Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025/04/21 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular (2)AGENDA APRIL 21, 2025 6:00 p.m. Economic Development Authority meeting – Council Chambers 1.Call to order 2.Approve agenda. 3.Minutes a.Minutes of April 7, 2025 EDA meeting 4.Consent item a.Resolution approving amended subordination and assignment of redevelopment contract - Zelia on Seven - Ward 2 5.Public hearings – none. 6.Regular business – none. 7.Communications and announcements – none. 8.Adjournment. 6:15 p.m. City council meeting – Council Chambers 1. Call to order a.Roll call. b.Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Approve agenda. 3. Presentations a.Proclamation observing National Bike Month b.Recognition of donations 4.Minutes a.Minutes of February 18, 2025 special study session b.Minutes of March 3, 2025 special study session c.Minutes of March 17, 2025 city council meeting d.Minutes of March 17, 2025 special study session e.Minutes of ceremonial oath of office of March 24, 2025 5. Consent items a.Resolution approving donations to police department b.Resolution authorizing funding for community education programs Agenda EDA, city council and special study session meetings of April 21, 2025 c.Approve bid for 2025 Alley Reconstruction project (4025-1500) – Ward 2 d.Approve professional services contract amendment for Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue Improvements project (4024-1100) - Ward 4 e.Resolution accepting funding from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and entering into grant agreement for installation of park shade structures at Aquila and Ainsworth Parks - Ward 3 f.Resolution approving technical amendments to the budget g.Resolution approving amendment of fee agreement in connection with refunding of Park Nicollet Private Activity Revenue Bonds 6.Public hearing a.Public hearing for intoxicating liquor license for Lago Lynlake LLC dba Lago Tacos 7.Regular business – none. 8.Communications and announcements – none. 9.Adjournment. Following city council meeting – Special study session – Community Room Discussion items 1. Utility asset management planning 2. Proposed study session topic - relative homestead rental licensing Written reports 3. Housing activity report 4. Vision 4.0 update Members of the public can attend St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and city council meetings in person. At regular city council meetings, members of the public may comment on any item on the agenda by attending the meeting in-person or by submitting written comments to info@stlouisparkmn.gov by noon the day of the meeting. Official minutes of meetings are available on the city website once approved. Watch St. Louis Park 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 meeting’s end. City council study sessions are not broadcast. Generally, it is not council practice to receive public comment during study sessions. 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: Economic development authority Meeting date: April 21, 2025 Minutes: 3a Unofficial minutes EDA Meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota Apr. 7, 2025 1. Call to order. President Budd called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. a. Roll call Commissioners present: President Sue Budd, Lynette Dumalag, Paul Baudhuin, Tim Brausen, Yolanda Farris, Nadia Mohamed, Margaret Rog Commissioners absent: none Staff present: Administrative services director (Ms. Brodeen), city attorney (Mr. Mattick), finance director (Ms. Cruver), engineering director (Ms. Heiser), deputy city clerk (Ms. Scott- Lerdal) 2. Approve agenda. It was moved by Commissioner Mohamed, seconded by Commissioner Baudhuin, to approve the EDA agenda as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 3. Minutes. a. EDA meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2025 b. EDA meeting minutes of March 3, 2025 It was moved by Commissioner Rog, seconded by Commissioner Mohamed, to approve the EDA meeting minutes of Feb. 18, 2025, and March 3, 2025, as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 4. Consent items. a. Approve EDA disbursements b. EDA Resolution No. 25-10 to approve amendments to prior grant agreements with Metropolitan Council It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Farris, to approve the consent items as listed and to waive reading of all resolutions. \The motion passed 7-0. Economic development authority meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: EDA meeting minutes of April 7, 2025 5. Public hearings – none. 6. Regular business – none. 7. Communications and announcements a. STEP biannual update No comments were made by the EDA. 8. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, EDA secretary Sue Budd, EDA president Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: April 21, 2025 Consent agenda item: 4a Executive summary Title: Resolution approving amended subordination and assignment of redevelopment contract Zelia on Seven - Ward 2 Recommended action: Motion to adopt EDA resolution approving an amended subordination agreement and assignment of tax increment revenue note and development agreement in connection with the purchase and redevelopment agreement as amended with Bigos-Zelia on Seven, LLC and Bigos-Via Sol, LLC for the Zelia on Seven multifamily housing development. Policy consideration: Does the EDA wish to approve the amended subordination agreement and an amended assignment of tax increment revenue note and development agreement with Bigos-Zelia on Seven, LLC and Bigos-Via Sol, LLC to facilitate the Zelia on Seven’s proposed site improvements and long-term permanent financing? Summary: On Dec. 18, 2023, the EDA amended the purchase and redevelopment agreement (the “contract”) related to the Via Sol apartment building with Bigos-Via Sol, LLC to update definitions of the minimum improvements and amended the affordability levels of the development. The contract provides that the EDA will issue a tax increment revenue note (the “TIF note”) to Bigos-Via Sol, LLC once certain conditions are met. Bigos-Via Sol, LLC subsequently renamed the Via Sol property Zelia on Seven. Bigos-Zelia on Seven, LCC and Bigos-Via Sol, LLC (together, the “developer”) request that the EDA subordinate certain rights under the contract to JLL Real Estate Capital, LLC (the “lender”) which is providing the permanent financing for the property purchase. In addition, the developer requests that the EDA consent to the assignment of certain rights under the contract and the TIF note to the lender as security for its financing . On March 18, 2024, the EDA approved the subordination and the assignment, but since that date, the lender has provided new forms of documents for consideration by the EDA. The proposed subordination and assignment are substantially similar to other subordination agreements and assignments of tax increment financing documents that the EDA has previously approved for other projects. The proposed subordination agreement and an assignment of tax increment revenue note and development agreement have been reviewed by the EDA’s legal counsel, Kutak Rock LLP. The subordination and assignment documents are available upon request from economic development staff. Financial or budget considerations: All costs associated with legal counsel’s review and approval of the proposed subordination agreement and assignment are to be paid by the developer. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: EDA resolution Prepared by: Greg Hunt, economic development manager Reviewed by: Karen Baron, community development director; EDA executive director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Economic development authority meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 2 Title: Resolution approving amended subordination and assignment of redevelopment contract Zelia on Seven - Ward 2 EDA Resolution No. 25 - ___ Approving an assignment of TIF note and development agreement and a subordination agreement Be it resolved by the board of commissioners (the “board”) of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “authority”) as follows: Section 1. Recitals; authorization. 1.01. The authority and Place E-Generation One, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“place”), entered into a purchase and redevelopment contract, dated May 1, 2017, as amended by a first amendment to purchase and redevelopment contract, dated November 6, 2017; a second amendment to purchase and redevelopment contract, dated December 18, 2017; a third amendment to purchase and redevelopment contract, dated May 7, 2018; a fourth amendment to purchase and redevelopment contract, dated Novemb er 5, 2018; a fifth amendment to purchase and redevelopment contract, dated June 17, 2019; a sixth amendment to and partial termination of purchase and redevelopment contract, dated April 20, 2020; and a seventh amendment to purchase and redevelopment contract, dated December 6, 2021; as assigned to and assumed by Bigos-Zelia on Seven, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company fka Bigos-Via Sol, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “developer”), pursuant to assignment and assumption of purchase and redevelopment contract, dated December 28, 2023, entered into by and between Maxwell Bay Advisors, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, as receiver for place, and Bigos; as amended by an eighth amendment to purchase and redevelopment contract, dated December 8, 2023, and a ninth amendment to purchase and redevelopment contract, dated October 9, 2024 (collectively, the “contract”), between the authority and the developer. The authority agreed to issue a tax increment revenue note (the “TIF note”) in the maximum principal amount of $2,066,352 to Bigos upon the satisfaction of certain conditions set forth in the contract. 1.02. JLL Real Estate Capital, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “lender”), has agreed to provide a mortgage loan (the “loan”) to Bigos in the approximate principal amount of $23,625,000 pursuant to a multifamily loan and security agreement between the lender and Bigos (the “lender loan agreement” and, together with related loan documents, the “lender loan documents”). As a condition to providing the loan, the lender requires that the Bigos assign certain rights under the contract and the TIF note to the lender and that the authority subordinate certain rights under the contract to the rights of the lender under the lender loan documents. 1.03. On March 18, 2024, the board previously approved documents assigning the contract and the TIF Note and subordinating certain rights under the contract. Since that date, the lender has prepared new documents that the authority is required to execute . 1.03. There has been presented to the board a form of collateral assignment of tax increment revenue note and purchase and redevelopment contract between Bigos, the lender, Economic development authority meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 3 Title: Resolution approving amended subordination and assignment of redevelopment contract Zelia on Seven - Ward 2 and Fannie Mae, to be agreed to by the authority along with a consent thereto (the “assignment”) and a subordination agreement between the authority, Bigos, and the lender (the “subordination agreement”), pursuant to which Bigos will assign certain rights under the contract and the TIF note to the lender and the authority will subordinate certain rights under the contract to the rights of the lender under the lender loan documents. Section 2. Approval of documents. 2.01. The board approves the assignment and the subordination agreement in substantially the forms presented to the board, together with any related documents necessary in connection therewith, including without limitation the authority’s agreement and consent to the assignment and all other documents, exhibits, certifications, or consents referenced in or attached to the assignment or the subordination agreement (the “documents”). 2.02. The board hereby authorizes the president and executive director, in their discretion and at such time, if any, as they may deem appropriate, to execute the documents on behalf of the authority, and to carry out, on behalf of the authority, the authority’s obligations thereunder when all conditions precedent thereto have been satisfied. The documents shall be in substantially the form on file with the authority and the approval hereby given to the documents includes approval of such additional detai ls therein as may be necessary and appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by legal counsel to the authority and by the officers authorized herein to execute said documents prior to their execution; and said officers are hereby authorized to approve said changes on behalf of the authority. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officers of the authority herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such document in accordance with the terms hereof. This resolution shall not constitute an offer and the documents shall not be effective until the date of execution thereof as provided herein. 2.03. In the event of absence or disability of the officers, any of the documents authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed without further act or authorization of the board by any duly designated acting official, or by such other officer or officers of the board as, in the opinion of the city attorney, may act in their behalf. Upon execution and delivery of the documents, the officers and employees of the board are hereby authorized and directed to take or cause to be taken such actions as may be necessary on behalf of the board to implement the documents. Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon approval. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority April 21, 2025: Karen Barton, executive director Sue Budd, president Economic development authority meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 4 Title: Resolution approving amended subordination and assignment of redevelopment contract Zelia on Seven - Ward 2 Attest: Melissa Kennedy, secretary Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 21, 2025 Presentation: 3a Executive summary Title: Proclamation observing National Bike Month Recommended action: Mayor to read the proclamation. Policy consideration: None. Summary: In partnership with Hennepin County and Three Rivers Park District, staff recommends 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 new riders to try biking and riders of all abilities to try biking to work, school or other destinations. St. Louis Park has been pr omoting Bike Month since 2017. This year, the city will be engaging in the following events during Bike to Work Week (May 12-19): • The city will have a commuter “pit stop” to encourage and promote bicycling to work on Bike to Work Day on Friday, May 16, from 6:30 to 9 a.m. The rest stop will be located on the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail near Dakota Park. • St. Louis Park sustainability staff will lead the third annual “Wheelie Fun” community bike ride on Friday, May 16, at 4 p.m. This family-friendly, all ages and abilities group ride will meet at Aquila Park playground, 3110 Xylon Avenue South, then travel the Cedar Lake Trail and end at Dakota Park, for a ride of about 1.8 miles. The whole ride will be on the trail and will be a great opportunity to safely explore a bit of St. Louis Park by bike, whether it is your first time or your first ride of the season. 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 1 5, 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, assistant city engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: Proclamation observing National Bike Month Proclamation declaring May 2025 “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 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 2025; 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 2025 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 21st day of April 2025. _________________________________ Nadia Mohamed, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 21, 2025 Presentation: 3b Executive summary Title: Recognition of donations Recommended action: Mayor announce and express appreciation for the following donation being accepted at the meeting and listed on the consent agenda, item 5a. From Donation For St. Louis Park Crime Prevention Fund $87,773.58 Community outreach and crime prevention St. Louis Park Crime Prevention Fund $27,857.78 Police K9 program Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: None. Prepared by: Amanda Scott-Lerdal, deputy city clerk Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 21, 2025 Minutes: 4a Unofficial minutes City council special study session St. Louis Park, Minnesota Feb. 18, 2025 The meeting convened at 8:37 p.m. Council members present: Mayor Nadia Mohamed, Paul Baudhuin, Tim Brausen, Sue Budd, Yolanda Farris, Lynette Dumalag, Margaret Rog Council members absent: none Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), city attorney (Mr. Mattick), administrative services director (Ms. Brodeen), community engagement coordinator (Mr. Coleman), finance director (Ms. Cruver) Discussion items 1.Neighborhood funding program Mr. Coleman presented the staff report, including a breakdown of funding and how it has been used in past years. In this discussion, the considerations before the council are: •Does the council wish to authorize the Neighborhood Revitalization Grant Program? If so: o Which of the three funding formulas does the council support for the Neighborhood Revitalization Grant Program? o Does the council wish to allocate $50,000 annually to the program? Options for funding neighborhood programs were presented: •Funding structure 1: maintain the current funding structure •Funding structure 2: equal distribution of funds •Funding structure 3: needs-based formula to distribute funds Ms. Cruver added a brief explanation of public purpose and broadly, city staff ensures that every dollar obtained from the public - whether through property taxes or donation - is used to provide services or benefit to the community. She listed a few guideline to public purpose interpretation. She advised that the discussion about neighborhood funding focus on the approved uses of public purpose funding, giving examples as National Night Out, neighborhood beautification and certain social events. Ms. Cruver acknowledged that the current focus on public purpose and further guidance from the state may feel like a difference from past public purpose determinations. Council Member Brausen asked which state statute directs public purpose, specifically, allowing for National Night Out as an approved use of public dollars. Page 2 City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Title: Special study session meeting minutes of February 18, 2025 Ms. Cruver referenced section 471, which contains language allowing National Night Out and activities aimed at improving relationships between communities and law enforcement as approved use of public dollars. Council Member Brausen clarified that a neighborhood event that focuses on improving relationships with law enforcement is approved, and Mr. Mattick added that the statute section specifically names National Night Out. Mr. Mattick thanked Ms. Cruver for laying out the information in statute and reminded the council that the purpose of public expenditure is derived from the Minnesota Constitution. Cities must operate under the legislation given by the state, and guidance is derived from opinions and rulings where communities have been successful in using public funds or were reported to the state auditor for review. These rulings give further detail to the structure the City of St. Louis Park utilizes in determining public purpose uses. The state is very strict and critical of use because the funds are derived through mandatory property taxes and are not given through donation. He gave an example of the difference between public and private sector lunch meetings: Private sector meetings that take place over lunch may expense their lunch tab as a cost of business, whereas public sector employees would need to cover their own lunch or choose to meet at another time. Food analysis has been a major subject of review for public spending, and that should be kept in mind for the discussion on neighborhood funding this evening. Mr. Coleman reviewed the restrictions on each of the proposed funding options, including the necessity for individuals to provide a W-9 form in order to be reimbursed for proper funds tracking. Other cities require their neighborhood organizations to be registered as nonprofits, and St. Louis Park does not. He added that this review of the past neighborhood funding programs and considering future options is in alignment with the city’s strategic priority to be a leader in equity and inclusion. Mr. Coleman reviewed the neighborhood grant funds spent and neighborhood demographic makeup of each neighborhood since 1997. He drew attention to maps on display around the Community Room, which were created in collaboration with the GIS department. The maps visually identified demographic differences between neighborhoods, including race and ethnicity, average income, average property value, socioeconomic status, educational attainment and disability status. To develop the funding structure options, staff collected and analyzed data. In collaboration with the REI division, the REI impact analysis tool was also utilized to review funding structure options. The Human Rights Commission also analyzed the funding program. The analyses conducted guided the program funding options presented to the council in discussion format today. Council members took time to review the presentation maps and agenda packet information together before continuing their discussion. Council Member Rog asked about the socioeconomic status review of the neighborhood organization maps. Mr. Coleman stated that socioeconomic status is based in overall wellbeing Page 3 City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Title: Special study session meeting minutes of February 18, 2025 of the residents based on census data and metrics including race, ethnicity and educational attainment, among other data. Ms. Keller stated that the data that would be used by a needs-based formula is legally defensible as determined by the city attorney. Mr. Mattick added that the consideration of where the law is headed and where the law relates to decision-making at the city level right now. The courts have ruled that a decision based on race alone will be considered unconstitutional, so other criteria and data absolutely must be included in analysis. Mr. Coleman reviewed the proposed funding structures. The first option is to keep the format as it currently is, with a competitive grant cycle involving applications and a maximum of $3,000 in funding. The second option is an equal distribution of funds among all 35 neighborhoods with $1,428 available to each neighborhood through an application process. The third option is a needs-based formula to distribute funds based on population, median income and median property value. The score derived from the formula would indicate the funding award based on need: $1,900 for high needs, $1,400 for moderate need, and $1,000 for low need. Additional recommendations that came from the staff analysis and the Human Rights Commission were to add an annual registration process for neighborhood organizations and simplify the application process. Both processes can pose barriers to participation. Ms. Brodeen clarified that presently, becoming a recognized neighborhood organization is tied to the funding program. The goal is to build a strong program of neighborhood groups who can be engaged more than once a year, separate from applying for funding. Ms. Keller noted that the second and third proposed funding options both increase opportunities for engagement , since becoming an organized neighborhood and/or applying for funds is not competitive. Mayor Mohamed asked if staff had concerns about lower-income neighborhoods having additional barriers when providing their own funds up-front for neighborhood events and waiting for reimbursement. Mr. Coleman acknowledged it would be advantageous for the city to be able to pay vendors directly for a neighborhood event. On a case-by-case scenario this can be accomplished in working with neighborhood leaders. Ms. Brodeen noted that the structure of the program is very strict and that will always be a consideration. Council Member Farris noted that the Aquila neighborhood is very large, and asked how community members would know who leads their neighborhood organization. Ms. Brodeen stated that those responsible for leading their organization are encouraged to use neighborhood grant funds to reach all residents in their neighborhood. Page 4 City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Title: Special study session meeting minutes of February 18, 2025 Mr. Coleman noted that neighborhood organization leaders are volunteers. Mayor Mohamed noted that engagement is not strictly limited to certain blocks or neighborhood areas, and she has seen invitations representing this in her own neighborhood. Ms. Brodeen noted that, in the past, organizations had reached out to ask if they could utilize neighborhood grant funds exclusively for their block, and city staff had advised that would not be an approved use. Council Member Budd noted an example of a recently organized neighborhood association that worked with the city to obtain a mailing list of all residents within their area, enabling them to reach out and notify people of the work towards becoming an organized group. Mr. Coleman affirmed that the question is whether a neighborhood group is properly leveraging the funds they apply for. Council Member Rog added that in her experience, neighborhood groups really do try to build community and spend accordingly. She shared a concern that the wait for reimbursement can be up to 70 days. Ms. Brodeen clarified that additional conversations about what expenses are allowed can add delayed time between a reimbursement submission and confirmation. At times, the city also receives reimbursement requests from neighborhood groups that have had no previous interaction with the city, or do not have the appropriate receipts or documentation, which adds time to the process. Ms. Keller summarized that it takes time – and the city is obligated to review – to ensure that reimbursement matches public purpose. Ms. Cruver added that the city is obligated to make payment within 35 days of receiving an approved invoice. An incomplete request or extenuating issues can add time to the process. Council Member Budd noted that the current grant system is competitive, but in any given year, the budget of $50,000 is not spent in its entirety. She asked for clarification on how the current system is determined to be competitive. Mr. Coleman stated that when the system was originally set up, there may have been more neighborhood organizations applying for the funds, or that the intention was for the process to be competitive. However, that has not been the reality of the grant program’s use. Ms. Cruver noted that currently, the program is competitive in the sense that the city does not automatically approve or allocate funds. Neighborhood organizations submit their proposals for evaluation in order to be funded. In addition to this, the competition for funds would be stronger if the city received a high volume of proposals for evaluation. If there were instead a set amount of funding available for each neighborhood, the timing of the proposal process would allow for broader use of the total amount of funding allocated to neighborhoods. Page 5 City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Title: Special study session meeting minutes of February 18, 2025 Council Member Budd stated that she would love to see neighborhood organizations utilize the entire budget each year and observed that a very small number of organizations are currently active. She proposed that each of the 14 active organizations be funded at $3,000 and remaining funds made available for new organizations, utilizing more of the budget this year. She summarized that the problem is not that the city does not have enough money, but that funding is not being used. Council Member Baudhuin stated his appreciation for staff’s work. He expressed frustration with the state statutes, laws and rules around public funding. From his point of view, inequity has been built into the structure the city must follow and therefore a solution may be a lost cause. He observed that the requirements of W-9 forms, board member requirements, and the other structures the city must follow are inherently barriers to participation. He asked how the city proposes to move past inherent inequities – he voiced support for all three options given, but has concerns about the process. Ms. Brodeen noted that when analyzing and discussing the neighborhood funding program, it was clear that regulation makes the program very difficult to administer and access. The three funding options discussed today are staff’s best attempts to equitably administer the program, increase neighborhood organization engagement and right-size what is currently successful. Council Member Dumalag stated that even robust and active neighborhood groups may inadvertently fail to include all neighbors. She stated that neighborhoods and homes look differently now than they did at the program’s inception and now include multi-family living and apartments as well as single-family dwellings. Though attempts are made to include the neighborhood in outreach, apartment buildings may or may not be included. She acknowledged the work and pride that organizations and leaders have, and that increasing involvement may be a broader discussion. Council Member Farris asked if it was possible for the information about neighborhood organizations, residents, and organization leaders to be shared to increase contact opportunities between leaders and interested neighbors. Mr. Coleman stated that as long as information is kept up to date, it is listed on the city website. Council Member Farris expressed frustration that the current situation seems unfair, with residents who pay taxes towards neighborhood funds not knowing how and when to get involved in the benefit of those funds. She asked for clarification on what is done with unspent funds. Ms. Cruver noted that funds come from the general fund and unspent monies return to the bottom line of the general fund as unobligated funds used in the next budget cycle for one-time spending opportunities. Council Member Farris asked why the unspent funds cannot go towards other outreach efforts such as handing out candy during the Parktacular Parade. Page 6 City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Title: Special study session meeting minutes of February 18, 2025 Ms. Cruver noted that, as a food product, candy would not fall under the use of public purpose funds. Mayor Mohamed redirected the discussion from public purpose definition to hearing from each council member on their position on the recommendations for funding structure. Council Member Brausen spoke in favor of continuing to allocate $50,000 to the neighborhood funding program. He noted that active organizations that successfully utilize funds annually are doing important work and does not want to see their funding changed. He is in favor of the second funding option using a fixed amount for all 35 neighborhoods and also in favor of the third option where the equity scale is used. Council Member Rog thanked her fellow council members for this discussion. She shared that some neighborhoods are successful in outreach and creating inclusion opportunities through their annual