Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026/04/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular AGENDA APRIL 6, 2026 6:00 p.m. Economic Development Authority meeting – Council Chambers 1. Call to order. 2. Approve agenda. 3. Minutes. a. EDA meeting minutes of March 23, 2026 4. Consent items. a. Approve EDA disbursements b. Resolution authorizing application for the Met Council Livable Communities grant for Beltline Boulevard Redevelopment project - Ward 1 c. Resolution authorizing application for the Met Council Livable Communities grant for Wooddale Station Redevelopment project - Ward 2 d. Resolution authorizing application for a Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund grant for Wooddale Station Redevelopment project - Ward 2 5. Public hearings – none. 6. Regular business – none. 7. Communications and announcements – none. 8. Adjournment. 6:15 p.m. City council meeting – Council Chambers 1. Call to order. a. Roll call. b. Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Approve agenda. 3. Presentations. a. Recognition of retirement of facilities maintenance public service worker Ken Kaiser b. Proclamation observing Deaf History Month c. Proclamation observing Genocide Awareness and Prevention Month d. Proclamation observing Neurodiversity Celebration Month e. Proclamation observing Arbor Day and Arbor Month 2026 4. Minutes. a. Special city council meeting minutes of March 9, 2026 b. Study session meeting minutes of March 9, 2026 c. City council meeting minutes of March 23, 2026 d. Special study session meeting minutes of March 23, 2026 5. Consent items. a. Resolution recognizing retirement of Ken Kaiser b. Approve city disbursements c. Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Agenda EDA, city council and special study session meetings of April 6, 2026 d.Approve bid for 2026 Mill and Overlay (Area 2) project (4026-1200) – Wards 1 and 2 e.Approve bid for 2026 Concrete Replacement project (4026-0003) f.Resolution authorizing acceptance of the Hennepin County IGNITE funding award - Ward 2 g.Resolutions authorizing application for the Minnesota DEED contamination cleanup and investigation grant for Wooddale Station redevelopment project - Ward 2 h.Resolution authorizing application for the Met Council Water Efficiency grant i.Resolution authorizing submission of grant application and execution of grant agreement for citywide sanitary sewer lining projects j.Resolution approving agreements for vehicle towing and impound and impound lot lease k.Resolution designating polling places for 2026 election cycle l.Approve temporary/seasonal premises amendments for liquor establishments m.Approve temporary extension of licensed premises - Ullsperger Brewing n.Resolution accepting a donation to the city for Kim Keller to attend the 2026 ICMA Local Government Reimagined conference 6. Public hearings - none. 7. Regular business. a.Resolution adopting Vision 4.0 Strategic Priorities 8. Communications and announcements – none. 9. Adjournment. Following city council meeting – Special study session – Council Chambers Discussion items 1. Separation ordinance discussion Automated License Plate Reader cameras discussion2. 2026 Market Value Update 3. Written report 4. Housing Activity Report Members of the public can attend St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and city council meetings i n person. At regular city council meetings, members of the public may comment on any item on the agenda by attending the meeting in-person or by submitting written comments to info@stlouisparkmn.gov by noon the day of the meeting. Official minutes of meetings are available on the city website once approved. Watch St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority or regular city council meetings live at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil or at www.parktv.org, or on local cable (Comcast SD channel 14/HD channel 798). Recordings of the meetings are available to watch on the city's YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/@slpcable, usually within 24 hours of the meeting’s end. City council study sessions are not broadcast. Generally, it is not council practice to receive public comment during study sessions. The council chambers are equipped with Hearing Loop equipment and headsets are available to borrow. If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952.924.2505. Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Minutes: 3a Unofficial minutes EDA meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota March 23, 2026 1. Call to order President Farris called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. a. Roll call. Commissioners present: Daniel Bashore, Jim Engelking, Sue Budd, Tim Brausen, Paul Baudhuin, President Yolanda Farris Commissioner absent: Nadia Mohamed Staff present: city manager (Ms. Keller), city attorney (Ms. Asani), deputy engineering director (Mr. Sullivan), parks and recreation director (Mr. West), Westwood Hills Nature Center manager (Mr. Oestreich), secretary program aide (Ms. Mandler) 2. Approve agenda. It was moved by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Brausen, to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Mohamed absent). 3. Minutes. a. EDA meeting minutes of March 2, 2026 It was moved by Commissioner Engelking, seconded by Commissioner Bashore, to approve the EDA meeting minutes of March 2, 2026, as presented. The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Mohamed absent). 4. Consent item. a. EDA Resolution No. 26-08 establishing EDA bank signatories It was moved by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Baudhuin, to approve the consent items as listed and to waive reading of all resolutions. The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Mohamed absent). 5. Public hearings – none. Economic development authority meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: Meeting minutes of March 23, 2026 6. Regular business – none. 7. Communications and announcements – none. 8. Adjournment. The EDA meeting adjourned at 6:02 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Yolanda Farris, president These minutes were created with the assistance of a generative AI transcript service, then edited and finalized by a city staff person. Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Consent agenda item: 4a Executive summary Title: Approve EDA disbursements Recommended action: Motion to approve EDA disbursement claims for the period of Feb. 24 through March 30, 2026. Policy consideration: Does the EDA approve the disbursements listed for the period ending March 30, 2026? Summary: The finance division prepares this report monthly for the EDA to review and approve. The attached report shows both EDA disbursements paid by physical check and those by wire transfer or Automated Clearing House (ACH) when applicable. Financial or budget considerations: Review and approval of disbursements by the EDA is required and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal stewardship. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: EDA disbursement summary Prepared by: Estela Mulugeta, accounting specialist Reviewed by: Joe Olson, acting finance director Karen Barton, EDA executive director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager PAYEE NAME BUSINESS UNIT OBJECT ACCOUNT Total BELTLINE MIXED USE LLC Development - EDA G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 4,284,119.17 BELTLINE MIXED USE LLC Total 4,284,119.17 CAMPBELL KNUTSON,P.A.Development - EDA G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 694.25 EDA - 4300 36 1/2 G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 3,474.99 CAMPBELL KNUTSON,P.A. Total 4,169.24 CENTERPOINT ENERGY EDA - 4300 36 1/2 G&A Heating Gas Utility 1,902.16 CENTERPOINT ENERGY Total 1,902.16 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC Development - EDA G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,622.50 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC Total 1,622.50 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY TAX Development - EDA G&A Taxes, Special Assmt, Int Pen 33,306.54 EDA - Impound/Water Tower G&A Taxes, Special Assmt, Int Pen 8,657.68 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY TAX Total 41,964.22 HKGI Development - EDA G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 24,518.40 HKGI Total 24,518.40 PPL UNION PARK FLATS COMMUNITY LIMITED Development - EDA G&A Other Government Pass Through 171,901.00 PPL UNION PARK FLATS COMMUNITY LIMITED Total 171,901.00 XCEL ENERGY EDA - 4300 36 1/2 G&A Electric Utility 366.21 XCEL ENERGY Total 366.21 4,530,562.90 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK EDA Payment Summary 2/24/2026 - 3/30/26 Economic Development Authority meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approve EDA disbursements Page 2 Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Consent agenda item: 4b Executive summary Title: Resolution authorizing application for the Met Council Livable Communities grant for Beltline station redevelopment project - Ward 1 Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the application for – and, upon award, acceptance of the award – a grant for the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities grant to support the Beltline station redevelopment 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 redevelopment project? Summary: If awarded, this grant will support the ongoing Beltline station redevelopment project by helping to offset higher than anticipated construction costs currently being incurred by Sherman Associates, the developer. The Beltline station redevelopment includes 380 units of multifamily housing, including 82 affordable units. The redevelopment also includes more than 21,000 square feet of commercial space and a parking ramp that includes 269 park and ride stalls for the Beltline station of the Metro Green Line light rail extension. Financial or budget considerations: None. 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, planning and economic development manager Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Page 2 Economic development authority meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4b) Title: Resolution authorizing application for the Met Council Livable Communities grant for Beltline station redevelopment project - Ward 1 EDA Resolution No. 26-__ Authorizing application for the Met Council Livable Communities grant for the Beltline Station redevelopment project and accepting grant funds if awarded Whereas, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (authority) is eligible to make application for grant funds from the Met Council Livable Communities grant; and Whereas, the grant funds will be used for the Beltline Station redevelopment project 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 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 Met Council Livable Communities 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. Page 3 Economic development authority meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4b) Title: Resolution authorizing application for the Met Council Livable Communities grant for Beltline station redevelopment project - Ward 1 Reviewed for administration: ____________________________________ Karen Barton, executive director Attest: ____________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, secretary Adopted by the Economic Development Authority April 6, 2026: ____________________________________ Yolanda Farris, president Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Consent agenda item: 4c Executive summary Title: Resolution authorizing application for the Met Council Livable Communities grant for Wooddale Station Redevelopment project – Ward 2 Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the application for - and, upon award, acceptance of the award - a grant for the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities grant to support the Wooddale Station redevelopment 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 Wooddale Station redevelopment project? Summary: The St. Louis Park EDA entered into a preliminary development agreement with Sentinel Management Company on March 2, 2026 to redevelop the Wooddale Station redevelopment site, which includes a city-owned parcel at 5950 36th Street West. The proposed redevelopment includes a new mixed-use building with approximately 265 apartments, including approximately 58 affordable units and approximately 7,000 square foot commercial space. If awarded, the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities grant will support environmental cleanup and construction costs at the Wooddale Station redevelopment site. Financial or budget considerations: Any grant funding received will assist with the project financial feasibility and may 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, planning and economic development manager Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Economic development authority meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Title: Resolution authorizing application for the Met Council Livable Communities grant for Wooddale Station Redevelopment project – Ward 2 EDA Resolution No. 26-__ Authorizing application for the Met Council Livable Communities grant on behalf of the Wooddale Station development project Whereas, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (authority) is eligible to make application for grant funds from the Met Council Livable Communities grant; and Whereas, the grant funds will be used for the Wooddale Station redevelopment project 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 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 Met Council Livable Communities 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 April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4c) Page 3 Title: Resolution authorizing application for the Met Council Livable Communities grant for Wooddale Station Redevelopment project – Ward 2 Reviewed for administration: ____________________________________ Karen Barton, executive director Attest: ____________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, secretary Adopted by the Economic Development Authority April 6, 2026: ____________________________________ Yolanda Farris, president Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Consent agenda item: 4d Executive summary Title: Resolution authorizing application for a Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund grant for the Wooddale Station Redevelopment project – Ward 2 Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the application for - and upon award, acceptance of the award - a grant from the Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund (ERF) to support the Wooddale Station Redevelopment project. Policy consideration: Does the economic development authority (EDA) wish to authorize an application for - and upon award, acceptance of the award - the eligible grant expenses to support the Wooddale Station Redevelopment project? Summary: The St. Louis Park EDA entered into a preliminary development agreement with Sentinel Management Company on March 2, 2026, to redevelop the Wooddale Station redevelopment site, which includes a city-owned parcel at 5950 36th Street West. The proposed redevelopment includes a new mixed-use building with approximately 265 apartments, including approximately 58 affordable units and approximately 7,000 square feet of commercial space. If awarded, the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities grant will support environmental cleanup and construction costs at the Wooddale Station redevelopment site. Financial or budget considerations: Any grant funding received will assist with the project financial feasibility and may 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, planning and economic development manager Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Economic development authority meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4d) Page 2 Title: Resolution authorizing application for a Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund grant for the Wooddale Station Redevelopment project – Ward 2 EDA Resolution No. 26-___ Authorizing application for the Hennepin County ERF grant on behalf of the Wooddale Station redevelopment 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 Wooddale Station redevelopment project 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 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 April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4d) Page 3 Title: Resolution authorizing application for a Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund grant for the Wooddale Station Redevelopment project – Ward 2 Reviewed for administration: ____________________________________ Karen Barton, executive director Attest: ____________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, secretary Adopted by the Economic Development Authority April 6, 2026: ____________________________________ Yolanda Farris, president Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Presentation: 3a Executive summary Title: Recognition of retirement of facilities maintenance public service worker Ken Kaiser Recommended action: Read resolution and present plaque to Ken for his years of service to the City of St. Louis Park. Policy consideration: None. Summary: City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over 20 years of service will be presented with a resolution from the mayor, city manager and city council. Ken will be in attendance for the presentation at the beginning of the meeting. The mayor is asked to read the resolution for Ken in recognition of his years of service to the city. Financial or budget considerations: None applicable. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Resolution attached to item 5a Prepared by: Barb Lamfers, human resources technician Jason Eisold, facilities superintendent Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Presentation: 3b Executive summary Title: Proclamation observing Deaf History Month Recommended action: Mayor to read proclamation observing Deaf History Month. Policy consideration: None Summary: Deaf History Month has been observed since 1997 as a commemoration of several key moments in American Deaf history that took place within the month of April. This month brings awareness to the history, achievements and challenges within the Deaf experience in the United States. Efforts are ongoing to designate Deaf History Month as a federally recognized holiday. Financial or budget considerations: None 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: Resource page Proclamation Prepared by: Jocelyn I Hernandez Guitron, racial equity and inclusion specialist Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Title: Proclamation observing Deaf History Month Resource page To honor Deaf History Month, the City of St. Louis Park invites you to: • Educate yourself and others about the history and experiences of the Deaf: o Deaf history - Sign Language, Education, Advocacy | Britannica o National Deaf History Month: Exploring the Record of Advocacy – The JFK Library Archives: An Inside Look o Welcome · History Through Deaf Eyes · National Deaf Life Museum o NAD - National Association of the Deaf o No Longer Deaf to the Past | History Today • Connect with various organizations for Deaf and Hard of Hearing communities: o 40 Year Anniversary Message from Deaf, DeafBlind & Hard of Hearing State Services o About | MADC o About - National Deaf Center o Deaf Equity City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 3b) Page 3 Title: Proclamation observing Deaf History Month Proclamation observing “Deaf History Month” Whereas, the deaf community includes those who are born without the ability to hear and those who lose their hearing; and Whereas, deafness is not new to humans and records of deaf individuals date back to ancient Egypt and Greece while society’s perceptions and treatment of deafness has evolved; and Whereas, there is a rich history of deaf individuals and communities in the United States, including Gallaudet University, the world’s only liberal arts university specifically for deaf people; and Whereas, deaf people have made great strides through advocacy and language and it is up to hearing individuals to educate and create awareness to ensure full equity and inclusion to meet the needs of our deaf neighbors, colleagues, leaders and loved ones; and Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion and strives to be a place of welcoming and belonging for deaf people, their culture and language; and Whereas, although the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides some protections for deaf people, there is much more that can be done to make employment, participation and civic life fully accessible for deaf people, Now therefore let it be known that the mayor and city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, hereby proclaim April 2026 as Deaf History Month in St. Louis Park. Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this 6th day of April 2026. _________________________________ Nadia Mohamed, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Presentation: 3c Executive summary Title: Proclamation observing Genocide Awareness and Prevention Month Recommended action: Mayor to read proclamation observing Genocide Awareness and Prevention Month. Policy consideration: None. Summary: Genocide Awareness and Prevention Month is held each April to honor the victims of genocide. This month was chosen because tragically, multiple genocides have begun in April; entire cultures, communities and nations were destroyed and ruined. Financial or budget considerations: None. 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: Resource page Proclamation Prepared by: Jocelyn I Hernandez Guitron, racial equity and inclusion specialist Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 3c) Page 2 Title: Proclamation observing Genocide Awareness and Prevention Month Resource page To honor Genocide Awareness and Prevention Month, the City of St. Louis Park invites you to: • Educate yourself and others about the history of genocide worldwide: o Resources | Holocaust and Genocide Studies | College of Liberal Arts o Cases of Genocide - The Genocide Education Project o Genocide Awareness and Prevention Toolkit | hrwstf.org • Learn about the the stories of genocide survivors. Please note that stories of genocide are painful, graphic and describe real atrocities - reader discretion is advised. o Stories of Survival and Remembrance - A call to action for genocide prevention | United Nations o MN Survivors, Liberators, and Witnesses o Background · The Gendered Dimensions of Genocide · Santa Clara University Digital Exhibits City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 3c) Page 3 Title: Proclamation observing Genocide Awareness and Prevention Month Proclamation “Genocide Awareness and Prevention Month” Whereas, this month is a call to remain steadfast in our recognition of the horrors of genocide and work collectively to prevent further harm for victims and prevent future atrocities; and Whereas, the word, “genocide” came from the atrocities witnessed during the Holocaust during World War II and has since then been further defined by the United Nations as specific acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group; and Whereas, across the world, survivors of genocide and their descendants face challenges of trauma, recovery and rebuilding their lives. Each survivor of genocide has a story and is more than a statistic; and Whereas, learning the truth about how genocides begin and unfold is essential to our ability to protect one another and ensure these horrors never happen again to anyone, anywhere; and Whereas, honoring International Holocaust Remembrance Day is an opportunity to recommit ourselves to standing against actions or inactions which dehumanize, displace and bring violence to any group of people, religion, age, race, ability or sexual orientation, Now therefore, let it be known that the mayor and city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, hereby proclaim April 2026, as Genocide Awareness and Prevention Month in St. Louis Park. Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this 6th day of April 2026. _________________________________ Nadia Mohamed, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Presentation: 3d Executive summary Title: Proclamation observing Neurodiversity Celebration Month Recommended action: Mayor to read proclamation observing Neurodiversity Celebration Month. Policy consideration: None Summary: Neurodiversity Celebration Month is an expansion of several dates in April that bring awareness to conditions like autism, ADHD, dyslexia and bipolar. Making the shift from awareness to celebration is one way of promoting understanding of neurodiversity. For local government, this is another part of ensuring all residents have access to city services and programs. Financial or budget considerations: None 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: Resource page Proclamation Prepared by: Jocelyn I Hernandez Guitron, racial equity and inclusion specialist; Neuroinclusion employee resource group Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 3d) Page 2 Title: Proclamation observing Neurodiversity Celebration Month Resource page To observe Neurodiversity Celebration Month, the City of St. Louis Park invites you to: • Explore Neurodiversity: o Neurodiversity Celebration Month | American Association of School Librarians o Embracing Neurodiversity: A Celebration of Acceptance and Inclusion | Los Angeles Public Library o Neurodivergence at a Glance – Imagine | Johns Hopkins University City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 3d) Page 3 Title: Proclamation observing Neurodiversity Celebration Month Proclamation observing “Neurodiversity Celebration Month” Whereas, Neurodiversity describes the idea that people experience and interact with the world around them in many different ways; there is no one "right" way of thinking, learning, and behaving and our differences are not viewed as deficits; and Whereas, this term encompasses all types of neurodiversity conditions of which 15 to 20% of the world’s population show signs, including autism, dyslexia, ADHD and bipolar, and acknowledges the diversity of brain function and behavior; and Whereas, April 2nd is World Autism Day and many organizations celebrate the whole month as Autism Acceptance Month. In recognition of Autism and neurodivergence as a whole, our city is observing Neurodiversity Celebration Month; and Whereas, the city recreation facilities and events offer sensory kits and sensory hours as a first step towards creating more inclusive opportunities for neurodiverse participation; and Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to being an inclusive community that embraces neurodiversity and encourages staff to continue learning about neurodivergence and exploring opportunities to be more welcoming of neurodivergent employees and residents, Now therefore let it be known that the mayor and city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, hereby proclaim April 2026 as Neurodiversity Celebration Month in St. Louis Park. Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this 6th day of April 2026. _________________________________ Nadia Mohamed, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Presentation: 3e Executive summary Title: Proclamation observing Arbor Day and Arbor Month 2026 Recommended action: Mayor is asked to read the proclamation designating Thursday, May 14, 2026, as Arbor Day and May 2026 as Arbor Month. Policy consideration: Not applicable. Summary: Arbor Day is a day dedicated to the city’s trees and woodlands. Trees and woodlands are essential in creating a healthy and sustainable community, improving mental and physical health, providing wildlife habitat, filtering pollutants from both air and water, and mitigating the effects of climate change. Promoting Arbor Day helps raise awareness of the significant role trees and woodlands play in our urban community. It also encourages residents to support efforts to protect our trees and forested areas, along with supporting the city’s urban forestry program. In addition to this proclamation, the initiative will be promoted on the city’s website and through social media. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. Supporting documents: Proclamation Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, administrative coordinator Reviewed by: Michael Bahe, natural resources manager Jason T. West, parks and recreation director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 3e) Page 2 Title: Proclamation observing Arbor Day and Arbor Month 2026 Proclamation observing “Arbor Day” on May 14, 2026 and “Arbor Month” during May 2026 Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park has a long history of celebrating trees and has been recognized as a “Tree City USA” since 1980; and Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is also recognized as a “Tree City of the World” and desires to continue in its tree planting ways; and Whereas, the health of people is tied to urban trees and, wherever planted, trees are a source of joy and spiritual renewal; and Whereas, healthy trees intercept stormwater, reducing and filtering pollutants from water runoff; and Whereas, established trees and woodlands provide vital ecosystem services that sustain local food webs by providing food, nesting resources and shelter for urban wildlife; and Whereas, strategically planting and caring for trees in our built environment can significantly reduce air temperatures, mitigating the impact of climate change on our physical health. Now therefore, let it be known that the mayor and city council of the City of St. Louis Park do hereby proclaim May 14, 2026, as Arbor Day and the month of May 2026 as Arbor Month in St. Louis Park. Let it further be known that we urge all citizens to support efforts that protect our trees and woodlands, and to support our city’s urban forestry program. Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this 6th day of April 2026. _________________________________ Nadia Mohamed, Mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Minutes: 4a Unofficial minutes Special city council meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota March 9, 2026 1. Call to order. Mayor Mohamed called the meeting to order at 8:06 p.m. a. Pledge of Allegiance. b. Roll call. Council members present: Daniel Bashore, Jim Engelking, Tim Brausen, Paul Baudhuin, Mayor Nadia Mohamed Council members absent: Yolanda Farris, Sue Budd Staff present: city manager (Ms. Keller) 2. Approve agenda. It was moved by Council Member Brausen, seconded by Council Member Baudhuin, to approve the agenda. The motion passed 5-0 (Council Members Budd and Farris absent). 3. Presentations - none. 4. Minutes – none. 5. Consent items – none. 6. Public hearings – none. 7. Regular business. a. Resolution No. 26-037 approving Cities for Safe and Stable Communities Coalition memorandum of understanding Mayor Mohamed stated that the memorandum of understanding (MOU) allows the City of St. Louis Park to participate in the Cities for Safe and Stable Communities Coalition, a group of metro area cities that seek to be made whole from the ongoing impacts made by the actions of Operation Metro Surge. She pointed out that since Jan. 1, 2026, metro area cities have been challenged to provide basic services and good governance. Momentum Advocacy was selected to lead the coalition’s legislative advocacy actions. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4a) Page 2 Title: Special city council meeting minutes of March 9, 2026 Mayor Mohamed asked for a current count of cities participating in the coalition. Ms. Keller confirmed that at present, there are 30 member cities. Mayor Mohamed noted that coalition member mayors have given testimony before the Minnesota State Legislature. Advocacy work is planned at the federal level as well. Mayor Mohamed summarized the intent of the coalition, emphasizing that when 30 cities come together in reaction to the economic instability caused by Operation Metro Surge, their unified voice cannot be ignored. The coalition is advocating for immediate de-escalation and acknowledgement of economic harms, including potential 2026 relief funds to cities. Council Member Brausen asked for clarification on the cost of participation. Mayor Mohamed clarified that the total cost is to be shared among all member cities. Ms. Keller added that the MOU indicates a monthly fee of $10,000 to Momentum Advocacy for services rendered on behalf of the coalition. The monthly fee is shared between the 30 participating cities; St. Louis Park’s portion of monthly fees is very low. Council Member Baudhuin referenced the mention of advocacy work at the federal level and asked for specifics. Ms. Keller stated that staff is working with Momentum Advocacy to prepare for the National League of Cities Congressional Conference taking place in Washington D.C., March 16 through 18, 2026. Planning is taking place regarding which of the coalition cities are also attending the conference, recruitment opportunities and planned meetings with the Minnesota delegation. Council Member Bashore stated that the resolution does not change any of the city’s work with the coalition but does formalize the relationship. Mayor Mohamed confirmed that metro area mayors had been in communication as early as November 2025. This resolution documents and gives power to St. Louis Park’s participation. Council Member Engelking estimated that the city’s total cost to participate with the coalition is around $1,500. He noted this is a modest amount to invest towards undoing the financial harms caused by Operation Metro Surge. Council Member Baudhuin thanked Ms. Keller and Mayor Mohamed for all their work to bring the city into the coalition. Council Member Bashore agreed and added his thanks. It was moved by Council Member Brausen, seconded by Council Member Bashore, to approve Resolution No. 26-037 approving a memorandum of understanding with the Cities for Safe and Stable Communities Coalition. The motion passed 5-0 (Council Members Budd and Farris absent). City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4a) Page 3 Title: Special city council meeting minutes of March 9, 2026 8. Communications and announcements. Council Member Baudhuin noted that there is no city council meeting next week, as members of the council will be attending a national conference. Mayor Mohamed added that one of the goals of attending the conference is to meet with legislators to secure funding for local projects. Mayor Mohamed invited all to attend an Iftar dinner on Friday, March 13, 2026. The dinner will be hosted by the Students Organized for Anti-Racism (SOAR) and the Muslim Student Association at St. Louis Park High School. The dinner starts at 6:00 p.m. 9. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor These minutes were created with the assistance of a generative AI transcript service, then edited and finalized by a city staff person. Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Minutes: 4b Unofficial minutes Study session meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota March 9, 2026 The meeting convened at 6:02 p.m. Council Members present: Mayor Nadia Mohamed, Daniel Bashore, Jim Engelking, Tim Brausen, Paul Baudhuin Council Members absent: Sue Budd, Yolanda Farris Staff present: city manager (Ms. Keller), community development director and interim building and energy director (Ms. Barton), public works director (Mr. Hall), engineering director (Ms. Heiser), redevelopment administrator (Mr. Porter-Nelson), planning and economic development manager (Ms. Monson), deputy engineering director (Mr. Sullivan), deputy community development director (Mr. Walther), parks and recreation director (Mr. West) Guests: Becky Bakken, president and CEO of Westopolis; Julia Spencer, Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC); Brenda Lano-Wolke, Homes Within Reach; Cathy Capone Bennett, Community Consulting; Chelsea Moore Ritchie, Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc. Discussion items 1. Westopolis annual update Ms. Bakken presented the organization's annual update to the city council. She explained that Westopolis operates under Minnesota state statute as a nonprofit 501(c)(6) organization funded by lodging tax to market and promote St. Louis Park and Golden Valley as tourism destinations. Ms. Bakken reported that tourism in Minnesota generated $16.8 billion in visitor spending in 2024, contributing $2.4 billion in state and local taxes and supporting over 182,000 jobs. She noted that visitor spending saved each Minnesota household more than $1,000 in taxes that would otherwise need to be collected locally. The Westopolis market consists of nine hotels along the I-394 corridor, with seven in St. Louis Park and two in Golden Valley. In 2025, hotel guests generated more than $98 million in visitor spending throughout the communities. Ms. Bakken reported that 10% of all spending in St. Louis Park and Golden Valley came from visitors, with 71% of visitors coming from out of state. Ms. Bakken presented lodging tax data showing recovery from the pandemic, with 2025 collections at $1.265 million compared to the 2019 peak of $1.268 million. She explained that corporate meeting and event business has not fully returned to pre-pandemic levels due to companies doing fewer meetings, sending fewer people, and dealing with increased costs and market volatility. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Title: Study session meeting minutes of March 9, 2026 The organization's 2025 sales summary showed leads up 8% and room nights up 74% over 2024. Reunion and wedding leads increased 12%, while third-party leads showed a 29% increase in awarded leads despite lower overall lead counts. Mayor Mohamed asked about the January 2024 occupancy dip shown in the charts. Ms. Bakken explained this was typical first-quarter seasonal decline when people travel less in January both nationally and to their market specifically. Council Member Baudhuin asked whether Westopolis could track visitors staying locally for downtown Minneapolis events. Ms. Bakken confirmed they can track primary and secondary locations, noting that major events at US Bank Stadium and Twins games consistently fill their hotels. Mayor Mohamed inquired about the impact of ICE operations that occurred during January. Ms. Bakken reported their best January in three years, partly due to groups moving out from downtown Minneapolis. However, she noted that while hotels benefited from occupancy, the broader community did not see the typical economic benefits as visitors were not engaging with local restaurants and attractions. Ms. Keller added that hoteliers experienced significant stress during this period, with staff safety concerns and hotels becoming focal points within the community. Council Member Brausen asked about visitor spending data, noting that visitors from La Crosse and Eau Claire, Wisconsin spent $116 per person while Minneapolis visitors spent only $51. Ms. Bakken explained that out-of-state visitors typically stay overnight and spend more, while Minneapolis visitors are usually day visitors who spend less but still contribute to the local economy. Council Member Baudhuin asked about leveraging Theodore Wirth Park more effectively, particularly following the successful World Cup cross-country skiing event in 2024. Ms. Bakken acknowledged ongoing efforts and noted that FIS has expressed interest in returning, though Theo Wirth faces challenges as a small operation relying heavily on volunteers and being managed by Minneapolis Parks. 2. Application for financial assistance for Minnetonka Boulevard Twin Homes – Ward 1 Mr. Porter-Nelson presented the staff report on the application for financial assistance for the Minnetonka Boulevard Twin Homes project located at 5639 to 5707 Minnetonka Boulevard. Mr. Porter-Nelson and Ms. Monson introduced Ms. Spencer, Ms. Lano-Wolke and Ms. Capone Bennett. Mr. Porter-Nelson explained that the project involves four parcels currently owned by the city, formerly owned by the Economic Development Authority (EDA) until recently transferred. The parcels previously contained substandard single-family homes that were demolished. The redevelopment timeline began in 2018 with EDA purchasing the substandard homes, followed by a preliminary development agreement with GMHC in 2021, demolition in 2022 and receipt of a $3 million congressionally directed spending grant in 2023. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4b) Page 3 Title: Study session meeting minutes of March 9, 2026 Council Member Engelking asked about a sliver of land between parcels. Ms. Spencer explained it belongs to Colonial Apartments to the east and provides required street frontage access for their parking lot, though actual access comes through an alley. Council Member Engelking inquired about environmental remediation responsibilities. Ms. Capone Bennett confirmed that most contamination was found on the eastern portion of the site, with Colonial Apartments having been tested and found to have less contamination on their strip. Ms. Spencer described GMHC as a nonprofit housing developer with over 55 years of experience supporting affordable homeownership goals. The organization has a strong record of selling to BIPOC buyers and first-time homebuyers while building sustainable, energy- efficient homes. Ms. Lano-Wolke explained that Homes Within Reach serves as the community land trust for St. Louis Park, having helped over 300 households achieve homeownership at an average of 58% Area Median Income (AMI). The land trust model retains ownership of the land while selling the structure to families, creating lasting affordability while enabling equity building. The organization currently has 27 homes in St. Louis Park's land trust model with three under rehabilitation. The project consists of four twin homes totaling eight units with three or four bedrooms and 795-1,000 square feet each. Ms. Spencer noted the homes will have permanent affordability under the Homes Within Reach Land Trust and will be built to Department of Energy Zero Energy Ready standards with solar readiness, Minnesota Green Community Standards compliance, and Energy Star certification. Ms. Capone Bennett outlined challenging site conditions including varied topography requiring grading and retaining walls, alley reconstruction, and extensive environmental remediation. She reported that phase 1 and phase 2 environmental assessments found extensive fill material of unknown origin including incinerated waste, cinders, slag, broken glass and metal debris. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency approved a response action plan for residential cleanup standards. Council Member Brausen asked about remediation costs. Mr. Porter-Nelson confirmed approximately $870,000 in total cleanup costs covered by Hennepin County and Metropolitan Council grants. Mr. Porter-Nelson noted strong policy alignment with the city's inclusionary housing policy since all homes will be marketed to buyers at or below 80% AMI. The project also aligns with green building policies through Zero Energy Ready standards and other efficiency features. The location provides good transit access near the new bike and walking path on Minnetonka Boulevard and proximity to the Beltline Park and Ride. The funding stack includes cleanup grants, a $1 million Hennepin County Accelerator loan expiring at year-end, $3 million in HUD congressionally directed funds, Minnesota Housing City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4b) Page 4 Title: Study session meeting minutes of March 9, 2026 Impact funds, a private construction loan to be repaid through home sales, and the requested $400,000 from the affordable housing trust fund. Council Member Brausen confirmed that the congressionally directed funding was specifically designated for this project by the city council in summer 2025. Mayor Mohamed expressed strong personal support for the project, praising the team's work in securing funding sources and emphasizing the importance of providing affordable homeownership opportunities with green building features for lower-income communities. Council Member Brausen supported all policy questions, noting that the subsidy seemed reasonable for affordable homeownership units and aligned with the increased affordable housing trust fund budget. Council Member Baudhuin also supported the project, appreciating the collaboration to find additional funding sources and noting this was the first request for actual city funds despite the project's long timeline. Council Member Baudhuin asked about coordination with Spirit of Christ Lutheran Church regarding their adjacent land. Ms. Spencer confirmed preliminary conversations had begun with the church about their future options, though timing did not align with the current development. Ms. Monson noted earlier discussions about potential access sharing which had not been feasible due to steep grades on the west side of the site. Council Member Engelking asked about the equity development process in the land trust model. Ms. Lano-Wolke explained that the ground lease requires resale to families at 80% AMI or below, with Homes Within Reach maintaining first right of refusal. The resale formula provides homeowners with mortgage paydown amounts, any forgivable down payment assistance received, and 35% of property value increases. Homeowners also qualify for property tax reductions of about 25% through the 4d(2) classification if they remain in good standing. Council Member Engelking asked about a homeowner’s association (HOA) structure. Ms. Lano- Wolke confirmed separate lots with shared party wall agreements and a master agreement for snow removal and garbage service rather than a traditional HOA, allowing individual lawn maintenance responsibility. Council Member Brausen asked about financing options. Ms. Lano-Wolke explained buyers must meet higher standards than open market purchases, including minimum 640 credit scores, $1,000 of their own money, and $2,000 in reserve funds. The organization works with about a dozen approved conventional mortgage lenders, some offering housing-specific products and partnerships with Habitat for Humanity Lending for additional down payment assistance. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4b) Page 5 Title: Study session meeting minutes of March 9, 2026 Mr. Porter-Nelson outlined next steps, including the review of purchase and redevelopment business terms in April 2026, contract approval consideration in May 2026, and a June 2026 construction start to complete homes before 2027 Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction. 3. Safe Streets Action Plan overview Mr. Sullivan presented the staff report on the Safe Streets Action Plan overview and introduced Ms. Moore. Mr. Sullivan explained the plan provides a data-driven framework to guide future safety investments supporting the goal of eliminating fatal and severe crashes by 2050, though recognizing this aspirational goal endorsed by national transportation agencies would not eliminate all crashes but focus on the most severe incidents. Ms. Moore Ritchie outlined the 18-month development process beginning with data collection in summer and fall 2024, examining crash locations, high-risk infrastructure, equity considerations including proximity to affordable housing and transit, and community-identified safety concerns. The process included citywide engagement reaching over 600 participants who provided feedback on safety concerns and project prioritization. The team worked with technical advisory and stakeholder committees through winter and spring 2025 to develop a prioritization methodology ranking every city block. This created a heat map identifying high-priority locations and developing two-part recommendations: location identification for future projects and strategies addressing the safe system approach. Key engagement themes included traffic management and speed control, pedestrian and bicycle safety at intersections, and positive feedback on the city's multimodal infrastructure investments. Comments were received across all neighborhoods rather than concentrated in specific areas. Ms. Moore Ritchie explained the safe system approach addresses five elements: safe infrastructure, safe drivers/users, safe vehicles, safer post-crash care, and safer speeds. The team reviewed crash data, precedent plans from other jurisdictions, and collaborated with technical and stakeholder groups to develop an effort-versus-impact analysis focusing on easy wins and high-impact major projects while avoiding low-impact, high-effort initiatives. This analysis resulted in seven key strategies broken into 18 individual action items: • Infrastructure upgrades • Exploring new technology • Reviewing city policies and practices • Education initiatives • Safe route to school programming • Incentive programs • Additional safety evaluation and research The high injury network represents 7.5% of the road network but accounts for 61% of fatal and severe injury crashes. Ms. Moore Ritchie reported positive progress with over 25% of the high injury network already funded for reconstruction in the next one to four years, and the city City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4b) Page 6 Title: Study session meeting minutes of March 9, 2026 having reduced high injury miles by 20% from 2014 to 2023 through substantial reconstruction and safety improvements. Mr. Sullivan noted that many high injury network roads are county and state-owned, requiring partnerships and advocacy. He emphasized ongoing collaboration on projects like Minnetonka Boulevard and excluded limited-access highways like 100 and 169 while including at-grade intersections on Highway 7. He noted that Hennepin County and MnDOT participated as technical advisory committee partners. Council Member Brausen asked about crash statistics from the ten-year data period. Mr. Sullivan confirmed approximately 6,000 total crashes with 64 fatal or severe injuries representing about 1%, while property damage crashes totaled nearly 4,500. Ms. Moore Ritchie explained the prioritization methodology weighting system with fatal and severe injury crash history receiving highest weight at 40%, high-risk locations at 30%, equity considerations at 20%, and public feedback at 10%. This created tier classifications with Tier 0 locations having upcoming projects, Tier 1 representing highest-scoring mostly county and state-owned unfunded roadways, and Tier 2 offering mixed ownership with opportunities for quick-build and demonstration projects alongside long-term solutions. The plan identifies 28 priority locations with short, medium and long-term recommendations detailed in Appendix B. Ms. Moore Ritchie noted a 30-day public comment period running through March 23, 2026, coinciding with the next council discussion date. The team plans to develop an evaluation dashboard tracking progress on crash reduction, priority locations, and strategy implementation similar to other city dashboards. Mr. Sullivan outlined the timeline with public comment through March 23, 2026, final plan incorporation of feedback, and a city council vote on the Towards Zero goal and the Safe Streets Action Plan on April 6, 2026. He emphasized the plan's framework value for project prioritization and funding applications, noting original intent to secure federal implementation funding remains viable though potentially through different navigation approaches. Ms. Heiser noted that priority projects align with existing Capital Improvement Plan items, positioning the city well for implementation funding requests. She specifically mentioned seeking assistance for Minnetonka Boulevard Phase 2 and Oxford/Louisiana Avenue projects, with Oxford/Louisiana Avenue showing crash rates almost four times the fatal and severe injury rate. Mayor Mohamed asked whether crashes similar to the tragic incident at Park Tavern in 2025 would fall outside the plan's scope. Ms. Moore Ritchie confirmed the plan focuses primarily on public roadways rather than private property, though action items address incentive programs and requirements for new development to encourage private property safety measures and existing business proactive steps. Council Member Baudhuin praised the engineering department's work and the report's valuable data, particularly highlighting survey responses showing 80% of respondents primarily use cars for transportation while only 25% would prefer cars under ideal conditions. He City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4b) Page 7 Title: Study session meeting minutes of March 9, 2026 questioned how to budget and plan accordingly when 75% of residents would prefer not driving cars while most transportation resources support vehicle infrastructure. Mr. Sullivan clarified that upcoming Minnetonka Boulevard discussions would demonstrate this reframing approach, with limited discussion about vehicle lanes but extensive focus on elements outside vehicle lanes including trails, sidewalks, cycle tracks, separation features and crossing accommodations for accessing community amenities. Mayor Mohamed supported the plan as providing safe streets representing city governance's most important job. She appreciated the high-effort versus high-impact analysis and the focus on preventing severe and fatal crashes that create lasting community memories, referencing the Highway 7 and Texas Avenue fatality. Council Member Engelking noted survey data showing under 40% of respondents feel safe in most city locations, with higher safety feelings for driving than pedestrian or cycling activities. He acknowledged geographic challenges with limited north-south arterial streets due to rail corridors concentrating traffic on existing routes, making off-trail cycling particularly hazardous. Council Member Baudhuin agreed that north-south connectivity represents a significant problem for both cycling and public transit throughout the community. Council Member Engelking emphasized the importance of incorporating light rail operational data once service begins, noting inevitable safety incidents requiring mitigation planning. Council Member Engelking asked whether the plan had already influenced engineering team design processes. Ms. Heiser credited the Environment Sustainability Commission's 2018-2019 collaboration creating the living streets policy, noting many recommended elements like intersection bump-outs, street width reductions, and traffic circles were already being implemented. She emphasized the plan's value in providing a systems approach to traffic and safety that the community and council had requested, particularly for connected infrastructure system development. Council Member Brausen mentioned constituent requests for speed bumps, including temporary options, despite snow plowing challenges. Ms. Heiser noted the importance of evaluating whether solutions address actual problems or create unintended consequences in neighboring blocks. Written reports 4. Connected infrastructure system kick-off 5. Community + Civic Engagement system wrap-up The meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor These minutes were created with the assistance of a generative AI transcript service, then edited and finalized by a city staff person. Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Minutes: 4c Unofficial minutes City council meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota March 23, 2026 1. Call to order. Mayor Mohamed called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. a. Pledge of Allegiance. b. Roll call. Council members present: Daniel Bashore, Jim Engelking, Sue Budd, Tim Brausen, Yolanda Farris, Paul Baudhuin, Mayor Nadia Mohamed Council members absent: none Staff present: city manager (Ms. Keller), city attorney (Ms. Asani), administrative services director (Ms. Brodeen), public works director (Mr. Hall), fire chief (Mr. Hanlin), engineering director (Ms. Heiser), secretary program aide (Ms. Mandler), Westwood Hills Nature Center manager (Mr. Oestreich), deputy engineering director (Mr. Sullivan), human resources director (Ms. Vorpahl), deputy city manager (Ms. Walsh), deputy community development director (Mr. Walther), parks and recreation director (Mr. West) Guests: Chelsea Moore Ritchie, Short Elliott Hendrickson; Tom Sachi, resident and Stakeholder Committee Member 2. Approve agenda. It was moved by Council Member Farris, seconded by Council Member Brausen, to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 3. Presentations. a. Recognition of retirement of Westwood Hills Nature Center Secretary and Program Aide Carrie Mandler Mayor Mohamed read a resolution recognizing Ms. Mandler for her 40 years of service with the city. Ms. Mandler began employment on Jan. 27, 1986. She served as the parks and recreation department secretary for five years before spending 35 years as secretary and program aide at Westwood Hills Nature Center. The resolution highlighted her commitment to serving the community and her role in creating a welcoming environment for visitors. Mr. Oestreich, Westwood Hills Nature Center manager, honored Ms. Mandler's dedication to every visitor who walked through the doors. He noted her rare level of care and warmth in City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Title: City council meeting minutes of March 23, 2026 every interaction whether greeting someone at the front door or answering phone calls. Mr. Oestreich shared that he worked with Ms. Mandler for 36 of her 40 years and expressed that she would be deeply missed. He wished her well in retirement and hoped her time with family included plans to bring her grandchildren to Westwood Hills Nature Center for programming. Ms. Mandler expressed gratitude for the awesome support system of city employees throughout her 40 years. Ms. Mandler credited the exceptional staff for making it possible to stay in one position for four decades. She described learning about parks and recreation during her first five years in the Parks and Recreation office and being part of the history of the new nature center building in 2020. She looked forward to spending more time with her family and continuing to make a difference in enriching lives. Council Member Bashore recalled his first experience at the nature center when Ms. Mandler showed him around with kindness and warmth. He shared that the nature center is one of his favorite places and Ms. Mandler would be truly missed. Council Member Baudhuin stated that 40 years is a remarkable career and reflected on how Ms. Mandler has contributed to the city throughout her service, noting that she has served the city for over half of its existence since incorporation in 1954. Council Member Brausen shared his experiences of visiting the nature center with his grandchildren and noted Ms. Mandler’s presence as one of the constants there. He praised her for making it a warm and welcoming place where many new things about nature can be discovered. Council Member Budd expressed appreciation for her many years of visiting the nature center and recognizing the good people behind the scenes making the center what it is. She wished Ms. Mandler the best and noted excitement about her having more time with family. Mayor Mohamed acknowledged that 40 years is a significant milestone and thanked Ms. Mandler for her service; for being part of the community and family. She shared her personal connection as a former St. Louis Park Middle School student who took field trips to Westwood Hills Nature Center. She thanked both Ms. Mandler and Mr. Oestreich for making the place magical. a. Proclamation observing Unity Day on March 25, 2026 Council Member Budd read a proclamation observing March 25, 2026, as Unity Day in the City of St. Louis Park. The proclamation recognized St. Louis Park as a diverse community enriched by residents of various backgrounds, cultures, faiths and perspectives. It emphasized that the city's greatest strength lies in unity and fostering an environment of mutual respect, understanding and kindness. The proclamation called for residents to reach out to neighbors and celebrate common values that bind the community together. Residents were encouraged to wear orange and black on March 25, 2026, as a visual expression of unity. Diane Jackson, Decatur Ave. S., spoke on behalf of parent-teacher associations (PTAs) across St. Louis Park. She explained that the idea for Unity Day originated from challenges during City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4c) Page 3 Title: City council meeting minutes of March 23, 2026 Operation Metro Surge when many experienced trauma from federal government actions. She noted seeing community members pull together as helpers during difficult times. Ms. Jackson thanked various partners including Aquila parents Ross Teichner and Monica Guzzos, parent Kristen Cook, Park Spanish Immersion parent Asia Hill Dant, business leaders Stacy Atlas and Carrey Martinez of Park Prints and Hillary Feder of Hillary's Personalized Gifts. She acknowledged Council Member Budd for helping bring the initiative across the finish line. Mayor Mohamed thanked the PTA for the initiative and expressed pride in their work protecting children during traumatic times. She noted that people showed up even during cold weather. She praised the community for leading with joy and kindness; characteristics of St. Louis Park. b. Recognition of donations Mayor Mohamed recognized donations from Canadian Pacific Railway of $10,000 for fire department equipment and from 454 Training of $3,500 for fitness equipment. She thanked all donations to the city, noting that all dollar amounts are important. 4. Minutes. a. Joint meeting minutes of February 9, 2026 b. Special city council meeting minutes of February 10, 2026 c. City council meeting minutes of February 17, 2026 d. Special study session meeting minutes of February 17, 2026 e. City council workshop meeting minutes of February 26 and 27, 2026 f. City council meeting minutes of March 2, 2026 g. Closed executive session meeting minutes of March 2, 2026 It was moved by Council Member Budd, seconded by Council Member Baudhuin to approve the Feb. 9, 2026 joint meeting minutes, the Feb. 10, 2026 special city council meeting minutes, the Feb. 17 and March 2, 2026 city council meeting minutes, the Feb. 17, 2026 special study session meeting minutes, the Feb. 26 and 27, 2026 city council workshop meeting minutes and the March 2, 2026 closed executive meeting minutes as presented. The motion passed 7–0. 5. Consent items. a. Resolution No. 26-038 recognizing retirement of Carrie Mandler b. Resolution No. 26-039 accepting city manager's performance evaluation c. Resolution No. 26-040 approving 2026 - 2028 Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS) #206 labor agreement d. Approve ladder truck replacement e. Resolution No. 26-041 accepting donations to the city to support the fire department f. Resolution No. 26-042 authorizing donation of office supplies g. Resolution No. 26-043 authorizing city bank signatories City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4c) Page 4 Title: City council meeting minutes of March 23, 2026 h. Approve extension of Achromatic 6013 approvals for 6013 and 6019 Cedar Lake Road - Ward 4 i. Approve Letter of Intent for 4300 36 1/2 Street - Ward 2 j. Approve bid for 2026 Alley Reconstruction project (4026-1500) - Ward 3 k. Resolution No. 26-044 authorizing final payment for Dakota Park Infrastructure Improvements project (2122-1806) - Ward 1 l. Approve professional services agreement for Oxford Louisiana Area Infrastructure Investment project (4028-1100) - Ward 2 m. Resolution No. 26-045 appointing Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission members n. Resolution No. 26-046 authorizing application for the Met Council Municipal Inflow and Infiltration Grant Program o. Resolution No. 26-047 approving a gambling premises permit - Heroes Helping Heroes p. Approve temporary/seasonal premises amendments for liquor establishments q. Approve temporary extension of licensed premises - Copperwing Distillery Council Member Brausen commented on item 5c, 2026-2028 law enforcement labor services agreement. He thanked human resources staff for completing the agreement and law enforcement personnel for their service. He also noted item 5h approving of an extension for the Achromatic 6013 development at 6013 and 6019 Cedar Lake Road in Ward 4, explaining the developer needed additional time to secure financing under current financial circumstances and was receiving a two-year extension. Council Member Baudhuin commented on the lengthy consent agenda representing the longest he had seen during his time serving on the council. He praised staff for their work ensuring all items were in order to make the council's job easier. Mayor Mohamed noted item 5b recognizing the city manager's exemplary performance review and thanked Ms. Keller for her service. Council Member Engelking commented on item 5d for the approval of a new ladder truck for the fire department, noting the new equipment would be 14-15 feet taller than the previous unit. He explained that the funds budgeted for the item in 2028 came in at about $100,000 less because of equipment trade-ins. Council Member Engelking highlighted items 5p and 5q for approval of seasonal premises permits for liquor establishments, noting that patios are a sign that spring is coming. Council Member Budd expressed appreciation for item 5j and the alley reconstruction project in Ward 3, noting many residents were excited to have their alleys improved. It was moved by Council Member Brausen, seconded by Council Member Bashore, to approve the consent items as listed; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 7-0. 6. Public hearings - none. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4c) Page 5 Title: City council meeting minutes of March 23, 2026 7. Regular business. a. Safe Streets Action Plan Mr. Sullivan presented the staff report. He introduced Ms. Moore Ritchie of Short Elliott Hendrickson and Mr. Sachi, resident and stakeholder committee member for the Safe Streets Action Plan. Mr. Sullivan explained the plan is a comprehensive data-driven design to significantly reduce and ultimately eliminate serious injury and fatal crashes on all roadways. The plan is funded through federal and state government entities, including the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The plan takes a safe systems approach with a goal of zero fatal and severe injury crashes by 2050 with a benchmark of 50 % reduction by 2040. Ms. Moore Ritchie described the robust public engagement process that engaged over 600 residents and community members with over 830 mapped comments used in prioritizing locations. Key themes from public feedback included traffic management and speed concerns, pedestrian and bicyclist safety at intersections, and positive feedback on the city's direction toward improving pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure. The process included a technical advisory committee with city staff and county, state and federal representatives as well as a stakeholder committee that helped develop prioritization processes. Mr. Sachi spoke as a resident of the Bronx Park neighborhood near Peter Hobart Elementary, and shared that he has young children. As a registered professional engineer in Minnesota, he provided technical expertise throughout the process. He appreciated the collaborative approach with the community and the data-driven prioritization considering proximity to schools and senior centers, roadway types and speeds. He was pleased to see integration with county and state plans and emphasis on identifying simple, attainable, affordable projects for immediate implementation while planning for longer-term major projects. Ms. Moore Ritchie explained the development of seven key strategies with 18 individual action items including infrastructure upgrades, exploring new technology, reviewing city policies, education initiatives, safe routes to schools programming, incentive programs and additional safety evaluation. For prioritizing locations, the team developed a high injury network based on crash history that represents 7.5% of the road network but accounts for 61% of fatal and severe injury crashes. The analysis considered past and future construction, intersection injuries, high- risk locations, equity considerations and public feedback. Mr. Sullivan reported on public feedback received during the 30-day comment period. Comments included identification of high-risk locations, neighborhood traffic calming and speed enforcement requests, education needs for roundabouts and e-bikes, support for existing improvements, light rail transit station safety concerns, intersection control preferences, and general support for the plan's comprehensive approach. Council Member Budd asked about roundabouts in relation to the evening's discussion of Minnetonka Boulevard roundabouts being removed from plans. Mr. Sullivan responded that analysis of 10 years of crash data showed roundabouts dramatically reduced severe and fatal incident crash rates compared to signalized intersections. Most crashes at roundabouts are City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4c) Page 6 Title: City council meeting minutes of March 23, 2026 sideswipes or fender benders rather than T-bone or 90-degree crashes. For pedestrians and bicyclists, roundabouts typically require crossing fewer lanes of traffic than signalized intersections. However, roundabouts do not fit everywhere due to traffic volume and right-of- way constraints. Council Member Brausen excused himself from the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Mayor Mohamed opened the public comment period. Ian Thomas, 2925 Monterey Avenue in Ward 1, shared that he had served on the stakeholder committee. He praised the team's goal of eliminating fatal and serious injury crashes by 2050 through reducing vehicle speeds and kinetic energy. Mr. Thomas highlighted action item 2C regarding safety technology for city-owned vehicles, specifically intelligent speed assistance technology that uses GPS tracking and speed limit databases to control vehicle acceleration. He noted this technology has been adopted in Europe and recommended St. Louis Park implement it as a pilot program on the city’s fleet vehicles. The upfront cost of $1,500 per vehicle would be recouped within one to two years through reduced gasoline costs. Sylvie Hyman, 9200 West 28th Street, apologized for comments made during previous meetings regarding the Louisiana Avenue lane configuration being out of compliance with FHWA guidance. She acknowledged it should not be the council's job to understand all laws and standards governing street design. Ms. Hyman urged creation of a city transportation commission with both drivers and non-drivers to review road construction projects and ensure streets serve all users. She emphasized the need for meaningful improvements and resident buy-in at every stage rather than waiting for public comment periods when changes are no longer possible. Mayor Mohamed closed the public comment period. Council Member Baudhuin expressed his appreciation for both speakers' engagement in transit issues. He emphasized that people use the infrastructure built for them and noted that historically, big investments were made for automobile infrastructure across the nation. He expressed desire for St. Louis Park to think big about doing major projects to build infrastructure for public transit, pedestrians and bicycles while being a leader in this effort despite limitations from MnDOT and Hennepin County. Council Member Budd noted the unique timing with light rail transit coming soon to St. Louis Park and the opportunity to optimize around that development. Council Member Engelking observed that while the Cedar Lake Trail is nice for exercise, St. Louis Park presents challenges for point-to-point bicycle travel for errands like grocery shopping. He noted that he would prefer to ride on Hennepin Avenue in Minneapolis at rush hour rather than Louisiana Avenue or other arterial streets due to safety concerns. 8. Communications and announcements. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4c) Page 7 Title: City council meeting minutes of March 23, 2026 Ms. Keller announced that street sweeping began on main roadways with residential streets starting in about one week. MnDOT construction on I-394 between Louisiana Avenue and Xenia Avenue is scheduled to begin on March 30, 2026, to add an auxiliary lane under I-394. Completion is expected in September 2026. Ms. Keller promoted the Move into Spring challenge, encouraging 30 minutes of daily activity for 46 days with tracking sheets. Participants are eligible for prize drawings and a one-day aquatic park pass. Council Member Budd promoted the Minnehaha Creek cleanup event on April 25, 2026, organized by the Parks and Recreation Commission at two sites. Council Member Baudhuin congratulated the Benilde-St. Margaret's girls basketball team on winning their fourth consecutive state championship. Mayor Mohamed praised street staff for quickly clearing snow from a recent storm. She noted a personal shout-out from the lieutenant governor, who resides in St. Louis Park. 9. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 7:19 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor These minutes were created with the assistance of a generative AI transcript service, then edited and finalized by a city staff person. Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Minutes: 4d Unofficial minutes Special study session meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota March 23, 2026 The meeting convened at 7:27 p.m. Council Members present: Mayor Nadia Mohamed, Daniel Bashore, Jim Engelking, Sue Budd, Yolanda Farris, Paul Baudhuin Council Members absent: Tim Brausen Staff present: city manager (Ms. Keller), administrative services director (Ms. Brodeen), engineering project manager (Mr. Elgaard), engineering director (Ms. Heiser), human resources director (Ms. Vorpahl), deputy city manager (Ms. Walsh), deputy community development director (Mr. Walther) Guests: Kate Noble and Nadia Akhtar, consultants for TerraLuna Collaborative; Jason Staebell, Hennepin County; Nick Turner, Alliant Engineering Discussion items 1. Discussion item - Vision 4.0 Strategic Priorities Ms. Noble and Ms. Akhtar presented the final strategic priorities developed during a facilitated session at the council’s retreat on Feb. 27, 2026. The priorities reflected the conceptual consensus reached during the previous session with minor adjustments for length and clarity. Ms. Noble and Ms. Akhtar asked the council members to share their reflections and rate each priority on a scale of one to five, where one means ‘cannot support; major reservations; want to discuss’ and five means ‘support; no reservations.’ Mayor Mohamed expressed strong support for all five priorities, rating them five out of five. She appreciated how the “welcoming and safe community” priority captured equity and belonging. She valued the “good governance” priority, recognizing it as essential in the current era and noted how “connected safe infrastructure” encompassed well-maintained infrastructure connecting neighborhoods. She praised the “diverse, affordable, dignified housing” priority for capturing missing middle housing, affordability and quality standards. She supported the “climate leadership and natural spaces” priority as fundamental. Council Member Baudhuin also gave all priorities a rating of five out of five despite his initial reservations about good governance belonging in a strategic document rather than operational guidance. He acknowledged the facilitators' excellent work in allowing priorities to emerge naturally and appreciated how the priorities provided room for both large initiatives and detailed implementation work. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4d) Page 2 Title: Special study session meeting minutes of March 23, 2026 Council Member Farris rated the priorities five out of five and noted how all city departments were represented in the strategic priorities. She emphasized the need for more diverse businesses and services in St. Louis Park to serve all residents. Council Member Budd gave a five out of five rating. She shared that in preparation for the discussion tonight, she conducted an exercise to match city departments to the strategic priorities. She was impressed by how many departments aligned with “good governance” and appreciated the clear progression from the retreat's outputs to the final crisp statements. Council Member Engelking rated the priorities five out of five while offering two minor edits. He suggested swapping the order of clauses in “good governance” to prioritize responsible resource use before transparency, sharing that he believes this better reflects resident expectations. He also suggested replacing the second use of "vibrant" with "dynamic" to avoid repetition. Council Member Bashore supported all priorities with a five out of five rating, noting consistency with previous strategic priorities while reflecting current resident feedback and concerns. He specifically endorsed keeping “good governance” as a strategic priority given recent challenges in other jurisdictions. Ms. Noble and Ms. Akhtar confirmed two changes: replacing "vibrant" with "dynamic" in the “climate leadership” priority and reordering the “good governance” clauses to emphasize responsible resource use first. It was the consensus of the city council to accept the modifications to the Vision 4.0 Strategic Priorities statements. Formal adoption of the Vision 4.0 Strategic Priorities is scheduled for the next regular city council meeting on April 6, 2026. 