the existing overhead distribution system and its replacement with a new
equivalent underground distribution system along CSAH 25 (Minnetonka
Blvd) from the E side of State Highway 100 to the W side of France Ave S. We
have completed an Engineering Estimate of the cost of this project, which we
have determined is a “special facilities” project. Section 5.3 of the rules and
regulations in our Minnesota Electric Rate Book (tariff) contains the
definition of standard and special facilities; the relevant tariff sections are
provided in Attachment B to this letter.
Attachment A to this letter is an Engineering Estimate form, which provides
the project scope, assumptions and estimated excess expenditures (i.e., the
incremental costs above those for standard facilities) for this project. The
estimated excess expenditure associated with this “special facilities” project
is
$1,150,000. Xcel Energy can commence construction based on this
engineering design; however, scope changes, field conditions, winter
construction charges and other variables may impact the final “special
facilities” project cost, and hence, the excess expenditures.
The Xcel Energy tariff allows Xcel Energy to recover or seek recovery of any
excess expenditures associated with special facilities. The available methods
of cost recovery depend on several factors. For example, if the project is
distribution facility undergrounding ordered by a city, the cost recovery
procedures in our City Requested Facilities Surcharge (“CRFS”) Rider may
apply (see Attachment B). The CRFS Rider may also apply if a City requests
undergrounding and agrees to use the CRFS. This is a Minnesota Public
Utilities Commission (“MPUC”) approved surcharge on Xcel Energy customers
within your city only. If the “special facility” does not involve the
undergrounding of a
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b)
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard
(4023-7000) - Ward 1 Page 23
distribution facility pursuant to a city’s police powers, or if the city and Xcel
Energy do not mutually agree to use the CRFS to recover the excess
expenditures, there is no automatic surcharge and Xcel Energy must
propose a surcharge for approval by the Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission.
Or, the city can choose to prepay or to otherwise arrange for payment of
the excess expenditures.
If this project were to proceed and cost recovery were to occur under the
CRFS Rider or similar surcharge, the following information is useful. Based
on the projected excess expenditures associated with this Engineering
Estimate and assuming the CRFS Rider is used to recover the costs, the
estimated term of the surcharge is 36 months, and the estimated monthly
surcharge amount per customer class is as shown below. However, the
surcharge would reflect Xcel Energy’s actual expenditures related to this
project, so the term and/or total excess expenditures may be different than
shown here. Customer Class Monthly Surcharge
$1.18
$0.25
$1.18
$3.54
$4.72
$1.18
$1.18
$3.54
Residential
Residential Low Income
Small C&I Non-demand Billed
Small C&I
Large C&I
Street Lighting
Sm Mun Pump Non-Demand
Sm Mun Pump
Large Mun Pump $4.72
Please note that your City will have the opportunity to challenge: (1) Xcel
Energy’s determination that a surcharge is necessary; (2) the amount of the
surcharge; and (3) how the surcharge is distributed among Xcel Energy’s
customers in your City.
Next Steps
Please let us know if the City wishes to proceed with this project in writing. If
the project is to proceed, Xcel Energy will confirm that understanding in
writing to the City.
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b)
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard
(4023-7000) - Ward 1 Page 24
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 952 – 380 – 2604.
Sincerely,
Michelle Swanson
Community Relations
Manager
Cc: City
Manager
City Engineer
Attachment A: Project Engineering Estimate Form
Attachment B: Xcel Energy MN Electric Rate Book, Rules and
Regulations, Section 5.3 and the CRFS rider rate schedule.
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5b)
Title: Resolution to approve agreement with Xcel Energy for Minnetonka Boulevard
(4023-7000) - Ward 1 Page 25
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: April 15, 2024
Consent agenda item: 5c
Executive summary
Title: Approve bid for 2024 Concrete Replacement project (4024-0003)
Recommended action: Motion to designate Create Construction LLC, the lowest responsible bidder,
and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $223,990.25 for Concrete
Replacement project (no. 4024-0003).
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to continue the city's practice of repairing or replacing
existing sidewalk, curb and gutter, and catch basins?
Summary: Bids were received on March 25, 2024, for miscellaneous concrete repair, including
sidewalk, curb and gutter, and storm sewer catch basins at various locations in the city. This annual
construction contract addresses needed concrete repairs in the pavement management area
scheduled for routine pavement maintenance the following year as well as sidewalk trip hazards
throughout the city.
Three (3) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid results is as follows:
Contractor Bid amount
Create Construction LLC $223,990.25
GMH Asphalt Corporation $299,259.30
JL Theis, Inc. $303,628.00
CIP budget $386,900.00
A review of the bid indicates Create Construction LLC submitted the lowest responsible bid. Create
Construction LLC is a capable contractor who was awarded and successfully completed last year’s
concrete replacement project. Staff recommends that a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount
of $223,990.25.
Financial or budget considerations: This project was included in the city's Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) for 2024, with an estimated budget of $386,900.00. Funding will be provided by the following
sources: the public works budget, stormwater utility, and pavement management funds. Funding
details are provided in the discussion section.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people
to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Overall 2024 financial summary
Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, engineering services manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Page 2 City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5c)
Title: Approve bid for 2024 Concrete Replacement project (4024-0003)
Discussion
Background: Bids were received on March 25, 2024, for the concrete replacement project. This annual
construction contract addresses needed concrete repairs, including sidewalk, curb and gutter, and
storm sewer catch basins at various locations in the city. Staff annually surveys the condition of
sidewalks to identify hazards for repair. Panels of sidewalk that are cracked or have been lifted by tree
roots and create trip hazards are repaired as a part of this contract. Curb and gutter with similar
defects that create drainage or safety problems are also repaired.
An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor on March 7 and March 14, 2024,
and in Finance & Commerce from March 7 through March 13, 2024. In addition, plans and specifications
are made available electronically via the internet on the city's OneOffice website. Information regarding
this bidding opportunity was shared with three (3) minority associations and 34 Disadvantaged Business
Enterprises (DBE) contractors.
Fourteen (14) contractors/vendors downloaded plan sets, four (4) of which were Disadvantaged
Business Enterprises (DBE).
Financial considerations: Based on the low bid received, cost and funding details for the project are as
follows:
CIP estimate Low bid
Construction cost $365,000.00 $223,990.25
Engineering $21,900.00 $13,439.42
Base bid total $386,900.00 $237,429.67
Funding sources
Pavement management fund $120,950.00 $74,233.62
Public Works budget $145,000.00 $88,982.43
Stormwater utility $120,950.00 $74,213.62
Base bid total $386,900.00 $237,429.67
Due to the nature of our construction projects, unexpected costs do come up. The capital funds have
unobligated balances that can be used to handle cost overruns above and beyond the awarded bid.
Attached is the overall financial summary for the transportation and maintenance projects included in
the 2024 CIP. As each project is brought to the council for final approval and for bid award, this
summary will be updated to reflect the bids received. Final numbers will depend on bids received.
Next steps: All work required under this contract shall be completed by Aug. 30, 2024.
Overall financial summary
2024 Budget
Cedar Lake/
Louisiana Ave
Phase 1
Minnetonka
Blvd
Concrete
replacement
Pavement
management
(Area 2)
Alley
construction
Sanitary sewer
lining
Lamplighter
Pond
maintenance
Parking lot
maintenance
MSC
4023-1100 4023-7000 4024-0003 4024-1000 4024-1500 4024-3000 4022-4001 4024-1600
GO Bonds 4,656,251 - 4,656,251 - - - - - -
GO Bonds-New sidewalk construction 825,000 - -- 825,000 - - - -
Pavement management fund 4,235,490 - -120,950 3,396,000 293,800 - - 424,740
Municipal State Aid 3,800,530 3,800,530 - - - - - - -
Sanitary sewer 1,336,164 - 411,164 - 345,000 - 580,000 - -
Stormwater 1,237,420 81,470 120,950 633,000 158,200 - 243,800 -
Water 7,758,235 1,218,735 3,467,500 - 3,072,000 - - - -
Operations budget 145,000 - - 145,000 - - - - -
State appropriation 2,000,000 2,000,000 - - - - - - -
Federal funds 1,941,333 1,941,333 - - - - - - -
Congressional directed spending 2,000,000 2,000,000 - - - - - - -
Total funding 29,935,423 11,042,068 8,534,915 386,900 8,271,000 452,000 580,000 243,800 424,740
Table 1: 2024 Transportation and maintence projects funding -CIP
2024 Budget
Cedar Lake/
Louisiana Ave
Phase 1
Minnetonka
Blvd
Concrete
replacement
Pavement
management
(Area 2)
Alley
construction
Sanitary sewer
lining
Lamplighter
Pond
maintenance
Parking lot
maintenance
MSC
2024 CIP
projects total
to date
4023-1100 4023-7000 4024-0003 4024-1000 4024-1500 4024-3000 4022-4001 4024-1600
GO Bonds 4,656,251 - 3,362,976 - - - - - - 3,362,976
GO Bonds-New sidewalk construction 825,000 - -- 796,167 - - - - 796,167
Pavement management fund 4,235,490 - -60,910 3,862,291 263,284 - - 132,300 4,318,786
Municipal State Aid 3,800,530 3,866,264 - - - - - - - 3,866,264
Sanitary sewer 1,336,164 24,800 691,995 - 344,280 - 277,870 - - 1,338,945
Stormwater 1,237,420 81,470 - 71,133 629,674 243,032 - 239,578 - 1,264,887
Water 7,758,235 1,218,735 2,511,161 3,067,636 - - - - 6,797,532
Operations budget 145,000 - - 80,930 - - - - - 80,930
State appropriation 2,000,000 2,028,472 - - - - - - - 2,028,472
Federal funds 1,941,333 2,164,000 - - - - - - - 2,164,000
Congressional directed spending 2,000,000 2,000,000 - - - - - - - 2,000,000
Total funding 29,935,423 11,383,741 6,566,132 212,973 8,700,049 506,316 277,870 239,578 132,300 28,018,959
Engineer's
Estimate
Engineer's
Estimate Award Bid Award Bid Award Bid
Engineer's
Estimate Award Bid Award Bid
Table 2: 2024 Transportation and maintence projects funding - actual
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5c)
Title: Approve bid for 2024 Concrete Replacement project (4023-0003)Page 3
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: April 15, 2024
Consent agenda item: 5d
Executive summary
Title: Resolutions modifying parking restriction on Xenwood Avenue south of 36th Street –
Ward 2
Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolutions:
•Rescind Resolution No. 87-190, removing parking restrictions on the west side of
Xenwood Avenue south of 36th Street.
•Approve parking restrictions on the east side of Xenwood Avenue from the intersection
of 36th Street to a point 75 feet south.
Policy consideration: None.
Summary: In February of 2024, staff received a request from 5701 W 36th Street to remove the
parking restrictions adjacent to their property along Xenwood Avenue south of 36th Street.
The parking restrictions were installed in 1987 following a request made by the then owner of
5701 W 36th Street. This request was made to prevent street parking from blocking access to
the overhead loading door on Xenwood Avenue. The building has since been remodeled and no
longer has overhead loading on Xenwood Avenue.
At the March 2024 traffic committee meeting, the committee reviewed this request and
recommended the removal of the parking restrictions on the west side of the 3600 block of
Xenwood Avenue adjacent to 5701 W 36th Street. In addition, the committee recommended
the installation of parking restrictions on the east side of Xenwood Avenue (adjacent to the
Elmwood Apartments) 75 feet south of the intersection with 36th Street to keep the turn lane
open.
The proposed parking changes were discussed with adjacent properties, the Elmwood
Apartments and 5701 W 36th Street. Neither property had any concerns with the staff-
recommended changes to parking on this block.