events. She stated that she did not want to lose the important work that neighborhoods are capable of creating under the current structure. Mayor Mohamed shared that although she has lived in other St. Louis Park neighborhoods, she had not been included in neighborhood events before moving to the Birchwood area. To this point, she added she did not know about the neighborhood grant funding program until she was elected to serve as a city council member. She complimented the Birchwood neighborhood for their work. She noted the question is really about how the city makes the program the best it can possibly be within the constraint of the law. Although the public purpose legislation can be a point of frustration, the city still has a responsibility to work within the system to provide for residents. She stated she is in favor of the third option. Mayor Mohamed stated that it is in the city’s best interest to ensure that the neighborhoods who have been engaged remain so, and that the neighborhoods who have applied for $0 in past years do not continue to do so in the future. She asked if there is a role for community engagement staff to educate broadly, advocating for the full and proper use of allocated funds. She felt there may be an opportunity to educate and remove barriers around how to apply for and use funds. Council Member Brausen asked if there was also a role for council members to actively educate and engage with neighborhood organizations and new organizations in their wards. Mayor Mohamed agreed that council members have many responsibilities, and adding conversations about activating organizations and educating them on the funds process could be part of regular contact with neighborhood leaders. Council Member Brausen noted that in his neighborhood, Cedar Manor, there was an organization but it fell out of use in part due to the shape of the neighborhood area as designated. He offered that at-large council members would be welcome to help connect with Ward 4. Council Member Farris noted that the costs of outreach may negate the ability to create an attractive event. Page 7 City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Title: Special study session meeting minutes of February 18, 2025 Council Member Rog noted that Brooklyn Park has a very accessible website for neighborhood associations to apply to their city for funds and asked city staff to look into the feasibility of adding such an option to our city website. She added that it would increase access if the financial burden of fronting funds for events could be borne by more than one individual. She added that if the city could provide paper goods as part of their budget, it may be helpful. One element of public outreach that has been very successful in the Birchwood neighborhood is the use of sandwich boards, which are expensive and difficult to maintain. However, a survey from a few years ago had confirmed they are a primary means of communication. She proposed that if there were a way to include the purchase of sandwich boards using public purpose funds through neighborhood grants, the organizations would see increased participation. In conclusion, Council Member Rog stated that she agrees with removing the competitive grant process. Council Member Rog asked if barriers could be removed from having food trucks at neighborhood events regarding reimbursement for the required city permits. Mr. Coleman confirmed that it is a process that would benefit from the city paying the vendor directly, and mentioned food trucks and port-a-potties in that consideration. Ms. Brodeen clarified that paying for the permit is an allowable expense, but paying the food truck vendors for food for events is not allowable and residents would be responsible for paying for their own food. She stated that sandwich boards, as an item, would not be an excluded expense and that staff could work with the neighborhood on this if they desired to do so. Mr. Coleman reminded the discussion participants that National Night Out is an allowable expense. Council Member Baudhuin stated that this conversation is very important and wanted to reiterate his frustration with limitations. He noted his support for continuing to fund the program and reiterated that he is in support of all three of the funding options proposed, keeping in mind that inequities exist within the noted limitations Council Member Farris agreed with Council Member Baudhuin’s frustrations and stated that she supports keeping the program at $50,000 and keeping the first funding option the same. Council Member Dumalag stated her support for the third funding option. Council Member Budd stated that she supports the $3,000 per neighborhood model and keeping the overall budget at $50,000. Ms. Cruver clarified that the city cannot establish a program without appropriating adequate funds. Mayor Mohamed stated that the city council is closing the discussion with the goal of activating as many neighborhood groups as possible. 2.Study session topic proposal – prevailing wage ordinance Ms. Keller presented the staff report. Council members agreed to bring the topic back for discussion in the fall of 2025. Page 8 City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Title: Special study session meeting minutes of February 18, 2025 Communications/meeting check-in (verbal) The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 21, 2025 Minutes: 4b Unofficial minutes City council special study session St. Louis Park, Minnesota March 3, 2025 The meeting convened at 7:55 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), deputy city manager (Ms. Walsh), city attorney (Mr. Mattick), engineering director (Ms. Heiser) Discussion item 1. Right-of-way acquisition Ms. Heiser and Mr. Mattick presented the staff report. Council Member Brausen noted most roadways have 60 feet of right-of-way. Ms. Heiser agreed and added from the back of the curb toward a home, there is an area of about 15 feet designated as right of way for city utilities, sidewalks or signs. Council Member Rog asked about right-of-way when considering housing or a community center. Mr. Mattick stated all the condemnation actions by the city have been on areas that are roads, trails and sidewalks. Council Member Budd asked how many challenges the city is having with right-of-way acquisitions regarding the Cedar Lake and Louisiana Avenue project. Ms. Heiser stated there were 125 property owners to work with and the city settled with owners on 119 of these properties. She added there are four properties going through condemnation for Phase II and four that went through on Phase I. Ms. Keller stated staff worked to cap costs with offers and limiting exposure. Council Member Budd asked if the city has had to purchase properties including entire houses. Ms. Heiser stated there has been only one that she is aware of, and that most projects have been permanent easements involving a sidewalk or roadway. Council Member Dumalag asked if this process is similar for MnDOT and if their work also requires rights-of-way. Mr. Mattick stated yes. Council Member Rog stated this information is useful. She noted the area of Minnetonka west of Highway 100 and the idea of adding roundabouts at intersections where there are currently City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Title: Special study session meeting minutes of March 3, 2025 traffic lights, adding this is important information on making these types of decisions and weighing considerations of costs. Council Member Baudhuin stated it should be hard and expensive to take someone’s land away. He added it should not be easy for the city to do this. Council Member Dumalag asked about the Three Rivers Park long range trail plan. Ms. Heiser stated Three Rivers could not move ahead with a bike trail on Louisiana Avenue without partnership with the city, and Three Rivers would pay a portion of the trail construction cost. She stated they do not have the same cost participation requirements as Hennepin County. Council Member Rog stated she is surprised that the League of Minnesota Cities is not taking a position on right-of-way acquisition because it costs cities so much. She added that this seems like a system ripe for reform as well. Mr. Mattick stated that there is no political will to make changes to right-of-way acquisition processes. He added that the commissioners that are called upon to make these decisions are three individuals who perform multiple roles that make it difficult to be objective. Limited timelines for decision making further complicate the process. Council Member Baudhuin asked about the process and how it has evolved, and if communities have been protected or taken advantage of throughout history. He pointed to the Rondo community as an example. Mr. Mattick stated communities like Rondo were not protected, and unfortunately, no legislation came out of it. Written Reports 2.Connected infrastructure system kick-off 3.Community engagement system wrap-up Council Member Budd asked about non-CIP expenses within the connected infrastructure system kick off. Ms. Keller stated this year, she will talk with council members individually to discuss their priority perspectives and then make budget recommendations. She added that items will be called out and the council can have discussions on those items with Ms. Cruver. Ms. Keller stated she will send the questions to council members individually so they can prepare before the one-on-ones. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 21, 2025 Minutes: 4c Unofficial minutes City council meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota March 17, 2025 1.Call to order. Mayor Mohamed called the meeting to order at 6:19 p.m. a.Pledge of allegiance b.Roll call Council members present: Mayor Nadia Mohamed, Paul Baudhuin, Tim Brausen, Lynette Dumalag, Yolanda Farris, Margaret Rog Council members absent: Sue Budd Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), city attorney (Ms. Asani), deputy city manager (Ms. Walsh), recreation supervisor (Ms. Abernathy), recreation superintendent (Ms. Friederich), engineering director (Ms. Heiser), utilities superintendent (Mr. Holm), deputy city clerk (Ms. Scott Lerdal), parks and recreation director (Mr. West) Guests: Human Rights Commission Chair Lawler Turnball, Human Rights Commission Vice Chair Alvarez; Becky Bakken, President and CEO of Westopolis 2.Approve agenda. It was moved by Council Member Rog, seconded by Council Member Baudhuin, to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed 6-0 (Council Member Budd absent). 3. Presentations. a.Presentation of Human Rights Award Chair Lawler Turnball and Vice Chair Alvarez presented the 2024 human rights awards to Dana Strahnson. Ms. Strahnson is a youth services librarian at the St. Louis Park Library. They thanked her for her dedicated service to the city and human rights efforts. Ms. Strahnson thanked the city council and all her city partners for the award and for their support of her work. Mayor Mohamed stated this award honors those who support human rights and thanked Ms. Strahnson for her work in this area. She stated this is a great opportunity to keep contributing to the community. Council Member Rog added her gratitude also for Ms. Strahnson making a difference in the community and stated she looks forward to meeting with her one-on-one someday soon. City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Title: City council meeting minutes of March 17, 2025 Council Member Farris added that during her work with Perspectives, she heard a lot about Ms. Strahnson’s work and congratulated her. b.Recognition of donations Ms. Abernathy, parks supervisor, accepted a donation of $4,345.68 from the St. Louis Park Rotary for music in the parks. c.Westopolis annual update Ms. Bakken presented the annual update. She noted she is also a member of the St. Louis Park Rotary, which just presented a donation to the parks for the music in the park program. She noted that 2024 has been Westopolis’ best performance year since 2020 with a strong hotel market. Council Member Rog asked how the Westopolis organization is funded. Ms. Bakken stated it is funded by a lodging tax. Cities may collect up to 3% on lodging and short-term facilities such as hotels by ordinance. St. Louis Park and Golden Valley are the fiscal agents and actually collect this tax. From this 3% lodging tax, Westopolis directs 5% to administrative fees. The other 95% of the tax must go to a non-profit whose sole mission is to market and promote the area, which is where Westopolis comes in. Council Member Rog asked if there is an approximate amount of lodging tax collected by the city last year. Ms. Keller stated she would research that and get back to council. Council Member Rog asked if the funds go into the general fund. Ms. Keller stated the money is earmarked for specific purposes and council in the past has made policy direction such as public art. Ms. Keller stated she will get back to council on this question as well. Council Member Rog asked about feedback received by Westopolis upon the organization’s recent change of name from Discover St. Louis Park. Ms. Bakken shared that there was some initial confusion, and they heard questions about whether St. Louis Park and Golden Valley were becoming one city, or how the organization is related to the City of St. Louis Park. She noted much of this confusion has been cleared up, and there is more opportunity to explain what Westopolis is now. Ms. Bakken stated the work Westopolis does is not new, but noted this area offers a wide market for greater Minnesota to come visit. Council Member Rog asked if there are increased public safety costs when big events take place in St. Louis Park. Ms. Bakken stated it is not a big factor in this market and is generally similar to any other day or time. If it is a very large event such as the Super Bowl, then there are public service increases, but she stated she did not have a monetary figure related to this. Council Member Rog stated there were concerns during the Super Bowl about human trafficking and increased public safety measures across the whole metro area. Ms. Bakken City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4c) Page 3 Title: City council meeting minutes of March 17, 2025 stated the National Football League was helpful in providing information and training for police, hotels, and restaurants in the area during the Superbowl related to public safety issues. Council Member Rog asked for an example of a sports tourism event in St. Louis Park. Ms. Bakken referenced the American Broomball Association, a national group who recently hosted an event at the Outdoor Recreation Center. She reflected that it was a good collaboration and took a lot of work. She stated it was a very successful event in 2024, involving collaboration with the parks and recreation department to put city constituents first. Council Member Rog noted the city’s historical society has information on the community and she would like to see some walking tours provided by Westopolis about the city’s great history. Ms. Bakken stated this is a good idea and something that would be a great service. Council Member Brausen added he is happy to see the increase in revenues and asked if the amount for 2024 was $1.6 million in lodging tax. Ms. Bakken confirmed the amount. Council Member Brausen remarked that the city collected over $60,000 for reimbursement of administrative costs for Westopolis, which is fantastic to see. He referenced the downsizing that occurred in 2020 and stated that it is great news to see the market rebounding now after four years. Council Member Dumalag thanked Ms. Bakken for the presentation and stated she is happy to see the uptick in visitors and revenue. She asked about future bookings at the Minneapolis Convention Center and whether there are needs for hotel space in St. Louis Park. Ms. Bakken stated Westopolis is aware of future bookings for the convention center in 2025, and up to 2029. Though there are big events coming, she noted that 2025 is projected to be somewhat down from 2024. She stated St. Louis Park hotel bookings are predicted to be somewhat flat in 2025 because of this, , adding the convention center bookings are projected to increase in 2026. She stated that Westopolis has heard from groups that they are not planning to host events in St. Louis Park because the light rail is not yet in service. Council Member Dumalag asked if any corporations on the west side of the metro are responsible for bookings. Ms. Bakken stated yes, and that there is much better business and visitors to St. Louis Park versus Minneapolis. Council Member Dumalag noted St. Louis Park’s hospital system, which may have needs for long-term stays within the city’s hotel systems. Ms. Bakken agreed that this is an important consideration. Council Member Baudhuin brought up the recent world cup cross-country ski race, noting that an international event put the host location - Theodore Wirth Park - on the map. He asked if there is any push to get that event back here in 2026. Ms. Bakken stated yes and noted this took place in February 2023. She stated the challenges in hosting include planning for whether there will be sufficient snow, whether Minneapolis can host the event, and how often. She noted that World Juniors Hockey is coming to St. Paul and will be a major event with spill-over into other communities as well. City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4c) Page 4 Title: City council meeting minutes of March 17, 2025 4. Minutes. a.Minutes of Feb. 18, 2025 city council meeting It was moved by Council Member Rog, seconded by Council Member Farris, to approve the Feb. 18, 2025 city council meeting minutes as presented. The motion passed 6-0 (Council Member Budd absent). 5.Consent items. a.Resolution No. 25-041 accepting donation from the Rotary Club of St. Louis Park for the Parks and Recreation summer concert series b.Second reading and adoption of zoning Ordinance No. 2692-25 for planned unit development - Minnetonka Boulevard Twin Homes - Ward 1 c.Approve Beltline Station plat extension - Ward 1 d.Second reading of Ordinance No. 2693 -25 amending city code chapter 8 establishing cannabis and lower-potency hemp retail registration and appendix A fees e.Second reading of Ordinance No. 2694-25 amending city code chapters 8 and 18 regarding tobacco licensing and paraphernalia f.Resolution No. 25-042 approving Wellhead Protection Plan Part 1 and continued work with the Multi-Community Wellhead Protection Plan Pilot study group work for Part 2 It was moved by Council Member Brausen, seconded by Council Member Baudhuin, to approve the consent items as listed; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 6-0 (Council Member Budd absent). 6.Public hearings – none. 7.Regular business – none. 8.Communications and announcements. Ms. Keller stated Minnetonka Boulevard by city hall will close on March 31. She noted there are maps online to find the entrance to city hall. Council Member Baudhuin noted that Benilde-St. Margaret’s High School won the girl's state basketball tournament for the third straight year. He congratulated them for their win. Council Member Rog noted she watched St. Louis Park Pee Wee boys hockey at the Plymouth Arena recently. They made it to the state tournament, to the championship, and there was a great turnout. She congratulated the team on its success. 9. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 7:13 p.m. City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4c) Page 5 Title: City council meeting minutes of March 17, 2025 ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 21, 2025 Minutes: 4d Unofficial minutes Special study session St. Louis Park, Minnesota March 17, 2025 The meeting convened at 7:39 p.m. Council members present: Mayor Nadia Mohamed, Paul Baudhuin, Tim Brausen, Yolanda Farris, Lynette Dumalag, Margaret Rog Council members absent: Sue Budd Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), engineering director (Ms. Heiser), engineering project manager (Mr. Sullivan), deputy city manager (Ms. Walsh), parks and recreation director (Mr. West) Guests: SRF Consulting group (Mr. Scott) Discussion items 1.Municipal building planning process: educational session Ms. Walsh and Mr. West presented a high-level review of the building planning process. Council Member Rog stated she thinks about how municipal buildings serve staff and asked how planning can include serving residents within the city as well. Ms. Walsh stated that after a feasibility study is conducted, the conversation could return to the council and include a public process to look at resident needs as well. Ms. Keller stated public input needs also depend on the building, noting it might look different for the Municipal Service Center building or the Westwood Hills Nature Center versus city hall. Council Member Rog asked when the council could give input versus receiving solidified plans. Ms. Walsh stated all planning steps would provide opportunities for the council to give input, and all council members are always welcome to share their opinions. Council Member Rog noted during her years on the council, there were always folks who wanted a community center in St. Louis Park, but it did not move forward, recalling estimates for a $50 million design. Ms. Walsh also recalled this concept and noted there were other priorities at that time, including work with the light rail, so the community center idea did not move forward. Council Member Baudhuin asked the process for securing a consultant and whether there is a firm that would be all-inclusive. Ms. Keller stated there are professional networks and state lists that help staff find consultants based on their areas of expertise. Page 2 City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4d) Title: Special study session meeting minutes of March 17, 2025 Council Member Brausen noted that around 2010, city hall was remodeled. He stated the police facility is 35 years old, and the city configures space regularly, including city council chambers. He added this is a thoughtful process. Council Member Dumalag noted all the steps leading to an actual project. Regarding Westwood Hills Nature Center, she asked at what point did public engagement take place, if groups informed the master planning; how the constituency group was developed. Mr. West stated staff gave about 50 presentations to the community over the course of a year in the master plan and feasibility phases for Westwood Hills Nature Center. Council Member Dumalag noted the city council was one constituency group and asked what the other groups were. Mr. West stated a wide variety of community groups and partners, such as the school district, were involved over the course of 12 months. Ms. Walsh added the process was about two and a half years in duration and noted there would need to be community engagement for the police facility also. Council Member Rog asked if there is a timeline for when this project might come before the city council. Ms. Walsh stated staff will bring a high level consideration to the council in April. 2.Whistle quiet zone overview Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Scott (SRF Consulting group) presented the staff report. Ms. Heiser stated the policy question is whether the city should conduct a feasibility study on railroad safety. Council Member Dumalag noted many emails complaining about whistleblowing and asked if this is from the Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) railway. Mr. Scott answered yes. Ms. Keller added that CPKC also runs overnight now, which it had not done in previous years. Mr. Scott stated that within a quiet zone, every public at-grade crossing must have gates, flashing lights, power-out indicators and constant-warning time detection. Every proposed quiet zone undergoes federal and state study to understand potential risks of road materials, crash history and potential weather impacts. Council Member Rog asked if evaluated risk increases when train horns are not allowed to sound in quiet zones and risk can be decreased using the flashing lights and gates. Mr. Sullivan confirmed that removing the safety precaution of a train horn does increase risk, and adding gates and flashing lights does mitigate the risk. Ms. Heiser added that the intention of the conversation is to show that risks exist at every train crossing, and mitigating risk as much as possible is the goal. Council Member Dumalag asked if this evaluation includes high train speeds and when gates are determined to be necessary. Mr. Scott clarified that potential crossing improvements will be determined as part of the study effort. He said medians are commonly recommended for cities to achieve quiet zones. Page 3 Council Member Dumalag asked if there is an opportunity to do a study in partnership with other cities. Ms. Heiser stated staff can reach out to the cities of Edina and Golden Valley to consider this. Ms. Keller added that compared to neighboring cities, St. Louis Park has the highest number of crossings. Council Member Baudhuin stated the city owes it to residents to conduct the feasibility study because potential costs for next steps can determined as well. Council Member Rog noted the concentration of crossings in the south side of the city and the whistles that blow. She stated it is bothersome and asked if there is any benefit to focusing on areas with the highest concentration of crossings as opposed to studying the whole line. Mr. Scott stated the noise does travel throughout crossing areas, especially in the summer months. Ms. Heiser added staff wants to study demographics and density and employ an equity lens. Most of the people they are hearing concerns from live in the south section of the city. It was the consensus of the city council to do the feasibility study. Mr. Scott stated there is no federal funding for these studies, and noted it usually comes from the local level. He added that the terminology used to define the study will be important when seeking funding options. Council Member Baudhuin asked why the rail corporations have all the authority. Ms. Keller stated historically, rail is a national consideration. Council Member Brausen added institutionally, the railroad has been part of a strong lobbying group as well. Council Member Rog asked if there have been crashes at the city’s rail sites. Mr. Sullivan stated in the last ten years, there are weekly updates and staff looks for trends regarding incidents. There have not been any notable trends. Council Member Baudhuin asked if there is anything that should be communicated to residents. Ms. Heiser stated yes, staff will work on this communication for residents and also for council to have talking points if they are asked about this issue. Written Reports 3.Recreational Outdoor Center (ROC) acoustics report Council Member Brausen noted there is no return on investment for only a 2% incremental increase in acoustics quality. Council Member Rog asked if a cost-saving decision was made to not put the acoustic materials up when the ROC was built. Council Member Brausen recalled that may have been the case, and that cables would be the structural addition needed. Ms. Keller stated the recommendations are to notify prospective facility users of the acoustic limitations. They could then decide if the ROC is an appropriate venue based on the limitations. City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4d) Title: Special study session meeting minutes of March 17, 2025 Page 4 Council Member Rog stated the recommendation is a good plan, and added it is difficult to hear when people make presentations in the ROC. Ms. Keller stated that a better audio system may help, but will not completely resolve the acoustic issue. Mayor Mohamed stated the audio quality is a problem, and it was even hard to hear at the naturalized citizen ceremony. Ms. Keller stated this space accommodates a wide variety of uses, but it cannot accommodate all events. In some cases, another venue may be a better fit than the ROC. This information will need to be communicated in advance, so people are aware if they are interested in booking an event there. Ms. Keller summarized that the benefit to adding acoustic materials would only result in a one- decibel improvement. Communications/meeting check-in (verbal) The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4d) Title: Special study session meeting minutes of March 17, 2025 Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 21, 2025 Minutes: 4e Unofficial minutes Ceremonial Oath of Office St. Louis Park, Minnesota March 24, 2025 1.Call to order. Mayor Mohamed called the ceremony to order at 6:02 p.m. a.Pledge of allegiance b.Roll call Council members present: Mayor Nadia Mohamed, Sue Budd, Lynette Dumalag, Yolanda Farris, Margaret Rog Council members absent: Tim Brausen, Paul Baudhuin Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), city attorney (Mr. Mattick), deputy city manager (Ms. Walsh), city clerk (Ms. Kennedy), city manager (Ms. Keller), police chief (Mr. Kruelle), deputy fire chief (Mr. Andersen), fire chief (Mr. Hanlin), fire and police department staff Guests: Mr. Hanlin’s family, friends, staff and residents of St. Louis Park 2.Administer Oath of Office for Fire Chief Peter Hanlin Ms. Kennedy administered the oath of office for Peter Hanlin, fire chief, in the council chambers. Deputy Fire Chief Anderson described the fire department’s tradition of honor and excellence, and that a family member traditionally pins the badge on the new chief. Mrs. Hanlin ceremonially pinned the chief’s badge for her husband. Chief Hanlin thanked the fire department, city staff, city council and everyone in attendance. Ms. Keller welcomed Mr. Hanlin and stated she looks forward to working with him. She stated the city is in very capable hands, noting his dedication, thoughtful approach and ability to adapt quickly. She stated the values of integrity, accountability, compassion and commitment to the team are evident in Mr. Hanlin and she looks forward to his continued positive impact. She also thanked his family for their support. Council Member Budd shared that she recently spoke with Mr. Hanlin at the city council retreat in February, noting it was quite a privilege to get to know him. She welcomed him to the city. Council Member Farris stated she also met Mr. Hanlin at the council retreat and in humor, added she hopes he is a man of his word because he said she could drive the fire truck. City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4e) Page 2 Title: Ceremonial Oath of Office, March 24, 2025 Council Member Dumalag also added her congratulations to Mr. Hanlin, noting everyone is so grateful to have him at St. Louis Park. Council Member Rog added her welcome to the city and stated she is confident Mr. Hanlin will do well in St. Louis Park and have a long career here. Mayor Mohamed also welcomed Mr. Hanlin, noting he is joining the best staff, thanked him and welcomed him to the city. The oath of office adjourned at 6:15 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 21, 2025 Consent agenda item: 5a Executive summary Title: Resolution approving donations to police department Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution accepting donations to the police department for community outreach and crime prevention work. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its use? Summary: State statute requires city council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order to make sure the city council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation prior to it being expended. The St. Louis Park Crime Prevention Fund (SLPCPF) began the dissolution process in 2024 and will be completed in 2025. SLPCPF has directed the remaining funds in the checking account be distributed to the City of St. Louis Park for use to support community outreach and crime prevention. Funds held in the savings account were donations made to the police K9 program and the remaining funds to the City of St. Louis Park for use to support the police K9 program. •Donation to community outreach and crime prevention for the City of St. Louis Par k. o St. Louis Park Crime Prevention Fund, $87,773.58 •Donation to the police K9 program for the City of St. Louis Park. o Various donors, $27,857.78 Financial or budget considerations: This donation will be used toward continuing community outreach crime prevention work and program needs for the police K9 program. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Christine Johnson, records supervisor Reviewed by: Bryan Kruelle, police chief Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Page 2 City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5a) Title: Resolution approving donations to police department Resolution No. 25 - ____ Accepting donations of $87,773.58 for community outreach and crime prevention and funds totaling $27,857.78 for the police K9 program Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is required by State Statute to authorize acceptance of any donations; and Whereas, the city council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donor; and Whereas, the St. Louis Park Crime Prevention Fund donated $87,773.58 in costs for the police department’s expenses related to community outreach and crime prevention; and numerous community members donated $27,857.78 to the police K9 program; and Now therefore be it resolved, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to the St. Louis Park Crime Prevention Fund and K9 donors with the understanding that it will be used for expenses related to community outreach and crime prevention; and numerous donors with the understanding that their gifts must be used for the police K9 program . Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council April 21, 2025: Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 21, 2025 Consent agenda item: 5b Executive summary Title: Resolution approving funding for community education programs. Recommended action: Motion to approve payment to the St. Louis Park school district for community education programming services. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to continue this agreement with the school district? Background: On Jan. 25, 1971, the city and school district established an agreement to jointly operate community education programs. This agreement was revised in 1973, 1979 and 1992. The agreement states the city and school district shall work cooperatively to operate community education programs. This is a unique agreement that has the city and school district paying each other for program delivery. If council is interested in discussing this agreement further, staff recommends doing so during the 2026 budget process. Community education funding allocation: Since 1992, the city’s annual payment to the St. Louis Park School District community education has supported Community Schools, Adult Enrichment, Youth Enrichment and Senior Programs at the following amounts: Category Community Schools $37,752 Adult Enrichment $14,800 Youth Enrichment $22,948 Senior Programs $111,900 Total $187,400 The school district, in turn, provides $89,404 to the Parks and Recreation Department for field use, parks, etc. Of the $89,404 total, $44,702 is allocated to the Park Improvement Fund, with the remaining $44,702 deposited in the general fund. In total, the city pays the school district $187,400 annually and the school district pays the city $89,404. State statutes and city financial policies require that all payments over $175,000 must be approved by the city council. Financial or budget considerations: The $187,400 payment is a part of the Parks and Recreation’s organized recreation budget. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, administrative coordinator Reviewed by: Jason T. West, director of parks and recreation; Amelia Cruver, finance director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5b) Page 2 Title: Resolution approving funding for community education programs. Resolution No. 25-___ Authorizing payment to Independent School District 283 for Community Education services Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park City Council approved an agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and Independent School District 283 in 1992 relating to governance of community education programing; and Whereas, the school district is organized for the purpose of providing public school education, including, at its discretion, public evening schools, as well as adult and continuing education programs and associated recreation programs; and Whereas, the city is authorized and does provide recreation and civic programs within its geographical boundaries; and Whereas, the school district and city, within their respective powers, cooperate in the operation of a community education program within the total area encompassed by the boundaries of the city and school district; and Whereas, at this time, the city pays the school district $187,400 and the school district pays the city $ 89,404; and Whereas, all personnel hired to establish and operate the community education program are paid and supervised by the school district, Now therefore be it resolved that the City of St. Louis Park authorizes a total of $187,400 payment to Independent School District 283 for community education programming services. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council April 21, 2025: Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 21, 2025 Consent agenda item: 5c Executive summary Title: Approve bid for 2025 Alley Reconstruction project (4025-1500) – Ward 2 Recommended action: Motion to designate Max Steininger, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $462,017.51 for the 2025 Alley Reconstruction project no. 4025-1500. Policy consideration: None. Summary: A total of seven (7) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid results is as follows: Contractor Bid amount Max Steininger, Inc. $ 462,017.51 Diversified Drainage $ 472,047.50 JL Theis, Inc. $ 489,785.40 Idc-Automatic $ 493,905.62 GL Contracting Urban Companies LLC Thomas and Sons Construction $ 529,343.89 $ 539,012.49 $ 590,113.10 Engineer's estimate $ 546,061.45 A review of the bids indicates that Max Steininger, Inc., submitted the lowest bid. Max Steininger, Inc. is a reputable contractor that has completed similar projects in the past. Staff recommends that a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $462,017.51. Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2025. Funding will be provided using franchise fees (pavement management fund) and stormwater utility fund. Additional information on the breakdown of the funding can be found later in this report. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Mark Elgaard, engineering project manager Reviewed by: Jack Sullivan, assistant city engineer; Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 2 Title: Approve bid for 2025 Alley Reconstruction project (4025-1500) – Ward 2 Discussion Background: Bids were received on April 3, 2025, for the Alley Reconstruction project (4025- 1500). This will be the eighth year in a plan to reconstruct all gravel and bituminous alleyways to concrete pavement. This year's project will reconstruct three sections of alleys in the Browndale neighborhood and one in the Minikahda Vista neighborhood (Ward 2) that are currently gravel or bituminous. These alleys serve approximately 58 homes. Improvements to the alleys include removing the existing surface, grading and installing two stormwater infiltration systems and eight (8)-inch concrete pavement. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor on March 13 and March 20, 2025 and in Finance and Commerce on March 13 through March 19, 2025. 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 33 Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) contractors. Twenty-nine (29) contractors/vendors downloaded plan sets, four (4) of which were Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE). Present considerations: Staff has reviewed the bids and determined that Max Steininger, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder. Based on the low bid received, cost and funding details are as follows: CIP Low bid Construction cost $517,000.00 $462,017.51 Engineering and administration $78,000.00 $69,302.63 Base bid total $595,000.00 $531,320.14 Funding Sources Pavement management $386,750.00 $345,358.09 Stormwater $208,250.00 $185,962.05 Base bid total $595,000.00 $531,320.14 Bid Analysis: The low base bid is $54,982.49, or 11% under the CIP amount. 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. Next steps: Construction is anticipated to begin in May and should be completed by October 2025. Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 21, 2025 Consent agenda item: 5d Executive summary Title: Approve professional services contract amendment for Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue Improvements project (4024-1100) - Ward 4 Recommended action: Motion to authorize execution of an amendment to a contract for professional services with Kimley-Horn in the amount of $1,242,900 for phase 2 of the Cedar Lake Rd and Louisiana Ave Improvements project – city project 4024-1100. Policy consideration: None. Summary: On Feb. 20, 2024, the city council approved a contract for professional services with Kimley-Horn for final design, right of way acquisition, final plans and bid documents for phase 2 Cedar Lake Rd and Louisiana Ave Improvements project (4024-1100). On Feb. 3, 2025, the city council approved the final plans and specifications and authorized an advertisement for bid for the phase 2 Cedar Lake Rd and Louisiana Ave Improvements project. This is the second phase of a two-phase/ three-year construction project. The construction schedule is: Phase 1: Cedar Lake Rd (TH169 to Rhode Island Ave) – project no. 4023-1100 •Construction completed in 2024 Phase 2: Cedar Lake Rd (Rhode Island Ave. to Kentucky Ave) and Louisiana Ave (Wayzata Blvd to BNSF railroad) – project no. 4024-1100 •Construction 2025 and 2026 Now that the plans and specifications for phase 2 are complete, staff has been working with the consulting firm Kimley-Horn on a proposal for construction services for phase 2. Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city's capital improvement plan (CIP). The total project cost for the construction of Cedar Lake Rd and Louisiana Ave Phases 1 and 2 is estimated at $29,005,941.43. A breakdown of the cost for this project can be found in the Feb. 3, 2025, council report. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Feb. 3, 2025 council report Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, engineering project manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Page 2 City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5d) Title: Approve professional services contract amendment for Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue Improvements project (4024-1100) - Ward 4 Discussion Background: On Feb. 20, 2024, the city council approved a contract for professional services with Kimley-Horn for final design, right of way acquisition, final plans and bid documents for phase 2 Cedar Lake Rd and Louisiana Ave Improvements project (4024-1100). Consultant amendment for phase 2 construction services Now that the plans and specifications for phase 2 are complete, engineering staff understands what it will take for our consultant, Kimley-Horn, to provide us with construction services for phase 2. Staff have been working with them on an amendment to the Feb. 20, 2024, professional services contract to provide these services. Kimley-Horn has provided a cost estimate of $1,242,900 to complete the phase 2 construction services. The services include contract administration, construction meetings, on-site observation, project documentation, change orders, plan revisions, construction staking, construction material testing and environmental monitoring. Due to the size and complexity of this project, engineering staff has been utilizing outside engineering support to complete this project. The overall estimated construction cost for this three-year (2024-2026) project is $21,140,000 . Staff is projecting the final cost for engineering and administration services to be approximately 27% of the estimated construction cost, around $5,700,000. Industry standard for engineering costs on construction projects can range from 25% to 35%, depending on the complexity of the project. Projects that receive federal funding are more complex and have additional approval requirements. A summary of consulting costs with Kimley-Horn is shown below. Cedar Lake Rd and Louisiana Ave consulting engineering cost Amount Preliminary design contract for overall project – Complete $380,614 Amendment #1: outreach, data collection and soil borings – Complete $49,885 Preliminary total $430,499 Phase 1: Final design, right of way acquisition and construction services contract 2024 construction – Complete *Total was $1,534,239 due to reduction in actual construction services cost. $2,039,040 $1,524,239 Amendment #1: additional soil boring and survey information – Complete $21,800 Amendment #2: environmental and hazardous material assessment, stormwater treatment design – Complete $42,250 Phase 1 contract total $1,588,289 Phase 2: Final design, right of way acquisition, final plans and bid documents for 2025 and 2026 construction – approved Feb. 20, 2024 $1,768,470 Amendment #1: additional geotechnical information $14,500 Amendment #2: Construction services for phase 2 $1,242,900 Phase 2 contract total $3,025,870 Total consulting engineering cost upon approval of contract amendment $5,044,658 Page 3 Staff recommends approval of phase 2 consultant amendment for $1,242,900. The contract, if approved, will increase the total consultant engineering contract to $5,044,658. Staff has high expectations for the consultant as they need to be supportive and responsive to residents during design and construction. The Cedar Lake Ro and Louisiana Ave Improvements project will require coordination with MnDOT, Metro Transit, utility companies, residents and businesses. As a result, we believe that the contract cost is consistent with the scope and demands of this project. The work that Kimley-Horn has provided to date has met expectations, and staff feels that having Kimley-Horn assist with construction services will allow them to finish the work in an efficient manner. The project team knows the goals of the project and has the knowledge of meeting with the residents and businesses along the corridor. Continuing to work with Kimley - Horn allows the project to stay on schedule and be ready for construction of the next phase in 2025. Next steps: The proposed schedule for the project to facilitate construction in 2025-2026 is shown below: Federal approval and authorization to bid April 2025 Bid opening May 2025 Council awards bid June 2025 Private utility relocation begins April/May 2025 Construction begins on Louisiana Ave June 2025 Louisiana Ave construction complete and open to the public November 2025 Construction begins on Cedar Lake Rd and roundabout at Cedar Lake Rd/Louisiana Ave May 2026 Project substantially complete and open to the public November 2026 City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5d) Title: Approve professional services contract amendment for Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue Improvements project (4024-1100) - Ward 4 Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 21, 2025 Consent agenda item: 5e Executive summary Title: Resolution accepting funding from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and entering into grant agreement for installation of shade structures at Aquila and Ainsworth Parks – Ward 3 Recommended action: Motion to approve resolution accepting Implementation Grants for Community Resilience funding from and entering into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in the amount of $262,642.80 to purchase and install shade structures at Aquila Park and Ainsworth Park. Policy consideration: Does the city council agree to accept $262,642.80 and enter into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for an Implementation Grant for Community Resilience? Summary: According to climate projections conducted by the University of Minnesota, neighborhoods near Aquila Park and Ainsworth Park will experience an increase in daily average summer temperatures of at least 3.9 degrees F by 2040. Summertime precipitation is also expected to decrease by at least one inch. These conditions can cause health problems such as heat exhaustion, heat stroke, heat cramps, heat rash and cancer-causing sunburns. Shade structures are a proven solution that help provide relief from intensifying summer heat and the associated health risks while encouraging safe access to outdoor recreation for all ages. In March 2025, the City of St. Louis Park was awarded $262,642.80 to fund playground shade structures at Aquila Park and Ainsworth Park, as well as assorted bleacher shades, dugout shades and bench shades at both parks. These two parks were chosen due to their proximity to an MPCA Environmental Justice area, where 40% of the population are BIPOC and at least 35% of households have income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level. Projects will be completed by June 2027. Parks and recreation department staff will lead the project, with support from sustainability division staff to manage the grant. Financial or budget considerations: The total project cost is estimated at $288,942.80. The 10% local match requirement of $26,300 will be met through in-kind labor. The remainder of project costs ($262,642.80) will be reimbursed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. Supporting documents: Resolution Draft grant agreement Prepared by: Annie Pottorff, sustainability specialist Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, director of building & energy Amelia Cruver, finance director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 2 Title: Resolution accepting funding from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and entering into grant agreement for installation of shade structures at Aquila and Ainsworth Parks – Ward 3 Resolution No. 25 -__ Approving funding from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Implementation Grants for Community Resilience in the amount of $262,642.80 Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park Climate Action Plan recognizes local climate risks, including heat waves; and Whereas, summer heatwaves and droughts are intensifying; and Whereas, the St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan 2040 instructs parks and recreation staff to create a resilient park system; and Whereas, Park System Goal 2 of the Comprehensive Plan is to take steps to enhance and improve energy and environmental efficiency in our park areas and park buildings to increase resiliency and combat climate change; and Whereas, heat-related health problems, such as heat exhaustion, heat stroke, heat cramps, heat rash and cancer-causing sunburns are expected to increase; and Whereas, children are especially vulnerable to heat waves as well as seniors, those with disabilities and adults with chronic health conditions; and Whereas, youth and families are more likely to engage in outdoor recreation if there is shade for players and spectators; and Whereas, shaded facilities are rented at higher rates by sports associations, increasing the city’s recreation facility utilization and contributing to local economic development; and Whereas, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency created the Implementation Grants for Community Resilience to help communities install, upgrade or harden publicly owned assets for climate resilience and to protect public health during extreme weather and the ongoing impacts of Minnesota’s changing climate; and Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park must accept the approved grant funding for the installation of shade structures at Aquila and Ainsworth Parks; and Whereas, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will reimburse costs for the purchase and installation of shade structures in an amount not to exceed $262,642.80, Now therefore, be it resolved by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the funding is hereby accepted with gratitude to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency via the Implementation Grants for Community Resilience with the understanding that the funding must be used for the installation of shade structures at Aquila Park and Ainsworth Park. City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 3 Title: Resolution accepting funding from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and entering into grant agreement for installation of shade structures at Aquila and Ainsworth Parks – Ward 3 It is further resolved that the city council hereby authorizes and directs the city manager to execute the grant agreement on behalf of the city to implement the Community Resilience grant project. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council April 21, 2025: Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk 1 Grant Agreement State of Minnesota SWIFT Number: 267197 AI: 226891 Activity ID: PRO20250001 This grant contract is between the state of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Road North, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194 (“MPCA” or “State”), and City of St. Louis Park, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 ("Grantee"). Recitals 1.Under Minn. Stat. § 116.03, subd. 2, the State is empowered to enter into this grant. 2.The State is in need of the Safe, Healthy, and Resilient Access to Play in St. Louis Park (project). 3.Grantee will comply with required grants management policies and procedures set forth through Minn. Stat. § 16B.97, subd. 4(a)(1). 4.The Grantee represents that it is duly qualified and agrees to perform all services described in this grant contract to the satisfaction of the State. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 16B.98, subd. 1, the Grantee agrees to minimize administrative costs as a condition of this grant. Grant Agreement 1.Term of Grant Contract 1.1 Effective Date: April 14, 2025, Per Minn. Stat.§16B.98, subd. 5, the Grantee must not begin work until this grant contract is fully executed and the State's Authorized Representative has notified the Grantee that work may commence. Per Minn. Stat. § 16B.98, subd. 7, no payments will be made to the Grantee until this grant contract is fully executed. 1.2 Expiration Date: June 30, 2027, or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. 1.3 Survival of Terms. The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this grant contract: Liability; State Audits; Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property; Publicity and Endorsement; Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue; and Data Disclosure. 2.Grantee’s Duties The Grantee, who is not a state employee, will perform the duties specified in Attachment A, which is attached and incorporated into this grant contract. 3.Time The Grantee must comply with all the time requirements described in this grant contract. In the performance of this grant contract, time is of the essence. 4.Consideration and Payment 4.1 Consideration. The State will pay for all services performed by the Grantee under this grant contract as follows: (a)Compensation. The Grantee will be compensated for eligible costs related to the project as outlined in Attachment A, which is attached and incorporated into this agreement. Items that are determined ineligible will not be reimbursed. The total obligation includes $0.00 for contingency costs. The Grantee must submit a request in writing to the MPCA for approval prior to using the contingency funds. City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution accepting funding from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and entering into grant agreement for installation of shade structures at Aquila and Ainsworth Parks - Ward 3 Page 4 2 (b) Travel expenses. Reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses actually and necessarily incurred by the Grantee as a result of this grant contract will not exceed $0.00; provided that the Grantee will be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses in the same manner and in no greater amount than provided in the current "Commissioner’s Plan” promulgated by the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB). The Grantee will not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred outside Minnesota unless it has received the State’s prior written approval for out of state travel. Minnesota will be considered the home state for determining whether travel is out of state. (c) Total obligation. The total obligation of the State for all compensation and reimbursements to the Grantee under this grant contract will not exceed $262,642.80 (Two Hundred Sixty Two Thousand Six Hundred Forty Two Dollars and Eighty cents). 4.2 Payment (a) Invoices. The State will promptly pay the Grantee after the Grantee presents an itemized invoice for the services actually performed and the State’s Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services. Invoices must be submitted timely and according to the following schedule: Invoices for expenses incurred to-date may be submitted as frequently as monthly. First invoice is required no later than 6 (six) months or midway through the project, whichever comes first. Email updates about the status of the project are required to be provided to the State’s Authorized Representative whenever an invoice is submitted to MPCA Accounts Payable. The State’s Authorized Representative will not approve an invoice through the state system without this project update. A final invoice for payment of remaining grant funds expended by the project is required to be submitted at the completion of the project after a Grant Project Final Report, in a format provided to the Grantee by the MPCA, has been submitted to the State’s Authorized Representative and approved. Payment of the final 10% (ten percent) of grant funds will be held back until the project is completed satisfactorily and all deliverables have been submitted and approved. Invoices must be emailed to mpca.ap@state.mn.us, cc’d to the State’s Authorized Representative, and contain the following information: • Name of Grantee • Grantee’s Authorized Representative • State’s Authorized Representative • SWIFT Number • Total amount requested for this invoicing period • Invoice number • Invoice date • Invoicing period (actual working period covered by the invoice) • Cumulative amount of grant expended to date • Amount of match expended this invoicing period • Cumulative amount of match expended to date • Time and material breakdown for invoicing period: o Itemization by each task worked on that period and for each position that worked on it showing actual hourly rates, hours worked and total dollar amounts (divided into grant- funded and match); consultant invoices may be requested o Receipts for supplies and any other itemized materials costs to be reimbursed with grant funds or counted as match o Itemized per diem expenses, stipends or similar; receipts may be requested to be submitted with invoice • Other items as requested If there is a problem with submitting an invoice electronically, please contact the Accounts Payable Unit at 651-757-2491. The Grantee shall submit an invoice for the final payment within 15 (fifteen) days of the original or City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution accepting funding from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and entering into grant agreement for installation of shade structures at Aquila and Ainsworth Parks - Ward 3 Page 5 3 amended end date of this grant contract. The State reserves the right to review submitted invoices after 15 (fifteen) days and make a determination as to payment. (b) Unexpended Funds. The Grantee must promptly return to the State any unexpended funds that have not been accounted for annually in a financial report to the State due at grant closeout. 4.3 Contracting and Bidding Requirements Per Minn. Stat. §471.345, grantees that are municipalities as defined in Subd. 1 must follow the law. (a) For projects that include construction work and have a total project cost of $25,000 or more, prevailing wage rules apply per Minn. Stat. §§ 177.41 through 177.44; consequently, the bid request must state the project is subject to prevailing wage. These rules require that the wages of laborers and workers should be comparable to wages paid for similar work in the community as a whole. A prevailing wage form should accompany these bid submittals. (b) The grantee must not contract with vendors who are suspended or debarred in Minnesota: https://mn.gov/admin/osp/government/suspended-debarred/. 5. Conditions of Payment All services provided by the Grantee under this grant contract must be performed to the State’s satisfaction, as determined at the sole discretion of the State’s Authorized Representative and in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The Grantee will not receive payment for work found by the State to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal, state, or local law. 6. Authorized Representative The State's Authorized Representative is Aimee Duchene, 714 Lake Avenue, Suite 220, Detroit Lakes, Minnesota 56501, 218-846-8133, aimee.duchene@state.mn.us, or their successor, and has the authority to monitor the Grantee’s performance and to accept the services provided under this agreement. The Grantee’s Authorized Representative is Emily Ziring, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55406, 952-924-2191, eziring@stlouisparkmn.gov, or their successor. If the Grantee’s Authorized Representative changes at any time during this grant contract, the Grantee must immediately notify the State. 7. Assignment, Amendments, Change Orders, Waiver, and Grant Contract Complete 7.1 Assignment. The Grantee shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this grant contract without the prior written consent of the State, approved by the same parties who executed and approved this grant contract, or their successors in office. 7.2 Amendments. Any amendments to this grant contract must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original grant contract, or their successors in office. 7.3 Change Orders. If the State's Project Manager or the Grantee’s Authorized Representative identifies a change needed in the workplan and/or budget, either party may initiate a Change Order using the Change Order Form provided by the MPCA. Change Orders may not delay or jeopardize the success of the Project, alter the overall scope of the Project, increase or decrease the overall amount of the Contract/Agreement, or cause an extension of the term of this Contract. Major changes require an Amendment rather than a Change Order. The Change Order Form must be approved and signed by the State's Project Manager and the Grantee’s Authorized Representative in advance of doing the work. Documented changes will then become an integral and enforceable part of the Contract. The MPCA has the sole discretion on the determination of whether a requested change is a Change Order or an Amendment. The state reserves the right to refuse any Change Order requests. 7.4 Waiver. If the State fails to enforce any provision of this grant contract, that failure does not waive the provision or the State’s right to enforce it. City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution accepting funding from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and entering into grant agreement for installation of shade structures at Aquila and Ainsworth Parks - Ward 3 Page 6 4 7.5 Grant Contract Complete. This grant contract contains all negotiations and contracts between the State and the Grantee. No other understanding regarding this grant contract, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party. 