HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025/10/20 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
OCTOBER 20, 2025
6:00 p.m. Economic Development Authority meeting
1.Call to order
2.Approve agenda
3.Minutes.
a.EDA meeting minutes of September 15, 2025
b.EDA meeting minutes of October 6, 2025
4.Consent items.
a.Resolution authorizing grant application for a Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization Account
grant for the Minnetonka Boulevard twin homes project- Ward 1
b.Resolution authorizing grant application for a Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund
grant for the Minnetonka Boulevard twin homes project – Ward 1
c.Resolution authorizing a grant application for a Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund
grant for the Beltline Station Development project – Ward 1
d.Resolution authorizing grant application for a Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization Account
grant for the Beltline Station Development project – Ward 1
e.Resolution authorizing a grant application for Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development contamination cleanup and investigation grant for Beltline Boulevard
project – Ward 1
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 – none.
4. Minutes.
a.City council special study session meeting minutes of September 2, 2025
b.City council meeting minutes of September 15, 2025
Agenda EDA, city council and special study session meetings of October 20, 2025
5.Consent items.
a.Adopt ordinance setting salaries for the mayor and council members
b.Adopt ordinance amending chapter 8 subdivision XVI relating to cannabinoid products
c.Adopt ordinance amending chapter 34 of the city code related to grass height
d.Adopt ordinance amending chapter 8 section 8-326 exceptions for rental licensing
e.Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service
Districts 1 - 6 and district 4 extension
f.Resolution authorizing parking restrictions along Raleigh Avenue and 35th Street - Ward 2
g.Resolution authorizing final payment for Lamplighter Pond Maintenance project
(4022-4001) - Ward 4
h.Resolution authorizing purchase of small evergreen trees in recognition of 2025 Evergreen
Award winners
i.Resolution authorizing application for Department of Natural Resources Community Tree
Planting grant
j.Resolution authorizing special assessment for sewer service line repair at 4721 Vallacher
Avenue South - Ward 2
k.Resolution authorizing special assessment for sewer service line repair at 8011 34 ½ Street
West - Ward 3
l.Resolution approving amendments for a conduit revenue note issued for St. Louis Park AH I,
LLLP
m.Resolution accepting school resource officer contract with Independent School District 283
6.Public hearings – none.
7.Regular business – none.
8.Communications and announcements – none.
9.Adjournment.
Following city council meeting – Special study session – Council Chambers
Discussion items
1. Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Police Advisory Commission
2. TIF management report
3. TIF and other financial tools and incentives discussion
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: October 20, 2025
Minutes: 3a
Unofficial minutes
EDA meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Sept. 15, 2025
1. Call to order.
President Budd called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m.
a. Roll call.
Commissioners present: Margaret Rog, Lynette Dumalag, Tim Brausen, Yolanda Farris, Paul
Baudhuin, President Sue Budd
Commissioners absent: none.
Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), city attorney (Mr. Mattick), deputy city manager (Ms.
Walsh), community development director and interim building and energy director (Ms.
Barton), administrative services director (Ms. Brodeen), city assessor (Mr. Bultema), finance
director (Ms. Cruver), accountant (Ms. Finkel), public works director (Mr. Hall), engineering
director (Ms. Heiser), police chief (Mr. Kruelle), appraiser III (Ms. Nathanson), communications
and technology director (Ms. Smith), financial analyst (Ms. Stephens), human resources director
(Ms. Vorpahl), parks and recreation director (Mr. West), racial equity and inclusion director
(Ms. Yang)
2. Approve agenda.
It was moved by Commissioner Mohamed, seconded by Commissioner Farris, to approve the
EDA agenda as presented.
The motion passed 7-0.
3. Minutes – none.
4. Consent items.
a. EDA Resolution No. 25-18 approving the second amendment to the Environmental
Response Fund Grant
b. EDA Resolution No. 25-19 authorizing grant application for Affordable Homeownership
program – Ward 1
It was moved by Commissioner Farris, seconded by Commissioner Brausen, to approve the
consent items as listed and to waive reading of all resolutions.
The motion passed 7-0.
Economic development authority meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: EDA meeting minutes of September 15, 2025
5. Public hearings – none.
6. Regular business.
a. EDA Resolutions No. 25-20 and 25-21 approving 2026 HRA and EDA levies
Ms. Cruver presented the staff report.
Ms. Cruver asked if the EDA supports the proposed 2026 Housing Redevelopment Authority
(HRA) and Economic Development Authority (EDA) levies, which are a part of the proposed
2026 budget. She noted the balanced budget consists of an all-inclusive preliminary levy
increase of 8.02% and includes:
a. An HRA levy of $1,194,133 to support the Affordable Housing Trust Fund; and
b. An EDA levy of $375,000 to support ongoing spending in the development fund.
After several council study sessions focused on the budget in the summer of 2025, staff
presented the council a recommended budget and a corresponding all-inclusive levy increase of
7.92%.
Additionally, the city council gave feedback which was generally supportive of the new
spending items but wanted to ensure more was being done in 2026 to support the city’s
climate action plan. At the direction of the council, an additional $50,000 of spending and levy
revenue was added to support sustainability programs, bringing the levy increase to 8.02%.
The EDA must first approve the EDA and HRA levies by resolution before the city council
approves the overall property tax levy.
Ms. Cruver noted that today’s vote on the levy is to set the maximum potential levy. She
pointed out that the levy can be modified lower but cannot be increased after this vote.
Ms. Cruver stated the proposed levy for 2026 is 8.02%. She emphasized the list of property
taxpayer resources, including property tax credit, relief and rebate programs.
Commissioner Brausen noted the HRA levy goes into the affordable housing trust fund and
pointed out the city does not utilize the maximum value for the fund. Ms. Cruver stated that it
is correct, adding that the levy is holding flat.
Commissioner Brausen noted the EDA levy was historically funded by a large amount of funds
of over $30 million since the 1990s, noting that the city used these funds for purchasing
properties and controlling investments, such as in the light rail areas. Ms. Cruver stated that it is
also correct.
Commissioner Brausen continued that the fund is now down to $9 million, and the city is
looking to keep the fund stable. Ms. Cruver stated that this is correct.
Economic development authority meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Title: EDA meeting minutes of September 15, 2025
It was moved by Commissioner Rog, seconded by President Budd, to recess the EDA meeting to
discuss the levy and its impacts further at the city council meeting, and reconvene after the
conclusion of the city council meeting.
The motion passed 6-1 (Commissioner Brausen opposed).
The EDA meeting recessed at 6:23 p.m.
The EDA meeting reconvened at 8:34 p.m.
Commissioner Brausen stated the levy was very robustly discussed at the city council meeting,
and direction was given to staff to continue to look for opportunities to reduce these levies.
It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Baudhuin, to adopt
Resolution Nos. 25-20 and 25-21 authorizing the preliminary HRA levy for 2026 and authorizing
a present intent to levy a tax for EDA purposes, including: a. An HRA levy of $1,194,133 to
support the Affordable Housing Trust Fund; and b. An EDA levy of $375,000 to support ongoing
spending in the development fund.
The motion passed 5-2 (President Budd and Commissioner Rog opposed).
7. Communications and announcements – none.
8. Adjournment.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, EDA secretary Sue Budd, EDA president
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Minutes: 3b
Unofficial minutes
EDA meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Oct. 6, 2025
1. Call to order.
President Budd called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
a. Roll call.
Commissioners present: Margaret Rog, Lynette Dumalag, Nadia Mohamed, Tim Brausen,
President Sue Budd
Commissioners absent: Yolanda Farris, Paul Baudhuin
Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), deputy city manager (Ms. Walsh), natural resources
manager (Mr. Bahe), community development director/interim building and energy director
(Ms. Barton), public services superintendent/deputy public works director (Ms. Fisher), city
clerk (Ms. Kennedy), city attorney (Mr. Mattick), economic development manager (Ms.
Monson), deputy finance director (Mr. Olson), property maintenance and licensing manager
(Mr. Pivec), redevelopment administrator (Mr. Porter-Nelson), HR director (Ms. Vorpahl),
deputy city manager(Ms. Walsh), planning manager (Mr. Walther), parks and recreation
director (Mr. West)
2. Approve agenda.
It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Dumalag, to approve the
EDA agenda as presented.
The motion passed 5-0 (Commissioners Farris and Baudhuin absent).
3. Minutes.
a. EDA meeting minutes of Sept. 2, 2025
It was moved by Commissioner Dumalag, seconded by Commissioner Mohamed, to approve the
EDA meeting minutes of Sept. 2, 2025, as presented.
The motion passed 5-0 (Commissioners Farris and Baudhuin absent).
4. Consent items.
a. Approve EDA disbursements
b. EDA Resolution No. 25-22 authorizing an amendment to the Metropolitan Council Pre
Development grant for affordable commercial spaces - Ward 2
Economic development authority meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Title: EDA meeting minutes of October 6, 2025
c. EDA Resolution No. 25-23 authorizing an amendment to the Metropolitan Council
Livable Communities Demonstration Account Transit Oriented Development grant for
Wooddale Station redevelopment - Ward 2
d. EDA Resolution No. 25-24 authorizing an amendment for the Metropolitan Council
Livable Communities Demonstration Account Transit Oriented Development - Union
Park Flats Project - Ward 2
It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Mohamed, to approve the
consent items as listed and to waive reading of all resolutions.
The motion passed 5-0 (Commissioners Farris and Baudhuin absent).
5. Public hearings – none.
6. Regular business – none.
7. Communications and announcements – none.
8. Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 6:06 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, EDA secretary Sue Budd, EDA president
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Consent agenda item: 4a
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing grant application for a Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization
Account grant for the Minnetonka Boulevard twin homes project – Ward 1
Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the application for – and, upon
award, acceptance of the award – a grant from the Metropolitan Council (Met Council) Tax
Base Revitalization Account (TBRA) to support the Minnetonka Boulevard twin homes project.
Policy consideration: Does the economic development authority (EDA) wish to authorize an
application for – and, upon award, acceptance of the award for eligible grant expenses to
support the Minnetonka Boulevard twin homes project?
Summary: The City of St. Louis Park and its EDA are partnering with Greater Metropolitan
Housing Corporation (GMHC) to construct four twin homes on four vacant single-family lots
fronting Minnetonka Boulevard to create eight affordable owner-occupied housing units. Funds
will support cleanup of soil contamination on the site. Staff will apply for approximately
$800,000 in grant funds. This request is before council because, if awarded, the dollar amount
accepted could be above the statutory authority of the city manager.
Financial or budget considerations: Any grant funding received will assist with the project
financial feasibility and offset the amount of city financial assistance needed for the project.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Clancy Ferris, legislative & grants analyst
Reviewed by: Dean Porter-Nelson, redevelopment administrator
Jennifer Monson, economic development manager
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Economic development authority meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing grant application for a Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization Account grant for
the Minnetonka Boulevard twin homes project – Ward 1
EDA Resolution No. 25-___
Authorizing application for the Met Council TBRA grant on behalf of the
Minnetonka Boulevard twin homes project
Whereas, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (authority) is eligible to
make application for grant funds from the Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund
(ERF); and
Whereas, the grant funds will be used for the Minnetonka Boulevard twin homes
project located at 5639, 5643, 5647, and 5707 Minnetonka Blvd in the City of St. Louis Park; and
Whereas, the authority has the institutional, managerial, and financial capability to
ensure adequate project administration; and
Whereas, upon approval of its application, the authority may enter into an agreement
with Met Council for the above referenced project, and that the authority certifies that it will
comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the president and executive director are hereby
authorized to apply to the Met Council TBRA grant on behalf of the Authority; and
Be it further resolved that the president and executive director are hereby authorized
to execute such agreements necessary to receive the grant and implement the project (the
grant agreement”) and to carry out, on behalf of the authority, the authority’s obligations
thereunder when all conditions precedent thereto have been satisfied; and
Be it further resolved that the authority to approve, execute and deliver future
amendments to the grant agreement entered into by the authority is hereby delegated to the
president and executive director, subject to the following conditions: (a) extend deadlines,
amend the project budget and scope, or do not materially adversely affect the interests of the
authority; and (b) such amendments or consents do not contravene or violate any policy of the
authority. The execution of any instrument by president and executive director shall be
conclusive evidence of the approval of such instruments in accordance with the terms hereof.
In the event of absence or disability of the president and executive director any of the
documents authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed without further act or
authorization of the board by any member of the board or any duly designated acting official,
or by such other officer or officers of the authority as, in the opinion of the city attorney, may
act in their behalf.
Economic development authority meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Title: Resolution authorizing grant application for a Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization Account grant for
the Minnetonka Boulevard twin homes project – Ward 1
Reviewed for administration:
____________________________________
Karen Barton, executive director
Attest:
____________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, secretary
Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority October 20, 2025:
____________________________________
Sue Budd, president
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Consent agenda item: 4b
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing grant application for a Hennepin County Environmental Response
Fund grant for the Minnetonka Boulevard twin homes project – Ward 1
Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the application for, and upon
award, acceptance of the award for a grant from the Environmental Response Fund (ERF) to
support the Minnetonka Boulevard twin homes project.
Policy consideration: Does the economic development authority (EDA) wish to authorize an
application for, and upon award, acceptance of the award for eligible grant expenses to support
the Minnetonka Boulevard twin homes project?
Summary: The City of St. Louis Park and its EDA are partnering with Greater Metropolitan
Housing Corporation (GMHC) to construct four twin homes on four vacant single-family lots
fronting Minnetonka Boulevard to create eight affordable owner-occupied housing units. Funds
will support cleanup of soil contamination on the site. Staff plan to apply for approximately
$750,000. This request is before council because, if awarded, the dollar amount accepted could
be above the statutory authority of the city manager.
Financial or budget considerations: Any grant funding received will assist with the project
financial feasibility and offset the amount of city financial assistance needed for the project.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Clancy Ferris, legislative & grants analyst
Reviewed by: Dean Porter-Nelson, redevelopment administrator
Jennifer Monson, economic development manager
Karen Barton, community development director/EDA executive director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Economic development authority meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing grant application for a Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund grant for the
Minnetonka Boulevard twin homes project – Ward 1
EDA Resolution No. 25-___
Authorizing application for the Hennepin County ERF grant on behalf of the
Minnetonka Boulevard twin homes project
Whereas, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (authority) is eligible to
make application for grant funds from the Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund
(ERF); and
Whereas, the grant funds will be used for the Minnetonka Boulevard twin homes
project located at 5639, 5643, 5647, and 5707 Minnetonka Blvd in the City of St. Louis Park; and
Whereas, the state statute which created the Environmental Response Fund requires
approval by the governing body of the EDA for submission of a grant request to the Hennepin
County Environmental Response Fund; and
Whereas, the authority has the institutional, managerial, and financial capability to
ensure adequate project administration; and
Whereas, upon approval of its application, the authority may enter into an agreement
with Hennepin County for the above referenced project, and that the authority certifies that it
will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the president and executive director are hereby
authorized to apply to the Hennepin County ERF grant on behalf of the authority; and
Be it further resolved that the president and executive director are hereby authorized
to execute such agreements necessary to receive the grant and implement the project (the
grant agreement”) and to carry out, on behalf of the authority, the authority’s obligations
thereunder when all conditions precedent thereto have been satisfied; and
Be it further resolved that the authority to approve, execute and deliver future
amendments to the grant agreement entered into by the authority is hereby delegated to the
president and executive director, subject to the following conditions: (a) extend deadlines,
amend the project budget and scope, or do not materially adversely affect the interests of the
authority; and (b) such amendments or consents do not contravene or violate any policy of the
authority. The execution of any instrument by president and executive director shall be
conclusive evidence of the approval of such instruments in accordance with the terms hereof.
In the event of absence or disability of the president and executive director any of the
documents authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed without further act or
authorization of the board by any member of the board or any duly designated acting official,
or by such other officer or officers of the authority as, in the opinion of the city attorney, may
act in their behalf.
Economic development authority meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Title: Resolution authorizing grant application for a Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund grant for the
Minnetonka Boulevard twin homes project – Ward 1
Reviewed for administration:
____________________________________
Karen Barton, executive director
Attest:
____________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, secretary
Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority October 20, 2025:
____________________________________
Sue Budd, president
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Consent agenda item: 4c
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing a grant application for a Hennepin County Environmental Response
Funds grant for the Beltline Station Development project – Ward 1
Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the application for, and upon
award, acceptance of the award for a grant from the Hennepin County Environmental Response
Fund (ERF) to support the Beltline Boulevard project.
Policy consideration: Does the economic development authority (EDA) wish to authorize an
application for, and upon award, acceptance of the award for eligible grant expenses to support
the Beltline Boulevard project?
Summary: Grant funds will be used to support the ongoing Beltline Station Development site
clean-up. Staff will apply for approximately $200,000 in grant funds.
Financial or budget considerations: Any grant funding received will assist with the project
financial feasibility and offset the amount of city financial assistance needed for the project.
This request is before council because, if awarded, the dollar amount accepted could be above
the statutory authority of the city manager.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Clancy Ferris, legislative & grants analyst
Reviewed by: Dean Porter-Nelson, redevelopment administrator
Jennifer Monson, economic development manager
Karen Barton, community development director/EDA executive director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Economic development authority meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing a grant application for a Hennepin County Environmental Response Funds grant for
the Beltline Station Development project – Ward 1
EDA Resolution No. 25-___
Authorizing application for the Hennepin County ERF grant on behalf of the
Beltline Station Development project
Whereas, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (authority) is eligible to
make application for grant funds from the Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund
(ERF); and
Whereas, the grant funds will be used for the Beltline Station Development project
located at the corner of Beltline Boulevard and Highway 7 in the City of St. Louis Park; and
Whereas, the State Statute which created the Environmental Response Fund requires
approval by the governing body of the EDA for submission of a grant request to the Hennepin
County Environmental Response Fund; and
Whereas, the authority has the institutional, managerial, and financial capability to
ensure adequate project administration; and
Whereas, upon approval of its application, the authority may enter into an agreement
with Hennepin County for the above referenced project, and that the authority certifies that it
will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the president and executive director are hereby
authorized to apply to the Hennepin County ERF grant on behalf of the authority; and
Be it further resolved that the president and executive director are hereby authorized
to execute such agreements necessary to receive the grant and implement the project (the
grant agreement”) and to carry out, on behalf of the authority, the authority’s obligations
thereunder when all conditions precedent thereto have been satisfied; and
Be it further resolved that the authority to approve, execute and deliver future
amendments to the grant agreement entered into by the authority is hereby delegated to the
president and executive director, subject to the following conditions: (a) extend deadlines,
amend the project budget and scope, or do not materially adversely affect the interests of the
authority; and (b) such amendments or consents do not contravene or violate any policy of the
authority. The execution of any instrument by president and executive director shall be
conclusive evidence of the approval of such instruments in accordance with the terms hereof.
In the event of absence or disability of the president and executive director any of the
documents authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed without further act or
authorization of the board by any member of the board or any duly designated acting official,
or by such other officer or officers of the authority as, in the opinion of the city attorney, may
act in their behalf.
Economic development authority meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Title: Resolution authorizing a grant application for a Hennepin County Environmental Response Funds grant for
the Beltline Station Development project – Ward 1
Reviewed for administration:
____________________________________
Karen Barton, executive director
Attest:
____________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, secretary
Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority October 20, 2025:
____________________________________
Sue Budd, president
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Consent agenda item: 4d
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing grant application for a Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization
Account grant for the Beltline Station Development project – Ward 1
Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the application for, and upon
award, acceptance of the award for a grant from the Metropolitan Council (Met Council) Tax
Base Revitalization Account (TBRA) to support the Beltline Station Development project.
Policy consideration: Does the economic development authority (EDA) wish to authorize an
application for, and upon award acceptance of the award for eligible grant expenses to support
the Beltline Station Development project?
Summary: Grant funds will be used to support the ongoing Beltline Boulevard project through
ongoing site clean-up. Staff will apply for approximately $350,000 in grant funds. This request is
before council because, if awarded, the dollar amount accepted could be above the statutory
authority of the city manager.
Financial or budget considerations: Any grant funding received will assist with the project
financial feasibility and offset the amount of city financial assistance needed for the project.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Clancy Ferris, legislative & grants analyst
Reviewed by: Dean Porter-Nelson, redevelopment administrator
Jennifer Monson, economic development manager
Karen Barton, community development director/EDA executive director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Economic development authority meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing grant application for a Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization Account grant for
the Beltline Station Development project – Ward 1
EDA Resolution No. 25-___
Authorizing application for the Met Council TBRA grant on behalf of the Beltline
Station Development project
Whereas, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (authority) is eligible to
make application for grant funds from the Met Council Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA);
and
Whereas, the grant funds will be used for the Beltline Station Development project
located at the corner of Beltline Boulevard and Highway 7 in the City of St. Louis Park; and
Whereas, the authority has the institutional, managerial, and financial capability to
ensure adequate project administration; and
Whereas, upon approval of its application, the authority may enter into an agreement
with Met Council for the above referenced project, and that the authority certifies that it will
comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the president and executive director are hereby
authorized to apply to the Met Council TBRA grant on behalf of the authority; and
Be it further resolved that the president and executive director are hereby authorized
to execute such agreements necessary to receive the grant and implement the project (the
grant agreement”) and to carry out, on behalf of the authority, the authority’s obligations
thereunder when all conditions precedent thereto have been satisfied; and
Be it further resolved that the authority to approve, execute and deliver future
amendments to the grant agreement entered into by the authority is hereby delegated to the
president and executive director, subject to the following conditions: (a) extend deadlines,
amend the project budget and scope, or do not materially adversely affect the interests of the
authority; and (b) such amendments or consents do not contravene or violate any policy of the
authority. The execution of any instrument by president and executive director shall be
conclusive evidence of the approval of such instruments in accordance with the terms hereof.
In the event of absence or disability of the president and executive director any of the
documents authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed without further act or
authorization of the board by any member of the board or any duly designated acting official,
or by such other officer or officers of the authority as, in the opinion of the city attorney, may
act in their behalf.
Economic development authority meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Title: Resolution authorizing grant application for a Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization Account grant for
the Beltline Station Development project – Ward 1
Reviewed for administration:
____________________________________
Karen Barton, executive director
Attest:
____________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, secretary
Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority October 20, 2025
____________________________________
Sue Budd, president
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Consent agenda item: 4e
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing a grant application for Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development contamination cleanup and investigation grant for Beltline Station
Development project – Ward 1
Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the application for, and upon
award, acceptance of the award for a Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development (DEED) contamination cleanup grant to support the Beltline Station Development
project.
Policy consideration: Does the economic development authority (EDA) wish to authorize an
application for, and upon award, acceptance of the award for eligible grant expenses to support
the Beltline Station Development project?
Summary: Grant funds will be used to support the ongoing Beltline Station Development
project through site clean-up and assessment. Staff will apply for approximately $350,000 in
grant funds. This request is before council because, if awarded, the dollar amount accepted
could be above the statutory authority of the city manager.
Financial or budget considerations: Any grant funding received will assist with the project
financial feasibility and offset the amount of city financial assistance needed for the project.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Clancy Ferris, legislative & grants analyst
Reviewed by: Dean Porter-Nelson, redevelopment administrator
Jennifer Monson, economic development manager
Karen Barton, community development director/EDA executive director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Economic development authority meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing a grant application for Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development contamination cleanup and investigation grant for Beltline Station Development project –
Ward 1
EDA Resolution No. 25-___
EDA Resolution authorizing application for the DEED contamination cleanup and
investigation grant on behalf of the Beltline Station Development project
Whereas, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (authority) is eligible to
make application for grant funds from the DEED contamination cleanup and investigation grant
program; and
Whereas, the grant funds will be used for the Beltline Station Development project
located at the corner of Beltline Boulevard and Highway 7 in the City of St. Louis Park; and
Whereas, the authority has the institutional, managerial, and financial capability to
ensure adequate project administration; and
Whereas, upon approval of its application, the authority may enter into an agreement
with DEED for the above referenced project, and that the authority certifies that it will comply
with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the president and executive director are hereby
authorized to apply to the DEED contamination cleanup and investigation grant on behalf of the
authority; and
Be it further resolved that the president and executive director are hereby authorized
to execute such agreements necessary to receive the grant and implement the project (the
grant agreement”) and to carry out, on behalf of the authority, the authority’s obligations
thereunder when all conditions precedent thereto have been satisfied; and
Be it further resolved that the authority to approve, execute and deliver future
amendments to the grant agreement entered into by the authority is hereby delegated to the
president and executive director, subject to the following conditions: (a) extend deadlines,
amend the project budget and scope, or do not materially adversely affect the interests of the
authority; and (b) such amendments or consents do not contravene or violate any policy of the
authority. The execution of any instrument by president and executive director shall be
conclusive evidence of the approval of such instruments in accordance with the terms hereof.
In the event of absence or disability of the president and executive director any of the
documents authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed without further act or
authorization of the board by any member of the board or any duly designated acting official,
or by such other officer or officers of the authority as, in the opinion of the city attorney, may
act in their behalf.
Economic development authority meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4e) Page 3
Title: Resolution authorizing a grant application for Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development contamination cleanup and investigation grant for Beltline Station Development project –
Ward 1
Reviewed for administration:
____________________________________
Karen Barton, executive director
Attest:
____________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, secretary
Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority October 20, 2025:
____________________________________
Sue Budd, president
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Minutes: 4a
Unofficial minutes
City council special study session
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Sept. 2, 2025
The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m.
Council members present: Tim Brausen, Sue Budd, Lynette Dumalag, Yolanda Farris, Mayor Pro
Tem Paul Baudhuin
Council members absent: Mayor Mohamed, Council Member Rog
Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), deputy city manager (Ms. Walsh), community
development director, interim building and energy director (Ms. Barton), administrative
services director (Ms. Brodeen), finance director (Ms. Cruver), facilities superintendent (Mr.