Financial or budget considerations: The cost to remove the existing no parking signs and the
installation of new signage is estimated to be $300 and will come out of the general operating
budget.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Resolution 87-190 - to be rescinded
Resolutions
Location map
Prepared by: Kerrwin Dempsey, engineering technician III
Jack Sullivan, engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5d) Page 2
Title: Resolutions modifying parking restriction on Xenwood Avenue south of 36th Street – Ward 2
Discussion
Background: In February of 2024, staff received a request from 5701 W 36th Street to remove
the parking restrictions adjacent to their property on the west side of the 3600 block of
Xenwood Avenue, stating that the conditions under which the restrictions were originally
placed no longer exist at this address.
The parking restrictions were installed in 1987 following a request made by the then owner of
5701 W 36th Street, to allow access to an eastside overhead loading door of the business. This
building is located on the west side of the 3600 block of Xenwood Avenue. At the time, box
trucks would parallel park against the building and use hand trucks to make deliveries.
Since that time, this building has been renovated, the overhead delivery door was removed and
a smaller entry door was installed. The current tenant in the unit with access to this door does
not have any off-street parking spaces. Removing the current parking restrictions will allow
parking adjacent to the building for employees and customers.
Traffic committee review and recommendation: The traffic committee is an internal employee
workgroup made up of engineering, public works, police and community development
department staff. The group meets monthly to discuss traffic requests from across the city and
makes recommendations on possible changes. Any official changes to traffic controls or parking
restrictions are ultimately approved by the city council.
The committee reviewed this request and recommended the removal of the parking
restrictions on the west side of the 3600 block of Xenwood Avenue adjacent to 5701 W 36th
Street due to the change in adjacent land use and building access.
During the review, the committee identified that significant changes have occurred at this
intersection over the last nine years. A traffic signal was installed in 2015, the Elmwood
Apartments replaced the American Legion and 36th Street was reconstructed in 2022. These
changes have created two delineated driving lanes on Xenwood Avenue for northbound traffic
at the intersection. There is a thru/ left turn lane and a right-turn-only lane. Parking is not
restricted along the east side of this street segment and vehicles can park in the right-turn lane,
blocking vehicle movement at the intersection.
To ensure that vehicle movement is not blocked, the traffic committee also recommends the
installation of parking restrictions on the east side of Xenwood Avenue from the intersection of
36th Street to 75 feet south to prevent vehicles from parking in the right-turn lane.
Community feedback: The two properties adjacent to this segment of Xenwood Avenue were
contacted to gather feedback on the proposed parking modifications. Neither property had any
concerns with the recommended changes to parking on this block.
Next steps: The existing parking restriction along the west side of Xenwood Avenue adjacent to
5701 W 36th Street is under Resolution 87-190. The recommended action and attached
resolution rescind this resolution and create a new parking restricted area on the east side of
Xenwood Avenue from the intersection of 36th Street to a point 75 feet south.
Schedule: If the changes to the parking restrictions on the 3600 block of Xenwood Avenue are
approved, the existing signage will be removed and the new signage will be installed this spring.
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5d) Page 3
Title: Resolutions modifying parking restriction on Xenwood Avenue south of 36th Street – Ward 2
Resolution No. 24-____
Removal of parking restrictions on the
west side of Xenwood Avenue South of 36th Street
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park received a request to remove parking restrictions at
5701 W 36th Street; and
Whereas, Resolution No. 87-190 was approved in 1987 to address access needs for the
adjacent land uses; and
Whereas, the adjacent land uses no longer require this access; and
Whereas, the traffic committee has reviewed the request and recommended the removal
of parking restrictions on the west side of Xenwood Avenue between 36th Street and the alley
approximately 170 feet south; and
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
that:
1. Resolution No. 87-190 is rescinded.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council April 15, 2024
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5d) Page 4
Title: Resolutions modifying parking restriction on Xenwood Avenue south of 36th Street – Ward 2
Resolution No. 24-____
Authorizing parking restrictions on the
east side of Xenwood Avenue south of 36th Street
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park received a request to modify parking on Xenwood
Avenue south of 36th Street; and
Whereas, installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of 36th Street and Xenwood
Avenue in 2015 delineated a thru/ left turn lane and a right-turn-only lane for northbound
traffic; and
Whereas, there have been changes to the land use along Xenwood Avenue south of 36th
Street; and
Whereas, it is important that the northbound right turning traffic is not blocked by parked
cars; and
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
that the engineering director is authorized to:
1. Install parking restrictions on the east side of Xenwood Avenue from the intersection
of 36th Street to a point 75 feet south.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council April 15, 2024
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
X E N WO O D AV E S
3
6
T
H
S
T
W
5650
57015721
5605
3700
5708 56005718
0 50 10025
Feet
Parking modifications on Xenwood Avenue south of 36th Street
Proposed no parking
Existing parking restrictions to be removed
Date: 3/26/2024
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5d) Title: Resolutions modifying parking restriction on Xenwood Avenue south of 36th Street - Ward 2 Page 5
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: April 15, 2024
Consent agenda item: 5e
Executive summary
Title: Resolution returning unspent Municipal Broadband Expansion Fund grant money to
Hennepin County
Recommended action: Approve resolution returning unspent Municipal Broadband Expansion
Fund grant money to Hennepin County.
Policy consideration: Does the council agree to return unused money from the Municipal
Broadband Expansion Fund to Hennepin County, to be used toward a countywide Connectivity
Program?
Summary: In 2023, the city received $89,000 through the Hennepin County Municipal
Broadband Expansion Fund for digital equity activities. This work included the assumption that
the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) would continue to provide funding for low-cost
internet and that connecting residents with this service would be a primary goal of the city’s
grant-funded activities.
Earlier this year, the FCC announced that due to lack of continued federal funding, the ACP
would wind down in May 2024. To prevent a spike in households becoming disconnected and
undoing years of progress, Hennepin County will be implementing a Connectivity Program to
replace the ACP from May-December 2024. To help fund this program, Hennepin County has
asked grant recipients to voluntarily return unspent Municipal Broadband Expansion Fund grant
money.
Financial or budget considerations: Return unspent grant money, estimated at $80,475 as of
April 5, 2024.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: July 17, 2023, council report
Prepared by: Jacque Smith, communications and technology director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5e) Page 2
Title: Resolution returning unspent Municipal Broadband Expansion Fund grant money to Hennepin County
Discussion
Background: In 2023, the city received $89,000 through the Hennepin County Municipal
Broadband Expansion Fund for digital equity activities. This work included the assumption that
the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) would continue to provide funding for low-cost
internet and that connecting residents with this service would be a primary goal of the city’s
grant-funded activities.
Earlier this year, the FCC unexpectedly announced that due to lack of continued federal
funding, the ACP would wind down. Final applications were accepted in early February and
funding is projected to run out by mid-May 2024 for participants. A $7 billion ACP Extension Act
has so far not been passed by Congress.
To prevent a spike in households becoming disconnected and undoing years of progress,
Hennepin County will be implementing a Connectivity Program that will provide a $10 per
month subsidy for most ACP enrollees and ACP-eligible broadband subscribers in Hennepin
County, from May-December 2024. This includes several hundred participants in the St. Louis
Park area and about 26,000 participants countywide. Not only will the county’s plan continue
funding for those currently enrolled in ACP, but it will also extend funding to those who are
eligible for the ACP but had not enrolled.
To help fund this $2 million program, Hennepin County has asked grant recipients to voluntarily
return any unspent or uncommitted Municipal Broadband Expansion Fund grant money.
Present considerations: In St. Louis Park, community engagement planning to determine digital
equity needs had begun, but no external work had taken place. This engagement was to
determine how the remainder of the grant funding would be spent.
• Continuing with the community engagement portion was considered, while returning
the rest of the grant money. However, there was a concern about creating false
expectations with the community engagement when a decision had already been made
to contribute the remaining grant money to the county's program. The community
engagement work with a consultant has been terminated effective April 5, 2024, with
$8,525 spent. City staff has retained the work product developed, which could be used
in the future if another opportunity arises for community engagement related to digital
equity.
• Returning the grant money for this Connectivity Program will allow several hundred St.
Louis Park residents to maintain their affordable internet access through various
providers. This is in keeping with the goals of the grant application and provides a larger
benefit than St. Louis Park would be able to provide on its own with its individual grant.
Next steps: If council approves, staff will work with Hennepin County to return the unspent
grant funds, estimated at $80,475 as of April 5, 2024, that were prepaid to the city.
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5e) Page 3
Title: Resolution returning unspent Municipal Broadband Expansion Fund grant money to Hennepin County
Resolution No. 24 - ____
Returning unspent Municipal Broadband Expansion Fund grant money to
Hennepin County for Connectivity Program
Whereas, in 2023, the city received $89,000 through the Hennepin County Municipal
Broadband Expansion Fund for digital equity activities, which included the assumption that the
Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) would continue to provide funding for low-cost internet
and that connecting residents with this service would be a primary goal of the city’s grant-
funded activities; and
Whereas, the FCC announced in early 2024 that due to lack of continued federal
funding, the ACP would wind down. Final applications were accepted in early February and
funding is projected to run out by mid-May 2024 for participants; and
Whereas, to prevent a spike in households becoming disconnected and undoing years of
progress, Hennepin County will be implementing a Connectivity Program that will provide a $10
per month subsidy for most ACP enrollees and ACP-eligible broadband subscribers in Hennepin
County, from May-December 2024. This includes several hundred participants in the St. Louis
Park area and about 26,000 participants countywide; and
Whereas, to help fund this $2 million program, Hennepin County has asked grant
recipients to voluntarily return any unspent or uncommitted Municipal Broadband Expansion
Fund grant money; and
Whereas, returning the grant money for this Connectivity Program will allow several
hundred St. Louis Park residents to maintain their affordable internet access. This is in keeping
with the goals of the grant application and provides a larger benefit than St. Louis Park would
be able to provide on its own with its individual grant.
Now therefore be it resolved by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that unspent
grant funding will be returned to Hennepin County, with the understanding that the funding
will be used toward the Connectivity Program to continue affordable internet access for eligible
Hennepin County residents, including eligible St. Louis Park residents.
Reviewed for administration Adopted by the city council April 15, 2024
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: April 15, 2024
Consent agenda item: 5f
Executive summary
Title: Resolution to commence eminent domain action for Phase 2 - Cedar Lake Road/ Louisiana
Avenue (city project no. 4024-1100) - Ward 4
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing condemnation of land for public
purposes for parcel #55 – Phase 2 – Cedar Lake Road/Louisiana Avenue Improvement project
(4024-1100).
Policy consideration: Does the council wish to authorize the use of eminent domain to ensure
the necessary land can be acquired to keep the Phase 2 project on schedule for 2025
construction?
Summary: On Feb. 6, 2023, the city council approved the preliminary layout for the Cedar Lake
Road and Louisiana Avenue improvement project. To construct this project as shown on the
approved layout, the city needs to acquire (purchase) Parcel #55 from a private property
owner.
SRF Consulting Group, the city's right of way consultant, will be sending an offer of $423,300 to
the property owner to purchase Parcel #55. Staff is anticipating that this acquisition will take
longer to negotiate since we will be acquiring the entire parcel. The city attorney recommends
initiation of the eminent domain process for this parcel to ensure that the property is acquired
in time for 2025 construction.
Since the offer is over $175,000, it requires council approval to start negotiations. The first step
in this process is city council's approval of a resolution authorizing condemnation of land for
public purposes. Approval of the resolution will allow for condemnation by the quick-take
method, which allows the city to obtain private property prior to a final determination of
compensation for the property. This method will only be used if negotiations and subsequent
acquisitions do not occur in a timely manner. The actual cost to obtain the parcel will not be
known until the settlement with the property owner is finalized.