2. Discussion item - Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project phase 2 update (4028- 7000) - Wards 1 and 3 Mr. Elgaard presented the staff report and introduced Mr. Staebell and Mr. Turner. The presentation detailed phase 2 of the Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project from Highway 100 to Aquila Avenue. The corridor was last reconstructed in 1956, and private utility construction is estimated to begin in 2027 with Hennepin County construction to start in 2028 and is estimated to be completed in 2029. The project represents a two-year, two-mile reconstruction effort. Mr. Staebell noted that the public engagement process included multiple phases with the last phase generating over 180 survey responses and 100 in-person attendees at recent events. Community input prioritized increased space for walking, rolling, biking and greening while reducing personal vehicle space allocation. Mr. Turner outlined three design concepts previously presented to the public. Concept A featured separate biking and walking paths similar to Cedar Lake Road with dedicated one-way bike facilities separated from sidewalks by boulevard space. This design City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4d) Page 3 Title: Special study session meeting minutes of March 23, 2026 minimized tree removal by maintaining existing boulevard locations but created a wider feeling roadway that could encourage higher speeds and required multiple maintenance passes. Concept B proposed shared-use paths on both sides allowing bidirectional travel without crossing Minnetonka Boulevard. This design maximized separation from traffic but required paving current tree areas, increasing tree removal impacts while providing better snow removal efficiency. Concept C combined a shared-use path on one side with a sidewalk on the other, creating trade-offs in user separation and maintenance complexity without maximizing benefits. The team evaluated five signalized intersections, determining four warrant signal renewal while Hampshire Avenue would receive a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) with median design. Additional mid-block crossings with RRFBs are planned at strategic locations. Roundabout analysis revealed significant challenges including steep grades, large truck accommodation requirements, and substantial property impacts that would affect businesses and buildings. All currently signalized intersections, besides Hampshire Avenue, will remain signalized. Mr. Staebell explained staff support and recommendations for Concept B based on comprehensive evaluation. The design provides optimal all-ages-and-abilities network functionality, eliminates crossing requirements based on travel direction, balances mobility with maintenance efficiency, and creates robust green space for new tree plantings. The 66-foot right-of-way allocation includes 26 feet for roadway, 20 feet for shared-use paths (10 feet each side) and 20 feet for green space (10 feet each side). Current bicycle usage ranges from 25-40 riders daily with expectations for increased usage following improvements. Tree impact analysis revealed water main replacement requires removal of 35 trees with an additional 28 for service connections regardless of design concept. Concept B requires 95 additional trees compared to 63 for Concept A and 71 for Concept C. However, the roughly 30 additional trees in Concept B are primarily newer plantings with three-inch or smaller diameters. Concept B enables planting approximately 320 new trees in nine-foot boulevards compared to limited planting opportunities in Concept A's narrower boulevards. Mr. Elgaard detailed operational challenges for each concept. Concept A would double sidewalk maintenance from four to eight miles, requiring additional full-time staff and specialized snow removal equipment that operates slowly and costs more per snow event. Concept B transfers four miles of snow maintenance from utilities to the parks department, sidewalks to trails, requiring one versatile piece of equipment, which is usable year-round with faster operation and lower per-event costs. Concept C requires both departments to maintain different facility types with coordination challenges. Mr. Elgaard presented photographic evidence of unintended uses in back-of-curb facilities, including delivery vehicles and maintenance crews using bike lanes for parking. He showed how narrow boulevards in winter create waste collection challenges when snow storage prevents proper bin placement, forcing waste collectors to manually move containers and increasing collection time while blocking facilities. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4d) Page 4 Title: Special study session meeting minutes of March 23, 2026 Council Member Budd asked about the community preference chart showing prioritization differences between existing conditions and desired allocations. Mr. Staebell clarified that blue bars represented current right-of-way usage while orange bars showed community priority voting, each community member was allowed to vote for different priorities up to a set number of times. Council Member Budd inquired about Hennepin County's cost responsibility for Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs). Mr. Staebell explained the county funds RRFB installations replacing existing signals like the one located at Hampshire Avenue, but additional mid-block locations require cost-sharing if not meeting county criteria. Ms. Heiser clarified this is a cost- share project. Approximately $13 million would be contributed by the city toward the $30 million total project cost. Council Member Bashore asked about transit accommodation near signals. Mr. Staebell explained that signalized intersections expand to three lanes with left-turn lanes where green space narrows, providing space for bus stops. Metro Transit is evaluating optimal stop locations during this opportunity. Council Member Baudhuin questioned whether boulevard placement at the curb creates appropriate speed reduction visual cues compared to back-of-curb pavement. Mr. Turner confirmed that boulevard placement helps drivers perceive narrower roadways and accept slower speeds, especially when trees provide vertical elements. Council Member Baudhuin expressed initial support for Concept A due to user separation but found the operational arguments for Concept B compelling. He noted concerns about fast recreational cyclists who prefer on-street facilities and may struggle with shared-use paths, requesting better signage and markings to indicate cyclist access rights. Council Member Engelking raised intersection safety concerns about bike-vehicle conflicts at signalized crossings and specifically mentioned Hampshire Avenue's proximity to Lenox Community Center which primarily serves seniors who may need additional protection for left turns without dedicated turn lanes. Ms. Heiser clarified this represents staff's first presentation to the city council with community engagement scheduled for April 15, 2026. A public hearing is set for May 4, 2026, with the council’s decision on preliminary layout expected at the city council meeting on May 18, 2026. City council members generally supported the Concept B recommendation while noting the importance of upcoming community feedback. 3. Discussion item - Consider proposed study session topic: protection of Automated License Plate Reader camera (ALPR) data Council Member Engelking explained this topic represents his top constituent concern, particularly regarding potential misuse of license plate reader data for immigration enforcement considering current federal immigration policies. He stated that while the staff reports provided some reassurance about data protection safeguards and his independent City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4d) Page 5 Title: Special study session meeting minutes of March 23, 2026 research offered additional technical comfort, significant community segments remain concerned. Council Member Engelking emphasized the value of a public study session for transparency, allowing the city to explain data protection measures and address community concerns about potential misuse. The focus shifted from needing additional protective measures to improving communication about existing protections and the city's role within the data-sharing consortium. Mayor Mohamed confirmed four council members had expressed support for the study session request. Ms. Keller announced that this item would be scheduled as a discussion item on April 6, 2026, in addition to a discussion item related to a separation ordinance. She noted extensive staff analysis is taking place in response to both study session requests; comprehensive staff reports are forthcoming. Council members who are interested in technical demonstrations before April 6, 2026, should contact staff to schedule virtual sessions. Council Member Bashore and Council Member Engelking stated that they have completed demonstrations; Council Member Budd has a session scheduled. 4. Written Report - Elections and voter services update Council Member Budd praised the election staff report as informative and reassuring, specifically thanking Marcus Harris-Paul, elections specialist, and Melissa Kennedy, city clerk, for their work in preparing for the fall election cycle. The meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor These minutes were created with the assistance of a generative AI transcript service, then edited and finalized by a city staff person. Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5a Executive summary Title: Resolution recognizing retirement of Ken Kaiser Recommended action: Read resolution and present plaque to Ken for his years of service to the City of St. Louis Park. Policy consideration: None. Summary: City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over 20 years of service will be presented with a resolution from the mayor, city manager and city council. Ken will be in attendance for the presentation at the beginning of the meeting. The mayor is asked to read the resolution for Ken in recognition of his years of service to the city. Financial or budget considerations: None applicable Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Barb Lamfers, human resources technician Jason Eisold, facilities superintendent Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Page 2 Title: Resolution recognizing retirement of Ken Kaiser Resolution No. 26 - ___ Recognizing the contributions and expressing appreciation to Ken Kaiser, public service worker Whereas, Kenneth Kaiser began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park on June 27, 2005, and served over 20 years as the public service worker in the parks and recreation and facilities department; and Whereas, Ken has been an essential component to the operation and maintenance of city facilities for over 20 years; and    Whereas, Ken has taken part with the opening of an expanded and remodeled Municipal Service Center, two new Fire Stations and a new Westwood Hills Nature Center; and    Whereas, Ken has showcased his talents at remodeling many offices and operational spaces at City Hall, the Police Station and the Rec Center; and    Whereas, Ken has had an impact on thousands of city facility users over the past 20 plus years, assuring their space is set up and accommodating according to their needs; and    Whereas, Ken will now be “working unpaid” on the numerous house and yard projects that he describes as having been put off for many years; and    Whereas, Ken will enjoy the next chapter in his life with a little golfing, fishing and biking - the pedal kind - along with general relaxation,   Now therefore be it resolved that the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Ken Kaiser for his great contributions and his over 20 years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish him the best in his retirement. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council April 6, 2026: Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5b Executive Summary Title: Approve city disbursements Recommended action: Motion to approve city disbursement claims for the period of Feb. 24 through March 30, 2026. Policy consideration: Does the city council approve city disbursements for the period ending March 30, 2026? Summary: The finance department prepares this report monthly for the city council to review and approve. The attached report shows both city disbursements paid by physical check and those by wire transfer or Automated Clearing House (ACH) when applicable. Financial or budget considerations: Review and approval of the information by council is required by the city charter and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal stewardship. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Disbursement summary Prepared by: Estela Mulugeta, accounting specialist Reviewed by: Joe Olson, acting finance director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager PAYEE NAME BUSINESS UNIT OBJECT ACCOUNT Total 810 BUILDERS Storm Water Utility BS Escrows - General 1,500.00 810 BUILDERS Total 1,500.00 ABELSON JESSE Climate Investment G&A Climate Grant Disbursement 650.00 ABELSON JESSE Total 650.00 ABERNATHY, LISA Organized Rec G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 154.06 ABERNATHY, LISA Total 154.06 ABRITER PLLC Building and Energy G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 840.00 ABRITER PLLC Total 840.00 ACACIA ARCHITECTS LLC Housing Rehab G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 225.00 ACACIA ARCHITECTS LLC Total 225.00 ACEK9 Vehicles & Equipment G&A Vehicles/Machinery Purch 2,528.09 ACEK9 Total 2,528.09 ACROSS THE STREET PRODUCTIONS Fire Department G&A Training & Conf Regist Fees 5,788.01 ACROSS THE STREET PRODUCTIONS Total 5,788.01 ACTIVE 911 INC Technology G&A Capitalized Tech Software 1,275.00 ACTIVE 911 INC Total 1,275.00 ADVANCED ENG & ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS Sewer G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,460.00 Storm Water Utility G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,255.66 Water G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,460.00 Water Reilly G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 204.34 ADVANCED ENG & ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS Total 4,380.00 AJ MECHANICAL Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 112.61 AJ MECHANICAL Total 112.61 ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITY MEDIA Cable TV G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 2,000.00 ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITY MEDIA Total 2,000.00 ALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 934.00 ALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC Total 934.00 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES Technology G&A Technology Devices 168.40 Technology Supplies 98.74 Telephone Communications 122.30 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES Total 389.44 AMEK ELECTRIC Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 116.00 AMEK ELECTRIC Total 116.00 AMERICAN TIME Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 2,590.00 AMERICAN TIME Total 2,590.00 ANCHOR BUILDERS LLC.Housing Rehab G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 225.00 ANCHOR BUILDERS LLC. Total 225.00 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS Fire Department G&A Repairs, Maint, Serv on Tech 2,115.00 Police E-911 Restriction G&A Technology Supplies 836.42 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS Total 2,951.42 ANDERSON VANESSA SEASON PASSES REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 3.00 ANDERSON VANESSA Total 3.00 ARC DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC Technology G&A Short Term Lease/Rentals Pay 306.08 ARC DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC Total 306.08 ASCENTEK INC Vehicle Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 453.15 Recycling Utility 172.50 ASCENTEK INC Total 625.65 ASPEN MILLS Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,683.34 ASPEN MILLS Total 1,683.34 AXON ENTERPRISE, INC.Technology G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 3,357.87 AXON ENTERPRISE, INC. Total 3,357.87 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Payment Summary 2/24/2026 - 3/30/26 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Title: Approve city disbursements Page 2 BADGER DAYLIGHTING CORP Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 2,289.77 BADGER DAYLIGHTING CORP Total 2,289.77 BANG ELECTRIC Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 325.00 BANG ELECTRIC Total 325.00 BAQUERO KENDRICK Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 55.00 BAQUERO KENDRICK Total 55.00 BATES FRANK Water G&A Utility Refund 310.68 BATES FRANK Total 310.68 BAY WEST LLC Water Reilly G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,550.50 BAY WEST LLC Total 1,550.50 BELTLINE APARTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Affordable H Trust BS Loans Receivable - Long Term 1,793,238.00 BELTLINE APARTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Total 1,793,238.00 BERGERSON CASWELL INC Water G&A Capital Outlay 78,035.00 BERGERSON CASWELL INC Total 78,035.00 BERNATELLO'S FOODS Rec Center Gen Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 522.00 BERNATELLO'S FOODS Total 522.00 BERNIER ELISE General Fund BS Escrows - Security 5,000.00 BERNIER ELISE Total 5,000.00 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY Rec Center Gen Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 272.00 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY Total 272.00 BINDER HEATING AND AIR, INC.Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 55.25 BINDER HEATING AND AIR, INC. Total 55.25 BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION Water G&A Capital Outlay 2,315.00 BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION Total 2,315.00 BLAINE AREA PET HOSPITAL P.A Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 803.38 BLAINE AREA PET HOSPITAL P.A Total 803.38 BLOMSNESS MATT Police G&A In-State Travel 31.20 BLOMSNESS MATT Total 31.20 BLUE CARD-HENNEPIN COUNTY FIRE Fire Department G&A Training & Conf Regist Fees 425.00 BLUE CARD-HENNEPIN COUNTY FIRE Total 425.00 BOLTON & MENK INC Sewer G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 5,129.50 Storm Water Utility G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 7,077.00 BOLTON & MENK INC Total 12,206.50 BORCHERT KARISSA Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 61.00 BORCHERT KARISSA Total 61.00 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC- MPL Public Works G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 717.60 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC- MPL Total 717.60 BORMANN BECKY Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 75.00 BORMANN BECKY Total 75.00 BOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 481.87 BOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC Total 481.87 BREDEMUS HARDWARE COMPANY INC Facilties Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 1,701.00 BREDEMUS HARDWARE COMPANY INC Total 1,701.00 BRENNAN RYAN Climate Investment G&A Climate Grant Disbursement 750.00 BRENNAN RYAN Total 750.00 BRIN GLASS COMPANY Facilties Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 1,498.00 BRIN GLASS COMPANY Total 1,498.00 BUILDING CONTROLS & SOLUTIONS Facilties Maintenance G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 1,290.49 BUILDING CONTROLS & SOLUTIONS Total 1,290.49 BURCH MARY Westwood G&A In-State Travel 50.74 BURCH MARY Total 50.74 BURESH JOHN Water G&A Utility Refund 165.59 BURESH JOHN Total 165.59 BUSINESS ESSENTIALS Comm & Marketing G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 640.40 Organized Rec G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 65.54 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Title: Approve city disbursements Page 3 BUSINESS ESSENTIALS Total 705.94 BYERS SAVANNAH Comm & Marketing G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 24.15 BYERS SAVANNAH Total 24.15 BYRNE MEGAN Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 61.00 BYRNE MEGAN Total 61.00 CALYPTUS CONSULTING GROUP INC REI G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 8,800.00 CALYPTUS CONSULTING GROUP INC Total 8,800.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON,P.A.Adminstrative Operations G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 95.94 City Clerk's Office G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 31,828.04 Franchise Fees G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 307.01 MSA Capital G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,048.39 Storm Water Utility G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 211.06 CAMPBELL KNUTSON,P.A. Total 33,490.44 CANON FINANCIAL Technology G&A Short Term Lease/Rentals Pay 4,160.60 CANON FINANCIAL Total 4,160.60 CAR WASH PARTNERS, INC.Vehicle Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 470.40 CAR WASH PARTNERS, INC. Total 470.40 CARR CAROLAN Water G&A Utility Refund 200.48 CARR CAROLAN Total 200.48 CASHMAN RORY Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 85.00 CASHMAN RORY Total 85.00 CASTLE PEAK PROPERTIES LLC Water G&A Utility Refund 25.72 CASTLE PEAK PROPERTIES LLC Total 25.72 CBIZ BENEFITS & INSURANCE SERVICES INC Employee Benefits G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 4,960.00 CBIZ BENEFITS & INSURANCE SERVICES INC Total 4,960.00 CDW GOVERNMENT INC Technology G&A Capitalized Tech Hardware 15,881.83 Technology Devices 442.94 Technology Supplies 807.27 Water G&A Capital Outlay 1,487.98 CDW GOVERNMENT INC Total 18,620.02 CENNOX PROJECT & SECURITY SOLUTIONS Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 1,550.00 CENNOX PROJECT & SECURITY SOLUTIONS Total 1,550.00 CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Affordable H Trust G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 14,450.00 Housing Rehab G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 6,000.00 CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Total 20,450.00 CENTERPOINT ENERGY Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 148.00 Facilties Maintenance G&A Heating Gas Utility 25,068.59 Park Maintenance G&A Heating Gas Utility 14,093.71 Sewer G&A Heating Gas Utility 708.68 Water G&A Heating Gas Utility 9,533.88 Water Reilly G&A Heating Gas Utility 628.48 CENTERPOINT ENERGY Total 50,181.34 CENTRAL MCGOWAN INC Aquatic Division G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 21.00 CENTRAL MCGOWAN INC Total 21.00 CENTRAL PENSION FUND Employee Benefits BS Other Retirement Benefit Payab 10,201.94 CENTRAL PENSION FUND Total 10,201.94 CENTURY COLLEGE Fire Department G&A Training & Conf Regist Fees 1,785.00 CENTURY COLLEGE Total 1,785.00 CENTURY LINK IT G&A Telephone Communications 256.00 Technology G&A Other Communications 71.47 CENTURY LINK Total 327.47 CHRISTENSEN JODY Climate Investment G&A Climate Grant Disbursement 600.00 CHRISTENSEN JODY Total 600.00 CHU RIN Rec Center Gen Division G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 200.00 CHU RIN Total 200.00 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Title: Approve city disbursements Page 4 CHUCK DUNN Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 61.00 CHUCK DUNN Total 61.00 CINTAS CORPORATION Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 507.64 Park Maintenance G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 91.25 Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 30.12 Operations Supplies & Mat 604.40 Public Works G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 93.17 Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 234.00 Operations Supplies & Mat 6,304.18 Vehicle Maintenance G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 62.73 Water G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 226.50 CINTAS CORPORATION Total 8,153.99 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS RECEIVABLES Police G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 3,600.00 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS RECEIVABLES Total 3,600.00 CITY OF SLP HA-KIDS IN THE PARK Affordable H Trust G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 21,644.00 CITY OF SLP HA-KIDS IN THE PARK Total 21,644.00 CIVICPLUS, LLC.Comm & Marketing G&A Software License <=12 months 16,603.02 CIVICPLUS, LLC. Total 16,603.02 CJC CONSTRUCTION, LLC.Property Casualty BS Retainage Payable (550.00) Property Casualty G&A Property Insurance 11,000.00 CJC CONSTRUCTION, LLC. Total 10,450.00 COLICH & ASSOCIATES Adminstrative Operations G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 17,455.49 COLICH & ASSOCIATES Total 17,455.49 COLLINS ELECTRICAL Public Works G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 2,031.62 COLLINS ELECTRICAL Total 2,031.62 COMCAST Fire Department G&A Electric Utility 62.39 Police G&A Electric Utility 141.90 Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 30.03 Technology G&A Other Communications 195.78 COMCAST Total 430.10 COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA Public Works G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 54,359.20 COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA Total 54,359.20 CONCEPT SEATING Dispatch Division G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 297.50 CONCEPT SEATING Total 297.50 CORE & MAIN LP Sewer G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 7,112.80 Storm Water Utility G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 7,450.99 Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 2,326.79 CORE & MAIN LP Total 16,890.58 COREMARK General Fund BS Inventory 2,057.88 COREMARK Total 2,057.88 CREATIVE RESOURCES REI G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 2,906.31 CREATIVE RESOURCES Total 2,906.31 CROWN MARKING INC.Comm & Marketing G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 33.81 CROWN MARKING INC. Total 33.81 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 119.00 Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 285.00 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER Total 404.00 CUMMINS SALES AND SERVICE Facilties Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 2,496.15 Rec Center Gen Division G&A Repairs and Maintenance 635.42 Sewer G&A Repairs and Maintenance 860.91 Water G&A Repairs and Maintenance 4,032.16 CUMMINS SALES AND SERVICE Total 8,024.64 CUSTOM REFRIGERATION INC Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 571.68 CUSTOM REFRIGERATION INC Total 571.68 DAVID J. UNMACHT LLC Adminstrative Operations G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 2,600.00 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Title: Approve city disbursements Page 5 DAVID J. UNMACHT LLC Total 2,600.00 DAVID RIVERA Organized Rec G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 8,221.50 DAVID RIVERA Total 8,221.50 DEANS PROFESSIONAL PLUMBING Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 200.00 DEANS PROFESSIONAL PLUMBING Total 200.00 DELEGARD TOOL CO Public Works G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 247.74 DELEGARD TOOL CO Total 247.74 DEMPSEY MICHAEL Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 55.00 DEMPSEY MICHAEL Total 55.00 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY Building and Energy G&A Due to Other Govts (DTOG)5,213.67 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY Total 5,213.67 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Water G&A Capital Outlay 725.00 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Total 725.00 DERUBEIS DRISCOLL EMMA Climate Investment G&A Climate Grant Disbursement 3,040.00 DERUBEIS DRISCOLL EMMA Total 3,040.00 DICKINSON M Water G&A Utility Refund 202.61 DICKINSON M Total 202.61 DIESEL COMPONENTS INC General Fund BS Inventory 462.84 DIESEL COMPONENTS INC Total 462.84 DINGES FIRE COMPANY Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 3,988.50 DINGES FIRE COMPANY Total 3,988.50 DLT SOLUTIONS INC Technology G&A Capitalized Tech Software 1,422.00 DLT SOLUTIONS INC Total 1,422.00 DOBBERKE JOSEPH Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 55.00 DOBBERKE JOSEPH Total 55.00 DO-GOOD.BIZ INC Comm & Marketing G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 87.50 Postage, Delivery, Publishing 9,204.84 DO-GOOD.BIZ INC Total 9,292.34 DOORBIJAI KUM KARRAN Water G&A Utility Refund 167.45 DOORBIJAI KUM KARRAN Total 167.45 DTN, LLC.Public Works G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 460.82 DTN, LLC. Total 460.82 ECM PUBLISHERS INC City Clerk's Office G&A Postage, Delivery, Publishing 687.45 ECM PUBLISHERS INC Total 687.45 EDEN PRAIRIE POLICE DEPARTMENT Police G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,000.00 EDEN PRAIRIE POLICE DEPARTMENT Total 1,000.00 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 2014A GO DEBT SERV G&A Other Debt Serv Expend 1,500.00 Beltline Residences TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 466.47 Bridgewater Bank TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 466.47 Duke West End TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 613.97 Finance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 81.25 General Fund BS Escrows - General 4,700.00 Hwy 7 Business Center TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 466.55 Mera Wayzata Project TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 466.47 Park Commons TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 466.47 Parkway Residual TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 466.47 Rise on 7 TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 466.47 Texa Tonka TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 466.47 Wooddale Ave Ap TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 466.47 Wooddale Station TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 466.47 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC Total 11,560.00 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE General Fund BS Inventory 2,564.40 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE Total 2,564.40 EMERGENCY TECHNICAL DECON Fire Department G&A Repairs and Maintenance 108.00 EMERGENCY TECHNICAL DECON Total 108.00 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Title: Approve city disbursements Page 6 ENGELEN MARK Building and Energy G&A Due to Other Govts (DTOG)0.75 ELECTRICAL 371.11 ENGELEN MARK Total 371.86 ENTERPRISE FM TRUST Vehicle Maintenance G&A Short Term Lease/Rentals Pay 2,808.27 ENTERPRISE FM TRUST Total 2,808.27 ERICKSON RYAN A.Climate Investment G&A Climate Grant Disbursement 1,500.00 ERICKSON RYAN A. Total 1,500.00 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC Sewer G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 4,400.00 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC Total 4,400.00 EXCAVATING NEUTGENS Storm Water Utility BS Escrows - General 1,500.00 EXCAVATING NEUTGENS Total 1,500.00 FA ASSETS INC Water G&A Utility Refund 300.00 FA ASSETS INC Total 300.00 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,283.74 General Fund BS Inventory 1,033.65 Rec Center Gen Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 352.50 Vehicle Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 570.65 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO Total 3,240.54 FARBER SOUND LLC Rec Center Gen Division G&A Repairs and Maintenance 3,075.00 FARBER SOUND LLC Total 3,075.00 FARRELL ANGELA Water G&A Utility Refund 188.38 FARRELL ANGELA Total 188.38 FASTENAL COMPANY Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 91.29 FASTENAL COMPANY Total 91.29 FAUL PSYCHOLOGICAL PLLC Human Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,350.00 FAUL PSYCHOLOGICAL PLLC Total 1,350.00 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC Water G&A Computers/Tech Services 13,450.00 Operations Supplies & Mat 179.64 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC Total 13,629.64 FERGUSON WATERWORKS Sewer G&A Software License <=12 months 18,627.80 Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 49,474.16 Software License <=12 months 18,627.80 FERGUSON WATERWORKS Total 86,729.76 FERRELLGAS Vehicle Maintenance G&A Vehicle Fuels 117.76 FERRELLGAS Total 117.76 FIDELIS SAFETY SOLUTIONS Fire Department G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 300.00 FIDELIS SAFETY SOLUTIONS Total 300.00 FINANCE & COMMERCE, INC.Franchise Fees G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 675.89 Municipal Building & Infra G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 177.66 Storm Water Utility G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 163.97 FINANCE & COMMERCE, INC. Total 1,017.52 FINE BEVERLEE Water G&A Utility Refund 113.90 FINE BEVERLEE Total 113.90 FIRE SAFETY USA INC Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 947.50 FIRE SAFETY USA INC Total 947.50 FIRST ADVANTAGE Human Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 73.42 FIRST ADVANTAGE Total 73.42 FISCHER BENJAMIN JOHN Climate Investment G&A Climate Grant Disbursement 750.00 FISCHER BENJAMIN JOHN Total 750.00 FIVE GUYS Finance G&A Misc Expenditures 100.00 FIVE GUYS Total 100.00 FLEETPRIDE General Fund BS Inventory 80.78 FLEETPRIDE Total 80.78 FLOCK GROUP INC Vehicles & Equipment G&A Technology Devices 24,000.00 FLOCK GROUP INC Total 24,000.00 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Title: Approve city disbursements Page 7 FOLKMANIS INC Westwood G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 427.63 FOLKMANIS INC Total 427.63 FORCE AMERICA INC General Fund BS Inventory 955.90 FORCE AMERICA INC Total 955.90 FOSSEN MITCHELL Water G&A Utility Refund 129.91 FOSSEN MITCHELL Total 129.91 FRATTALLONES Park Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 16.85 FRATTALLONES Total 16.85 FRIEDERICH NIKKI Organized Rec G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 73.95 FRIEDERICH NIKKI Total 73.95 FUSION LEARNING PARTNERS & PUBLIC IT G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 1,500.00 FUSION LEARNING PARTNERS & PUBLIC Total 1,500.00 GAP PHILLIP Water G&A Utility Refund 184.08 GAP PHILLIP Total 184.08 GATEWAY KNOLLWOOD LLC Police G&A FALSE ALARM 140.00 GATEWAY KNOLLWOOD LLC Total 140.00 GELHAR MEGAN Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 61.00 GELHAR MEGAN Total 61.00 GEORGE:PURPOSE PEOPLE PERFORMANCE LTD Adminstrative Operations G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 8,200.00 GEORGE:PURPOSE PEOPLE PERFORMANCE LTD Total 8,200.00 GERBER COLLISION- MIDWEST INC Property Casualty G&A Property Insurance 20,104.69 GERBER COLLISION- MIDWEST INC Total 20,104.69 GRAINGER INC.General Fund BS Inventory 91.56 GRAINGER INC. Total 91.56 GREAT RIVER GREENING Natural Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 8,000.00 Park Improvement G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 9,250.00 GREAT RIVER GREENING Total 17,250.00 GREGORY VALINET Police G&A Misc Expenditures 500.00 GREGORY VALINET Total 500.00 GROUP HEALTH NON-PATIENT A/R Fire Department G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 10,500.00 GROUP HEALTH NON-PATIENT A/R Total 10,500.00 HACH CO Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 38.75 HACH CO Total 38.75 HAEGER GERAIDINE General Fund BS Escrows - Security 5,000.00 HAEGER GERAIDINE Total 5,000.00 HANSEN HUNTER Public Works G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 19.00 HANSEN HUNTER Total 19.00 HARKINS VICTORIA Water G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 207.42 HARKINS VICTORIA Total 207.42 HART CHRISTINA Water G&A Utility Refund 55.99 HART CHRISTINA Total 55.99 HAWKINS INC Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 36,768.32 HAWKINS INC Total 36,768.32 HEINEN MOTORSPORTS Vehicles & Equipment G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 11,604.59 HEINEN MOTORSPORTS Total 11,604.59 HEISER, DEBRA Engineering G&A Training & Conf Regist Fees 5.85 HEISER, DEBRA Total 5.85 HENKLES GREG Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 330.00 HENKLES GREG Total 330.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY Greensboro HIA G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 6.00 Sewer G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 12.00 Sunset Ridge HIA G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 6.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY Total 24.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE Facilties Maintenance G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 301.00 Fire Department G&A Radio Communications 2,398.40 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Title: Approve city disbursements Page 8 Park Maintenance G&A Solid Waste Utility 327.27 Police G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 12,408.16 Radio Communications 4,796.80 Public Works G&A Radio Communications 269.82 Rec Center Gen Division G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 76.00 Sewer G&A Radio Communications 269.82 Storm Water Utility G&A Radio Communications 269.82 Water G&A Radio Communications 269.82 HENNEPIN COUNTY ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE Total 21,386.91 HENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOC. Police G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 850.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOC. Total 850.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY FIRE CHIEFS ASSOC Fire Department G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 650.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY FIRE CHIEFS ASSOC Total 650.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY TAX Elmwood Village G&A TIF Developer Payment 2,227,355.