Eisold), public services superintendent/deputy public works director (Ms. Fisher), recreation
superintendent (Ms. Friederich), police sergeant (Mr. Hagen), fire chief (Mr. Hanlin),
engineering director (Ms. Heiser), police chief (Mr. Kruelle), deputy police chief (Mr. Nadem),
communications and technology director (Ms. Smith), financial analyst (Ms. Stephens), park
superintendent (Mr. Umphrey), planning manager (Mr. Walther), parks and recreation director
(Mr. West), racial equity and inclusion director (Ms. Yang), sustainability manager (Ms. Ziring)
Discussion items.
1. Capital Improvements Projects
Ms. Cruver presented the staff report. She noted the policy considerations:
1. Does the council support the proposed 2026 Capital Projects and five-year Capital
Improvement Plan, which is dependent upon the following items:
a. Increasing franchise fees and utility fees to support the included projects
b. Prioritizing and securing state aid for the Oxford/Louisiana street improvement
project, and
c. Coordinating planning around the building of new assets, such as sidewalks, to
ensure budgets stay within bonding limits.
2. Does the council support the proposed 2026 budget as drafted? The balanced budget
consists of an all-inclusive preliminary levy increase of 7.92% based upon the following:
a. General levies (general fund, park improvement and employee benefits) of
$45,766,333
b. Debt service levy of 55,792,684
c. Planned use of fund balance in the general fund of $300,000 to support one-time
items in the budget
Ms. Cruver noted recommendations in the proposed 2026 budget are based on maintaining
high-quality services and advancing city priorities while also making the best use of public
dollars.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: Special study session minutes of September 2, 2025
Ms. Cruver highlighted recommendations for the proposed 2026 budget:
• A general fund levy that fully funds the city’s municipal building, Information
Technology (IT), and Vehicle and Equipment Replacement budgets without relying on
one-time transfers to maintain existing city assets.
• Fully funding streetlight replacements in city parks and special service districts.
• Incorporating the results of a risk analysis of the city’s underground infrastructure
and increasing the amount of water mains replaced at the end of their lifecycle each
year in the five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
Ms. Cruver stated these changes result in an all-in 2026 property tax levy increase of 7.92% for
property taxpayers. She added that before the final levy is formally approved, staff will
continue to work to lower the increase while maintaining the council’s policy priorities.
Ms. Cruver presented the 2026 budget planning timeline and explained in detail the capital
improvement fund (CIF) proposed projects.
Council Member Dumalag asked for clarification on paid leave for staff. Ms. Cruver stated that
it is a fund that has needed an increase over time. Paid family medical leave is paid like a payroll
tax, so each employee has part of the compensation going to social security and to healthcare
insurance. As of 2025, part of the compensation also goes to the state paid family and medical
leave program.
Council Member Dumalag asked if the increase in property tax levy would be a different
number if city funds were looked at as a lump sum, versus individual funds. Ms. Cruver stated
the $7 million increase in the levy in the general fund combines with the offsetting $2.5 million
reduction in the levy in the capital funds to bring the overall increase in the general fund to $4
million, which seems more typical.
Council Member Brausen asked if the climate investment fund comes out of the general fund
levy. Ms. Cruver stated yes. Council Member Brausen asked for clarity on $200,000 in general
spending that is usually committed to the climate investment fund and another $150,000
coming from the excess fund balances. Ms. Cruver stated the plan is to allow for all proposed
spending to be fully funded and to give council flexibility in how to proceed with the levy in the
future.
Council Member Brausen asked if the council wanted to create a more robust commitment to
the climate investment fund, would those funds need to come from the general levy? Ms.
Cruver stated yes. He stated he would propose doing this as it makes a strong statement at a
time when the federal government is washing its hands of climate change funding, adding that
this is important.
Council Member Brausen stated that budgets are moral documents, and it is important to make
a statement to the rest of the state that St. Louis Park takes climate action seriously. He added
he would hate to see a resident apply for funding for a solar grant and be turned away because
the city did not budget for it.
Ms. Cruver noted that franchise fees have not been increased since 2021.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Title: Special study session minutes of September 2, 2025
Council Member Brausen asked who pays franchise fees. Ms. Cruver stated that everyone who
pays a utility bill pays franchise fees, which is a distinction from those who pay property taxes.
She added that non-profit organizations do not pay property taxes, but franchise fees are paid
by all who use a utility, so it is distributed slightly differently. This fund does not include cable
television fees, which are deposited into the city’s cable fund and support cable television. She
noted franchise fees are only related to Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy.
Council Member Budd asked if higher users of energy pay higher amounts in franchise fees. Ms.
Cruver stated that currently, it is a flat fee. She recommended that, in the future, this be
negotiated with the utility companies and changed so that franchise fees in St. Louis Park are
based on use.
Council Member Budd noted that residents use the energy assistance program and stated that
this increase will be an extended hardship for those folks. Ms. Cruver agreed.
Council Member Brausen asked if the city has built out most of the Connect the Park structure,
will the focus now shift to watermain replacement, sidewalks and trails.
Ms. Heiser stated that Connect the Park was approved by the council in 2012 and included 32
miles of on street bikeways, 12 miles of sidewalk and seven (7) miles of trail. Later, the council
directed staff to build bikeways that met the needs of all ages and abilities. She indicated that
about 75% of the plan has been implemented. She reported that the remaining segments were
adjacent to streets in good condition and would be timed with street reconstruction projects.
Ms. Heiser noted that Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue included Connect the Park
segments and shared that the council also had directed staff to fill in the gaps in the citywide
sidewalk network.
Council Member Budd asked about earlier engagement on projects. Ms. Heiser indicated staff is
working on it, sharing that the 2025 pavement management project had budgeted $1.7 million
for sidewalk construction. Because of the low traffic volumes and tree impacts on the streets in
the project, staff did not recommend building a majority of the sidewalks, reducing the budget
to $250,000. Ms. Heiser summarized a plan to gain an earlier understanding of where sidewalks
are recommended to be built as a part of projects. In 2026, the public will be engaged for the
2028 pavement management projects, allowing staff to know the sidewalk costs in 2027 before
the budget recommendations for 2028 are brought to the city council. Ms. Cruver stated that
earlier engagement will help with future budgeting.
Council Member Dumalag asked how significant interest rates are to bonding. Ms. Cruver
stated that there is a cost for bond issuance that can be affected by interest rates.
Council Member Budd noted the five-year levy and stated it is tough to have an increase of
7.9% this year. However, she noted that the rate is anticipated to decrease in future years. She
asked how the levies this year and next year could be brought into the 6% range and then
decreased in the future. Ms. Cruver pointed out the pieces that are driving spending in 2026
and noted the highlighted points where a new asset or service is being added. She summarized
that the process is complex, pointing out that a 1% decrease on the levy equates to $500,000.
City staff would need to know what projects can be delayed.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 4
Title: Special study session minutes of September 2, 2025
Council Member Budd asked to clarify that the $2.1 million increase in personnel spending does
not increase the number of city employees and rather relates to employee benefits. Ms. Cruver
confirmed that the total number of employees was not increased, and that these funds go
towards the new state family medical leave program, in addition to healthcare insurance
increases and pay increases for employees.
Mayor Pro Tem Baudhuin noted that last year, some projects were delayed in order to keep the
levy as low as possible. He asked if staff had information on the impact of delays from last year
to this year. Ms. Cruver stated that staff can investigate this question and report back to the
council.
Council Member Budd asked if there was a possibility of using $1 million of the $10 million
development fund to drop the levy by two percentage points. Ms. Cruver noted that using one-
time funds to reduce the property tax levy will create a fiscal cliff next year. If the property tax
levy were reduced without also reducing spending, the levy would need to be increased by an
additional two percentage points next year just to get back to base level. This is why staff has
been careful about using one-time funds to pay for ongoing costs.
Ms. Cruver stated that if the council would like to make changes, the CIP is a good roadmap to
use when considering which projects can be delayed, such as new spending items. However,
any decision to delay will just move a project down the road to be paid for later.
Council Member Dumalag shared that she had been asked to speak to a group about the impact
that federal legislation would have for St. Louis Park residents. If the city finds that residents are
struggling due to cuts to a variety of federal services such as Medicaid, where would the city
stand up programs to partner with nonprofit organizations? In response to a community that is
struggling, she is concerned about residents being able to stay in St. Louis Park and asked where
funds might come from. Ms. Cruver stated the general fund levy is the most flexible source of
revenue. However different layers of government are charged with providing different services,
for example most health and welfare programs are funded through the county and not the city,
so the city would need to get creative on how to respond to community needs without
absorbing the roles of other municipal bodies
Council Member Brausen stated he supports policy consideration #1 and added that staff have
done amazing work that is appreciated. He stated he supports the 2026 budget as drafted and
would like to see the climate fund increased by another $50,000 as well.
Council Member Dumalag added that she is also supportive of policy consideration #1. She
stated the Louisiana Avenue and Oxford Street is an important infrastructure investment
project and will help mitigate flooding in the creek as well.
Council Member Budd stated she supports both policy considerations and noted she is open to
any creative improvements. She stated she is not supportive of the 10% increase in the
franchise fees and then dropping them to 2.5% after that, adding she got a lot of feedback on
that from people on a fixed income. Ms. Cruver stated this can be looked at again and
negotiated with the utility companies.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 5
Title: Special study session minutes of September 2, 2025
Council Member Farris stated she also supports both policy considerations. She stated that if
the council does not decide to increase the franchise fee now, they will have to increase them
in the future.
Mayor Pro Tem Baudhuin presented Council Member Rog’s comments: Council Member Rog
stated she is concerned about the park items in the budget, noting she is in favor of adding
$50,000 to the climate action plan as well. Overall, she is concerned about the 10% increase in
franchise fees but does not have enough information at this time to take a position. She
supports both policy considerations but has concerns about a levy of 8%.
Mayor Pro Tem Baudhuin stated he is also in favor of both policy considerations and noted he
would like to look at the results from items that were delayed last year. His primary concern is
communication and what to communicate. The budget process is difficult and the community
cannot have all the services that the city provides as well as having very low taxes. He wants to
be sure the fees and levies are communicated to residents effectively and positively in a way
that shows how the city does its due diligence to trim and cut where appropriate. He is also in
favor of adding $50,000 to the climate action plan and presenting how the federal changes in
climate action directly affect the city’s core values.
Ms. Keller stated the preliminary levy would be at 8% with an increase of $50,000 to the climate
action plan.
Council Member Brausen stated the preliminary levy last year was double digits and it
decreased to 7%. He stated the messaging needs to include that aid from the federal
government for climate action is no longer supportive, so it will be up to the city to support
climate action, adding that this makes a real statement.
Ms. Cruver stated that staff will be working on communications, including the annual financial
report, which is online and interactive, and will be sent to the council for review. After that,
department financial updates will be rolled out and total city spending and revenues will be
posted on the city website and in publications.
It was the consensus of the city council to support policy considerations #1 and #2.
The meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Minutes: 4b
Unofficial minutes
City council meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Sept. 15, 2025
1. Call to order.
Mayor Mohamed called the meeting to order at 6:23 p.m.
a. Roll call
b. Pledge of Allegiance
Council members present: Margaret Rog, Lynette Dumalag, Sue Budd, Tim Brausen, Yolanda
Farris, Paul Baudhuin, Mayor Nadia Mohamed
Council members absent: none
Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), city attorney (Mr. Mattick), deputy city manager (Ms.
Walsh), community development director, interim building and energy director (Ms. Barton),
administrative services director (Ms. Brodeen), city assessor (Mr. Bultema), finance director
(Ms. Cruver), accountant (Ms. Finkel), public works director (Mr. Hall), engineering director (Ms.
Heiser), police chief Kruelle, appraiser III (Ms. Nathanson), communications and technology
director (Ms. Smith), city clerk (Ms. Kennedy), financial analyst (Ms. Stephens), human
resources director (Ms. Vorpahl), parks and recreation director (Mr. West), racial equity and
inclusion director (Ms. Yang)
Guests: Pamela Whitmore, outside counsel
2. Approve agenda.
It was moved by Council Member Budd, seconded by Council Member Dumalag, to approve the
agenda as presented.
The motion passed 7-0.
3. Presentations.
a. Proclamation observing Latino Heritage Month
Mayor Mohamed read the proclamation.
Mayor Mohamed stated it is a difficult time to be an immigrant, and her heart goes out to folks
in Minnesota and elsewhere who are having difficulties right now.
4. Minutes – none.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: City council meeting minutes of September 15, 2025
5. Consent items.
a. Resolution No. 25-107 approving 2026 employer benefit contribution
b. Resolution No. 25-108 authorizing contract with Symetra Life Insurance
c. Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 2696-25 adopting fees for 2026
d. Resolution No. 25-109 authorizing grant application for Hennepin County Youth Play
Area grant and accepting grant funds if awarded
e. Resolution No. 25-110 authorizing grant application for Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources Conservation Partners Legacy grant and accepting grant funds if
awarded
f. Approve temporary extension of licensed premises - Yard House #8354
g. Resolution No. 25-111 appointing election workers for the November 4, 2025, municipal
and school district general election
Council Member Dumalag asked to comment on consent item 5d. She noted some residents
have asked for an all-inclusive playground for children, and she is happy to see the play area
moving forward.
Council Member Brausen commented on item 5a. He complimented the city's human resources
staff for locking in relatively affordable rates for benefits and stated it is important that staff are
treated well, while also saving the city money in the process.
Council Member Baudhuin commended on item 5g. He thanked everyone who has applied and
added that the council is grateful for all those who are committed to working. He noted that
early voting starts on Friday, Sept. 19, 2025, and he encouraged all to get out and vote.
Council Member Rog added that there is a League of Women Voters School Board Candidate
Forum on Sept. 16 and a city council candidate forum on Sept. 18, 2025; both at city hall.
It was moved by Council Member Budd, seconded by Council Member Brausen, to approve the
consent items as listed; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
6. Public hearings.
a. Resolution No. 25-112 levying assessment for delinquent utility accounts, tree
removals, false alarms, mowing, and citations
Ms. Finkel presented the staff report.
Ms. Finkel explained that the city certifies delinquent balances to Hennepin County as a means
to collect on these accounts. The city utilizes certifications as an alternative to shutting off
water services for unpaid utility accounts. The certification is done via the special assessment
process and becomes a lien on the individual properties, which is due over the next year or
several years, depending on the type of charge.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Title: City council meeting minutes of September 15, 2025
Ms. Finkel stated that delinquent accounts relate to unpaid charges for water, sewer, storm
water, refuse, abatement of tree removals, tree pruning, false alarms, mowing and citations
against the benefiting property. To help mitigate the number of accounts that are certified to
the county, city staff work with residents and businesses to resolve their outstanding balances
by sending notices, answering questions on outstanding account balances, and providing
information on where property owners can find energy assistance payment programs to help
reduce the balance of their delinquent accounts.
The staff report pointed out that the collection of these charges is vital to the financial stability
of the city’s utility systems and to reimburse the city for expenses incurred in services that have
already been provided.
Council Member Brausen asked if the additional special assessment, which is payable in 2026,
will be subject to the 12% limit that allows for a property tax refund for residents who apply.
Ms. Finkel stated that staff will look into that further.
Council Member Dumalag asked for a breakdown as a reference to which properties may be
struggling. Ms. Finkel stated the utility billing software does not collect demographic
information. She added that what they can see is that the properties are in line with the
demographic of city properties; about 84% of the city's properties are single-family and about
80% of certifications are single-family.
Council Member Dumalag asked what the most expensive utilities are. Ms. Finkle stated utility
here refers to water, sewer, storm water and garbage services provided by the city.
Mayor Mohamed opened the public hearing.
Faith Riverstone stated that she is opposed to the proposed resolution and stated that one of
her concerns is that St. Louis Park is not considering the poor. She added that there were no
past due notices until August, and to qualify for the water program, a past due notice must be
supplied. She asked the city to consider a 30-day past due notice with a number to call for the
program. She stated the change would allow residents to get on top of this earlier and to
alleviate issues at the county with too many past due notices.
Austin Wilson stated he has received two past due notices and does not know about this
process. He stated the notices came to a person who has since passed away and added he had
not personally received a citation until the most recent one arrived. He has had no time to
dispute the legitimacy of the citations. He disclosed that he is related to Councilmember
Brausen in case the relationship is a conflict of interest. He added that after speaking with city
staff about the issue, he is not sure what he should do next.
Mayor Mohamed stated that staff will be able to assist with Mr. Wilson’s questions after the
meeting.
Mayor Mohamed closed the public hearing.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Title: City council meeting minutes of September 15, 2025
Council Member Brausen recused himself from the discussion related to Mr. Wilson due to a
conflict of interest.
Council Member Rog asked if there is a process for disputing claims. Ms. Finkel stated that city
staff works directly with residents to handle issues. Council Member Rog thanked Ms.
Riverstone for her comments and suggestion.
Council Member Baudhuin stated he also appreciated Ms. Riverstone’s comments, as she
brought options to light that the city can consider in the future.
It was moved by Council Member Rog, seconded by Council Member Farris, to adopt Resolution
No. 25-112 levying assessment for delinquent utility accounts, tree removals, false alarms,
mowing and citations.
The motion passed 6-0-1 (Councilmember Brausen abstained).
7. Regular business.
a. Resolutions No. 25-113, 25-114, 25-115 approving the 2026 preliminary property tax
levy, authorizing the preliminary HRA levy for 2026, and authorizing a present intent
to levy a tax for EDA purposes
Ms. Cruver presented the staff report.
Ms. Cruver stated the policy questions and asked if the council supports the proposed 2026
budget as drafted. The balanced budget consists of an all-inclusive preliminary levy increase of
8.02% based upon the following:
1. General levies (general fund, park improvement, and employee benefits) of
$46,626,333
2. A Debt service levy of $5,792,684
3. A Housing Redeveloping Authority (HRA) levy of $1,194,133 to support the Affordable
Housing Trust Fund
4. An Economic Development Authority (EDA) levy of $375,000 to support ongoing
spending in the development fund, and
5. Planned use of fund balance in the general fund of $300,000 to support one-time items
in the budget.
After multiple discussions with the city council, staff presented a recommended budget and a
corresponding all-inclusive levy increase of 7.92%. Staff received feedback from the council that
was generally supportive of the new spending items but wanted to ensure that more was being
done in 2026 to support the city’s climate action plan. At the direction of the council, an
additional $50,000 of spending and levy revenue was added to support sustainability programs,
bringing the levy increase to 8.02%.
Council Member Dumalag asked if there have been any changes in the municipal building and
infrastructure technology funds. Ms. Cruver stated that in those funds, spending has remained
relatively stable but noted the city had not fully funded their spending in this area in years past.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 5
Title: City council meeting minutes of September 15, 2025
Council Member Rog asked how the police department's overtime expense of $200,000 was
funded previously.
Ms. Cruver stated the proposed increase to the police department budget for overtime
expenses was based on historical spending that shows overtime was overspent. She stated
overtime tends to increase when staffing is low. In previous years, lower staffing was enough to
offset the overtime spending. However, in the last two years, the budget changed to include
more programming and more overtime spending. She added that if a department is under
budget, then the overage is absorbed. That scenario is the reason for the fund balance policy.
Council Member Rog noted that concessions are very prominent in this year’s budget. She
asked for clarification on how they are anticipated to be revenue-neutral.
Ms. Cruver stated that for proposals that are revenue-generating, staff are also budgeting for
that increased revenue in the budget. The calculation of what the general property tax levy
needs to be offset with increased spending in non-property tax revenue. A similar calculation
has been done with the concessions.
Council Member Budd stated that taxable market value from the county was presented on
Sept. 5, 2025. She noted the percentage change would increase significantly for a single-family
home. She asked when this factor would be discussed.
Ms. Cruver explained that the council sets the overall tax levy, which is a dollar amount
collected from property taxpayers in the city. She added that commercial properties, residential
properties, and residential homestead property are part of the city’s market value and are all
taxed at slightly different rates. Staff analyzes these values and after the total levy amount is
set, the total taxable market value is calculated and finalized by Hennepin County. The final
maximum levy amount is proposed in early September.
Ms. Cruver noted that on Sept. 5, 2025, staff found out that the increase was going to be
approximately double the property tax levy percentage. While the property tax levy will only
increase by 7%, staff estimates that a median value home may increase by 15-18%. This is
because there is an underlying shift in the market on taxable market values in the city;
commercial properties are also decreasing in value. To collect that property tax levy, more
funds will need to be collected from the residential sector to cover the losses on commercial
properties. More information can be found in the staff report from Sept. 8, 2025.
Council Member Budd thanked staff for the information, noting the shift will change the lens
that the council uses related to increases because the council can see how the change will
impact residents. She wants the process to be transparent and thanked Ms. Cruver for the
explanation.
Council Member Rog stated she has concerns about a potential 18% increase. She sees an
opportunity to reduce the tax burden on taxpayers for 2026, without any impact to staffing or
programs, by significantly reducing the general levy and taking a closer look at the EDA and HRA
levies. Looking at the development fund on an annual basis is also important. EDA funds are
secured year over year with $375,000 proposed for 2026. She stated the city can pause these
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 6
Title: City council meeting minutes of September 15, 2025
funds and resume them based on conditions and when appropriate and necessary, such as
when the commercial-to-residential ratios improve or rates are more in favor of residential
property owners.
Council Member Rog stated the HRA levy is very robust and takes in $1.2 million every year. She
noted the fund could be reduced in 2026 and then returned the following year when the
reduction makes more sense in terms of tax impacts. Staff will need to make sure the city is not
missing out on any state matching funds currently.
Council Member Rog noted that there may be an opportunity to reduce the amount that is in
the Housing Trust Fund. In looking at both the EDA and HRA levies, there may be an
opportunity to provide relief without staff layoffs, programs cut, or big impacts to residents.
Council Member Rog stated that she does not have a particular amount in mind as to what the
levies should be reduced by and would like to hear from the rest of the council as well.
Council Member Brausen stated the council had a robust discussion on this last week. He stated
that even if all the levies remained flat for next year with no increase in spending, residents
would still experience an average increase of 9.1% in their residential property tax due to the
shift in market values, which is significant.
Council Member Brausen pointed out that the Minnesota State property tax refund program
provides a rebate for residents who experience a 12% tax increase or more, with a $1000
maximum. The average increase for a median single-family home in St. Louis Park is going to be
$324.00 with the proposed levy. If residents do not have an increase above that 12% threshold,
they cannot apply for the rebate.
Council Member Brausen stated for either one of the levies, reductions would be symbolic,
adding that it may be important to do this. However, he noted that the question before the city
council today is to set the maximum levy. He supports staff recommendations; the council and
staff will then work together to make adjustments.
Council Member Baudhuin stated he appreciates Council Member Rog’s comments, but noted
they are a bit late, in light of the staff report and the numbers presented. He would prefer to
have a deeper discussion on making changes to the EDA and HRA levies, though the time for
this discussion is not during the present meeting.
Council Member Budd agreed but noted that the council has until Sept. 30, 2025, to make a
final decision. She has concerns about the increases and has heard from many residents. She
stated that with the potential of 18%, the council now needs to look at where cuts can be made
for both the city and residents. Without this process, the council is asking residents to take on
the burden. Many federal programs are being cut, especially in energy programs, which have
been helpful to residents. She suggested the city council hold off on a decision.
Council Member Dumalag stated that while we are working to be very thoughtful about the city
budget, the changes are largely being fueled by the depressed commercial district values. She
wants to reassure the public that the city is not increasing the levy due to large spending and
pointed out that when the truth in taxation statements come out, the 8% will look much higher
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 7
Title: City council meeting minutes of September 15, 2025
due to these issues with the commercial districts. She asked staff for some estimates if the levy
was reduced.
Ms. Cruver stated that making reductions to the HRA and EDA levy is straightforward. She also
cautioned that whatever might be saved with a reduction this year will need to be made up for
in future years. Making any changes to the general fund levy would be more complex, and she
would not be comfortable doing those calculations in real time at this meeting. If the council
directs staff on what programs and services should not be prioritized, staff can come back in
November 2025 with recommendations to lower the general levy.
Ms. Cruver stated that with the EDA and HRA levies being more straightforward, she can say
that if the overall levy were reduced to 7% from 8%, that would mean a median 17% increase
for residents, while a reduction to the overall levy to 6% would be a median increase to 16%.
She stated the largest impact continues to shift in the property tax market, noting the numbers
are estimates.
Mayor Mohamed thanked Council Member Rog for her ideas. Mayor Mohamed shared that she
also has concerns about the increases and is looking at where these reductions can be made.
She asked staff to provide information about the impacts of any reduction of the HRA and EDA
levies.
Ms. Barton stated that, depending on what the council is looking at, cutting levy amounts to the
EDA and HRA levies will be impactful, however, there is enough fund balance to cover city
expenses for the 2026 budgeted amounts for both the development fund and affordable
housing trust fund.
Mayor Mohamed stated she is fine approving the maximum levy of 8% this evening but is not
comfortable with that number as the final levy. The maximum levy will also not sit right with
the majority of council members. She would like to explore a reduction of the HRA and EDA
funds but does not have a number in mind for the goal. She asked whether decertification of
some of the city’s Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts provide any flexibility or opportunity.
Ms. Cruver stated that decertifying TIF districts after November 2025 will have an impact in
2027, but not in 2026. If there is a decision made to reduce the HRA or EDA levy with the
intention to bring them back up in 2027, then it is relevant to discuss the impact of the TIF on
the tax base in 2027.
Council Member Rog stated it seemed possible to suspend the EDA levy for a year, amounting
to $375,000. Additionally, we have about $1.2 million that comes in each year through the HRA
levy, a third of that is $400,000. The city has new funding sources from the state. Her
understanding is that one levy point is approximately $500,000. She noted that a possible
reduction of $750,000, which could come from both the EDA levy and the Affordable Housing
Trust fund, is a potential means to lower the levy by 1.5%. Barring any state match, Council
Member Rog does not see temporary pauses on collecting these levies impacting the city in a
significant way in 2026.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 8
Title: City council meeting minutes of September 15, 2025
Ms. Cruver stated that reducing the development EDA levy to $0 would be a $375,000
reduction from the proposal. If there was also a $400,000 reduction from the Affordable
Housing Trust Fund, the result would still be a 6.47% final levy increase. She added the overall
reduction would be approximately $775,000. This amount would need to be added back in the
future, either all at once or over a series of years.