Financial or budget considerations: The cost for the property acquisition for Parcel #55 is
estimated at $423,300. The Feb. 20, 2024 city council report contains an estimate of $1,928,473
for property acquisition. The actual cost to obtain the easements necessary for this project will
not be known until all property owners have finalized negotiations.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Feb. 6, 2023 city council report
Feb. 20, 2024 city council report
Resolution
Prepared by: Joseph Shamla, engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5f) Page 2
Title: Resolution to commence eminent domain action for Phase 2 - Cedar Lake Road/ Louisiana Avenue (city
project no. 4024-1100) - Ward 4
Discussion
Background: On Feb. 6, 2023, the city council approved the preliminary layout for the Cedar
Lake Road/ Louisiana Avenue Improvements. To construct this project as shown on the
approved layout, the city needs to acquire (purchase) Parcel #55 from a private property
owner.
What is eminent domain: Cities can acquire real property or easements through eminent
domain, also known as condemnation. Essentially, eminent domain is a means to require an
owner to sell land to a city to be used for a public purpose. This procedure requires a formal
court action and the city must pay the owner for the value of the land. The city is also
responsible to pay for any property acquisition that is needed to construct the project.
Right of way acquisition: Construction of the approved layout for the project will require the
purchase of parcel #55, located at 7120 Cedar Lake Road. This parcel is located in the northeast
corner of the intersection of Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue. The current retail business
operating on this property sells tobacco. Please see the overview of the parcel below.
Parcel #55 – 7120 Cedar Lake Road
SRF Consulting Group, the city's right of way consultant, has completed pre-acquisition
activities, which include the following:
• Property owner introductory letter, questionnaire and acquisition brochure
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5f) Page 3
Title: Resolution to commence eminent domain action for Phase 2 - Cedar Lake Road/ Louisiana Avenue (city
project no. 4024-1100) - Ward 4
• Field title review
• Appraisal
• Parcel survey
• Conveyance document preparation
• Offer letter
SRF will be presenting an offer of $423,300 to the property owner to purchase Parcel #55. Staff
anticipates that this acquisition will take longer to negotiate since we will be acquiring the
entire parcel. The city attorney recommends initiation of the eminent domain process for this
parcel, due to the cost being over $175,000 and to ensure that the property will be acquired in
time for 2025 construction.
The first step in this process is council approval of a resolution authorizing condemnation of
land for public purposes. Approval of the resolution will allow for condemnation by the quick-
take method, which allows the city to obtain private property prior to a final determination of
compensation for the property. This method will only be used if negotiations and subsequent
acquisitions do not occur in a timely manner. The actual cost to obtain the parcel will not be
known until the settlement with the property owner is finalized.
Financial or budget considerations: The cost for the property acquisition for Parcel #55 is
estimated at $423,300. On Feb. 20, 2024, the city council report contained an estimate of
$1,928,473 for property acquisition. The actual cost to obtain the easements necessary for this
project will not be known until all property owners have finalized negotiations.
Schedule: The schedule for this project is below
Phase 2 – Cedar Lake Road/ Louisiana Avenue Improvements
2025 and 2026 Construction
Description Date
Parcel exhibits complete 4/30/2024
60% plans 5/31/2024
Appraisals complete 7/31/2024
All offers presented to property owners 8/15/2024
City council approval of condemnation for easements 9/16/2024
90% plans 9/30/2024
Quick take letter 9/30/2024
Public open house 10/8/2024
Condemnation court date 1/15/2025
100% plans 1/22/2025
Tree removal plans complete 1/22/2025
City council approve plans and specs order ad for bid 2/17/2025
Tree removals complete for 2025 project 3/31/2025
Federal approval for bid 3/31/2025
Bid opening 5/2/2025
Construction begins 5/12/2025
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 5f) Page 4
Title: Resolution to commence eminent domain action for Phase 2 - Cedar Lake Road/ Louisiana Avenue (city
project no. 4024-1100) - Ward 4
Resolution No. 24-___
Authorizing condemnation
of land for public purposes
Whereas, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park does hereby determine that it is
necessary and for a public use and purpose to acquire fee title for the following property,
subject to engineering modifications, if any, for purposes in connection with the Cedar Lake
Road/ Louisiana Avenue Improvement project (4023-1100):
Parcel 55
Lots 169 and 170, Richmond 3rd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota;
and
Whereas, city staff and consultants have and will continue to work with the property
owner to acquire the necessary property; and
Whereas, the city council finds that construction timing makes it necessary to acquire
the necessary fee title and/or easements as soon as possible in order for the project to proceed
in an efficient, cost-effective and expeditious manner.
Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
1. That the city attorney is authorized to commence eminent domain proceedings
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 117 to acquire the necessary fee title and/or
permanent and temporary easements over the following property, subject to engineering
modifications, if needed:
Parcel 55
Lots 169 and 170, Richmond 3rd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
2. That the city attorney is authorized to acquire the necessary property interests
pursuant to the "quick take" provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 117.042.
3. That the mayor and the city manager are authorized to execute all documents
necessary, in the opinion of the city attorney, to effect the acquisition of the necessary property
interests.
4. The city has obtained an appraisal of the property being acquired and staff is
authorized to continue negotiating with the property owners relating to the acquisition of the
property and to acquire the property from the property owners by negotiation if possible.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council April 15, 2024
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: April 15, 2024
Action agenda item: 7a
Executive summary
Title: First reading of zoning text amendment to C-1 neighborhood commercial zoning district
Recommended action: Motion to approve first reading of an ordinance amending the zoning
ordinance pertaining to restaurants with intoxicating liquor located in the C-1 neighborhood
commercial zoning district and set second reading for May 6, 2024.
Policy consideration: Should restaurants serving intoxicating liquor have a greater setback than
restaurants that serve either beer and wine or no alcohol at all?
Summary: The applicant requests a zoning text amendment to reduce the setback required for
restaurants with intoxicating liquor from residential zoned properties. The change would
reduce the setback from 100 feet to 25 feet and would apply to restaurants with intoxicating
liquor within the C-1 neighborhood commercial zoning district. The city currently requires a 25-
foot setback from residential zoned properties for restaurants serving either no alcohol or
serving beer and wine only. The amendment, if approved, would require a 25-foot setback from
residential properties for any restaurant, whether it serves any type of alcohol or not.
The applicant purchased the Galaxy Drive-In site and intends to remodel the property into a
new concept named Wells Roadside. As part of the concept, the applicant would like to serve
specialized cocktails. The property, however, is zoned C-1 neighborhood commercial, and the
building is located 36 feet from the property to the south which is zoned R -2 single-family
residential and therefore, does not meet the required 100-foot setback. By amending the code
to require a 25-foot setback, the site would comply with the revised code.
While the applicant’s intent is to change the code so specialty cocktails can be served at his
proposed restaurant location at 3712 Quebec Ave. S, the city must review the text amendment
more broadly as it would apply to all properties in the city that are zoned C-1 neighborhood
commercial.
Previous actions Governing body Date
Public hearing conducted. No comments were
received. Recommended approval (5-0 vote).
Planning commission 4/3/2024
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, zoning map, draft ordinance
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, zoning administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager/deputy community development director
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Title: First reading of zoning text amendment to C-1 neighborhood commercial zoning district
Discussion
Background: The following is a summary of how restaurant setbacks from residential zoned
properties are utilized in the zoning ordinance.
Zoning districts. The city allows restaurants in the commercial, office, business park, mixed-use
and many planned unit development zoning districts. The zoning districts allow restaurants in
one of three ways:
1. “Restaurants without intoxicating liquor” allows beer and wine, but not hard liquor.
2. “Restaurants with intoxicating liquor” allows beer, wine and hard liquor.
3. “Restaurants” allows restaurants with or without beer, wine and hard liquor.
The zoning ordinance handles restaurant setbacks from residential zoned properties in one of
three ways:
1. No setback required.
2. 25-foot minimum setback required.
3. 100-foot minimum setback required.
Residential zoned properties include:
• R-1 single-family residence.
• R-2 single-family residence.
• R-3 two-family residence.
• R-4 multiple family residence.
• R-C high-density multiple-family residence.
The following table illustrates which zoning districts allow restaurants, how the restaurant is
classified using the three categories above, and the required setbacks from properties zoned
residential.
Category of restaurant
Required setback from residential
None 25 feet 100 feet
Restaurants without intoxicating liquor
PUDs C-1, C-2, O PUD-13
Restaurants with intoxicating liquor
PUDs C-1, C-2, O,
PUD-13
Restaurants
MX-1, MX-2,
BP, PUDs
The table illustrates that:
1. The zoning code does not have a consistent setback from residential.
2. The more recently created zoning districts, including business park, mixed -use and planned
unit developments (PUDs) do not require a setback from residential; except PUD -13
(Bridgewater Bank site).
3. When a setback is required, restaurants serving beer and wine have a 25 -foot minimum
setback, while restaurants serving intoxicating liquor have a 100-foot minimum setback.
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Title: First reading of zoning text amendment to C-1 neighborhood commercial zoning district
Zoning map. Attached is a zoning map with the properties zoned C -1 neighborhood commercial
highlighted in yellow. This map illustrates:
1. Locations of C-1 neighborhood commercial districts and their proximity to residential
zoning districts.
2. Locations of the other zoning districts listed in the table above and their proximity to
properties zoned residential.
3. Most C-1 neighborhood commercial districts are along Excelsior Boulevard and
Minnetonka Boulevard. Both are commercial corridors where small businesses, including
restaurants, are encouraged and desired.
4. It is not possible for all but a few properties in the C-1 district to meet the 100-foot setback
because of their small lot sizes. A 25-foot minimum setback is feasible for most C-1 lots.
Next steps: If the council approves the first reading, then the ordinance will be scheduled for a
second reading at the May 6, 2024, city council meeting.
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Title: First reading of zoning text amendment to C-1 neighborhood commercial zoning district
Zoning map
City council meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Title: First reading of zoning text amendment to C-1 neighborhood commercial zoning district
Ordinance No. ___-24
Zoning ordinance regarding amendment to
restaurants with intoxicating liquor license in the
C-1 neighborhood commercial zoning district
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Whereas, the planning commission conducted a public hearing on this ordinance on April
3, 2024 and recommended the city council adopt this ordinance; and
Whereas, the city council considered the advice and recommendation of the planning
commission (case no. 24-06-ZA); and
Now, therefore be it resolved that the following amendments shall be made to Chapter
36 of the City Code pertaining to zoning:
Section 1. C-1 neighborhood commercial district. Chapter 36-193(d)(10) of the St. Louis
Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text and delete the following
struck-out text:
b. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 100 25 feet from any parcel that is zoned
residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional
building including but not limited to a school, religious institution, or community
center.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council __________, 2024
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
First reading April 15, 2024
Second reading May 6, 2024
Date of publication May 16, 2024
Date ordinance takes effect May 31, 2024
Meeting: Special study session
Meeting date: April 15, 2024
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: Infrastructure project development process
Recommended action: None. The purpose of this discussion is to provide the city council with
an overview of the projects included in the 10-year Capital improvement plan (CIP) that the
engineering department is responsible for implementing.
Policy consideration: None.
Summary: This discussion will focus on the projects in the 10-year CIP that engineering is
responsible for implementing. Staff will provide an in-depth overview of the existing 10-year
CIP, how it was developed, what is included and who it serves.
This discussion will provide a baseline for our CIP discussions during the system. There are three
more infrastructure project planning discussions in the coming months that will provide the
council with additional information on the staff-recommended approach to future
infrastructure capital planning.
Infrastructure projects not
in the 10-year capital plan
Staff will provide an overview of infrastructure projects not
currently included in the 10-year CIP.
Utility risk assessment study
review
Staff will present the findings of the recently completed
Utility risk assessment study.
Future infrastructure
project planning
Discussion of staff's approach to future infrastructure capital
planning based on:
• Infrastructure projects not currently in the CIP
• The utility risk assessment study
Financial or budget considerations: The city's overall 10-year CIP includes almost $287 million
in improvements. The engineering department is responsible for the delivery of almost $200
million in projects, which is about 70% of the total CIP. Funding for these projects varies based
on the infrastructure being constructed; many projects have multiple funding sources.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion
What's under my street graphic
Pavement management areas map
Engineering department 10-year CIP
CIP project types and funding sources
Prepared by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Reviewed by: Jay Hall, public works director
Amelia Cruver, finance director
Jack Sullivan, engineering project manager
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Infrastructure project development process
Discussion
Background: As shown on the "What's under my street?" graphic (attachment), much of the
public infrastructure that the city is responsible for is underground. Since repair and
replacement of this underground infrastructure usually requires that the street be dug up, the
most cost-effective time to replace the underground utilities is when the streets are replaced.