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY TAX Total 2,227,355.00 HERO HOME SERVICES LLC Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 173.00 HERO HOME SERVICES LLC Total 173.00 HOGAN BRIAN General Fund BS Escrows - Security 75,000.00 HOGAN BRIAN Total 75,000.00 HOGG KATHRYN Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 175.00 HOGG KATHRYN Total 175.00 HOTSY MINNESOTA Vehicle Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 489.11 HOTSY MINNESOTA Total 489.11 HUMERA TECH INC Rec Center Gen Division G&A Repairs and Maintenance 537.00 HUMERA TECH INC Total 537.00 I & S GROUP INC Sewer G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 117.50 I & S GROUP INC Total 117.50 I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 Employee Benefits BS Union Dues Payable 1,785.00 I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 Total 1,785.00 IGNATOWICZ ROBIN Climate Investment G&A Climate Grant Disbursement 650.00 IGNATOWICZ ROBIN Total 650.00 IMPACT POWER TO CONNECT Sewer G&A Postage, Delivery, Publishing 918.40 Solid Waste G&A Postage, Delivery, Publishing 918.40 Storm Water Utility G&A Postage, Delivery, Publishing 918.41 Water G&A Postage, Delivery, Publishing 918.40 IMPACT POWER TO CONNECT Total 3,673.61 IMPERIAL DADE Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 480.01 IMPERIAL DADE Total 480.01 INDELCO Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 547.12 INDELCO Total 547.12 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. #283 Organized Rec G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 187,400.00 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. #283 Total 187,400.00 INGCO INTERNATIONAL Comm & Marketing G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 666.99 Sustainability G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 636.42 INGCO INTERNATIONAL Total 1,303.41 INVER GROVE FORD Vehicle Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 833.98 INVER GROVE FORD Total 833.98 INVOICE CLOUD INC Water G&A Misc Expenditures 1,328.80 INVOICE CLOUD INC Total 1,328.80 ISI SPORTS INDUSTRY Rec Center Gen Division G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 40.00 ISI SPORTS INDUSTRY Total 40.00 I-STATE TRUCK CENTER General Fund BS Inventory 405.08 I-STATE TRUCK CENTER Total 405.08 J & F REDDY RENTS Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 129.94 J & F REDDY RENTS Total 129.94 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Title: Approve city disbursements Page 9 J. H. LARSON CO.Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 72.01 J. H. LARSON CO. Total 72.01 J.P SCHMITZ CONSTRUCTION CO LLC Water G&A Repairs and Maintenance 34,603.00 J.P SCHMITZ CONSTRUCTION CO LLC Total 34,603.00 JAYTECH, INC.Rec Center Gen Division G&A Repairs, Maint, Serv on Tech 1,300.33 JAYTECH, INC. Total 1,300.33 JEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,218.31 JEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC Total 1,218.31 JLG ARCHITECTS Park Improvement G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 27,504.00 JLG ARCHITECTS Total 27,504.00 JOHN A. DALSIN & SONS INC Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 959.58 JOHN A. DALSIN & SONS INC Total 959.58 JOHNSON CHAD Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 60.00 JOHNSON CHAD Total 60.00 JOHNSON MINA Water G&A Utility Refund 112.53 JOHNSON MINA Total 112.53 JOHNSON PAPER & SUPPLY CO.Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 4,107.55 Rec Center Gen Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 2,972.80 JOHNSON PAPER & SUPPLY CO. Total 7,080.35 JONES LEVY Organized Rec G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 650.00 JONES LEVY Total 650.00 JP COOKE CO Building and Energy G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 265.75 JP COOKE CO Total 265.75 JPS HOMES, LLC.General Fund BS Escrows - Security 1,300.00 JPS HOMES, LLC. Total 1,300.00 KARSCHNIA STEVEN Water G&A Utility Refund 10.01 KARSCHNIA STEVEN Total 10.01 KENWOOD GYMNASTICS CENTER Organized Rec G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 225.00 KENWOOD GYMNASTICS CENTER Total 225.00 KEYNEST SERVICES LTD Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 5,402.00 KEYNEST SERVICES LTD Total 5,402.00 KEYSTONE COMPENSATION GROUP LLC Human Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,100.00 KEYSTONE COMPENSATION GROUP LLC Total 1,100.00 KFI ENGINEERS Municipal Building & Infra G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 6,643.00 KFI ENGINEERS Total 6,643.00 KHASKIN LEONID Water G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 41.53 KHASKIN LEONID Total 41.53 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC Sewer G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,522.59 Storm Water Utility G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 5,993.46 Street Capital G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 34,687.32 Water G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 3,935.66 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC Total 46,139.03 KINGS III EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS LLC Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 167.42 KINGS III EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS LLC Total 167.42 KISNER TED Water G&A Utility Refund 52.68 KISNER TED Total 52.68 KITCHEN ASHLEY Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 55.00 KITCHEN ASHLEY Total 55.00 KODIAK ELECTRIC, LLC Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 68.00 KODIAK ELECTRIC, LLC Total 68.00 KREMER SERVICES LLC Vehicle Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 3,553.80 KREMER SERVICES LLC Total 3,553.80 KROCAK MADELINE Water G&A Utility Refund 4.56 KROCAK MADELINE Total 4.56 KUTAK ROCK LLP General Fund BS Escrows - General 2,363.50 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Title: Approve city disbursements Page 10 Mera Wayzata Project TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 26.00 KUTAK ROCK LLP Total 2,389.50 LAHER ASHLYN Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 68.00 LAHER ASHLYN Total 68.00 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES INC Employee Benefits BS Union Dues Payable 4,557.30 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES INC Total 4,557.30 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC Vehicle Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 208.47 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC Total 208.47 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE TRUST Property Casualty G&A Property Insurance 44,093.17 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE TRUST Total 44,093.17 LEFEVERE JOSEPH Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 732.00 LEFEVERE JOSEPH Total 732.00 LEGEND TECHNICAL SERVICES Water Reilly G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,770.00 LEGEND TECHNICAL SERVICES Total 1,770.00 LEICA GEOSYSTEMS INC Engineering G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,617.00 LEICA GEOSYSTEMS INC Total 1,617.00 LEONARD VALERIE Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 90.00 LEONARD VALERIE Total 90.00 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS LLC IT G&A Telephone Communications 2,134.01 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS LLC Total 2,134.01 LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS Police G&A Software License <=12 months 666.67 LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS Total 666.67 LHB INC Sustainability G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 3,500.00 LHB INC Total 3,500.00 LIBERTY COMFORT SYSTEMS Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 68.00 LIBERTY COMFORT SYSTEMS Total 68.00 LIBERTY TIRE Vehicle Maintenance G&A Recycling Utility 185.30 LIBERTY TIRE Total 185.30 LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 325.00 Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 355.00 LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS Total 680.00 LIFE SUPPORT INNOVATIONS Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 478.10 LIFE SUPPORT INNOVATIONS Total 478.10 LINDSAY NORTHQUEST Building and Energy G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 40.00 LINDSAY NORTHQUEST Total 40.00 LINDSKOG ERIC Climate Investment G&A Climate Grant Disbursement 1,500.00 LINDSKOG ERIC Total 1,500.00 LIPKIN DANIEL Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 61.00 LIPKIN DANIEL Total 61.00 LIPPERT DAVID Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 85.00 LIPPERT DAVID Total 85.00 LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC General Fund BS Inventory 197.57 LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC Total 197.57 LOCALITY MEDIA INC Fire Department G&A Software License <=12 months 2,020.00 LOCALITY MEDIA INC Total 2,020.00 LOFFLER Technology G&A Capitalized Tech Software 10,716.00 Short Term Lease/Rentals Pay 1,355.76 LOFFLER Total 12,071.76 LOFFLER COMPANIES INC Technology G&A Short Term Lease/Rentals Pay 313.02 LOFFLER COMPANIES INC Total 313.02 LOGIS Technology G&A Capitalized Tech Hardware 84,456.48 Capitalized Tech Software 90.00 Computers/Tech Services 54,732.79 Postage, Delivery, Publishing 11,105.25 Technology Supplies 30.00 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Title: Approve city disbursements Page 11 LOGIS Total 150,414.52 LVC COMPANIES INC Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 992.48 Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 450.00 LVC COMPANIES INC Total 1,442.48 M G INCENTIVES Human Resources G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 206.84 M G INCENTIVES Total 206.84 MACQUEEN EQUIP CO Sewer G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 4,063.32 MACQUEEN EQUIP CO Total 4,063.32 MAGGIOTTO MARK Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 85.00 MAGGIOTTO MARK Total 85.00 MALIK PRAKSHI Cable TV G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 12.90 MALIK PRAKSHI Total 12.90 MANN JAKE Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 20.00 MANN JAKE Total 20.00 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY OF GAINSVILLE, INC General Fund BS Inventory 44,683.59 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY OF GAINSVILLE, INC Total 44,683.59 MARIE RIDGEWAY LICSW LLC Police G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,530.00 MARIE RIDGEWAY LICSW LLC Total 1,530.00 MASON WILLIAM General Fund BS Escrows - Security 6,000.00 MASON WILLIAM Total 6,000.00 MATHESON TRI-GAS, INC.Vehicle Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 322.75 MATHESON TRI-GAS, INC. Total 322.75 MAURER JUSTIN Water G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 46.00 MAURER JUSTIN Total 46.00 MCCONNELL, BECKY Westwood G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 9.43 MCCONNELL, BECKY Total 9.43 MESSERLI & KRAMER Employee Benefits BS Wage Garnishments Payable 1,189.66 MESSERLI & KRAMER Total 1,189.66 METRO BLOOMS DESIGN + BUILD LLC Storm Water Utility G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 5,300.00 METRO BLOOMS DESIGN + BUILD LLC Total 5,300.00 METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS ASSOC.Organized Rec G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,554.00 METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS ASSOC. Total 1,554.00 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Building and Energy G&A Due to Other Govts (DTOG)211,572.90 Sewer G&A Water Utility 474,319.79 Water G&A Water Utility 4,026.71 Water Reilly G&A Water Utility 1,920.85 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Total 691,840.25 MEYER RICHARD Water G&A Utility Refund 144.61 MEYER RICHARD Total 144.61 MGX EQUIPMENT SERVICES, LLC Vehicle Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 1,149.65 Vehicles & Equipment G&A Vehicles/Machinery Purch 11,680.00 MGX EQUIPMENT SERVICES, LLC Total 12,829.65 MICHAEL CINDY HUTTNER Water G&A Utility Refund 169.67 MICHAEL CINDY HUTTNER Total 169.67 MIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO Dispatch Division G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 32.46 MIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO Total 32.46 MIKA CATHERINE General Fund BS Escrows - Security 2,000.00 MIKA CATHERINE Total 2,000.00 MILLER DOMINICK Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 180.00 MILLER DOMINICK Total 180.00 MILLER LAURIE Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 350.00 MILLER LAURIE Total 350.00 MILLERBERND MFG CO Municipal Building & Infra G&A Other Capital Expenditures 190,680.00 MILLERBERND MFG CO Total 190,680.00 MILLMAN STEVEN Water G&A Utility Refund 62.84 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Title: Approve city disbursements Page 12 MILLMAN STEVEN Total 62.84 MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CTR Employee Benefits BS Wage Garnishments Payable 1,569.24 MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CTR Total 1,569.24 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Water G&A Water Utility 55,033.00 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Total 55,033.00 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT Vehicles & Equipment G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 16,336.32 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT Total 16,336.32 MINNESOTA HOUSING Affordable H Trust G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 150.00 MINNESOTA HOUSING Total 150.00 MINNESOTA LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPLORER Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 4,996.00 MINNESOTA LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPLORER Total 4,996.00 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Facilties Maintenance G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 25.00 Water G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 345.00 Water Reilly G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 1,230.00 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Total 1,600.00 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROLAGENCY Sewer G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 45.00 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROLAGENCY Total 45.00 MINNESOTA PRSA Comm & Marketing G&A Training & Conf Regist Fees 300.00 MINNESOTA PRSA Total 300.00 MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK ASSOC Organized Rec G&A Training & Conf Regist Fees 70.00 Rec Center Gen Division G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 175.00 MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK ASSOC Total 245.00 MN DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY Water G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 25.00 MN DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY Total 25.00 MOIN LESLIE Police G&A Out-of-State Travel 126.87 MOIN LESLIE Total 126.87 MOMENTUM ADVOCACY LLP Adminstrative Operations G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 8,240.00 MOMENTUM ADVOCACY LLP Total 8,240.00 MR CUTTING EDGE Rec Center Gen Division G&A Repairs and Maintenance 379.00 MR CUTTING EDGE Total 379.00 MS RELOCATION SERVICES Water G&A Utility Refund 67.17 MS RELOCATION SERVICES Total 67.17 MSC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.Vehicle Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 48.41 MSC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO. Total 48.41 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO General Fund BS Inventory 156.36 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO Total 156.36 MUCHOW KURTIS Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 89.00 MUCHOW KURTIS Total 89.00 MURPHY RIGGING & ERECTING, INC.Water Reilly G&A Repairs and Maintenance 17,562.21 MURPHY RIGGING & ERECTING, INC. Total 17,562.21 MUSIC TOGETHER IN THE VALLEY LLC Organized Rec G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 6,657.20 MUSIC TOGETHER IN THE VALLEY LLC Total 6,657.20 MVTL LABORATORIES Water Reilly G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 201.75 MVTL LABORATORIES Total 201.75 NAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)General Fund BS Inventory 51.82 NAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO) Total 51.82 NATOA Cable TV G&A Training & Conf Regist Fees 50.00 NATOA Total 50.00 NAYAR HVAC LLC Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 175.80 NAYAR HVAC LLC Total 175.80 NEWPUBLICA Sustainability G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,700.00 NEWPUBLICA Total 1,700.00 NIEVES FREDDY CABAN IT G&A Technology Supplies 89.91 NIEVES FREDDY CABAN Total 89.91 NMS MECHANICAL CORP Building and Energy G&A Construction Permits 72.00 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Title: Approve city disbursements Page 13 NMS MECHANICAL CORP Total 72.00 NORTH LAKES PLUMBING LLC Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 229.65 NORTH LAKES PLUMBING LLC Total 229.65 NORTHSTAR COMPANIES Public Works G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 2,877.00 Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 2,877.00 NORTHSTAR COMPANIES Total 5,754.00 NORTHWEST ASPHALT INC.Franchise Fees BS Retainage Payable 22,358.33 Franchise Fees G&A Capital Outlay 57,045.63 Sewer BS Retainage Payable 2,602.02 Sewer G&A Capital Outlay 24,695.05 Storm Water Utility BS Retainage Payable 2,855.06 Storm Water Utility G&A Capital Outlay 51,220.18 NORTHWEST ASPHALT INC. Total 160,776.27 NOVACARE REHABILITATION Human Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 185.00 NOVACARE REHABILITATION Total 185.00 NYSTROM PUBLISHING Comm & Marketing G&A Postage, Delivery, Publishing 6,285.61 NYSTROM PUBLISHING Total 6,285.61 O'CONNELL MEAGAN Climate Investment G&A Climate Grant Disbursement 732.50 O'CONNELL MEAGAN Total 732.50 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LLC Comm & Marketing G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 77.88 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LLC Total 77.88 OELRICH JETHRO Assessing G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 3.63 OELRICH JETHRO Total 3.63 OFFICE OF MNIT SERVICES Technology G&A Capitalized Tech Software 2,250.70 OFFICE OF MNIT SERVICES Total 2,250.70 ON SITE SANITATION Organized Rec G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 67.00 Park Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 134.00 ON SITE SANITATION Total 201.00 OPHELIA G. BALCOS TRUST Water G&A Utility Refund 77.76 OPHELIA G. BALCOS TRUST Total 77.76 O'REILLY FIRST CALL General Fund BS Inventory 8.11 O'REILLY FIRST CALL Total 8.11 OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY OF THE NORTHLAND Facilties Maintenance G&A Repairs, Maint, Serv on Tech 640.45 OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY OF THE NORTHLAND Total 640.45 OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY INC Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 397.45 OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY INC Total 397.45 PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES INC Water G&A Capital Outlay 865.00 Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 368.00 PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES INC Total 1,233.00 PAPILLON MOLLY Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 61.00 PAPILLON MOLLY Total 61.00 PATER JASE Community Development G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 75.47 PATER JASE Total 75.47 PAVLIK, JULIE Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 85.00 PAVLIK, JULIE Total 85.00 PELZER ISAAC Water G&A Utility Refund 148.02 PELZER ISAAC Total 148.02 PEPPER BALL Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,838.00 PEPPER BALL Total 1,838.00 PER MAR SECURITY SERVICES Park Maintenance G&A Repairs, Maint, Serv on Tech 1,072.50 PER MAR SECURITY SERVICES Total 1,072.50 PETTERSEN JOSH Water G&A Utility Refund 98.84 PETTERSEN JOSH Total 98.84 PHILLIPPE DANIEL Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 85.00 PHILLIPPE DANIEL Total 85.00 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Title: Approve city disbursements Page 14 PINEWOOD LLC General Fund BS Escrows - Security 6,000.00 PINEWOOD LLC Total 6,000.00 PMA ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC CITY POOLED INVESTMENTS Misc Expenditures 8,289.41 PMA ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC Total 8,289.41 POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC General Fund BS Inventory 421.60 POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC Total 421.60 POPE DOUGLAS SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 511.88 POPE DOUGLAS SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Total 511.88 POSTMASTER Comm & Marketing G&A Postage, Delivery, Publishing 25,000.00 POSTMASTER Total 25,000.00 PRECISE MRM, LLC.Park Maintenance G&A Repairs, Maint, Serv on Tech 1,242.00 PRECISE MRM, LLC. Total 1,242.00 PREMIUM WATERS Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 377.92 PREMIUM WATERS Total 377.92 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC Storm Water Utility G&A Repairs and Maintenance 6,275.00 Water G&A Repairs and Maintenance 3,520.00 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC Total 9,795.00 R & R SPECIALTIES OF WISCONSIN, INC.Rec Center Gen Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 806.20 R & R SPECIALTIES OF WISCONSIN, INC. Total 806.20 RAILROAD MANAGEMENT COMPANY III LLC Water G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 871.62 RAILROAD MANAGEMENT COMPANY III LLC Total 871.62 REACH FOR RESOURCES INC Organized Rec G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,412.50 REACH FOR RESOURCES INC Total 1,412.50 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Westwood G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 540.00 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Total 540.00 REPUBLIC SERVICES Facilties Maintenance G&A Solid Waste Utility 10,597.67 Rec Center Gen Division G&A Solid Waste Utility 9,469.10 Solid Waste G&A Organics Utility Expense 81,437.48 REPUBLIC SERVICES Total 101,504.25 RHODE ISLAND PARTNERSHIP LLC Water G&A Utility Refund 471.38 RHODE ISLAND PARTNERSHIP LLC Total 471.38 RIVERWOOD ESTATES LLC General Fund BS Escrows - Security 1,221.30 RIVERWOOD ESTATES LLC Total 1,221.30 ROBERT B HILL CO Rec Center Gen Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,558.44 ROBERT B HILL CO Total 1,558.44 ROSEVILLE MIDWAY FORD General Fund BS Inventory 2,822.92 ROSEVILLE MIDWAY FORD Total 2,822.92 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC Vehicle Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 93.00 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC Total 93.00 SAMPSON EBONY Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 75.00 SAMPSON EBONY Total 75.00 SAND CREEK EAP LLC Human Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 800.00 SAND CREEK EAP LLC Total 800.00 SCHAETZKE EMMA Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 60.00 SCHAETZKE EMMA Total 60.00 SCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO.Park Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 759.08 SCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO. Total 759.08 SCHMILLEN JARED Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 61.00 SCHMILLEN JARED Total 61.00 SCHWEIGER TRAVIS Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 86.00 SCHWEIGER TRAVIS Total 86.00 SCOTT COUNTY TREASURER Police G&A Training & Conf Regist Fees 900.00 SCOTT COUNTY TREASURER Total 900.00 SETS DESIGN INC.Dispatch Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 110.00 Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 345.00 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Title: Approve city disbursements Page 15 SETS DESIGN INC. Total 455.00 SHADYWOOD TREE EXPERTS & LANDSCAPING Natural Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 6,317.00 SHADYWOOD TREE EXPERTS & LANDSCAPING Total 6,317.00 SHAPCO PRINTING INC City Clerk's Office G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 265.00 Comm & Marketing G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 416.00 Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,926.00 SHAPCO PRINTING INC Total 2,607.00 SHOEN ROBIN Employee Benefits G&A 6111 1,377.25 SHOEN ROBIN Total 1,377.25 SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, INC.Franchise Fees G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 2,111.67 MSA Capital G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 11,141.88 Sewer G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,528.68 Storm Water Utility G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 4,566.44 Street Capital G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 3,833.00 Water G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 4,036.63 SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, INC. Total 27,218.30 SIGNATURE MECHANICAL INC Rec Center Gen Division G&A Repairs and Maintenance 6,938.05 SIGNATURE MECHANICAL INC Total 6,938.05 SILBERT MILES Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 55.00 SILBERT MILES Total 55.00 SIMON KAREN M Water G&A Utility Refund 328.06 SIMON KAREN M Total 328.06 SINAR LLC Water G&A Utility Refund 63.00 SINAR LLC Total 63.00 SLP FF ASSOC IAFF LOCAL #993 Employee Benefits BS Union Dues Payable 3,223.07 SLP FF ASSOC IAFF LOCAL #993 Total 3,223.07 SMELTZER KELLY ANN Climate Investment G&A Climate Grant Disbursement 2,287.50 SMELTZER KELLY ANN Total 2,287.50 SMITH CONOR Water G&A Utility Refund 52.64 SMITH CONOR Total 52.64 SOLENDER LINDA Climate Investment G&A Climate Grant Disbursement 3,000.00 SOLENDER LINDA Total 3,000.00 SORENSEN MELISSA Employee Benefits G&A 6111 3,309.75 SORENSEN MELISSA Total 3,309.75 SOUTH CEDAR TRAILS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. S. Cedar Trails HIA G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 24,631.65 SOUTH CEDAR TRAILS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. Total 24,631.65 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC Engineering G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 909.78 Sewer G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 756.41 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC Total 1,666.19 ST CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY Police G&A Training & Conf Regist Fees 630.00 ST CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY Total 630.00 ST LOUIS PARK SUNRISE ROTARY Adminstrative Operations G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 150.00 ST LOUIS PARK SUNRISE ROTARY Total 150.00 ST. LOUIS PARK EMERGENCY PROGRAM Adminstrative Operations G&A Short Term Lease/Rentals Pay 450.00 Affordable H Trust G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 175,000.00 Community Development G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 50,000.00 General Fund G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 50,000.00 ST. LOUIS PARK EMERGENCY PROGRAM Total 275,450.00 STARK DAVID Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 122.00 STARK DAVID Total 122.00 STERICYCLE, INC.Adminstrative Operations G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 49.20 Community Development G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 178.21 Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 461.55 Finance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 28.17 Police G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 170.83 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Title: Approve city disbursements Page 16 Water G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 24.60 STERICYCLE, INC. Total 912.56 STERN MICHAEL Water G&A Utility Refund 2,080.21 STERN MICHAEL Total 2,080.21 STRATUS BUILDING SOLUTIONS OF ST. PAUL Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 5,200.00 Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 2,850.00 STRATUS BUILDING SOLUTIONS OF ST. PAUL Total 8,050.00 STREICHER'S Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 19,346.28 STREICHER'S Total 19,346.28 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY Sewer G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 846.67 Storm Water Utility G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 846.66 Water G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 846.67 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY Total 2,540.00 SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE General Fund BS Inventory 1,297.51 SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE Total 1,297.51 SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC Water Reilly G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 35,637.71 SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC Total 35,637.71 SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 5.15 Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 356.75 SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION Total 361.90 SUNBELT RENTALS INC Facilties Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 360.00 Rec Center Gen Division G&A Repairs and Maintenance 360.00 SUNBELT RENTALS INC Total 720.00 SUSTAINABLE RESOURCES CENTER Affordable H Trust G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 718.75 SUSTAINABLE RESOURCES CENTER Total 718.75 SVENDSGAARD WILLIAM Water G&A Utility Refund 263.21 SVENDSGAARD WILLIAM Total 263.21 SYSCO-MINNESOTA INC Rec Center Gen Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,718.18 SYSCO-MINNESOTA INC Total 1,718.18 T GRAVES CONSTRUCTION LLC General Fund BS Escrows - General 2,575.00 T GRAVES CONSTRUCTION LLC Total 2,575.00 TEE JAY NORTH, INC.Rec Center Gen Division G&A Repairs and Maintenance 791.00 TEE JAY NORTH, INC. Total 791.00 TENNANT SALES AND SERVICE CO.Facilties Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 1,633.86 TENNANT SALES AND SERVICE CO. Total 1,633.86 TERASA LLC General Fund BS Escrows - Security 465,000.00 TERASA LLC Total 465,000.00 TERMINAL SUPPLY CO Vehicle Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 49.75 TERMINAL SUPPLY CO Total 49.75 TERMINIX COMMERCIAL Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 755.46 Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 146.72 TERMINIX COMMERCIAL Total 902.18 THAT PROPERTY PLACE LLC Water G&A Utility Refund 100.50 THAT PROPERTY PLACE LLC Total 100.50 THE DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY Natural Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 8,700.00 THE DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY Total 8,700.00 THE MPX GROUP Comm & Marketing G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 3,375.13 THE MPX GROUP Total 3,375.13 THE SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 52.45 THE SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO Total 52.45 THE SIGN PRODUCERS INC Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,093.00 Rec Center Gen Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 95.00 THE SIGN PRODUCERS INC Total 1,188.00 THE UPS STORE Water G&A Postage, Delivery, Publishing 215.98 THE UPS STORE Total 215.98 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Title: Approve city disbursements Page 17 THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT Natural Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 375.00 THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT Total 375.00 TITAN MACHINERY General Fund BS Inventory 858.00 TITAN MACHINERY Total 858.00 T-MOBILE USA INC Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 150.00 T-MOBILE USA INC Total 150.00 TOAL PATRICK Water G&A Utility Refund 58.82 TOAL PATRICK Total 58.82 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY Park Maintenance G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 85.91 Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 12.32 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY Total 98.23 TOP NOTCH EQUIPMENT INC Natural Resources G&A Short Term Lease/Rentals Pay 3,400.00 TOP NOTCH EQUIPMENT INC Total 3,400.00 TOPLEY ERIN Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 61.00 TOPLEY ERIN Total 61.00 TOTAL MECHANICAL SERVICES, INC.Rec Center Gen Division G&A Repairs and Maintenance 3,709.80 TOTAL MECHANICAL SERVICES, INC. Total 3,709.80 TOWMASTER General Fund BS Inventory 116.04 TOWMASTER Total 116.04 TRASH CONTRACORS LLC Solid Waste G&A Yard Waste Utility 85,218.21 TRASH CONTRACORS LLC Total 85,218.21 TREE TRUST Natural Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 13,450.00 Park Improvement G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 5,950.00 TREE TRUST Total 19,400.00 TRI-STATE BOBCAT Vehicle Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 275.18 TRI-STATE BOBCAT Total 275.18 TRITECH SOFTWARE SYSTEMS Technology G&A Capitalized Tech Software 659.25 TRITECH SOFTWARE SYSTEMS Total 659.25 TRUE PLUMBING SERVICES Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 85.00 TRUE PLUMBING SERVICES Total 85.00 TRUNIGER NICOLE Water G&A Utility Refund 529.25 TRUNIGER NICOLE Total 529.25 TRYGESTAD H Water G&A Utility Refund 300.00 TRYGESTAD H Total 300.00 TWIN CITY OUTDOOR SERVICES INC SSD 1 G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,760.00 SSD 3 G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 620.00 TWIN CITY OUTDOOR SERVICES INC Total 2,380.00 TYSLEY TAYLOR Adminstrative Operations G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 600.00 TYSLEY TAYLOR Total 600.00 ULINE Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 98.00 Postage, Delivery, Publishing 23.80 Rec Center Gen Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 672.86 Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 221.87 ULINE Total 1,016.53 ULTIMATE SAFETY CONCEPTS INC Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,545.15 Repairs and Maintenance 225.00 ULTIMATE SAFETY CONCEPTS INC Total 1,770.15 UNO DOS TRES COMMUNICATIONS Police G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 250.00 UNO DOS TRES COMMUNICATIONS Total 250.00 UTILITY LOGIC Public Works G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 552.08 UTILITY LOGIC Total 552.08 VAIR JAMES BENJAMIN Climate Investment G&A Climate Grant Disbursement 732.50 VAIR JAMES BENJAMIN Total 732.50 VALLEY-RICH CO INC Water G&A Repairs and Maintenance 10,185.28 VALLEY-RICH CO INC Total 10,185.28 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Title: Approve city disbursements Page 18 VERTEX UNMANNED SOLUTIONS, LLC Police G&A Technology Devices 32,398.00 VERTEX UNMANNED SOLUTIONS, LLC Total 32,398.00 VET PARTNERS PET HOSPITAL - APPLE VALLEY Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 190.33 VET PARTNERS PET HOSPITAL - APPLE VALLEY Total 190.33 VETERAN ELECTRIC Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,025.00 VETERAN ELECTRIC Total 1,025.00 VISTAR-PERFORMANCE FOOD SERVICE Rec Center Gen Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,412.07 VISTAR-PERFORMANCE FOOD SERVICE Total 1,412.07 WARNING LITES OF MN INC Organized Rec G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 525.75 Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,471.40 WARNING LITES OF MN INC Total 1,997.15 WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC Water G&A Repairs and Maintenance 584.56 WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC Total 584.56 WEINBECK ANTHONY Water G&A Utility Refund 134.76 WEINBECK ANTHONY Total 134.76 WEIVODA MICHAEL Climate Investment G&A Climate Grant Disbursement 710.00 WEIVODA MICHAEL Total 710.00 WELLS FARGO Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 59.70 WELLS FARGO Total 59.70 WILLIAMS TODD Storm Water Utility G&A Rainwater Rewards to Resident 50.00 WILLIAMS TODD Total 50.00 WINCAN LLC Sewer G&A Software License <=12 months 5,500.00 WINCAN LLC Total 5,500.00 WM CORPORATE SERVICES INC Park Maintenance G&A Solid Waste Utility 7,315.16 WM CORPORATE SERVICES INC Total 7,315.16 WOLD ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS Municipal Building & Infra G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 7,480.00 WOLD ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS Total 7,480.00 WRIGHT ROBERT Water G&A Utility Refund 90.34 WRIGHT ROBERT Total 90.34 WSB ASSOC INC Franchise Fees G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 566.61 Sewer G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 64.39 Storm Water Utility G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,725.27 Water G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 553.73 WSB ASSOC INC Total 2,910.00 XCEL ENERGY Facilties Maintenance G&A Electric Utility 25,695.92 Park Maintenance G&A Electric Utility 257.28 Public Works G&A Electric Utility 21,589.03 Rec Center Gen Division G&A Electric Utility 21,053.84 Sewer G&A Electric Utility 5,802.75 Storm Water Utility G&A Electric Utility 2,431.51 Water G&A Electric Utility 34,210.80 Water Reilly G&A Electric Utility 1,723.46 XCEL ENERGY Total 112,764.59 YELENE VYALKIN Building and Energy G&A Refund of Services 23.40 YELENE VYALKIN Total 23.40 YOUNG ENV. CONSULTING GROUP, LLC.Storm Water Utility G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 4,237.50 YOUNG ENV. CONSULTING GROUP, LLC. Total 4,237.50 YOUNGER ADAM Water G&A Utility Refund 100.29 YOUNGER ADAM Total 100.29 ZIEBART OF MINNESOTA INC Vehicle Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 209.96 ZIEBART OF MINNESOTA INC Total 209.96 ZIEGLER INC General Fund BS Inventory 126.16 ZIEGLER INC Total 126.16 ZIRING EMILY Sustainability G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 47.27 ZIRING EMILY Total 47.27 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Title: Approve city disbursements Page 19 ZOZ NICHOLE Organized Rec G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 122.00 ZOZ NICHOLE Total 122.00 8,125,843.67 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Title: Approve city disbursements Page 20 Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5c Executive summary Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and Vision Zero goal of working towards eliminating fatal and severe injury crashes by the year 2050. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to adopt the Safe Streets Action Plan to support the city in future safety-focused, multimodal transportation investments and policies? Summary: The Safe Streets Action Plan provides a comprehensive, data-driven framework to guide future safety investments, reduce traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries, and support multimodal transportation options throughout St. Louis Park with the goal of eliminating fatal and severe-injury crashes by 2050. The overarching goal of the plan is to reduce—and ultimately eliminate—severe and fatal crashes for all people using the transportation system. Safe access for all users is essential to a thriving community, and the plan outlines objectives, policies and recommendations that can guide future transportation investments. Together, these elements form a blueprint for addressing the locations with the most severe crashes and for implementing strategies and infrastructure improvements that enhance roadway safety. The Safe Streets Action Plan can help inform capital improvement planning and guide the pursuit of funding opportunities aimed at improving overall roadway safety at priority locations. Staff presented the draft Safe Streets Action Plan at the study session on March 9, 2026, and the city council meeting on March 23, 2026. Following council discussion and a concurrent 30-day public comment period, community feedback has been reviewed and considered for incorporation. The plan is now finalized. Financial or budget considerations: This planning study identifies long-term safety needs and potential improvements, none of which are currently funded. It outlines options to guide future transportation investment decisions and positions the city to pursue funding opportunities as they become available. 