Ms. Cruver added that she is not sure of the allowable amount of money that can be reduced
from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, as it relates to regulations, so that would be an issue.
Ms. Keller added she would have concerns about losing $800,000 in funding to save $400,000.
She asked if this conversation could be scheduled for later in the fall when more is known about
the Affordable Housing Trust Fund regulations and a more informed decision can be made.
Council Member Brausen stated that he is not in favor of raising anyone’s property taxes. The
proposal is a sizable increase, but there is a budget in front of the council right now that does
not require a long-term commitment. The council will look for ways to reduce the maximum tax
levy but stated that making a decision from a position of fear as to how residents will perceive
the news that their taxes are going up seems ill-advised. He would like to discuss how to reduce
the levies, and if the council has to consider some reductions in service, that can be a
consideration. He does not want to delay today’s decision as it is recommended to pass the
preliminary levy.
Mayor Mohamed agreed and stated she will want to continue these robust conversations. She
pointed out that the preliminary levy is the maximum number that can be set. In the future, the
levy can be reduced but not increased. She will support the preliminary levy as proposed.
Council Member Baudhuin thanked Council Member Rog for her comments. He will support the
preliminary levy and would like to see more adjustments implemented before the final
approval. He stated the council will need to do its due diligence to bring the levy down, and he
would like to explore Council Member Rog’s ideas further.
Mayor Mohamed stated she would like to see the impacts of the give and take when the levy
reduction scenarios are presented.
Council Member Budd stated she is not in support of the preliminary levy. She added she would
like to see a decision made by Sept. 30, 2025, versus a conversation in November, and she
cannot support the levy in its present form.
Council Member Dumalag stated she will also support the preliminary levy. She does not want
to miss out on any local aid. If the city makes budgetary cuts without seeing the impacts, she is
concerned about losing funding. Everything needs to be on the table to review. She requested
that staff make the study session discussion dynamic so the council can see the budget impacts
and potential levy numbers in order to help them make decisions.
Council Member Farris stated that if she can see all the options, it will be easier for her to make
a decision. She stated she will support the preliminary levy.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 9
Title: City council meeting minutes of September 15, 2025
Council Member Rog thanked the council for their comments and the staff for their work. She
stated she understands the concerns of the council and that while they would like to see a
lower percentage, they are not ready to commit to something lower. While this is
understandable, it is frustrating.
Council Member Rog added by raising her concerns, she is not maligning the budget process.
She stated she supports what the budget represents and believes that the budget represents
the shared community priorities. The decision is about residents and making sure we are
mindful of the impacts of the tax levy, especially on the city’s income-challenged residents. She
will also vote against the 8.02% preliminary levy and will look forward to additional discussions.
Mayor Mohamed opened the meeting to public comment.
Ms. Riverstone thanked the council for their work and encouraged all to vote no on the motion.
She stated that many residents have financial struggles, and it is getting difficult for residents to
stay in the city. She stated that people are just holding on and trying to make it. She stated we
do not need any more road increases, no new projects, and hold off on any new development
to show we care about the homeowners.
Mayor Mohamed closed the public comments.
Ms. Cruver stated that staff will return to the council with recommendations about lowering
the tax increase by 1.5%. The more feedback finance staff can receive the more helpful.
Council Member Rog noted that pausing the HRA levy for 2026 would save $1.5 million and
3 percentage points on the tax increase and was possibly something to look at more closely.
Ms. Cruver pointed out that although operations in 2026 would not be impacted, those funds
would need to be made up for over time, putting pressure on future levies. If funds are paused
and then used for programming, the fund is depleted, and then it will take time to get back to
full funding.
Ms. Keller stated that staff will return in October and November 2025 for further discussions
related to the budget and noted that she will reach out to council members for their thoughts
on budget reductions.
It was moved by Council Member Brausen, seconded by Mayor Mohamed, to adopt Resolutions
No. 25- 113, 25-114 and 25-115 approving the 2026 preliminary property tax levy, authorizing
the preliminary HRA levy for 2026, and authorizing a present intent to levy a tax for EDA
purposes.
The motion passed 5-2 (Council Members Budd and Rog opposed).
b. Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Mayor Mohamed introduced the item and asked the city attorney, Mr. Mattick to provide a
brief overview of the item.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 10
Title: City council meeting minutes of September 15, 2025
Mr. Mattick stated that a complaint was filed by Fred Ramos on July 8, 2025, alleging that
Council Member Dumalag had violated the city charter under three different rationales. The
complaint was filed with Ms. Keller. Mr. Mattick and Ms. Keller reviewed the complaint, and the
charter contemplates that it is up to the city council to decide whether the complaint should be
sustained or not. The city chose to bring in outside legal counsel to objectively review the
complaint, conduct an investigation, and prepare a report for the council’s consideration.
Mayor Mohamed noted that this item is different than most other items that come before the
council, and therefore, there is no staff recommendation and there will be no public comment
period because the item is entirely under the purview of the council. Mayor Mohamed stated
that the council will be voting on the item at this meeting.
Council Member Dumalag recused herself from the discussion.
Mr. Mattick stated that Council Member Dumalag’s recusal was sufficient action and she did
not need to step away from the dais during the council’s consideration or deliberation of the
item.
Mayor Mohamed introduced Ms. Whitmore, who presented the investigation report.
Ms. Whitmore stated that on July 8, 2025, the city manager received a written complaint
alleging that Council Member Dumalag violated multiple sections of the city charter. The
complaint alleges specific violations of three city charter provisions, including Sections 2.09,
12.20 and 12.21.
Ms. Whitmore stated that upon receipt of the complaint, the city engaged her services as an
external consultant to investigate the matter. She noted that as the investigator, she is
attending the meeting to present her findings to the council.
Ms. Whitmore added that following the presentation, the city council will have an opportunity
to ask questions and then will be asked to deliberate and vote on the issue. The city charter
provides that the council is responsible for determining whether a violation of the charter has
occurred.
Ms. Whitmore stated that in her investigation, her work is to substantiate the facts and does
not present any recommendations. The charter provision at the focus of the complaint is
Section 2.09, Interference with administration.
Quoting city charter Section 2.09. Interference with administration, the staff report notes:
“The determination whether any violation of the provisions of this section has occurred
shall be made by the council upon its own inquiry and by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of
all of the councilmembers except the councilmember or members being charged with
the violation”.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 11
Title: City council meeting minutes of September 15, 2025
Ms. Whitmore outlined the process of her investigation. The scope of her investigation focused
on content of emails between Council Member Dumalag, staff and additional individuals. In
addition to reviewing the email chains, Ms. Whitmore interviewed multiple people, including
Council Member Dumalag. A substantial amount of time was spent in interviews.
Ms. Whitmore noted the council’s norms and procedures and how the city’s operational system
is built around appropriate communication between city staff and city council members. All
staff interviewed provided statements that communication between Council Member Dumalag
and themselves did not substantiate the claims of the complainant. Nothing that could be
considered direction or orders to staff was present in communications. All communications
were phrased as inquiries; staff confirmed inquiries were appropriate questions for an elected
official to ask in the course of representing their ward.
Ms. Whitmore stated she found no substantiation of the allegations from the emails she
reviewed, nor any type of favoritism – all processes were followed in all email conversations.
She found no substantiated facts regarding favoritism, gifts or favors. There was no personal
use of city staff and Council Member Dumalag did not have any personal interest in gaining the
information within the content of the emails.
Ms. Whitmore reiterated that there was no substantiation of the facts upon which the charter
complaints were based. She stated that she was available for any questions from the city
council regarding her findings.
Council Member Brausen stated the investigation by Ms. Whitmore was very thorough and
asked Ms. Whitmore if she had stated there were no findings that the charter had been
violated. Ms. Whitmore stated that it is correct.
Council Members Budd and Baudhuin both noted their appreciation for the report from Ms.
Whitmore.
Council Member Rog stated that the council all read the report, and they all take their work
seriously.
Mayor Mohamed stated that this item marks the second time that the Ramos family have
brought their grievances before the St. Louis Park City Council. The Ramos family first appeared
before the council to dispute staff interpretation of the zoning ordinance, as well as making
allegations that their neighbors' children were coming onto their property and creating
disturbances. When the council did not agree with the Ramos’ interpretation of the events, the
Ramos family chose to escalate the situation by filing lawsuits against their neighbors and the
City of St. Louis Park, and those claims were fully heard and ultimately dismissed.
Mayor Mohamed stated Mr. Ramos then filed a complaint against a sitting council member.
Mayor Mohamed explained she finds the complaint to be unfounded per the investigation
report, which shows no supporting evidence to substantiate the claim. She stated the complaint
feels more like an attack on the council member than a sincere concern for the city's charter,
which is unacceptable.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 12
Title: City council meeting minutes of September 15, 2025
Mayor Mohamed stated the council takes every complaint seriously, but there comes a time
when persistence without merit crosses into abuse of process, and that time has arrived. The
council will not allow their time or the time of the city staff or residents to be wasted any
further. Mayor Mohamed stated that she considers this matter closed, adding that she hopes
that one day, the Ramos family comes to understand the values of the City of St. Louis Park.
Mayor Mohamed thanked Ms. Whitmore for going through the investigation process and
bringing the matter to the attention of the city council.
Council Member Baudhuin thanked Mayor Mohamed for her comments.
It was moved by Council Member Brausen, seconded by Council Member Farris, to adopt the
findings as presented by the independent investigator and find that no violation of the St. Louis
Park City Charter has occurred.
The motion passed 6-0-1 (Councilmember Dumalag abstained).
8. Communications and announcements.
a. Race, Equity, and Inclusion system wrap-up
b. Vision 4.0 community engagement update
Ms. Keller noted there is no city council meeting next week in recognition of Rosh Hashanah,
and she wished the city’s Jewish neighbors a good and sweet New Year.
9. Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5a
Executive summary
Title: Adopt ordinance setting salaries for the mayor and council members
Recommended action: Motion to approve second reading and adopt ordinance setting salaries
for the mayor and councilmembers.
Policy consideration: Does the city council want to adjust the annual salaries for the mayor and
council members beginning in 2026 above the increase set by the previous ordinance adopted
in 2015?
Summary: Minnesota Statute 415.11 states that the council sets its salary in such amount that
it deems reasonable. St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 2.07 provides that the council
shall set and may increase or decrease the salaries of the mayor and council m embers by
ordinance. Any increases in salaries must be adopted before the next regular municipal election
but cannot take effect until after the election.
In October 2015, the city council adopted Ordinance No. 2480-15 and Resolution No. 15-153 to
automatically adjust mayor, council and Economic Development Authority (EDA) commissioner
salaries after each regular municipal election. The current annual salary for the mayor and
council members is $20,842 and $14,413 respectively. This is a cumulative amount reflecting
compensation for their roles as members of the council and the Economic Development
Authority (EDA).
Following discussions on July 7 and Aug. 18, 2025, the city council directed staff to prepare one -
time amendments to the existing ordinance setting salaries for the mayor and council
members. The proposed amendments would increase the cumulative annual salaries for the
mayor and council members to $23,500 and $18,000 respectively. A public hearing was held on
October 6, 2025, and the first reading of the ordinance was approved by council. The proposed
amendments are required to be adopted before the next municipal election. However, the
effective date of the amendments will be Jan. 1, 2026.
Financial or budget considerations: This ordinance will increase mayor and council member
compensation by 13% and 25% respectively on a one-time basis. This ordinance will increase
costs by $25,000 in 2026 and is included in the preliminary budget.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Proposed ordinance, summary ordinance, July 7, 2025 study session
staff report, July 7, 2025 study session minutes, August 18, 2025 study session staff report ,
August 18, 2025 study session minutes, October 6, 2025 staff report
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5a) Page 2
Title: Adopt ordinance setting salaries for the mayor and council members
Ordinance No. _________ – 25
Setting salaries for the mayor and council members
The city council of St. Louis Park ordains:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 2480-15, adopted on October 19, 2015, is hereby amended as follows
to delete the struck-out language and to add the underlined text:
Effective for officials elected to serve for the 2016 2026 calendar year, the annual salary of the
mayor shall be $12, 091 $23,500 and the annual salary of each council member shall be $6, 977
$18,000. Effective in 2018 2028 and thereafter for calendar years after each succeeding
municipal election, the salaries of the mayor and council members shall be adjusted in an
amount equal to the cumulative adjustments for non-organized city employees since the last
adjustment in the mayor and council member’s salaries. For mayor and council members who
serve for less than a full year, the annual salary shall be pro-rated.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2026, following passage and publication by
law.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council October 20, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
First reading October 6, 2025
Second reading October 20, 2025
Date of publication October 30, 2025
Date ordinance takes effect January 1, 2026
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5a) Page 3
Title: Adopt ordinance setting salaries for the mayor and council members
SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION
Ordinance No. XXXX-25
Setting salaries for the mayor and council members
This ordinance increases the annual salary of the mayor from $20,842 to $23,500 and
increases the annual salary for council members from $14,413 to $18,000.
The ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2026.
Adopted by the city council October 20, 2025
Nadia Mohamed /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the city clerk.
Published in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor: October 30, 2025
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5b
Executive summary
Title: Adopt ordinance amending chapter 8 of the city code related to cannabinoid products
Recommended action: Motion to approve the second reading amending sections of chapter 8
of the city code to be consistent with changes in state statute related to cannabinoids.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to amend sections of chapter 8 of the city code
to be consistent with changes in state statute related to the licensing of cannabinoid
products/LPHE (lower-potency hemp edibles)?
Summary: Beginning Oct. 1, 2025, the Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) will
transition their registration program for LPHE retailers to a licensing program. At that time, the
OCM will begin accepting applications for lower-potency hemp edible licenses including LPHE-
retailers, LPHE-manufacturers and LPHE-wholesalers. All current LPHE businesses registered
with the OCM who wish to continue selling LPHE products will be required to apply for and
obtain a license under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 342. Operations for currently registered
businesses may continue while their license is processed.
As the OCM transitions to licensing, it is required that local governments register LPHE retailers.
On March 17, 2025, the council passed an ordinance establishing cannabis and LPHE retail
registration in preparation for the OCM’s transition to licensing. This ordinance amendment
removes the city’s licensing requirement for LPHE to align with the OCM’s transition from
registration to licensing of LPHE and the city’s transition from licensing to registration.
On Oct. 6, 2025 city council was presented a first reading of the ordinance amending sections of
chapter 8 related to the licensing of cannabinoid products/LPHE. The city council supported the
amendment and approved the second reading.
If the second reading of the ordinance is approved, the effective date for the proposed change
is Nov. 14, 2025.
Financial or budget considerations: The city’s current annual licensing fee is $855. The
maximum allowable annual registration fee imposed by the city will now be set by the OCM at
$125. This will reduce annual revenue to the city by approximately $17,500 based on 24
registrations.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Ordinance amendment
Summary for publication
Prepared by: Michael Pivec, property maintenance & licensing manager
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, interim building and energy director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5b) Page 2
Title: Adopt ordinance amending chapter 8 of the city code related to cannabinoid products
Ordinance No.____-25
Amending St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 8, Section 8-471 – 8-478
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Subdivision XVI. Cannabinoid Products Sec. 8-471 – Sec. 8-478 are deleted in their entirety.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council October 20, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
First Reading October 6, 2025
Second Reading October 20, 2025
Date of Publication October 30, 2025
Date Ordinance takes effect November 14, 2025
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5b) Page 3
Title: Adopt ordinance amending chapter 8 of the city code related to cannabinoid products
SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION
Ordinance No.____-25
Ordinance amending St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 8, Subdivision XVI. Section
8-471 – 8-478 relating to Cannabinoid Products
This ordinance amends St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 8, Subdivision XVI. Section 8-471
–8-478 relating to cannabinoids by removing the city’s licensing requirement for Cannabinoid
Products (LPHE-lower potency hemp edibles) to align with the OCM’s transition from registration to
licensing of cannabinoid products (LPHE) and the city’s transition from licensing to registration.
The ordinance shall take effect November 14, 2025.
Adopted by the city council October 20, 2025
Nadia Mohamed /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the city clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sun Sailor: October 30, 2025
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5c
Executive summary
Title: Adopt ordinance amending chapter 34 of the city code related to grass height
Recommended action: Motion to approve the second reading of the ordinance amending
various sections of chapter 34 of the city code to be consistent with changes in state statute
and city code.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to proceed with the ordinance amendments
proposed for property maintenance regulations?
Summary: On Nov. 14, 2024, the council approved amending sections of city code increasing
the maximum grass height on any public or private property from six inches to eight inches to
align with changes in state statute. Recently, it has come to the attention of city staff that other
chapters and sections of city code also reference maximum grass height but were not
amended. This ordinance amends Sec. 34-111 (a) and (b) of city code to align with the council-
approved amendments approved on Nov. 14, 2024.
On Oct. 6, 2025 city council was presented a first reading amending sections of chapters 34 of
the city code relating to grass height. The city council supported the amendments and
approved the second reading.
If the second reading of the ordinance is approved, the effective date for the proposed change
is Nov. 14, 2025.
Financial or budget considerations: None.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Ordinance amendment
Summary for publication
Prepared by: Michael Pivec, property maintenance & licensing manager
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, interim building and energy director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 2
Title: Adopt ordinance amending chapter 34 of the city code related to grass height
Ordinance No.____-25
Amending St. Louis Park City Code Section 34-111(a) & (b) relating
to grass/weeds height
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Sec. 34-111. Weeds declared a nuisance, duty of owner.
(a)Any weeds, whether noxious or not as defined by state law, or turf grass growing at
a height greater than six eight inches upon any privately owned lot or tract of land in
the city or upon any public boulevard or similar public property alongside the
traveled portion of a street or alley abutting the private property are hereby
declared to be a nuisance, except as authorized in Section 34-117. Turf grass is any
type of vegetative grasses used for recreational or residential purposes.
(b)The owner or occupant of any such property or abutting property shall prevent the
nuisance, and if the nuisance occurs, the owner or occupant shall cut and remove
the weeds from the property or cut the turf grass to a height of less than six eight
inches.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council October 20, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
First Reading October 6, 2025
Second Reading October 20, 2025
Date of Publication October 30, 2025
Date Ordinance takes effect November 14, 2025
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 3
Title: Adopt ordinance amending chapter 34 of the city code related to grass height
SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION
Ordinance No.____-25
Ordinance amending St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 34, Article III. Section 34-
111(a) and (b) relating to grass/weeds height
This ordinance amends St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 34 Article III. Section 34-111(a) and (b)
relating to height limit for turf grass, weeds or rank vegetation increasing from 6” to 8” to align
with state regulations.
The ordinance shall take effect November 14, 2025.
Adopted by the city council October 20, 2025
Nadia Mohamed /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the city clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sun Sailor: October 30, 2025
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5d
Executive summary
Title: Adopt ordinance amending chapter 8 section 8-326 exceptions for rental licensing
Recommended action: Motion to approve the second reading of the ordinance amending
chapter 8, section 8-326(c) of the city code related to exceptions for licensing of non-owner
occupied properties.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to proceed with an amendment to chapter 8,
section 8-326(c) of the city code exempting relative homestead properties from non-owner
occupied licensing requirements?
Summary: At the April 21, 2025 study session, the city council expressed support for providing
an exception for relative homestead properties from the rental licensing requirements. Staff
shared that years of inspections show relative homestead properties are generally properly
maintained, safe and less likely to generate concerns by the occupants. Elimination of the city
license, fee and inspection requirements for relative homestead properties alleviates the
burden expressed by family members working to provide housing for college-age children,
disabled adult family members, or parents passing titles to children during estate planning.
On Oct. 6, 2025 city council was presented with a first reading amending sections of chapter 8,
exempting relative homestead properties from non-owner occupied licensing requirements.
The city council supported the amendments and approved the second reading.
If the second reading of the ordinance is approved, the proposed change would be effective
Jan. 1, 2026 to coincide with annual renewals.
Financial or budget considerations: The potential impact of an exemption on licensing revenue
is an estimated reduction of $13,500 annually. 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: Ordinance amendment
Summary for publication
Prepared by: Michael Pivec, property maintenance & licensing manager
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, interim building and energy director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5d) Page 2
Title: Adopt ordinance amending chapter 8 section 8-326 exceptions for rental licensing
Ordinance No.____-25
Amending St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 8
Section 8-326(c)
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Subdivision VIII. Rental Housing
Sec. 8-326. License required.
(a) The owner of a residential building or portion thereof operated as rental housing
with one or more dwelling units must obtain a rental housing license. The license shall
contain a statement that the tenant or tenants may contact the attorney general for
information regarding the rights and obligations of owners and tenants under state law.
The statement shall include the telephone number and address of the attorney general.
(b) The term “rental housing” means any dwelling unit that is not owner occupied.
The term includes any dwelling unit which is either unoccupied or occupied by a relative
of the owner.
(c) Exceptions. No license shall be required under the following circumstances:
(1) A dwelling unit occupied by the owner for a minimum of six months per
calendar year.
(2) Rented rooms within an owner-occupied dwelling unit.
(3) Unoccupied dwelling units being offered for sale which have been issued a
Certificate of Property Maintenance that remains in effect.
(4) Certain group homes which are exempt by state statute from municipal rental
licensing schemes.
(5)Properties classified as relative homestead by Hennepin County.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2026.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council October 20, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
First Reading October 6, 2025
Second Reading October 20, 2025
Date of Publication October 30, 2025
Date Ordinance takes effect January 1, 2026
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5d) Page 3
Title: Adopt ordinance amending chapter 8 section 8-326 exceptions for rental licensing
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5d) Page 4
Title: Adopt ordinance amending chapter 8 section 8-326 exceptions for rental licensing
SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION
Ordinance No.____-25
Ordinance amending St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 8, Subdivision VIII. Section
8-326(c) relating to rental licensing
This ordinance amends St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 8, Subdivision VIII. Section 8-
326(c) relating to rental licensing by allowing relative homestead properties to be exempted
from the city’s licensing requirement for non-owner occupied properties.
The ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2026.
Adopted by the city council October 20, 2025
Nadia Mohamed /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the city clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sun Sailor: October 30, 2025
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5e
Executive summary
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special
Service Districts 1 - 6 and district 4 extension
Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolutions setting the 2026 Special Service Districts
(SSD) 1 - 6 budgets and property owner service charges and directing staff to certify the annual
service charges to Hennepin County.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to approve SSD 1 - 6 budgets and property
owner service charges and the extension of SSD 4 through 2035?
Summary: At the city council meeting on Oct. 6, 2025, staff presented information relating to
the proposed 2026 budgets and service charges. The mayor opened the public hearing for
public input and none was provided.
The 2026 proposed budgets and service charges have been adjusted to include a 2.45%
increase in SSD 1 – 6, with the exception of district 6 where the budget will remain flat while
service charges increase by 2.45%. Staff have provided public notice and direct mailing to
property owners in each district regarding the proposed 2026 budget and service charges.
In addition, SSD 4 multi-year service charge was for ten years and expires the end of 2025.
Petitions to extend the multi-year service charge for ten years through 2035 have been signed
by at least twenty-five percent (25%) of property owners, as required by law.
The proposed 2026 budget and services charges are included as attachments.
Financial or budget considerations: The city owns property in several SSDs and will incur
service charge costs for those properties. The service charge costs incurred are as follows: parks
maintenance budget incurs $31,482 in SSD 1; public works operations budget incurs $58 in SSD
2 and $872 in SSD 4; EDA/TIF administration budget incurs $1,814 in SSD 6.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolutions
A) SSD 1 – 6 budgets
B) SSD 1 – 6 service charges
C) SSD 1 – 6 streetscape maps
Prepared by: Kala Fisher, public services superintendent/deputy public works director
Reviewed by: Emily Carr, assessment technician
Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 2
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service Districts 1 - 6 and
district 4 extension
Discussion
Background:
In 1996, the city council approved a resolution authorizing Special Service District (SSD) 1. Since
then, five additional service districts have been set up within the city. SSDs 1-4 are along
Excelsior Boulevard, SSD 5 is along Park Place Boulevard near West End and SSD 6 is along W.
36th Street near Hoiggard Village. City staff provides management services for the service
districts.
Budget and service charge overview
Annually, the city council must set a service charge for the district following a public hearing on
the proposed charge. The service charges are used to fund the maintenance activities in each
district. The notice of this public hearing was published on the city’s website and in the Sun
Sailor on Sept. 18 and Oct. 2, 2025. The public hearing notice was sent to all property owners
within each district.
Special Service District 4 multi-year service charge was for ten years, expiring in 2025. Service
district members have shown interest in extending the District beyond 2025. Staff sent a
petition to each property owner to approve service charges commencing 2026 through and
including 2035. As required by law, the city has received signed petitions from the owners of at
least twenty-five percent (25%) of the properties subject to the proposed service charge.
• A summary of proposed 2026 budget and service charges are below:
• SSD 1: budget and service charges proposed at $117,196; an increase of 2.45%
• SSD 2: budget and service charges proposed at $52,137; an increase of 2.45%
• SSD 3: budget and service charges proposed at $56,686; an increase of 2.45%
• SSD 4: budget and service charges proposed at $29,591; an increase of 2.45%
• SSD 5: budget and service charges proposed at $35,126; an increase of 2.45%
• SSD 6: budget proposed at $27,400 (remains flat) and service charges proposed at
$19,793; an increase of 2.45%
Proposed 2026 budget and service charges
Staff recommend approval of the following:
• 2026 budget and service charges for each district.
• In SSD 1: An annual contribution of $1,993 from Parkshore Senior Campus, LLC, in
recognition of benefits received as a residential property located in the service district.
The proposed resolutions were reviewed by Soren Mattick, city attorney.
Present considerations: The Special Service Districts are a benefit to the businesses and city as
they help maintain the improvements made in the district, promote a positive image of the
business corridor and attract customers to the area.