This is also true for the new construction and replacement of above-ground improvements,
such as sidewalks and bikeways.
Completing the construction of new infrastructure and replacing the existing underground
infrastructure at the same time the street is replaced provides greater flexibility in design,
reduces the inconvenience to the public, and provides the city with economies of scale for
construction. In light of this, when possible, our existing approach to connected infrastructure
planning is driven by pavement condition. By doing this, the city maximizes its investment by
not digging up streets until they have reached the end of their useful life.
Infrastructure condition: Proactively planning for the replacement of infrastructure is essential
for our city to thrive and grow. To support this, the city has a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
that describes the capital improvements and expenditures planned over the next ten (10) years.
It is a statement of the city's policies and financial ability to manage infrastructure investment
in the community.
Engineering oversees the CIP for construction, maintenance and replacement of public
infrastructure, including bridges, bikeways, sidewalks, streets, alleys, sanitary sewer, storm
sewer, watermain and signal systems. The CIP is reviewed and revised annually with input from
public works staff.
To plan for the future and coordinate work with other government jurisdictions, the city
identifies the years when improvements will be initiated and what funding sources will be used
to pay for them. The updated proposed CIP is presented to the city council as part of the annual
budget development process. A final CIP for the following year is adopted, along with the
annual budget in December.
Present considerations: Infrastructure is directly linked to the economic development and
growth of the city. It provides people with connections to basic needs such as emergency
response, health care, education, food resources, transportation, safety, job opportunities and
more. We all rely on high-quality infrastructure – whether we are pedestrians, bicyclists, transit
riders or in personal vehicles.
What follows is an overview of various infrastructure project types included in the CIP.
Streets
The city is responsible for almost 150 miles of streets (148.90 miles); of that, 115.76 are local
streets and 33.14 are municipal state aid (MSA) streets. The majority of streets in St. Louis Park
were reconstructed between the mid-1960s and early-1980s.
There are many variables (e.g., weather, traffic, drainage, soil, utility cuts) that contribute to
how well or poorly any stretch of pavement ages. The city's streets are well-built, situated on
good soils, and utilize curb and gutter for drainage. Even so, as streets age, proactive
maintenance strategies are needed to prolong their life. Proactive maintenance is used to
extend the life of the city's streets, delaying the need for full reconstruction.
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: Infrastructure project development process
In general, our local streets can last up to 50 years without complete reconstruction with a
proactive maintenance program of asphalt overlays and curb repairs. Without proactive
maintenance, the life cycle can be cut in half and create ongoing maintenance costs, such as
pothole patching. For reference, the cost to reconstruct a street is four to five times the cost to
do an overlay.
Local streets
In 2004, to ensure that our streets continue to serve the community, the city council approved
the pavement management program for local residential streets. The program's basic elements
consist of the following:
• Evaluating and rating the street segments in a consistent and objective manner
• Identifying segments in need of maintenance or rehabilitation
• Applying the appropriate maintenance strategies at the appropriate times
• Establishing a dedicated source of funding for the program
• Implementing the identified projects on an eight-year/area cycle
To evaluate the condition of street segments, the industry uses an Overall Condition Index
(OCI). The OCI is a methodology used to evaluate and rate pavements on a range of 100 (newly
surfaced pavement) to 0 (failed pavement). When the pavement management program was
developed and then implemented in 2004, the council established a goal of maintaining a street
network with an overall condition index (OCI) of no less than 70, which is consistent with most
other jurisdictions and is industry standard. This goal then drives the capital planning and
revenue needs identified in our CIP. Our current average OCI is 65.95.
The pavement management program breaks the city into eight pavement management areas.
Each area has about 15 miles of local streets. These areas are used to structure the 10-year CIP
for local streets. Annually, the CIP includes the following projects on local streets:
• Local street rehabilitation
Every year, approximately four miles of residential streets with an overall condition
index (OCI) rating of less than 45 are selected for rehabilitation, which includes full
pavement replacement. The curb and gutter are inspected for damage and proper
drainage; any damaged or settled sections will be replaced as a part of the project. In
addition, the condition of sidewalk, watermain, sanitary sewer and storm sewer along
these street segments are also reviewed. Replacement and upgrades will be included
in the project if the conditions warrant it.
In general, pavements with an OCI of 45 or less are selected for rehabilitation. If there
are more than 4 miles of streets with a rating under 45, there will not be enough
available funding. When that happens, street segments with ratings closer to 45 are
held over for the next time we are in that pavement management area in eight years.
In addition to the needed street and utility work, staff incorporate "Living streets
policy" considerations as a part of our transportation projects. Consistent with this
policy, staff will review the sidewalk/ bikeway network, stormwater runoff, traffic
management, and street trees. In addition, new sidewalk segments will be evaluated
in accordance with the "New sidewalk planning framework."
These projects are annual and named "Street - Local street rehab (Area 1-8)" in the
CIP.
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Title: Infrastructure project development process
The primary funding source for local street rehabilitation is franchise fees. Also
included are utility funds as needed and General obligation (GO) bonds for new
sidewalks.
• Concrete replacement
The year after a pavement rehabilitation project, concrete repairs take place in the
same area. This is to address repairs to concrete curb and sidewalks that are not
located on the street segments included in the pavement rehabilitation project. To
keep ahead of these repairs, we have an annual contract to replace concrete. Specific
locations for repair are identified through inspection and resident complaints. The
amount of work completed is limited to available funding. If the budget allows, we will
also do repairs in other areas of the city.
o Curb and gutter repair: We will do spot curb replacement outside of a street
project if the curb does not drain and can be repaired without removing
pavement or if there is a crack that is greater than 1/2 inch wide.
o Sidewalk panel replacement: An inventory of sidewalks in the area is completed
to identify trip hazards, cracks and ADA compliance. Individual sidewalk panels
with deficiencies will be removed and replaced as a part of this contract. In
addition, we will also shave sidewalk edges to eliminate trip hazards.
These projects are annual and named "Concrete replacement- SW-C&G-CB" in the CIP.
The funding is provided by franchise fees, stormwater utility and public works
operations budget.
• Pavement mill and overlay
Two years after a pavement rehabilitation project, mill and overlay work takes place in
the same area – but not on the same street segments that underwent pavement
rehabilitation. This maintenance strategy removes and replaces 1.5 inches of
pavement, extending the life of the street and delaying the need for full rehabilitation
by 15 to 20 years. This technique is about a quarter of the cost of rehabilitation.
In general, pavements with an OCI of 45 to 65 are selected for mill and overlay. An
average of 2.5 miles of street segments in the area are selected for this maintenance
technique. This is a focused project and does not include curb and gutter, sidewalk or
utilities work. Due to this, if watermain has been identified for replacement, the street
segment will not be a candidate for mill and overlay.
These projects are scheduled annually and named "Street – Maintenance project
(Area 1-8)" in the CIP.
The funding source is franchise fees.
In addition to the local residential streets included in the annual projects described above,
there is one other type of local transportation project: commercial/ industrial street
rehabilitation. These streets are incorporated into the CIP every two or three years as staff
workload and budget are available.
• Commercial/ industrial street rehabilitation
Roads that primarily serve commercial and industrial properties can have additional
considerations, such as traffic signals, business access, and a need for a thicker
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Title: Infrastructure project development process
pavement section. Due to this, these streets are usually rehabilitated as standalone
transportation projects.
The curb and gutter is inspected for damage and proper drainage; any damaged or
settled sections will be replaced as a part of the project. In addition, the condition of
sidewalk, watermain, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer along these street segments
are also reviewed. Replacement and upgrades will be included in the project if the
conditions warrant it.
In general, pavements with an OCI of 45 or less are selected for rehabilitation. In
addition to the needed street and utility work, staff incorporate "Living streets policy"
considerations as a part of our transportation projects. Consistent with this policy,
staff will review the sidewalk/bikeway network, stormwater runoff, traffic
management, and street trees. In addition, new sidewalk segments will be evaluated
in accordance with the "New sidewalk planning framework."
These projects occur about every other year and are named "Street - Commercial
street rehab" in the CIP.
The primary funding source is franchise fees, with utility funds as needed, and GO
bonds for new sidewalks.
Municipal State Aid street rehabilitation
In addition to our pavement management program for local streets, the city also plans for the
rehabilitation of Municipal State Aid (MSA) roads in the CIP.
Like our CIP project for local streets, the pavement condition drives the MSA project CIP. When
the street's pavement condition is such that it requires replacement, and there are available
funds, it is scheduled for rehabilitation. Street rehabilitation work consists of removing and
replacing all or a portion of the existing bituminous pavement and replacing the concrete curb
and gutter as needed. Other work includes signals, streetlights, sanitary sewer, storm sewer
and watermain repairs. In addition to the needed street and utility work, staff incorporate
Living Streets policy considerations as a part of these transportation projects. Consistent with
this policy, staff will review the sidewalk/ bikeway network, stormwater runoff, traffic
management, and street trees.
St. Louis Park can designate up to 33.14 miles of street as MSA. For a segment to be designated
as MSA, it must terminate with another state aid street, a state highway or a county road. Due
to these connections, they carry a higher volume of traffic than our local streets. Much of the
traffic using these streets is from outside of the city, making them a regional asset. Due to this,
streets on the MSA system are eligible to use state gas tax dollars for construction. The city
receives an allocation of MSA construction funds of around $1.4 million annually. Even with the
recent legislative action to tie gas tax dollars to inflation, this funding does not meet the long-
term needs for pavement replacement on our MSA system. Our 10-year CIP has $16.1 million in
state-aid funding dedicated to projects; we estimate that over that time we will only receive
$14 million in MSA funds. Municipal state aid bonds are used to make up the funding gap in the
10-year CIP.
Staff has identified over $35 million in MSA street rehabilitation needs not programmed in the
10-year CIP. At our current funding level, it will take over 25 years of MSA allocations to address
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 6
Title: Infrastructure project development process
these needs. Staff actively seek federal and state funding to assist with closing the funding gaps
for these projects.
When major projects on MSA roads are called for, staff work to put together a financing plan
that limits large fluctuations in the property tax levy, usually by timing the project with older
debt payments ending, changes in the market value for the city, spreading the costs out over
many years through borrowing and by looking for outside funding as much as possible.
They are named "Street - MSA rehab (Location)" in the CIP. Location changes based on the
specific project in the CIP.
Funding is provided by MSA funds, with utility funds as needed and GO bonds for bikeways,
sidewalks, and trails.
Alley construction
There are 21.2 miles of alleys throughout the city. In 2016, only 16 miles had a concrete surface
and met the minimum standard for an improved alley. The remaining 5.2 miles of alleys were
constructed of either asphalt or gravel and considered unimproved.
These unimproved alleys require annual maintenance to keep them serviceable. To address
these alleys proactively, the council directed staff to develop a program to reconstruct them in
concrete.
The reconstruction of all unimproved alleys has the following benefits:
• Fixing drainage problems – on many of the alleys, there are areas where drainage is
blocked, or runoff drains onto private property. To address these issues, the alleys
require complete reconstruction.
• Reduces erosion – where drainage does work, runoff will wash silt and gravel from the
gravel alleys into the storm sewer system, ending up in ponds, lakes and wetlands.
• Reduces annual maintenance – reconstruction eliminates the need for public works
staff to perform maintenance such as adding gravel/ re-grading the gravel alleys and
patching potholes in the bituminous alleys.