8. Liability The Grantee must indemnify, save, and hold the State, its agents, and employees harmless from any claims or causes of action, including attorney’s fees incurred by the State, arising from the performance of this grant contract by the Grantee or the Grantee’s agents or employees. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies the Grantee may have for the State's failure to fulfill its obligations under this grant contract. 9. State Audits Under Minn. Stat. § 16B.98, subd.8, the Grantee’s books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the Grantee or other party relevant to this grant contract or transaction are subject to examination by the State and/or the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this grant contract, receipt and approval of all final reports, or the required period of time to satisfy all state and program retention requirements, whichever is later. 10. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property 10.1 Government data practices. The Grantee and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by the State under this grant contract, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Grantee under this grant contract. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Grantee or the State. If the Grantee receives a request to release the data referred to in this Clause, the Grantee must immediately notify the State. The State will give the Grantee instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released. The Grantee’s response to the request shall comply with applicable law. 10.2 Intellectual property rights (a) Intellectual property rights. The State owns all rights, title and interest in all of the intellectual property rights, including copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and service marks in the Works and Documents created and paid for under this grant contract. Works means all inventions, improvements, discoveries (whether or not patentable), databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings specifications, materials, tapes, and disks conceived, reduced to practice, created or originated by the Grantee, its employees, agents, and subcontractors, either individually or jointly with others in the performance of this grant contract. Works includes “Documents.” Documents are the originals of any databases, computer programs, reports, notes studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, disks, or other materials, whether in tangible or electronic forms, prepared by the Grantee, its employees, agents, or subcontractors, in the performance of this grant contract. The Documents shall be the exclusive property of the State and all such Documents must be immediately returned to the State by the Grantee, at the Grantee’s expense, upon the written request of the State, or upon completion, termination, or cancellation of this grant contract. To the extent possible, those Works eligible for copyright protection under the United States’ Copyright Act will be deemed to be “works made for hire.” The Grantee assigns all right, title, and interest it may have in the Works and the Documents to the State. The Grantee must, at the request of the State, execute all papers and perform all other acts necessary to transfer or record the State’s ownership interest in the Works and Documents. (b) Obligations. (1) Notification. Whenever any invention, improvement, or discovery (whether or not patentable) is made or conceived for the first time or actually or constructively reduced to practice by the Grantee, including its employees and subcontractors, in the performance of this grant contract, the Grantee shall immediately give the State’s Authorized Representative written notice thereof, and must promptly furnish the Authorized Representative with complete information and/or disclosure therein. (2) Representation. The Grantee must perform all acts, and take all steps necessary to ensure that all City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution accepting funding from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and entering into grant agreement for installation of shade structures at Aquila and Ainsworth Parks - Ward 3 Page 7 5 intellectual property rights in the Works and Documents are the sole property of the State, and that neither Grantee nor its employees, agents, or subcontractors retain any interest in and to the Works and Documents. The Grantee represents and warrants that the Works and Documents do not and will not infringe upon any intellectual property rights of other persons or entities. Notwithstanding Clause Liability, the Grantee shall indemnify, defend, to the extent permitted by the Attorney General, and hold harmless the State, at the Grantee’s expense, from any action or claim brought against the State to the extent that it is based on a claim that all or part of the Works or Documents infringe upon the intellectual property rights of others. The Grantee will be responsible for payment of any and all such claims, demands, obligations, liabilities, costs, and damages, including, but not limited to, attorney fees. If such a claim or action arises or in Grantee’s or the State’s opinion is likely to arise, the Grantee must, at the State’s discretion, either procure for the State the right or license to use the intellectual property rights at issue or replace or modify the allegedly infringing Works or Documents as necessary and appropriate to obviate the infringement claim. This remedy of the State will be in addition to and not exclusive of other remedies provided by law. (3) License. The State hereby grants a limited, no-fee, noncommercial license to the Grantee to enable the Grantee’s employees engaged in research and scholarly pursuits to make, have made, reproduce, modify, distribute, perform, and otherwise use the Works, including Documents, for research activities or to publish in scholarly or professional journals, provided that any existing or future intellectual property rights in the Works or Documents (including patents, licenses, trade or service marks, trade secrets, or copyrights) are not prejudiced or infringed upon, that the Minnesota Data Practices Act is complied with, and that individual rights to privacy are not violated. The Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the State for any claim or action based on the Grantee’s use of the Works or Documents under the provisions of Clause 10.2(b)(2). Said license is subject to the State’s publicity and acknowledgement requirements set forth in this grant contract. The Grantee may reproduce and retain a copy of the Documents for research and academic use. The Grantee is responsible for security of the Grantee’s copy of the Documents. A copy of any articles, materials or documents produced by the Grantee’s employees, in any form, using or derived from the subject matter of this license, shall be promptly delivered without cost to the State. 11. Workers’ Compensation The Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with Minn. Stat. § 176.181, subd. 2, pertaining to workers’ compensation insurance coverage. The Grantee’s employees and agents will not be considered State employees. Any claims that may arise under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act on behalf of these employees and any claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of these employees are in no way the State’s obligation or responsibility. 12. Publicity and Endorsement 12.1 Publicity. Any publicity regarding the subject matter of this grant contract must identify the State as the sponsoring agency and must not be released without prior written approval from the State’s Authorized Representative. For purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the Grantee individually or jointly with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or services provided resulting from this grant contract. All projects primarily funded by state grant appropriations must publicly credit the State of Minnesota, including on the grantee’s website when practicable. 12.2 Endorsement. The Grantee must not claim that the State endorses its products or services. 13. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this grant contract. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this grant contract, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 14. Termination City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution accepting funding from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and entering into grant agreement for installation of shade structures at Aquila and Ainsworth Parks - Ward 3 Page 8 6 14.1 Termination by the State (a) Without Cause The State may terminate this grant contract agreement without cause, upon 30 days’ written notice to the Grantee. Upon termination, the Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. (b) With Cause The State may immediately terminate this grant contract agreement if the State finds that there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of this grant contract, that reasonable progress has not been made or that the purposes for which the funds were granted have not been or will not be fulfilled. The State may take action to protect the interests of the State of Minnesota, including the refusal to disburse additional funds and requiring the return of all or part of the funds already disbursed. 14.2 Termination by the Commissioner of Administration The Commissioner of Administration may immediately and unilaterally cancel this grant contract if further performance under the contract would not serve agency purposes or is not in the best interest of the State. 14.3 Termination for Insufficient Funding The State may immediately terminate this grant contract if: (a) It does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature. (b) Or, if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered here. Termination must be by written or fax notice to the Grantee. The State is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after notice and effective date of termination. However, the Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed to the extent that funds are available. The State will not be assessed any penalty if the contract is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source, not to appropriate funds. The State must provide the Grantee notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable time of the State’s receiving that notice. 15. Data Disclosure Under Minn. Stat. § 270C.65, subd. 3, and other applicable law, the Grantee consents to disclosure of its social security number, federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already provided to the State, to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws which could result in action requiring the Grantee to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities, if any. To protect Grantee’s personal data, Grantee is strongly encouraged to obtain and use a Minnesota tax identification number. 16. Reporting Requirements Construction/Equipment Purchase Notification. For construction projects, the Grantee shall notify the MPCA when project construction begins and ends. The project needs to be available to MPCA staff during and after construction for equipment purchases, Grantee shall notify the MPCA when equipment is acquired. Construction/Equipment Purchase Progress Report. The Grantee shall provide a progress report (in a format provided by the MPCA) on a six-month schedule and whenever an invoice is submitted, or upon request. This progress report will include metrics as appropriate for the project. Construction Final Report. Will provide a construction final project report using the MPCA template approximately one month prior to the end of the grant agreement of June 30, 2027, or at completion of the project, whichever occurs first, in a format provided by the MPCA. The final report will include, as-builts, relevant metrics and all project deliverables identified in the application. MPCA will need to certify that the project has been constructed as described in the application through invoices, photos, or site visits. City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution accepting funding from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and entering into grant agreement for installation of shade structures at Aquila and Ainsworth Parks - Ward 3 Page 9 7 Equipment Purchase Final Report: The Grantee shall submit an equipment purchase final report to the MPCA by the date specified in Attachment A, in a format provided by the MPCA, including relevant metrics associated with the equipment purchase to date. MPCA will need to certify that the equipment purchased is as described in the application through invoices, photos or site visits. If the MPCA determines that the information submitted in the Final Report and/or Project Deliverables is inadequate, the Grantee shall prepare and submit additional/corrected information reasonably requested by the MPCA. The Final Report and Project Deliverables shall not be approved by the MPCA and final payment shall not be disbursed unless the Report and Deliverables contains the specified information to the satisfaction of the MPCA. 17. Prevailing Wage Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 177.41 to 177.44 and corresponding Minnesota Rules 5200.1000 to 5200.1120, this contract is subject to the prevailing wages as established by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry. Specifically, all contractors and subcontractors must pay all laborers and mechanics the established prevailing wages for work performed under the contract. Failure to comply with the aforementioned may result in civil or criminal penalties. Rates are listed in Attachment B. In compliance with Minn. Stat. § 177.43, subd. 3 and §177.44, subd. 5, the wages of laborers, workers, and the mechanics on projects financed in whole or part by State Funds should be comparable to wages paid for similar work in the community as a whole. Project includes erection, construction, remodeling, or repairing of a public building or other public work financed in whole or part by State funds. Any work on real property which uses the skill sets of any trades covered by Labor Code and Class under prevailing wages is construction and requires prevailing wages. See http://www.dli.mn.gov/business/employment-practices/prevailing-wage-information for a list of affected trades. The Contractor shall pay prevailing wages to its employees when conducting construction activities under this agreement. Applicability. In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 177.43, subd. 7. This does not apply to an agreement or work under an agreement, under which: A. the estimated total cost of completing the project is less than $2,500 and only one trade or occupation is required to complete the work; or B. the estimated total cost of completing the project is less than $25,000 and more than one trade or occupation is required to complete it. Choose from Commercial, Highway/Heavy: The prevailing wage rate requirements are attached as Attachment B. Prevailing Wage Payroll Information: In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 177.30, subd. 4, and § 177.43, subd. 3, the Contractor and Subcontractor shall furnish to the Contracting Authority and the Project Owner: • All payrolls, of all workers on the project, a certified payroll report via e-mail as attachments, a State of Minnesota Prevailing Wage Payroll Report as a Microsoft Excel file and Statement of Compliance Form as a PDF file to the appropriate e-mail addresses: prevailingwage.rmad.pca@state.mn.us and MPCA’s Authorized Representative listed in Clause 6. City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution accepting funding from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and entering into grant agreement for installation of shade structures at Aquila and Ainsworth Parks - Ward 3 Page 10 8 • The Subject line on the Contractor’s or Subcontractor’s e-mail must give their firm’s name and the Contract or Purchase Order Number. • These completed forms must be furnished not more than 14 days after the end of each pay period. • The State of Minnesota Prevailing Wage Payroll Report and Statement of Compliance Form are available on the MMD website at http://www.dli.mn.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/pw_certified_payroll_form.pdf. Submit the completed and signed State of Minnesota Prevailing Wage Payroll Report as a Microsoft Excel file and the Statement of Compliance Form as a PDF file, no other payroll forms will be accepted to meet this requirement. The prevailing wage payroll information forms that are submitted shall be maintained by the contracting agency for a minimum of three years after final payment has been made on the project. All of the data provided on the Prevailing Wage Payroll Information Form will be public data, which is available to anyone upon request. Refer vendor questions regarding the Prevailing Wage Laws to the Department of Labor and Industry at 651-284-5091 or visit the website for Labor Standards Section, Prevailing Wage http://www.dli.mn.gov/business/-employmentpractices/prevailing-wage-information All construction work needs an IC-134 form submitted by the Contractor before payment can be made. The Contractor can find a copy of the IC-134 online at the Minnesota Department of Revenue website at https://www.revenue.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/2019-01/ic134.pdf Signatures Title Name Signature Date City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution accepting funding from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and entering into grant agreement for installation of shade structures at Aquila and Ainsworth Parks - Ward 3 Page 11 9 Attachment A Workplan and Budget SWIFT Number: 267197 AI: 226891 Activity ID: PRO20250001 Project Title: Safe, Healthy, and Resilient Access to Play in St. Louis Park Project 1. Project Summary: Organization: City of St. Louis Park Contractor Contact Name: Emily Ziring Title: Sustainability Manager Address: 5005 Minnetonka Blvd St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 Phone: 952-924-2191 Email: eziring@stlouisparkmn.gov Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Contact: MPCA Project Manager: Aimee Duchene Title: Project Manager Address: 714 Lake Avenue, Suite 220 Detroit Lakes, Minnesota 56501 Phone: 218-846-8133 Email: aimee.duchene@state.mn.us Statement of Project Purpose(s) This project will install shade structures at Aquila Park and Ainsworth Park in St. Louis Park. Aquila Park is located in Census Tract 223.02, while Ainsworth Park is located within one (1) mile. These shade structures will mitigate health risks associated with extreme heat, such as heat stroke, dehydration, and chronic respiratory conditions like asthma for our community. Protection of these outdoor spaces is especially important as the changing climate is intensifying heat waves in St. Louis Park and making them more frequent. Goal Statement: The project will install a variety of shade structures which will: protect the community from direct sunlight and reduce the risk of heat-related health issues; reduce the urban heat island effect; increase safe access to outdoor play; and raise community awareness about the health risks associated with extreme heat. Project Deliverables: Aquila Park: • 1 hexagon double layer playground shade • 4 cantilevered bleacher shade structures • 4 dugout shade structures and bench seating • 2 umbrella shades installed over benches Ainsworth Park: City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution accepting funding from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and entering into grant agreement for installation of shade structures at Aquila and Ainsworth Parks - Ward 3 Page 12 10 • 1 hexagon double layer playground shade • 2 umbrella shades installed over benches 2. Workplan Details: Task 1 of 5: Vendor and Equipment Selection Subtask 1a: Finalize shade structure specifications and issue four request for proposals (RFPs) Brief description of activities involved: Determine exact size, materials, and appearance for each of the four shade structure types: playground, bleacher, dugout, and canopied benches. Shade structures shall be durable, cost-effective, and suitable for different weather conditions. Ensure that the designs meet safety standards and provide adequate coverage for equipment and activities. Note the timelines for equipment at the parks and fields vary to coincide with scheduled playground replacement and to avoid interrupting field use. Subtask 1b: Vendor selection Brief description of activities involved: Solicit equipment and installation proposals for each type of structure. Choose vendor/installer for each structure. Subtask 1c: Permit applications Brief description of activities involved: Work with City’s Chief Building Official, permit desk, and inspections department to submit correct documentation and approve installation. Task 2 of 5: Community engagement Brief description of activities involved: Mail postcard to community members around Aquila and Ainsworth Park detailing upcoming improvements and the opportunity to get involved. Keep the City’s Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission informed of the project, as well as the Environment and Sustainability Commission. Issue press release to local media and publish project goals and milestones on social media. Task 3 of 5: Installation Subtask 3a: Site preparation Brief description of activities involved: After vendor selection, coordinate with vendors and internal staff for any site prep work. Subtask 3b: Equipment installation Brief description of activities involved: Selected contractor(s) install shade structures according to the approved designs. Task 4 of 5: Monitoring Brief description of activities involved: Collect temperature data and compare shaded vs. non-shaded areas of the park on a hot summer day to assess the UHI mitigation impact. Collect data and feedback on park’s usage (e.g. number of visitors, time spent in shaded areas, use of sports fields). Task 5 of 5: Final Report and Project Deliverables Subtask 5a: Submit Grant Final Report Brief description of activities involved: Will provide a final grant project report using the MPCA template approximately one month prior to the end of the grant agreement of June 30, 2027, or at completion of the project, whichever occurs first. Will respond promptly to any requests by the MPCA authorized representative for additional information and/or corrections to the report. Subtask 5b: Submit Project Deliverables Brief description of activities involved: Will provide electronic files of all project deliverables to the MPCA authorized representative prior to the end of the grant agreement of June 30, 2027, or at the completion of the project, whichever occurs first. City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution accepting funding from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and entering into grant agreement for installation of shade structures at Aquila and Ainsworth Parks - Ward 3 Page 13 11 3. Project Budget: 1. Engineer's Cost Item Description Grant Funds Budgeted In-Kind Match Total Budget Cantilevered bleacher shade Installation costs for 4 cantilevered bleacher shade sails at Aquila Park. In- kind match will include site prep work, including leveling/grading and operating machinery such as bobcats and dump trucks to stage the site. $8,400 $4,000.00 $12,400.00 Shaded dugout structure Installation costs for 4 shaded dugout structures at Aquila Park. In-kind match will include existing fence removal, grading, concrete prep, and removal of existing benches. $26,250 $6,000.00 $32,250.00 Hexagon playground shade structure Installation costs for 2 hexagon playground shade structures: 1 at Aquila Park, 1 at Ainsworth Park. In- kind match will include woodchip removal, concrete preparation for anchoring, and additional site staging. $78,750 $10,300.00 $89,050.00 Square umbrella bench shade Installation costs for 4 square shade umbrellas to install over park benches: 2 will be installed at Aquila Park, and 2 will be installed at Ainsworth Park. In- kind match will include site prep and concrete footing work. $2,100 $6,000.00 $8,100.00 Subtotal- Construction costs $115,500.00 $26,300.00 $141,800.00 2. Equipment Costs Position/Item Description Cantilevered bleacher shade Equipment cost for 4 cantilevered bleacher shade sails at Aquila Park. $28,858.20 $0.00 $28,858.20 Shaded dugout structure Equipment costs for 4 shaded dugout structures at Aquila Park. $64,902.60 $0.00 $64,902.60 Hexagon playground shade structure Equipment costs for 2 hexagon playground shade structures: 1 at Aquila Park, 1 at Ainsworth Park. $26,250.00 $0.00 $26,250.00 Square umbrella bench shade Equipment costs for 4 square shade umbrellas to install over park benches: 2 will be installed at Aquila Park, and 2 will be installed at Ainsworth Park. $17,602.20 $0.00 $17,602.20 Dugout bench seating Equipment costs for 4 dugout benches at Aquila Park. $9,529.80 $0.00 $9,529.80 Subtotal- Equipment costs $147,142.80 $0.00 $147,142.80 Total Costs (Not to Exceed) $262,642.80 $26,300.00 $288,942.80 City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution accepting funding from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and entering into grant agreement for installation of shade structures at Aquila and Ainsworth Parks - Ward 3 Page 14 Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 21, 2025 Consent agenda item: 5f Executive summary Title: Resolution approving technical amendments to the budget Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution amending the 2025 budgets. Policy consideration: Does the council support the technical amendments made to the 2025 Budget resolution to account for miscounting transfers in fund level budgets? Summary: When city staff find technical errors in the budget resolution, we bring them to the council to ensure that the adopted fund-level budgets match what is in our operating systems and reported on in our financial statements. This year, we found that transfers and, in one instance, use of fund balance were counted inaccurately in the fund level totals for several funds in the budget resolution documents. The changes in the attached resolution will bring the adopted budgeted amounts in line with the total spending and revenues in our financial systems. Transfers in and out of funds should be treated as other financing sources and uses, rather than included in the total expenditures or revenues in each fund. While completing the audit, staff found that the budget resolution had erroneously included transfers in both lines in some cases, or in the total expenditure or revenue totals in others. The attached resolution corrects this problem so that there is consistency across funds. In the future all tables within the budget resolution will be generated from our linked financial systems, reducing the chance for human error in the compilations of budget resolutions. Financial or budget considerations: This is a technical amendment, no changes are proposed to levies, external revenue or department spending. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion 2025 Amended Budget Resolution Prepared by: Amelia Cruver, finance director Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5f) Page 2 Title: Resolution approving technical amendments to the budget Discussion Background: When city staff find technical errors in the budget resolution, we bring them to the council to ensure that the adopted fund-level budgets match what is in our operating systems and reported on in our financial statements. This year, we found that transfers were counted inaccurately in the fund level totals for several funds in the budget resolution documents. The changes in the attached resolution will bring the adopted budgeted amounts in line with the total spending and revenues in our financial systems. Transfers in and out of funds should be treated as other financing sources and uses, rather than included in the total expenditures or revenues in each fund. While completing the audit, staff found that the budget resolution had erroneously included transfers in both lines in some cases, or in the total expenditure or revenue totals in others. The attached resolution corrects this problem so that there is consistency across funds Present considerations: This action from the council will correct errors in how transfers and use of fund balance were categorized in the summary tables made for the 2025 budget resolution. For example, in the general fund transfers were included in the department level spending totals and in the transfers line, which unintentionally inflates the total spending happening in that fund. In our audit, we use the total spending in the general fund budgeted in 2025 to calculate our target fund balance. The total spending in the resolution is higher than our actual spending will be due to this accidental double counting of transfers. By making this correction to the resolution, we will have an accurate total spending budget, and we will be able to more accurately calculate our fund balance and ensure it is within our policies. Revenues in the general fund similarly included our use of fund balance as miscellaneous revenue and a line item for use of fund balance. It should have only been included once. By lowering total revenues and expenditures in the resolution we will correct the double counting. There are several other corrections to other funds, to account for transfers that were inadvertently included in the wrong line item. These are clean up changes to make sure our resolution is consistent and accurate, no actual change in the services, levy or spending plan for the year are being proposed. Next steps: In the future all tables within the budget resolution will be generated from our new budgeting software, reducing the chance for human error in the compilations of budget resolutions. City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5f) Page 3 Title: Resolution approving technical amendments to the budget Resolution No. 25- Amending the 2025 general fund and other 2025 budgets Whereas, The City of St. Louis Park is required by Charter and State law to approve a resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor; and Whereas, Minnesota Statutes currently in force require approval of a property tax levy and a budget in December of each year; and Whereas, the city council has received the budget information; and Whereas, the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, has received a report from the chief financial officer related to proposed capital spending for 2025 - 2034; and Whereas, it is necessary for the city to maintain and replace its capital assets in order to enhance the city’ s attractiveness to residents and businesses; and Whereas, good planning is a necessary part of the stewardship that the city council and staff exercise over the capital assets of the city; and Whereas, occasionally technical errors and omissions without impact on operations or financial health are identified and need to be corrected in the budget resolution, Now therefore, be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, that the 2025 General Fund Budget and 2025 Budgets are amended as follows: General Fund Summary of Budgeted Revenues, Transfers In, & Use of Fund Balance 2025 Adopted Budget 2025 Revised Budget Change from Revised to Adopted General Fund Revenues General Property Taxes $38,808,815 $38,808,815 - Licenses and Permits 4,406,620 4,406,620 - Intergovernmental 3,887,106 3,887,106 - Charges for Services 2,674,025 2,674,025 - City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5f) Page 4 Title: Resolution approving technical amendments to the budget Miscellaneous Revenue 2,101,105 D 1,542,105 (559,000) Investment Earnings 500,000 500,000 - Transfers In 2,555,573 2,555,573 - Use of Fund Balance 559,000 D 597,057 38,057 Total General Fund Revenues $55,492,244 $54,971,301 (520,943) D - Use of fund balance was grouped additionally within Miscellaneous Revenue & Budget Revenue table was not tied to Summary of Budgeted Expenditures, & Transfers Out table Summary of Budgeted Expenditures, & Transfers Out 2025 Adopted Budget 2025 Revised Budget Change from Revised to Adopted Admin, RE& I, Finance/ Assessing, HR, Comm Dev, Facilities, Sustainability, IT, Communications $14,798,355 E $14,792,306 (6,049) Police, Fire, Building 24,626,788 E 24,128,936 (497,852) Eng, Public Works, Org Rec, Rec Center, Park Maint, WWHC, Natural Resources 15,546,158 E 15,000,022 (546,136) Transfers Out 1,050,037 1,050,037 - $56,021,338 $54,971,301 (1,050,037) E - Transfers out in the General Fund were originally included twice in table, at department level and as the separate line-item Transfers Out City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5f) Page 5 Title: Resolution approving technical amendments to the budget Special Revenue, Select Capital Project Funds, Enterprise and Internal Service Funds Summary of Budgeted Revenues, Expenditures, Other Financing Sources, & Use of Fund Balance/Net Position Special Revenue 2025 Adopted Budget 2025 Revised Budget Change from Revised to Adopted Housing Rehabilitation Fund Total Housing Rehab Revenues 747,050 - (747,050) Total Housing Rehab Expenditures (810,419) (53,000) 757,419 Total Housing Rehab Transfers In - B 747,050 747,050 Total Housing Rehab Transfers Out - C (757,419) (757,419) Total Housing Rehab Use of Fund Balance 63,369 63,369 - Total Housing Rehab Fund - - - B - Transfer approved with Resolution No. 24-164 was listed as revenue in Revenue/Expenditure Table C - Transfer approved with Resolution No. 24-164 was listed as expenditure in Revenue/Expenditure Table CDBG Fund Total CDBG Revenues 165,000 165,000 - Total CDBG Expenditures (165,000) (165,000) - Total CDBG Fund - - - Cable TV Fund Total Cable TV Revenues 616,397 616,397 - Total Cable TV Expenditures (635,367) (626,305) 9,062 Total Cable TV Transfers Out - C (9,062) (9,062) Total Cable TV Use of Fund Balance 18,970 18,970 - Total Cable TV Fund - - - C - Transfer approved with Resolution No. 24-164 was listed as expenditure in Revenue/Expenditure Table City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5f) Page 6 Title: Resolution approving technical amendments to the budget Climate Investment Fund Total Climate Investment Fund Revenues - - - Total Climate Investment Fund Expenditures (183,000) (183,000) - Total Climate Investment Fund Use of Fund Balance 183,000 183,000 - Total Climate Investment Fund - - - Affordable Housing Trust Fund Total Affordable Housing Trust Fund Revenues 1,228,250 1,228,250 - Total Affordable Housing Trust Fund Expenditures (2,697,050) (1,950,000) 747,050 Total Affordable Housing Trust Fund Transfers Out - C (747,050) (747,050) Total Affordable Housing Trust Fund Use of Fund Balance 1,468,800 1,468,800 - Total Affordable Housing Trust Fund - - - C - Transfer approved with Resolution No. 24-164 was listed as expenditure in Revenue/Expenditure Table Capital Project Development Fund Total Development Fund Revenues 4,646,969 4,646,969 - Total Development Fund Expenditures (4,817,871) (4,817,871) - Total Development Fund Transfers Out A (36,717) (36,717) - Total Development Fund Use of Fund Balance 207,619 207,619 - Total Development Fund - - - A - Transfer approved with Resolution No. 24-164 was not included on Revenue/Expenditure Table Franchise Fees (f.k.a Pavement Management Fund) Total Franchise Fees Revenues 5,304,840 5,304,840 - Total Franchise Fees Expenditures (5,178,590) (5,178,590) - Total Franchise Fees Gain of Fund Balance (126,250) (126,250) - Total Franchise Fees Fund - - - City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5f) Page 7 Title: Resolution approving technical amendments to the budget Park Improvement Fund Total Park Improvement Revenues 1,430,000 1,430,000 - Total Park Improvement Expenditures (1,630,000) (1,630,000) - Total Park Improvement Use of Fund Balance 200,000 200,000 - Total Park Improvement Fund - - - Special Revenue, Select Capital Project Funds, Enterprise and Internal Service Funds Summary of Budgeted Revenues, Expenditures, Other Financing Sources, & Use of Fund Balance/Net Position (Continued) 2025 Adopted Budget 2025 Revised Budget Enterprise Water Utility Fund Total Water Revenues 10,153,437 10,153,437 - Total Water Expenses (11,292,154) (11,292,154) - Total Water Transfers Out A (872,563) (872,563) - Total Water Use of Net Position 2,011,280 2,011,280 - Total Water Utility Fund - - - A - Transfer approved with Resolution No. 24-164 was not included on Revenue/Expenditure Table Sewer Utility Fund Total Sewer Revenues 10,250,790 10,250,790 - Total Sewer Expenses (9,518,407) (9,518,407) - Total Sewer Transfers Out A (1,175,839) (1,175,839) - Total Sewer Use of Net Position 443,456 443,456 - Total Sewer Utility Fund - - - A - Transfer approved with Resolution No. 24-164 was not included on Revenue/Expenditure Table City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5f) Page 8 Title: Resolution approving technical amendments to the budget Solid Waste Utility Fund Total Solid Waste Revenues 7,330,565 7,330,565 - Total Solid Waste Expenses (6,884,779) (6,884,779) - Total Solid Waste Transfers Out A (309,866) (309,866) - Total Solid Waste Gain of Net Position (135,920) (135,920) - Total Solid Waste Utility Fund - - - A - Transfer approved with Resolution No. 24-164 was not included on Revenue/Expenditure Table Storm Water Utility Fund Total Storm Water Revenues 4,543,582 4,543,582 - Total Storm Water Expenses (4,998,336) (4,998,336) - Total Storm Water Transfers Out A (435,343) (435,343) - Total Storm Water Use of Net Position 890,097 890,097 - Total Storm Water Utility Fund - - - A - Transfer approved with Resolution No. 24-164 was not included on Revenue/Expenditure Table Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council April 21, 2025: Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 21, 2025 Consent agenda item: 5g Executive summary Title: Resolution approving amendment of fee agreement in connection with refunding of Park Nicollet Private Activity Revenue Bonds Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution approving the execution and delivery of an amended and restated fee agreement with Park Nicollet Health Services, Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, Park Nicollet Clinic, PNMC Holdings and Park Nicollet Health Care Products. Policy consideration: Does the city council desire to continue receiving conduit bond administrative fees in connection with Park Nicollet’s bonds and amend and restate the fee agreement entered into in 2015? Summary: In 2008 and 2009, the city of St. Louis Park agreed to participate in the issuing of conduit bonds along with Park Nicollet Health Services and the HRA of the City of St. Paul. St. Louis Park served as a pass through for the bonds, did not take on financial risk and received an annual fee for facilitating the financing. Now, Park Nicollet Health Services would like to make changes to the bond and has requested that the HRA of the City of St. Paul, MN issue revenue refunding bonds in one or more series, as tax-exempt obligations in a principal amount not to exceed $300,000,000. These proceeds will be used to refund the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Paul, Minnesota’s Health Care Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds (HealthPartners Obligated Group), Series 2015A (the “Series 2015A Bonds”), issued in the original aggregate principal amount of $306,395,000 and, in addition, pay for the costs of issuance. In connection with the issuance of the bonds, the fee agreement will be amended and restated to reflect the new issue of bonds. In order for the bonds to be reissued, St. Louis Park needs to provide approval. Pending approval of the resolution, the HRA of the City of St. Paul will move forward with all the required steps and close on the bonds somewhere from early to mid-May, 2025. Financial or budget considerations: Passing this resolution will ensure the city continues to receive the 1/8th of 1 percent per annum of the outstanding principal balance that is paid in semiannual installments even though the bonds are being issued by the HRA of the City of St. Paul. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion Resolution Prepared by: Amelia Cruver, finance director Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5g) Page 2 Title: Resolution approving amendment of fee agreement in connection with refunding of Park Nicollet Private Activity Revenue Bonds Discussion Background: Park Nicollet Health Services has requested that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Paul, Minnesota (the “HRA”) issue revenue refunding bonds in a principal amount not to exceed $300,000,000 (the “Refunding Bonds”). The proceeds will be used to refinance the HRA’s Health Care Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds (HealthPartners Obligated Group), Series 2015A (the “Series 2015A Bonds”), in the original aggregate principal amount of $306,395,000 and pay for the costs of issuance. As part of the process for the issuance of the Series 2015A Bonds, the city entered into a Fee Agreement with Park Nicollet whereby Park Nicollet agreed to pay an ongoing conduit bond administrative fee to the city. The Series 2015A Bonds were applied to refund the following obligations, including two series issued by the city: 1. Health Care Facility Revenue Bonds, Series 2006, issued by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Paul on November 30, 2006, in the original aggregate principal amount of $176,365,000. 2. Health Care Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2009, issued by the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota on December 31, 2009, in the original aggregate principal amount of $188,340,000. 3. Health Care Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2008C, issued by St. Louis Park on August 14, 2008, in the original aggregate principal amount of $221,850,000. The portion of the Series 2009 Bonds and the Series 2008C Bonds refinanced by the Series 2015A Bonds were issued by the city to finance or refinance projects in the city including: • The acquisition, construction, and equipping of an approximately 82,000 square foot building to house the Cancer Center and related facilities with approximately 31,000 square feet of the building reserved for future expansion, located at 6490 Excelsior Boulevard. • The acquisition, construction, and equipping of a new parking ramp including approximately 1,700 parking stalls adjacent to the Cancer Center. • The redesign and renovation of the emergency center at Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, located at 6500 Excelsior Boulevard. • The construction and equipping of a new common entrance to Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, the new Cancer Center, and the Meadowbrook Building, and the new Cancer Center, located at 3931 Louisiana Avenue South. • The acquisition, construction, and equipping of an approximately 69,000 square foot Eating Disorders Institute, including a parking ramp and surface lot with an estimated 220 parking stalls, located at 3525 Monterey Drive. • Refinanced the capital improvements to the facilities of Park Nicollet originally financed with the Hospital Facilities Refunding Revenue Bonds (Methodist Hospital Project), Series 1990-B. The proceeds of the Refunding Bonds will also be used to fund one or more reserve funds and pay the costs of issuing the Refunding Bonds and other related costs. The maximum aggregate principal amount of the proposed Refunding Bonds is estimated not to exceed $300,000,000. City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5g) Page 3 Title: Resolution approving amendment of fee agreement in connection with refunding of Park Nicollet Private Activity Revenue Bonds In addition, in 2015, the HRA issued its Taxable Health Care Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds (HealthPartners Obligated Group), Series 2015B in the original aggregate principal amount of $191,830,000 (the “Series 2015B Bonds) to (a) defease, redeem, and prepay a portion of the City’ Series 2009 bonds, the proceeds of which refinanced (i) the construction and equipping of the Heart and Vascular Center at Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, the construction of a parking ramp and other improvements at Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, the construction of public infrastructure improvements with respect to the foregoing, and the acquisition and installation of equipment for Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital; and (ii) the acquisition and installation of a computed tomography (“CT”) scanner at the facilities located at 14000 Fairview Drive, Burnsville, Minnesota, a CT scanner at the facilities located at 15800 95th Avenue North, Maple Grove, Minnesota, and a CT scanner and a magnetic resonance imaging scanner at the facilities located at 250 North Central Avenue, Wayzata, Minnesota; (b) defease, redeem, and prepay a portion of the series 2008C bonds, the proceeds of which refinanced capital improvements to the facilities of Park Nicollet originally financed with the following obligations issued by the city: (i) $138,025,000 Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds (HealthSystem Minnesota Obligated Group), Series 1993A, (ii) $42,000,000 Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds (HealthSystem Minnesota Obligated Group), Series 1993B, and (iii) $42,000,000 Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds (HealthSystem Minnesota Obligated Group), Series 1993C; and (c) pay all or a portion of the costs of the Series 2015B Bonds. The Series 2015B Bonds are not being refunded by the Refunding Bonds and will remain outstanding. In 2015, because the Series 2015A Bonds and the Series 2015B Bonds refunded bonds issued by the City, Park Nicollet agreed to pay to the City a semi-annual fee equal to one-sixteenth of one percent (0.0625%) of the outstanding par amount of the Series 2015A Bonds and the Series 2015B Bonds attributable to the portion of the Series 2015A Bonds and the Series 2015B Bonds that refunded bonds issued by the city. The Refunding Bonds will be special, limited obligations of the HRA, and the Refunding Bonds and interest thereon will be payable solely from the revenues and assets pledged to the payment thereof. No holder of any Refunding Bonds will ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the city to pay the Refunding Bonds or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment against any property of the city. The Refunding Bonds are to be payable solely from revenues and security provided by the Obligated Group Members to the HRA and pledged to the payment of the Refunding Bonds. Before issuing the Refunding Bonds, the HRA will enter into one or more revenue agreements with Obligated Group Members, whereby the Obligated Group Members will be obligated to make payments at least sufficient at all times to pay the principal of and interest on the refunding bonds when due. Present considerations: In 2015, the city’s policy was to charge a fee of 1/8 of 1 percent per annum of the outstanding principal amount of private activity revenue bonds. The city and Park Nicollet entered into a fee agreement whereby Park Nicollet agreed to pay to the city a semi- annual fee equal to one-sixteenth of one percent (0.0625%) of the outstanding par amount of the Series 2015A Bonds and the Series 2015B Bonds attributable to the portion of the Series 2015A Bonds and the Series 2015B Bonds that refunded conduit issued by the city. The amended and restated fee agreement retains the structure from 2015 and requires that Park Nicollet continue to the city a semi-annual fee equal to one-sixteenth of one percent City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5g) Page 4 Title: Resolution approving amendment of fee agreement in connection with refunding of Park Nicollet Private Activity Revenue Bonds (0.0625%) of the outstanding par amount of the Series 2015A Bonds and the Series 2015B Bonds attributable to the portion of the Series 2015A Bonds and the Series 2015B Bonds that refunded conduit bonds issued by the city. Next steps: Pending approval of the resolution, the HRA of the City of St. Paul will move forward with all the required steps and close on the bonds somewhere from early to mid-May. City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5g) Page 5 Title: Resolution approving amendment of fee agreement in connection with refunding of Park Nicollet Private Activity Revenue Bonds Resolution No. 25-___________ Resolution approving the execution and delivery of an Amended and Restated Fee Agreement with Park Nicollet Health Services, Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, Park Nicollet Clinic, PNMC Holdings, and Park Nicollet Health Care Products Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “city”) is a home rule city duly organized and existing under its charter and the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota; and Whereas, on June 11, 2015, pursuant to a Bond Trust Indenture, dated as of June 1, 2015 (the “prior bond indenture”), between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota (the “issuer”), and Computershare Trust Company, N.A., a national banking association (the “prior bonds trustee”), the issuer issued its (a) Health Care Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds (HealthPartners Obligated Group), Series 2015A (the “series 2015A bonds” or the “prior bonds”), in the original aggregate principal amount of $306,395,000; and (b) Taxable Health Care Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds (HealthPartners Obligated Group), Series 2015B (the “series 2015B bonds,” and together with the series 2015A bonds, the “series 2015 bonds”), in the original aggregate principal amount of $191,830,000; and Whereas, a portion of the proceeds of the series 2015A bonds in the principal amount of $145,185,000 was used to make a loan (the “prior Regions Hospital loan”) to Regions Hospital to (a) defease, redeem, and prepay the Health Care Facility Revenue Bonds, Series 2006 (HealthPartners Obligated Group Project), issued by the Issuer on November 30, 2006, in the original aggregate principal amount of $176,365,000, the proceeds of which (i) financed the acquisition, construction, expansion, improvement, remodeling, equipping, and furnishing of the hospital facilities located at the intersection of Jackson Street and University Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota, including but not limited to capital improvements, up to an eleven-story tower for surgery, patient rooms, clinical facilities and support services, and underground parking; and (ii) refinanced the construction of improvements to the hospital facilities by redeeming and prepaying the Health Care Revenue Bonds (St. Paul-Ramsey Medical Center Project), Series 1993, issued by the Issuer in the original aggregate principal amount of $36,340,000; and (b) pay a portion of the costs of issuance of the Series 2015A Bonds; and Whereas, a portion of the proceeds of the series 2015A bonds in the principal amount of $161,210,000 (the “prior Park Nicollet tax-exempt Bonds”) was used to make a loan (the “prior Park Nicollet tax-exempt loan”) to Park Nicollet Health Services, Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, Park Nicollet Clinic, PNMC Holdings, and Park Nicollet Health Care Products, all Minnesota nonprofit corporations (collectively, “Park Nicollet”), pursuant to a Loan Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2015 (the “prior Park Nicollet tax-exempt loan agreement”), between the issuer and Park Nicollet, to (a) defease, redeem, and prepay a portion of the Health Care Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds (Park Nicollet Health Services Project), Series 2009 (the “series 2009 bonds”), issued by the city on December 30, 2009 in the original aggregate City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5g) Page 6 Title: Resolution approving amendment of fee agreement in connection with refunding of Park Nicollet Private Activity Revenue Bonds principal amount of $188,340,000, the proceeds of which were used to finance a capital project that commenced in 2003, which included the (i) acquisition, construction, and equipping of an approximately 82,000 square foot building to house the Cancer Center and related facilities with approximately 31,000 square feet of the building reserved for future expansion, located at 6490 Excelsior Boulevard in the city; (ii) acquisition, construction, and equipping of a new parking ramp including approximately 1,700 parking stalls adjacent to the Cancer Center; (iii) redesign and renovation of the emergency center at Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, located at 6500 Excelsior Boulevard in the city; (iv) construction and equipping of a new common entrance to Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, the new Cancer Center, and the Meadowbrook Building, located at 3931 Louisiana Avenue South in the city; and (v) acquisition, construction, and equipping of an approximately 69,000 square foot Eating Disorders Institute, including a parking ramp and surface lot with an estimated 220 parking stalls, located at 3525 Monterey Drive in the city (collectively, the “2003 project”); (b) defease, redeem, and prepay a portion of the Health Care Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds (Park Nicollet Health Services Project), Series 2008C (the “series 2008C bonds”), issued by the city on August 14, 2008 in the original aggregate principal amount of $221,850,000, the proceeds of which refinanced the remaining costs of the 2003 project described above and refinanced capital improvements to the facilities of Park Nicollet originally financed with the Hospital Facilities Refunding Revenue Bonds (Methodist Hospital Project), Series 1990-B issued by the city; and (c) pay a portion of the costs of issuance of the series 2015A bonds; and Whereas, the proceeds of the series 2015B bonds (the “prior Park Nicollet taxable bonds”) were used to make a loan (the “prior Park Nicollet taxable loan”) to Park Nicollet, pursuant to a Loan Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2015 (the “prior Park Nicollet taxable loan agreement”), between the issuer and Park Nicollet, to (a) defease, redeem, and prepay a portion of the series 2009 bonds, the proceeds of which refinanced (i) the construction and equipping of the Heart and Vascular Center at Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, the construction of a parking ramp and other improvements at Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, the construction of public infrastructure improvements with respect to the foregoing, and the acquisition and installation of equipment for Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital; and (ii) the acquisition and installation of a computed tomography (“CT”) scanner at the facilities located at 14000 Fairview Drive, Burnsville, Minnesota, a CT scanner at the facilities located at 15800 95th Avenue North, Maple Grove, Minnesota, and a CT scanner and a magnetic resonance imaging scanner at the facilities located at 250 North Central Avenue, Wayzata, Minnesota; (b) defease, redeem, and prepay a portion of the series 2008C bonds, the proceeds of which refinanced capital improvements to the facilities of Park Nicollet originally financed with the following obligations issued by the city: (i) $138,025,000 Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds (HealthSystem Minnesota Obligated Group), Series 1993A, (ii) $42,000,000 Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds (HealthSystem Minnesota Obligated Group), Series 1993B, and (iii) $42,000,000 Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds (HealthSystem Minnesota Obligated Group), Series 1993C; and (c) pay all or a portion of the costs of the series 2015B bonds; and Whereas, the facilities refinanced with the proceeds of the prior Park Nicollet tax- exempt Bonds and the prior Park Nicollet taxable bonds that are located in the city are referred to herein as the St. Louis Park facilities. City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5g) Page 7 Title: Resolution approving amendment of fee agreement in connection with refunding of Park Nicollet Private Activity Revenue Bonds Whereas, prior to the issuance of the series 2015 bonds, on May 18, 2015, the city council of the city (the “council”) conducted a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and consented to the issuance of the series 2015 bonds by the issuer to, in part, refinance the St. Louis Park facilities; and Whereas, in connection with the issuance of the series 2015 bonds, the city and Park Nicollet entered into a Fee Agreement, dated June 11, 2015 (the “original fee agreement”), pursuant to which Park Nicollet agreed to pay the city’s administrative fee for conduit bond financings with respect to the prior Park Nicollet tax-exempt bonds, which were initially issued in the principal amount of $161,210,000, and with respect to the series 2015B bonds (collectively, the “prior St. Louis Park portion”), on each January 1 and July 1, commencing July 1, 2015, in an amount equal to one-sixteenth of one percent (0.0625%) of the principal amount of the prior St. Louis Park portion outstanding on each such date, all in accordance with Part II, paragraph 9 of the city’s Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing Policy, effective as of February 26, 2001; and Whereas, Regions Hospital and Park Nicollet have proposed that the issuer issue its Health Care Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds (HealthPartners Obligated Group), Series 2025 (the “bonds”), in the estimated maximum aggregate principal amount of $300,000,000, and loan the proceeds thereof to Regions Hospital and Park Nicollet to (i) defease, redeem, and prepay the outstanding series 2015A bonds, thereby refinancing the facilities refinanced with the proceeds thereof; and (ii) pay all or a portion of the costs of issuing the bonds and other related costs; and Whereas, the series 2015B bonds will remain outstanding under the prior bond indenture; and Whereas, a portion of the proceeds of the bonds will be used to make a loan (the “Park Nicollet loan”) to Park Nicollet to refinance the prior Park Nicollet tax-exempt bonds and the facilities refinanced thereby, as more fully described in a Loan Agreement (the “Park Nicollet loan agreement”) between the issuer and Park Nicollet, pursuant to which Park Nicollet will agree to repay the Park Nicollet loan in such amounts and at such times as will be sufficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest of the principal amount of the bonds used to refinance the prior Park Nicollet tax-exempt bonds (the “Park Nicollet bonds”); and Whereas, there has been presented before the council of the city a form of Amended and Restated Fee Agreement (the “fee agreement”) between the city and Park Nicollet, amending and restating the original fee agreement, pursuant to which Park Nicollet will agree to pay the city’s administrative fee with respect to the Park Nicollet bonds and to continue paying the city’s administrative fee with respect to the series 2015B bonds; and Now, therefore, be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota as follows: 1. Based on representations made by Park Nicollet to the city to date, the council hereby makes the following preliminary findings, determinations, and declarations: City council meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 5g) Page 8 Title: Resolution approving amendment of fee agreement in connection with refunding of Park Nicollet Private Activity Revenue Bonds (a) The issuer will make the Park Nicollet loan to Park Nicollet pursuant to the Park Nicollet loan agreement. Park Nicollet will be required to make loan repayments in amounts sufficient to repay the Park Nicollet loan when due and to pay all costs of maintaining and insuring the facilities to be refinanced with the proceeds of the Park Nicollet bonds. (b) The bonds will be special, limited obligations of the issuer payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof and will not be a general or moral obligation of the city or be secured by the taxing power or any property or assets of the city. (c) The city consents to and approves of the issuance of the Park Nicollet bonds and the bonds and the refinancing of the prior Park Nicollet tax-exempt bonds. 3. The fee agreement is hereby in all respects authorized, approved and confirmed and the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the fee agreement for and on behalf of the city in substantially the form now on file with the city but with such modifications as shall be deemed necessary, desirable or appropriate, their execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of their approval of any and all modifications therein including the insertion of a final schedule for the Park Nicollet bonds. 4. The mayor and the city manager are authorized and directed to execute any additional documents and certificates deemed necessary to carry out the intentions hereof. 5. Park Nicollet will pay and upon demand, reimburse the city for payment of, any and all costs incurred by the city in connection with the facilities to be refinanced by the Park Nicollet loan and the issuance of the Park Nicollet bonds, whether or not the Park Nicollet bonds are issued. 6. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council April 21, 2025: Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 21, 2025 Public hearing: 6a Executive summary Title: Public hearing for intoxicating liquor license for Lago Lynlake LLC dba Lago Tacos Recommended action: • Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony, and close public hearing. • Motion to approve application from Lago Lynlake LLC dba Lago Tacos for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license for the premises at 3801 Grand Way. Policy consideration: Does the applicant meet the requirements for issuance of an on-sale intoxicating liquor license? Summary: The city received an application from Lago Lynlake LLC dba Lago Tacos for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license with Sunday sales for the premises located at 3801 Grand Way. Lago Tacos has sister locations in Plymouth and Excelsior, as well as a new location opening in Eagan this year. The St. Louis Park location of Lago Tacos is the former location of McCoy’s Public House, which closed in March of 2024. The premises will consist of approximately 6,918 square feet with an indoor seating capacity of 206 and outdoor seating for 72, for a total seating capacity of 278. The restaurant is described on the application as a full-service bar and restaurant. The sole owner of Lago Tacos is Thomas Ferris, who will also serve as on-site manager. The application meets the requirements of the zoning and building divisions. The police department has run a full background investigation, and nothing was discovered that would warrant denial of the license. The complete application is on file in the city clerk’s office. The required notice of the public hearing was published April 3, 2025. If approved, the license will not be issued until all requirements have been met with the city, Hennepin County, and the State Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division. Financial or budget considerations: Fees for this applicant include $500 for the police background investigation and $8,204.17 for the prorated license fees (on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sales). Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: None. Prepared by: Amanda Scott-Lerdal, deputy city clerk Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Meeting: Special study session Meeting date: April 21, 2025 Discussion item: 1 Executive summary Title: Utility asset management planning Recommended action: None. The purpose of this discussion is to provide the city council with an overview of staff's recommended approach to incorporate watermain and sanitary sewer replacement and repair into the capital improvement plan (CIP). Policy consideration: Does the city council support the recommended approach for integrating utility asset management into the city’s capital planning process? Summary: In 2024, HDR Engineering, Inc. completed a risk assessment study of the sanitary sewer and water systems. The purpose of the study was to review the city's water and sanitary sewer pipe networks and evaluate risk. The study showed that high-risk sections of pipes are interspersed throughout the city and are not continuous. This creates challenges for replacement planning. To address these challenges, additional utility replacement information needed to be reviewed. Over the last year, staff have been working on an overall replacement approach. This was done by completing a lifecycle analysis for the overall sanitary sewer and watermain network to identify the optimal time for replacement. Planning for utility replacement before reaching the end of an expected lifecycle involves a proactive, data-driven asset management approach. This overall replacement approach, combined with risk-based planning, will inform staff’s approach to capital planning in 2027 and beyond. This approach will be applied in the 2026 budget process. Incorporating this information into the capital budget will require an extensive review of assets (streets and utilities), available funding, and staff workload. Given the time lag between planning and construction, these changes will be realized as part of the 2027 construction season. Financial or budget considerations: Precise budget changes will be brought forth during capital budget discussions in late summer. This report lays out the approach that will be used to make adjustments and additions to the capital improvement plan. 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 Prepared by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Reviewed by: Amelia Cruver, finance director; Mark Elgaard, engineering project manager; Jay Hall, public works director; Jack Sullivan, assistant city engineer Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Utility asset management Discussion Background: This topic was last discussed with the city council during the connected infrastructure special study session system in 2024. In March 2023, staff engaged HDR Engineering, Inc. to complete a citywide risk assessment of the sanitary sewer and water systems. The purpose of the study was to help the city develop rehabilitation and replacement plans based on: • reducing the risk of interruption of water service, • consequences of water service interruption, • and to manage sanitary system maintenance. In March 2024, HDR completed this risk assessment. The study evaluated pipe segments based on a risk assessment model. The resulting map of high-risk pipe segments will support the city's capital improvement planning. At the May 6, 2024 study session, staff presented an outline of the findings of the report, including maps summarizing the key takeaways regarding risk for both the water and sanitary sewer pipe networks. The high-risk sections of pipes are interspersed throughout the city and are not continuous, creating challenges for replacement planning. To address these challenges, staff has been working on developing an overall replacement approach. This was done by completing a lifecycle analysis for the overall sanitary sewer and watermain networks to identify the optimal time for replacement and the investment needed to replace the systems. This approach will use data to replace utility infrastructure before reaching the end of an expected lifecycle. This overall replacement approach, combined with risk-based planning, will inform staff’s approach to the capital planning starting in the 2026 budget process which correlates with the 2027 construction season. Incorporating this information into the capital budget will require an extensive and iterative review of asset condition for both streets and utilities. Once the scope of each annual project is developed, the next step would be to review available funding, and staff workload to determine how it can be delivered. Additional funding above and beyond what is in the existing capital improvement plan may be requested as a result of this process. Due to this, staff wanted to bring the overall replacement approach to the council prior to starting the iterative process to update the city’s long-range capital plan. Project delivery: To demonstrate the incremental cost of adding watermain and sanitary sewer pipe replacement to projects, staff put together the following estimates for local and commercial street projects. The estimated costs in the tables below are based on 2025 dollars and include engineering and construction costs. They do not include the following variable costs for: easements, removal of contaminated soil, retaining walls construction, signals, roundabouts and street lighting. Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Utility asset management The timelines assume that no additional staff is needed to complete the project and that there are 6 months in the construction season. Construction of new sidewalks and/ or trails would add 2 weeks/ mile to each of the timelines below. While illustrative and simplified, these scenarios provide an order of magnitude understanding of the work. Local street reconstruction: A local street is one that primarily serves residential properties and is usually included in the annual pavement management project. The following assumptions were used to develop these costs. • Streets are 28 feet wide • The watermain has a 6 or 8 inch diameter • The sanitary sewer pipe has a 9 inch diameter Street reconstruction only Task Cost Construction time Pavement rehabilitation $1,100,000/ mile 4.5 weeks/ mile Project total $1,100,000/ mile 4.5 weeks/ mile Staff capacity = 4.5 miles/ year $4,950,000 20.25 weeks (5.25 months) Reconstruct streets and watermain Task Cost Construction time Pavement rehabilitation $1,100,000/ mile 4 weeks/ mile Watermain replacement $1,750,000/ mile 4 weeks/ mile Combined project total $2,850,000/ mile 8 weeks/ mile Staff capacity = 3 miles/ year $8,550,000 24 weeks (6 months) Reconstruct streets, watermain and sanitary sewer Task Cost Construction time Pavement rehabilitation $1,100,000/ mile 4 weeks/ mile Watermain replacement $1,750,000/ mile 4 weeks/ mile Sanitary sewer replacement $1,800,000/ mile 2 weeks/ mile Combined project total $4,650,000/ mile 10 weeks/ mile Staff capacity= 2.4 miles/ year $11,160,000 24 weeks (6 months) Commercial street reconstruction: A commercial street is one that primarily serves commercial and high-density residential properties. The city programs a commercial street reconstruction project every other year. These projects are located throughout the city. The following assumptions were used to develop these costs. • Streets are 36 feet wide • The watermain has a 12 inch diameter • The sanitary sewer pipe has a 9 inch diameter Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 4 Title: Utility asset management Reconstruct commercial streets only Task Cost Construction time Pavement rehabilitation $2,200,000/ mile 5 weeks/ mile Project total $2,200,000/ mile 5 weeks/ mile Staff capacity = 4 miles/ year $8,800,000 20 weeks (5 months) Reconstruct commercial street and watermain Task Cost Construction time Pavement rehabilitation $2,200,000/ mile 4 weeks/ mile Watermain replacement $3,200,000/ mile 6 weeks/ mile Combined project total $5,400,000/ mile 10 weeks/ mile Staff capacity = 2.4 miles/ year $17,280,000 24 weeks (6 months) Reconstruct commercial street, watermain and sanitary sewer Task Cost Construction time Pavement rehabilitation $2,200,000/ mile 4 weeks/ mile Watermain replacement $3,200,000/ mile 6 weeks/ mile Sanitary sewer replacement $1,800,000/ mile 2 weeks/ mile Combined project total $7,200,000/ mile 12 weeks/ mile Staff capacity = 2 miles/ year $14,400,000 24 weeks (6 months) Present considerations: Over the last year, staff has been working on developing an asset management approach that addresses the high-risk pipe segments and plans for the replacement of most of the sanitary sewer and water main prior to it reaching the end of its lifecycle. This utility replacement approach takes into consideration lifecycle analysis, condition assessments, and risk-based planning to identify the optimal time for replacement. Other considerations that will be incorporated into updating the city’s capital plan: • Location of work: grouping the work based on location in the city and type of work will result in better prices. • Overall asset condition: packaging utility replacement with street reconstruction will maximize efficiency and reduce costs. • Construction fatigue: community members living near construction projects experience ongoing noise, dust, detours and general disruptions to daily life. Rotating the work around the city on a cycle assists with reducing this. This discussion is intended to provide the council with an overview of our recommended overall utility replacement approach. As part of the 2026 budgeting process, staff will present an updated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that incorporates the approach. Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 5 Title: Utility asset management Overall utility replacement approach: The city's service area encompasses nearly 10.8 square miles and consists of approximately 161 miles of watermain and 140 miles of sanitary sewer. Watermain network: Initial city growth occurred in the 1930s, with a pause during World War II. About 64% of the pipe network was installed in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. While actual lifespan can vary greatly, the average life expectancy of water pipes is 100 years. Approximately 58% of the system's pipes are made of cast-iron pipe (CAS), which is an older material that tends to be more brittle, adding to its susceptibility to breaking. Around 74% of the total length of the system consists of pipes smaller than 10 inches in diameter. These smaller water pipes are more prone to breakage than larger ones; at the same time, their repairs are often more easily completed with minimal interruption for users. Some of the pipes in the city system are nearing the end of their useful life based on age, material, and diameter. Fortunately, less than 5% of the water main pipes scored High or Very High risk. When the watermain that has been replaced as part of the city's 2022-2024 transportation projects is factored into this assessment, the percentage of remaining High or Very High risk water pipes is lowered to 3.1% (about 5 miles total). Current replacement approach: Between 2014 and 2025, the city replaced an average of 1.8 miles/year (18.57 miles total) of watermain. If the city continues at this rate, it will take approximately 90 years or until 2104 to replace the system. Below is a graph that shows the lifecycle replacement based on this current approach. The blue line depicts an average 1.8 miles/year replacement. The bars below zero are miles of watermain that will be replaced prior to the end of lifecycle, the bars above zero are miles of watermain that will reach the end of lifecycle before replacement. Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 6 Title: Utility asset management Recommended replacement approach: Staff recommends that we increase the average replacement to 2 miles of watermain a year. Increasing the average amount of miles replaced by just .2 miles each year will shorten the overall time to replace the system by 19 years and replace more watermain before the end of its lifecycle. This updated modeling is shown on the next graph. To identify the specific watermain segments to be replaced, staff will use the risk score from the risk assessment study. Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 7 Title: Utility asset management Staff recommends the following approach for watermain: • Review staff capacity for project delivery • Work with finance on funding options • To select specific areas of work: o Overlay watermain risk score, pipe age and pavement condition o Group the work by neighborhood o Rotate work around the city by using the existing eight (8) pavement management areas for bundling segments for replacement Using this approach, the goal is to replace 2 miles/year of watermain, on average. If more or less dollars are made consistently available, the goal may change. Sanitary sewer network: The first sanitary sewer pipes in the system were installed in 1941, and about 66% of the pipe network was installed in the 1950s. Approximately 75% of the system is made of vitrified clay pipe (VCP). VCP is an inert material with a life expectancy of over 100 years. The pipes that are not VCP are nearing the end of their useful life based on age. In addition, there are areas of the system that will need to be increased in size to meet current and anticipated capacity needs. As a part of the desktop assessment, 40.3% of sanitary sewer pipes scored High or Very High risk. However, due to limited information about the condition of these pipes, the risk score is currently primarily driven by pipe age. This will change as work by public works (televising the system to assess condition) over the next four years improves our understanding of pipe condition. Going forward, the sanitary sewer system will continue to be televised on a regular basis. Developing a better understanding of pipe condition will provide us with a better picture of risk across the sanitary sewer system. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Sanitary install year and length of pipe (miles) Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 1) Page 8 Title: Utility asset management Staff recommends the following approach for sanitary sewer: • Repair/replace problems that are identified • Use pipe lining to extend the life of sanitary sewer pipe, where appropriate • Replace smaller pipes with larger ones in areas that require additional capacity based on the sewer model • Review staff capacity for project delivery • Work with finance on funding options Next steps: Incorporating this information into the city’s capital budget will require an extensive review of assets (streets and utilities), revenue sources, and staff workload to determine how it can be delivered. Additional funding above and beyond what is in the existing capital improvement plan may be requested as a result of this process. Due to this, staff wanted to bring the overall replacement approach to the council prior to starting the iterative process to update the city budget and capital plan. If the council supports staff’s recommendations, staff will use this overall replacement approach combined with the risk-based planning to inform staff’s updates to the capital improvement plan starting in the 2026 budget process and 2027 construction season. Staff will also continue to update the risk model, incorporating new information to ensure it is a living document and able to stay relevant for future capital and operational planning purposes. Meeting: Special study session Meeting date: April 21, 2025 Discussion item: 2 Executive summary Title: Proposed study session topic - relative homestead rental licensing Recommended action: City council and city manager review the proposed agenda topic and determine next steps. Policy consideration: Does the city council want to move forward with consideration of an exemption for relative homestead dwelling units from rental licensing requirements? Summary: Council Member Rog submitted a proposed agenda topic related to the elimination of rental licensing requirements for relative homestead dwelling units. City staff provided a high-level analysis of the request and are supportive of the proposed change. The next step is for the council to decide, as a group, if they want to move forward with consideration of an ordinance amendment. The staff analysis includes an overview of a process to amend the code and a projected timeline. Financial or budget considerations: The staff analysis outlines the potential impact of an exemption on licensing revenue, an estimated reduction of $13,500. It is anticipated that the revenue change will likely be offset by new apartment construction and an increase in the number of rental units. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Topic proposal and staff analysis Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City Council Study Session Topic Proposal Date: Prepared by: Proposed agenda topic: Brief Description of topic (no more than 200 words): How does this topic align with the council strategic priorities? If not, why should the council consider the topic: ** Please email completed forms to Kim Keller and Melissa Kennedy. Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 2) Title: Proposed study session topic - relative homestead rental licensing Page 2 City Council Study Session Topic Proposal Staff Analysis Date: 3/28/2025 Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, building and energy director Proposed agenda topic: Relative homestead rental licensing Staff analysis of request: (Please provide a high-level review of the proposed topic. Focus on key points, facts, impact, legal and/or future considerations .) Staff is supportive of presenting council with an amendment to city code sec. 8-326, providing an exemption for legally classified relative homestead dwelling units from the rental licensing requirements for non-owner occupied. This would eliminate the city license, fee, and inspection for these residential homes, condominiums and townhomes. Many owners have questioned and expressed frustration during conversations with staff, concerning the licensing requirements after purchasing a property for college age children, a disabled adult family member, or parents passing the title to children during estate planning. This situation had been discussed by staff and council many years ago, with no conclusive decision for action. After years of inspection experience, staff agree that relative homestead properties are generally properly maintained, safe and not likely to generate concerns by the occupants. Resources required: (Include relevant information such as cost, staffing, capacity) The city currently licenses only 60 relative homesteaded dwelling units, amounting to less than 0.5% of the total licensed units. Considering the small number affected by adopting an exemption, no change in staffing or capacity will occur. The reduction in annual licensing revenue would amount to $13,500 and would be accounted for during the budget process. The revenue change will likely be largely offset with new apartment construction and an increasing number of rental units. Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 2) Title: Proposed study session topic - relative homestead rental licensing Page 3 Other dependencies: (Include relevant information that could impact this proposal, such as: other agencies/jurisdictions, a pending policy discussion or action by council on related item, additional research that may be required to answer pending questions ) To receive a relative homestead classification that would be required for the proposed licensing exemption, the owner must apply at Hennepin County and agree to the following as dictated by MN Department of Revenue: I certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Minnesota Statutes, section 609.41, states that anyone giving false information in order to avoid or reduce their tax obligations is subject to a fine of up to $3,000 and/or up to one year in prison. This application must be signed by all owners who occupy the property or by the qualifying relative and returned to the county assessor to receive homestead on this property. Projected timeline: (Given current business levels and capacity, what is the projected timeline for staff to be able to work on and implement? If this was to be done now, what would the impact be on other projects and/or standard line of business?) Staff will prepare a study session report explaining the proposed exemption, followed by a council action item amending the ordinance this summer. This will allow the change to take effect before the 2026 licensing process begins during October. Recommended disposition: (select one) Study session discussion Council action at regular meeting Written report Include with another item already planned/scheduled Meeting with requesting councilmember(s) Handle offline Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 2) Title: Proposed study session topic - relative homestead rental licensing Page 4 Meeting: Special study session Meeting date: April 21, 2025 Written report: 3 Executive summary Title: Housing activity report Recommended action: The purpose of this report is to update council on city housing programs and activity. This report is informational only. No action is required. Policy consideration: None. Summary: The housing activity report is prepared by staff annually and has been presented to council each year since 2005. The report provides information on housing policies and initiatives, historical trends, affordable housing data, and information on housing programs in St. Louis Park. The first two pages provide an executive summary of the detailed report. Approximately every five years, the housing authority contracts to have a comprehensive housing study conducted by an independent consultant. The most recent housing study was completed and presented to council in 2023. Detailed information relating to the policies and programs in the housing activity report can be found on the St. Louis Park city website. 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: 2024 housing activity report Prepared by: Marney Olson, housing manager Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Page 1 2024 Housing Activity Report 2024 Housing Activity Report Executive summary The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the 2024 housing program activity in St. Louis Park. The report provides information on new initiatives and updates as well as historical trends, program descriptions, and data on city and federally funded housing programs and activity that support the city’s housing goals. 1.City housing policies, page 3 a.Inclusionary Housing (30%, 50% and 60% AMI) b.Tenant Protection Ordinance (60% AMI and below) c.Housing Trust Fund d. NOAH preservation strategies: i.4D tax incentive program (60% AMI and below) ii.Multifamily rental rehab program (60% AMI and below) iii.Legacy program (60% AMI and below) 2.Remodeling activity, page 9 a.Housing rehab projects (general remodeling) held fairly consistent between 2023 and 2024 for number of permits. Most projects were financed without using city loans. b.The city’s Architect Design Services and Remodeling Advisor Services usage have been decreasing; additional marketing efforts will be undertaken. c.Major remodeling projects and additions decreased in 2024. There were 33 additions and 73 major remodels with average valuations at $139,000 and $76,000 respectively. d.The Construction Management Plan (CMP) program has been in place since November 2014. In 2024 CMP letters were sent in for 23 major additions and one demo/rebuilds. A map is included on page 13 of the report showing the location of these projects. 3. Affordable home ownership, Community Development Block Grant and emergency rental assistance, page 16 a.The down payment assistance (DPA) program was utilized to maximum capacity in 2024. The city provided loans to 24 first-time homebuyers (at or below 120% AMI). b.The city launched the first-generation homeownership program in late 2021. The first loan closed in 2022. Four loans closed in 2024 for a total of 9 loans since program inception. c.West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust dba Homes Within Reach added three homes in St. Louis Park in 2024, for a total of 27 affordable land trust homes in the community. d.CDBG funds were used to fund the Deferred Loan Program for low-income residents in St. Louis Park and Homes Within Reach. (80% AMI) e. Emergency repair grants for low-income homeowners in St. Louis Park: three emergency repair grants were awarded in 2024 (50% AMI). f.STEP emergency rental assistance: In 2024, the city allocated $65,000 to STEP for emergency rental assistance, in addition to administrative and program-specific funding. 4.Housing matrix, page 18 a.Owner occupied properties (properties without a rental license) comprise 52% of the housing market in St. Louis Park; rental properties (units with a rental license) make up 48%. b.The single-family home ownership rate is 92%. c.In 2024, there are 1200 units of senior housing in St. Louis Park. Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 2 Page 2 2024 Housing Activity Report d.Maxfield Research completed their rental study in 2023. Among the 8,101 market rate units inventoried by unit mix and monthly rent, 26.4% are affordable to households with incomes at 50% AMI, while 24.5% are affordable to households with incomes at 60% AMI. e.The 2024 affordable ownership purchase price decreased to $290,700, $14,500 less than 2023 due to interest rate and hazard insurance rate increases. This affordable purchase price is $65,000 less than 2022 due to an interest rate increase in 2023. The significant reduction in the affordable purchase price also decreased the percentage of affordable homes. 25% of homes in St. Louis Park are assessed at or below this affordability limit. These homes are comprised of single-family detached houses, condominiums, and townhouses. 5.Foreclosures, page 24 a.The foreclosure rate remains extremely low. 6.Housing Authority rental assistance programs (30% AMI), page 25 a.The St. Louis Park Housing Authority affordable rental housing and rental assistance programs served approximately 620 households with rental assistance in 2024. Income eligibility limits are 50% AMI or below for the housing choice voucher (HCV) program and 80% or below for public housing; the majority of households served in public housing and the HCV program are below 30% AMI. 97% of households served by housing authority rental assistance programs are at or below 50% AMI with the majority (83%), below 30% AMI. All federally funded housing programs are counted as 30% AMI units because households typically pay no more than 30% of their income towards rent. b.The Housing Authority serves households with several special purpose vouchers including the Family Unification Program, Mainstream Vouchers and VASH which serves veterans (50% AMI and below). c.The St. Louis Park Housing Authority, in partnership with Hennepin County, has continued administering the Stable HOME rental assistance program which provides housing assistance to homeless or previously homeless individuals and families in Suburban Hennepin County. (50% AMI). d.Kids in the Park program – funding was increased in 2023 and in 2024 the program increased the number of households served from 20 to 30 (50% AMI and below). e.Lou Park Apartments – 19 tenants residing at Lou Park with project-based vouchers were transitioned to tenant-based vouchers administered by the Housing Authority (50% and below AMI). Housing authority rental assistance programs by AMI in 2024 30% AMI 50% AMI 60% AMI 80% AMI and over Percentage of Households 83% 14% 2% <1% 7.Program Descriptions, page 29 This section gives detailed descriptions of the various housing programs. Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 3 Page 3 2024 Housing Activity Report 1.City housing policies The City of St. Louis Park has undertaken new initiatives and updates to current policies to address affordable housing needs in the community. Inclusionary housing In June 2015, the city council adopted an Inclusionary Housing Policy that requires the inclusion of affordable housing units for lower income households in new market rate multi-unit residential developments receiving financial assistance from the city. The goal of the Inclusionary Housing Policy is to increase the supply of affordable housing and promote economic and social integration. The policy is regularly reviewed and updated as needed. Table 1: Inclusionary housing policy requirements Unit Type Current Policy Requirements Rental Projects •20% of units at 60% AMI •10% of units at 50% AMI •5% of units at 30% AMI Ownership Projects Payment in lieu In 2024 the policy was updated to set a per unit cap on the payment in lieu for affordable homeownership developments and additional updates that provided clarity to developers in complying with the policy. Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 4 Page 4 2024 Housing Activity Report Table 2: Affordable units created and approved since adoption of the Inclusionary Housing Policy Development Year built Length of affordability Total Units Affordable Units Affordability Level O-bedroom Affordable Units 1-bedroom Affordable Units 2-bedroom Affordable Units 3+bedroom Affordable Units Completed projects Shoreham 2017 25 148 30** 50% 4 13 13 4800 Excelsior 2017 25 164 18 60% 1 10 7 Central Park West Phase 1 (199 units total 2017 25 119 in SLP 6* 60% 1 2 2 1 Parkway 25 2018 112 Arlo West End 2020 25 164 5* 50% 1 1 2 1 The Quentin 2020 25 79 8 50% 3 4 1 0 Elmwood 2021 25 70 17 60% 5 12 Urban Park Flats 2021 61 0 Parkway Place 2022 94 0 Zelia on 7 2023 25 217 22 65 50% 60% 60% 36 29 15 5 – 3BR 2 – 4BR Parkway Residences – rehab 2023 25 24 24 50% 1 15 8 Parkway Flats 2023 25 6 6 60% 6 Caraway 2023 25 207 8* 60% 2 3 2 1 Volo at Texa Tonka 2023 25 112 23 50% 7 12 4 0 Rise on 7 2023 26 city 30 HTC* 120 19 22 21 58 30% 40% 50% 60% 57 39 24 Risor 2023 25 170 18 50% 1 11 5 1 Corsa 2023 25 250 25 50% 5 15 3 2 Parkway Commons 2023 37 0 Arbor Court 2024 26 city 30 HTC* 114 5 5 104 30% 50% 60% 27 50 37 Union Park Flats 2024 26 city 60 16 30% 10 5 30 10 - 3 BR Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 5 Page 5 2024 Housing Activity Report 50 LURA** 27 17 50% 60% 5 - 4 BR Mera 2024 25 233 47 50% 10 19 16 2 Totals 2,561 616 -------- 82 228 215 91 Development Year built Length of affordability in years Total Units Affordable Units Affordability Level O-bedroom Affordable Units 1-bedroom Affordable Units 2-bedroom Affordable Units 3+bedroom Affordable Units Under construction Parkway Plaza 73 0 Achromatic 6013 36 0 Totals 109 0 0 0 0 0 Approved Beltline Station Dev. Bldg 1 152 0 Beltline Station Dev. Bldg 2 40 city 82 5 77 30% 60% 15 45 22 Beltline Station Dev. Bldg 3 146 0 Totals 380 82 15 45 22 •Central Park West Phase 1 and Phase 2 and Luxe were not subject to the Inclusionary Housing Policy and voluntarily included affordable units •Shoreham is a tax credit property resulting in 20% of units affordable at 50% AMI •Parkway Residences, Parkway Place, Parkway Flats, Parkway Commons and Parkway Plaza were all approved under Parkway Residences and all of the affordable units are in Parkway Residences and Parkway Flats Some properties have a longer affordability term than the terms required by the inclusionary housing policy. The additional affordability period is noted below the inclusionary housing policy affordability period. *Housing tax credit (HTC) **Land use restrictive covenants (LURA) for tax credits Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 6 Page 6 2024 Housing Activity Report Housing Dashboard The City of St. Louis Park is committed to promoting quality multifamily development and affordable housing options for low- and moderate-income households. The multifamily housing dashboard shows the total number of rental units and the number of affordable units created since the inclusionary housing policy was adopted. Note that it does not reflect the total number of affordable rental units in the city, nor does it reflect affordable units that have been approved but have not yet been completed. The dashboard also includes a second tab, affordable housing goals, that shows the progress the city is making towards the affordable housing goals set by the Metropolitan Council. Tenant Protection Ordinance The city council adopted a tenant protection ordinance in 2018. The tenant protection ordinance requires a three- month period following the ownership transfer of a NOAH multifamily residential property during which the new owner would be required to pay relocation benefits to tenants if the rent is increased, existing residents are rescreened, or non-renewals are implemented without cause. NOAH properties are defined as buildings where at least 18% of the units have rents affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% Area Medium Income (AMI) to match the inclusionary housing policy affordability requirements at the time the policy was adopted. The ordinance does not prohibit a new owner from taking the management actions listed above; however, the owner would be required to provide resident relocation benefits if they do take any of those actions during the tenant protection period and a tenant decides to move as a result. The three-month protection period provides a period for residents to work with housing support resources and seek alternative housing if they are facing unaffordable rent increases, new screening criteria requirements that would be problematic for them, or a thirty- day non-renewal without cause notice to vacate. The ordinance requires the new owner of a NOAH building to provide notice of the ordinance protections to tenants of affordable housing units within 30 days of the sale of the building. The three-month tenant protection period begins once the notice has been given to the tenants. The sale of a NOAH property does not necessarily mean it will no longer be affordable. Some sales include rent restricted units and others remain affordable without rent restrictions. One sale in 2019 and one sale in 2023 have HUD project based units that required the property to remain affordable. Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 7 Page 7 2024 Housing Activity Report NOAH properties required to comply with the tenant protection ordinance based on sale date: •3 in 2019 •2 in 2020 •2 in 2021 •1 in 2022 •3 in 2023 •0 in 2024 Local affordable housing trust fund The city council approved establishing an affordable housing trust fund in 2018. Housing trust funds are distinct funds established by city, county or state governments that receive ongoing dedicated sources of public funding to support the preservation and production of affordable housing. Housing trust funds can also be a repository for private donations. The Minnesota Legislature passed a bill in 2017 that allows local communities to establish housing trust funds. The housing trust fund may be established by ordinance and administered by the city. Money in a housing trust fund may only be used to: •pay for administrative expenses not to exceed 10% of the balance of the fund; •make grants, loans, and loan guarantees for the development, rehabilitation, or financing of housing; •match other funds from federal, state, or private resources for housing projects; or •provide down-payment assistance, rental assistance, and homebuyer counseling services. The city may finance the fund with any money available to a local government, unless expressly prohibited by state law. The proposed primary source of funding for the city’s trust fund is an annual budgeted allocation of HRA Levy funds, which was available beginning in 2020. Pooled TIF is has been another funding source since 2022. The city received special legislation in 2022 to allow for the deposit of pooled TIF for affordable housing into the affordable housing trust fund. The pooled TIF legislation expires at the end of 2025. The local housing trust fund guide was approved in 2019. Land banking Land banking is the practice of aggregating parcels of land for future sale or development. The Economic Development Authority (EDA) purchased parcels near the Beltline and Wooddale stations to facilitate future redevelopment which will include housing. The EDA also purchased four single-family homes on Minnetonka Blvd between 2018 and 2022 for future affordable homeownership redevelopment purposes. NOAH Preservation (Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing) Housing staff continued to participate in a Regional Housing Workgroup to review and discuss strategies for preservation of NOAH. Additional preservation strategies including the multifamily rental rehab program, Legacy program and 4d were approved in 2018 and implemented in 2019 to preserve NOAH properties. Legacy program – 60% AMI and below Investors are buying NOAH apartment properties across the Twin Cities, often renovating the properties and increasing the rents. The City of St. Louis Park created the legacy program to encourage multifamily NOAH property owners in our community who are thinking about selling their property to consider connecting with a socially motivated investor who will preserve the affordability of their development. The city created a legacy program brochure outlining how an owner can make a difference by providing a legacy of affordable housing in St. Louis Park. The brochure was mailed to all class B and C multifamily rental properties. In 2021, the city expanded the Legacy program to include single family homes to connect potential sellers with Homes Within Reach to expand the land trust program in St. Louis Park and preserve affordable homeownership in the community. Homes Within Reach has communicated with homeowners about the program and one home in Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 8 Page 8 2024 Housing Activity Report 2022 and two homes in 2023 were sold directly to Homes Within Reach through the legacy program and will remain affordable homeownership opportunities in perpetuity. 4d - 60% AMI and below St. Louis Park’s 4d affordable housing incentive program helps preserve affordable units in the city by providing financial incentive to qualified apartment owners for state property tax reductions in exchange for keeping 20 percent or more of the rental units affordable. The program also offers grants to help owners make energy efficiency and safety improvements to their properties. Affordability duration is 5 years with the ability to re-enroll for additional 5-year terms. This program was developed, approved, and marketed in 2018 to preserve affordable housing in St. Louis Park. One apartment building applied for 4d in 2019. Two property management companies covering four properties applied in 2023 to the 4d program preserving approximately 460 units at or below 60% AMI for a minimum of five years. In 2024, three new properties submitted 4d applications. Two of these properties are duplexes and will keep both units affordable. The third property is an apartment complex and entered into an agreement to keep 50 percent of the units affordable, for a total of 68 affordable units. Since the program began there have been 519 affordable housing units that have enrolled in the program and will remain affordable at or below 60% AMI for the duration of their participation. Table 3: 4d affordable units preserved Year Number of Units Preserved Expires 2019 17 2029 2023 464 2028 2024 38 2029 TOTAL 519 ------- Multifamily rental rehab program - 60% AMI and below The multifamily rental rehab program provides moderate rehabilitation assistance to eligible owners of St. Louis Park multifamily residential rental properties with three or more units. The targeted properties are NOAH properties that have been maintained, are in good standing, and wish to make improvements to their properties. Buildings must be at least 30 years old and meet the St. Louis Park definition of a NOAH property. The maximum loan amount per qualified rent restricted unit is $5,000 with a maximum loan per building/development of $50,000. Loans have 0% interest and are due upon the sale of the property. Owners must restrict the rents for a 10-year term or until the sale or transfer of the ownership of the property. The goal of this program is to provide a rehab incentive for NOAH properties to improve their property without raising rents above the 60% AMI rent level. No properties participated in this program in 2019. Staff began evaluating the program in 2020 and modifying the program in 2021. In 2022, housing staff worked with the city’s environment and sustainability staff on a grant to evaluate housing and energy efficiency programs for multifamily properties to identify barriers to the use of the current programs and identify what changes would make the programs more beneficial to both property owners and tenants. One multifamily rental rehab loan closed in 2022 and three loans covering 149 units were closed in 2023. No loans were closed in 2024; however, one property was working with the city to apply in early 2025. A total of 702 NOAH units have been preserved since 2019 between the 4d and Multifamily rental rehab programs. Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 9 Page 9 2024 Housing Activity Report 2.Remodeling activity Residential permitted activity measures remodeling and maintenance activity. This section shows historical trends of remodeling activity. Permit Trends •“Alteration Residential” or General Remodeling General remodeling work includes residential projects with permit valuations less than $37,500. The average value per job in 2024 is approximately $9,700, a slight increase decrease compared to 2023. Permits include a wide range of projects including remodeling of existing spaces, window and door replacement, drain tile, insulation, foundation work, etc. Chart 1: Trend of General Remodeling Permits valued under $37,500 •Roofing and Siding Activity Reroofing and residing permits are tracked separately. Almost 60% of the homes in the city had roofs replaced between 2008 and 2011 due to storm damage. In 2020 the number of permits started to increase. The number of reroofs in 2023 and 2024 was nearly double 2022 and 2021. Residing has been more consistent over the last 10 years. Chart 2: Reroofing and Residing Permits 1084 1074 1203 1170 983 996 1044 1001 1018 811 796 0 500 1000 1500 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Number of Permits IssuedYear Maintenance & minor remodeling permits Alteration Residential (Minor) 131 104 80 107 163 162 296 591 590 1176 1114 70 47 86 62 85 63 122 205 205 156 227 0 500 1000 1500 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Number of Permits IssuedYear Reroofing and residing permits Reroof Reside Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 10 Page 10 2024 Housing Activity Report •Additions and Major Remodeling The number of major remodeling permits (valued at more than $37,500) and additions decreased from last year. The average permit valuation for additions during 2024 is $139,000, which is approximately $51,500 less than the average permit valuation in 2023. The 2024 average valuation for major remodels is approximately $76,00 which is a slight increase of $2,000 more than 2023. Chart 3: Number of Addition and Major Remodeling Permits •Permit Valuation The following chart shows historical remodeling permit valuation for additions, major remodels, remodeling and maintenance, garages/decks, reroofs, and siding. Permits with additional valuations were issued for plumbing, heating, and electrical work are not shown here. Chart 4: Permitted Residential Remodeling 73 70 59 62 59 49 67 63 62 38 33 69 70 65 77 77 82 69 104 107 93 73 0 40 80 120 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Number of Permits IssuedYear Addition and major remodel permit activity Addition Residential Major Remodels $25 $23 $25 $26 $28 $24.6 $31 $40 $36 $43.6 $38.4 0 20 40 60 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Permit Valuation -Million $Year Residential remodeling permit valuation Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 11 Page 11 2024 Housing Activity Report City Housing Improvement Services, Loans Trends and Program Descriptions Home Improvement Services The city’s architectural design service, remodeling advisor and Home Energy Squad visits are great programs for residents who are considering a remodel or energy improvements. CEE has confirmed that St. Louis Park’s remodeling advisor visits are consistent with what they are seeing for other cities that utilize the program; however, staff will look at ways to increase marketing of the program so homeowners are aware of this great resource. The sustainability division of the building and energy department now administers the home energy visits. Chart 5: Architect and remodeling advisor visits Chart 6: Home energy visits 41 22 31 33 39 52 47 36 18 12 11 95 69 76 76 83 51 45 30 37 18 14 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Number of VisitsYear Architect and remodeling advisor visits Architect Services Remodeling Advisor 173 125 170 109 85 130 166 128 112 216 246 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Number of VisitsYear Home energy squad visits Home Energy Visits Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 12 Page 12 2024 Housing Activity Report Construction Management Plan Major additions (second story additions or additions of 500 square feet or more), demolitions and new construction projects need to comply with the Construction Management Plan (CMP). In 2024, the following neighborhood notifications were sent: 23 major additions and one demo/rebuild. The total permit valuation for CMP additions in 2024 was $3,618,400 with an average cost of $157,000. Chart 7: CMP Activity 32 37 33 33 17 19 38 19 8 2318 10 9 7 8 11 4 5 4 1 3 6 3 2 0 2 2 1 0 03101 2 1 0 0 0 00 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Number of CMP ProjectsYear Construction Management Plan Activity Additions Demo/New Build New Build Demo only Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 13 Page 13 2024 Housing Activity Report Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 14 Page 14 2024 Housing Activity Report City Loans and rebates The following chart shows the number of Move Up and discount loans issued. The city buys down the interest rate on the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency’s community fix up loan for the discount loan with a maximum loan amount of $35,000. In 2020, interest rates dropped below the rate of the city’s buydown rate, so midway through the year no loans needed the city to buy down the rate. This continued through 2022. The city resumed the buy down program in 2023. The move up loan was underutilized for several years. Changes were made to income limits and maximum loan amount for the Move up loan in 2023 increasing the income limit to 120% AMI with a maximum loan amount of $35,000 and the program has seen an increase in usage with these changes. It is anticipated that an uptick in loan applications will occur in 2025 given the increase in interest rates. Chart 8: Use of city financial incentives Move-Up in the Park loans are deferred until the sale of the home or forgiven after thirty years. Table 4: Move-Up Transformation Loans Paid off in the last five years Year Number of Loans Paid Off Amount of Loans 2020 5 $114,327 2021 4 $77,876 2022 2 $50,000 2023 5 $96,514 2024 2 $48,699 Total paid off $387,416 6 7 10 6 3 6 1 2 2 5 6 17 13 11 6 5 6 5 0 0 7 5 0 25 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Number Loans - Rebates Year Move up and discount loans Move up loans Discount loans Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 15 Page 15 2024 Housing Activity Report Table 5: Housing rehab and homeownership programs YEAR Move-Up loan Discount loan Architectural Design Services Remodeling Advisor Services Down payment assistance loan First-generation loan Total City Cost 2006 27 $591,264 88 $186,205 102 $22,950 157 $20,410 $820,829 2007 27 $620,000 50 $74,000 62 $12,400 179 $23,270 $729,670 2008 18 $330,937 55 $114,129 49 $11,025 130 $16,900 $472,991 2009 17 $329,650 52 $106,000 12 $7,200 126 $16,380 $459,230 2010 9 $209,769 64 $86,263 30 $6,750 89 $11,510 $314,292 2011 10 $226,877 22 $29,213 29 $6,525 82 $10,250 $272,865 2012* 6 $106,232 26 $31,276 29 $6,525 69 $8,970 $153,003 2013 6 $145,071 22 $33,063 37 $8,325 69 $8,970 $195,429 2014 6 $138,740 17 $26,079 41 $9,225 95 $12,350 $186,394 2015 7 $173,000 13 $17,577 22 $4,950 69 $15,525 $211,052 2016 10 $231,057 11 $27,001 31 $6,975 76 $17,100 $282,133 2017 6 $137,950 6 $5,907 33 $7,425 76 $17,100 $168,382 2018 3 $75,000 5 $12,904 39 $8,775 83 $18,865 $115,544 2019 6 $142,350 6 $16,577 52 $11,700 51 $11,475 8 $87,621 $269,723 2020 1 $25,000 5 $7,506 47 $10,575 45 $10,125 10 $135,428 $188,634 2021 2 $50,000 0 0 36 $8,125 30 $7,500 10 $127,900 $193,525 2022 2 $39,210 0 0 18 $4,050 37 $9,250 12 $177,590 1 $50,000 $280,100 2023 5 166,081 7 $17,842 12 $2,700 18 $4,500 22 $310,050 4 $186,125 $687,298 2024 6 $209,114 5 $21,670 11 $2,475 14 $3,500 24 $350,895 4 $211,800 $799,454 Total $6,800,548 Detailed descriptions of each Move-Up Program are listed at the end of the report. Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 16 Page 16 2024 Housing Activity Report 3.Affordable home ownership, Community Development Block Grants and emergency rental assistance Home ownership - down payment assistance program – 100%/115% AMI and below The down payment assistance program (DPA) provides down payment/closing cost assistance to first- time homebuyers, or those that have not owned a home in the last three years, for purchasing a home in St. Louis Park. The loan is a zero percent interest deferred loan up to $15,000, not to exceed five percent of the purchase price. An additional $5,000 is available for employees of St. Louis Park businesses and St. Louis Park renters. Income restrictions apply. 24 DPA loans were closed in 2024. First generation program It’s recognized that historical and institutional racism has disproportionately created housing challenges and disparities for Black communities, as well as members of communities who do not identify as white, and other underserved low-income communities. Additionally, the income and education gap between households of color and white households has resulted in difficulty for Black and African American people and households of color to obtain mortgages, leading to ongoing wealth accumulation equity issues. The first-generation homeownership program is designed to address these historic injustices and inequities and to support inclusive and equitable communities by facilitating affordable homeownership and providing a means for wealth-building. The goal is to address housing disparities; build power in communities most impacted by housing challenges and disparities; pilot an innovative program to address housing challenges for Black communities as well as members of communities who don’t identify as white, and other underserved low-income communities. To be considered for the program, a buyer must be a first-generation homeowner meaning they have never owned a home and their parents must have never owned a home. The program is available to homebuyers with a maximum household income at or below 80% of area median income. The maximum loan amount is based on the household’s income and purchase price of the homes with a maximum of $75,000. The loan is forgiven at 5% per year over a 20-year owner occupancy period. Housing staff have partnered with several non-profits to provide outreach to first generation homeowners. These non- profits work with first-time home buyers and are also dedicated to advancing homeownership equity in Minnesota. The program was launched in November 2021 and the first loan was closed in September 2022. Four loans were closed in 2023 and another four loans closed in 2024 for a total of 9 loans issued at an average amount of just under $50,000 per loan since the program’s inception. Housing Improvement Area (HIA) The HIA is a finance tool to assist with the preservation of the city’s existing townhome and condominium housing stock. An HIA is a defined area within a city where housing improvements are made, and the cost of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed on the properties within the area. The Association borrows low interest money from the city, improvements are completed, and unit owners repay the loan through fees imposed on their properties and collected with property tax payments. HIA financing is authorized under state law and provides last resort financing for multifamily ownership housing developments. City staff work with the association to ensure financial stability within the association’s reserves going forward. To date, nine HIA’s have been established and nearly fourteen million dollars of improvements have been made to 1,310 units. Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 17 Page 17 2024 Housing Activity Report Emergency Repair Grant (50% AMI) The emergency repair grant that had previously been funded using CDBG funds is now funded with housing rehab dollars. Three emergency grants were issued in 2024. The maximum grant amount is $5,000. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) (80% AMI) The CDBG calendar year runs from July 1 – June 30th. The FY2024 CDBG allocation of $169,216 was directed to the low-income deferred loan program administered by Hennepin County Low-income deferred loan program Hennepin County administers the low-income deferred loan program for St. Louis Park and other suburban cities in Hennepin County. This program is a 15-year deferred loan for low-income homeowners that is forgiven after 15 years if the homeowner remains in the home. The waiting list continues to grow for this program so additional city funding was budgeted with Hennepin County administering the program. Nine additional loans were committed in 2024 with the use of city funds. West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust, dba Homes Within Reach (HWR) (80% AMI) Homes Within Reach is a program of West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust that purchases properties, rehabilitates, and then sells the home to qualified low to moderate income households. Buyers pay for the cost of the home only and lease the land for 99 years. City funds are leveraged with CDBG, Hennepin County Affordable Housing Incentive Fund (AHIF), HOME Partnership, Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Housing, and other funds. Homes Within Reach uses the community land trust model to create and preserve affordable homeownership for families in suburban Hennepin County. Three homes were purchased in 2024. To date, Homes Within Reach has purchased 27 homes in St. Louis Park. Emergency rental assistance Annually, the City of St. Louis Park provides funding to the St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) for emergency rental assistance and administrative support. STEP provides rental assistance for residents of St. Louis Park who have an unexpected crisis and cannot pay rent. The crisis mut be able to be resolved with the ability to pay next month’s rent. Documentation is requested at the time of application. Priority is given to those with gross incomes at or below 50% AMI. STEP also receives Community Development Block Grant funds through the Hennepin County Consolidated RFP for emergency assistance. The City of St. Louis Park provided $65,000 in funding to STEP for emergency rental assistance and $54,290 in administrative support for a total of $119,290 in 2024. Information about STEP, county and state emergency rental assistance programs was shared with property owners and managers utilizing the SPARC e-newsletter. The information was also shared on the city’s website and via social media for residents of St. Louis Park. Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 18 Page 18 2024 Housing Activity Report 4.Housing matrix and development The housing matrix below shows the numbers and percentages of housing types, tenure (owner or rental), affordable units, senior-designated units, and large single-family homes. The matrix is a guide to evaluate future housing development proposals. •12,944 units (48% of units) in St. Louis Park have a rental license. •The chart shows percentages of rental vs. owner-occupied units over time. Prior to 2017, the chart reflects homestead vs. non-homesteaded properties. Starting in 2017, the chart uses rental licenses to count the number of rental properties in St. Louis Park since not all non-homesteaded properties are rental. •92% of single-family detached homes were owner-occupied (did not have a rental license), and 83% of condos/townhomes were owner-occupied (no rental license) in 2024. •The city hired Maxfield Research to update the city’s comprehensive housing analysis. The report was completed and presented to council in 2023. Chart 9: Percentage of owner occupied units *Rental license data used beginning in 2017 Single-family rentals in St. Louis Park: A non-owner-occupied license (rental license) is required for any non-owner-occupied unit, including relative homesteaded properties, vacant units, and properties that are not owner-occupied for at least 6 months per year. The city does not track the various types of licensed single-family homes and therefore does not have data on how many of the licenses are for occupied rental properties versus vacant homes, homes rented to family members, or properties in which the homeowner does not occupy the home for at least 6 months. Vacant properties are often identified by neighbors who contact the building and energy department who follow up with owners informing them of the requirement to apply for a rental license. One example occurred this year with several single-family homes that are currently being rehabbed where nobody is living in the unit. The city reached out to the owner resulting in those properties applying for and receiving a rental license. 89 90 89 93 94 94 93 93 93 93 92 66 67 67 78 79 81 83 80 82 82 83 0 50 100 2014 2015 2016 2017*2018*2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Percentage YEAR Percent owner occupied units Single Family Detached Homes Condos & Townhomes Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 19 Page 19 2024 Housing Activity Report There were 936 single-family rental licenses in St. Louis Park including 37 single-family public housing units owned and operated by the St. Louis Park Housing Authority in 2024. Over the past ten years the number of single-family non-owner-occupied licenses has fluctuated between 814 and 936 as shown in the chart below. Staff monitor the single-family rental license trends in St. Louis Park annually. Chart 10: Single-family non-owner occupied* licenses * The city does not track the various types of licensed single-family homes and therefore does not have data on how many of the licenses are for occupied rental properties versus vacant homes, homes rented to family members, or properties in which the owner does not occupy the home for at least 6 months or more. Family-size single-family homes One of the city’s housing goals is to increase the number of family-size homes available in the city. “Family-size single-family homes” are defined as exceeding 1,500 square feet of living space, having 3 or more bedrooms, 2 or more baths, and at minimum a 2-car garage. According to the Assessing Department, 2,533 – or 22% – of St. Louis Park single family homes meet this threshold. This is an increase over last year, most likely due to additions, demo/rebuilds, and remodels. Although this size home is not considered large when compared to newly constructed housing, in St. Louis Park 74% of single-family homes have a foundation size less than 1,200 square feet and 45% of single-family homes have less than 1,200 square feet above ground. Senior housing The following information provides an overview of senior housing is available in St. Louis Park: •Ten senior (including senior preference) housing rental developments, for a total of 1,200 units. •Hamilton House offers a preference for senior, however there are additional preferences so not all residents are seniors. •Three developments are “affordable.” Hamilton House is Public Housing; Menorah West and Menorah Plaza are multi-family subsidized senior housing. •Two developments have a mix of market rate and affordable units. The Elmwood has 17 affordable housing units and Risor has 18 affordable units. These affordable units are required by the inclusionary housing policy. •Two senior ownership developments, for a total of 166 units. •Total rental and home ownership units is 1,366. 851 899 855 850 814 828 871 849 900 936 740 760 780 800 820 840 860 880 900 920 940 960 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Single-family non-owner occupied* licenses Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 20 Page 20 2024 Housing Activity Report Table 6: Senior housing table RENTAL Project name Address Total units Affordable units Occupied Date Type of Senior Hamilton House 2400 Nevada Ave S 110 110 1976 Public Housing (Senior Preference) Menorah West Apts 3600 Phillips Parkway 45 1986 Affordable/Subsidized Menorah Plaza 4925 Minnetonka Blvd 151 1981 Affordable/Subsidized, Assisted Living Offered Parkshore Place 3663 Park Center Blvd 207 1988 Senior Knollwood Place 3630 Phillips Parkway 153 1987 Senior TowerLight 3601 Wooddale Ave 43 29 33 2012 Senior Assisted Living Memory Care Roitenberg Family 3610 Phillips Parkway 52/24 2002 Assisted Living/Memory Care Parkwood Shores 3633 Park Center Blvd 68 23 2001 Assisted Living Memory Care Comfort Residence at St. Louis Park 7115 Wayzata Blvd 12 10 2014 Assisted Living Memory Care The Elmwood 5605 W 36th St 70 17 2021 53 market rate/ 17 affordable @ 60% AMI Risor 3510 Beltline Blvd 170 18 2023 152 market rate/18 affordable @ 50% AMI TOTAL RENTAL UNITS: 1200 145 affordable rental units HOME OWNERSHIP Project name Address No. of Units Occupied Date Type of Senior Aquila Commons 8200 W 33rd St 106 2012 Coop Village in the Park 3600 Wooddale 60 2007 Senior Living TOTAL OWNER UNITS 166 Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 21 Page 21 2024 Housing Activity Report Affordable Housing The Metropolitan Council sets the rental affordability limit at 60% area median income (AMI) and 80% AMI for ownership affordability. In 2024, the metro area median income (AMI) for a household of four was $124,200. Below is a chart showing the number of market-rate affordable (naturally occurring affordable housing) multifamily rental units in St. Louis Park with affordable levels from 30% AMI to 80% AMI based on the Maxfield Research update from 2023. Program participants with a St. Louis Park Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) can utilize vouchers in market- rate rentals reducing the rents to 30 – 40% of a voucher holder’s income. The average HCV client’s income is below 30% AMI. The following information is an excerpt of the 2023 Maxfield Research Housing Study for the City of St. Louis Park. The city updates the housing study approximately every five years. Among the 8,101 market rate units inventoried by unit mix and monthly rent, 26.4% are affordable to households with incomes at 50% AMI while 24.5% are affordable to households with incomes at 60% AMI. Table 7: Multifamily market-rate rental units by AMI Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 22 Page 22 2024 Housing Activity Report Chart 11: 2023 Maxfield report - Naturally occurring affordable housing by AMI Source: Maxfield research & Consulting LLC Affordable housing rental projects The multifamily housing dashboard shows the total number of rental units and the number of affordable units created since the inclusionary housing policy was adopted. Affordable homeownership •The 2024 affordable ownership purchase price is at or below $290,200, which is the affordable homeownership purchase price for households at 80% AMI ($97,800). The affordable purchase price at 80% AMI decreased by $14,400 from 2023 due to increased insurance rates and higher interest rates. The matrix also shows the data for single-family homes, condos, and townhomes valued at $217,400 or less, which is the 60% AMI affordable ownership purchase price, and is a decrease in purchase price of $16,800. •In 2024, 3,957 (25%) of the single-family homes, condos, and townhomes in St. Louis Park were considered affordable at or below 80% AMI based on valuation data from assessing compared to compared to 4,832 in 2023. The affordable ownership purchase price decreased by $14,500 compared to 2023 due to increased insurance rates and higher interest rates. The interest rate is the primary change in the assumptions to determine affordability, increasing from 5.5% to 6.25% and a modest increase in hazard insurance from $100/month to $117/month. The Metropolitan Council includes the following assumptions in determining the affordable ownership price: o Fixed-interest, 30-year home loan o Interest rate of 6.25% o A 28% housing debt-to-household income ratio o A 3.5% down payment o A property tax rate of 1.00% of the property sales price o Mortgage insurance at 0.85% of unpaid principal o $117/month for hazard insurance Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 23 Page 23 2024 Housing Activity Report Table 8: St. Louis Park Housing Matrix December 31, 2024 Housing Units by Type Large Single Family Homes, Affordable, and Senior Housing Housing Type Housin g Units Owner Occupied (No Rental License) Rental Licenses Family sized single family homes over 1500 square feet 2024 Affordableownership: SF, Condo and TH Units 60% | 80% 2023 Maxfield Research Affordable Market Rate (NOAH) Rental Units 60% | 80% Rent restricted units *Does not include tenant based vouchers Senior Designated Single Family Detached 11,602 43% 10,666 936 2,533 148 1200 37 public housing Duplex 436 2% 114 322 Condos and townhomes 3,565 13% 2,956 609 1,564 2,757 166 Apartments 11,077 42% 11,077 4153 6603 1,073 1200 Totals 26,680 13,741 52% 12,944 48% 2,533 22% 1,712 11% 3957 25% 4153 51% 6603 81.