Next steps:
• In October 2025, a notice of the right to veto the approved service charges will be sent
to property owners in Special Service District 4.
• In November 2025, the city certifies the 2026 assessments (service charges) to Hennepin
County.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 3
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service Districts 1 - 6 and
district 4 extension
Resolution No. 25-___
2026 Budget & Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1
Whereas, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2067-96, the city council created Special Service District
No. 1 (the “District”). The specific properties located within the district are identified on
attachment “B” attached hereto; and
Whereas, pursuant to Resolution No. 16-130, the city council is authorized to impose service
charges within the district on a multi-year basis through and including the year 2026 for taxes
payable in said year; and
Whereas, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 16-130, the maximum budget to be imposed
in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price Index (CPI) data
for the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area; and
Whereas, pursuant to Section 4 of Resolution No. 16-130, the service charges shall be payable
and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection
of ad valorem taxes; and
Whereas, the city is required by statute to certify assessments to the county by November 30,
2025.
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
1. The 2026 Budget for Special Service District No. 1 of $117,196 is hereby approved.
2. The authorized 2026 service charge for Special Service District No. 1 is $117,196 in the
amounts and against the properties specified on attachment “B” attached to this
resolution.
3. An annual contribution of $1,933 will be accepted from Parkshore Senior Campus, LLC,
in recognition of the benefits received as a residential property located within the
service district.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council October 20, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 4
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service Districts 1 - 6 and
district 4 extension
Resolution No. 25-___
2026 budget and service charges for Special Service District No. 2
Whereas, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2093-97, the city council created Special Service District
No. 2 (the “District”). The specific properties located within the district are identified on
attachment “B” attached hereto; and
Whereas, pursuant to Resolution No. 18-147, the city council is authorized to impose service
charges within the district on a multi-year basis through and including the year 2028 for taxes
payable in said year; and
Whereas, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 18-147, the maximum budget to be imposed
in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price Index (CPI) data
for the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area; and
Whereas, pursuant to Section 4 of Resolution No. 18-147, the service charges shall be payable
and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection
of ad valorem taxes; and
Whereas, the city is required by statute to certify assessments to the county by November 30,
2025.
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
1. The 2026 Budget for Special Service District No. 2 of $52,137 is hereby approved.
2. The authorized 2026 service charge for Special Service District No. 2 is $52,137 in the
amounts and against the properties specified on attachment “B” attached to this
resolution.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council October 20, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 5
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service Districts 1 - 6 and
district 4 extension
Resolution No. 25-___
2026 budget and service charges for Special Service District No. 3
Whereas, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2224-02, the city council created Special Service District
No. 3 (the “District”). The specific properties located within the district are identified on
attachment “B” attached hereto; and
Whereas, pursuant to Resolution No. 12-149, the city council is authorized to impose service
charges within the district on a multi-year basis through and including the year 2032 for taxes
payable in said year; and
Whereas, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 12-149, the maximum budget to be imposed
in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price Index (CPI) data
for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan area; and
Whereas, pursuant to Section 4 of Resolution No. 12-149, the service charges shall be payable
and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection
of ad valorem taxes; and
Whereas, the city is required by statute to certify assessments to the county by November 30,
2025.
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
1. The 2026 budget for Special Service District No. 3 of $56,686 is hereby approved as
recommended by the Special Service District No. 3 property owners.
2. The authorized 2026 service charge for Special Service District No. 3 is $56,686 in the
amounts and against the properties specified on attachment “B” attached to this
resolution.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council October 20, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 6
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service Districts 1 - 6 and
district 4 extension
Resolution No. 25-___
2026 budget and service charges for Special Service District No. 4
Be it resolved by the city council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows:
Section 1. Recitals: Findings.
1.01 Pursuant to Ordinance No. 2298-05, (the “ordinance”) the city created a special
service district for certain property located adjacent to Excelsior Boulevard within an area
approximately bounded by Highway 100 westerly to Louisiana Avenue. The specific properties
included within this area are identified on Attachment "B" attached hereto and generally
depicted on Attachment "C" attached hereto and the right-of-way adjacent thereto (the
"district").
1.02 The city has received a petition requesting a public hearing to impose a service
charge from the owners of property within the district (the "petition").
1.03 The city council has determined each of the following:
(a) at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the individuals or business
organizations subject to the proposed service charge have signed the
petition;
(b) only owners of property located within the district have signed the
petition;
(c) only owners of property classified under Minnesota Statutes, Section
273.13 as commercial, industrial, or public utility purposes, or that is
vacant land zoned or designated on a land use plan for commercial,
industrial, or public utility purposes, have signed the petition; and
(d) notice of a public hearing has been given and a public hearing has been
held.
Section 2. Imposition of Service Charge.
2.01 Amount of Service Charge. There is hereby imposed a service charge against the
properties specified on Exhibit "B", the amount is a calculation using each property’s front foot
percentage applied against the annual budget expenditures (the "service charge").
The city imposes a service charge, payable in 2026, for special services provided during the period
of January 2026 - December 2026 in a maximum amount of $29,591. The maximum service
charge in all subsequent years will be calculated pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.04.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 7
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service Districts 1 - 6 and
district 4 extension
2.02 Multi-year Service Charge. The service charge imposed by this resolution is a
charge for more than one year. The service charge will remain in effect through and including
the year 2035 for taxes payable in said year.
2.03 Calculation of Service Charge. The service sharge for all costs related to the
district shall be distributed based upon the front feet adjacent to Excelsior Boulevard for each
parcel within the district and subject to the service charge.
2.04 Inflation Adjuster. Commencing with the service charge payable in 2026, the
maximum service charge to be imposed in any year (the "current year") will increase from the
maximum authorized budgeted amount for the year immediately preceding the current year
(the "prior year") based upon the following:
The Consumer Price Index (All Items) for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan
Area, published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics ("index"), which is published for the date nearest the commencement
of the current year (the "current year index"), shall be compared with the index
published for the same month of the prior year (the "prior year index"). If the
current year index has increased over the prior year index, the maximum service
charge shall be increased by multiplying the maximum service charge by a
fraction, the numerator of which is the current year index and the denominator
of which is the prior year index. If the index is discontinued or revised, such
other government index or computation with which it is replaced shall be used in
order to obtain substantially the same result as would be obtained if the index
had not been discontinued or revised. Notwithstanding increases in the index of
greater than five percent (5%), the maximum service charge shall not increase
from any prior year to any current year by an amount greater than five percent
(5%) of the prior year's service charge.
2.05 Distribution of Total Service Charge. The distribution of the total service charge
among properties within the district and subject to the service charge may vary and shall be
recalculated pursuant to the formula specified in Section 2.03 if and to the extent that: (i) the
front footage of sidewalks constructed on such properties increases or decreases; or (ii) a parcel
increases or decreases in size by acquisition or sale.
2.06 Use of Revenues. Revenues collected through the imposition of service charges
may be used by the city for any purposes authorized in the ordinance. The services and the
revenues allocated to each service are subject to change at the discretion of the city.
Section 3. Collection of Service Charges.
3.01 Collection. The services charges shall be payable and collected at the same time
and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes; except
that the city may directly bill owners of parcels located within the district and subject to the
service charge for the service charge due and payable in calendar year 2026. For purposes of
determining the appropriate tax rate, taxable property or net tax capacity shall be determined
without regard to captured or original net tax capacity under Minnesota Statutes, Section
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 8
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service Districts 1 - 6 and
district 4 extension
469.177 or to the distribution or contribution value under Minnesota Statutes, Section
473F.08. Any service charge due and payable in calendar year 2026 that remains unpaid as of
October 31, 2026, shall be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as
provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes in the year 2027.
3.02 Penalty and Interest. Service charges made payable in the same manner as
provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes, if not paid on or before the applicable
due date, shall be subject to the same penalty and interest as in the case of ad valorem tax
amounts not paid by the respective date.
3.03 Due Date. The due date for the service charge payable in the same manner as ad
valorem taxes is the due date given in law for the real or personal property tax for the property
on which the service charge is imposed. Service charges imposed on net tax capacity which are
to become payable in the following year must be certified to the County Auditor by the date
provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.061, Subd. 3 for annual certification of special
assessment installments.
Section 4. Revenue Surplus.
To the extent that the total of service charges collected exceed the cost of services rendered
within the district, at the election of the city, all or a portion of such excess amount shall either
be held as a reserve to pay the cost of future services provided under this resolution or applied
to reduce the next year’s service charge levy.
Section 5. Recording.
The city may record this resolution against parcels located within the district and subject to the
service charge for the purpose of providing notice of the service charge to prospective
purchasers of such parcels.
Section 6. Effective Date.
This resolution shall be effective on the forty-fifth (45th) day following adoption, which
effective date shall be December 4, 2025.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council October 20, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 9
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service Districts 1 - 6 and
district 4 extension
Resolution No. 25-____
2026 budget and service charges for Special Service District No. 5
Whereas, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2371-09, the city council created Special Service
District No. 5 (the "District"). The specific properties located within the district are identified on
attachment "B" attached hereto; and
Whereas, pursuant to Resolution No. 19-132, the city council is authorized to impose
service charges within the district on a multi-year basis through and including the year 2029 for
taxes payable in said year; and
Whereas, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 19-132, the maximum budget to be
imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price Index
(CPI) data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area; and
Whereas, pursuant to Section 4 of Resolution No. 19-132, the service charges shall be
payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and
collection of ad valorem taxes; and
Whereas, the city is required by statute to certify assessments to the county by
November 30, 2025.
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
1. The 2026 Budget for Special Service District No. 5 of $35,126 is hereby approved.
2. The authorized 2026 service charge for Special Service District No. 5 is $35,126 in the
amounts and against the properties specified on attachment "B" attached to this
resolution.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council October 20, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 10
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service Districts 1 - 6 and
district 4 extension
Resolution No. 25-____
2026 budget and service charges for Special Service District No. 6
Whereas, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2374-09, the city council created Special Service
District No. 6 (the "District"). The specific properties located within the district are identified on
attachment "B" attached hereto; and
Whereas, pursuant to Resolution No. 19-133, the city council is authorized to impose
service charges within the district on a multi-year basis through and including the year 2029 for
taxes payable in said year; and
Whereas, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 19-133, the maximum budget to be
imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price Index
(CPI) data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area; and
Whereas, pursuant to Section 4 of Resolution No. 19-133, the service charges shall be
payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and
collection of ad valorem taxes; and
Whereas, the city is required by statute to certify assessments to the county by
November 30, 2025.
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
1. The 2026 Budget for Special Service District No. 6 of $27,400 is hereby approved.
2. The authorized 2026 service charge for Special Service District No. 6 is $19,793 in the
amounts and against the properties specified on attachment "B" attached to this
resolution.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council October 20, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Attachment A
City of St. Louis Park
2026 Budgets proposed for Special Service Districts 1 - 6
Account Code Account Name
2026 Budget
Proposed
2025 Budget
Actual
5305-000 Consulting Fees & Fees For Services $ 102,654 $ 99,896
5329-000 Postage, Delivery, Publishing $ 107 $ 107
5331-000 Electric Utility $ 2,520 $ 2,520
5401-000 Admin/Office Supplies & Materials $ 255 $ 255
5402-000 Operations Supplies & Materials $ 6,863 $ 6,863
5520-000 Building Acquisition & Building Construction $ 4,612 $ 4,611
5911-071 Internal Service Fund Charge - Property Causality Fund $ 185 $ 145
Total $ 117,196 $ 114,398
Account Code Account Name
2026 Budget
Proposed
2025 Budget
Actual
5305-000 Consulting Fees & Fees For Services $ 43,698 $ 42,570
5329-000 Postage, Delivery, Publishing $ 100
5331-000 Electric Utility $ 2,467 $ 2,467
5401-000 Admin/Office Supplies & Materials $ 218 $ 218
5402-000 Operations Supplies & Materials $ 3,431 3,432$
5520-000 Building Acquisition & Building Construction $ 2,144 $ 2,145
5911-071 Internal Service Fund Charge - Property Causality Fund $ 79 $ 61
Total $ 52,137 $ 50,892
Account Code Account Name
2026 Budget
Proposed
2025 Budget
Actual
5305-000 Consulting Fees & Fees For Services $ 47,454 $ 46,221
5329-000 Postage, Delivery, Publishing $ 100 $ -
5331-000 Electric Utility $ 1,180 $ 1,180
5401-000 Admin/Office Supplies & Materials $ 461 $ 461
5402-000 Operations Supplies & Materials $ 3,967 $ 3,968
5520-000 Building Acquisition & Building Construction $ 3,432 $ 3,432
5911-071 Internal Service Fund Charge - Property Causality Fund $ 92 $ 71
Total $ 56,686 $ 55,333
Special Service District #1
Special Service District #2
Special Service District #3
ŝtLJ cŽƵncŝů meetŝnŐ ŽĨ KctŽďeƌ ϮϬ͕ ϮϬϮϱ ;/tem EŽ͘ ϱeͿ
dŝtůe͗ ZeƐŽůƵtŝŽnƐ aƉƉƌŽǀŝnŐ ϮϬϮϲ ďƵĚŐet anĚ ƉƌŽƉeƌtLJ Žǁneƌ Ɛeƌǀŝce chaƌŐeƐ ĨŽƌ ^Ɖecŝaů ^eƌǀŝce
ŝƐtƌŝctƐ ϭ Ͳ ϲ anĚ ĚŝƐtƌŝct ϰ edžtenƐŝŽn WaŐe ϭϭ
City of St. Louis Park
2026 Budgets proposed for Special Service Districts 1 - 6 (continued)
Account Code Account Name
2026 Budget
Proposed
2025 Budget
Actual
5305-000 Consulting Fees & Fees For Services $ 21,877 $ 21,180
5329-000 Postage, Delivery, Publishing $ 107 $ 107
5331-000 Electric Utility $ 2,574 $ 2,574
5401-000 Admin/Office Supplies & Materials $ 162 $ 162
5402-000 Operations Supplies & Materials $ 2,360 $ 2,359
5520-000 Building Acquisition & Building Construction $ 2,466 $ 2,467
5911-071 Internal Service Fund Charge - Property Causality Fund $ 45 $ 35
Total $ 29,591 $ 28,885
Account Code Account Name
2026 Budget
Proposed
2025 Budget
Actual
5305-000 Consulting Fees & Fees For Services $ 27,189 $ 26,460
5329-000 Postage, Delivery, Publishing $ 100 $ -
5331-000 Electric Utility $ 1,575 $ 1,575
5401-000 Admin/Office Supplies & Materials $ 233 $ 233
5402-000 Operations Supplies & Materials $ 4,410 $ 4,410
5520-000 Building Acquisition & Building Construction $ 1,575 $ 1,575
5911-071 Internal Service Fund Charge - Property Causality Fund $ 44 $ 34
Total $ 35,126 $ 34,287
Account Code Account Name
2026 Budget
Proposed
2025 Budget
Actual
5305-000 Consulting Fees & Fees For Services $ 16,500 $ 16,500
5329-000 Postage, Delivery, Publishing $ 150 $ 150
5331-000 Electric Utility $ 1,000 $ 1,000
5401-000 Admin/Office Supplies & Materials $ 210 $ 217
5402-000 Operations Supplies & Materials $ 5,500 $ 5,500
5520-000 Building Acquisition & Building Construction $ 4,000 $ 4,000
5911-071 Internal Service Fund Charge - Property Causality Fund $ 40 $ 33
Total $ 27,400 $ 27,400
Special Service District #6
Special Service District #4
Special Service District #5
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e)
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service
Districts 1 - 6 and district 4 extension Page 12
Attachment A
Attachment B
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District #1
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2026 Service Charges
PROPOSED ACTUAL
2026 2025
LINE PID SERVICE SERVICE
NO.NO.OWNER BUSINESS CHARGE CHARGE
1 06-028-24-33-0019 3601 Park Center Boulevard Bel Verge LLC Bel Verge LLC $3,955 $3,897
2 06-028-24-33-0015 3601 State Hwy No 100 South Target Corporation T-0260 Target Corporation $12,514 $12,278
3 06-028-24-34-0022 3700 Monterey Drive City of St. Louis Park City of St. Louis Park $31,482 $30,537
4 06-028-24-33-0014 3777 Park Center Boulevard Bermer Corp Lund Food Holdings $12,891 $12,601
6 07-028-24-22-0031 3800 Park Nicollet Boulevard PNMC Holdings Park Nicollet Health Services $8,758 $8,428
7 07-028-24-22-0035 3900 Park Nicollet Boulevard PNMC Holdings Park Nicollet Health Services $6,728 $6,562
8 07-028-24-21-0004 4916 Excelsior Boulevard Methodist Hospital Park Nicollet Health Services $1,934 $1,918
9 07-028-24-21-0005 4920 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Medical Center Park Nicollet Health Services $567 $556
10 07-028-24-21-0006 4950 Excelsior Boulevard Healthpartners R/E PMNC Holdings $649 $641
11 07-028-24-21-0512 4951 Excelsior Boulevard PNMC Holdings Park Nicollet Health Services $1,763 $1,736
12 07-028-24-21-0513 4959 Excelsior Boulevard 4959 Excelsior Blvd LLC Miracle Mile $1,585 $1,543
13 07-028-24-22-0023 4961 Excelsior Boulevard 5001 Excelsior Blvd LLC Miracle Mile $733 $717
14 07-028-24-22-0024 4995 Excelsior Boulevard 5001 Excelsior Blvd LLC Miracle Mile $977 $953
15 07-028-24-22-0032 5000 Excelsior Boulevard PNMC Holdings Park Nicollet Health Services $690 $679
16 07-028-24-22-0025 5001 Excelsior Boulevard 5001 Excelsior Blvd LLC Miracle Mile $693 $678
17 07-028-24-22-0033 5050 Excelsior Boulevard Methodist Hospital Park Nicollet Health Services $4,106 $4,010
18 07-028-24-22-0034 5100 Excelsior Boulevard PNMC Holdings Park Nicollet Health Services $1,768 $1,720
19 07-028-24-22-0037 5200 Excelsior Boulevard Tower Place Ltd Liability Co.Frauenshuh Co.$1,950 $1,918
20 07-028-24-22-0026 5201 Excelsior Boulevard 5001 Excelsior Blvd LLC Miracle Mile $10,031 $9,836
21 07-028-24-22-0036 5300 Excelsior Boulevard Tower Place LTD Liability Co Frauenshuh Co.$7,050 $6,930
22 07-028-24-22-0004 5400 Auto Club Way AAA AAA Minneapolis $6,373 $6,261
Service charge total $117,196 $114,398
Notes:
1)The proposed 2026 service charges total is $117,196.
2)The proposed 2026 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology used for the initial service charge collection.
ADDRESS
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e)
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service
Districts 1 - 6 and district 4 extension Page 13
Attachment B
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District #2
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2026 Service Charges
PROPOSED ACTUAL
2026 2025
LINE SERVICE SERVICE
NO.PID NO.OWNER Business name CHARGE CHARGE
1 06-028-24-41-0075 3900 Excelsior Blvd MFREVF III- Ellipse LLC MFREVF III - Ellipse LLC $8,400 $8,141
2 06-028-24-41-0077 3901 Excelsior Blvd Alberto Properties LLP Alberto Properties LLP $2,482 $2,405
3 06-028-24-41-0076 3924 Excelsior Blvd MFREVF III - Ellipse, LLC MFREVF III - Ellipse LLC $3,019 $2,926
4 06-028-24-41-0068 3925 Excelsior Blvd Patricia Fitzgerald A & A Agency Inc $973 $943
6 06-028-24-41-0067 3929 Excelsior Blvd City of St Louis Park City of St Louis Park $58 $56
7 06-028-24-41-0014 3939 Excelsior Blvd Sara Son LLC Sara Son LLC $1,413 $1,369
8 06-028-24-41-0070 3947 Excelsior Blvd Wallack Properties LLC Wallack Properties LLC $2,375 $2,302
9 06-028-24-41-0008 4100 Excelsior Blvd KB Holding Company LLC KB Holding Company LLC $1,720 $1,667
10 06-028-24-41-0009 4120 Excelsior Blvd Altus Business Development Properties Altus Business Development Properties $1,681 $1,629
11 06-028-24-44-0001 4140 Excelsior Blvd Ridgecrest St. Louis Park I LLC Tiera Encantada $2,908 $2,818
12 06-028-24-44-0176 4170 Excelsior Blvd 4150 Excelsior Blvd Partnership Rack Attack $2,209 $2,141
13 06-028-24-44-0175 4200 Excelsior Blvd Stranik Real Estate LLC DBA Midas St. Paul $1,881 $1,823
14 06-028-24-44-0173 4201 Excelsior Blvd AMF Properties LLC AMF Properties LLC/Life Medical $2,823 $2,736
15 06-028-24-44-0088 4221 Excelsior Blvd Prima Investments LLC Prima Investments LLC $397 $385
16 06-028-24-43-0017 4300 Excelsior Blvd Poobah Investments LLC Poobah Investments LLC $824 $799
17 06-028-24-43-0020 4301 Excelsior Blvd S & S Investments S & S Investments $1,736 $1,682
18 06-028-24-43-0018 4306 Excelsior Blvd Poobah Investments LLC Poobah Investments LLC $632 $612
19 06-028-24-43-0019 4308 Excelsior Blvd Poobah Investments LLC Poobah Investments LLC $842 $816
20 06-028-24-43-0021 4317 Excelsior Blvd 4317 Holdings LLC DWELL44 $1,048 $1,016
21 06-028-24-43-0186 4320 Excelsior Blvd Poobah Investments LLC Poobah Investments LLC $2,588 $2,509
22 06-028-24-43-0091 4331 Excelsior Blvd Johnson0503 LLC Bell Nelson Furniture $1,426 $1,382
23 06-028-24-43-0392 4400 Excelsior Blvd Bridgewater Bank Bridgewater Bank $764 $5,774
24 06-028-24-43-0040 4409 Excelsior Blvd Samfar Real Estate Inc Samfar Real Estate Inc $993 $963
25 06-028-24-43-0041 4415 Excelsior Blvd Automotive Accessories LLC Automotive Accessories LLC $819 $794
26 06-028-24-43-0042 4419 Excelsior Blvd Celine Properties LLC Celine Properties LLC $1,804 $1,748
27 06-028-24-43-0391 4450 Excelsior Blvd Bridgewater Bank Bridgewater Bank $6,322 $1,456
Service charge total $52,137 $50,892
Notes:
1)The proposed 2026 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology used for the initial service charge collection.
2)All services charges are based on the parcel's square foot area basis.