• Improves neighborhood livability – there are times that these alleys are difficult to
traverse, resulting in challenges for all users of the alleys, including solid waste
vehicles, walkers, bicyclists and automobiles.
In general, a concrete alley will last 50 years or more. Many of the city's concrete alleys have
been in place for over 50 years and are in good condition, requiring only seasonal maintenance
(e.g., sweeping and snow removal).
2024 is the seventh year of the reconstruction program. Including the 2024 project, 3.34 miles
of the 5.2 miles of unimproved alleys have been reconstructed. These projects are annual
through 2030 and named "Alley construction" in the CIP.
Alley reconstruction is paid for using franchise fees and stormwater utility funds.
Parking lot rehabilitation
The CIP also includes maintenance and reconstruction of parking lots adjacent to public
buildings, such as the city hall, municipal service center, and fire stations.
These projects are annual and named "Parking lot - Location" in the CIP. Location changes
based on the specific project in the CIP.
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 7
Title: Infrastructure project development process
The funding is provided by franchise fees.
Underground utilities
Much of the public infrastructure that the city is responsible for is underground. The following
is some information on the city's sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and watermain infrastructure:
• Sanitary sewer
There are almost 140 miles of sanitary sewer (136.66 miles) in the city. In addition,
there are 3,085 manholes. Most of the system was installed before 1970 and is made
of clay. Clay pipes can last as long as 150 years, depending on soils, installation, and
other site conditions.
To identify sanitary sewer that needs replacement, we routinely televise and clean the
underground pipes. Access for this inspection is provided through manholes. When we
find a problem with the pipe or manhole, it will be scheduled for repair. Urgent repairs
that would impact flow, are repaired by Public Works when they are found. Other
repairs are done with pavement rehabilitation projects or as a part of a sewer lining
project.
Standalone sanitary sewer projects are named "Sanitary Sewer - Description" in the
CIP. Description changes based on the specific project in the CIP.
• Storm sewer
The city has a little over 100 miles of storm sewer (101.68 miles), 2,537 manholes,
4,139 catch basins, and 437 discharge points. Most of the pipe network was installed
in the 1960s and 1970s. The storm sewer pipe is concrete, which can last 100-150
years if maintained properly.
Staff routinely inspects the manholes and catch basins. When a problem with the pipe,
catch basin, or manhole is identified, it will be scheduled for repair. Urgent repairs
that would impact flow, are repaired when they are found by public works. Other
repairs are done with a street rehabilitation project or as a standalone project,
depending on the location of the infrastructure.
In addition, there are 138 Best Management Practices (BMPs) and 112 storm ponds
that provide stormwater treatment and flood storage. The BMPs and storm ponds are
inspected annually, and maintenance is scheduled in the CIP as needed.
Standalone stormwater projects are named "Storm water - Description" in the CIP.
Description changes based on the specific project in the CIP.
• Watermain
The city is responsible for almost 160 miles of watermain (159.06 miles), 1,508
hydrants, and 4,228 gate valves. Most of the pipes are made of cast iron and 75% of
the system was installed over 50 years ago. In general, cast iron pipe will last 100+
years, depending on soils, installation, and other site conditions.
Watermain does not have access to the surface since it is a pressurized system. Due to
this, industry standard for replacement planning depends on a review of the pipe's
age, material, existing soils, and history of breaks on each street segment scheduled
for pavement rehabilitation. We also do annual leak detection. Leaks that are
detected will be repaired when they are found.
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 8
Title: Infrastructure project development process
In addition to the distribution system, there are Water treatment plants and reservoirs
that require maintenance. These are usually added to the CIP as standalone projects.
A pilot project to assess pipe wall thickness was completed in June 2023 using a new
tool called SeeSnake®, to determine the condition of the watermain on Cedar Lake
Road and Louisiana Avenue. The results from the assessment provided information on
individual pipe segment condition, and about half the pipe under these roads are
being replaced due to loss in pipe wall thickness. Other applications of this technology
will be considered moving forward as a part of CIP planning.
Standalone watermain projects are named "Watermain - Description" in the CIP.
Description changes based on the specific project in the CIP.
At this time, there are no standalone watermain projects in the 10-year CIP.
Utility replacement, repair and maintenance are paid for using sanitary sewer, stormwater, and
water utility enterprise funds. The source of the utility funds is the utility rates paid by property
owners.
New infrastructure construction
In addition to reconstructing existing infrastructure, the CIP also includes the construction of
new infrastructure. As discussed previously, whenever possible, this is done at the same time as
the street is reconstructed. However, the Connect the Park implementation plan includes
bikeway, sidewalk and trail segments that are not adjacent to roads or are adjacent to roads
that are in good structural condition. When this happens, a standalone Connect the Park
project will be programmed.
Standalone Connect the Park projects are named "CTP Bikeway - Sidewalk - Trail" in the CIP.
Funding for new infrastructure is GO bonds.
Equity
At its core, our planning process is condition driven. This is one of the most equitable ways to
plan for replacement. However, as a check, we did a review of the demographics of the people
serviced to ensure that the program is equitable.
A critical part of all our programs is equity. Due to this, it is important to review equity in our
CIP investment. Structural and individual racism (conscious or unconscious) further existing
disparities for Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC). To better understand if our
existing program is equitable, we have applied a race equity lens to the existing 10-year CIP.
As a starting point to inform the infrastructure development process, the engineering
department analyzed who is served by the projects included in the 10-year CIP. To do this, staff
analyzed the distribution of CIP projects with an equity lens, including race and income, to
understand who is likely to benefit from capital improvements.
The analysis includes all engineering department-led projects from 2024 to 2033 where a
location can be identified, which is about 70% of the total funds in the CIP.
Demographics analysis
This review used demographic census block group data from the 2021 5-year American
community survey. The overall city BIPOC population is 19%.
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 9
Title: Infrastructure project development process
The CIP projects included in this study are broken into three categories based on the geographic
impact of each project:
Category Projects Description Population
included
Local o Local street rehabilitation
o Concrete replacement
o Pavement mill and overlay
o Alley construction
Small footprint, largely
beneficial solely to the
community that they're
located within.
Within ¼ mile
radius of the
project location
Multi-
neighborhood
o Commercial/ industrial
street rehabilitation
o MSA street rehabilitation
o Storm sewer projects
o Sanitary sewer projects
o Connect the Park: Bikeway,
sidewalk and trails
Projects with a slightly
larger, multi-
neighborhood impact.
Within a mile
radius of the
project location
Citywide o Parking lots
o Watermain projects
Project that would
impact the city as a
whole.
The entire
population of the
city.
Table 1: Demographics of projects by year
CIP year Percent BIPOC
population
Project funding
2024 17.8% $4,650,305.13
2025 19.2% $5,146,252.84
2026 21.8% $4,198,109.40
2027 22.1% $3,054,685.09
2028 21.3% $3,580,514.37
2029 23.1% $8,002,393.07
2030 17.7% $2,648,886.08
2031 19.8% $3,027,539.63
2032 14.8% $2,596,493.24
2033 18.3% $2,701,883.85
Total 20.2% $39,607,062.68
The population demographics for each year are close to the city's overall BIPOC population of
19%, with all ten (10) years being slightly more at 20%.
Household income analysis
We completed this review using demographic census block group data from the 2021 5-year
American community survey. The median household income is $85,843.
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 10
Title: Infrastructure project development process
Table 2: Income analysis
Total 10-year CIP cost $199,970,453.00
Funds allocated to those below the median household income $131,749,643.50
Funds allocated to those at or above the median household income $68,220,809.50
Percent of funds allocated to households below the median household income 66%
Overall, the total CIP allocation benefits households below the median household income.
The goal of this analysis is to develop a baseline, capturing the distribution of planned
investments. While we recognize that there are limitations to the analysis, we expect it to
continue to evolve and hope to use this to inform a dialogue around equitable budgeting.
Resposib'il ity
.City 0 Resident
•Joint res:l)onsibility: aity
owned/resident maintained
•Private utility company
What's under my street?
•street0 Concrete CUJ1J, and gutter 0 Storm sewer catch basin 0 storm sewer manhole 0 Storm sewer pipe 0 storm sewer • let
0 Manhole cover 0 sanitary sewer 1manhole 0 sanitary sewer main pipe G Fire hydrant
CD Hydrant valve
CD Watermain pipe
G Water service G Water service sttut-off G Boulevard tree
Concrete driveway apron
CD Sanitary sewer service
•Water service to house
G)Irrigation
' Pet containment system
•Sidewalk
f)Boulevardfl Private utilities (gas, ,electric, internet)
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 1)
Title: Infrastructure project development process Page 11
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
Area 4
Area 5
Area 6
Area 7
Area 8
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 1)
Title: Infrastructure project development process Page 12