% 1,110 9% 1366 5% % of SF Homes % of SF, Condo & TH % of Multifamily surveyed % of Rental % of Total Housing Units The rental unit numbers are rental license data provided by the building and energy department. The percentage of owner occupied (no rental license) units to rental (units with a rental license) units is 52% owner (no rental license) and 48% of units with a rental license. Met Council revises the affordable housing income standards annually and affordability is defined as owner occupied units at 80% AMI and rental units at 60% AMI. Some years 80% AMI rental units have also been considered affordable. This chart shows all single family homes, condos and townhomes with an assessed value based on 60% and 80% AMI. The chart also shows multifamily rental units affordable at 60% AMI and 80% AMI based on Maxfield Research data. The percentage of affordable units for multifamily is based on the percentage of multifamily units surveyed by Maxfield Research in 2023. More data is on the previous page related to affordable rents based on the number of bedrooms in a unit. Rent restricted units include project based vouchers, public housing, and inclusionary housing units. This does not include the tenant based Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8), Kids in the Park, or Stable HOME vouchers which are not tied to a specific unit. Data source: St. Louis Building and Energy and Assessing departments, St. Louis Park Housing Authority and Maxfield Research & Consulting. Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 24 Page 24 2024 Housing Activity Report 5. Foreclosures Foreclosures are measured by the number of sheriff sales. The number of residential foreclosures in St. Louis Park and throughout Hennepin County remains low with 13 foreclosures in 2024. Chart 12: St. Louis Park Residential Foreclosures by Year The trend chart below shows foreclosure by housing type over time. Chart 13: Residential foreclosures by housing type *Townhome & DB = Townhome and Double Bungalow/Duplex 54 47 31 36 19 15 4 4 7 11 13 0 40 80 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Number of Sherrif Sales Year Residential Foreclosures by Year 39 28 21 25 16 11 3 2 6 6 111415 6 9 2 4 1 1 1 3 2 1 4 4 2 1 0 0 1 0 2 00 50 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Number Sherrif SalesYear Residential foreclosures by housing type Single Family Detached Condos Townhome & DB Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 25 Page 25 2024 Housing Activity Report 6.Housing Authority and rental assistance programs The St. Louis Park Housing Authority (HA) administers programs that ensure the availability of safe and desirable affordable housing options in the St. Louis Park community. These programs include the Public Housing program, Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance program, the family self-sufficiency program, Stable HOME, and Kids in the Park programs. The HA currently serves over 615 eligible, low- income households through their housing programs. Public Housing – Restricted to households at or below 80% AMI; however, the majority of public housing residents have incomes below 50% AMI, with the greatest number below 30% AMI The Housing Authority (HA) owns Hamilton House, a low-rise apartment building (108 one-bedroom units and two two-bedroom units) built in 1975, and 37 scattered site single-family units (three to five bedrooms) acquired or constructed between 1974 and 1996. Hamilton House is designated for general occupancy; however, priority is given to elderly and disabled applicants. The single-family scattered site units house families with children. The HA also holds the HUD Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) and maintains a waiting list for 12 two-bedroom Public Housing apartment units located at Louisiana Court. The average annual income for households at Hamilton House is $16,108 which is below 30% AMI. The average income for the scattered site single-family homes and Louisiana Court public housing units is $43,792. Family sizes in Louisiana Court and the scattered site houses range from two to 11 people per home. Table 9: Percentage of public housing units by AMI 30% AMI 50% AMI 60% AMI 80% or above 81% 13% 3% 3% Public housing residents pay 30% of their income towards rent. If a household’s income rises above the limit, on the second anniversary of exceeding the HUD over-income limit (120% AMI), households are given notice that they are no longer eligible for public housing and need to move on from the program. The 2024 annual budget for Public Housing was $1,491,689. The HA received an award of $361,715 for the 2024 Capital Fund Program (CFP). CFP funds need to be obligated within two years and spent within four years. Table 10: Public Housing Public Housing Total Units 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR 5-BR Hamilton House 110 108 2 Scattered Site Single Family 37 17 17 3 Louisiana Court, Metropolitan Housing Opportunity (MHOP) Units 12 12 Total (bedroom size) 108 14 17 17 3 Total Units 159 Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 26 Page 26 2024 Housing Activity Report Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) – 50% AMI or below The HA is allocated a total of 382 Housing Choice Vouchers from HUD. This rent assistance program provides rent subsidies for low-income individuals and families in privately owned, existing market rate housing units. The rent subsidy is paid directly to the owner of the rental property by the Housing Authority (HA) with funds provided by HUD. The HA administers tenant-based, project-based and newly awarded special program vouchers as noted below. 46 vouchers of the HA’s allocation are designated for use in three privately owned developments (Vail Place, Wayside, and Bickham Court) and are referred to as project-based vouchers. The average income of voucher holder households in St. Louis Park is $19,224 which is below 30% AMI. HCV participants pay at least 30% of their income towards rent and can choose to pay up to 40%. The 2024 annual budget for HCV and Mainstream was $5,066,613. Despite the number of HCV units allocated to a Housing Authority by HUD, HAs are limited in the number of vouchers that can be administered by the annual funding allocated by HUD. Family Unification Vouchers (FUP) The Housing Authority (HA) was awarded 12 Family Unification Vouchers (FUP) at the end of 2019 and an additional 15 units in 2020. FUP is a program in which Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) are provided in order to lease decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private housing market to: •Families for whom the lack of adequate housing is a primary factor in either: the imminent placement of the family’s child(ren) in out of home care or the delay in the discharge of the child(ren) to the family from out of home care. There is no time limitation on family FUP vouchers, or •Youth who are at least 18 years or and not more than 24 years old who: left foster care at age 16 or older to will leave foster care within 90 days and are homeless or at risk of homelessness. FUP vouchers used by youth were previously limited by statute to 36 months of housing assistance. The CARES Act has changed the limit to 60 months. The HA is partnering with Hennepin County on this program. 27 FUP vouchers were utilized in 2024. Foster Youth to Independence (FYI) – New vouchers awarded – 50% AMI and below The Foster Youth to Independence (FYI) initiative allows Housing Authorities who partner with a Public Child Welfare Agency (PCWA) to request targeted Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) to serve eligible youth with a history of child welfare involvement that are homeless or at risk of being homeless. Rental assistance and supportive services are provided to qualified youth for a period of up to 36 months. As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act in 2021 the Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities (FSHO) amendment allows housing authorities to provide youth with an extension up to 24 months if they meet one of the statutory requirements, this extension allows the youth 60 months total on the FYI program. Statutory requirements include one of the following: participation in a Family Self Sufficiency Program, or youth who are required to care for a dependent child under age 6 or an incapacitated person, or are participating in drug or alcohol treatment, or are enrolled in an institution of higher education, or are participating in a job training program, or are employed. Hennepin County partners with the HA in the administration of the FYI program. The HA administers the rental assistance vouchers for the participants, while the county is responsible for providing engaging service agencies to provide the required support services. The regulations overseeing the issuance and administration of the FYI rental vouchers are the same as those for Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) with the exception of the 36-month limit on assistance, with extensions up to 24 months for eligible activities. HUD is the funding source for both the housing assistance and the administration fees for the program, similar to the HCV program. As of December 31, 2024 housing authority has a total of 24 FYI vouchers and 21 of them are leased up with three vouchers are issued and they are searching for housing. Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 27 Page 27 2024 Housing Activity Report Mainstream The HA was awarded seven additional Mainstream vouchers via the CARES Act in 2020, adding to the eight mainstream vouchers awarded previously. 10 additional Mainstream vouchers were awarded in 2022 bringing the HA’s total number of MS vouchers to 25. These Mainstream vouchers provide vouchers to assist non-elderly persons with disabilities who are transitioning out of institutional or other segregated settings, at serious risk of institutionalization, or at serious risk of homelessness, or homeless. It was designed to further to the goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by helping persons with disabilities live in the most integrated setting. Families or individuals with a Mainstream voucher must have a household member at least 18 years of age and less than 62 years of age with a disability at the time of eligibility determination. 25 mainstream vouchers were utilized in 2024. Lou Park Apartments Lou Park is an apartment complex in St. Louis Park owned and managed by Bigos Management. Bigos notified tenants that in 2018 they would be completing a contract transfer of their 32 project-based units to another property. As of July 1, 2019, tenants were eligible to request to move to the new property or remain at Lou Park using an enhanced voucher administered by the St. Louis Park Housing Authority. This added 32 additional vouchers to the Housing Authority’s allocation. Initially, 31 tenants chose to utilize the tenant protection voucher at Lou Park. As of December 31, 2024, 19 remained at Lou Park, the remainder have chosen to use their voucher to move to a different complex. Bickham Court In 2024, the former owner, Perspectives, Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and was required to sell the property as part of the bankruptcy proceedings. All parties involved in the sale of Perspectives navigated the process with the goal of preserving affordable housing and supportive services. Perspectives accepted a suitable offer from Trellis Co. to purchase the five buildings, maintain all affordable restrictions, assume the project-based rental assistance contract, and assume and continue all tenant leases. Trellis’ acquisition and the bankruptcy court’s approval of the sale were contingent upon both new financing from Greater Minnesota Housing Fund and the assignment and assumption of all secured debt from multiple sources including Hennepin County, Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Community Development Block Grant funds from the City of St. Louis Park and City of Edina, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and Family Housing Fund. Residents at the property had been without onsite supportive services for nearly one year. Trellis resumed supportive services and partnered with Missions as their provider. Missions is a nonprofit organization who provides housing, emergency shelter and supportive services to domestic abuse survivors and those seeking recovery from substance use disorders. Missions intends to provide the same services Perspectives previously provided with the exception of childcare. In September Trellis named the property Bickham Court after George Bickham who worked at Perspectives as a teacher and mentor for 22 years before he died in January 2022 at the age of 46. Trellis contacted his family and they said they would be thrilled to have it named after him. The St. Louis Park Housing Authority Board approved the assignment of the project-based contract with Perspectives to Trellis in July for 22 project-based units and a 20 year project based contract extension at the September 2024 board meeting. In late 2024, Minnesota Housing announced that Bickham Court, formerly Perspectives Apartments, was selected by Minnesota Housing for over $8 million in substantial rehab funding. The HA Board’s approval of a 20-year project-based voucher contract was a critical element of their application to Minnesota Housing. Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 28 Page 28 2024 Housing Activity Report Wayside The Housing Authority (HA) has provided project-based vouchers (PBV) to Wayside House properties located at 1341 and 1349 Jersey Ave S since 2023. Wayside provides supportive housing and programming for women in recovery. Wayside currently has 16 project-based vouchers and they self- subsidize rents on four of their units. Table 11: HCV Lease-Up Report HCV (and special purpose voucher) Lease Up Report as of December 31, 2023 Utilized (leased and vouchers issued) Allocated Housing Choice Voucher 243 250 Project Based Vouchers (PBV) 36 36 Family Unification Program (FUP) *including 7 project-based vouchers 20 27 Lou Park (tenant protection vouchers) 19 19 Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) 22 25 Foster Youth to Independence (FYI) 21 24 Mainstream *including 3 project-based vouchers 25 25 Total (95% utilized) 386 406 Port Ins 10 NA Approximately 330 of the leased vouchers are leased up in St. Louis Park. The remaining vouchers are leased in other communities through the portability option with the HCV program. There are 10 “port ins” as shown in the chart above, which are voucher holders living in St. Louis Park but their voucher belongs to a different Housing Authority. Stable HOME Rental Assistance Program – 50% AMI The Stable HOME program provides rent assistance to low-income singles and families who were homeless or would otherwise be at risk of homelessness. Rent assistance is limited to three years. During the three years, participants must establish good rental histories. They must also work to improve their earnings enough to where they do not need rental assistance or find a permanent subsidy program. The Stable Home program is administered by the Housing Authority, but participants are free to choose a rental unit anywhere in Hennepin County except Minneapolis. Participants are referred to the program by Hennepin County. This program is funded with federal HOME funds allocated to the county. With a program size of 45 vouchers limited to three years of rental assistance, 60 families throughout suburban Hennepin County were served by this program in 2024. Kids in the Park Rent Assistance Program – 50% AMI and below – city funded Kids in the Park provides rent assistance to households with school-age children for up to four years. Participants receive a flat, monthly rental assistance subsidy that decreases annually over the four-year period. Eligible households must have an income at or below 50% of the area median income, a child attending school in St. Louis Park, one parent or guardian that works a minimum of 28 hours per week, live in rental housing in St. Louis Park, and comply with their lease. Families with disabled and elderly heads of household do not need to comply with the work requirement. The program was developed in partnership with the St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) and the St. Louis Park School District. The Kids in the Park program began serving 9 families in December 2017. Funding was increased for 2018 to serve 14, 2019 served 17 families and in 2020 that number increased to 20 families. In 2023, funding was increased so that 30 families were able to be served by Kids in the Park in 2023 and 2024. Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 29 Page 29 2024 Housing Activity Report 7. Program descriptions Technical, Design, and Conservation Services Architectural Design Service – no income restrictions This service provides an architectural consultation for residents to assist with remodeling and expansions. Residents select an approved architect from a pool developed in conjunction with the MN Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. All homeowners considering renovations are eligible for this service; however, to ensure committed participants, residents make a $25 co-pay. Remodeling/Rehab Advisor – no income restrictions This service provides help to residents to navigate improvements to their homes (either maintenance or value-added improvements) by providing technical help before and during the construction process. All homeowners are eligible for this service regardless of income. Resident surveys indicated that homeowners valued the service and would recommend it to others. The city contracts with the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) for this free service to homeowners. Home Energy Squad visit – no income restrictions The Home Energy Squad program is a comprehensive residential energy program designed to help residents save money and energy and stay comfortable in their homes. The program, which began in March 2012, is administered by the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE). Depending on whether the resident chooses a “Saver”-level visit or a “Planner”-level visit, the city pays 50 percent of the $70 or $100 visit and the resident pays the other 50 percent. The program leverages funds from Xcel Energy, Center Point Energy, and CEE. Free home energy visits are available to low-income households (which was updated in 2021 from 60% AMI to 80%). The city’s portion of the visit costs are funded using the Climate Investment Fund. The Home Energy Squad expert evaluates energy saving opportunities and installs the energy-efficiency materials the homeowner choses including door weather stripping, water heater blanket, programmable thermostat, LED light bulbs, high efficiency shower heads, and faucet aerators. They will also perform diagnostic tests including a blower door test to measure the home for air leaks, complete an insulation inspection, safety check the home’s heating system and water heater and help with next steps such as finding insulation contractors. All single family, duplex, triplex and quadplex homeowners are eligible. The Home Energy Squad visits qualify residents for CEE’s low interest financing and utility rebates, and they also notify residents of city loan and cost share opportunities. Construction Management Plan The city recognizes that many households are looking for larger homes and supports keeping families in the city. As a result, significant additions and/or tearing down of existing homes and rebuilding larger homes is becoming more common. Because St. Louis Park is a fully built community, these major additions and construction of new homes impacts the surrounding neighbors. Effective November 15, 2014, major additions (second story additions or additions of 500 square feet or more), demolitions and new construction need to comply with a Construction Management Plan (CMP) per City Code 6-71. Major additions, tear downs and new construction are required to send a written neighborhood notification to neighbors within 200 feet of the property. Demolitions and/or new construction also require a neighborhood meeting and signage. Financial Programs To encourage growing families to stay in St. Louis Park, the city has developed and implemented a number of programs toward this effort. Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 30 Page 30 2024 Housing Activity Report Discount Loan Program – 115% AMI This program encourages residents to improve their homes by “discounting” the interest rate on the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MN Housing) home improvement loans for income eligible residents. Eligible improvements include most home improvement projects with the exception of luxury items such as pools. Implementation of discounting of MHFA loans began in late 1999 as a pilot project. In the past the city would buy down the interest rate for income eligible households. Since 2000 the interest rate has been below the buy down rates, so the city has not had to buy down the interest rate for this program in 2020 or 2021. Residents can apply through CEE to utilize this loan. Move – Up Transformation Loan – 120% AMI The purpose of this loan is to encourage residents with incomes at or below 100/115% of median area income ($120,600 for a family of one - four) to expand their homes. The program provides deferred loans for 25% of the applicant’s home expansion project cost, with a maximum loan of $35,000. The revolving loan pool will continue to fund future expansions. This loan requires significant upfront work by the residents, from deciding on the scope of the project to selecting contractors. Loan guidelines are: •Only residents making significant expansions are eligible. The minimum project cost must exceed $35,000. •The maximum loan amount is $35,000. •The loan has 0% interest with a carrying cost fee of 3% paid by the borrower which covers the lender’s administrative fee. •Loan is forgiven after 30 years if homeowner continues to live in the home. Emergency Repair Grant The city offers emergency repair grants for households below 50% area median income to make immediate emergency repairs such as furnace replacement, roof repair, plumbing or electrical emergencies, etc. This program is administered by Sustainable Resources Center (SRC). Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 3) Title: Housing activity report Page 31 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 21, 2025 Written report: 4 Executive summary Title: Vision 4.0 update Recommended action: The council is asked to consider hosting and recruiting others to host community conversations about Vision 4.0. Council members are further requested to share information about upcoming facilitator training sessions offered at three different times on May 1 and May 8, 2025. Policy consideration: None at this time. Summary: The first phase of the Vision 4.0 community involvement plan has concluded with the completion of the Ambassador Cohort. Three interactive sessions in February and March of 2025 brought together St. Louis Park residents, youth, city employees, community committee members and council members to engage in discussions, develop survey questions for future outreach, and strengthen connections between community members and city representatives. Insights gathered from these sessions will inform upcoming arts-based engagement activities, including mobile engagement, static engagement and town halls. Forecast Public Art, the consultants leading the engagement for this project, prepared a summary of the Ambassador Cohort sessions and is included as an attachment to this report. To see future engagement opportunities, please visit the city’s Vision St. Louis Park | St. Louis Park, MN webpage and Forecast’s project page. A training session for community conversations hosts will be offered three times, staff recommends attending one of the following: • Thursday, May 1, 2025, 6 p.m. at Westwood Hills Nature Center • Thursday, May 8, 2025, noon on Zoom via virtual training • Thursday, May 8, 2025, at 6 p.m. at Westwood Hills Nature Center Sign up for training here, hosted by Eventbrite.com (note – hyperlinks will no longer be available after training events have taken place) Financial or budget considerations: None at this time. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Ambassador Cohort Summary Prepared by: Pat Coleman, community engagement coordinator Sean Walther, planning manager/deputy community development director Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Summary: Ambassador Cohort The Ambassador Cohort met three times: February 20, 2025; Lennox Center March 6, 2025; Lennox Center March 20, 2025; Westwood Hills Nature center Each session lasted 1.5 hours with an extra half hour for arrival, eating and settling in. The sessions were planned and facilitated by Candida Gonzalez from Forecast Public Art and assisted/supported by members of the SLP Vision 4.0 Executive Committee. A light dinner was served for each session from local restaurants (The Taco Shop, Ariana Kabob and Gyro Bistro). The average attendance over the 3 sessions was 30 participants. Participants represented 13 distinct neighborhoods. Ethnic background average was 86% White, 7% Hispanic, 3% Black, 3% American Indian, 3% Asian. Cohort members were assigned tables that they stayed at for the three sessions in order to foster deeper relationship building and connection. Tables were assigned to create a mix of city staff, residents, community committee, renters, homeowners and business owners. Participants also got a chance at the beginning of each session to engage in an activity that allowed them to mix with the larger group. The activities that participants engaged in were designed to create output to be used in the planning and execution of the larger Vision 4.0 engagement plan. The main activities included: ●Defining the identity of SLP: Through an activity in Session 1, participants identified the “personality” of SLP through identifying the traits and values that the SLP community embodies and encourages. 96 traits and values were identified, with the following being the top mentioned: Caring, Convenient, Diverse, Engaged, Family focused, Friendly, Fun, Home, Innovative, Leader, Progressive, Safe, Small town, Supportive, Open Mindedness, Parks, Supportive, Welcoming, Wellness ●Question development: Through an activity in Session 2, participants generated and chose the questions that will be used to engage community members during various activities throughout the larger engagement process. The question results and uses are: Facilitated Conversation Questions •What are your dreams for SLP? •What keeps you in SLP? •How can SLP support the next generation? Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4) Title: Vision 4.0 update Page 2 Community Pop Up Engagement Boards •2030 SLP in and out list - what’s in, what’s out? •When people come to visit you, where do you have to take them in SLP? •What three words should describe SLP in 2030? •What is the major headline about SLP in 2030? Lawn Sign Content •My dream for SLP is: Town Hall Questions •What drew you to SLP? •What experiences do you want to have in SLP? •What are the best things about SLP now? •What would your ideal SLP look like? Social Media Questions •What do you want future generations to know about SLP? •2030 SLP in and out list - what’s in, what’s out? •What experiences do you want to have in SLP? •What would your ideal SLP look like? •What are the best things about SLP now? ●Facilitated conversation refinement: In session 3, participants ran through the facilitated conversation activity that is part of the next engagement phase and offered ideas for refinement. We also invited artist collective Studio Thalo to the sessions to create a graphic recording of the process. During the first 2 sessions they engaged in the activities taking notes and sketching. In the third session they brought a canvas and live painted a graphic recording of what they heard over all the sessions. The finished piece is now the property of SLP and the digital image will be used in different ways throughout the engagement phase. Next Steps: The next phase of our engagement plan: community conversations. SLP community members will have the opportunity to attend three training sessions designed to equip them with the skills to host facilitated discussions. Once trained, participants can organize gatherings in a setting of their choice—whether it's a dinner party at home, a backyard potluck, a Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4) Title: Vision 4.0 update Page 3 community room in their apartment building, or a space at their place of worship—wherever feels most comfortable. The training will cover conversation facilitation, key discussion questions, and methods for recording feedback. To accommodate different schedules and preferences, we are offering three training sessions, available both in person and virtually. Information can be found online by visiting: Vision St. Louis Park | St. Louis Park, MN Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4) Title: Vision 4.0 update Page 4 Cohort Session 2: Asset Mapping Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4) Title: Vision 4.0 update Page 5 Cohort Session #1: A group showing off their list of SLP traits and values that they identified together. Special study session meeting of April 21, 2025 (Item No. 4) Title: Vision 4.0 update Page 6