ADDRESS
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e)
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service
Districts 1 - 6 and district 4 extension Page 14
Attachment B
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District #3
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2026 Service Charges
Proposed Actual
2026 2025
LINE
NO.PID No.Address Business Owner Service
Charge
Service
Charge
1 06-028-24-43-0191 4500 Exc Blvd CS McCrossan Inc Blakeley Props & Chalen LP ET AL $4,827 $4,743
2 07-028-24-12-0047 4501 Exc Blvd S & D Cleaners Laurel Properties LLC $1,316 $1,280
3 07-028-24-12-0048 4509 Exc Blvd Lang Nelson Office Park Boulevard LLP $2,341 $2,277
4 06-028-24-43-0192 4590 Exc Blvd CS McCrossan Inc Blakeley Props & Chalen LP ET AL $991 $974
6 07-028-24-12-0049 4601 Exc Blvd Park Blvd Office Bldg Park Boulevard LLP $3,264 $3,185
7 07-028-24-12-0050 4611 Exc Blvd Dilly Lilly 4611 Excelsior Blvd LLC $1,574 $1,536
8 07-028-24-12-0051 4615 Exc Blvd Judith McGrann & Friends Pie in the Sky Properties, LLC $1,357 $1,325
9 07-028-24-12-0052 4617 Exc Blvd Flower Fair 4617 Excelsior Blvd LLC $1,770 $1,728
10 07-028-24-12-0175 4630 Exc Blvd Retail/housing Excelsior & Grand Apts LLC $8,057 $7,856
11 07-028-24-21-0009 4631 Exc Blvd F45 Training 4617 Excelsior Blvd LLC $1,804 $1,762
12 07-028-24-21-0011 4701 Exc Blvd Steve's Park Amoco Mason Properties LLC $2,920 $2,839
13 07-028-24-21-0012 4725 Exc Blvd Excelsior Office Bldg Excelsior Investments LLC $3,794 $3,697
14 07-028-24-21-0256 4730 Exc Blvd Retail/housing Excelsior & Grand Apts LLC $9,401 $9,168
15 07-028-24-21-0514 4800 Exc Blvd Fresh Thyme Grocery 4800 Excelsior Apts $5,562 $5,448
16 07-028-24-21-0252 4801 Exc Blvd Loffhagen Insurance Bird Dog Properties LLC $1,789 $1,747
17 07-028-24-21-0015 4811 Exc Blvd Latitudes/Laundramat Fine Brothers $1,634 $1,591
18 07-028-24-21-0016 4821 Exc Blvd German Autoworks Eastwood Properties LLC $885 $864
19 07-028-24-21-0017 4825 Exc Blvd German Autoworks Eastwood Properties LLC $882 $861
20 07-028-24-21-0031 4901 Exc Blvd Margolis Law Firm DMM Holdings $921 $897
21 07-028-24-21-0032 4907 Exc Blvd Allstate 4907 Excelsior LLC $800 $778
22 07-028-24-21-0033 4911 Exc Blvd Sherwin-Williams MKT Property LLC $797 $777
Service charge total $56,686 $55,333
Notes:
1)The proposed 2026 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology used for the initial service charge collection.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e)
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service
Districts 1 - 6 and district 4 extension Page 15
Attachment B
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District #4
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2026 Service Charges
Proposed Actual
2026 2025
PAR Service Service
NO.PID #Owner Business Charge Charge
1 21-117-21-24-0019 5600 Excelsior Blvd Coco Investments Finished Basement Company $1,107 $1,080
2 21-117-21-24-0202 5608 Excelsior Blvd Helmut Mauer Auto Surf Café $839 $819
3 21-117-21-24-0141 5707 Excelsior Blvd
Len Paul/Gene Pretty Good LLC c/o New Concepts
Management Group New Concepts Mgt Group $1,126 $1,099
4 21-117-21-24-0193 5717 Excelsior Blvd K4 LLC K4 LLC $973 $950
5 21-117-21-24-0040 5720 Excelsior Blvd Holiday Stationstores Inc Holiday Stationstores, Inc.$1,214 $1,186
6 21-117-21-24-0161 5801 Excelsior Blvd Premier RE, LLC Premier RE LLC $560 $546
7 21-117-21-24-0066 5804 Excelsior Blvd Lelich Properties LLC Lelich Properties LLC $688 $671
8 21-117-21-24-0210 5809 Excelsior Blvd C.B.S. Real Est Ptnr II LLP C B S Real Est Ptrn II LLP $550 $537
9 21-117-21-24-0067 5810 Excelsior Blvd 5812 Excelsior Blvd Co LLC 5812 Excelsior Blvd Co LLC $789 $770
11 21-117-21-24-0185 5825 Excelsior Blvd Reinhart Real Estate LLC Reinhart Real Estate LLC $1,448 $1,414
12 21-117-21-24-0083 5900 Excelsior Blvd Realty Income Properties3, LLC Realty Income Props 3 LLC $983 $959
13 21-117-21-23-0156 5916 Excelsior Blvd Rackner & Rackner Rackner and Rackner/Bunny's $1,099 $1,072
14 21-117-21-23-0010 5922 Excelsior Blvd 5922 Building LLC Frederick & Rosen Ltd $202 $197
15 21-117-21-24-0195 5925 Excelsior Blvd DYS Properties Suntide Commercial Realty $1,501 $1,466
16 21-117-21-23-0011 5930 Excelsior Blvd Leonard C Riley Trust Northern Aire Pools $378 $369
17 21-117-21-23-0097 6001 Excelsior Blvd Sew What Corporation The Wicker Shop $535 $522
18 21-117-21-23-0127 6002 Excelsior Blvd Seneca Holdings LLC Fitrz Inc $603 $589
19 21-117-21-23-0128 6006 Excelsior Blvd Four Four Time LLC RRK LLC $310 $303
20 21-117-21-23-0100 6011 Excelsior Blvd Kathleen Hames Arts & Flowers $1,187 $1,159
21 21-117-21-23-0155 6100 Excelsior Blvd Lion Properties LLC ReMAXX/King Tooth $418 $408
22 21-117-21-32-0006 6111 Excelsior Blvd Excelsior 6111, LLC 6111 Excelsior LLC $1,143 $1,116
23 21-117-21-23-0130 6112 Excelsior Blvd Snyder Electric Co.Snyder Electric Co $624 $609
24 21-117-21-32-0021 6121 Excelsior Blvd Flannery Lucey Props I LLC Secured Retirement $670 $654
25 21-117-21-32-0022 6127 Excelsior Blvd TRW Capital Management Inc White Family Dentistry $451 $441
26 6200 6200 & 6250 Excelsior Blvd (individual charges shown below)$3,170 $3,095
27 20-117-21-14-0026 6500 Excelsior Blvd Park Nicollet Health Services/Methodist Hospital Asbury Methodist Hospital $2,188 $2,135
28 20-117-21-41-0009 6600 Excelsior Blvd Park Nicollet Health Services/Methodist Hospital Methodist Hospital $3,963 $3,868
29 City Municipal Parking Lot City of St. Louis Park $872 $851
Service charge total $29,591 $28,885
Address
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e)
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service
Districts 1 - 6 and district 4 extension Page 16
Attachment B
**6200 & 6250 Excelsior Blvd Charges 2026 2025
21-117-21-32-0133 6200 Excelsior Blvd 101 TRW Capital Management Inc.Ward Law Offices LTD $185 $180
21-117-21-32-0134 6200 Excelsior Blvd 102 Charles and Janice Woodson Farmers Insurance Group $193 $188
21-117-21-32-0135 6200 Excelsior Blvd 103 KUN LI RE 1 LLC Midwest Construction $186 $182
21-117-21-32-0136 6200 Excelsior Blvd 104 DAFI Properties LLC American Family Insurance $210 $205
21-117-21-32-0137 6200 Excelsior Blvd 201 Dennis Schlutter Chiropractic Center $178 $174
21-117-21-32-0138 6200 Excelsior Blvd 202 Lois Cochrane Schlutter No separate office for this one $188 $184
21-117-21-32-0139 6200 Excelsior Blvd 203 Schlutter Brookside Prop LLC Schlutter Brookside Prop LLC $245 $240
21-117-21-32-0140 6200 Excelsior Blvd 204 Lois Cochrane Schlutter Schlutter Brookside Prop LLC $217 $212
21-117-21-32-0141 6250 Excelsior Blvd 101 6250 Excelsior Blvd 101 LLC Alex Trevino Law PLLC $198 $193
21-117-21-32-0142 6250 Excelsior Blvd 102 BZ Holdings LLC LGH Properties LLC $183 $179
21-117-21-32-0143 6250 Excelsior Blvd 103 Impact Massage & Bodywork LLC E. Gordon Hoar & Associates $201 $196
21-117-21-32-0144 6250 Excelsior Blvd 104 RDK Holdings LLC Nemer Fieger & Associates $182 $177
21-117-21-32-0145 6250 Excelsior Blvd 201 James D Fieger Trustee Nemer Fieger & Associates $193 $188
21-117-21-32-0146 6250 Excelsior Blvd 202 Willy Skadsberg JR Skads Travel Service, Inc.$175 $171
21-117-21-32-0147 6250 Excelsior Blvd 203 James D Fieger Trustee Nemer Fieger & Associates $254 $249
21-117-21-32-0148 6250 Excelsior Blvd 204 Excelsior Blvd Office LLC Urista Properties LLC $182 $177
Subtotal $3,170 $3,095
Notes
**Denotes properties with a single street address but have sub-units that are independently owned.
1)The proposed 2026 service charge for the district is $29,591.
2)The proposed 2026 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology used for the initial service charge collection.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e)
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service
Districts 1 - 6 and district 4 extension Page 17
Attachment B
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District #5
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2026 Service Charges
Proposed Actual
2026 2025
PID Address Owner Business Service
Charge
Service
Charge
04-117-21-31-0019 1500 Park Place Blvd MLCV STLP LLC Doubletree Hotel $6,030 $6,007
30-029-24-33-0031 1600 West End Blvd Teresa LLC West End One $5,956 $5,935
04-117-21-34-0046 1620 Park Place Blvd PK Investment Associates LLC Roti & Leeann Chin $1,369 $1,364
04-117-21-34-0045 1650 Park Place Blvd PK Investment Associates LLC Inland Commerical $1,613 $1,607
04-117-21-34-0044 1690 Park Place Blvd Roselk LLC Arby's $1,213 $1,209
04-117-21-34-0049 1700 Park Place Blvd Costco Wholesale Corporation Fueling Station only $1,073 $1,070
30-029-24-32-0022 5320 16th St W MSP West End LLC ARC WEMPSMN001 LLC $2,403 $2,395
30-029-24-32-0026 5353 Wayzata Blvd MV Exchange & MV Exchange II LLC Park National Bank $2,476 $2,467
30-029-24-33-0011 5401 Gamble Dr BOF II MN W END OFF PK LLC Parkdale I - MEPC $4,328 $4,313
30-029-24-33-0015 5402 Parkdale Dr BOF II MN W END OFF PK LLC Parkdale II - MEPC $1,462 $1,457
04-117-21-34-0043 5600 Cedar Lake Rd PK Investment Associates LLC Office/Copy Max & Petsmart $2,786 $2,777
04-117-21-34-0050 5601 16th St W PK Investment Associates LLC Stormwater Pond $1,044 $1,041
04-117-21-31-0018 5657 Wayzata Blvd KK Corporation Park Place Restaurants $1,285 $1,281
04-117-21-34-0058 5799 16th St W PK Investment Associates LLC Punch Pizza $860 $1,366
04-117-21-34-0059 5699 16th St W PK Investment Associates LLC Five Guys $1,228 n/a
Service charge total $35,126 $34,287
Notes:
1)The proposed 2026 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology used for the initial service charge collection.
2)An additional parcel is noted in the proposed 2026 due to a parcel division.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e)
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service
Districts 1 - 6 and district 4 extension Page 18
Attachment B
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District #6
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2026 Service Charges
LINE Proposed Actual
NO.2026 2025
PID Address Owner Business Service Charge Service Charge
1 16-117-21-34-0607 3601 Wooddale Ave Woodale Catered Lvg TowerLight Senior Living $3,422 $3,344
2 16-117-21-34-0015 5500 36th St. W.SLMB LLC SLMB LLC $440 $429
3 16-117-21-34-0355 5600 36th St W SLP Harmony Marketplace LLC SLP HARMONY MARKETPLACE LLC KAMI Inc $3,206 $3,129
4 16-117-21-34-0611 5605 36th St W 36th Street LLC 36th Street LLC $3,050 $2,977
6 16-117-21-34-0072 5701 36th St W Shirley Okrent Lerner Trust The Oliver Press $1,145 $1,118
7 16-117-21-34-0040 5708 36th St W Standal Properties Inc Standal Properties Inc.$1,814 $1,770
8 16-117-21-34-0071 5718 36th St W Shirley Okrent Lerner Trust The Oliver Press $605 $590
9 16-117-21-34-0077 5721 36th St W J Evan Properties LLC Thermetic Products $1,273 $1,243
10 16-117-21-34-0038 5724 36th St W 5724 West 36th Street LLC 5724 West 36th St LLC $605 $590
11 16-117-21-34-0046 5727 36th St W R & SA Investment LLC R & SA Investment LLC $605 $590
12 16-117-21-34-0068 5802 36th St W Standal Properties Inc Standal Properties Inc.$1,814 $1,770
13 16-117-21-34-0610 5950 36th St W City of St. Louis Park City of St Louis Park EDA $1,814 $1,770
Service charge total $19,793 $19,320
Notes:
1)The proposed 2026 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology used for the initial service charge collection.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e)
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service
Districts 1 - 6 and district 4 extension Page 19
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e)
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service Districts 1 - 6 and district 4 extension Page 20
Page 21City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e)
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service Districts 1 - 6 and district 4 extension
Page 22City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e)
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service Districts 1 - 6 and district 4 extension
Page 23 City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e)
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service Districts 1 - 6 and district 4 extension
Page 24City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e)
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service Districts 1 - 6 and district 4 extension
Page 25 City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5e)
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service Districts 1 - 6 and district 4 extension
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5f
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing parking restrictions along Raleigh Avenue and 35th Street - Ward 2
Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution rescinding Resolution No. 25-022 and
authorizing parking restrictions on Raleigh Avenue and 35th Street
Policy consideration: Does the city council support the recommended parking restrictions along
Raleigh Avenue and 35th Street?
Summary: At the public hearing for the 2025 Commercial Street Rehabilitation project,
community members shared concerns about parked cars blocking sightlines at existing
driveways, and access for deliveries and truck movements. As part of the project’s approval in
February 2025, staff committed to reaching out for additional feedback regarding parking in the
area.
Over the summer, staff conducted an additional review of intersections, driveway sightlines and
truck turning movements, and are proposing the following updates to the parking restrictions.
1.Expand parking restrictions near driveways from 5 feet to 25 feet to improve sightlines
for vehicles leaving commercial driveways.
2.Add “no parking” zones in areas that could interfere with truck turning movements.
3.Establish “no truck parking between the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.” throughout the
project area.
Staff shared these recommendations with the community members along the corridor and
asked for feedback. Staff received eight total comments on the updated parking restrictions:
five in support and three opposed. A breakdown of the feedback can be found in the discussion
section of this report.
To proceed with staff-recommended changes, one resolution will remove the existing parking
restrictions and establish new ones.
Financial or budget considerations: The cost of installing the additional parking restriction
signage will be paid for out of the project funds and is anticipated to cost $15,500. The funding
source is franchise fees.
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
Resolution No. 25-022 - to be rescinded
Resolution
Location map
Prepared by: Mark Elgaard, engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director; Jack Sullivan, assistant city engineer
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5f) Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing parking restrictions along Raleigh Avenue and 35th Street - Ward 2
Discussion
Background: The Commercial Street Rehabilitation project, which began earlier this year, is
anticipated to be completed by the end of October 2025. The construction has made
improvements to both the roadway and sidewalk network throughout the project area.
As the project nears completion, city staff finalized the review of current sightlines, truck
turning movements, and existing parking restrictions. To address the community concerns
shared at the public hearing, staff are recommending the following updates to the existing
parking restrictions to increase visibility and access to and from properties:
1. Expand parking restrictions near driveways from 5 feet to 25 feet to improve sightlines
for vehicles leaving commercial driveways.
2. Add “no parking” zones in areas that could interfere with truck turning movements.
3. Establish “no truck parking between the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.” throughout the
project area.
The attached graphic combines the council-approved parking restrictions from February 2025
and the additional staff-recommended no-parking areas. The additional no-parking setbacks
from driveways are not shown on the graphic for clarity.
Community feedback: Businesses and residents located near the proposed changes to the
parking restrictions have been notified of the recommendations and given an opportunity to
provide feedback. Eight comments were received regarding the proposed changes: five in
support and three in opposition.
Out of five comments in support of the proposed changes, two agreed that these restrictions
would address the issues they were experiencing, and three suggested additional parking
restrictions on the north side of 35th Street near Beltline Boulevard. They mentioned that the
crowding of the intersection, as vehicles parked on the north side of 35th Street too close to
the crosswalk, makes turns from Beltline Boulevard onto 35th Street difficult. In conjunction
with the project, a no-parking sign reinforcing the statutory twenty-foot clear space from
crosswalks was installed, which staff believe will aid in addressing the concerns brought up by
the community comments. Engineering staff will continue to monitor the area once the project
is finished.
The three comments opposing the updated parking restrictions were all related to parking
availability for their respective properties. This included concerns about reducing the available
free on-street parking for the Corsa Apartments, the available guest parking for the Risor
Apartments and the available drop-off parking for 4917 35th Street. All three properties have
onsite parking available for tenants and residents.
Next steps: If the recommended changes are approved by the council, the additional no-
parking signage will be installed with the commercial reconstruction project this fall.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5f) Page 3
Title: Resolution authorizing parking restrictions along Raleigh Avenue and 35th Street - Ward 2
Resolution No. 25-___
Authorizing various parking restrictions on 35th Street between Beltline
Boulevard and Highway 100 and Raleigh Avenue between 36th Street and 35th
Street
Whereas, existing parking restrictions on Raleigh Avenue and 35th Street throughout
the project area were approved with the Commercial Street Rehabilitation project in February
2025, per Resolution No. 25-022 to accommodate the new roadway layout; and
Whereas, during the public hearing, there was public testimony requesting additional
parking restrictions to address sightline concerns at existing driveways, as well as to provide
more consistent access for deliveries and truck movements; and
Whereas, council approved staff-recommended parking prohibitions and directed staff
to follow up with community members regarding possible modifications to address their
concerns; and
Whereas, staff conducted an additional review of intersections, driveway sightlines and
truck turning movements, and are recommending parking restrictions to increase visibility and
access to and from properties,
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that
Resolution No. 25-022 is rescinded, and
It is further resolved, by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the
engineering director is authorized to:
• Install “No truck parking 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.” signage on the south side of 35th Street
west of Raleigh Avenue to the cul-de-sac and on the west side of Raleigh Avenue
between 35th Street and 36th Street.
• Install “No parking” signage in the 35th Street cul-de-sac and along the north side of
35th Street between the cul-de-sac and Raleigh Avenue.
• Install “No parking” signage on the north side of 35th Street between Raleigh
Avenue and the east property line of 4838 35th Street.
• Install “No parking” signage on the south side of 35th Street beginning in the cul-de-
sac to the west entrance to 3555 MN-100 South, or 130 feet east of the center of
the cul-de-sac.
• Install “No parking” signage on the south side of 35th Street beginning at a point 320
feet east of the center of the cul-de-sac to the east entrance to 3555 MN-100 South,
or 455 feet east of the center of the cul-de-sac.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5f) Page 4
Title: Resolution authorizing parking restrictions along Raleigh Avenue and 35th Street - Ward 2
• Install “No parking” signage on the east side of Raleigh Avenue beginning at 36th
Street to a point at the east property line of 4905 35th Street.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council October 20, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
2025 Commercial Street Project Proposed Parking Modifications
36TH ST W36TH ST W
36TH ST W36TH ST W
R
A
L
E
I
G
H
A
V
E
S
R
A
L
E
I
G
H
A
V
E
S
BE
L
T
L
I
N
E
B
L
V
D
BE
L
T
L
I
N
E
B
L
V
D
35TH ST
W
35TH ST
W
35TH ST
W
35TH ST
W
4860
5000
4906
3529
4905
4915
5100
3501
3555
3601
4930
4838
4931
3440
5100
3700
3501
3509
3517
5000
3535
3601
5050
3525
3510
3459
5100
3575
0 200 400100
Date: 9/22/2025
Approved no parking
Approved parking allowed
Recommended additional no parking
No truck parking
7am - 6pm
no truck parking
per city code
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5f)
Title: Resolution authorizing parking restrictions along Raleigh Avenue and 35th Street - Ward 2 Page 5
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5g
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing final payment for Lamplighter Pond Maintenance project (4022-
4001) - Ward 4
Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution accepting work and authorizing final
payment in the amount of $7,225.34 for the Lamplighter Pond Maintenance project with
Shoreline Landscaping & Contracting – City Contract No. 19-24.
Policy consideration: None
Summary: On Jan. 16, 2024, the city council awarded a contract in the amount of $195,128.65
to Shoreline Landscaping & Contracting for the Lamplighter Pond Maintenance project. This
project was needed to remove sediment from the pond.
The contractor completed this work within the contract time allowed and the overall project is
$50,621.83 (26%) less than the bid, for a final construction cost of $144,506.82.
The final contract amount is less than the awarded amount due to a reduction in quantity. To
perform the work and protect the park and pond habitat, the ground needed to be frozen. In
late February 2025, the temperatures went from a nighttime low of -15° F on Feb. 18, to a
daytime high of 55° F on Feb. 26, 2025. This seventy-degree temperature swing quickly
transformed the stable frozen surface into an unworkable surface. The temperatures remained
unseasonably warm. No additional work was completed since further excavation would have
damaged the pond habitat.
Financial or budget considerations: The final cost of the work performed by the contractor
under Contract No. 19-24 has been calculated as follows:
Original contract (based on estimated quantities) $ 195,128.65
Quantity underruns $ -50,621.83
Final contract cost $ 144,506.82
Previous payments $ -137,281.48
Balance due $ 7,225.34
This project was included in the city's capital improvement plan (CIP) for 2024. Funding was
provided by the stormwater utility fund.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Erick Francis, water resources manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5g) Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing final payment for Lamplighter Pond Maintenance project (4022-4001) - Ward 4
Resolution No. 25-___
Authorizing final payment and accepting work for the
Lamplighter Pond Maintenance project
City Project No. 4022-4001
Contract No. 19-24
Be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the city dated January 16, 2024, Shoreline
Landscaping & Contracting has satisfactorily completed the Lamplighter Pond
Maintenance project, as per Contract No. 19-24.
2. The engineering director has filed her recommendations for final acceptance of the work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The final contract cost
is $144,506.82.
4. The city manager is directed to make final payment in the amount of $7,225.34 on this
contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council October 20, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5h
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing purchase of small evergreen trees in recognition of 2025 Evergreen
Award winners
Recommended action: Motion to approve the purchase of two small evergreen trees to be
delivered as awards to the 2025 Evergreen Award winners.
Policy consideration: None.
Summary: The Evergreen Award is presented each year in recognition of properties which are
uniquely designed with well-maintained landscapes with an emphasis on parcels that are visible
to the passerby. Winners receive a small evergreen tree from the city in recognition of their
hard work and accomplishments.
Financial or budget considerations: Purchase of two small evergreen trees for $94.50 each
(total of $189.00), which has been accounted for out of the natural resources division’s budget.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: none
Prepared by: Michael Bahe, natural resources manager
Reviewed by: Jason West, parks and recreation director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5h) Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing purchase of small evergreen trees in recognition of 2025 Evergreen Award winners
Resolution No. 25 -__
Approving the purchase of small evergreen trees in recognition of the 2025
Evergreen Award winners
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park on behalf of its parks and recreation department’s
natural resources division desires to purchase two small evergreen trees and deliver them to
the winners of the 2025 Evergreen Awards,
Be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota as follows:
1. That the City of St. Louis Park on behalf of its parks and recreation department natural
resources division purchase and deliver a small evergreen tree to each of the two
Evergreen Award winning properties.
2. Mayor Nadia Mohamed and City Manager Kim Keller, or successors, are hereby
authorized to execute such purchases as are necessary for such awards on behalf of the
City of St. Louis Park.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council October 20, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5i
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing application for Department of Natural Resources Community Tree
Planting grant
Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the application for – and, upon
award, acceptance of the award – a grant for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) Community Tree Planting grant to support the removal and replacement of ash trees
impacted by emerald ash borer and additional tree planting.
Policy consideration: Does the council wish to authorize an application for – and, upon award,
acceptance of the award – for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Community Tree Planting grant to support the removal and replacement of ash trees impacted
by emerald ash borer and additional tree planting?
Summary: Grant funds awarded may be used to remove emerald ash borer impacted ash trees
and plant climate-adapted tree species. Staff is applying for $200,000. This request is before
council because, if awarded, the dollar amount accepted could be above the statutory authority
of the city manager.
Financial or budget considerations: Any grant funding received will assist with the project
financial feasibility and offset the amount of city financial assistance needed for the project.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Clancy Ferris, legislative and grants analyst
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5i) Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing application for Department of Natural Resources Community Tree Planting grant
Resolution No. 25 -__
Approving grant application for Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Community Tree Planting grant and accepting grant funds if awarded
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park on behalf of its parks and recreation department
desires to apply for, and upon grant application acceptance, enter into an agreement with the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to support the removal and replacement of
ash trees impacted by emerald ash borer and additional tree planting.
Be it resolved by the city council (the “city council”) of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the
“city”) as follows:
1. That the City of St. Louis Park on behalf of its parks and recreation department
apply for a grant and upon acceptance, enter into a grant agreement with the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for the Community Tree Planting
grant.
2. Mayor Nadia Mohamed and City Manager Kim Keller, or successors, are hereby
authorized to execute such agreements and amendments as are necessary to
implement the project on behalf of the city of St. Louis Park and to be the fiscal
agent and administer the grant.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council October 20, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5j
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing special assessment for sewer service line repair at 4721 Vallacher
Avenue South - Ward 2
Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the special assessment for the
repair of the sewer service line at 4721 Vallacher Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN.
P.I.D. 07-028-24-21-0068.
Policy consideration: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by
the city council.
Summary: : Mark Enlow, owner of the single-family residence at 4721 Vallacher Avenue South,
has requested the city authorize the repair of the sewer service line for the home and assess
the cost against the property in accordance with the city’s special assessment policy.
The city requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and
welfare within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of
water and/or sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the city council in 1996.
This program was put into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships
when emergency repairs like this is unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service
line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by city staff. The property owner
hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with current codes and
regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the city’s special assessment
program. The property owner has petitioned the city to authorize the sewer service line repair
and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been
determined to be $8,650.00.
Financial or budget considerations: The city has funds in place to finance the cost of this special
assessment.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Beth Holida, office assistant
Reviewed by: Emily Carr, assessing technician
Austin Holm, utilities superintendent
Jay Hall, public works director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Page 2 City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5j)
Title: Resolution authorizing special assessment for sewer service line repair at 4721 Vallacher Avenue South -
Ward 2
Resolution No. 25 - ____
Authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the
sewer service line at 4721 Vallacher Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN
P.I.D. 07-028-24-21-0068
Whereas, the property owner at 4721 Vallacher Avenue South, has petitioned the City
of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the
single family residence located at 4721 Vallacher Avenue South; and
Whereas, the property owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of
notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
Whereas, the city council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line,
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
that:
1.The petition from the property owner requesting the approval and special assessment for
the sewer service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and
specifications approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is
hereby accepted.
3.The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $8,650.00.
4. The property owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal
from the special assessment, whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by
other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The property owner has agreed to pay the city for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 6%.
6. The property owner has executed an agreement with the city and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of
all costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council October 20, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5k
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing special assessment for sewer service line repair at 8011 34 ½ Street
West - Ward 3
Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the special assessment for the
repair of the sewer service line at 8011 34 ½ Street West, St. Louis Park, MN.
P.I.D. 18-117-21-41-0109.
Policy consideration: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by
the city council.
Summary: Brandon and Erin Stahl, owners of the single-family residence at 8011 34 ½ Street
West, have requested the city authorize the repair of the sewer service line for their home and
assess the cost against the property in accordance with the city’s special assessment policy.
The city requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and
welfare within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of
water and/or sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the city council in 1996.
This program was put into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships
when emergency repairs like this is unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service
line repair work were completed, submitted and approved by city staff. The property owners
hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with current codes and
regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the city’s special assessment
program. The property owners have petitioned the city to authorize the sewer service line
repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been
determined to be $9,971.00.
Financial or budget considerations: The city has funds in place to finance the cost of this special
assessment.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Beth Holida, office assistant
Reviewed by: Emily Carr, assessing technician
Austin Holm, utilities superintendent
Jay Hall, public works director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Page 2 City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5k)
Title: Resolution authorizing special assessment for sewer service line repair at 8011 34 ½ Street West - Ward 3
Resolution No. 25 - ___
Authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the
sewer service line at 8011 24 ½ Street West, St. Louis Park, MN
P.I.D. 18-117-21-41-0109
Whereas, the property owners at 8011 24 ½ Street West, have petitioned the City of St.
Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the
single family residence located at 8011 24 ½ Street West; and
Whereas, the property owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
Whereas, the city council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line.
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
that:
1.The petition from the property owners requesting the approval and special assessment for
the sewer service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and
specifications approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is
hereby accepted.
3.The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $9,971.00.
4. The property owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal
from the special assessment, whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by
other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The property owners have agreed to pay the city for the total cost of the above
improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate
of 6%.
6. The property owners have executed an agreement with the city and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of
all costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council October 20, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5l
Executive summary
Title: Resolution approving amendments for a conduit revenue note issued for St. Louis Park AH
I, LLLP
Recommended action: Motion to adopt the resolution approving amendments in connection
with a conduit revenue note issued for the benefit of St. Louis Park AH I, LLLP.
Policy consideration: Does the council wish to approve the amendments to the series 2022
note and associated loan documents?
Summary: Real Estate Equities, LLC developed Arbor Court, a 114-unit multifamily building at
3755 Wooddale Avenue South. The site was formerly Aldersgate Methodist Church. The
apartment building includes amenity spaces, underground and surface parking. The building
includes a mix of all-affordable one-, two-, and three-bedroom units, including five units
affordable at 30% of area median income (AMI), five units at 50% AMI, and 104 units available
at 60% AMI. The affordability commitments are for 26 years and exceed the city’s Inclusionary
Housing Policy requirements. A TIF note with a principal of $940,000 payable over 15 years was
provided to the project. An AHTF affordable housing trust fund loan of $850,000 was provided
to the project, repayable over 25 years. Tax exempt bonds were provided to the project, of
approximately $29,000,000 were issued for the project, which do not impact the city's budget.
The building opened in spring 2024.
The amendments requested relate to the conduit Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds that the
city issued in 2022. The lender for that financing, Cedar Rapids Bank and Trust (CRBT), has
requested certain changes to the bond documents. The requested changes relate to the
agreement terms between Real Estate Equities, LLC and their lender. However, because the city
was the conduit issuer for the bonds and signed many of the loan documents, Real Estate
Equities, LLC is asking the city to sign the amendments to the documents and deliver a new
note with updated payment dates.
Financial or budget considerations: These amendments are not intended to substantially
change the original deal, the rate, payment amount, etc. Cedar Rapids Bank and Trust will cover
reasonable fees of the legal counsels involved.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Tiffany Stephens, financial analyst
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5l) Page 2
Title: Resolution approving amendments for a conduit revenue note issued for St. Louis Park AH I, LLLP
Resolution No. 25-______
Approving amendments in connection with a conduit revenue note
issued for the benefit of St. Louis Park AH I, LLLP
Be it resolved by the City Council (the “city council”) of the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin
County, Minnesota (the “city”) as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. On July 6, 2022, the city issued its Multifamily Housing Revenue Note (Arbor
House Apartments Project), Series 2022 (the “series 2022 note”), in the original aggregate
principal amount of $27,990,550. The city loaned the proceeds of the series 2022 note to St.
Louis Park AH I, LLLP, a Minnesota limited liability limited partnership (the “borrower”),
pursuant to a Loan Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2022 (the “original loan agreement”),
between the city and the borrower, for the purpose of financing a portion of the costs of the
acquisition, construction, and equipping of an approximately 114-unit multifamily housing
development for occupancy by persons of low and moderate income and facilities functionally
related and subordinate thereto located at 3755 Wooddale Avenue South (formerly 3801
Wooddale Avenue South) in the city (the “project”), which is owned and operated by the
borrower.
1.02. On November 30, 2022, the city issued its Multifamily Housing Revenue Note
(Arbor House Apartments Project), Series 2022B (the “series 2022B note”), in the original
aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000. The city loan the proceeds of the series 2022B note
to the borrower pursuant to an Amended and Restated Loan Agreement, dated as of November
1, 2022 (the “loan agreement”), between the city and the borrower, which amends and
restates the original loan agreement, for the purpose of financing additional costs of the
project. The series 2022B note matured on July 19, 2025 and is no longer outstanding.
1.03. The purchase of the series 2022 note and the series 2022B note by Cedar Rapids
Bank & Trust Company, an Iowa banking corporation (the “lender”), is governed by an
Amended and Restated Loan Purchase Agreement, dated November 30, 2022 (the “loan
purchase agreement”), between the lender and the borrower.
1.04. The lender has determined it is in the best interests of the lender to assign the
loan evidenced by the series 2022 note, its interest in the series 2022 note, and all loan
documents and security therefor to a custodian in connection with a Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) securitization of the loan, to permit it to continue to
make loans to finance affordable housing.
1.05. In order to assign the loan, the parties have determined that certain
amendments to the series 2022 note and the associated loan documents need to be made to
change, among other things, certain definitions relating to the interest rate therein to conform
with Freddie Mac’s standard language, the maturity date of the series 2022 note from July 19,
2045 to July 1, 2045, and each payment date in the amortization schedule attached to the
series 2022 note to the first day of the month.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5l) Page 3
Title: Resolution approving amendments for a conduit revenue note issued for St. Louis Park AH I, LLLP
1.06. The council has reviewed the amendment agreement, including the amended
series 2022 note, and has determined that it is in the best interests of the city to
approve the amendment agreement and amended series 2022 note.
Section 2. Approvals.
2.01. The city council hereby authorizes and directs the mayor and the city manager of
the city to execute and deliver the amendment agreement and the amended series 2022 note
on behalf of the city, in substantially the forms on file with the city on the date hereof, which
are hereby approved, with such changes as shall be approved by the mayor and the city
manager; provided that the execution thereof by the mayor and the city manager shall be
conclusive evidence of such approval. The finance director of the city, as the registrar of the
series 2022 note, is authorized and directed to register the amended series 2022 note.
2.02. The amended series 2022 note shall not be payable from nor charged upon any
funds other than the revenues pledged to their payment, nor shall the city be subject to any
liability thereon, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph. No holder of the amended
series 2022 note shall ever have the right to compel any exercise by the city of its taxing powers
to pay any of the amended series 2022 note or the interest or premium thereon, or to enforce
payment thereof against any property of the city except the interests of the city in the loan
agreement, subject to the amendment agreement, and the revenues and assets thereunder,
which have been assigned to the lender. The amended series 2022 note shall not constitute a
charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the city, except the
interests of the city in the loan agreement, subject to the amendment agreement, and the
revenues and assets thereunder, which have been assigned to the lender.
2.03. The approval hereby given to the amendment agreement and amended series
2022 note includes approval of such additional details 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 Kutak Rock LLP, acting as bond counsel to the
City (“bond counsel”) 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 city. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officers of the city herein
authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such document in accordance with
the terms hereof. 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 city council by any duly designated acting official, or by such other officer
or officers of the city as, in the opinion of bond counsel, may act in their behalf.
2.04. The mayor and the city manager are hereby designated as the representatives of
the city with respect to the amendment agreement and the amended series 2022 note. The
mayor and the city manager, and other officers of the city are authorized and directed to
execute and deliver any and all certificates, agreements, or other documents which are
required by the amendment agreement, or deemed necessary by bond counsel in connection
with the amendment agreement and amended series 2022 note, or are required by bond
counsel to deliver an opinion that the proposed amendments do not adversely affect the
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5l) Page 4
Title: Resolution approving amendments for a conduit revenue note issued for St. Louis Park AH I, LLLP
exclusion from gross income of interest on the series 2022 note for purposes of federal income
taxation and do not cause a reissuance of the series 2022 note. To the extent the proposed
amendments reflected in the final amendment agreement or the amended series 2022
proposed cause a “reissuance” of the series 2022 note for tax purposes pursuant to Section
1.1001‑3 of the Treasury Regulations promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended, the mayor and city manager are authorized to execute and deliver all documents
necessary or required in connection therewith, including but not limited to an 8038, provided
such documents are approved by bond counsel.
2.05. The borrower shall pay, or, upon demand, reimburse the city for payment of, any
and all costs incurred by the city in connection with the proposed amendments, including any
costs for reasonable attorneys’ fees.
Section 3. Effective date. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and
after its approval.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council October 20, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5m
Executive summary
Title: Resolution accepting school resource officer contract with Independent School District
283
Recommended action: Motion to adopt the resolution approving the contract between the City
of St. Louis Park and Independent School District 283 (ISD 283) assigning two school resource
officers (SROs) to the St. Louis Park High School and St. Louis Park Middle School.
Policy consideration: Does the council wish to approve the SRO contract between the City of St.
Louis Park and ISD 283?
Summary: In 2024, the Minnesota State Legislature made updates to Minnesota Statute
626.8482 directing that contracts are needed for SROs to be assigned by police departments in
schools. The statute included direction that the contractual duties of an SRO shall include
fostering a positive school climate through relationship building and open communication,
protecting students, staff and visitors to the school grounds from criminal activity, serving as a
liaison from law enforcement to school officials, providing advice on safety drills, identifying
vulnerabilities in school facilities and safety protocols, educating and advising students and staff
on law enforcement topics, and enforcement of criminal laws.
On Sept. 30, 2025, the ISD 283 school board voted to approve the SRO contract between the
City of St. Louis Park and ISD 283 that is included in the supporting documents. The one-year
contract covers the 2025-2026 school year and expires on June 30, 2026. A new contract
between the parties will be required for the 2026-2027 school year and beyond. New contracts
are needed prior to the assignment of SROs from the police department to schools within ISD
283.
Financial or budget considerations: The two SROs assigned by the police department to the St.
Louis Park High School and St. Louis Park Middle School are funded by the City of St. Louis Park
and included in the 2026 proposed budget.
Strategic priority consideration:
•St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way
around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
•St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through
community engagement.
Supporting documents: Resolution
SRO contract between the City of St. Louis Park and ISD 283
MN Statute 626.8482
Prepared by: Bryan Kruelle, police chief
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Page 2 City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5m)
Title: Resolution accepting school resource officer contract with Independent School District 283
Resolution No. 25-____
Approving the School Resource Officer contract
with Independent School District 283
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park on behalf of its police department desires to enter into
a contract with Independent School District 283 (ISD 283) to assign two school resource officers
in accordance with Minnesota State Statute 626.8482. The resolution approving a contract with
ISD 283, would assign two sworn police officer from the St. Louis Park police department to
serve as School Resource Officers (SRO), with one SRO assigned to the St. Louis Park High
School, and the second SRO assigned to the St. Louis Park Middle School.
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
1.That the City of St. Louis Park on behalf of its police department enter a contract with
ISD 283 on 10/20/25.
2. The mayor and city manager, or successors, are hereby authorized to execute such
agreements and amendments as are necessary to assign two sworn police officers from the St.
Louis Park police department to serve as SROs at the St. Louis Park High School, and the St.
Louis Park Middle School.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council October 20, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
CONTRACT FOR SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, dated this 1st day of October 2025, is between
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 283 ("ISD 283") and the CITY OF ST. LOUIS
PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City").
WHEREAS, ISD 283 and the City recognize that the two School Resource Officers (“SRO”)
identified in this contract are fully funded by the City through the police department’s budget,
and as such, the police department’s community safekeeping responsibilities may require the
department at times to prioritize the work of the assigned officers to the broader demands of its
mission due to the funding limitations.
WHEREAS, ISD 283 and the City are dedicated to promoting safety, education, training, and
leadership skills. It is our mission to support students by providing a safe and nurturing
environment that energizes and enhances the spirit of St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, ISD 283 and the City understand that the SRO first duty is that of a sworn law
enforcement officer, while simultaneously striving to promote positive interaction with students,
parents, faculty, and administrators; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this document is to establish a School Resource Officer Program
and to set forth guidelines to ensure that law enforcement, school officials, and the St. Louis Park
Schools community served have a shared understanding of the goals of the SRO program and
that SROs receive the necessary support and training to ensure a safe school environment while
respecting the rights of students and improving the overall school climate; and
WHEREAS, ISD 283 and the City acknowledge that all equipment and uniform decisions
impacting the SRO in their official capacity as a sworn peace officer will fall under the authority
of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings herein, the parties agree as
follows:
I.TERM OF CONTRACT; TERMINATION
This Agreement shall commence on October 1, 2025, and remain in full force and effect
until June 30, 2026 or unless terminated as provided herein. Either party may terminate
this Agreement at any time with or without cause upon ninety (90) days written notice to
the other party of such termination.
II.SRO DEFINITION
An SRO means a peace officer who is assigned to work in an elementary school, middle
school, or secondary school during the regular instructional school day as one of the
officer’s regular responsibilities through the terms of a contract entered between the
peace officer’s employer and the designated school district or charter school.
III.DUTIES TO BE PROVIDED
The duties of the SRO will be aligned with those currently outlined in Minnesota Statute
626.8482. Additionally, the work and decision-making of SROs must ultimately be
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5ŵ)
Title: Resolution accepting school resource officer contract with Independent School District 283 Page 3
guided by all statutory and legal requirements, including the Minnesota POST Board and
any training mandates associated with the SRO position. The duties of the SRO as
outlined by Minnesota Statute 626.8482, include the following. In administering these
duties, the SRO program will seek to work in partnership with the district:
A.fostering a positive school climate through relationship building and open
communication;
B.protecting students, staff, and visitors to the school grounds from criminal
activity;
C.serving as a liaison from law enforcement to school officials;
D.providing advice on safety drills;
E.identifying vulnerabilities in school facilities and safety protocols;
F.educating and advising students and staff on law enforcement topics; and
G.enforcement of criminal laws.
i.A school district or charter school may contract with a school resource
officer's employer for the officer to perform additional duties to those
described in paragraph (a).
ii.A school resource officer must not use force or the authority of their office
solely to enforce school rules or policies or to participate in the
enforcement of discipline for violations of school rules.
iii.Nothing in this subdivision limits any other duty or responsibility imposed
on peace officers; limits the expectation that peace officers will exercise
professional judgment and discretion to protect the health, safety, and
general welfare of the public when carrying out their duties; or creates a
duty for school resource officers to protect students, staff, or others on
school grounds that is different from the duty to protect the public as a
whole.
It is the understanding of both the district and the City that intervention in
disciplinary situations will be led by the district. This statement does not
restrict a school resource officer from using their expertise and training to
intervene when needed, and under department policy and state statute.
The duties of the school district in support of the SRO and school safety
shall include:
●Making the building(s) available for police department building
familiarization and training at times that are mutually agreed upon
by the police department and school district.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5ŵ)
Title: Resolution accepting school resource officer contract with Independent School District 283 Page 4
● Providing a confidential workspace on school property for the
SRO to work.
● School and district staff shall make the SRO or department aware
of situations or individuals threatening the safety and well-being of
school/district staff, students and the community.The school shall
identify a point of contact at each school for the SRO supervisor(s)
to maintain regular contact and dialogue with to ensure
communication and collaboration are effective.
IV. INTERVIEW OR ARREST OF STUDENTS AT SCHOOL.
Any arrest, search, or questioning of a student at school by an SRO shall comply with all
laws and with St. Louis Park Schools Policy #519.
V. USE OF FORCE
Specific tactics and strategies shall be used to greatly minimize uses of force or the use
and duration of prone restraint or physical holds of students. Ideally, prone restraint is not
allowed on school grounds. Officers shall find alternatives when at all possible. Officers
shall employ de-escalation techniques and the least restrictive physical intervention
strategies for addressing conflicts in schools as identified in the training required under
Minn. Stat. 626.8482, Subd. 4., and use only that amount of force that is necessary given
the facts and circumstances perceived by the officer at the time of the event. Consistent
with training, after any use of force, the SRO shall assess the condition of the student and
render aid as needed including restoring the student to a non-prone position as soon as
possible. This shall be done with immediacy to reduce physical injury and trauma of the
child.
VI. DATA PRACTICES
All data collected, created, received, maintained, disseminated, or used for any purposes
in the course of this Agreement by each party is governed by the Minnesota Government
Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, as amended, the Minnesota Rules
implementing such act now in force or as adopted, as well as federal regulations on data
privacy. An SRO may be provided student information or educational records by district
staff or school administrators (e.g. superintendent, assistant superintendent, principal,
assistant principal). For the limited purposes of access to student information or
educational records by a SRO, the SRO is considered a "school official" as provided in
the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA") 20 U.S.C. 1232g. These data
sources will only be accessed for legitimate business purposes as needed by the SRO to
perform his/her/their duties related to educational or school administration activities. The
SRO’s use of such student information remains under the direct control of the School
District. The SRO may only disclose such student information consistent with FERPA
and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
A. Body Worn Cameras (BWC) - the St. Louis Park Police Department recognizes
that the duties and working environment for SROs are unique within policing. It
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5ŵ)
Title: Resolution accepting school resource officer contract with Independent School District 283 Page 5
recognizes that SROs are required to maintain school safety while keeping the
sanctity of the learning environment that the school provides. SROs are expected
to continuously build trusting relationships with students and staff. SROs often
have impromptu interventions with students to de-escalate arguments and/or
conflicts. It is with this understanding that the St. Louis Park Police Department
provides special guidelines for SROs and their BWC. SRO use of BWCs in the
school shall comply with St. Louis Park Police Department Policy 707.10
defining their use and activation criteria.
VII.TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Parties shall maintain annual publicly available data, without disclosing personally
identifiable information. This is to include police department data documenting arrests,
calls-for-service, use-of-force, and complaints.
VIII.COMPLAINT PROCESS
In alignment to Minnesota POST Board Standards, the St. Louis Park Police Department
policy guides the collection, tracking, review, and reporting of any officer complaint. Any
officer complaint, including those associated with an SRO, can be filed online at the
police department’s website, in person at the police department, or by asking to speak
with any supervisor by phone.
IX.INDEMNIFICATION
Each party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof to the
extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party and
the results thereof. Each party's liability shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota
Statute Chapter 466 and other applicable law as modified hereby.
X.INSURANCE
The City shall at all times during the term of this Agreement keep in force adequate
insurance for:
A.General Liability
B.Professional Liability
C.Automobile Liability
D.Workers' Compensation Insurance as required by Minnesota Statute
XI.MERGER AND MODIFICATION.
A.It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is
contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and
negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter. All items referred
to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this
Agreement.
B.Any material alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of
this Agreement shall be valid only when they have been reduced to writing as an
amendment and signed by the parties.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5ŵ)
Title: Resolution accepting school resource officer contract with Independent School District 283 Page 6
XII. SUBCONTRACTING
The City shall not enter into any subcontract for performance of any services
contemplated under this Agreement without the prior written approval of ISD 283 and
subject to such conditions and provisions as ISD 283 may deem necessary.
XIII. NONDISCRIMINATION
During the performance of this Agreement, the parties agree to the following: No person
shall, on the grounds of race, color, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, public
assistance status, criminal record, creed or national origin be excluded from full
employment rights in, participation in, be denied the benefits of or be otherwise subjected
to discrimination under any and all applicable federal and state laws against
Discrimination.
XIV. NOTICES
All notices, requests, demands, and other communications hereunder shall be in writing
and shall be deemed given if personally delivered or mailed, certified mail, return receipt
requested, to the following addresses:
If to City:
City Manager
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416
If to ISD 283:
Superintendent
Independent School District 283 St. Louis Park Schools
6300 Walker St. St. Louis Park, MN 55416
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5ŵ)
Title: Resolution accepting school resource officer contract with Independent School District 283 Page 7
(a)For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given.
(b)"School" means an elementary school, middle school, or secondary school, as defined
in section 120A.05, subdivisions 9, 11, and 13.
(c)"School resource officer" means a peace officer who is assigned to work in an elementary
school, middle school, or secondary school during the regular instructional school day as one of the
officer's regular responsibilities through the terms of a contract entered between the peace officer's
employer and the designated school district or charter school.
Subd. 2. Duties.
(a)A school resource officer's contractual duties with a school district or charter school shall
include:
(1)fostering a positive school climate through relationship building and open
communication;
(2)protecting students, staff, and visitors to the school grounds from criminal
activity;
(3)serving as a liaison from law enforcement to school officials;
(4)providing advice on safety drills;
(5)identifying vulnerabilities in school facilities and safety protocols;
(6)educating and advising students and staff on law enforcement topics; and
(7)enforcement of criminal laws.
(b)A school district or charter school may contract with a school resource officer's employer for the
officer to perform additional duties to those described in paragraph (a).
(c)A school resource officer must not use force or the authority of their office solely to enforce
school rules or policies or participate in the enforcement of discipline for violations of school rules.
(d)Nothing in this subdivision limits any other duty or responsibility imposed on peace officers;
limits the expectation that peace officers will exercise professional judgment and discretion to protect
the health, safety, and general welfare of the public when carrying out their duties; or creates a duty
for school resource officers to protect students, staff, or others on school grounds that is different from
the duty to protect the public as a whole.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5ŵ)
Title: Resolution accepting school resource officer contract with Independent School District 283
Α 626.8482
Current through 2023, c. 127
S - SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS; DUTIES; TRAINING; MODEL POLICY
Page 8
Subd. 3. Instruction required.
(a)Except as provided for in paragraphs (b) to (d), beginning September 1, 2025, a peace officer
assigned to serve as a school resource officer must complete a training course that provides instruction
on the learning objectives identified in subdivision 4 prior to assuming the duties of a school resource
officer.
(b)A peace officer who has completed either the School Safety Center standardized Basic
School Resource Officer Training or the National School Resource Officer Basic School Resource Officer
course prior to September 1, 2025, must complete the training mandated under paragraph
(a)before June 1, 2027. A peace officer covered under this paragraph may complete a supplemental
training course approved by the board pursuant to subdivision 4, paragraph (b), to satisfy the
training requirement.
(c)If an officer's employer is unable to provide the required training course to the officer
prior to the officer assuming the duties of a school resource officer, the officer must complete the
required training within six months of assuming the duties of a school resource officer. The officer is not
required to perform the duties described in subdivision 2, paragraph (a), clause (4) or (5), until the
officer has completed the required training course. The officer must review any policy adopted by the
officer's employer pursuant to subdivision 6 before assuming the other duties of a school resource
officer and must comply with that policy.
(d)An officer who is serving as a substitute school resource officer for fewer than 60 student
contact days within a school year is not obligated to complete the required training or perform the
duties described in subdivision 2, paragraph (a), clause (4) or (5), but must review and comply with any
policy adopted pursuant to subdivision 6 by the law enforcement agency that employs the substitute
school resource officer.
(e)For each school resource officer employed by an agency, the chief law enforcement officer
must maintain a copy of the most recent training certificate issued to the officer for completion of the
training mandated under this section.
Subd. 4. Training course.
(a)By January 15, 2025, the Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training, in consultation with
the Department of Public Safety's School Safety Center, shall prepare learning objectives for training
courses to instruct peace officers in serving as a school resource officer. At a minimum, the learning
objectives must ensure officers receive training on:
(1)the juvenile justice system;
(2)legal standards for peace officers to use force to detain or arrest students in
schools;
(3)legal standards for school employees and contractors to use force to detain,
discipline, and arrest students in school;
(4)de-escalation techniques and using the least restrictive physical intervention
strategies for handling conflicts in schools;
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5ŵ)
Title: Resolution accepting school resource officer contract with Independent School District 283 Page 9
(5)responding to persons experiencing a mental health crisis in a school setting, with an
emphasis placed on juveniles;
(6)understanding and working with students with disabilities and students receiving
special education services;
(7)juvenile brain development, including limitations on impulse control;
(8)the impact of childhood trauma on juvenile behavior;
(9)responding to threats of violence against students and schools;
(10)detecting juvenile exploitation;
(11)investigating crimes committed in schools, including student and parental rights;
(12)identifying vulnerabilities in school facilities and safety protocols;
(13)mandated safety drills and best practices in conducting safety drills; and
(14)the topics identified in section 626.8469, subdivision 1, as they pertain to
juveniles or students.
(b)The Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training may also approve supplemental training
courses that are offered by providers who have trained school resource officers in the state
prior to development of the learning objectives required under paragraph (a). At a minimum,
an approved supplemental course must provide instruction on each of the board's learning
objectives that were not covered in the provider's existing school resource officer course
curriculum.
Subd. 5. Model Policy.
(a)By December 31, 2024, the Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training shall develop a
model school resource officer policy. In developing the policy, the board must convene a group
consisting of representatives from the Department of Public Safety's School Safety Center, the
Minnesota School Boards Association, the Minnesota Association of Secondary School Principals,
Education Minnesota, the Minnesota Sheriffs' Association, the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association,
the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, the Minnesota Juvenile Officers Association, the
National Association of School Resource Officers, Solutions Not Suspensions, the Minnesota Youth
Council, the Minnesota Council on Disability, and one community organization supporting the rights of
students receiving special education services. The group must meet at least three times to discuss the
topics identified in paragraph (b), address any related issues, and provide advice and direction
regarding development of the model policy.
(b)The model policy must cover, at a minimum, the following:
(1)issues to be addressed in a school resource officer contract, including but not
limited to the use of plain clothes, modified uniforms, and other changes to school
resource officer attire in order to foster a positive school climate, facilitate the
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5ŵ)
Title: Resolution accepting school resource officer contract with Independent School District 283 Page 10
establishment of positive relationships with students, and promote open
communication;
(2)considerations for the proper use of force on school grounds, including:
(i)the prohibitions on choke holds and other restraints established in section
609.06, subdivision 3;
(ii)the prohibition on using force or the authority of the peace officer's office
solely to enforce school rules or policies or participating in the enforcement of
discipline for violations of school rules;
(iii)the use of de-escalation techniques and other alternatives to higher levels
of force that are appropriate with juveniles and students in a school setting;
(iv)response tactics and strategies that minimize the use and duration of
prone restraint, as defined in section 121A.58, and other physical holds of
students; and
(v)the duty to render reasonably prompt care, consistent with the officer's
training, to a person who an officer physically holds or restrains;
(3)alternative procedures that can be used to de-escalate conflicts in schools and
students and others in crisis;
(4)proper procedures and limitations placed on school districts and charter schools to
ensure school resource officers are being utilized appropriately and not for school
disciplinary purposes;
(5)considerations to build constructive police relationships with students,
administrators, and educational staff;
(6)proper procedures for protecting student data; and
(7)how soon after completing the training required under subdivision 3 that a school
resource officer must complete a refresher course that covers the learning objectives
established in subdivision 4.