Engineering department 10‐year CIP2024‐2033Project Name Project number 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total by projectSWLRT‐ Park and Ride Ramp at Beltline Station 40199006‐$ Storm water ‐ Hannon Lake subwatershed40204001‐$Parking lot ‐ Maintenance City Hall Lower40211600‐$ Storm water‐ Lamplighter Pond rehab40224001190,800.00$ 190,800.00$ Concrete replacement‐ SW‐C&G‐CB40230003‐$ Street ‐ Local street rehab (Area 1)40231000‐$Street ‐ Commercial street rehab402310502,474,000.00$ 2,474,000.00$ Street ‐ MSA rehab (Cedar Lake Rd TH169 to Nevada) 40231100 11,042,068.00$ 11,042,068.00$ Street ‐ Maintenance project (Area 7)40231200‐$ Alley construction40231500‐$Storm water‐ Westdale basin rehab40234001‐$ Storm water‐ BMP maintenance40234300‐$Storm water‐ Rainwater rewards40234500‐$ County ‐ Mtka Blvd (Hwy 100 to France)40237000 4,252,457.00$ 4,252,458.00$ 8,504,915.00$ Concrete replacement‐ SW‐C&G‐CB40240003386,900.00$ 386,900.00$ Street ‐ Local street rehab (Area 2)40241000 8,271,000.00$ 8,271,000.00$ Street ‐ MSA rehab (Louisiana & Cedar Lake Rd)4024110011,082,993.00$ 6,127,909.00$ 17,210,902.00$ Alley construction40241500452,000.00$ 452,000.00$ Parking lot ‐ Maintenacne MSC40241600424,740.00$ 424,740.00$ Sanitary Sewer‐ Lining40243000580,000.00$ 580,000.00$ Storm water‐ South Oak rond rehab40244000438,725.00$ 438,725.00$ Storm water ‐ Carpenter Park maintenance4024420025,070.00$ 25,070.00$ Storm water‐ BMP maintenance4024430059,500.00$ 59,500.00$ Storm water‐ Rainwater rewards4024450053,600.00$ 53,600.00$ Concrete replacement‐ SW‐C&G‐CB40250003397,500.00$ 397,500.00$ Street ‐ Local street rehab (Area 3)402510005,562,000.00$ 5,562,000.00$ Street ‐ Commercial street rehab402510502,592,000.00$ 2,592,000.00$ Street ‐ Maintenance project (Area 1)40251200463,840.00$ 463,840.00$ Alley construction40251500595,000.00$ 595,000.00$ Parking lot ‐ Maintenance Fire Stn #14025160162,630.00$ 62,630.00$ Parking lot ‐ Maintenance Fire Stn #24025160245,370.00$ 45,370.00$ Sanitary sewer‐ Lining40253000600,000.00$ 600,000.00$ Sanitary sewer ‐ Webster LS #1040253100773,500.00$ 773,500.00$ Storm water‐ Twin Lake outfall replacement40254000225,400.00$ 225,400.00$ Storm water‐ BMP maintenance4025430061,000.00$ 61,000.00$ Storm water‐ Rainwater rewards4025450054,800.00$ 54,800.00$ Concrete replacement‐ SW‐C&G‐CB40260003408,100.00$ 408,100.00$ Street ‐ Local street rehab (Area 4)402610004,727,000.00$ 4,727,000.00$ Street ‐ Commercial street rehab402610502,757,000.00$ 2,757,000.00$ Street ‐ Maintenance project (Area 2)40261200316,150.00$ 316,150.00$ Alley construction40261500611,000.00$ 611,000.00$ CTP Bikeway ‐ Sidewalk ‐ Trail402620001,561,530.00$ 1,561,530.00$ Sanitary sewer‐ Lining40263000605,000.00$ 605,000.00$ Storm water‐ Ainsworth Park improvements402640001,983,750.00$ 1,983,750.00$ Storm water‐ BMP maintenance4026430062,500.00$ 62,500.00$ Storm water‐ Rainwater rewards4026450056,000.00$ 56,000.00$ Concrete replacement‐ SW‐C&G‐CB40270003418,700.00$ 418,700.00$ Street ‐ Local street rehab (Area 5)402710005,910,000.00$ 5,910,000.00$ Street ‐ Commercial street rehab402710502,691,000.00$ 2,691,000.00$ Street ‐ Maintenance project (Area 3)40271200252,720.00$ 252,720.00$ Alley construction40271500496,000.00$ 496,000.00$ CTP Bikeway ‐ Sidewalk ‐ Trail402720001,687,342.00$ 1,687,342.00$ Page 1 of 3Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 1) Title: Infrastructure project development processPage 13
Engineering department 10‐year CIP2024‐2033Project Name Project number 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total by projectSanitary sewer‐ Lining 40273000 620,000.00$ 620,000.00$ Sanitary sewer ‐ Oregon LS #7 40273100 1,246,375.00$ 1,246,375.00$ Storm water‐ Otten Pond rehab 40274000 339,250.00$ 339,250.00$ Storm water ‐ Carpenter Park maintenance 40274200 27,140.00$ 27,140.00$ Storm water‐ BMP maintenance 40274300 64,000.00$ 64,000.00$ Storm water‐ Rainwater rewards 40274500 57,200.00$ 57,200.00$ Concrete replacement‐ SW‐C&G‐CB 40280003429,300.00$ 429,300.00$ Street ‐ Local street rehab (Area 6)402810007,581,000.00$ 7,581,000.00$ Street ‐ Commercial street rehab402810501,381,000.00$ 1,381,000.00$ Street ‐ Maintenance project (Area 4)40281200432,260.00$ 432,260.00$ Alley construction40281500535,000.00$ 535,000.00$ Bridge ‐ Meadowbrook @ Minnehaha Creek402817005,374,000.00$ 5,374,000.00$ Sanitary sewer‐ Lining40283000635,000.00$ 635,000.00$ Storm water‐ Shelard basin rehab40284000101,775.00$ 101,775.00$ Storm water‐ Park Glen resliancy improvements40284001104,362.00$ 104,362.00$ Storm water‐ Minnehaha Creek equalizer pipe40284002104,363.00$ 104,363.00$ Storm water‐ BMP maintenance4028430065,500.00$ 65,500.00$ Storm water‐ Rainwater rewards4028450058,400.00$ 58,400.00$ Equipment ‐ Survey GPS4029000026,000.00$ 26,000.00$ Concrete replacement ‐ SW‐C&G‐CB40290003439,900.00$ 439,900.00$ Street ‐ Local street rehab (Area 7)402910009,808,000.00$ 9,808,000.00$ Street ‐ TH100 service rd loop4029105011,000,000.00$ 11,000,000.00$ Street ‐ MSA rehab (Oxford/Edgwd/Cambridge)402911006,283,313.00$ 6,283,313.00$ Street ‐ Maintenance project (Area 5)40291200538,050.00$ 538,050.00$ Alley construction40291500538,000.00$ 538,000.00$ Bridge ‐ 34th Street @ Minnehaha Creek402917002,628,125.00$ 2,628,125.00$ CTP Bikeway ‐ Sidewalk ‐ Trail40292000500,000.00$ 500,000.00$ Sanitary sewer ‐ Lining40293000650,000.00$ 650,000.00$ Storm water‐ Louisiana station area improvements402940002,139,000.00$ 2,139,000.00$ Storm water ‐ Carpenter Park maintenance 4029420028,520.00$ 28,520.00$ Storm water‐ BMP maintenance 4029430067,000.00$ 67,000.00$ Storm water‐ Rainwater rewards 4029450059,600.00$ 59,600.00$ Concrete replacement ‐ SW‐C&G‐CB 40300003450,500.00$ 450,500.00$ Street ‐ Local street rehab (Area 8) 403010008,146,000.00$ 8,146,000.00$ Street ‐ Commercial street rehab 403010501,569,000.00$ 1,569,000.00$ Street ‐ Maintenance project (Area 6) 40301200474,550.00$ 474,550.00$ Alley construction 40301500229,000.00$ 229,000.00$ CTP Bikeway ‐ sidewalk ‐ trail40302000590,026.00$ 590,026.00$ Sanitary sewer ‐ Lining40303000665,000.00$ 665,000.00$ Storm water‐ Hampshire Pond rehab40304000219,075.00$ 219,075.00$ Storm water‐ BMP maintenance4030430068,500.00$ 68,500.00$ Storm Water‐ Rainwater rewards4030450060,800.00$ 60,800.00$ Concrete replacement ‐ SW‐C&G‐CB40310003478,500.00$ 478,500.00$ Street ‐ Local street rehab (Area 1)403110009,503,000.00$ 9,503,000.00$ Street ‐ MSA Rehab (Lake & Wooddale)403111003,841,806.00$ 3,841,806.00$ Street ‐ Maintenance project (Area 7)40311200632,470.00$ 632,470.00$ Sanitary sewer ‐ Lining40313000680,000.00$ 680,000.00$ Storm Water‐ BMP maintenance4031430070,000.00$ 70,000.00$ Storm Water‐ Rainwater rewards4031450062,000.00$ 62,000.00$ Concrete replacement ‐ SW‐C&G‐CB40320003489,500.00$ 489,500.00$ Street ‐ Local street rehab (Area 2)403210009,483,000.00$ 9,483,000.00$ Street ‐ Commercial street rehab403210503,001,000.00$ 3,001,000.00$ Street ‐ Maintenance project (Area 8)40321200654,080.00$ 654,080.00$ Page 2 of 3Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 1) Title: Infrastructure project development processPage 14
Engineering department 10‐year CIP2024‐2033Project Name Project number 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total by projectCTP Bikeway ‐ Sidewalk ‐ Trail 40322000781,578.00$ 781,578.00$ Sanitary sewer ‐ Lining 40323000695,000.00$ 695,000.00$ Storm water‐ Lake Street basin improvements403240002,294,250.00$ 2,294,250.00$ Storm Water‐ BMP maintenance4032430071,500.00$ 71,500.00$ Storm water‐ Rainwater rewards4032450063,200.00$ 63,200.00$ Concrete replacement‐ SW‐C&G‐CB40330003500,500.00$ 500,500.00$ Street ‐ Local street rehab (Area 3)403310009,759,000.00$ 9,759,000.00$ Street ‐ Maintenance project (Area 1)40331200801,750.00$ 801,750.00$ CTP Bikeway ‐ Sidewalk ‐ Trail403320001,984,623.00$ 1,984,623.00$ Sanitary sewer ‐ Lining40333000710,000.00$ 710,000.00$ Sanitary sewer ‐ Glenhurst LS #1940333100822,800.00$ 822,800.00$ Storm water‐ Carpenter Park maintenance4033420028,560.00$ 28,560.00$ Storm Water‐ BMP maintenance4033430073,000.00$ 73,000.00$ Storm water‐ Rainwater rewards4033450064,400.00$ 64,400.00$ Total by year26,176,860.00$ 26,768,491.00$ 19,215,939.00$ 13,809,727.00$ 16,801,960.00$ 34,705,508.00$ 14,946,451.00$ 15,267,776.00$ 17,533,108.00$ 14,744,633.00$ 199,970,453.00$ Grand totalPage 3 of 3Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 1) Title: Infrastructure project development processPage 15
Project type CIP Project name* FrequencyFederal funds**GO bonds MSAMSA bondsPavement management PW operations budgetSanitary sewer utilityState appropriation**Storm sewer utility Water utility Local street rehabilitation Street ‐ Local street rehab (Area 1‐8) AnnualXX X X XConcrete replacementConcrete replacement‐ SW‐C&G‐CB AnnualX XX XPavement mill and overlayStreet – Maintenance project (Area 1‐8) AnnualXCommercial/ industrial street rehabilitation Street ‐ Commercial street rehab Every other year X XXXXMSA street rehabilitationStreet ‐ MSA rehab (Location)As funding is available XXXXX XXXXAlley constructionAlley constructionAnnual until 2030XXParking lot rehabilitationParking lot ‐ LocationAs neededXSanitary sewer Trenchless pipe lining Sanitary sewer ‐ LiningAnnualXLift station/ forcemain repair or replacement Sanitary sewer ‐ Name LS #As neededXStorm sewer XWater quality or flood infrastructure construction Storm water ‐ Location improvements As funding is availableX XStorm pond maintenance Storm water ‐ Location rehabAs neededXRepair of existing infrastructure Storm water‐ BMP maintenance AnnualXResidential grant program Storm water‐ Rainwater rewards Annual XWatermain Water ‐ DescriptionAs neededXConnect the Park: Bikeway, sidewalk and trails CTP Bikeway ‐ Sidewalk ‐ TrailVariesX XX*Words in red change to describe the specific project in the CIP** outside funding sources, obtained through a competative solicitation process and usually only regional improvements are eligibleFunding SourcesSpecial study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 1) Title: Infrastructure project development processPage 16
Meeting: Special study session
Meeting date: April 15, 2024
Written report: 2
Executive summary
Title: Speed limit evaluation
Recommended action: None. This report is informational and contains details on the outcomes
of the speed limit changes in 2021.
Policy consideration: None.
Summary: The city leveraged the 2019 Minnesota legislative changes that allowed cities
increased authority to set speed limits. Staff began investigating the feasibility and impacts of
changing the speed limit within the city in May 2020. After considerable study in 2020 a nd
2021, the city council approved an ordinance that clarifies that the city will be using the new
Minnesota Statute to establish speed limits. The city engineer (engineering director) may
establish speed limits based on an evaluation considering the factors specified in the statute.
The ordinance and statute can only be used on roads under the city’s jurisdiction. The city does
not have the authority to change speed limits on county, state or private roads.
Following the ordinance change, speed limits changed on most local streets in the fall of 2021.
Gateway and updated speed limit signage were installed in December of 2021.
As part of the ordinance approval process in 2021, there was a commitment to evaluate the
findings of the changes that were expected to include:
• Results from traffic speed study comparing data collected before and during the
evaluation period.
• A comparison of crashes on city streets with two years of data before and after the
speed limit change.
• The police and engineering departments will monitor traffic conditions throughout and
after implementation to inform the evaluation.
• Any future recommendations around speed limits, supporting safe traffic speeds or
additional evaluation.
• Any new speed limit national guidance, research or findings from peer cities will also be
considered.
The discussion section of the report provides information and findings on the change in speed
limits across the community.
Financial or budget considerations: None
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion
June 21, 2021 report – 2nd reading of ordinance regarding speed limits
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Speed limit evaluation
Discussion
Background: The city leveraged the 2019 Minnesota legislative changes that allowed cities
increased authority to set speed limits. Staff began investigating the feasibility and impacts of
changing the speed limit within the city in May 2020.
Reducing speed limits on many St. Louis Park streets is important to create a safer
transportation system. Lower vehicle speeds during a crash are less likely to lead to death or
life-changing injuries. This is especially true for people walking and biking.
Slower speed limits promote a mobility system that prioritizes walking first, then bicycling and
transit, and then motor vehicle use. Many of the city’s existing policies and the approved
Minnesota speed limit statutes were used to frame setting speed limit goals for the city:
• To support the city’s goal to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries that are a result of
crashes on city streets.
• To reflect the city’s goal of creating a mobility system that prioritizes walking first, then
bicycling and transit, and then motor vehicle use.
• To ensure the quality and function of the transportation system contribute to equitable
outcomes for all people.
• To support the movement of people and goods.
• To be understandable, consistent, replicable, reasonable and contextually appropriate in
setting speed limits.
• To clearly communicate and educate the new speed limits and their connection to
safety, especially as people enter the city.
After considerable study in 2020 and 2021, the city council approved an ordinance that clarifies
that the city will be using the new Minnesota Statute to establish speed limits. The city engineer
(engineering director) may establish speed limits based on an evaluation considering the factors
specified in the statute. The ordinance and statute can only be used on roads under the city’s
jurisdiction. The city does not have the authority to change speed limits on county, state or
private roads.
Following the ordinance change, the city changed speed limits on most local streets in the fall
of 2021. Gateway and updated speed limit signage were installed in December of 2021. This
was followed by education through social media, mailed postcards, the Park Perspective,
changeable message signs and yard signs to educate drivers on the changes and benefits of
lowered local speed limits.
With the ordinance approval, staff committed to complete a review of the changes in the speed
limits within three years that included the following:
1. Results from traffic speed study comparing data collected before and during the
evaluation period.
2. A comparison of crashes on city streets with two years of data before and after the
speed limit change.
3. The police and engineering departments will monitor traffic conditions throughout and
after implementation to inform the evaluation.
4. Any recommendations around speed limits, supporting safe traffic speeds or additional
evaluation.
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Speed limit evaluation
5. Any new speed limit national guidance, research or findings from peer cities will also be
considered.
Evaluation of reduced speed limits: In the fall of 2023 speed counts were taken at 20 locations
around the city to compare motorist speeds before and after the speed limit reduction
implementation in late 2021. Crash data was reviewed in early 2024 to ensure all of 2022 and
2023 data was available for analysis.
To establish the new speed limits, staff used a category approach that takes into consideration
average speed, roadway design, land use, mode use and expectations of the city streets. This
generally resulted in posted speeds of 20 mph on lower-traffic roads, 25 mph on medium-traffic
roads and 30+ mph on high-traffic roads. The reduced speed limits were set to be within 5 mph
of the average speed that drivers were already comfortable driving.
1. Results from traffic speed study comparing data collected before and during the evaluation
period.
The city hired a consultant to collect and analyze data from 20 locations on city streets that
had the posted speed reduced from 30 mph to 20 mph. This study focused on the 20 mph
roadways throughout the city as these were the largest number of streets with speed limit
changes and represented the greatest mile-per-hour speed limit reduction.
The study had the following findings:
• The change in average speeds ranged from a 10.6 mph increase to a 5.9 mph
decrease.
• The average speed prior to the posted speed reduction was 22.1 mph. The average
speed after the speed limit change was 21.0 mph.
• The overall average speed reduction was 1.1 mph on streets that had speed limits
lowered from 30 mph to 20 mph.
• The average speed of the majority of drivers is within 5 mph of the posted speed
limit.
The study has similar findings to a study completed by the Local Road Research Board
(LLRB) MnDOT and the University of Minnesota in 2023. This study selected 24 locations in
the community. This study used streets different from those used by the city’s study to
increase the amount of data collected and covered a combination of streets that did not
have speed limit changes, some that changed by five mph and others that changed by 10
mph.
LLRB’s study had the following findings:
• The change in average speeds ranged from a 2.4 mph increase to a 7 mph decrease.
• The overall average speed reduction was 1-2 mph on both streets that had lowered
speed limits and on streets where the speed limit remained unchanged.
• The reduction of average speeds across the community (on streets with and
without) is consistent with what has been documented in other cities in North
America and Great Britain.
Overall, 48 locations within the city were reviewed and showed a documented average
speed reduction of over 1 mph. This is consistent with the results in other jurisdictions
across the country.
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Speed limit evaluation
2. A comparison of crashes on city streets with two years of data before and after the speed
limit change.
In addition to reviewing changes in driver speed, our consultant reviewed the number and
types of crashes that occurred on city streets before and after the changes to the posted
speed limits. Crash data was collected for a six-year period, starting in January 2018 and
ending in December 2023. The data was analyzed in three timeframes, 2018-2019, 2020-
2021 and 2022-2023, to capture the unique changes to vehicle miles traveled during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Over the six-year period, there were a total of 2,042 crashes on city streets in St. Louis Park.
Figures 1-3 show the overall trends in crashes on city streets in St. Louis Park, city streets
across Hennepin County and city streets in the greater metropolitan area. All three figures
show a sharp reduction in traffic crashes in 2020-2021. In St. Louis Park, crashes dropped by
an average of 36%. It is likely that this reduction is directly related to the reduction in
vehicle trips during the pandemic. For this reason, the city chose to use data from 2018 and
2019 as the comparison for the before implementation of reduced speed limits.
Figure 1- Annual crashes on St. Louis Park streets
Figure 2 - Annual crashes in Hennepin County on city streets
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Title: Speed limit evaluation
Figure 3 - Annual crashes in the Twin Cities Metro on city streets
The study had the following findings related to overall crashes:
• Crashes in the city dropped by approximately 25% after the speed limit change.
• Crashes in Hennepin County and the greater twin cities metropolitan area also dropped
by 28% and 19%, respectively.
• The trend in reduced number of crashes on city streets is not likely attributed to the
speed limit changes.
In addition to total crashes, the severity of crashes was analyzed to understand if there have
been changes in the type of crashes that are occurring in the city. Again, six years of crash
data was analyzed. The severity of crashes is broken down into these five categories and is
shown in Figure 4:
Figure 4 – St. Louis Park average crashes and costs per crash
Fatal – fatal crash
Sev A – serious injury crash
Sev B – minor injury crash
Sev c – possible injury crash
PDO – property damage only crash
The study had the following findings related to the severity of crashes:
• Crashes resulting in any injury type dropped 2.4% from 2018-2019 to 2022-2023. This is
the opposite of county and regional trends that identified increases of 1.9% and 4.2%,
respectively, over the same period.
• Severe crashes in St. Louis Park have increased from an average of 3 in 2018-2019 to 5
in 2022-2023.
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Title: Speed limit evaluation
• The overall total comprehensive crash costs based on standardized Federal Highway
Administration calculations have reduced over the same period as the severity of
crashes has decreased.
The number and severity of crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists was also analyzed.
Of the 2,042 crashes observed on city streets from 2018 to 2023, 74 or 3.6% involved a
pedestrian or bicyclist, as shown in Figure 5. While the total number of crashes involving
pedestrians or bicyclists has stayed relatively consistent, there has been a decrease in the
number of injury crashes from 24 in 2018-2019 to 20 in 2022-2023. The increase in property
damage only (PDO) crashes all occurred between bicyclists at low speeds during turn
movements.
Figure 5 - St. Louis Park pedestrian and bicycle crash data
3. The police and engineering departments will monitor traffic conditions throughout and after
implementation to inform the evaluation.
City staff continue to monitor traffic conditions throughout the city . The police department
has experienced increases in speeding complaints. To address these concerns, they use
directed police patrol and mobile speed radar trailers.
4. Any future recommendations around speed limits, supporting safe traffic speeds or
additional evaluation.
Staff is not recommending any additional changes related to speed limits. Moving forward,
we will continue education and awareness of the city’s speed limits and that lower speeds
are safer for all users of the road. This includes the following:
• Temporary mobile speed radar trailers to educate drivers on the
posted speed limit and to provide feedback on their speed. These
trailers are deployed from May through October and are moved
around the community on a weekly basis to provide the greatest
educational opportunities.
• Distribution of free “20 is Plenty” yard signs to the community to
help educate and reinforce the city’s speed limit on residential
streets.
As a part of this study, we had our consultants research to see if there was any correlation
between increased signage and speed limit compliance. They were unable to find any data
that would support this position. Due to this, staff does not recommend adding signs at this
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Title: Speed limit evaluation
time. As with other roadway signage, overuse can reduce driver awareness, lessen
effectiveness of the signage and create visual clutter in the community.
5. Any new speed limit national guidance, research or findings from peer cities will also be
considered.
Both the city’s and the Local Road Research Board speed limit evaluation included a review
of regional, national and international studies. There are very few new studies that have
focused on urban, lower-speed roadways (35 mph or less). The results of two studies not
discussed in this report have ranged from no significant reduction in motorist speeds to a 1-
4 mph reduction in the average speeds.
Report summary: The findings from the evaluation of the citywide speed limit changes have
resulted in outcomes that are consistent with the goals set during the development of the
speed limit changes.
The key findings from the review now that the lowered speed limits have been in place for two
years are:
• Vehicles are traveling about one mile per hour less than prior to the changes in
speed limits.
o A one-mile-per-hour reduction in vehicle speed reduces the risk of severe
injury or death by three percentage points.
o The majority of drivers are currently driving within 5 mph of the posted
speed limit, which reinforces the appropriateness of the updated speed
limits.
• There has been an overall reduction in crashes in the city after the reduction in
speed limits.
o 25% reduction of all crashes in the city.
o 2.4% reduction of any injury type crash within the city.
o Pedestrian and bicycle crashed have stayed relatively constant, but the injury
crashes have decreased.
Next steps: Staff will continue to monitor traffic conditions throughout the city and reevaluate
speed limits as a part of planned construction projects and transit route changes.
Meeting: Special study session
Meeting date: April 15, 2024
Written report: 3
Executive summary
Title: Basket weave stop signs
Recommended action: None.
Policy consideration: Does the city council support the installation of alternating stop control as
a systems approach to intersection traffic control in neighborhoods?
Summary: Staff recommends implementing a basket weave intersection traffic control
approach on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis in response to stop sign requests.
This recommendation is the result of requests for additional intersection controls (stop signs)
that were brought up during the preliminary design and public engagement for the 2024
pavement management project in the Browndale and Minikahda Vista neighborhoods.
A review of the intersection control in these two neighborhoods identified inconsistent
application of intersection control in the neighborhoods and average non-compliance of stop
signs 88% of the time.
This high rate of non-compliance at stop signs and the continued requests to add more stop
signs make it an ideal location to implement a pattern of alternating stop sign control (basket
weave) in these two neighborhoods.
Staff acknowledges that recommending changes to traffic control at every intersection within
these neighborhoods will likely generate many comments at varying levels of support. Due to
this, staff wanted to share with the council how we intend to engage the community prior to
reaching out to these neighborhoods regarding these traffic control changes.
Since this implementation is data-driven, shaped by public safety and intended to create a
more predictable system, our engagement level will be to inform the community of the changes
we are making and why they are being done.
Financial or budget considerations: None at this time. The costs of modifying the traffic control
signage at intersections in these neighborhoods will be developed and shared as part of the
council report when these traffic control changes are brought forward for approval.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Sept. 6, 2022 Connected Infrastructure – Traffic Control Policy report
Attachment #1 –Browndale intersection control map
Attachment #2 - Minikahda Vista intersection control map
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Basket weave stop signs
Discussion
Background: During the Connected infrastructure discussion held on Sept. 6, 2022 staff
provided an overview of the traffic control policy that had been in place since 1999 along with
processes and outcomes.
Past practice for stop sign requests was to review each one as a stand-alone request. If the
intersection did not meet certain requirements, the traffic committee did not recommend the
installation of stop signs. When a stop sign was not recommended, the requestor could submit
a petition to the city council to reconsider this recommendation.
The policy resulted in a reactive approach to traffic safety within the community, considering
traffic control as an individual choice instead of as a system.
The council supported staff's recommendation to rescind the 1999 traffic control policy, no
longer have a petition process and explore a systems approach to traffic control.
Councilmembers were supportive of a data-driven approach and moving away from one that
centers on local interest. To accomplish this, the council directed staff to develop proactive
systems approach to the evaluation of intersection control instead of just focusing on individual
intersections.