Subd. 6. Policies required. By September 1, 2025, each law enforcement agency with a school resource
officer program shall develop, adopt, and implement a written policy regarding school resource
officers that is identical or, at a minimum, substantially similar to the model policy adopted by the
board under subdivision 5.
Subd. 7. Licensing sanctions; injunctive relief. The board may impose licensing sanctions and seek
injunctive relief under section 214.11 for failure to comply with the requirements of this section.
Minn. Stat. § 626.8482
Added by 2024 Minn. Laws, ch. 78,s 9, eff. 3/15/2024.
City council meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 5m)
Title: Resolution accepting school resource officer contract with Independent School District 283 Page 11
Meeting: Special study session
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Police Advisory Commission
Recommended action: None at this time.
Policy consideration: None at this time.
Summary: Based on guidance provided by city council members during the Feb. 3, 2025 special
study session which was focused on establishing protocols for boards and commissions, it was
decided to schedule regular check-ins between boards and commissions and the city council
throughout the year.
The Oct. 20, 2025 check-in will spotlight the Police Advisory Commission represented by current
chair, Karl Gamradt and vice chair, Diane Slais. The staff liaison to the Police Advisory
Commission is Lt. Greg Weigel.
The Police Advisory Commission (PAC) is one of five advisory boards and commissions whose
purpose is to enhance the awareness of police department capabilities and services, provide an
opportunity for citizen involvement in police services, and encourage exchange between police
department and the community.
The discussion will cover an overview of the commission's approved work plan, including any
completed tasks, ongoing projects and strategies for addressing unaddressed work plan items.
Additionally, the discussion will include opportunities for council feedback, potential
modifications or additions to the work plan, and any other relevant topics concerning the
commission's activities.
In November 2025, the boards and commissions check-in meeting is set to feature the Planning
Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals.
Financial or budget considerations: None at this time.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity
and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all.
Supporting documents: 2025 Police Advisory Commission approved workplan
2025 Police Advisory Commission current roster
Police Advisory Commission Bylaws
Prepared by: Pat Coleman, community engagement coordinator
Reviewed by: Pa Dao Yang, racial equity and inclusion director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Board and Commission
Annual work plan Approved by council: February 18, 2025
Updated by PAC: October 1, 2025
1
2025 Work Plan │ Police Advisory Commission
1
Initiative name: Community Town Halls
Initiative type:
☐Staff support (review project,
policy or program and provide
feedback)
☐Independent research project
☒Gather community feedback
☒Lead community event
Initiative origin:
☐Applicant-initiated
☐Staff-initiated
☒Commission-initiated
☐Council-initiated
Legally required (e.g. response to
Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)?
☐Yes
☒No
Commissioner lead(s) name(s):
n/a
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
n/a
Is this an established work group?
☒Yes
☐No
Initiative description: Community connections through town halls
Hosting localized town hall conversations with residents to offer a space for open dialogue focused on building strong networks of relationships and
communication pathways. These would be information in/out sessions focused on: 1) listening to residents’ thoughts about public safety in their
community, and 2) providing residents with information about safety-related trends and tips for their area, introducing them to the SLP PD’s
transparency & outreach efforts, and providing residents with contacts/connections to community resources (e.g. SLP PD contacts, social work,
behavioral health, domestic violence, etc.). This would also provide excellent opportunities to connect with/engage block captains, neighborhood
association leaders, and other stakeholder groups in the planning and presentation of information to their communities.
Strategic Priority: ☒ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☒ Summary of community input ☒ Other ☐ N/A
Target completion date: Ideally, this would be an ongoing effort that launches during the summer of 2025.
This section to be completed by staff:
Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed
Budget required: None
Staff support required: Pat Coleman - Targeted community notifications for town halls.
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Police Advisory Commission Page 2
2
Liaison comments: Update 10/01/25 – Conversations with PAC membership have evolved this workplan item to be a presentation by PAC
to a small number of community groups. Staff suggests rebranding to avoid “town hall” title. Topics to include – PAC role and purpose,
current and future challenges in policing, PD annual report, PD updates, and police community resources.
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Police Advisory Commission Page 3
3
2
Initiative name: PAC Outreach
Initiative type:
☐Staff support (review project,
policy or program and provide
feedback)
☒Independent research project
☒Gather community feedback
☐Lead community event
Initiative origin:
☐Applicant-initiated
☐Staff-initiated
☒Commission-initiated
☐Council-initiated
Legally required (e.g. response to
Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)?
☐Yes
☒No
Commissioner lead(s) name(s):
Jay Wolkenbrod
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
n/a
Is this an established work group?
☐Yes
☒No
Initiative description: Outreach to other cities’ public safety advisory groups.
Connecting to other cities’ public safety advisory groups (commissions, committees, etc.) with an emphasis on building relationships that allow us to
share experiences and best practices.
Strategic Priority: ☒ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☒ Summary of community input ☒ Other ☐ N/A
Target completion date: Ongoing collaborative initiative with opportunities to provide the Council with periodic informative updates.
This section to be completed by staff:
Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed
Budget required: None
Staff support required: None
Liaison comments: Update 10/01/25 – The PAC is in the process of creating a contact list of other communities’ boards and commissions.
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Police Advisory Commission Page 4
4
3
Initiative name: Youth Recruitment
Initiative type:
☐Staff support (review project,
policy or program and provide
feedback)
☐Independent research project
☒Gather community feedback
☒Lead community event
Initiative origin:
☐Applicant-initiated
☐Staff-initiated
☒Commission-initiated
☐Council-initiated
Legally required (e.g. response to
Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)?
☐Yes
☒No
Commissioner lead(s) name(s):
Jillian Dixon
Diane Slais
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
n/a
Is this an established work group?
☐Yes
☒No
Initiative description: Youth recruitment & involvement
Recruitment and involvement of youth members on the PAC provides an important opportunity to develop youth leaders and bring a broader
perspective on public safety. An ongoing effort to actively recruit, involve, and retain youth members will help ensure that important youth member
positions do not sit vacant.
Strategic Priority: ☒ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☒ Other ☐ N/A
Target completion date: Ongoing effort
This section to be completed by staff:
Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☐ Informational only – no response needed
Budget required: None
Staff support required: None
Liaison comments: Update 10/01/25 – PAC commissioners have reached out to SLP school district leadership to develop PAC promotion
and recruitment initiatives on campus.
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Police Advisory Commission Page 5
5
4
Initiative name: Community Survey
Initiative type:
☐Staff support (review project,
policy or program and provide
feedback)
☐Independent research project
☒Gather community feedback
☐Lead community event
Initiative origin:
☐Applicant-initiated
☐Staff-initiated
☒Commission-initiated
☐Council-initiated
Legally required (e.g. response to
Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)?
☐Yes
☒No
Commissioner lead(s) name(s):
n/a
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
n/a
Is this an established work group?
☐Yes
☒No
Initiative description: Survey/data gathering
Continue to explore/advocate for a broad community survey of attitudes towards policing. Community town halls would also provide an opportunity
for informal data gathering about attitudes towards policing both before and after the event to assess impact.
Strategic Priority: ☒ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☒ Research report ☒ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☐ N/A
Target completion date: Report available to council following our November 2025 meeting.
This section to be completed by staff:
Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☐ Informational only – no response needed
Budget required: Undetermined at this time.
Staff support required: Undetermined at this time.
Liaison comments: Update 10/01/25 – The PAC applied to the Humphrey School of Public Affairs for survey development assistance and
was accepted. Graduate students will develop a survey instrument and implementation plan for the PAC as a class project. PAC can use
this project as a template for a future survey with no obligations.
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Police Advisory Commission Page 6
6
5
Initiative name: Vision 4.0
Initiative type:
☒Staff support (review project,
policy or program and provide
feedback)
☐Independent research project
☐Gather community feedback
☐Lead community event
Initiative origin:
☐Applicant-initiated
☐Staff-initiated
☐Commission-initiated
☒Council-initiated
Legally required (e.g. response to
Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)?
☐Yes
☒No
Commissioner lead(s) name(s):
Karl Gamradt
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
n/a
Is this an established work group?
☐Yes
☒No
Initiative description:
Assist the City with its Vision 4.0 planning process.
Strategic Priority: ☒ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A
Target completion date: n/a
This section to be completed by staff:
Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed
Budget required: None
Staff support required: None
Liaison comments: Update 10/01/25 – Commission Chair Karl Gamradt participated in the Vision 4.0 process.
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Police Advisory Commission Page 7
7
Initiative Origin Definitions
•Applicant-initiated – Project initiated by 3rd party (statutory boards)
•Staff-initiated – Project initiated by staff liaison or other city staff
•Commission-initiated – Project initiated by the board or commission
•Council-initiated – Project tasked to a board or commission by the city council
Strategic Priorities
1.St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all.
2.St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship.
3.St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development.
4.St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and
reliably.
5.St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement
Modifications
•Work plans may be modified, to add or delete items, in one of three ways:
•Work plans can be modified by mutual agreement during a joint work session.
•If immediate approval is important, the board or commission can work with their staff liaison to present a modified work plan for city
council approval at a council meeting.
•The city council can direct a change to the work plan at their discretion.
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Police Advisory Commission Page 8
8
Future ideas
Initiatives that are being considered by the board or commission but not proposed in the annual work plan. Council approval is needed if the
board or commission decides they would like to amend a work plan.
Initiative Comments
Onboarding Create a basic, informal guide for future PAC leadership which lays out important considerations for onboarding
new members (e.g. department tour, intro to SLP’s community policing efforts, etc).
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Police Advisory Commission Page 9
Current 2025 Police Advisory Commission Roster
Name Role Term Expires
Karl Gamradt Chair May 31, 2027
Diane Slais Vice Chair May 31, 2027
Kari Holmes Regular Member May 31, 2030
Leslie Rich Regular Member May 31, 2026
Caroline Noble Regular Member May 31, 2028
Saul Eugene Regular Member May 31, 2028
Jay Wolkenbrod Regular Member May 31, 2027
Michael Rydberg Regular Member May 31, 2026
Daniel Stockton Regular Member May 31, 2026
Jillian Dixon Regular Member August 31, 2026
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Police Advisory Commission Page 10
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
POLICE ADVISORY COMMISSION BY-LAWS Adopted
July 21, 2003
Article I - The Commission
1.1
1.2
1.3
Name of Commission. The name of the Commission shall be the “Police Advisory
Commission, which is referred to herein from time to time as “The Commission”.
Powers. The powers of the commission shall be vested in the Commissioners thereof
in office from time to time.
Mission, Vision, Values, and Goal Statements. The Commission shall operate under
the tenets of these mission, vision, values and goal statements.
1.31 Mission
Enhance the awareness of police department capabilities and
services
Provide an opportunity for citizen involvement in police services
Encourage exchange between police department and the
community1.32 Vision
The St. Louis Park Police Advisory Commission strives to create a community
that is proactive, safe, informed, inclusive, and healthy
The St. Louis Park Police Advisory Commission will make a difference by
serving as a connection to the community, supporting the efforts of the
police department, promoting partnerships, and encouraging involvement in
educational opportunities
1.33 Values
The St. Louis Park Police Advisory Commission values integrity, ethics,
safety, prevention, and quality of life
The St. Louis Park Police Advisory Commission is motivated by
communication, relationship building, and problem solving
1.34 Goals
Enhance the power of advocacy
Create more public recognition and visibility of the Police Department,
Police Advisory Commission and Community Policing
Provide a more systematic, comprehensive approach to addressing
community and individual issues
Provide more opportunities to improve Community Policing
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Police Advisory Commission Page 11
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.1
3.2
4.1
4.2
Article II - Officers
Officers. The officers of the Commission shall be Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary.
Chair. The chair shall preside at all meetings of the commission. The chair shall also be
responsible for appointing Commission members to task force committees.
Vice-Chair. The vice-chair shall perform the duties of the chair in the absence or
incapacity of the chair; and in case of the resignation or death of the chair, the vice-
president shall perform such duties as imposed on the chair until such time as the
commission shall select a new chair.
Secretary. The secretary shall be responsible for ensuring proper notice of all meetings
is given. The secretary shall also be responsible for the minutes of all meetings and for
the recording of all official actions of the commission in accordance with MN Statute
and City policy. The secretary shall perform other duties as the commission shall
prescribe.
Staff Liaison. A staff liaison to the Police Advisory Commission shall be appointed by the
city manager and shall be subject to the administrative rules and regulations of the city.
The staff liaison may facilitate or assist in the meetings and shall be responsible for
recording attendance of commission members. The staff liaison is responsible for
keeping the city manager informed regarding the business of the commission and shall
communicate to the city manager any problems or issues that may arise. The staff
liaison shall also be responsible for assisting the commission in considering their
financial needs and, if deemed necessary by the commission, shall request appropriate
funding from the city council through the annual budget process.
Delegation of Duties. Officers may delegate duties of their position to other personnel
as deemed appropriate by the commission.
Article III - Election of Officers
Elections and Terms of Office. The chair, vice-chair and secretary shall be elected from
the commission membership by its members at the regular meeting in December of
each year, or as shortly thereafter as possible. Terms of office shall be for one-year and
shall run from January 1st through December 31st of each year, or until a duly elected
successor takes office. Officers may be elected to an unlimited number of successive
terms.
Vacancies. Should the office of chair, vice-chair or secretary become vacant, the
commission shall elect a successor from its membership at the next regular meeting,
and such election shall be for the unexpired term of said office.
Article IV - Meetings
Meetings. All meetings of the commission shall be conducted in accordance with the
Minnesota Open Meeting Law. Format of the meetings may be informal, however, the
Chair may, at their discretion, determine that more formal proceedings are warranted.
In that event the meeting shall be conducted as outlined in the third edition of The
Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedures as adopted in city council rules and
procedures.
Annual Meeting. The annual meeting of the commission shall be the regular meeting in
December at which time elections will be held and the schedule for the following year’s
regular meeting schedule will be considered.
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Police Advisory Commission Page 12
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.5
5.1
5.2
5.3
Regular Meetings. The regular meetings of the commission shall be held a minimum of
six times per year at dates, times and locations scheduled annually by the commission.
The commission may, by a majority vote, change the regular meeting dates for any
reason provided proper public notice of the changed meeting is provided to the public.
Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Authority may be called by the chair or two
commissioners, or by the city council, for the purpose of transacting any
business designated in the call. The call for special meeting shall be delivered in
compliance with state law. The secretary must deliver to the commissioners at least
three days prior to the meeting a notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the
special meeting. If however, all commissioners attend and participate in the meeting,
these notice requirements are not necessary. The presence of any commissioner at a
special meeting shall constitute a waiver of any formal notice unless the
commissioner appears for the special purpose of objecting to the holding of such
meeting. Notice of the date, time, place and purpose of a special meeting must also be
posted by the secretary on the principal bulletin board of the city at least three days
prior to the date of the meeting.
Emergency Meetings. An emergency meeting may be called by the chair due
to circumstances which require immediate consideration. The secretary may
notify commissioners by any means available. A good faith effort shall be made to
provide notice of the meeting to any news medium that has filed a written request
for notice of meetings. The notice shall include the purpose of the meeting.
Quorum and Voting. The presence of a majority of all currently appointed members of
the commission shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting its business
and exercising its powers and for all other purposes. In the event a quorum is not
reached, a smaller number of members may meet to discuss the business of the
commission and recommendations may be made, however, formal action must be
reserved for such time as a quorum of the commission is reached.
Article V - Agenda and Records of Proceedings
Agenda Preparation. The agenda for regular and special meetings of the commission
shall be prepared by the staff liaison subject to approval by the chair. Items to be placed
on the agenda may be proposed by the chair, a commission member, the staff liaison or
at the request of the city council. Residents, businesses, or other interested parties may
contact individual commission members or the staff liaison to request that an item be
placed on the agenda for consideration. All agenda topics presented by the city council
will be placed on an appropriate agenda, requests from other parties will be placed on
an appropriate future agenda at the discretion of the chair. .
Approval of the Agenda. The agenda shall be approved at each meeting prior to
discussion of any item on the agenda. At the time of agenda approval, items may be
removed and the order of business may be modified by a majority vote of members
present at the meeting. Prior to adjournment, members present may communicate
items recommended for inclusion on future agendas.
Record of Proceedings. All minutes and resolutions shall be in writing and shall be
copied in the journal of the proceedings of the Authority. Records shall be kept
in accordance with MN Statute and Rules regarding preservation of public records and
the MN Data Privacy Act.
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Police Advisory Commission Page 13
6.1
6.2
6.3
Article VI - Attendance and Performance of Duties
Attendance. Regular attendance at meetings is a requirement for continued
membership. Commission members are expected to attend regular and special
commission meetings and assigned committee meetings. Planned absences
communicated to the commission chair or committee task force chair in advance of the
meeting will be deemed excused. Any other absence will be deemed unexcused. The
commission will approve and record the approval of all excused and unexcused
absences.
Reporting. Council will be informed if a member receives three unexcused absences in
any calendar year, if a member attends scheduled meetings irregularly or if a member is
frequently absent from scheduled meetings.
Performance of Duties. Commissioners are expected to adequately prepare for
meetings. Commissioners unable to complete an assigned task should notify the
commission chair or task force chair as soon as possible. The commission may ask the
Council to review a member's appointment based upon its assessment of significant
non-performance of duties.
7.1
Article VII - Commission Activities
Annual Work Plan. The commission will adopt an annual work plan that details
activities and projected timelines for the calendar year.
The chair may appoint commission members to be primarily responsible for each
work plan activity.
The commission may establish task force committees to oversee work plan
activities, chaired by members appointed by the chair.
Commission work plans will be submitted to the City Council by March 1st or as
shortly thereafter as practicable.
7.2 Task Forces. The commission may create task force committees to investigate and
perform duties related to subjects of interest to the commission and to oversee work
plan activities.
Task force committees will be chaired by commission members appointed by the
commission chair
A task force consists of at least two appointed commission members, one of
whom will be designated committee chair or committee co-chair by the
commission chair. A majority of the task force must be present to conduct
business, including at least two commission members.
The commission may consolidate or dissolve existing task forces at any time.
The task force chair may appoint other commission members and representatives
from the broader community to the task force.
The task force chair shall report about task force activities as an agenda item at
regular commission meetings.
7.3 City Council Annual Report. The commission will submit an annual report to the City
Council summarizing the past year's activities. The report may highlight issues of
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Police Advisory Commission Page 14
concern and other information the commission feels appropriate to convey to the
city council.
The commission chair or designee will prepare the report for approval by the
commission. Commission members may submit signed addenda presenting
alternative conclusions or perspectives.
The report and addenda are submitted with the current year work plan in March or
as soon thereafter as possible.
8.1
Article VIII - By-Laws and Rules
Amendments. These By-Laws may be amended by a majority of all voting member of
the commission. Commission members must be given one month's advance notice
regarding proposed amendments prior to formal commission action. Amendments to
these procedures can only be considered at a regular meeting of the commission.
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 1)
Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Police Advisory Commission Page 15
Meeting: Special study session
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Discussion item: 2
Executive summary
Title: TIF management report
Recommended action: Review the report and provide staff with direction.
Policy consideration:
1. Does the council want to continue with staff direction given on Oct. 14, 2024, to transfer
2025 TIF into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (approx. $2.796M)?
2. Does the council want to
1) decertify any or all of the following TIF districts at the end of 2025 to lower
the property tax impact in 2026, or
2) hold open any or all to retain surplus TIF for other city uses: 4900 Excelsior,
Aquila Commons, Elmwood Apartments, Mill City, Wolfe Lake Commercial,
Zarthan Ave/16th St?
Summary: Staff from Ehlers, the city’s financial advisor, will present the annual TIF
management report.
There are six TIF districts that have met their financial obligations. Of the six, one must be
closed at the end of 2025, lowering the 2026 property tax increase paid by individual property
taxpayers. The remaining five may also be closed at the end of 2025 or may be kept open in
2026 in order to contribute funds into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF). One
additional district will meet its obligations in early 2026. There may also be the opportunity to
utilize pooled TIF for city road reconstruction projects in the CIP if they support or encourage
redevelopment projects; should council desire, staff can explore this option more fully.
Financial or budget considerations: The required decertification of the Elmwood Village TIF
district will reduce the estimated property tax impact. Given the max preliminary levy of 8.02%,
projections now estimate a 15.6% increase on the city portion of property taxes for a median-
valued single-family home, or approximately $279. If all six TIF districts are closed, the median-
valued single-family home would see an estimated 13.2% increase, or approximately $238 in
the city portion of its property tax bill.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion
TIF Status District Status Update Memo
Prepared by: Karen Barton, community development director, Ameila Cruver, finance director
Deb Heiser, engineering director, Tiffany Stephens, financial analyst
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: TIF management report
Discussion
Background:
In the past month after the preliminary levy was adopted, staff received two updates that will
impact taxes payable in 2026:
• One Tax Increment Finance (TIF) district, Elmwood Village, must be decertified in 2025,
adding an estimated $2.056 million to our net tax capacity. This essentially increases the
denominator in the calculation of our local tax rate, with the numerator being our final
tax levy. Any increases to the denominator will lower the tax rate if there are no
changes to the denominator.
• Additional TIF districts that are decertified by December 2025 can indeed be included in
the calculation of taxes payable in 2026.
This means that the estimated property tax increase for the median homestead single family
house will increase by 15.6%, rather than the 18.4% increase forecast at the setting of the
preliminary levy due to the decertification of the Elmwood Village TIF district.
Present considerations:
Additionally, there are five more TIF districts which will have met their financial obligations at
the end of 2025. One more TIF district, Elmwood Apartments, will meet its obligations in early
2026.
These districts can be closed at the end of 2025, continuing to add to the city’s net tax capacity.
Alternatively, any or all of them can be held open in 2026 to continue pooling for another year.
Traditionally, the city council has decided to pool these excess TIF funds for affordable housing.
Details are below outlining the financial impact to either closing or pooling for TIF. There may
also be a road reconstruction project(s) in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which would be
eligible to be partially funded with pooled TIF dollars. If the city council decides to keep open
any or all of the remaining districts, staff can continue researching this opportunity.
Specific information about the remaining six districts includes:
• Aquila Commons housing TIF district has met its obligations and its funds can be
transferred to the AHTF through 2026 (approximately $205,000). Given that this is a
housing TIF district with limited tax capacity and therefore minimal impact to taxpayers
when the district is decertified, Ehlers and staff recommend leaving this district open
and transferring the available funds to the AHTF through 2026.
• Elmwood Apartments is scheduled to meet its obligation in February 2026. The city
could hold it open and pool TIF in 2026 or use 2025 TIF dollars to decertify in 2025,
assuming no pending tax petitions and receipt of sufficient tax increment in the second
half of 2025.
• 4900 Excelsior, Mill City, Wolfe Street Commercial and Zarthan Ave/16th Street (CSM), all
have also met their obligations. The table below shows the tax capacity that would be
added back to the city’s tax rate calculation for each of these districts along with the
estimated transfer that could be made to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF).
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: TIF management report
TIF 2025 Captured
Net Tax Capacity
Estimated
transfer to AHTF
in 2026
Active districts that must close at the end of 2025
Elmwood Village $2,056,519 n/a
Active districts that MAY continue to be pooled OR be closed
4900 Excelsior $652,874 $542,059
Aquila Commons $183,242 $204,868
Elmwood Apartments $208,480 $250,000
Mill City $516,141 $645,222
Wolfe Lake Commercial $189,268 $221,789
Zarthan Ave/16th Street (CSM) $456,228 $565,832
Total $4,262,752 $2,429,770
For each district in the bottom section of the table, council may choose to close the district and
add the amount in the blue column to the city’s net tax capacity OR keep the district open.
The ability to transfer funds from TIF districts for affordable housing is a limited opportunity
when a TIF district has met its obligations. Once the district has been closed, the ability to
capture those funds for affordable housing is no longer available. Most of the districts in the
bottom section of the table must be closed at the end of 2026; one can remain open until the
end of 2027 (Elmwood Apartments) and another until the end of 2032 (Aquila Commons).
The AHTF had a fund balance of $7.2 million at the end of 2024. Annually, the fund budgets
around $2 million for housing programs and typically spends between $1.4 and $1.6 million. In
2025, the transfer-in from available TIF districts is expected to be $2.796 million, bringing the
estimated fund balance in the AHFT up to nearly $10 million at the end of 2025, depending on
what the total spending is out of the fund at the end of the year. In 2026, revenue is budgeted
at $2.2 million.
To better analyze the costs and benefits of the options before council in 2026, staff have
compiled the following options:
Option 1: Maximize TIF pooling
• Keep all six eligible districts open in 2026.
• Transfer an estimated $2.429 million to the AHTF
• Median value homestead house will see an estimated 15.6% or $279 increase (down
from the estimated 18.4%) in the city’s portion of their property tax bill due to the
closure of the Elmwood Village district.
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: TIF management report
Option 2: Maximize property tax relief
• Close all eligible TIF districts at the end of 2025.
• Assumes no tax petitions for Elmwood Apartments and sufficient tax increment received
in second half of 2025.
• No transfers to the AHTF in 2026.
• Median value homestead house will see an estimated 12.3% or $238 increase (down
from 18.4%) in the city’s portion of their property tax bill.
Option 3: Balance both objectives
• Close Wolfe Lake, 4900 Excelsior TIF, Elmwood Apartments and Elmwood Village
districts at the end of 2025. Hold open Aquila Commons, Mill City and Zarthan/16th.
• Transfer an estimated $1.416 million into the AHTF.
• City receives surplus TIF revenue share of around $400,000 in 2026 with no restrictions
on use.
• Median value homestead house will see an estimated 14.2% increase (down from
18.4%) in the city’s portion of their property tax bill.