One of the proactive approaches that staff has been working on is the implementation of
basket weave stop signs in neighborhoods.
A systems approach and basket weave: The first larger-scale example of this systems approach
within the city is on 29th Street between Louisiana and Texas avenues. The original request
from the neighborhood was to add traffic control to the intersection of 29th Street and
Pennsylvania Avenue and add additional stop signs to create an all-way stop at 29th Street and
Maryland Avenue.
There are seven intersections between Louisiana and Texas Avenues. Five of the intersections
were controlled and two were not. The variability of traffic control at each intersection was a
result of independent evaluations and community processes.
Staff developed an alternating stop control pattern for the corridor – stop signs at every other
intersection. This stop control pattern, often referred to as a basket weave, had minimal impact
on the traffic controls that were previously in place.
A letter was sent to residents informing them of the changes to intersection traffic control and
why they were being implemented.
Council approved these stop sign control changes in the fall of 2023. These changes have been
well received by the neighborhood.
Traffic control request: During the engagement process for the pavement management
projects (PMP), staff frequently receive requests for additional stop sign controls in the
neighborhood. The community typically provides comments via the online interactive issues
mapping tool, at open house events and via direct letter communications.
During the preliminary design process for the 2024 PMP in the Browndale and Minikahda Vista
neighborhoods, staff received requests to evaluate additional stop signs at various locations in
the neighborhoods. The locations with the most requests were:
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Basket weave stop signs
Browndale neighborhood:
• Along Utica Avenue between 42nd Street and Morningside Road
• Along Morningside Road between Utica and Salem Avenue
Minikahda Vista neighborhood:
• The intersection of 39th Street and Lynn Avenue
Existing intersection traffic control: To respond to these requests, staff began by mapping the
controlled and uncontrolled intersections in and near the Browndale (attachment) and
Minikahda Vista neighborhoods (attachment). The attached graphics illustrate the variability in
locations, density and types of traffic control used in the neighborhoods and adjacent cities.
The mix of controlled and uncontrolled intersections results in inconsistency and no discernable
pattern. This can lead to confusion for all roadway users (pedestrians, cyclists and motor
vehicles), including:
• Assumptions by users as to who has the right of way.
• Questions from the community about why streets with similar characteristics have
different levels of traffic control.
• The belief that stop signs help to control speed and reduce cut-through traffic.
• Low stop sign compliance when unwarranted stop signs are installed.
• Requests from residents for more enforcement since drivers are not stopping at the
signs.
Stop sign compliance: To better understand stop sign compliance within these neighborhoods,
staff completed a review of controlled intersections at the following locations in the fall of
2023:
Browndale neighborhood:
• 42nd Street and Browndale Avenue – Two-way stop controlled
• 42nd Street and Toledo Avenue – All-way stop controlled
Minikahda Vista neighborhood:
• 37th Street and Glenhurst Avenue – All-way stop controlled
• 38th Street and Inglewood Avenue – All-way stop controlled
• 40th Street and Quentin Avenue – All-way stop controlled
• 39th Street and Joppa Avenue – All-way stop controlled
The average of all six intersection's stop sign compliance rates over a 24-hour period were:
• 12% full stop (295 vehicles)
• 54% slow rolling (1,428 vehicles)
• 34% no stop (762 vehicles)
In these two neighborhoods, 88% of the vehicles that approached controlled intersections did
not come to a complete stop.
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Basket weave stop signs
Figure 1 – Browndale and Minikahda Vista
The compliance rates in the Browndale and Minikahda Vista neighborhoods (Figure 1) are
consistent with a study completed in 2018 by Spack Consulting (Figure 2). They researched stop
sign compliance in eight cities across two states. The work reviewed volumes and
characteristics of 32 intersections, four intersections in each city. Across all intersections, 73%
of vehicles did not come to a complete stop. The following is a breakdown of stop sign
compliance from that study:
• 27% full stop
• 62% slow rolling
• 11% no stop
Figure 2 - Spack Consulting study
Overall Stop Sign Compliance
Full Stop,
12%
No Stop,
34% Slow
Rolling,
54%
Full Stop Slow Rolling No Stop
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: Basket weave stop signs
Additional findings from the study included:
1. Stop sign compliance does not correlate to speed. Whether using the speed limit of the
approach road or the conflicting road, how fast drivers are moving does not translate
into stop sign compliance.
2. Classification of the road does correlate. Roads designated as collectors or higher,
particularly conflicting roadways, have higher stopping compliance compared to local or
residential roads. Intuitively, this result reflects the likely higher volumes of the higher
classified roads compared to local roads, meaning a driver is more likely to see
conflicting traffic and have to stop for it.
3. All-way stop control saw more drivers proceeding without any stop compared to the
rate under two-way stop control, although the full stop percentage was similar between
them. A theory to explain this result is that some drivers assume others will be stopping
and take advantage of those stops to continue through the intersection. At two-way
stop control, the conflicting traffic does not have to stop, eliminating that assumption.
Right-turning traffic travels through an intersection without stopping at a higher rate
compared to the left turn and through movements.
4. Right-turning traffic travels through an intersection without stopping at a higher rate
compared to the left turn and through movements. Right-turning traffic has fewer
conflicts compared to the other movements. Therefore, drivers are more likely to look
for their conflict only, ignoring other movements and moving through an intersection
faster.
5. As volumes increase, either on the focus approach or the conflicting road and
representative of any traffic (vehicle, pedestrian or bicycle), the rate of compliance
increases. For this study, a dividing point appears to be about 1,500 units per day. Full-
stop compliance noticeably increases when the daily traffic is above that level.
6. The ratio of the focus approach traffic to the conflicting approach traffic confirms the
result of increased volume results in higher stop-sign compliance. Either multiplying or
dividing the focus and conflicting approach traffic volumes show this relationship. The
division of the two volumes shows that conflicting traffic is more important to
compliance than the focus approach traffic. This result also suggests it is important to
position the stop sign for a two-way stop on the road approach that has a lower traffic
volume.
7. For many intersections, the compliance rate stayed relatively similar between the two
studied hours, even as the volumes changed. Likely, this result suggests drivers develop
a behavior for an intersection, potentially based on the peak hour traffic when full stops
are required due to conflicting traffic and continue that behavior even in the absence of
conflicting traffic. Stated differently, if drivers are accustomed to seeing other vehicles
or pedestrian/ bicycle activity at an intersection, they will proceed with more caution
regardless of the time of day or actual volume at any particular time.
These study findings support the idea that stop signs should be installed consistent with the
criteria of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and not used for speed control.
In addition, adding stop signs creates traffic noise and increases carbon emissions due to
vehicles slowing down, idling and starting up again.
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Title: Basket weave stop signs
Staff recommendation: These studies and public feedback indicate that stop signs are not
meeting the expectations of any roadway users. As a result, staff recommends the
implementation of a basket weave pattern in both neighborhoods to provide a more consistent
application of intersection control.
The goal of revising the traffic control in these neighborhoods is to:
• Make intersection control more predictable for all users of the road.
• Increase compliance at stop sign locations.
• Reduce unnecessary vehicle stopping, noise and carbon emissions.
• Create similar expectations for road users as they move between the adjacent
neighborhoods in Minneapolis and Edina.
This basket weave pattern will have an alternating stop control pattern for streets – stop signs
at every other intersection. However, these neighborhoods are larger and more complex than
29th Street. Many intersections within each neighborhood will have traffic control modification.
Some intersections will have stop signs installed, some intersections will have all-way stop signs
changed to two-way stop signs, some will have stop signs changed to yield signs and some will
have the complete removal of all stop signs.
Next steps: Staff acknowledges that recommending changes to traffic control at nearly every
intersection within these neighborhoods will likely generate many comments at varying levels
of support. Due to this, staff wanted to share with the council how we intend to engage the
community prior to reaching out to these neighborhoods regarding these traffic control
changes. It is the staff's intent to work with one neighborhood at a time.
Since this is a data-driven, proactive approach and our goal is to create a safer, more
predictable system, our engagement level will be to inform the community of the changes we
are making and why they are being done. This is consistent with our community engagement
guidelines for this type of project.
Later this year, information will be shared with the neighborhood residents, informing them of
the changes to traffic control and why they are being done, as well as letting people know that
they can reach out to engineering with questions.
Staff will then bring the recommended traffic control changes to the council. This report will
include resolutions modifying the traffic controls and the costs of implementing the sign
modifications. It will also include information regarding the questions that staff received from
the neighborhood.
LYNN AVE S
MORNINGSIDE RD NATCHEZ AVE SQUENTIN
AVE
S
W
O
O
DDALE AVE
41ST S
T
W
UTICA AVE S42 1/2 ST W
43 1/2 ST W
42ND ST W
BROWNDALE AVE SOTTAWA AVE SDEVANEY
ST PRI
NCETONAVE SCOOLIDGE AVE S40TH
S
T
W
BROOK AVE SMACKEY AVE SDART AVE
SMONTEREY AVE SVERNONAVESTOLEDO AVE SSALEM AVE S40TH
L
N
W
42ND ST W
SUNNY SIDE RD
BRIDGE STBROWNDALE AVE SEDINA BLVDDREXEL AVEBRUCE AVEWOODDALE AVECASCO AVEMOORLAND AVEARDEN AVEBRANSON ST
44 ST W
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
Browndale
Park
Minikahda
Vista Park
0 1,000 2,000500
Feet ´
Browndale Neighborhood
E D I N A
Date: 3/27/2024
P P
P
&
Uncontrolled intersection
Controlled intersection - all way stop
Controlled intersection - partial
Controlled intersection - yield
Stopping direction
Yielding direction
Traffic signal
P Sign result of petition
S T. L O U I S PA R K
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 3)
Title: Basket weave stop signs Page 7
&&&
&&&&
&
&&&&&&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&&
&
&LYNN AVE SMORNINGSIDE RD
36 1/2 ST W
36TH ST W
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
NATCHEZ AVE SQUENTIN
AVE
S
PARK CENTER BLVD RALEIGH AVE SKIPLING AVE SMINIKAHDACTWO
O
DDALE AVE GRAND WAYBELTLINEBLVDPARK NICOLLET BLVDWOLFE PKW YEXCEL
SI
O
R
BLVD
41ST S
T
W
UTICA AVE SJOPPA AVE S42 1/2 ST W
PARK COMM
O
N
S
DR
43 1/2 ST W GLENHURST AVE S42ND ST W
BROWNDALE AVE SFRANCE AVE SOTTAWA AVE S34TH ST W
DEVANEY
ST MERID
IAN
LN
PRINCETON
LN
PRI
NCETONAVE S
VALLA
C
H
E
R
A
V
E
COOLIDGE AVE S40TH
S
T
W
BROOK AVE S37TH ST W
39TH ST W
38TH ST
W
MACKEY AVE SAUTO CLUB WAY
DART AVE
SINGLEWOOD AVE SMONTEREY AVE SVERNONAVESHUNTINGTON AVE STOLEDO AVE SSALEM AVE S35TH ST
W
PARK G
L
E
N
R
D
40TH
L
N
W
FRANCE AVE SEWING AVE SDREW AVE SCHOWEN AVE S42ND ST WGRIMES AVE SALDEN DRSCOTT TERRACEBRANSON STLYNN AVE SCROCKER AVE SWolfe Park
Bass Lake
Park
Browndale
Park
Minikahda
Vista Park
Bass Lake
Preserve
Town Green
Park
Lilac Park
Recreation
Outdoor
Center (ROC)
0 1,000 2,000500
Feet ´M I N N E A P O L I S
E D I N A
Minikahda Vista Neighborhood
ST. LOUIS PARKPP
P
P
&
Uncontrolled intersection
Controlled intersection - all way stop
Controlled intersection - partial
Controlled intersection - yield
Stopping direction
Yielding direction
Traffic signal
P Sign result of petition
Special study session meeting of April 15, 2024 (Item No. 3)
Title: Basket weave stop signs Page 8