The decision before the council is whether to close any of the six TIF districts in 2025 to lower
the impact of the property tax shift on residential buildings or keep them open to add resources
to the AHTF – or, potentially, towards the city’s CIP – for another year.
Next steps: Based on the council’s direction, staff will take any necessary actions relating to the
TIF districts.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Karen Barton, Community Development Director
FROM: Stacie Kvilvang, Senior Municipal Advisor - Ehlers
DATE: October 20, 2025
SUBJECT: City of St. Louis Park TIF District Status Update
Overview:
The City of St. Louis Park (“City”) has proactively utilized tax increment financing “TIF” to spur significant
redevelopment within the City and to create options for life-cycle housing, including different types of housing
and affordable housing. In addition, redevelopment has been undertaken to mitigate contaminated properties,
increase commerce options and opportunities, and to create employment in the City in the form of new office,
hotel, retail and industrial developments. In 1997, the City/EDA began investing in redevelopment projects that
predominately included housing as noted in the chart below. Overall, the City’s TIF districts are meeting their
intended purpose, performing well, and furthering other City projects.
Below is a chart showing total residential/hotel units and/or commercial uses that are currently constructed or
under construction, along with the City/EDA investment with TIF.
Number of TIF Districts:
The City currently has 20 TIF districts of which twelve (12) are redevelopment districts, six (6) are housing
districts and two (2) are renovation and renewal districts. The overall market value of these districts where
development is complete has increased approximately $1.2 billion or 1,177% since their establishment.
Study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: TIF management report Page 5
Decertification of TIF Districts in 2025
Elmwood TIF District is being decertified at the end of 2025 since all obligations will be paid in full. This will free
up an additional 2,056,519 in tax capacity to be able to spread the tax levy over. The effect of this will be to
reduce the current proposed tax rate by 1.15% (53.473 to 52.328%) and equates to an approximately $42
reduction in annual taxes on the average value home of 377,200 (the “Average Value Home”).
Optional Decertification of TIF District in 2025
There are six districts that have met or will meet their obligations and can be decertified at the end of 2025:
Redevelopment Districts That Have Met Their Obligations
The City Council may choose to decertify four (4) additional redevelopment districts in 2025 (Wolf Lake, Zarthan,
Mill City and 4900 Excelsior) that were anticipated to stay open and contribute to the City’s AHTF through 2026
(the “AHTF Districts”). If the City were to decertify them one year early, that would free up an additional 1,814,511
in tax capacity to be able to spread the tax levy over. The effect of this would be to reduce the current proposed
tax rate by 1.013% (53.473 to 52.328%) and equates to an approximately $35 reduction in annual taxes on the
average value home. If the City Council chose to decertify all five (5) districts (Elmwood and the AHTF Districts)
the cumulative effect would be to reduce the current proposed tax rate by 2.12% (53.473 to 51.358%) and
equates to an approximately $77 reduction in annual taxes on the average value home.
Redevelopment District That Will Have Met Its Obligations
Elmwood Apartments will make its last payment on its obligation on February 1, 2026. Given the limited tax
capacity and therefore limited impact to taxpayers, Ehlers and staff recommend approving the required budget
modification in 2025 to elect the additional 10% for affordable housing. The effect of this would be to allow the
District to remain open in 2026 to transfer approximately $258,000 to the AHTF (last year of eligible transfers
per special legislation). The City/EDA could then decide to either decertify the district at the end of 2026 or leave
it open through 2027 (last legal year it could remain open) and collect an additional $258,000 (the 2027 funds
would be retained in the TIF district for use on qualified redevelopment or affordable housing projects).
Housing District That Has Met Its Obligations
Aquila Commons housing TIF district has met its obligations, and its funds can be transferred to the AHTF
through 2026 (approximately $205,000). Given that this is a housing TIF district with limited tax capacity and
therefore minimal impact to taxpayers when the district is decertified, Ehlers and staff recommend leaving this
district open and transferring the available funds to the AHTF through 2026.
TIF For Affordable Housing:
The AHTF District obligations have been paid in full, but they can contribute to the City’s Affordable Housing
Trust Fund (AHTF) through 2026 pursuant to the special legislation the City received in 2021 (2025 amount is
approximately $2.391 million). West End does have existing obligations but can contribute approximately
$200,000 this year to the AHTF. As noted above (Aquila Commons housing district has met its obligation) and
its funds can be transferred to the AHTF through 2026 (approximately $205,000). Historically the City/EDA has
elected to utilize the TIF generated in this District for affordable housing projects.
The anticipated contribution from these six (6) districts in 2025 is expected to be approximately $2.796 million,
bringing the cumulative transfers to this fund to approximately $10.272 million. If the Council decides to keep
Study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: TIF management report Page 6
the AHTF Districts open through 2026 and transfer those funds to the AHTF (approximately $1.976M) when final
transfers are authorized to be made, the total transfers since inception is expected to increase to approximately
$13.648 million (includes transfers from all districts with authority to transfer funds). If the council decides to
decertify these districts instead, that money will be returned to the County and approximately $827,000 will be
distributed to the City for unrestricted use, in addition to adding tax capacity for taxes payable 2026 which is
described in more detail below.
Tax Capacity Captured in TIF
As noted on the chart on the following page, the City currently has approximately 11.7% of its tax capacity
captured in TIF. This is anticipated to go down to 10% in 2026 due to Elmwood being decertified in 2025 and
will be further reduced to 8.3% in 2027 when the AHTF Districts are decertified at the end of 2026. If the City
were to decertify those four (4) districts one (1) year early in 2025, along with Elmwood Apartments, the captured
tax capacity would become 8.3% in 2026. The next big reduction is anticipated for pay 2028 when Park
Commons decertifies at the end of 2027 which reduces the tax capacity down to 6.2%.
We have discussed with the City Council in the past if a policy regarding capping the amount of tax capacity in
TIF is common or needed. As discussed, this is a local decision and a City Council always determines if they
want to provide assistance to a project on a case-by-case basis (does it meet strategic priorities or needs of the
City, etc.). Having a policy onto itself does not stop a City Council from deviating from it (either up or down)
since it is not an ordinance or statutory requirement. We are only aware of a few cities that have a formal or
informal policies of how much tax capacity should be captured in TIF. The City’s with policies typically have 10%
as the threshold. As noted in the chart above, the City is anticipated to be at this level next year with future
declines (if no future TIF districts are created).
Financial Health of TIF Districts.
The City’s TIF districts are self-supporting, and most districts are anticipated to fully pay off their obligations to
developers ahead of their term.
City Bond Rating.
Development projects assisted with TIF are making a substantive contribution to the City’s economy, taxable
market value, affordable housing goals and assists the City in maintaining their AAA bond rating.
TIF Administration
Management of the City’s TIF districts are regularly monitored by Ehlers and City staff and annual reports on the
financial condition of each TIF district are filed on a timely basis with the State Auditor’s Office.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Captured TIF Tax Capacity 11,817,305 12,614,033 13,809,130 13,822,199 14,165,903 12,230,478 10,297,809 7,794,039 8,418,861 8,388,905
Total Tax Capacity (Gross)102,157,645 106,119,396 116,626,650 120,912,490 121,168,959 122,380,649 123,604,455 126,088,905 127,349,794 128,623,292
Percentage of Tax Base in TIF 11.6% 11.9% 11.8% 11.4% 11.7% 10.0% 8.3% 6.2% 6.6% 6.5%
Assumptions: 1. Elmwood decertifies at end of 2025
2. Wolf Lake, Zarthan, Mill City, 4900 Excelsior & Elmwood Apts Decertify at end of 2026
3. Park Commons and Hwy 7 Districts Decertify at end of 2027
4. Beltline Station 1 TIF District comes on line in 2027
5. Beltline Statio 2 TIF District comes on line in 2028
6. No new TIF districts are created
ProjectedActualDistrict
Study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: TIF management report Page 7
Recommendations
1. The EDA must decertify Elmwood TIF district in 2025 as required in accordance with the TIF statute since
all obligations are paid in full.
2. It is recommended that the City/EDA enact the staff direction give on October 14, 2024 to transfer the
2025 TIF from the various districts to the AHTF by the end of the year (approximately $2.796M).
3. It is recommended that the City and EDA approve a budget modification for the Elmwood Apartment TIF
District to elect the additional 10% for affordable housing ($258,000 in 2026)
4. It is recommended that the City/EDA keep the Aquila Commons TIF District (Hsg) open and continue to
transfer funds to the AHTF through 2026 (approximately $205,000/year); and
5. The City Council/EDA should determine if they want to (i) keep the AHTF Districts open through 2026
(legal term to transfer to AHTF = $1.976M); or (ii) decertify the AHTF Districts at the end of 2025 so that
tax capacity will be available in 2026 for additional tax relief ($35 reduction on average value home in
addition to Elmwood $42 reduction).
Please contact me with any questions.
Study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 2)
Title: TIF management report Page 8
Meeting: Special study session
Meeting date: October 20, 2025
Discussion item: 3
Executive summary
Title: TIF and other financial tools and incentives discussion
Recommended action: Review and provide staff with questions related to this report and
presentation.
Policy consideration: None. The intent of the discussion is to further familiarize the EDA and
city council with tax increment financing and other forms of financial assistance for proposed
redevelopment projects.
Summary: Consultants from Ehlers will provide an overview of TIF (tax increment financing) and
other forms of financial assistance and their uses. A summary of these financial assistance tools
is provided in the staff report and will be presented and discussed at the study session.
Financial or budget considerations: The application of financial assistance tools to facilitate
desired redevelopment projects and further the city’s strategic priorities affect the city’s total
tax capacity which is reflected in the city’s annual budget and long-range financial plan during
and after the term of the TIF district. It also plays a significant role in the retention of the city’s
AAA bond rating.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Karen Barton, community development director/EDA executive director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: TIF and other financial tools and incentives discussion
Discussion
Background: Redevelopment plays a critical role in maintaining the city’s economic vitality,
supporting a diverse range of new housing to meet market demand, and preserving the city’s
AAA bond rating. However, redevelopment projects in first-ring suburbs such as St. Louis Park
are often not financially feasible without assistance. These projects typically involve tearing
down obsolete structures, many of which contain hazardous building materials, remediating
contaminated soils, and upgrading outdated utilities to support modern, energy-efficient
construction.
When affordable housing is incorporated, developers are required to lease a portion of units at
below-market rents for an extended period, creating additional financial challenges. These
combined costs often make redevelopment projects infeasible without public support. For this
reason, cities are frequently asked to provide financial assistance to help close funding gaps and
enable projects to move forward.
When a developer has a proposed development project it wishes the city to consider, an initial
meeting is held with city planning and economic development staff. City staff and the developer
review the project’s scope, components and economic impact; compatibility with city strategic
priorities and policy requirements; conformance with city comprehensive plan and zoning
ordinance; extraordinary costs requiring financial assistance; time schedule; and other
information. Once generally acceptable site and building concept plans are prepared and the
developer confirms the proposed development’s components and numbers, the developer is
invited to share the project’s financial proforma with staff and the EDA’s financial consultant.
The new development’s pro forma needs to include the following estimates:
• Detailed project sources and uses of funds (including any extraordinary site
development, redevelopment and/or clean-up costs)
• Revenue/income projections
o Proposed housing developments must include number of affordable units and
their affordability levels, monthly unit rents, unit counts, square footages for
each unit type and anticipated vacancy rates
• Detailed operating costs (including major categories, such as administrative, payroll,
utilities, insurance, maintenance, management fees, property taxes, etc.)
• Financing assumptions (including rate, amortization, term and underwriting
requirements)
• 15-Year operating proforma
• Housing projects also need to provide:
o Detailed list of amenities
o Types of parking (underground, structured, and/or surface)
o Interior unit finish materials (general summary)
o Exterior finish materials (general summary)
o Sustainable features/elements included in project
Upon review of the above, if it is determined that there is a sizable gap in policies;
development’s financial pro-forma that renders it financially infeasible, and provided the
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: TIF and other financial tools and incentives discussion
proposed project is consistent with the city’s strategic priorities and other policies, the EDA may
consider providing financial assistance at a negotiated amount.
The city uses several financial assistance tools to support redevelopment and housing projects:
• Tax Increment Financing (TIF):
Captures a portion of the increased property tax value generated by a new development
to help pay for eligible project costs such as land acquisition, demolition, soil
remediation and public infrastructure.
• Tax Abatement:
Temporarily reduces or rebates a portion of a participating governmental entity’s
property taxes generated by a project to help offset development costs.
• Housing Revenue Bonds:
Provides tax-exempt financing for multifamily housing projects, often used in
combination with other state or federal programs to support affordable housing.
• County, Federal and State Funding Programs:
Includes Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, Minnesota Housing programs, Local
Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA), DEED, Hennepin County and other state or federal
grants or loans that may support affordable housing, environmental cleanup, or
infrastructure improvements.
• Local Contributions or Grants:
City-provided gap financing, fee waivers, or other local support to make otherwise
infeasible projects viable.
More detailed information about each of these tools is provided below.
Tax increment financing (TIF)
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a financing tool authorized by state law to encourage
redevelopment, job creation, cleanup of polluted sites, and construction of affordable housing.
When approved, it allows cities, EDAs and counties to capture a portion of the new property tax
revenue generated by a development within a defined district and for a specified period of
time. That revenue, called “tax increment”, can then be used to reimburse a developer for
certain qualified costs incurred in constructing the project. More detailed and in-depth
information regarding TIF can be found in the Oct. 14, 2024 council study session staff report:
Tax increment financing 101.
How TIF Works
• A TIF district is created, and the current assessed property value (the “base value”) is
frozen.
• The developer builds the project and pays property taxes on the new, higher assessed
value.
• The county collects all property taxes. The city, county and school district continue to
receive taxes based on the frozen base value.
• The additional tax revenue generated above the base value (the “tax increment”) is
returned to the city.
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: TIF and other financial tools and incentives discussion
• The city disburses an agreed-upon portion of the increment back to the developer to
reimburse qualified costs.
• TIF assistance is provided on a “pay-as-you-go” basis: the developer must pay full
property taxes before receiving reimbursement.
Safeguards and Accountability
• Payments begin only after the project is completed, required documentation is
submitted, and costs are verified.
• The city applies its Green Building, Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI), and Inclusionary
Housing policies where applicable.
• A Lookback Analysis ensures that if actual development costs are lower than projected,
the amount of TIF assistance is reduced accordingly.
TIF is the city’s most effective tool for large-scale redevelopment because it has the capacity to
generate the greatest level of financial assistance. The EDA works with its financial consultant,
Ehlers, to evaluate:
• Whether a financial gap exists and whether the project would be unlikely to proceed
“but for” TIF assistance.
• The minimum amount of assistance necessary to make the project feasible.
• Whether the project aligns with city priorities and policies.
Once the development is complete and all obligations are met, the TIF district is de-certified
(“closed”). At that point, all taxing jurisdictions (city, county, school district, etc.) benefit from
the full property tax revenue generated by the development’s higher assessed value.
The majority of tax increment financing districts established in St. Louis Park have been
redevelopment districts, though in recent years the city has approved several housing TIF
districts to facilitate the creation of more affordable housing units.
The example below illustrates how TIF can be effectively leveraged to invest in strategic
redevelopment that supports and enhances the city’s tax base over time. This example shows
two very similar parcels, one redeveloped and one unchanged. The redeveloped property
would not have occurred but for the use of TIF to make the project financially feasible. The
redeveloped property market value increased more than 1100% above that of the unchanged
parcel.
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: TIF and other financial tools and incentives discussion
Example TIF Impact on Tax Base
Comparable city blocks: status quo versus redevelopment
Property Zoning
2016
Zoning
2023
Sq Ft Market
Value
2017
Market
Value
2024
Market
Value
Increase $
Market
Value
Increase
%
5727 36th St W IP MX1 9,238 $ 574,000 $ 979,000 $ 405,000 70.56%
5721 36th St W IP MX1 19,460 $ 612,000 $1,308,000 $ 696,000 113.73%
5701 36th St W IP MX1 17,500 $ 721,000 $1,413,000 $ 692,000 95.98%
Total block 46,198 $1,907,000 $3,700,000 $1,793,000 94.02%
5605 36th St W IP PUD 43,105 $1,366,000 $17,824,000 $16,458,000 1204.83%
Difference -3,093 $(541,000) $14,124,000 $14,665,000 1110.81%
Tax increment pooling
The Minnesota TIF Act allows for EDAs/cities to capture, or “pool” 25% of the tax increment
generated from previously established redevelopment TIF districts to be used for certain
qualified redevelopment expenses outside of those districts. The law also allows an additional
10% of tax increment (for a total of up to 35%) from these same districts to be pooled for
affordable housing expenses. The funds can be spent anywhere within a city and do not need to
be located within a specific project area.
To date, the city has transferred approximately $5.3 million from its various TIF districts to the
Affordable Housing Trust Fund. With the city’s election to keep several districts open for
pooling purposes until Dec. 31, 2026, subtracting what the EDA has committed to various
affordable housing developments, the city could have approximately $8 million available for
qualified affordable housing uses as needs arise.
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Title: TIF and other financial tools and incentives discussion
Tax abatement
Tax abatement is a tool that allows a city, county or school district to rebate a portion of
property taxes on specific parcels in order to support projects that provide a public benefit,
such as job creation, affordable housing, redevelopment or public infrastructure improvements.
It is typically treated like TIF in that cities only abate their portion of the increase taxes of the
project, but at its discretion it can abate up to 100% of the taxes.
Key Provisions of tax abatement:
• Abatements may reduce all or part of a jurisdiction’s property taxes and can be capped
by year or by total dollar amount.
• State law limits abatements to the greater of $200,000 or 10% of the net tax capacity of
the parcel(s).
• Each participating jurisdiction (city, county or school district) must:
o Hold a public hearing and provide notice identifying the affected properties, the
entity granting the abatement, and the estimated total amount.
o Adopt a resolution that specifies abatement terms, confirms that benefits to the
jurisdiction are at least equal to the costs, and makes findings that the
abatement serves the public interest (e.g., increasing or stabilizing the tax base,
providing affordable housing, creating jobs, redeveloping blighted areas,
financing infrastructure, or improving access to services).
Statutory Term Limits:
• If all three taxing jurisdictions (city, county, and school district) participate, the
maximum abatement term is 15 years.
• If only two entities participate, the maximum term is 20 years.
Local Practice:
• Hennepin County policy generally prohibits abatements unless a project delivers
significant affordable housing and meets other strict criteria.
• School districts rarely consider abatements, unless it creates new housing units that will
produce additional students within the district.
• This leaves the city as the only practical abatement provider. However, abating only the
city’s portion of property taxes usually does not generate sufficient funding to close the
gap on large-scale redevelopment projects.
Because of these limitations, tax abatement has not been a practical or commonly used
financial assistance tool in St. Louis Park.
4d(1) Tax Classification and Rate
In 2023, the state legislature simplified and reduced the property tax classification rate for low-
income rental housing (Class 4d(1)). Previously, the first $100,000 of a property’s value was
taxed at a class rate of 0.75%, while the value above $100,000 was taxed at 0.25%. The revised
law removed the tiered rates and set a single class rate of 0.25% for all Class 4d(1) eligible units,
resulting in lower property tax liability for qualifying properties. The regular rental class rate of
1.25% applies to the remainder of the property.
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 3) Page 7
Title: TIF and other financial tools and incentives discussion
Property owners of existing buildings or newly constructed buildings must annually apply and
certify the number of units qualifying for the reduced tax classification. At a minimum, a
property must have at least 20% of the units affordable at 60% of the area median income
(AMI) and only the units meeting the restricted rent and income qualify for the lower tax rate.
In addition, qualifying properties must be subject to one of the following in order to be eligible:
• Units subject to a housing assistance payment contract under Section 8.
• Units receiving low-income-housing tax credits.
• Units subject to rent and income restriction under financial assistance by any unit of
government as evidenced by a document recorded against the property.
To qualify for the St. Louis Park 4d(1) classification the following restrictions apply:
• At least 20% of the building’s rental units must be affordable to households at or below
60% of area median income (AMI).
• A declaration of restrictive covenant must be approved by the city and recorded on the
property with a five-year affordability period.
• The covenant runs with the land, meaning affordability requirements remain in place if
the property is sold.
• The building does not already qualify for low-income rental classification tax status in
Minnesota.
St. Louis Park has a significant number of naturally occurring affordable housing units that
continue to face gentrification pressures. The 4d tax classification rate for low-income rental
housing is an excellent tool to incentivize preservation of these naturally occurring affordable
housing (NOAH) units and the city has been a strong proponent of this program for many years.
The city enacted its 4d program in 2018 and currently has 558 units preserved utilizing this local
tool.
Financial Assistance from Outside Agencies
In addition to TIF and other city tools, several partner agencies provide grant funding to support
redevelopment and affordable housing. Staff actively pursue these opportunities to reduce
funding gaps and minimize the need for direct city financial assistance. In most cases, the city
serves as the primary applicant and administrator for awarded grants.
Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA)
In 2023, The Minnesota Legislature authorized aid payments to counties, cities and Tribal
Nations with the goal to fund affordable housing projects and help organizations provide
affordable and supportive housing. The payments are funded through a dedicated .25%
Metropolitan Area sales tax and is disbursed directly to cities with a population greater than
10,000 on a formulaic basis determined by the State. As sales taxes will vary, the amount of
LAHA distributed will also vary from year to year.
LAHA is required to supplement existing city funding for affordable housing and not supplant or
replace existing dollars. In 2024 the City received $330,000 and in 2025 the City is expected to
receive $848,000.
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 3) Page 8
Title: TIF and other financial tools and incentives discussion
LAHA affordability requirements:
At or below 80% AMI for rental housing (below 80% AMI for emergency rental
assistance)
At or below 115% AMI for ownership housing, with priority for households at or
below 80% AMI
Allowable uses include:
• Emergency rental assistance and operating emergency shelter facilities
• Financial support to non-profit affordable housing providers
• Qualifying ownership or rental projects, including new construction, rehabilitation and
gap financing
• Operations and management of financially distressed residential properties; and
• Supportive services and staff for supportive housing
Administration of programs or use of funds is not an eligible expenditure of LAHA. Many cities
use the funding for single-family rehab programs, down payment assistance and grants/loans in
the form of gap financing for construction of new affordable units.
Met Council – Livable Communities Grants
• Supports projects that advance the region’s Livable Communities and Thrive MSP 2040
goals.
• Prioritizes deeply affordable housing (units affordable at 30%–50% AMI), strong
community engagement in project design, and transit-oriented development that
enhances sense of place.
• Highly competitive.
Hennepin County – Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Programs
• Environmental Response Fund (ERF): Assists with site contamination investigation and
cleanup.
• TOC Grants: Supports mixed-use, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly development near
high-quality transit, with design features that enhance the public realm and reduce
parking demand.
• Southwest Community Works Grants: Provides funding for infrastructure projects that
improve connections to light rail station areas.
• The city routinely applies for these grants when eligible projects are identified.
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED)
• Offers multiple programs, including:
o Contamination cleanup and investigation grants for polluted sites.
o Redevelopment grants to support reuse of underutilized properties.
• The city routinely applies for these grants when site contamination is identified.
Affordable Housing Trust Fund
The city created an Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) in 2018 to provide a source of funds
to facilitate the housing needs of low- and moderate-income individuals and families of the city.
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 3) Page 9
Title: TIF and other financial tools and incentives discussion
Development projects which create and/or preserve affordable housing units (including
affordable rental units, homeownership units and rent subsidies) are eligible to receive funding
from the AHTF upon verification of financial need. The residential portions of mixed-use and
live/work projects that meet the affordability requirements of these guidelines are eligible for
assistance. This funding may also be provided to assist in the creation of common areas,
meeting space, and other space for use by the residents of the subsidized units. Projects
specified under the Inclusionary Housing Policy may be assisted, provided the assistance from
the AHTF is used to create a deeper level of affordability or an increase in the number of
affordable units than is required under that policy.
Other Opportunities
Staff continually monitor and pursue additional grant opportunities from regional, state, and
federal sources, as well as foundations and other outside entities, to further support
reinvestment in St. Louis Park.
Applicable city policies
When a development project receives financial assistance from the EDA/city, it is required to
meet one or more of the city’s strategic priorities as well as various city policies and adhere to
their respective requirements including the Inclusionary Housing Policy, the Green Building
Policy and the city’s Diversity Equity and Inclusion Policy.
Inclusionary Housing Policy: requires a minimum of one of the following levels of affordability
for 26 years.
• 5% of the units affordable at 30% area median income
• 10% of the units affordable at 50% area median income; or
• 20% of the units affordable at 60% area median income.
Area median income (AMI) is calculated annually by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), and is posted by Minnesota Housing. The affordable units must reflect a
similar makeup of the overall unit count based on bedroom size. In addition, the policy requires
a certain number of three-bedroom units, which depends on the overall size of the
development.
Green Building Policy: requires the building become certified by a third-party rating system
(such as LEED, Enterprise Green Communities, or B3), plus meet additional requirements of the
St. Louis Park overlay. The overlay includes analysis of and possible installation of on-site
renewable energy, analysis of building electrification, installation of electric vehicle charging
equipment, waste reduction and management (from reusing elements of the existing building
to construction and demolition waste minimization to planning for future waste management),
healthy soils, and stormwater management.
Diversity Equity and Inclusion Policy: The DEI Policy includes goals for workforce and
peripheral enterprises to include opportunities for women and BIPOC/AAPI construction
workers and other businesses hired by the developer in connection with the development
(attorneys, financial consultants, accountants, etc.).
Special study session meeting of October 20, 2025 (Item No. 3) Page 10
Title: TIF and other financial tools and incentives discussion
The participation goals included in the DEI Policy include:
Participation Goals Women BIPOC/AAPI
Business Organization 10% 13%
Business Enterprises 6% 13%
Workforce 20% 32%
Peripheral Enterprises 6% 13%
Next steps: None. EDA commissioner/city council members are encouraged to bring any
questions related to various public financial assistance tools to the study session.