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 Resolution Final Safe Streets Action Plan March 9, 2026 study session report; March 23, 2026 city council report Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, assistant city engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Page 2 Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Discussion Background: In 2023, the City of St. Louis Park received a federal Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant to develop an action plan focused on improving roadway safety. Developing this plan positions the city to pursue future SS4A implementation grants that can fund safety improvements. A critical part of developing a Safe Streets Action Plan is improving safety, mobility and access to the transportation network, particularly for vulnerable roadway users and in underserved communities, providing equitable investment to places that need funding the most. The final plan recommends actions and policies to improve safety for all people using the road, including pedestrians, bicyclists, people using transit, people with disabilities, passengers and drivers. City staff shared a written report about the plan with the city council during the study session on March 9, 2026. A 30-day public comment period took place during this time, allowing staff to collect feedback from the community. On March 23, 2026, staff presented a summary of the main themes from that feedback to the council. All the input received to date has been considered for the final version of the plan. Community feedback: Community feedback, along with comments from the city council, was used to refine the plan prior to adoption. I. March 23, 2026 council meeting – residents’ comments Two residents spoke during the March 23, 2026 council meeting. The following is a summary and staff responses to the comments: 1. A resident expressed support for the goal of eliminating fatal and serious‑injury crashes by 2050, emphasizing the importance of reducing vehicle speeds. He highlighted Action Item 2C, recommending that the city pilot intelligent speed assistance technology for its fleet. He noted that this technology is already used in Europe and estimated that its $1,500 per‑vehicle cost could be recovered within one to two years through fuel savings. No response is necessary. 2. A resident brought up her disappointment that Louisiana Avenue is not narrower, citing the use of Federal Highway Standards (FHWA) and encouraged the creation of a city transportation commission. The Safe Streets Action Plan focuses on identifying and prioritizing policies, programs and infrastructure improvements to improve transportation safety. The suggestion to establish a Transportation Commission is outside the scope of this plan and, after careful consideration, was not added to the document. The plan is intended to guide safety investments and implementation strategies rather than recommend changes to the city’s governance or advisory structure, which would require a separate policy discussion and council action. Regarding the width of Louisiana Avenue: before reconstruction, the road was 36 feet wide. As part of the current reconstruction project, the street is being narrowed by 8 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Page 3 Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal feet, resulting in a new width of 28 feet. This design was developed to improve safety and walkability while maintaining essential access and functionality. To clarify, the design of Louisiana Avenue was not made based on FHWA guidance. Road design is not one-size-fits-all; it requires careful consideration of the surrounding context, safety and the street’s intended use. While national and state guidelines provide recommended ranges, they are not fixed requirements. Instead, we apply engineering judgment—which incorporates professional expertise, real-world experience and data—to determine the most appropriate design for the specific conditions of each project. For Louisiana Avenue, several key factors influenced our recommendation: • Traffic volume: Louisiana Avenue carries approximately 16,700 vehicles per day. • Emergency access: It is the sole access route for Fire Station #2. • Vehicle dimensions: Fire trucks are approximately 10 feet wide. Buses, including mirrors, can measure over 10.5 feet. • Curb activity: While the street will be signed for “No Parking” on both sides, we know from experience that vehicles will occasionally stop for deliveries, ride share and solid waste collection, temporarily narrowing the usable width to about 20–21 feet. • Emergency maneuvers: When vehicles pull over to yield to emergency responders, the effective width can be reduced further, potentially to as little as 12–13 feet. If one of those vehicles is a bus, that clearance can drop to 10 feet or less. • Winter conditions: During heavy snowfall years, snow accumulation can reduce the usable roadway even further, making adequate design width critical for reliable year-round operations. The width of 28 feet on Louisiana Avenue reflects a thoughtful balance between creating a more pedestrian-friendly environment and ensuring continued access for emergency and service vehicles. By using engineering judgment, we aim to meet the needs of all users while aligning with safety and operational needs specific to Louisiana Avenue. It should be noted that we are working with the Fire Department to address concerns that the street is too narrow at their driveways for their trucks to get in and out. Modifications will be made as a part of this year’s construction to address these concerns. II. Open comment period comments Staff received 13 comments during the month-long open comment period, many of which included multiple points and addressed a wide range of topics. The input highlighted both specific safety concerns at key locations and broader citywide concerns related to traffic behavior, infrastructure and the evaluation of safety initiatives. A summary of the main themes included: City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Page 4 Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal • High-risk locations: The intersection of Highway 7 and Texas Avenue is widely viewed as unsafe for people walking and biking and in need of further improvements. • Neighborhood safety: Residents want stronger safety measures on local streets. • Speeding and enforcement: Many noted frequent speeding and unsafe passing, with calls for increased enforcement. • Education needs: There is a desire for more public education on how to use roundabouts correctly and yielding to pedestrians at crosswalks. • Infrastructure appreciation: Community members expressed appreciation for recent crosswalk upgrades—such as rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs)—and for ongoing efforts to improve pedestrian and bicycle networks. • Location-specific infrastructure changes: Mixed feedback on the removal of traffic signals, overpass design and access controls that have been done as a part of projects. • Plan methodology questions: Some noted concerns that the High-Injury Network is based on roadway mileage rather than traffic volume. • Evaluating past initiatives: Desire for information on the effectiveness of previous safety initiatives, such as the citywide speed limit reduction. • Investment prioritization: There is interest in including a return-on-investment framework to help guide future safety investments. Of the 13 comments, five contained suggestions and/ or questions that were focused on the content of the report. These comments were reviewed and changes were made to the report to address them. The changes include: • Action Item 4A calls for additional education on roundabouts, with outreach specifically targeted to seniors. • Clarifying the city’s Vision Zero Goal to clearly articulate the commitment to eliminating severe traffic injuries and fatalities • To assist with methodology questions, clarifications have been added to Figure 4 and the map in Appendix B. • Moving the Highway 7/ Texas intersection coordination with MnDOT to a medium-term item up from a long-term item. • Including Metro Transit in the bi-annual coordination meetings to ensure rail safety at light rail stations is considered for all users. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Page 5 Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal The remaining seven comments were location-specific or focused on one solution. The Safe Streets Action Plan is intended to establish a high-level, systemwide framework to guide future safety investments, policies and priorities across the city. Since the plan provides a range of proven safety strategies, including targeted infrastructure improvements rather than calling out a one-size-fits-all approach, changes were not made to the report. Location-specific comments are being forwarded to the appropriate staff for review, and we will respond directly to community members following that evaluation. Next steps: This planning study identifies long-term safety considerations and potential improvements, none of which are currently funded. It outlines a range of options to help guide future transportation investment decisions and positions the city to pursue funding opportunities as they arise. The city will continue incorporating Safe Streets Action Plan recommendations into existing Capital Improvement Plan projects and will seek opportunities to address other identified unfunded items. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Page 6 Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Resolution No. 26-___ Approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal by the year 2050 Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably; and Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park applied for and received a planning grant from the Federal Highway Administration for a Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) to develop a Safe Streets Action Plan (Plan); and Whereas, the Plan is committed to a Vision Zero goal of working toward eliminating fatal and severe injury crashes by the year 2050; and Whereas, safe access for all users is essential to a thriving community, and the Safe Streets Action Plan outlines objectives, policies and recommendations that can guide future transportation investments; and Whereas, the Plan completed an analysis of the existing conditions and historical trends on the streets and roads in St. Louis Park and identified a comprehensive set of areas and strategies, shaped by data, the best available evidence and noteworthy practices, as well as stakeholder input and equity considerations to address roadway safety challenges; and Whereas, the Plan will help inform capital improvement planning and guide the pursuit of funding opportunities aimed at improving overall roadway safety at priority locations; and Now therefore be it resolved that the City of St. Louis Park approves the Safe Streets Action Plan and commits to implementing the Plan and integrating its strategies into city polices, programs and capital improvement planning as appropriate. The Plan guides staff to track progress, report on performance measures and update the plan as needed. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council April 6, 2026: Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamad, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk St. Louis Park, MN Safe Streets Action Plan April 2026 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 7 1 Contents Project Team ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Background ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Why is a Safety Streets Plan Needed in St. Louis Park? ..................................................................................... 4 How the Action Plan was created ..................................................................................................................... 4 Safety Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................... 7 City-wide Crash History ..................................................................................................................................... 7 High-Injury Network (HIN) .............................................................................................................................. 10 Top Injury Intersections................................................................................................................................... 12 Equity Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 14 Public Engagement .......................................................................................................................................................... 15 Engagement Activities ..................................................................................................................................... 15 Key Themes ..................................................................................................................................................... 16 Priority Area Identification ............................................................................................................................................... 18 Top 28 Priority Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 21 Safety Toolkit ................................................................................................................................................... 24 Recommended Treatments ............................................................................................................................. 24 Ongoing City Efforts ......................................................................................................................................................... 25 The Action Plan ................................................................................................................................................................ 25 Using the Safe System Approach .................................................................................................................... 25 Effort vs. Impact .............................................................................................................................................. 26 Transparency and Accountability ..................................................................................................................................... 36 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Appendices ...................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Appendix A – Safety Treatment Toolkit Appendix B – Recommendations for top 28 priority locations Appendix C – Safety Analysis Technical Memorandum Appendix D – Prioritization Technical Memorandum Appendix E – Engagement Summary City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 8 2 PROJECT TEAM City of St. Louis Park, Project Management • Jack Sullivan, PE, Deputy Engineering Director/Assistant City Engineer • Debra Heiser, PE, Engineering Director Technical Advisory Committee Members • Travas Diersen, St. Louis Park Police • Cary Smith, St. Louis Park Fire • Laura Chamberlain, St. Louis Park Community Development • Kala Fisher, St. Louis Park Public Works • Pat Coleman, St. Louis Park Public Engagement • Ben Sandell, St. Louis Park Communications • Emily Ziring, St. Louis Park Building and Energy • Kyle Fitterer, MnDOT Metro District • Tom Musick, Hennepin County • Kristi Sebastian, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) | Minnesota Division Office Stakeholder Committee Members • Tom Sachi, Resident • Ian Thomas, Resident/America Walks • Dan Mollick, Resident • Alex Calderone, Resident • Quinn Thompson, Resident • Steve Mollick, Resident • Sandy Hicks, Resident • Laurie Pape Hadley, Resident • Dave Hanson, St. Louis Park School District SEH Consultant Team Members • Jen Desrude, PE, Project Manager • Chelsea Moore-Ritchie, AICP, Deputy Project Manager • Leo Johnson, PE, Safety Engineer • Adrian Diaz, Public Involvement Support • Tylor Schwarz, GISP, GIS Specialist • Justin Anibas, PE, Safety Engineer City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 9 3 BACKGROUND St. Louis Park (SLP) is a vibrant suburb located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, within the Minneapolis–Saint Paul metropolitan area. Known for its strong neighborhoods, diverse population, and commitment to equity and sustainability, St. Louis Park has a rich history dating back to the late 19th century and became an incorporated city in 1954. The city is home to approximately 50,000 residents and continues to grow as a welcoming, connected, and forward-thinking community. Geographically, St. Louis Park is located just west of the City of Minneapolis, offering direct access to downtown Minneapolis via express transit routes, regional trails, and the interstate and county road system. The city is bordered by Hopkins and Minnetonka to the west, Golden Valley to the North, Minneapolis to the east and Edina to the south. It is served by a network of regional highways, freight rail lines, and will have stops along the future METRO Green Line Extension (Southwest Light Rail Transit - see Figure 1), further enhancing its connectivity and multimodal transportation options. Community Origins The St. Louis Park area was home to the Dakota people prior to the arrival of the first European settlers. However, it is unlikely there was much Dakota settlement that occurred in what is now St. Louis Park because of the predominance of marsh land. Most Dakota people settled near Bde Maka Ska, (formerly called Lake Calhoun) which is just east of St. Louis Park. The Dakota people were pushed west when white settlers came, and they ultimately were forced out altogether. There is little data available to map the movements and settlements of the Dakota people who occupied the general area. The European settlers who followed in the 1850s were farmers, mostly British, Irish, or American-born. These settlers cleared the land of brush and trees to create farmsteads, which produced livestock and produce for a growing Minneapolis population. They also began to establish the social and political institutions that had guided and ordered their lives in earlier settlements, including government, education, and religious institutions. Figure 1 - Place Types Framework (source: St. Louis Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan) City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 10 4 Why is a Safe Streets Action Plan Needed in St. Louis Park? While the city has made significant safety investments in the community over the past few decades, there is also an acknowledgment that every person deserves to be able to walk away from a crash. While eliminating all crashes is unrealistic, the city is committing to a Vision Zero1 goal of working towards eliminating fatal and severe injury crashes by the year 2050. • This includes a benchmark goal of a 50% reduction in fatal and severe injury crashes by the year 2040. While this goal is ambitious and will require significant collaboration across departments and with other agencies, this Safe Streets Action Plan provides a road map to work towards the goal and document progress for the community. This plan was made possible by grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). The process allowed the city to take a data driven approach to identifying and prioritizing actions for reducing or eliminating serious injury and deadly crashes throughout St. Louis Park. How the Action Plan was created The Action Plan was built around a comprehensive and community-focused approach. The process: • Engaged local stakeholders • Identified crash hotspots and high-injury networks • Provided recommendations for citywide safety improvements and initiatives • Prioritized projects that address the most pressing safety issues • Developed a process to ensure accountability and transparency The action plan is guided by the Safe System Approach, which understands that people will sometimes make mistakes, but those mistakes should not result in life-altering or deadly consequences. This strategy calls for safer street designs, multiple layers of protection, and shared responsibility between the city, community members, and partner organizations. By working together, we can make sure that crashes don’t become tragedies. A core goal of the plan is equity. It recognizes that different users and neighborhoods may experience different risks. The action plan looks closely at where severe crashes happen, especially in areas that have been historically underserved or where walking, biking and transit use are critical to everyday life, such as getting to work, the grocery store, or critical services such as healthcare. 1 Vision Zero is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 11 5 The action plan also supports other city goals outlined in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (St. Louis Park Vision 3.0), including: • Equity: Investments are focused where safety needs are greatest, especially in disadvantaged communities. • Environmental Stewardship: Supports carbon neutrality goals by promoting safer routes for non-motorized travelers. • Neighborhood Strength: Safer streets support vibrant, connected communities. • Reliable Travel Options: Enhances safety for all travel modes, including walking, biking, driving, and transit. • Inclusive Engagement: Solutions are rooted in community input and lived experience. The Action Plan Process The following page shows the planning process for the Safe Streets Action Plan. The plan started in summer of 2024 and was completed in the winter of 2025/26. There were four main phases of the project: Phase 1: Data Collection and Citywide Outreach The city gathered crash data, evaluated risk factors, considered equity, and collected public input. This helped identify areas across St. Louis Park with the highest safety concerns and identify citywide trends. Phase 2: Identification of Needs and Priorities The city worked with the Technical and Stakeholder Committees to review public feedback and data collected, and worked with them to define, identify and prioritize needs and action items. The detailed data analysis and method for prioritizing projects and strategies is provided in the following chapters. Phase 3: Implementation Plan Development Once project areas and city-wide safety issues were identified, the project team and committees worked together to develop infrastructure recommendations and non-infrastructure related strategies (such as education programs and policy changes) to address the identified needs. This identification or needs and priorities provides opportunities to pursue outside funding sources to implement changes more efficiently. Phase 4: Accountability and Transparency The Safe Streets Action Plan is an implementation plan meant to move action items forward. A large part of this is accountability. Each action item is assigned to a city department to champion the progress, and all action items have timelines for implementing changes. Once the plan is finalized, a public-facing dashboard will be created to show real- time progress on action items. This ensures the plan remains transparent, up-to-date, and responsive to the community’s needs. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 12 6 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 13 7 SAFETY ANALYSIS Working towards eliminating deadly and serious injury crashes is at the heart of the Safe Streets Action Plan process. This process is both reactive, looking back at where fatal and severe injury crashes have occurred, and proactive, looking at where people are at higher risk. The city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies the need to prioritize safety investments in line with the modal hierarchy: pedestrians first, bicyclists and transit riders second, and people driving in vehicles third. Findings from the safety analysis support this approach, with pedestrians and bicyclists making up only 3% of total crashes, but 44% of fatal and severe injury crashes (Figure 2). This is a trend that is consistent across the Twin Cities and across the country and is the reason this group is identified as Vulnerable Road Users (VRU). Due to the higher risks for VRUs, non-serious injury and non-fatal crashes for pedestrians and bicyclist were reviewed, since these crashes can more easily result in a fatal or severe injury in the future. City-wide Crash History Ten years of crash data (2014-2023) was collected and analyzed using the statewide crash database.2 The data included crashes on city, county and state-owned roads with at-grade intersections where two or more directions of travel interact.3 This information was used to develop both a High-Injury Network (HIN) and Top Injury Intersections list. Table 1 provides an overall summary of the data. Over the past decade, there were roughly 6,000 crashes, with 1% of crashes resulting in a fatal or severe injury, 25% of crashes resulting in at least a minor injury or possible injury, and 3% involving a pedestrian or bicyclist. Since the goal of the plan is to focus on safety, and reducing fatal and severe injury crashes, the analysis focused on the 25% of crashes that involved injuries as well as all pedestrian and bicyclist crashes. While some locations may experience high rates of crashes or feel unsafe, they may not show up as high-injury locations due to “property damage only” or no history of pedestrian or bicyclist involved crashes. 2 MnDOT Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT2). 3 Crashes that occurred on the mainline for state highways (Interstate 394, Hwy 100 and Hwy 169) were excluded since these are not owned by or interact with city or county roads. Ramp interchanges were included in the analysis. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 14 8 Table 1 - Summary of 10-year crash analysis (2014-2023) Crash Type Number of crashes % of total crashes All Reported Crashes 5936 100% Fatal or Severe Injury Crashes 64 1.1% Minor/Possible Injury Crashes 1413 23.8% Property Damage Only 4459 75.1% Pedestrian/Bicyclist Crashes 196 3.3% Motorcycle/Moped/Scooter Crashes 47 Less than 1% Figure 3 shows the crash totals by injury type over the past 10 years. Figure 4 shows the COVID related dip in annual crashes from 2020 to 2021 is consistent with Hennepin County and Twin Cities metro area COVID impacts and not related to city-specific trends. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Crashes Fatal and Severe Injury Total minor injury or possible injury crashes Figure 4 - Comparison of COVID impacts for total annual crashes on locally owned streets within St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, and the Twin Cities Metro Region from 2018-2023 Figure 3 - 10-year crash totals by year for the City of St. Louis Park City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 15 9 Fatal and Severe Injury Crash Types A total of 64 fatal and severe injury crashes occurred in the city over the 10-year period. Eliminating these crashes is the primary objective of the plan, so trends were reviewed to understand common factors for these crashes citywide. Both the types of road users and the types of crash factors were reviewed, and findings are shown below. By User Type • Young Drivers: While younger drivers (15–24) make up 11% of the population, they are involved in 25% of the most serious crashes. By Crash Factors that were noted in 20% or more of fatal and severe injury crashes • Intersections: 69% • Angle Crashes: 33%4 • Occurred at night: 31% • Drivers were under the influence: 20% • Single vehicle incidence: 20% Intersections and right angle crashes are typical of fatal and severe injury crashes. This is one of the reasons the city began implementing roundabouts at certain locations, to slow speeds and reduce high speed conflict points (Figure 5).5 Crashes that occurred at night, drivers under the influence, single vehicle crashes (indicating high vehicle speeds), and young drivers were additional citywide risk factors identified. 4 Includes 9 right angle bicyclist crashes with vehicles. 5 Roundabouts have been shown to decrease fatal injury crashes by 86%, severe injury crashes by 83%, and 42% for all injury crashes. MnDOT office of Traffic Engineering Figure 5 - Conflict point between traditional and roundabout intersections (Source: FHWA Roundabouts: An Informational Guide) City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 16 10 High-Injury Network (HIN) A High-Injury Network was created to highlight roads with a high density of injury related crashes. Each crash type was scored, with fatal and severe injury crashes ranked higher than minor injury crashes. A total of 12.75 miles of roadway were included in the city’s final HIN map, shown in Figure 6 and Table 2. •The HIN network makes up 7.5% of the road network 6 and accounts for 61% of fatal and severe injury crashes. •Over ¼ of the HIN is funded for reconstruction in the next one to four years. •The city reduced the HIN miles by 20% from 2014 to 2023, due to substantial reconstruction and safety improvements.7 Table 2 - High-Injury Network Locations for the City of St. Louis Park (2024) Location Extents Planned/Programmed Construction Louisiana Ave Wayzata Blvd to Franklin Ave Completed in 2025 Louisiana Ave Cedar Lake Rd to BNSF Railroad bridge Approved for construction in 2026 Park Place Blvd I-394 interchange to Cedar Lake Rd None Park Center Blvd 36 St W to Excelsior Blvd None Texas Ave W 36 St to Hwy 7 None Cedar Lake Rd Rhode Island Ave to Louisiana Ave Approved for construction in 2026 Minnetonka Blvd US 169 interchange to Louisiana Ave Hennepin County planned in 2028/2031 Minnetonka Blvd Dakota Ave to Vernon Ave Hennepin County planned construction in 2028 Minnetonka Blvd TH 100 Interchange to Inglewood Ave Hennepin County construction completed 2025 W 26 St 8 Natchez Ave to Joppa Ave None W 36 St Boone Ave to Texas Ave None Hwy 7 Aquila Ave/Blake Rd to Wooddale Ave Roadway lowering in 2028 between Texas Ave and Louisiana Ave to reduce vertical curve Excelsior Blvd Meadowbrook Ln to Kipling Ave None CSAH 25 Hwy 100 to Beltline Blvd None Notable in the analysis is that most of the locations included in the HIN are considered high-volume roads, many of which are county or state-owned roads. While the HIN can show important information about where the majority of injury severe crashes are occurring, it is unsurprising that they are occurring at high volume locations. 6 Measured in linear roadway miles 7 In addition to the HIN segments, eight additional segments were flagged by the crash analysis as part of the original High-Injury Network, but these locations were removed due to substantive reconstruction that occurred during the crash analysis period. 8 While W 26th Street met the criteria for the HIN, a review of crashes shows abnormal driver behavior as contributing factors and multiple crashes. In these situations, engineering solutions may not solve for the crash type, however it remains part of the HIN for methodological consistency and further review. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 17 11 Figure 6 - High-Injury Network for City of St. Louis Park, MN (2014-2023) City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 18 12 Top Injury Intersections To understand where fatal and severe injury crashes are occurring more frequently than expected based on volume and road type, a top injury intersection analysis was completed to highlight intersections with a higher fatal and severe injury rate or with other risk factors. This approach helped identify intersections that might otherwise be overlooked in the HIN due to lower traffic volumes 9. Figure 7 shows the results of the top injury intersections, rated by injury risk. Only five intersections were found to be over the critical injury rate 10, resulting in a ranking of higher risk. Of the five, three of these locations are scheduled for reconstruction in the next few years. Another 37 intersections were identified with medium risk11, with about half scheduled for safety updates in the next 2 to 10 years. The remaining intersections were identified as lower risk 12. These locations were still in the top 100 list for number of crashes for both local and non-local roads but did not have fatal or severe injury crashes or vulnerable road user crashes. Additional detail on the safety analysis and methodology can be found in the Safety Analysis Technical Memorandum found in Appendix B. 9 The top injury intersections analysis pulled the top 100 crash locations for all roads, as well as the top 100 crash locations for 10 Intersection Fatal and Severe Injury Crash Rate (FAR) are based on the number of fatal and severe injury crashes per 100 million entering vehicles. 11 Moderate to low rate of injury crashes, but with a high rate of total crashes11 and at least one pedestrians or bicyclist crash. 12 Lower risk intersections had moderate to low rate of injury crashes, a high rate of total crashes, and no pedestrians or bicyclist crashes. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 19 13 Figure 7 - Top Injury Intersections for the City of St. Louis Park, MN (2014-2023) City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 20 14 EQUITY ANALYSIS Because low-income residents and residents who identify as a person of color are historically more likely to be victims of a fatal or severe injury crash13, and because transportation needs vary by neighborhood, an equity analysis was conducted to inform higher need areas for walking, biking and access to transit. This included a review of 13 different equity indicators such as housing density, job density, median household income, and number of people with a disability. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and stakeholder committee were involved in the selection of the equity considerations and weighting that was incorporated into the project prioritization process. Based on the feedback, poverty rate, race, affordable or senior housing, population density, residents under the age of 18 and pedestrian generators including low-wage worker job concentrations and transit stops were included as scoring criteria.14 13 MnDOT’s Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment 14 The residents with disabilities dataset was considered for inclusion, but due to significant overlap with affordable housing/senior housing data, it was removed. Grocery stores were also considered for inclusion by the stakeholder committee, but due to significant overlap with the low wage worker job concentrations, grocery store locations were not added to the scoring criteria. Schools were not selected because they were already included in the High-Risk dataset which received a higher weighting for the prioritization score. ysis of Traffic Fatalities by Race and Ethnicity. Governors Highway Safety Administration. June 2021. Figure 8 - Affordable Housing Locations and Areas above the county average for poverty rate City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 21 15 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT To inform the development of the Safe Streets Action Plan, the city and project team conducted a multi-phase community engagement process to better understand local transportation safety concerns, priorities, and lived experiences. The outreach strategy was designed to reach a diverse group of residents, workers, and stakeholders, including those who are often underrepresented in planning processes. Input gathered through this engagement helped shape the goals of the plan, identify key areas of concern, and guide the selection of strategies to improve safety for all road users in St. Louis Park. Engagement Activities The following activities helped reach people where they were, to reduce barriers to engagement. • Yard Signs and Flier Campaign with QR codes to the project website were placed at key locations with high pedestrian and bicycle traffic. • Pop-up Events brought the project directly to the public. Five events at community spaces and city-sponsored activities reached over 460 in-person participants, offering accessible opportunities for feedback. o St Louis Park Art Fair at the Recreation Outdoor Center (August 7, 2024) o Movies in the Park (August 7, 2024) o Fire Department Open House (August 18, 2024) o Aquila Park (October 21, 2024) o Hennepin County-St. Louis Park Library (October 29, 2024) • Community Workshop held at the Westwood Nature Center (Oct 15, 2024), engaging in hands-on mapping activities and discussions. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 22 16 • Online Survey conducted during the first phase (Fall 2024) gathering insight on travel modes, safety concerns, and investment priorities. • Interactive Mapping Tool (Fall 2024) allowed stakeholders to provide comments on specific locations, routes, and areas of interest. Comments identified specific safety concerns across the city, specifically on major roads such as Excelsior Blvd, Minnetonka Blvd, and Louisiana Ave. • Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Stakeholder Committee reviewed technical data and guided the development of strategies and project locations to ensure recommendations reflect community needs. The TAC members included city staff from various departments such as police, fire and planning as well as MnDOT and Hennepin County representatives. The 10- member Stakeholder Committee represented diverse backgrounds and modes of transportation, including residents, advocacy groups and a representative from the school district. • Pop-up Workshop at Parktacular on June 14, 2025, introduced the planning process, top priority projects, and upcoming Action Plan to the public. Key Themes The following key takeaways are based on public feedback gathered through the engagement activities outlined previously. Traffic Management and Speed Control Speeding and unsafe driving behaviors along busy streets were top concerns. Feedback also mentioned that vehicles drive too fast along residential roads. Survey respondents ranked calming vehicle traffic (selected by 64% of participants) as the top transportation priority, while traffic enforcement was ranked third (selected by 47%). Public input emphasized the need for traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speeds, especially near school zone areas, parks, and commercial areas. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety at Intersections The public highlighted safety concerns at intersections throughout the city, specifically along roads with high traffic, multiple lanes, faster speeds, or near commercial areas. Based on survey input, improving safety conditions at intersections (selected by 57% of participants) ranked second as a top priority for the city’s future transportation priorities. Many engagement participants shared that they do not feel safe walking or biking across busy streets with children, even at intersections with controlled crossings. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 23 17 Positive Feedback regarding City’s Multimodal Investments Throughout engagement events, many stakeholders shared their general support for the city’s continuous efforts to expand and improve the multimodal network. The pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure was highlighted as a key community asset in St. Louis Park. Top areas of concern Through the online comment map, community members were able to share locations where they felt unsafe walking, biking or driving. Figure 9 shows these locations are spread throughout the city, with higher concentration of safety related comments near Texas and Minnetonka Blvd, Wooddale Ave and 26th Street, Excelsior Blvd and Hwy 100, and the Fern Hill Neighborhood. Additional areas of moderate comment density include locations along Louisiana Ave, West Lake Street, Knollwood Mall, and areas in close proximity to schools. Figure 9 - Online Comment Map (Fall 2024) City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 24 18 PRIORITY AREAS Information from the safety analysis, as well as equity analysis and public feedback were used to develop a data driven method for prioritizing future safety improvements. The method was created with input from the TAC , the Stakeholder Committee, review of public survey comments, and a review of national best practices. Locations were scored and weighed using four main categories, with a maximum possible score of 30 points. The high-injury network and high-risk locations made up 70% of the scoring criteria with equity considerations and public feedback comprising 30%. Table 3 shows the criteria and scores included in the location prioritization. Table 3 - Prioritization Criteria Criteria Total Points (30) Scoring Categories (Points) High-Injury Locations 12 • High-Injury Network (HIN)(6pts) • High-Injury Intersections (6pts) High-Risk Locations 9 • Vulnerable Road Users Crashes (2pts) • Proximity to Schools (2pts) • At-grade Regional Trail Crossings (2pts) • Roadways with 4 or more lanes (2pt) • Crashes occurring more frequently in the dark (1pt) Equity Considerations 6 • Poverty Rate (1pt) • Percentage of residents identifying as a person of color (1pt) • Affordable/senior Housing (1pt) • Population Density (1pt) • Residents Under the Age of 18 (1pt) • Pedestrian Generators (Low-wage worker jobs, transit stops) (1pt) Public Feedback 3 • Density of Public Comments (2-3pts) When the criteria were applied across the city, the highest scoring locations had a total of 23 points out of 30. No locations scored for all 14 categories. Figure 10 shows the scoring throughout the city while the Prioritization Technical Memorandum, included in Appendix D provides a full methodology for the analysis. Areas highlighted show locations with the greatest need for safety investment, based on documented crash history, other risk factors and public feedback. A total of 28 locations score either moderate (9-16) or high (17-23) on the prioritization map. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 25 19 Figure 10 - Priority Scoring for Safety Improvements City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 26 20 Top locations were then identified based on reasonable construction extents and grouped into tiers based on their score and future construction status for the roadways. Table 4 provides a summary of the priority tiers and considerations for action items based on planned and programmed projects. Tier 0 projects were high scoring (23-17) and moderate scoring (16-9) locations with reconstruction in progress or to be completed by the end of 2026. Since these projects are already underway, recommendations revolve around the post- construction review process to ensure safety concerns were sufficiently addressed in the reconstruction. Tier 1 locations represent the highest priority locations. These are all part of the High-Injury Network and will require significant coordination with county and state partners since these locations are mostly under county and state jurisdiction. Throughout this process, both the county and state were engaged to evaluate and identify safety concerns and recommended solutions. Tier 2 locations represent the moderate scoring locations. These are a mix of roads under the city, county and state jurisdictions. Many of these locations provide greater opportunities for quick build or demonstration projects, which are less expensive and have fewer barriers to implementation. Table 4 - Prioritization Tiers Tier Criteria Action Items Tier 0 High scoring (23-17) and moderate scoring (16-9) with planned reconstruction in progress or planned by 2026 •Consider temporary safety improvements and/or additional construction management precautions before and during reconstruction •Review existing construction plans to ensure identified safety concerns and needs were accounted for in reconstruction plans •Post construction evaluation Tier 1 High scoring (23-17) with no planned reconstruction •Identify key safety concerns •Assess short-term quick build solutions •Assess medium- and long-term solutions •Identify grant applications and/or future CIP funding Tier 1 High scoring (23-17) with planned reconstruction in the next 3-10 years •Identify key safety concerns and propose countermeasures •Assess short-term quick build solutions to inform long-term design Tier 2 Moderate scoring (16-9) with no planned reconstruction •Identify key safety concerns and propose countermeasures •Assess short-term quick build solutions •Assess medium- and long-term solutions •Identify grant applications and/or future CIP funding Tier 2 Moderate scoring (16-9) with planned reconstruction in the next 3-10 years •Identify key safety concerns and propose countermeasures •Assess short-term quick build solutions to inform long-term design Tier 3 All other low scoring (1-8) locations •Monitor locations and conduct follow-up evaluation next time a crash analysis is completed. •Complete a post-fatal/severe crash review for all new fatalities or pedestrian/bicyclist crashes that occurred after the December 2023 collection period. •Identify system wide strategies such as education and enforcement to improve safety systemwide. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 27 21 Figure 11 and Table 5 provide a summary of the Tier 0, 1 and 2 locations. These include roads and intersections owned by the city, county, or state. Many of the Tier 1 locations involve county/state roads and will require significant coordination to advocate for safety improvements outside the city’s jurisdiction. Figure 11 – Top 28 Priority Areas (St. Louis Park Safe Streets Action Plan, 2025) City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 28 22 Table 5 - Top 28 Priority Areas (St. Louis Park Safe Streets Action Plan, 2025) Tier Map # Project Locations (Road Owner) Funded Projects Key Safety Concerns 0 1 Cedar Lake Rd (Rhode Island Ave S to Louisiana Ave (City (MSA)) 2026 Pedestrian and bicyclist safety at crossings along Cedar Lake Rd (Particularly at Nevada Ave) 0 2 Minnetonka Blvd - Hwy 100 to Lake St (County) 2025 Project is currently under construction, so a safety review was not completed. 0 3 Louisiana Ave - I-394 to W 22nd St (City (MSA)) 2025 North/south traveling bicyclist safety at crosswalks. 0 4 Louisiana Ave - W 22nd St to BNSF RR bridge (City (MSA)) 2026 North/south traveling pedestrian and bicyclist safety at crosswalks/driveways 1 5 Minnetonka Blvd and Hwy 100 NB entrance ramp (MnDOT/ County) 2025 pavement only Turning conflicts 1 6 Minnetonka Blvd - Cedar Lake Trail Bridge to Texas Ave (County) 2028 • Segment wide: Vehicle speeds, Pedestrian crossing concerns, particularly at Utah Ave, Xylon Ave intersections, Bicyclist crossing concerns along Minnetonka Blvd. • Minnetonka Blvd at Texas Ave Intersection: Red light running, visibility due to vertical curve, and ADA opportunities 1 7 Texas Ave - 36th Ave S to Hwy 7 (City-MSA) None • Pedestrian crossing/facility concerns near a high pedestrian generator • Public Comments: Unsignalized intersection at Cub Foods feels unsafe for both drivers and pedestrians • Visibility concerns in the SE corner of 36th St and Texas Ave 1 8 Texas Ave and Hwy 7 (MnDOT) 2028 vertical curve lowering • High vehicle speeds, visibility due to vertical curve • Pedestrian/ Bicyclist safety concerns in high pedestrian generator area 1 9 Excelsior Blvd West Segment - Powell Rd to Hwy 100 (County) None Varies, Part of the HIN 1 10 Excelsior Blvd East Segment - Hwy 100 to W 36th 1/2 St (County) 2028 (west 100 interchange) Varies, Part of the HIN 2 11 36th St - Regional Trail Crossing to Texas Ave (City-MSA) None • Vehicle speeds • Trail crossing concerns (Cedar Lake Trail) • Bicyclist crossing concerns along 36th St • Intersection signal timing and pedestrian concerns (Aquilla and Texas intersections) • Visibility concerns (36th St and Texas) 2 12 Wooddale Ave S - W 35th St to W 36th St (City-MSA) None • Pedestrian crossing safety at 35th and 36th • Visibility concerns for westbound off ramp City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 29 23 • Future CP Rail Regional Trail by Three Rivers Park District 2 13 Cedar Lake Rd and Ridge Dr (City-MSA) None • Visibility concerns likely contributing to bicyclist safety issues on south leg 2 14 Cedar Lake Rd and Hwy 169 Ramp (MnDOT) Signal replacement project 2026, sidewalk on east side of Jordan, Bridge reconstruction in 2035. • Pedestrian and bicyclist crossing safety • Motorist speeds • Visibility concerns 2 15 26th St - Natchez Ave S to Joppa Ave S (City-MSA) None • Visibility concerns at Natchez Ave with pedestrian generators • Stop sign compliance concerns 2 16 Park Center Blvd - W36th St to Excelsior Blvd (City-MSA) None • Bicyclist crossing safety at 36th St • Pedestrian and bicyclist crossing safety at Target signal • Motorist safety issues at Excelsior Blvd and Park Center Blvd 2 17 Park Place Blvd - I-394 to Gamble Dr (City-MSA) None • Bicyclist safety along high volume roadway (street bicyclists) • Pedestrian crossing safety at intersections 2 18 Louisiana Ave at W 27th St (City-MSA) None • High vehicle speeds • Pedestrian/ bicyclist crossing safety • Potential visibility issues for westbound movements 2 19 W 30th 1/2 St and Virginia Ave (City) None • Pedestrian safety / Safe Routes to School • Visibility issues due to parking • Uncontrolled intersection 2 20 Aquila Neighborhood (City) None • Pedestrian crossing safety / Safe Routes to School • Vehicle speeds on Xylon Ave • Visibility issues due to street parking 2 21 Hwy 25 (Hwy 7) and Beltline Blvd (County and City-MSA) None • Long crossing distances at intersection with high pedestrian generators • ADA improvement opportunities • Potential signal timing concerns with high percentage of rear-end crashes 2 22 Beltline Blvd – Hwy 7 service road to Park Glen Rd (City-MSA) 2032 • Vehicle speeds • Missing connection from on street trail to regional trail and pedestrian bridge over Hwy 25 (Hwy 7) • Pedestrian/ bicyclist crossing concerns at Park Glen and future light rail station 2 23 Virginia Ave S - North Cedar Lake Regional Trail Crossing to Texas Ave (City-MSA) None • Trail crossing visibility issues with horizontal curve • Connection under rail bridge City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 30 24 2 24 Hwy 7 and Blake Rd (MnDOT, City, City of Hopkins) None See MnDOT report 15 for more information 2 25 W 36th St and Hwy 100 Ramp Interchange (MnDOT) 2029 signal replacement • Pedestrian/ bicyclist crossing safety at south crosswalk 2 26 Minnetonka Blvd (Cavell Ave to Boone Ave) (County) 2031 • Vehicle speeds • Horizontal curve 2 27 Hwy 169 ramps at Minnetonka Blvd (MnDOT/ County) 2030 • Pedestrian/ bicyclist crossing safety 2 28 W 16th St and Duke Dr City (local) None • Pedestrian safety at west crosswalk with left turning vehicle conflict • 4-lane undivided cross-section with all-way stop and possible visual clutter concerns RECOMMENDED TREATMENTS For each of the top 28 locations, an in-depth safety review was conducted to provide recommended treatments. Treatments range from short to long term and include quick-build solutions16 and demonstrations projects 17 where possible, to efficiently address safety needs. Solutions were based on the safety treatments identified in the comprehensive Safety Toolkit, as well as engineering judgement based on site review. Additional details on the recommended short-, medium- and long-term 18 recommendations can be found in Appendix B (Recommendations for top 28 project locations) and Appendix D (Prioritization Technical Memorandum). Safety Toolkit (Appendix A) Specific engineering treatments that can be applied to the top safety projects, as well as infrastructure citywide, must be based on research and best practices to ensure that treatments are not only safe, but an effective and efficient use of resources. MnDOT has developed the Local Road Traffic Safety Infrastructure Strategies (2024) which provided the basis for the treatment toolkit included in Appendix A. The toolkit outlines various treatments that can be used to improve road safety, as well as the estimated crash reduction when treatments are applied, and a rough estimate of cost. 15 In 2022, MnDOT completed a full corridor study of Hwy 7 from Hwy 100 in St. Louis Park to Co. Rd. 33 in Hollywood Twp. Additional MnDOT study of treatment for Hwy 7 through St. Louis Park is underway at the time of this report. 16 Quick build solutions are small actions that can be taken that require less cost to implement permanent solutions, such as signal timing changes or signage. 17 Demonstration projects are temporary installations, typically applied with temporary paint and barriers, to change the character of a roadway before a more permanent solution can be built. These projects allow a concept to be tested in the real world before being made permanent. 18 While timing of recommendations are subject to funding availability, short-term typically refers to actions that can be taken within two years or less, medium-term is generally two to five years, and long-term is greater than five years. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 31 25 ONGOING CITY EFFORTS While the Safe System Approach was only adopted by the Federal Department of Transportation in 2022, the city has been using the approach for decades to address road safety. These include initiatives such as: • Multidisciplinary traffic committee meetings (monthly) • Neighborhood traffic control audits19 (twice a year) • Citywide speed limit reduction (2022) • Fatal and severe injury crash reviews • Comprehensive speed data collection • Targeted reconstruction of high-injury network The city’s efforts have led to reconstruction of 20% of the city’s High-Injury Network between 2014 and 2023, with over ¼ of the remaining HIN funded for reconstruction in the next one to four years. While the city has made significant progress, this planning process allowed a unique opportunity to take a proactive, citywide approach to planning the next ten plus years of improvements. The following section provides an action plan rooted in the Safe System Approach to work towards eliminating fatal and severe injury crashes throughout the city. THE ACTION PLAN The goal of the Safe Streets Action Plan is not only to identify safety needs throughout the community, but to develop a roadmap for the city to follow to efficiently implement the recommendations. This includes a combination of strategies and projects designed to work towards the goal of eliminating fatal and severe injury crashes throughout the city. These recommendations are grounded in the data driven process outlined in this document to identify where needs are greatest and applies action items rooted in proven safety best practices. Using the Safe System Approach While building safer roads is typically the first thing people think of when identifying ways to improve road safety, it does not fully address the other elements of the Safe System Approach: Safer Users, Safer Vehicles, Safer Speeds, Post Crash Care. To work towards Vision Zero, all Safe System elements must be employed. The focus areas and action items in this section take a holistic approach to road safety, acknowledge the shared responsibility across departments and agencies, and includes timelines and direct actions that can be taken to work towards reducing fatal and severe injury crashes. The focus areas and their corresponding action items were developed with input the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and a Stakeholder Committee, ensuring that the action items reflect local priorities and lived experiences. Feedback from engagement activities was critical in identifying problem areas and shaping appropriate actions. After a review of the systemic safety issues, precedent plans, the Safe System Approach, and feedback from the community, seven key focus areas were identified. 19 Neighborhood traffic control audits have been used by the city to comprehensively review up to two neighborhoods per year. This includes review of 50-60 intersections to understand what safety changes can be made during upcoming street reconstruction projects. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 32 26 7 Focus Areas 1. Infrastructure investments to work towards safer transportation facilities 2. Exploring new technologies to more efficiently address road safety 3. Reviewing city policies and practices to ensure decisions are rooted in safety 4. Education initiatives to promote safer user behavior 5. Safe Routes to Schools programming to enhance safety for the most vulnerable road users 6. Incentive programs to reduce barriers and promote action around safety improvements for residents and businesses 7. Additional safety evaluation to better understand best practices and needs in key areas and inform future actions Effort vs. Impact For each focus area, action items were developed and evaluated on an Effort vs. Impact scale to understand: 1. Where easy wins could be found (lower effort/higher impact) 2. Major projects that could have the greatest impact (higher effort/higher impact) 3. Additional or “fill in” tasks (lower effort/lower impact) 4. And actions that required a high amount of effort with limited ability to provide meaningful impacts (higher effort/lower impact), i.e., thankless tasks. Figure 12 provides a visual representation of the effort to impact scale. Actions that were estimated to be high effort and low impact were removed with high impact initiatives prioritized. The following page provides details about each action item, such as key safety concerns, which departments are responsible for leading and supporting the initiatives, and a timeframe goal for completing the action item. Funding and Timeline Goals While the action items provide a path for the city to work towards its Vision Zero goal, each item comes with a cost. The speed at which many of the items can be completed is depended on funding availability at the city, regional, state and national levels. The “Easy Wins” such as quick-build and demonstration projects will be the initial focus for implementation while funding for “Major Projects” and “Fill In” actions are pursued. As funding becomes available, this document helps prioritize projects based on the safety needs and provides documentation for future funding applications. The timeline goal is as estimate that is strongly influenced by external funding availability. Figure 12 - Effort vs. Impact Scale 1 2 3 4 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 33 27 Action Items Focus Area 1: Infrastructure Investments Physically changing the character of the roadway, sidewalks and trails is broadly accepted as the most effective way to improve user safety. Over the past decade, the city has made substantial road improvements, with 4-to-3 lane conversions, roundabouts, pedestrian refuge islands and other proven safety countermeasures, resulting in significant reduction in the High-Injury Network. These investments, however, come with tradeoffs. Projects are expensive, time consuming, and don’t address all elements of the safe system approach (i.e. safer vehicles and post-crash care). For this reason, infrastructure investments need to be based on available funding and balanced to mitigate construction impacts to the community. Action Item 1A - One to two high priority projects per year Details: Complete one road or intersection reconstruction project or two demonstration projects annually. Effort vs. Impact: High Effort, High Impact Safe System Elements: Safe Roads, Safe Speeds Timeframe Goal: Ongoing Lead Department (Support Departments): Engineering (Public Works, Fire/Police) The top project lists provides data driven prioritization for future safety improvements, including mid-term solutions at the highest risk locations. As with all projects, the ability to implement these changes is dependent on funding. Beyond the city’s funding process, federal, regional and state grant programs are often available to supplement city efforts. For roadways outside the city’s jurisdictions, this may include advocating for and supporting funding applications for the agency that owns the roadway. The safety analysis and treatment recommendations detailed in the prioritization memorandum provides a starting point for city staff to understand basic costs and feasibility before applying for funding. The Safety Toolkit, provided in Appendix A, provides additional proven safety countermeasures for consideration at these locations, and citywide. Action Item 1B - Bicycle and pedestrian network development Details: Continue working towards completion of the city's planned bicycle network and reducing pedestrian facility gaps. Effort vs. Impact: High Effort, High Impact Safe System Elements: Safe Roads Timeframe Goal: Ongoing Lead Department (Support Departments): Engineering (Public Works) In alignment with the city’s goal of enhancing safety for all travel modes, continuing to build out the network for non- motorized users can provide a greater level of separation between modes, enhancing safety while also supporting additional city goals such as equity, environmental stewardship, and neighborhood strength. In addition to the top safety needs highlighted in this document, the Active Living Sidewalks and Trails Plan and the Arrive and Thrive Plan highlight additional opportunities to improve protected facilities for non-motorized users. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 34 28 Upcoming projects such as the CP regional trail extension offer improved north/south bicyclist connections through the middle of the city, a desire that was echoed by many during the public engagement process. Other opportunities include improved north/south connection from Cedar Lake Rd to Cedar Lake Trail for walking and biking, connections over Hwy 7 near Texas Ave. to facilitate safer pedestrian and bicyclist crossing between Knollwood Mall and the future SW Light Rail Transit (LRT) station at Blake Rd., and a north/south connection near Park Place Blvd. to connect bicyclists to the regional trail system. Focus Area 2: Explore New Technology to Enhance Road Safety Action Item 2A - Explore automated enforcement Details: Explore the use of automated enforcement, such as speed safety cameras and red light cameras (as legislation allows), for their use on the High-Injury Network or at High-Injury Intersections where other safety countermeasures are not easily applied. Effort vs. Impact: High Effort, High Impact Safe System Elements: Safe Speeds, Safe Users Timeframe Goal: 3+ years Lead Department (Support Departments): Police (Public Works, Engineering) Automated enforcement uses traffic safety cameras (i.e. speed and red light cameras) to collect the license plate of vehicles and issue a fee to the owner of the vehicle when a speed or red light violation is recorded. While the use of automated enforcement is widely accepted throughout the country, it is not currently allowed under state law. At the time of this plan, a pilot program is underway to evaluate the long-term use and application of traffic safety cameras, and this option may be available to the city in the next few years. These programs have been shown to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes by up to 56%20 and are an FHWA proven safety countermeasure. While effective, the implementation of programs can be complex and require considerable political support. Action Item 2B - Use technology to identify high-speed corridors Details: Utilize subscription to data analytics provider, such as Streetlight, to determine where and when high rates of speeding occur throughout the city. Effort vs. Impact: Moderate Effort, Moderate Impact Safe System Elements: Safe Speeds, Safe Users Timeframe Goal: 1-3 years Lead Department (Support Departments): Engineering (Public Works, Police/Fire) The city already uses data analytics software which aggregates cell phone data (without personally identifiable information) to provide information on user behavior for people walking, biking and driving. It can, relatively efficiently, identify speeding hot spots, including times of day and days of the week when high rates of speeding occurs. This helps the city identify traffic calming solutions (such as those listed in the safety toolbox and future neighborhood traffic calming guidance) or target enforcement effort. 20 MnDOT TRS2203 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 35 29 Speeding has become the leading cause of traffic deaths in the state 21, and even at lower speeds (i.e. 35 mph), speeding can have devastating consequences for vulnerable road users. The city has taken substantial action in the past few years through the adoption of the citywide speed limit reductions and the “20 is Plenty” education campaign. Through this, the city has seen a reduction in speed on locally owned roadways 22, but more can be done to target locations and times for where speeds put vulnerable road users and drivers at higher risk. By using existing software to identify these high speed locations, the city can better allocate resources to the highest need areas. Action Item 2C - Safety technology for city-owned equipment Details: Pursue opportunities for safety technology on city owned fleet, such as intelligent speed assistance devices, backup cameras, etc. and explore other technology upgrades to city owned or leased equipment (i.e. signal, asset management tools, etc.) Effort vs. Impact: Moderate Effort, Moderate Impact Safe System Elements: Safe Speeds, Safe Users, Safer Vehicles Timeframe Goal: 1-3 years Lead Department (Support Departments): Fleet (Engineering, Public Works) Intelligent speed assistance devices 23, backup cameras, and other safety features that support safe driving, have the opportunity to provide lifesaving benefits for all road users. The city owned fleet is a small percentage of the vehicles on the roadway, but safety technology can help improve safety outcomes, set an example for the community, and has the potential to provide cost saving benefits or offsets in the form of insurance premium reductions. Focus Area 3: Updates to City Policies and Practices Action Item 3A – Review the city’s 2014 Crosswalk Guidance Details: Review the Crosswalk Guidance to reflect updates in national and international best practices for prioritizing pedestrian safety near high-density pedestrian generators. Effort vs. Impact: Moderate Effort, High Impact Safe System Elements: Safe Roads Timeframe Goal: 1-3 years Lead Department (Support Departments): Engineering (Public Works) Over the past 12 years since the Crosswalk Guidance document was published, many changes in pedestrian safety best practices and FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures have occurred. The city has also adopted the Complete Streets and Green, Living Streets Policy with a modal priority framework to guide decisions along the county’s transportation network. An update to the Crosswalk Guidance provides the opportunity to work towards these policy objectives. It also provides an opportunity to expand the current guidance and treatment recommendations at intersections (both signalized and unsignalized), an area that was identified as a top systemic issue through the safety analysis as well as through public feedback. 21 Minnesota Motor Vehicle Crash Facts, 2022 22 2024 St. Louis Park Citywide Speed Limit Review 23 Intelligent Speed Assistance | NHTSA City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 36 30 More robust guidance for signalized and unsignalized intersections could include countermeasures such as Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) at signals near high pedestrian generators and geometric changes to the roadway such as curb extensions, which have both been shown to improve visibility and, therefore the safety, of people walking and biking. Action Item 3B – Explore Neighborhood traffic calming guide Details: Pursue funding for the development of a neighborhood traffic calming guide to outline procedures for prioritizing locations and providing design best practices for neighborhood streets. This includes exploring funding sources to implement solutions on locally owned corridors. Effort vs. Impact: High Effort, Moderate Impact Safe System Elements: Safe Roads Timeframe Goal: 1-3 years/ Ongoing Lead Department (Support Departments): Engineering (Public Works, Fire/Police) A neighborhood traffic calming guide provides the opportunity to utilize the excessive speed data information developed through Action Item 2B, to implement a data driven process for prioritizing and implementing traffic calming solutions on local roadways. This includes the development of treatment guidance in coordination with the fire department to ensure treatment measures don’t hinder their ability to respond to emergencies and public works, who provides overall maintenance. It also includes the pursuit of dedicated funding and identification of prioritization criteria to implement both quick-build and long-term solutions where the needs are greatest. Action Item 3C – Continue interagency safety working group Details: Continue meeting with the interagency safety working group developed through this process to evaluate citywide opportunities for safety improvements beyond the city’s jurisdiction. Continue meetings with the TAC to continue inter-departmental collaboration. Effort vs. Impact: Low Effort, Moderate Impact Safe System Elements: Safe Roads Timeframe Goal: Ongoing Lead Department (Support Departments): Engineering (All) This planning process brought together city staff from various departments, agency partners, and stakeholders to work collaboratively across disciplines to address road safety. This action calls for the continued collaboration with annual Safe Streets Action Plan TAC meetings and bi-annual County and State coordination meetings, to provide updates on the action items, discuss any necessary changes, and continue the momentum to move projects and actions forward. This action also includes coordination with Metro Transit for LRT station area planning and communication. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 37 31 Action Item 3D – Post safety improvement evaluation Details: Develop guidance to define projects evaluation process and work with council to develop a funding source for post-project evaluation. Effort vs. Impact: Moderate Effort, High Impact Safe System Elements: Safe Roads Timeframe Goal: 1-3 years Lead Department (Support Departments): Engineering (Public Works) Develop guidance to inform what metrics projects should be evaluated by, based on the type and scale of the project. Work with council to develop a funding source for post-project evaluation. Explore automated tools and dashboards for assessing post-countermeasure effectiveness. Action Item 3E – Update development review process Details: Review land use and development projects review processes to ensure that urban design for security principles are considered for all projects. Effort vs. Impact: Low Effort, Moderate Impact Safe System Elements: Safe Roads Timeframe Goal: Less than 1 year Lead Department (Support Departments): Community Development (Engineering) Fatal and severe injury crashes on private property were not evaluated through this report, however, parking lots and other pedestrian facilities such as plazas remain susceptible to fatal and severe injury crashes, whether unintentional or intentional. FEMA’s Site and Urban Design for Security encourages cities to adopt design best practices which consider potential security concerns. By incorporating best practices review into the development process, private property owners could better protect their property, particularly for high pedestrian traffic areas such as outdoor restaurants, plazas, and parks. Focus Area 4: Education Action Item 4A – Develop senior education program Details: Review and expand senior education programs focusing on safe driving, walking and biking behaviors and alternatives to driving. Effort vs. Impact: Moderate Effort, Moderate Impact Safe System Elements: Safe Users Timeframe Goal: 3+ years Lead Department (Support Departments): Communications Department (Police) We heard from the community that education about newer infrastructure, technology and resources was a desire, particularly for older residents. Minnesota’s Towards Zero Deaths (TZD) office and other organizations provide a variety of resources, videos, and training targeted towards older road users. This action will involve working with the TZD office to assess resources that best fit the needs of the community and help to disseminate those resources to seniors. This may include roundabout education and training resources, share the road education about pedestrian, bicyclist and City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 38 32 motorcyclist rights, ADA resources, and alternate transportation options. While targeted education for youth was considered, it was not pursued as an action item due to new, robust legislative requirements for pedestrian and bicyclist safety education in schools and existing drivers educations programs. Action Item 4B – Conduct Safe System training for city staff and elected officials Details: Training/educating city staff and elected officials on Safe System concepts and Toward Zero Deaths initiatives to raise awareness and promote road safety awareness across departments. Effort vs. Impact: Low Effort, Moderate Impact Safe System Elements: All Timeframe Goal: Ongoing Lead Department (Support Departments): Administration (Engineering, Fire/Police) Promoting safety education across agencies is part of the Safe System acknowledgement that safety is a shared responsibility. Yearly training for city staff and elected officials can continue the education around the need for road safety action, so that every person has the opportunity to walk away from a crash. Action Item 4C – Implement a citywide traffic safety advertising campaign Details: Create a traffic safety campaign aimed at reducing severe injuries and fatalities by addressing speeding and dangerous driving behaviors. Effort vs. Impact: Moderate Effort, Moderate Impact Safe System Elements: Safe Users Timeframe Goal: Ongoing Lead Department (Support Departments): Communications (Engineering, Fire/Police) Create a culturally relevant traffic safety campaign aimed at reducing severe injuries and fatalities by addressing speeding and dangerous driving behaviors such as running red lights, failing to yield to pedestrians/bicyclists and intoxicated driving. May include a website with resources and education around road safety (i.e. Roundabouts and demonstration projects, pedestrian safety, ADA resources and more.) Focus Area 5: Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) Programming Action Item 5A – Pursue SRTS implementation grant funding Details: Seek state Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Implementation grants for safety enhancements identified within the plan. Effort vs. Impact: Low Effort, Moderate Impact Safe System Elements: Safe Roads Timeframe Goal: 1-3 years Lead Department (Support Departments): Administration (Engineering) Aquila Elementary was identified in the plan as a top priority project. Recommendations for roadways adjacent to the school include curb extensions to improve student visibility and provide traffic calming, along with a variety of other crossing and facility improvements. Intersections near the St. Louis Park High School and Central Community Center City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 39 33 were also included. These locations and the safety analysis provided in this report will support state SRTS grant applications when the next funding round becomes available. Action Item 5B – Pursue SRTS planning grant funding Details: Explore a partnership with schools to evaluate and pursue planning grant applications. Effort vs. Impact: Moderate Effort, Moderate Impact Safe System Elements: Safe Roads Timeframe Goal: 1-3 years Lead Department (Support Departments): Administration (Engineering) The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) supports SRTS plans for K-12 schools across Minnesota through planning assistance awards. These plans include student and parent/caregiver engagement, analysis of existing conditions and local data, prioritize potential infrastructure improvements and school-based education and encouragement strategies, and identify school-based education and encouragement strategies. The city will work with private and public schools throughout the city to educate and provide support for planning grant applications. Focus Area 6: Incentive Programs Action Item 6A – Evaluate business and/or private property owners incentives program Details: Evaluate incentives program for businesses to take proactive steps to train staff on DWI reduction best practices and for private property owners to make improvements to private property to reduce vehicle conflicts with Vulnerable Road Users. Effort vs. Impact: Moderate Effort, Moderate Impact Safe System Elements: Safe Roads Timeframe Goal: 1-3 years Lead Department (Support Departments): Building and Energy (Administration) Driving while intoxicated (DWI) or under the influence made up 20% of the fatal and severe injury crashes in the city from 2014-2023. Incentive programs can help encourage businesses that serve alcohol or are selling THC products take advantage of training programs for staff to reduce the opportunity of DWI crashes. They can also provide resources to businesses to provide safe rides for people who do become intoxicated. This action calls for the evaluation of an incentive program in collaboration with staff who oversee liquor and dispensary licensing for future programming and funding consideration. Action Item 6B – Equitable access to safe vehicles program Details: Evaluate existing educational resources, incentives and/or loan programs for residents to upgrade, repair or retire personal vehicles that do not have basic safety technology or present other safety risks. Effort vs. Impact: Moderate Effort, Moderate Impact Safe System Elements: Safe Vehicles Timeframe Goal: 1-3 years City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 40 34 Lead Department (Support Departments): Engineering (Administration) Research existing educational resources, incentives and/or loan programs for residents to upgrade or retire personal vehicles that do not have basic safety technology such as autobraking and rear cameras, and received free services to make safety related repairs such as break lights and headlights. Consider the inclusion of non-motorized safety equipment as well such as bike lights, helmets, and high visibility vests. Evaluate the viability of programs that are not actively available to the community and pursue funding based on the evaluation results. Educate low-income residents and user groups on existing and new safe vehicle incentives such as advertising campaigns and/or pop-up events. Focus Area 7: Additional Safety Evaluation Action Item 7A – Conduct lighting review Details: Pursue funding for a lighting analysis of the top locations identified as having higher percentage of crashes occurring at night and pursue additional funding for lighting upgrades based on results of analysis. Effort vs. Impact: High Effort, High Impact Safe System Elements: Safe Roads Timeframe Goal: 1-3 years Lead Department (Support Departments): Public Works (Engineering) Complete a lighting review at 3-5 locations per year identified as having higher percentage of crashes occurring at night. Pursue funding for lighting upgrades based on findings and demonstrated need of the lighting analysis. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 41 35 Action items vary in level of effort to ensure that, regardless of funding availability in any particular year, actions are still able to be taken to continue to work towards the vision zero goal. Action items 1A, 1B, 2A and 7A are the highest effort with the highest perceived benefit to user safety. These are considered Major Projects and require significant time, funding and effort to implement. Action items that have moderate level of effort with high impact and low effort with medium impact are considered quick wins and are easier to initiate and fund. As stated previously, funding opportunities change, and providing a diversity of efforts can help the city continue to take smaller actions while pursuing funding for larger projects. Action Item Legend • 1A - One to two high priority projects per year • 1B - Bicycle and pedestrian network development • 2A - Explore automated enforcement • 2B - Use technology to identify high-speed corridors • 2C - Safety technology for city-owned equipment • 3A – Review the city’s 2014 Crosswalk Guidance • 3B – Explore Neighborhood traffic calming program • 3C – Continue interagency safety working group • 3D – Post safety improvement evaluation • 3E – Update development review process • 4A – Develop senior education program • 4B – Conduct Safe System training for city staff and elected officials • 4C – Implement a citywide traffic safety advertising campaign • 5A – Pursue SRTS implementation grant funding • 5B – Pursue SRTS planning grant funding • 6A – Evaluate business and/or private property owners incentives program • 6B – Equitable access to safe vehicles program • 7A – Conduct lighting review Figure 13 - Effort vs. Impact for Action Items City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 42 36 TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY The City of St. Louis Park developed this Safe Streets Action Plan with a strong commitment to public transparency. To ensure the plan reflects the experiences and priorities of residents using the city’s transportation system, the city and project team implemented a multi-phase public engagement strategy design to reach a wide range of community members. Through community events, public surveys, an interactive mapping tool, and stakeholder advisory group, the city gathered meaningful input that informed the plan’s goals, strategies, and project locations. These efforts focused on concerns around traffic speeds, intersection safety, and multimodal access. To maintain ongoing transparency, the Safe Streets Action Plan will: • Undergo a public comment period for this report • The final study report will be posted on the city’s webpage • A tracking dashboard will be created to allow for real-time updates on projects and strategies • and a yearly report will provide progress on action items and crash trends The City of St. Louis Park is committed to continuing this transparent and responsive approach, adapting strategies as needed based on emerging data and feedback. For more information, visit the city’s website to view the progress tracker dashboard. CONCLUSION The city is committed to eliminating fatal and severe injury crashes by the year 2050. While this goal is ambitious and will require significant collaboration across departments and with other agencies, this Safe Streets Action Plan provides a road map to work towards the goal and document progress along the way. As a member of the community, there are actions you can take to help the city achieve its goal. Advocacy for road safety initiatives at the local, state and federal levels is one way members of the community can help fund improvements. Checking out the Toward Zero Deaths safe roads program and sharing it with your friends and family can help spread the word about common sense traffic safety strategies. And most of all, you can practice safe driving, walking, biking and rolling behaviors to slow speeds and improve awareness of your surroundings so that everyone has a chance to make it home safely at the end of the day. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 43 37 APPENDICES Appendix A – Safety Treatment Toolkit Appendix B – Recommendations for top 28 project locations Appendix C – Safety Analysis Technical Memorandum Appendix D – Prioritization Technical Memorandum Appendix E – Engagement Summary City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 44 Appendix A: Safety Treatment Toolkit Introduction The purpose of this toolkit is to provide a list of road safety countermeasures that can be applied to roads in the City of St. Louis Park. The toolkit is based on the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s District Safety Plan Road Safety Strategies, also known as the Big Book of Ideas, and modified to reflect countermeasures applicable within the city. Countermeasure can be selected based on the type of location needing improvement. The crash reduction factor (CRF)1 of each countermeasure and estimated cost provided will also help aid decision making. Icons are shown next to a countermeasure if the countermeasure addresses pedestrians, bicyclists, or equity. In some cases, it also indicates what severe type the countermeasure is meant to address. Countermeasure Icons: The pedestrian icon indicates that the countermeasure addresses safety for people walking or using a wheelchair The bicyclist icon indicates that the countermeasure addresses safety for people biking or using a scooter This icon indicates that the countermeasure addresses Equity Safety Severity Key K = Fatal A = Serious Injury B = Minor Injury C = Possible Injury O = Property Damage Only (PDO) 1 Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) are provided for each strategy (if available) to estimate the proportion of crashes that could be reduced if the strategy is implemented. The adjacent notes show what types of crashes the CRF applies to. Example: A CRF of 20% that applies to KABC (fatal or injury crashes) and single vehicle run off road (SVROR) crashes indicates that the total number of injury run off road crashes would be reduced by 20% if the associated strategy were implemented. For more information on a specific strategy CRF and accompanying Crash Modification Factor (CMF), see the Big Book of Ideas, or contact MnDOT’s Office of Traffic Safety. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 45 Segments Countermeasures City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 46 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 47 Intersection Countermeasures City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 48 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 49 Segment countermeasures descriptions and example photos Access Management Managing roadway access reduces potential conflict points by combining or limiting access locations. Shared Use Path Paths that accommodate both bicycles and pedestrians, separate from motor vehicle traffic. Sidepath A shared-use path located parallel to a roadway. Separate Bike Lane On-street bicycle lanes that are physically separated from vehicles by features such as curbs, bollards, parking lanes, or buffers. Bike Lane Dedicated lanes on a roadway reserved exclusively for bicycle use. Shared Roadway A roadway where bicycles and vehicles operate in the same travel space, effective on lower-speed streets. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 50 Divided Roadway A roadway where opposing directions of traffic are separated by a median, barrier, or open space. Mid-Block Crosswalk Pedestrian crossings located between intersections to provide access where demand is high but no nearby crosswalk exists. Pedestrian Refuge Island/Median Island Protected space in the middle of the roadway where pedestrians can stop before completing a crossing. Pedestrian Barriers to Prevent Mid-Block Crossing Fences or barriers that restrict mid-block pedestrian crossings at unmarked locations. Remove Sightline Obstructions Keeping intersections and roadways clear of visual obstructions (such as vegetation or parked vehicles) to improve driver visibility and recovery space. Road Diet (3 & 5 Lane Conversions) Reconfiguring a multi-lane roadway, often converting a four-lane undivided street into three lanes with a center two-way left-turn lane, to calm traffic and improve safety. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 51 Sidewalks Paved pedestrian walkways that provide accessible travel, typically run parallel to roadways. Appropriate Speed Limits for All Users Speed limits are set considering land use context, pedestrian and bicycle activity, and driveway density, rather than relying only on roadway geometry. Dynamic Speed Feedback Sign Electronic signs that display a driver’s real-time speed as they pass, encouraging compliance with posted limits. Speed Safety Cameras Cameras that detect and record speeding vehicles by capturing photo or video evidence above a set threshold. Traffic Calming Design Physical roadway design elements such as narrowed lanes, median installations, or gateway treatments that encourage lower vehicle speeds and improve safety. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 52 Variable Advisory Speed Limits Signs that provide adjusted advisory speeds in response to weather or roadway conditions. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) A signal system at unsignalized crossings that alerts drivers with flashing lights when activated by pedestrians. RRFB (Rapids Rectangular Flashing Beacon) Flashing light devices installed at unsignalized crossings to increase driver awareness of pedestrians, activated by button or detection. Lighting Corridor-wide or intersection-based lighting improves visibility and safety at night. Plowable Centerline Reflective Markers Centerline markers designed to withstand snowplow operations, improving visibility at night and in poor weather. Pedestrian Safety Zones at Targeted Locations Targeted locations with high pedestrian activity where enforcement strategies are focused on improving safety. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 53 Intersection countermeasures descriptions and example photos Access Management Consolidating entry points helps reduce the number of potential vehicle conflict areas. Roundabout Circular intersection that naturally slows vehicles, decreasing the likelihood of severe crashes. Mini Roundabout A smaller-scale roundabout designed for constrained spaces. It provides similar safety benefits as a standard roundabout but requires less right-of-way. Partial Grade-Separated Intersection Some turning movements are split onto different levels to reduce need for traffic signals. Center Island Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Islands/Median Island Space in the middle of a roadway where pedestrians have protection from vehicles. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 54 Left Turn Calming/Hardened Centerlines Concrete curbs or bollards along the centerline force drivers to take slower, wider left turns, protecting crosswalk users. Remove Sightline Obstructions/Maintain Vision Triangles Removing or managing obstructions such as vegetation or parked cars preserves drivers’ ability to see pedestrians, cyclists, and other vehicles. Turn Lanes Dedicated lanes for left or right turns keep turning vehicles out of through lanes, improving traffic flow 3/4 intersection Similar to a standard four-leg junction but restricts left turns from minor approaches, lowering conflict points. Corridor Signal Timing Signals can be adjusted to discourage speeding while still supporting efficient traffic progression along a corridor. Curb Extensions and Curb Bump-Outs Extending the curb into the roadway reduces pedestrian crossing distance and improves visibility. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 55 Traffic Calming Design Narrow lanes, medians, and similar features reduce driving speeds and improve safety in urban areas Yellow Change Intervals The change interval between green and red needs to be carefully timed to ensure drivers clear the intersection safely before cross-traffic receives a green. Confirmation Light A blue light mounted on the back of a signal turns on with the red phase, helping police officers identify red-light violations. Flashing Yellow Arrow (FYA) This signal allows left turns after yielding to opposing traffic. High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk Beacon (HAWK)/Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) Installed at unsignalized crossings, these pedestrian-activated beacons use flashing and solid lights to alert drivers to stop for crossing pedestrians. Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Pedestrians start crossing before vehicles get a green light. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 56 Pedestrian Countdown Timers Visual and audible times that inform pedestrians how much crossing time remains. Pedestrian Safety Zones Apply pedestrian countermeasures at high-pedestrian or equity-priority locations. Protected Intersection Separates bicycles from vehicle paths by providing designated bike lanes and protected crossings. Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Flashing lights activated by pedestrians pushing a button or permissive detection to draw driver attention to unsignalized crossings. Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements High visibility crosswalk, improved lighting, and enhanced signing and pavement marking. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 57 Enhanced Transit Stops and Bus Transit Improved seating shelter, and heating at transit stops to improve comfort for users. Decreased headways, travel lanes, and signals to improve travel times and reliability. Intersection Bicycle Signing and Markings Green colored pavement, perpendicular bike lane crossings, bike box, etc Raised Crosswalks/Raised Intersections Crosswalks elevated to sidewalk height slow vehicles and highlight pedestrian priority. Reflective Signal Head Backplate Adding reflective borders around traffic signals improves visibility. Retroreflective Strips on Signposts Retroreflective panels on signposts increase visibility at night. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 58 1 Appendix B – Recommendations for top 28 priority locations For each of the top 28 locations, an in-depth safety review was conducted to provide recommended treatments. Treatments range from short- to long-term and include quick-build solutions and demonstrations projects where possible, to efficiently address safety needs. Solutions were based on the safety treatments identified in the comprehensive Safety Toolkit, as well as engineering judgement based on site review. •Quick build solutions are small actions that can be taken that require less cost to implement permanent solutions, such as signal timing changes or signage. •Demonstration projects are temporary installations, typically applied with temporary paint and barriers, to change the character of a roadway before a more permanent solution can be built. These projects allow a concept to be tested in the real world before being made permanent. •Major projects: Most construction projects that require geometric changes to the roadway or significant infrastructure investment such as new signals and lighting are considered long-term recommendations due to the amount of time needed for project design and funding. While timing of recommendations are subject to funding availability, short-term typically refers to actions that can be taken within two years or less, medium-term is generally two to five years, and long-term is greater than five years. Figure 1 identifies top 28 priority locations while tables B1 through B3 detail key safety concerns and short, medium, and long-term recommendations. Figure 1 – Top 28 Priority Areas (St. Louis Park Safe Streets Action Plan, 2026) City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 59 2 Table B1 – Tier 0 Projects for the St. Louis Park Safe Streets Action Plan and Recommended Treatments Map # Tier 0 Project Locations (Road Owner) Funded Projects Key Safety Concerns Medium- to Long-Term Recommendations 1 Cedar Lake Rd (Rhode Island Ave S to Louisiana Ave (City (MSA)) 2026 •Pedestrian and bicyclist safety at crossings along Cedar Lake Rd (Particularly at Nevada Ave) Post-construction evaluation of speed and crash history to confirm effectiveness of safety measures. 2 Minnetonka Blvd - Hwy 100 to Lake St (County) 2025 •Project is currently under construction, so a safety review was not completed. Post-construction evaluation of speed and crash history to confirm effectiveness of safety measures. 3 Louisiana Ave - I-394 to W 22nd St (City (MSA)) 2025 •North/south traveling bicyclist safety at crosswalks.Post-construction evaluation of speed and crash history to confirm effectiveness of safety measures. 4 Louisiana Ave - W 22nd St to BNSF RR bridge 2026 •North/south traveling pedestrian and bicyclist safety at crosswalks/driveways Post-construction evaluation of speed and crash history to confirm effectiveness of safety measures. Map # Tier 1 Project Locations (Road Owner) Funded Projects Key Safety Concerns Short-Term Recommendations Medium-Term Recommendations Long-Term Recommendations 5 Minnetonka Blvd and Hwy 100 NB entrance ramp intersection (MnDOT/ County) 2025 Pavement only •EB left turning movement conflict (flashing yellow arrow with dual left turns) •WB right conflict with pedestrians Work with MnDOT to evaluate signal phasing opportunities to provide protected movements and reduce the risk of conflict for both motorists and vulnerable road users N/A Work with MnDOT to consider geometric changes to the intersection to increase pedestrian safety and comfort City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 60 Table B2 - Tier 1 Projects for the St. Louis Park Safe Streets Action Plan and Recommended Treatments (City (MSA)) 3 Map # Tier 1 Project Locations (Road Owner) Funded Projects Key Safety Concerns Short-Term Recommendations Medium-Term Recommendations Long-Term Recommendations 6 Minnetonka Blvd - Cedar Lake Trail Bridge to Texas Ave Segment (County) 2028 •Vehicle speeds •Pedestrian crossing concerns, particularly at Utah Ave, Xylon Ave intersections •Bicyclist crossing concerns along Minnetonka Blvd •Red light running, visibility due to vertical curve, and ADA opportunities at Minnetonka Blvd at Texas Ave Work with the county to implement quick-build solutions from Cedar Lake Trail Bridge to Texas Ave to slow vehicle speeds, improve safety for students walking and biking to school and people accessing the Texa- tonka shopping center. Work with the county to ensure complete streets principals and high comfort pedestrian crossings are prioritized in the upcoming corridor reconstruction N/A 7 Texas Ave - 36th Ave S to Hwy 7 segment (City-MSA) None •Pedestrian crossing/facility concerns near a high pedestrian generator •Public Comments: Unsignalized intersection at Cub Foods feels unsafe for both drivers and pedestrians •Visibility concerns (36th St and Texas, in the SE and SW corners) Demonstration project to reduce curb radii at 36th and Texas as well as Cub/Knollwood Mall shopping center entrance Consider lane reduction in the SB direction Evaluate visual obstructions at SE and SW corner of 36th and Texas Geometric changes to the mall entrances to reduce vehicle conflicts, make the pedestrian more visible to motorists, and reduce pedestrian crossing distances. Evaluate intersection control or access changes at mall entrance 8 Texas Ave and Hwy 7 intersection (MnDOT) 2028 Roadway Lowering •High vehicle speeds, visibility due to vertical curve •Pedestrian/ Bicyclist safety concerns in high pedestrian generator area Queue warning system installed in the WB direction in 2025 Coordinate with MnDOT to pursue the lowering of the vertical curve to improve sight distance (Project planned for 2028) To be determined based on MnDOT coordination efforts City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 61 Work with MnDOT to evaluate alternative interchange options that improve pedestrian safety, including a grade separated option for pedestrians and bicyclists to reduce existing gap in comfortable crossing opportunities 4 Map # Tier 1 Project Locations (Road Owner) Funded Projects Key Safety Concerns Short-Term Recommendations Medium-Term Recommendations Long-Term Recommendations 9 Excelsior Blvd West segment - Powell Rd to Hwy 100 (County) None •Varies, Part of the HIN Work with Hennepin County to evaluate RRFBs or other pedestrian crossing enhancements at key pedestrian crossing locations Work with Hennepin County to complete a corridor study to evaluate long term solutions and identify project funding N/A 10 Excelsior Blvd East segment - Hwy 100 to W 36th 1/2 St (County) 2028 (west 100 interchan ge) •Varies, Part of the HIN Work with Hennepin County to evaluate RRFBs or other pedestrian crossing enhancements at key pedestrian crossing locations Evaluate signal timing and signing improvements at Hwy 100 east interchange N/A Work with County to complete a corridor study to evaluate long term solutions and identify funding Table B3 - Tier 2 Projects for the St. Louis Park Safe Streets Action Plan and Recommended Treatments Map # Tier 2 Project Locations (Road Owner) Funded Projects Key Safety Concerns Short-Term Recommendations Medium-Term Recommendations Long-Term Recommendations 11 36th St segment - Regional Trail Crossing to Texas Ave (City-MSA) None •Vehicle speeds •Trail crossing concerns (Cedar Lake Trail) •Bicyclist crossing concerns along 36th St •Intersection signal timing and pedestrian concerns (Aquilla and Texas intersections) •Visibility concerns (36th St and Texas, in the SE and SW corners) Corridor Study of 36th St from Regional Trail Crossing to Texas Ave Work with Three Rivers Park District to consider quick-build solutions or a demonstration project for North Cedar Lake Trail crossing, bike lane treatments along 36th , and temporary speed reductions treatments Apply for funding for safety improvements based on corridor study recommendations Geometric changes to the roadway to slow traffic and support safety pedestrian and bicyclist crossings City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 62 5 Map # Tier 2 Project Locations (Road Owner) Funded Projects Key Safety Concerns Short-Term Recommendations Medium-Term Recommendations Long-Term Recommendations 12 Wooddale Ave S segment - W 35th St to W 36th St (City-MSA) None •Pedestrian crossing safety at 35th and 36th •Visibility concerns for westbound off ramp •Future Three Rivers Park District CP Rail Regional Trail Request MnDOT to evaluate leading pedestrian intervals at Hwy 7 ramp signals and implement signal timing improvements Request MnDOT to evaluate signage and turning restrictions on Hwy 7 westbound off ramp Demonstration project at 35th St to change roadway geometry and improve pedestrian crossing safety Post-construction traffic study and safety evaluation at 36th St Continue to work with Three Rivers Park District on CP Rail Regional Trail funding and design Consider long-term geometric changes to improve crossing safety at 35th St intersection, depending on CP rail funding and timeline as well as demonstration project results 13 Cedar Lake Rd and Ridge Dr intersection (City-MSA) None •Visibility concerns likely contributing to bicyclist safety issues on south leg Conduct a sight distance review to confirm visual obstruction, and if necessary, work with property owners to remove obstructions Conduct an evaluation for 2- years post safety improvement to verify effectiveness N/A 14 Cedar Lake Rd and Hwy 169 Ramp intersection (MnDOT) Signal replaceme nt project 2026, sidewalk on the east side of Jordan, Bridge reconstru ction in 2035. •Pedestrian and bicyclist crossing safety •Motorist speeds •Visibility Work with MnDOT to implement a demonstration project at Jordan Ave and evaluate and remove visibility concerns if appropriate Explore a School Zone Speed Limit (SZSL) N/A Work with MnDOT to implement geometric changes to the intersection and bridge to reduce vehicle speeds, shorten crossing distances, and accommodate a trail crossing City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 63 6 Map # Tier 2 Project Locations (Road Owner) Funded Projects Key Safety Concerns Short-Term Recommendations Medium-Term Recommendations Long-Term Recommendations 15 26th St segment - Natchez Ave S to Joppa Ave S (City-MSA) None •Visibility concerns at Natchez Ave with pedestrian generators •Stop sign compliance concerns N/A Evaluate uncontrolled crossing opportunity to improve crossing safety for pedestrians Evaluate signage and marking opportunities to improve stopping compliance Implement improvements based on evaluation recommendations, (i.e. markings and signage) based on evaluation results 16 Park Center Blvd segment – W 36th St to Excelsior Blvd (City-MSA) None •Bicyclist crossing safety at 36th St •Pedestrian and bicyclist crossing safety at Target signal •Motorist safety issues at Excelsior Blvd and Park Center Blvd Evaluate pedestrian/ bicyclist improvements at 36th St and Target signal intersections such as protected signal phasing, LPIs and striping upgrades Implement short term pedestrian/ bicyclist improvements at 36th St and Target Evaluate road diet (4- to 3-lane conversion) Geometric changes to the corridor to improve pedestrian/bicyclist safety 17 Park Place Blvd segment - I-394 to Gamble Dr (City-MSA) None •Bicyclist safety along high volume roadway (street bicyclists) •Pedestrian crossing safety at intersections Evaluate corridor signals for opportunities to improve pedestrian crossing safety Pursue implementation funding for pedestrian crossing upgrades based on evaluation findings Improve bicyclist connectivity and wayfinding through the corridor to connect to the Cedar Lake Rd multiuse trail and Cedar Lake Regional Trail to key destinations City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 64 7 Map # Tier 2 Project Locations (Road Owner) Funded Projects Key Safety Concerns Short-Term Recommendations Medium-Term Recommendations Long-Term Recommendations 18 Louisiana Ave at W 27th St intersection (City-MSA) None •High vehicle speeds •Pedestrian/ bicyclist crossing safety •Potential visibility issues for westbound movements •Potential red light running issues Demonstration project to reduce crossing distance and discourage southbound weaving by motorists Evaluate LPIs Consider lane reduction Signal upgrades to improve pedestrian safety Geometric changes to the intersection to improve pedestrian crossing safety Bicycle facilities along Louisiana Ave to provide north/south connection Road narrowing to facilitate complete streets design principles 19 W 30th 1/2 St and Virginia Ave (City) intersection None •Pedestrian safety / Safe Routes to School •Visibility issues due to parking •Uncontrolled intersection Evaluated existing parking restrictions Evaluate stop controlled northbound approach Demonstration project to enforce parking restrictions and improve intersection visibility Geometric changes to the roadway to reduce crossing distance based on evaluation and demonstration project findings 20 Aquila Neighborhood area (City) None •Pedestrian crossing safety / Safe Routes to School •Vehicle speeds on Xylon Ave •Visibility issues due to street parking Explore School Zone Speed Limits Apply for Safe Routes to School (SRTS) demonstration grant funding Implement SRTS demonstration project to shorten crossing distances and reinforce parking restrictions on Xylon Ave Pursue funding for a small area study to further evaluate the transportation and safety needs in the neighborhood SRTS implementation and geometric changes to the roadways to complete sidewalk connections, encourage slower speeds and improve pedestrian and motorist visibility City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 65 8 Map # Tier 2 Project Locations (Road Owner) Funded Projects Key Safety Concerns Short-Term Recommendations Medium-Term Recommendations Long-Term Recommendations 21 Hwy 25 (Hwy 7) and Beltline Blvd intersection (County and City- MSA) None •Long crossing distances at intersection with high pedestrian generators •ADA improvement opportunities •Potential signal timing concerns with high percentage of rear-end crashes Work with County to develop a long term solution to pedestrian exposure at intersection and identify funding N/A Geometric changes to the intersection to improve pedestrian crossings Evaluate and pursue (if appropriate) a road diet south on Beltline Blvd to remove 4 lane cross-section 22 Beltline Blvd segment – 32nd St to Park Glen Rd (City-MSA) 2032 •Vehicle speeds •Missing connection from on street trail to regional trail and pedestrian bridge over CSAH 25 •Pedestrian/ bicyclist crossing concerns at Park Glen Work with Three Rivers to develop temporary bicyclist and pedestrian wayfinding for interim facilities and a long term wayfinding plan for connections to key destinations Implement long-term crossing improvements at Park Glen such as geometric changes to Beltline Blvd, signalized crossing opportunity, and improved trail connectivity Work with Three Rivers to implement permanent pedestrian and bicyclist wayfinding N/A 23 Virginia Ave S segment - North Cedar Lake Regional Trail Crossing to Texas Ave (City-MSA) None •Trail crossing visibility issues with horizontal curve •Connection under rail bridge Evaluate signage and striping improvements to improve trail crossing visibility Implement quick build recommendations based on evaluation Support Three Rivers Park District’s to identify regional trail crossing improvements Identify long term strategy to fill bicycle facility gap under rail bridge or identify alternate route for north/ south access to Cedar Lake Rd Support the implementation of regional trail crossing improvements as identified by Three Rivers City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 66 9 Map # Tier 2 Project Locations (Road Owner) Funded Projects Key Safety Concerns Short-Term Recommendations Medium-Term Recommendations Long-Term Recommendations 24 Hwy 7 and Blake Rd intersection (MnDOT, City-MSA, City of Hopkins) None •See MnDOT report for more information Work with MnDOT to evaluate grade separation for pedestrians and bicyclists between Blake Rd. and Texas Ave N/A 25 W 36th St and Hwy 100 Ramp Intersection (MnDOT) 2029 signal replaceme nt •Pedestrian/ bicyclist crossing safety at south crosswalk Evaluate turning restrictions and pedestrian signal improvements Consider geometric changes to improve pedestrian/ bicyclist crossing safety N/A 26 Minnetonka Blvd segment - Cavell Ave to Boone Ave (County) 2031 •Vehicle speeds •Horizontal curve Work with county to evaluate short-term speed reduction measures, advance warning signs and lighting at horizontal curve Protected bicycle facility along Minnetonka Blvd in addition to corridor wide pedestrian and bicyclist crossing safety improvements N/A 27 Hwy 169 ramps intersections at Minnetonka Blvd (MnDOT/ County) 2030 •Pedestrian/ bicyclist crossing safety None Work with MnDOT and County to pursue safety improvements at ramp interchanges in alignment with the broader Minnetonka Blvd corridor plans N/A 28 W 16th St and Duke Dr intersection City (local) None •Pedestrian safety at west crosswalk with left turning vehicle conflict •4-lane undivided cross- section with all-way stop and possible visual clutter concerns Conduct a study to explore intersection safety opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists Consider a demonstration project based on study findings, to provide short term improvements for pedestrian safety Consider long-term geometric changes and signal options based on study findings and demonstration project result City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 67 Engineers | Architects | Planners | Scientists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, MN 55110-3507 651.490.2000 | 800.325.2055 | 888.908.8166 fax | sehinc.com SEH is 100% employee-owned | Affirmative Action–Equal Opportunity Employer MEMORANDUM TO: Jack Sullivan (PE) FROM: Chelsea Moore-Ritchie (AICP), Leo Johnson (PE, MN) DATE: April 21, 2025 RE: St. Louis Park Safety Analysis Technical Memorandum SEH No. STLOU 179709 14.00 In 2023, the City of St. Louis Park obtained a grant through the federal Safe Street and Roads for All (SS4A) program to develop an action plan to improve road safety. In June of 2024, the city launched the Safe Streets Action Plan to prevent, reduce and eliminate serious injury and deadly accidents for everyone using the roads. The plan will include objectives, policies, and recommendations that will inform future transportation investments and improvements. The following technical memorandum details the citywide safety analysis that was completed to inform the City of St. Louis Park’s Safe Streets Action Plan. It includes both the identification of reported crashes as well as the identification of high-risk areas. This information will be combined with a equity considerations to help prioritize improvements using a data driven approach. 10-Year Crash Analysis The crash analysis includes a review of 10-year crash data to inform the development of a High-Injury Network (HIN) and Top Injury Intersections crash list. All analysis within this report excluded mainline and ramp crashes on I-394, TH 100, and US 169 which are out of the city or county’s jurisdiction and do not include at-grade crossings within the city 1. MnDOT’s TH 7 was, however, included in the crash analysis due to at-grade crossings between Blake Rd. and Texas Ave. The analysis does not include crashes that occurred on private property. The most recent 10-years of crash data, from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2023, was obtained from the MnDOT Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT2). The dataset only includes crashes where a police report was filed. CITYWIDE STATISTICS Crash severity is separated into five categories based on injuries sustained during the crash. •Fatal – Crash that results in a death •Severity A – Crash that results in an incapacitating injury or serious injury •Severity B – Crash that results in a non-incapacitating injury or minor injury •Severity C – Crash that results in possible injury •Property Damage – Crash that results in property damage only, with no injuries 1 While mainline and ramp crashes were excluded, all ramp intersection crashes remained in the 10-year analysis data. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 68 2 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) 2024 crash data was not included in the crash analysis since this information was not available at the time the safety analysis was started. Fatal injury crashes that occurred after the analysis period are being reviewed independently for treatment opportunities but were not able to be included in the High-Injury Network or Top Injury Intersections analysis. Table 1 provides a summary of the nearly 6,000 total crashes by injury and mode. Table 1 - Summary of 10-year crash analysis (2014-2023) in the City of St. Louis Park (excluding US169, MN 100, and I-394) Crash Type Number of crashes % of total crashes All Reported Crashes 5936 100% Number of Fatal or Severe Injury Crashes (K and A) 64 1.1% Minor Injury or Possible Injury Crashes (B and C) 1413 23.8% Property Damage Only 4459 75.1% Pedestrian/Bicyclist Crashes 196 3.3% Motorcycle/Moped/Scooter Crashes 47 Less than 1% When looking at the data by year, there is a noticeable increase in the total number of crashes in 2019 (129 crash increase), followed by a large decrease in 2020 (304 crash decrease). This 2020 decrease is largely attributed to the COVID 19 pandemic restrictions and a shift in travel behavior at the local, regional and national level (See Figure 1A). Figure 1B shows similar trends occurring across Hennepin County and the Twin Cities metro for total crashes pre (2018-2019), during (2020-2021) and post (2022-2023) pandemic years. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Total Crashes Fatal and Severe Injury Total minor injury or possible injury crashes Figure 1B – Comparison of total annual crashes on locally-owned streets within St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, and the Twin Cities Metro Region from 2018-2023 Figure 1A - 10-year crash totals by year for the City of St. Louis Park, MN (2014-2023) City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 69 3 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) FATAL AND SEVERE INJURY TRENDS Because Safety Action Plans are aimed at reducing and eliminating severe-injury and fatal crashes affecting all roadway users, these crash types were reviewed separately to understand systemic trends in fatal and severe - injury crashes. The following data details fatal and severe-injury crashes by risk-based characteristics such as age and crash type. Table 2 - Fatal (K) and Severe (A) Injury Crashes in St. Louis Park 10-year crash analysis (2014-2023) by age (excludes US 169, MN 100 and I-394) Risk-Based Characteristic (by demographics) Driving Age Population Estimate2 (42,113) Percent of Driving Age Population # of K&A Crashes in 10- year analysis Percent of K&A Crashes in 10-year analysis Elderly Drivers (65+) 8260 20% 11 17% Adult Drivers (25-64) 28,990 69% 37 58% Younger Drivers (15-24) 4863 11% 16 25% Table 2 shows the percentage of fatal and severe-injury crash by age group compared to their proportion of the population. This information shows that while young drivers (age 15-24) make up roughly 11% of the population, they account for 25% of fatal and severe-injury crashes. Elderly drivers, make up a similar percentage of the population and fatal and severe injury crashes, however this does not adjust for the number of driver 65+ who are no longer able or who choose not to drive. These groups represent opportunities for outreach and education to improve road safety.3 Adult drivers (age 25-64) were involved in 58% of the fatal and severe-injury crashes, despite making up 69% of the population, indicating an overall lower risk group. Table 3 on the following page documents the percentage of fatal and severe-injury crashes by crash type. This information show that 69% of fatal and severe-injury crashes are occurring at intersections, 31% occurred after dark, 20% under the influence, and 20% single vehicle crashes. While speed and distracted driving are a low percentage of K&A crashes, this is likely more a factor of limited reporting capabilities, rather than in indicator that these risk-based factors are not an issues in K&A crashes. 2 Based on 2023 US Census ACS Estimates 3 From the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: In 2021 more than 20% of licensed drivers in the United States were 65 or older (FHWA, 2022). As drivers age, their physical and mental abilities, driving behaviors, and crash risks all change, though age alone does not determine driving performance. Many features of the current system of roads, traffic signals and controls, laws, licensing practices, and vehicles were not designed to accommodate older drivers. Older Americans are increasingly dependent on driving to maintain their mobility, independence, and health. The challenge is to balance mobility for older drivers with safety for all road users. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 70 4 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) Table 3 - Fatal (K) and Severe (A) Injury Crashes in St. Louis Park 10-year crash analysis (2014-2023) by crash type (excludes US 169, MN 100 and I-394) Risk-Based Characteristic (by crash type) # of K&A Crashes in 10-year analysis Percent of K&A Crashes in 10-year analysis % of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes Angle Crashes 21 4 32.8% N/A Intersection Crashes 44 69% 67% (131) Occurred after Dark 20 31% 22% (43) Wet, Snow, Slush, Ice 11 17% 20% (40) Under the Influence 13 20% 5% (10) Single Vehicle Crashes 13 20% N/A Distracted Driver 4 6% 10% (19) Failure to Yield 10 16% 30% (59) Disregard Control 3 5% 1% (2) Speed 2 3% 1.5% (3) PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST CRASHES As mentioned previously, 196 pedestrian and bicyclist crashes occurred during the 10-year reporting period. While this means pedestrians and bicyclists make up 3% of total crashes, they account for 44% of the fatal and severe injury crashes. For this reason, this group is defined as a vulnerable road user. CRASHES BY LOCATION Figure 2 on the following page shows the locations for crashes that occurred from 2014 to 2023. It also calls out locations where the crash was coded by law enforcement as resulting in a fatal or severe injury and whether the crash involved a vulnerable road user such as a pedestrian, bicyclist or motorcyclist. As expected, higher crash totals and severities are generally clustered around high volume roadways such as county and municipal state aid roads. The following outlines the process used to analyze the data and identify the high injury locations throughout the city. 4 Includes nine bicyclist involved angle crashes 100%100% 3% 44% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Total Crashes K&A Crashes Percentage of Pedestrian/Bicyclist Crashes All user crashes Ped/bike crashes City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 71 5 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) Figure 2 - Crashes in St. Louis Park, MN from 2014 to 2023 (Excludes Hwy 100, I-394 and US 169) City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 72 6 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) HIGH-INJURY NETWORK (HIN) A high-injury network (HIN) is a geospatial analysis of crash data that identifies the highest concentrations of traffic crashes resulting in serious injuries and fatalities within a given roadway network or jurisdiction 5. This network was developed to help guide future actions and project prioritization in areas with a strong history of crashes resulting in injuries. High-Injury Network Methodology Fatal (K), severe injury (A) and minor injury crashes (B) from the 10-year crash data (2014-2023) were used to develop the network. These crashes were attributed to segments throughout the city and given a score of 3 for each fatal (K) and severe injury (A) crash and 1 for minor injury (B) crashes6. This is the same weighting system used in MnDOT’s High-Injury Network Methodology. The segments were then normalized for segment length to the mile. Once normalized, the segments that had a score of seven or higher over a mile, were included in the network7. To confirm this methodology, the FHWA developed GIS analysis tool for HINs was used to map the data, applying the same 3:1 weighting. The results were the same between the two methods. Threshold As noted in MnDOT’s High-Injury Network Methodology, the determination of what HIN score threshold would qualify as part of the HIN is a judgement call. There is no set standardized number seen in other HIN analysis methodologies and they must be customized to the context. For this study a score of 7 per mile was set as the lower limit of HIN segments. Data Quality Control After the initial HIN was developed, a manual review was conducted for locations that had undergone construction during or after the analysis period, as well as appropriate coding of data to segments8. Crash data was reviewed for locations with significant reconstruction or engineering solutions completed between 2014 and 2024 to understand if injuries were still occurring post-construction. Locations that were removed due to reconstruction are identified separately in the HIN map on the following page. Additionally, a few locations were added or removed due to miscoding of crash data to the incorrect segment. Findings for High-Injury Network A total of 13 miles of roadway were included in the HIN. This network makes up around 7.5%9 of linear roadway miles in the city, but accounts for 61% (39) of fatal and severe injury crashes. The roadways within the city’s HIN are shown in Figure 3 and detailed in Table 1 below. 5 FHWA definition provided in the Safe Streets 4 All program 6 Severity C (Possible Injury) and Property Damage crashes were weighted as zero points each and were not factored into the analysis. 7 For instance, a half mile segment with two severity A crashes and three severity B crashes would have a score of 9. Six points for the two severity A crashes and one point for each severity B crash. 8 When crash data is entered by law enforcement officials, the location is not always appropriately attributed. A manual review of locations that were just above or below the thresholds was completed to understand if the location should be included or removed due to data being mis-attributed to a particular segment. 9 There were a total of 172.85 miles of roadway included in the analysis. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 73 7 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) Figure 3 - High-Injury Network for City of St. Louis Park, MN (2014-2023) City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 74 8 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) Table 4 - High-Injury Network Locations for the City of St. Louis Park (2024) Location Extents Construction Notes North/South Segments Louisiana Ave Wayzata Blvd to Franklin Ave Approved for construction in 2025 Louisiana Ave Cedar Lake Rd to BNSF Railroad bridge Approved for construction in 2026 from Cedar Lake Road to BNSF Railroad bridge Park Place Blvd I-394 interchange to Cedar Lake Rd None Park Center Blvd 36th St W to Excelsior Blvd None Texas Ave W 36th St to Hwy 7 None East/West Segments Cedar Lake Rd Rhode Island Ave to Louisiana Ave Approved for construction in 2026 Minnetonka Blvd US 169 interchange to Louisiana Ave Hennepin County planned construction in 2028/2029 Minnetonka Blvd Dakota Ave to Vernon Ave Hennepin County planned construction in 2028 Minnetonka Blvd TH 100 Interchange to Inglewood Ave Hennepin County approved construction in 2025 W 26th St 10 Natchez Ave to Joppa Ave None W 36th St Boone Ave to Texas Ave None Hwy 7 Aquila Ave/Blake Rd to Wooddale Ave TBD Excelsior Blvd Meadowbrook Ln to Kipling Ave None CSAH 25 Hwy 100 to Beltline Blvd None In addition to the HIN segments, eight additional segments were flagged by the crash analysis as part of the High- Injury Network (see Figure 3 and Table 2), but these locations were removed due to substantive reconstruction that occurred during the crash analysis period. When possible, the post construction data was reviewed for K, A and B crashes that occurred during the pre- and post-construction period, to understand if these locations would still meet the HIN threshold. Locations such as Cedar Lake Rd (from Flag Ave to Rhode Island Ave) were recently 10 W 26th Street met the threshold for the HIN due to two severe injury crashes within ¼ mile. However, further review of crash reports showed that unique and irregular driver behavior contributed to both crashes. Engineering solutions may not be able to address the likely causes of these crashes, however, for methodological consistency, W 26th was retained in the HIN, even though it is unlikely to cause the level of safety concern as other locations on the HIN. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 75 9 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) reconstructed and do not have sufficient crash data at the time of this report. These locations were removed due to engineering judgement of the treatments applied and the assumption that these treatments would likely result in substantive reduction in fatal and severe injury crashes. Together with the HIN, the reconstructed locations and current HIN equaled a total of 9.77% of the roadways (16.89 miles), but 83% of the fatal and severe injury crashes. As stated previously, 3.6 miles of the HIN network roadway was reconstructed since 2014, resulting in a roughly 20% reduction in the miles of HIN throughout the City. Table 2 – Removed High-Injury Network Locations for the City of St. Louis Park (2024) due to recent reconstruction Location Extents Construction Notes North/South Segments Texas Ave Minnetonka Blvd to W 36th St 2017 – Improvements included pavement, bump outs, bike lanes and crossing treatments Dakota Ave Minnetonka Blvd to W Lake St 2021 - Improvements included bump outs, bike lanes and crossing treatments Quentin Ave W 26th St to Minnetonka Blvd 2022 – Two-way stop changed to a four way stop, ADA improvements Monterey Dr W 36th St to Excelsior Blvd 2020 – Four to three lane conversion with access modifications and center median. Aquila Ave W 36th St to Hwy 7 2017 – 37th St intersection improvements East/West Segments Cedar Lake Rd Flag Ave to Rhode Island Ave 2024 – Road narrowing, pedestrian refuge islands and bump outs, sidewalks and off-street trails, other crossing treatments. Cedar Lake Rd Kentucky Ave to Colorado Ave 2019 – Off-street trail and crossing treatments W 36th St Wooddale Ave to Park Center Blvd 2022 – Bump outs, pedestrian refuge island and other crossing treatments and pavement improvements. Notable in the analysis is that most of the locations included in the HIN are considered high-volume roads. While the HIN can show important information about where the most crashes are occurring, it is unsurprising that they are occurring at high volume locations. The HIN does not show rates of fatal and severe injury crashes based on traffic volume. To understand where these crashes are occurring more frequently than expected based on average volume/crash ratios, a top injury intersection crash analysis was completed to highlight high-frequency locations (high crash rates) and high-risk locations (presence of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes). TOP INJURY INTERSECTION CRASH ANALYSIS With the large number of intersections across the City of St Louis Park and nearly 6,000 crashes, a review of each individual intersection and full vetting of volume data was not feasible based on the scope of this study. To efficiently identify the high injury rate intersections, the top 100 list feature within MnCMAT2 was used to export data, including location, crash type and severity, and roadway ADT (Average Daily Traffic). With this information, the Critical Crash Rates (CCR) and Fatal and Severe Injury Crash Rates (FAR) were able to be calculated for the following datasets: City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 76 10 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) • Top 100 intersection crash locations on the entire network • Top 100 intersection crash locations on local roads only The list for “local roads only” was pulled specifically to capture lower volume roadways that may still have disproportionately high crash rates but are masked by the high-volume roadway data. Data Quality Control: The two lists were combined, and duplicate locations were eliminated. ADTs provided by MN CMAT2 were manually reviewed for missing or unrealistic ADTs. A high-level manual review of the GIS data was also completed to re-attribute or remove data from intersections as appropriate based on incorrect latitude and longitude provided. And finally, a review of previous and upcoming construction data was completed. Locations that have either undergone significant improvements during the 10-year crash analysis period and are no longer experiencing fatal/severe injury or pedestrian/bicyclist crashes were noted. Locations that have been funded in the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) between 2024 and 2034 were also noted. Findings for Top Injury Intersection Crashes When combined and duplicate locations were eliminated, the dataset included a total of 134 intersections, of which: o 6 exceeded the Fatal and Severe Injury Rate (FAR) o 55 did not exceed the FAR, but had a history of at least one fatal/severe injury crash or pedestrian/bicyclist crash o 33 were above the Critical Crash Rate Index (CCR), but there was no history of fatal/severe injury crash or pedestrian/bicyclist crash o 42 were not above CCR and had no history of fatal/severe injury crash or pedestrian/bicyclist crash (this group was not symbolized in Figure 4) The data was then coded based on the injury level and construction status. Injury level: • High – Top crash intersections that exceeded the FAR • Moderate – Top crash intersections that were not above FAR but had a history of ped/bike crashes or severe or fatal crashes. Most, but not all of these locations exceeded the CCR. • Low – Top crash intersections above the CCR that did not exceed the FAR and did not have a history of pedestrian/bicyclist or fatal severe injury crashes. This also includes locations that were reconstructed during or immediately after the crash analysis period and are no longer expected to present a safety concern.11 Construction Status: • Reconstructed between 2014 and 2024 • Planned reconstruction within the next 2 years • Planned reconstruction within the next 3-10 years • No planned reconstruction This information is symbolized in Figure 4, as well as the table provided in Appendix B. For the purposes of the Action Plan, the highest priority will be given to locations that have both a high injury level as well as no planned reconstruction. These locations, in addition to the HIN, represent the highest potential for improvements and impacts when trying to reduce or eliminate fatal and severe injury crashes. Additionally, locations with planned reconstruction within the next 3-10 years will be reviewed for short-term, quick build solutions to address safety for all users. 11 For locations that were reconstructed in the past few years, there is not sufficient post construction crash data to fully analyze, however engineering judgement identified a substantial treatment, such that a high injury location is no longer anticipated. It is recommended that the city complete post-construction evaluations on Quentin Ave, Cedar Lake Rd and W 36th St due to limited availability of crash data. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 77 11 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) Figure 4 - High Injury Intersections for the City of St. Louis Park, MN (2014-2023) City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 78 12 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) HIGH-RISK LOCATIONS In addition to documented crash history, a high-risk location analysis was completed to understand areas where injury crashes may not have occurred, but data suggests a greater risk of fatal or severe injury crashes in the future. High-Risk Methodology This dataset is a combination of factors identified by the Technical Advisory Committee (see Appendix E) that provided guidance throughout the Safe Streets Action Plan process. The data includes: • All Vulnerable Road User (VRU) crashes regardless of injury • Crashes that occurred more frequently at night, indicating potential lighting issues • Proximity to Schools To develop a single high-risk map, the following weighting criteria were applied. • 200 ft buffer from all Vulnerable Road User crashes (1 pt) • 100 ft buffer from intersections with a high density of crashes occurring in the dark. (1pt) • Within ½ mile from middle schools and high schools and ¼ mile to elementary schools. (1pt) • Locations with two or more risk factors were included in the high-risk dataset shown in Figure 5. Locations that were high risk for all three factors, receiving a score of 3 include: • Cedar Lake Rd and Pennsylvania Ave to Nevada Ave • Minnetonka Blvd and Hwy 100 interchange • And select locations along Minnetonka Blvd east of Hwy 100 Both Cedar Lake Rd and Minnetonka Blvd east of Hwy 100 are scheduled for substantial reconstruction within the next two years. The interchange with Minnetonka Blvd and Hwy 100 will require MnDOT coordination as this location falls within MnDOT right-of-way. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 79 13 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) Figure 5 - High-Risk Locations for the City of St. Louis Park City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 80 14 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) NEXT STEPS The information provided in this report will be used to further review and identify solutions for high-injury and high- risk locations, as well as contribute to a data driven prioritization approach that include the results of this safety analysis, along with an equity analysis and public feedback to assist in the prioritization of funding. The process and results of the prioritization map will be provided in the Prioritization Technical Memorandum in early 2025 and will be incorporated into the Action Plan documentation in Summer of 2024. LJ Appendices Appendix A: Definitions ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Appendix B: Table of Top Injury Intersection Crashes ............................................................................................ 16 Appendix C: Reconstructed Intersection analysis ................................................................................................... 17 Appendix D: Technical Advisory Committee Members ........................................................................................... 18 Appendix E: Previous Construction Projects (2014-2024) ...................................................................................... 19 Appendix F: Programmed Construction Projects (2025-2034) ............................................................................... 20 Appendix G: Low Light Crash Density ..................................................................................................................... 21 Appendix H: Vulnerable Road User Crashes .......................................................................................................... 22 Appendix I: Schools ................................................................................................................................................. 23 Appendix J: Winter Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 24 Appendix K: At-Grade Trail Crossings on the North Cedar Lake Trail .................................................................... 25 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 81 15 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS Statistical Crash Values and Terminology • The crash rate at an intersection is expressed as the number of crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV). • The critical crash rate is a statistical value that is unique to each intersection and is based on vehicular exposure and the statewide average crash rate for similar intersections. An intersection with a crash rate higher than the critical rate may indicate a safety concern at the intersection and the site should be reviewed. • Intersection Fatal and Severe Injury Crash Rate (FAR) are based on the number of fatal (K) and severe injury (A) crashes per 100 million entering vehicles. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 82 16 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) APPENDIX B: TABLE OF TOP INJURY INTERSECTION CRASHES X:\PT\S\STLOU\179709\8-planning\87-rpt-stud\Draft Final_Top Intersections Combined, 2014-2023_121224.pdf City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 83 17 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) APPENDIX C: RECONSTRUCTED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS X:\PT\S\STLOU\179709\8-planning\87-rpt-stud\2024_1109_SLP-SSAP_TAC2_Reconstruction Review.pdf City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 84 18 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) APPENDIX D: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Name Agency Role Travas Diersen SLP Police Police Officer Cary Smith SLP Fire Assistant Chief/Fire Marshal Laura Chamberlain SLP Community Development Senior Planner Kala Fisher SLP Public Works Public Services Superintendent/Deputy Public Works Director Pat Coleman SLP Admin Community Engagement Coordinator Ben Sandell SLP Communications Communications Manager Emily Ziring SLP Building and Energy Sustainability manager Deb Heiser SLP Engineering Engineering director Jack Sullivan SLP Engineering Engineering project manager Kimbely Zlimen MnDOT Metro District West Area Engineer Tom Musick Hennepin County Transportation Safety Program Coordinator Kristi Sebastian FHWA | Minnesota Division Office Safety & Traffic Operations Engineer Jen Desrude SEH Inc. Project Manager, PE Chelsea Moore-Ritchie SEH Inc. Deputy PM, AICP Adrian Diaz SEH Inc. Engagement Specialist City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 85 19 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) APPENDIX E: PREVIOUS CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS (2014-2024) Construction projects identified in this graphic range from sidewalk improvements to complete street reconstruction projects. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 86 20 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) APPENDIX F: PROGRAMMED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS (2025-2034) Construction projects identified in this graphic range from sidewalk improvements to complete street reconstruction projects. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 87 21 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) APPENDIX G: LOW LIGHT CRASH DENSITY City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 88 22 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) APPENDIX H: VULNERABLE ROAD USER CRASHES City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 89 23 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) APPENDIX I: SCHOOLS City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 90 24 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) APPENDIX J: WINTER CONDITIONS City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 91 25 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) APPENDIX K: AT-GRADE TRAIL CROSSINGS ON THE NORTH CEDAR LAKE TRAIL City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 92 26 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) APPENDIX L: LOCATIONS REMOVED FROM TOP INTERSECTION LIST DUE TO RECONSTRUCTION Location Years of reconstruction Reason for removal Recommendation for further evaluation? Roundabout at 36th and Monterey Dr 2021 In the 5-yrs analysis before reconstruction (2015-2019), there were 24 total crashes, 1 Severity A (SB vehicle hit WB Bicyclist in north crosswalk), 6 severity C (1 ped crash, SB left turning vehicle) and many right-angle crashes. In the 2.75-yrs post construction (Sept. 2021-June. 2024), there were 9 total crashes, 1 Severity A crash (Street bicyclist biking in the roundabout, struct by a WB vehicle failing to yield) and 2 severity C (motorist only, rear end). This trend shows an improvement in overall safety, with the exception of the road bicyclist severity A crash. Since high-comfort facilities for bicyclists are provided as an option under the new design, this location was removed as a high-injury intersection. Complete 5-year crash analysis at this location once data is available to understand if additional bicyclist safety countermeasures need to be considered. 36th St at Raleigh Ave Fall 2021 Reconstructed Fall 2021, converted to ¾ and dropped an EB lane. In the 10-year analysis it’s above CCR. After reconstruction it’s still over the CCR, but with no fatal, severe injury or ped/bicyclist crashes. In the roughly two years of data reviewed (2021-2023) there were 3 PD and 2 Severity B crashes. Complete 5-year crash analysis at this location once data is available to understand if additional bicyclist safety countermeasures need to be considered. Louisiana Ave at Lake St Oct. 2014 After reconstructed the roundabout was still over CCR. There were no fatal, severe injury or pedestrian crashes. 1 minor injury bicyclist crash occurred involving a street bicyclist. Since high-comfort facilities for bicyclists are provided as an option under the new design, this location was removed as a moderate- injury intersection. Because 10-years of crash data was available post- construction, not further evaluation is recommended. Louisiana Ave at Walker St Oct. 2014 After the reconstruction the location was still over CCR. Over the 10-year analysis period there were no fatal, severe injury or pedestrian/bicyclist crashes. Because 10-years of crash data was available post- construction, not further evaluation is recommended. Aquila Ave at 37th St June 2019 Reconstruction removed one NB lane, added double NB left. In the 10-year analysis it’s above CCR with 4 Severity B and 7 Severity No further evaluation recommended. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 93 27 St. Louis Park, MN – 10-year Safety Analysis (2014-2023) C (1 ped) crashes. In the four-years post construction (2019 – Dec. 2023) the intersection is no longer over the CCR, no history of pedestrian/bicyclist crashes and there was only 1 severity C crash that occurred. Monterey Dr at Park Commons Dr Reconstructed in 2020 Changes to ¾ access. In the 3-years of available data, there were no fatal, severe injury or ped/bike crashes. 1 PD only crash occurred. No further evaluation recommended. Utica at 26th St./ Hwy 100 entrance ramp Reconstructed in early 2016 The entrance ramp geometry was fully reconstructed. From 2016 to 2023, the location was still over the CCR, but not history of fatal, severe injury or pedestrian/bicyclist crashes. No further evaluation recommended. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 94 Engineers | Architects | Planners | Scientists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 10 North Bridge Street, Chippewa Falls, WI 54729-2550 715.720.6200 | 800.472.5881 | 888.908.8166 fax | sehinc.com SEH is 100% employee-owned | Affirmative Action–Equal Opportunity Employer DRAFT MEMORANDUM TO: Jack Sullivan (PE) City of St. Louis Park FROM: Chelsea Moore-Ritchie (AICP), Jen Desrude (PE) DATE: March 28, 2025 RE: St. Louis Park Safe Streets Action Plan - Project Prioritization Methodology SEH No. 179709 14.00 Project Prioritization Methodology The following technical memorandum outlines the methodology used to prioritize road safety improvement projects across the City of St. Louis Park. The methodology was developed through collaboration with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), Stakeholder Committee, Public engagement process as well as review of precedent Safety Action Plans from around the country 1. Methodology The initial prioritization map includes four different types of datasets to understand where needs are highest in the city. These include: • High-Injury Locations: This information is based on documented 10-year crash history. Additional information can be found in the Safety Analysis Technical Memorandum. • High-Risk Locations: This category is comprised of criteria that make a fatal or severe injury crash more likely, regardless of documented crash history. • Equity Considerations: Because low-income residents and residents who identify as a person of color are historically more likely to be victims of a fatal or severe injury crash 2, this information, along with other data was combined to identify origins and destinations for high-risk users. • Public feedback: Throughout the first phase of the process, public outreach was conducted to understand areas of concern for residents and other stakeholders. Over 800 location-based comments were provided, and a dot-density map identifies the locations for high-frequency concerns 3. 1 The process used by the City of St. Paul, MN as well as Hammond, IN were the primary projects used to guide the prioritization methodology. 2 An Analysis of Traffic Fatalities by Race and Ethnicity. Governors Highway Safety Administration. June 2021. 3 Additional information on engagement can be found in the Phase 1 engagement summary. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 95 Project Prioritization Methodology Technical Memorandum – DRAFT July 16, 2025 Page 2 Since the primary goal of the Action Plan is to reduce or eliminate fatal and severe injury crashes throughout the city, High-Injury locations and High-Risk Locations received the highest weight in the prioritization methodology. The weighting was based on feedback provided by the TAC, Stakeholder Committee and Public Survey as well as a review of FHWA and local guidance documents. Table 1 - Criteria for project prioritization map Criteria Scoring Details High Injury Locations 40% (12 points) High-Injury Network (HIN)4 6 points: Segment along HIN or at least one leg is along HIN 0 points: Segment not along HIN High-Injury Intersections 6 points: High - Intersection in the top 100 list 5 that are above the Fatal and Severe Injury Rate (FAR) 3 points: Medium - Intersection in the top 100 list that does not exceed the FAR but has a history of pedestrian/bicyclist and/or fatal/severe injury crash. 1 point: All other locations in the top 100 list 6 High-Risk Locations 30% (9 points) Vulnerable Road Users Crashes (Presence of pedestrian/bicyclist crash, regardless of injury) 2 points: 200’ from crash location Proximity to Schools 2 points: ¼ mile from elementary schools and ½ mile from junior high and high schools. At-grade Regional Trail Crossings 2 points: 200’ from trail crossing Roadways with 4 or more lanes 2 point: 50’ from centerline Crashes occurring more frequently in the dark 1 point: 100’ from crash location 4 A high-injury network (HIN) is a geospatial analysis of crash data that identifies the highest concentrations of traffic crashes resulting in serious injuries and fatalities within a given roadway network or jurisdiction (FHWA Safe Streets 4 All program facts) 5 See Crash Analysis Tech Memo for full methodology. 6 This including locations previously listed as high or medium but are no longer considered a concern due to recent reconstruction. More detailed information can be found in the Safety Analysis Technical Memorandum. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 96 Project Prioritization Methodology Technical Memorandum – DRAFT July 16, 2025 Page 3 Criteria Scoring Details Equity Considerations 20% (6 points) Poverty Rate (percentage points above county average for people within 185% of the federal poverty rate) 1 point: >10 percentage points above county, per census block group Percentage of residents identifying as a person of color 1 point: >10 percentage points above county average, per census block group Affordable/senior housing 7 1 point: ¼ mile from affordable/senior housing location Population density 1 point: >10 percentage points above county, per census block group Residents Under the Age of 18 1 point: >10 percentage points above county, per census block group Pedestrian Generators (Low- wage worker jobs, transit stops) 1 point >10 low wage worker jobs per acre (LEHD), 600’ from bus stops, ½ mile from planned Green Line Light Rail extension stops Public Engagement 10% (3 points) Density of Public Comments 3 points: High density comment location 2 points: Moderate density comment location Total (100%) 30 pts Initial Prioritized Locations The following map (Figure 1) shows the results of the initial prioritization of locations. Higher scoring locations are shown in red, and lower scoring projects are shown in yellow. Maps for each individual criteria are located in Appendix A. The scale on the map ranges from 1 point to 23 points due to the highest scoring locations only scoring 23 out of the possible 30 points. No locations met 100% of the scoring criteria, with the highest scoring location overlapping with 77% of the scoring criteria. Many locations did not score a single point for the scoring criteria and are shown without an overlay on Figure 1. 7 Proxy for residents with disability City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 97 Hig hw a y 55 10th Ave N Wa y zata B o u l e vard Fo r d R o a d KilmerLa n e N o r t h General Mills Nature Preserve (South) Westwood Hills Nature Center Westwood Hills Nature Reserve HannonLake H i g h w a y 7 C eda r L a ke R o a d Minneto nka B o u l e v ard Minneapolis Golf Club Oak Ridge Country Club Knollwood Mall Aquila Park Ford Park Hopkins Public Schools Eisenhower Elementary School N in e MileCre e k S ch a e f e r R oa d Belmo re La ne Ma l i b u D r i v e E x ce l s i o r Bou l e va r d 2nd S t r e e t N o rthe a s t Van Valkenburg Park The Blake School-Blake Campus Alice Smith Elementary S chool Hopki ns Interstate 3 9 4 S t a t e H w y 10 0 S Interstate Hw y 394 We s tern A v e H a r ol d A ve Country C l u b D r Z a n e A v e N L i l a c D r N Xen i a A v e S Laurel Ave Greenbelt (Cortlawn Pond) Perpich Center for Arts Education Breck School Golden Valley Hi gh way 7 Hi g h w a y 1 0 0 S o u t h F l o r i d a A v e n u e S o u t h I d a h o A v e n u e S o u t h L o u i s i a n a A v e n u e S o u t h L ake S t r e e t W est T e x a s A v e n u e S o u t h Wa l ker Stre e t C e dar L ake R o ad Benilde Saint Margarets School St. Louis Park Junior High St. Louis Park MirrorLake H i g h w a y 1 0 0 S o u t h W o o d d a l e Av e n u e Y o s e m i t e A v e n u e S o u t h 44th S tr e e t W est O x f or d S t r e et Ver nonAv e nu e Excelsior Bou l e vard Meadowbrook Golf Course Interlachen Country Club Highlands Park Meadowbrook Park Edina BassettsPond A r dm or e D r Theodore Wirth Park / Parkway TwinLake C o unty R oad 25 Saint Louis Park C h o w e n A v e n u e S o u t h G r i m e s A v e n u e A r d e n A v e n u e W o o d d a l e A v e n u e 44th S tr ee t We st 39th S t r e e t W e s t F r a n c e A v e n u e S o u t h Minnetonka Blvd Excelsio r B l v d Hwy 7 I-394 I-394 Hw y 1 6 9 Hw y 1 0 0 Cedar Lake R d This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. Source: State of MN, City of St. Louis Park, SEH, Inc. Print Date: 2/15/2025 Project: STLOU 179709 City of St. Louis Park Comprehensive Safe Streets Action Plan St. Louis Park, Minnesota Pa t h : X : \ P T \ S \ S T L O U \ 1 7 9 7 0 9 \ 5 - f i n a l - d s g n \ 5 1 - d r a w i n g s \ 9 0 - G I S \ 1 7 9 7 09 - S T L O U - C o m p r e h e n s i v e S a f e t y A c t i o n P l a n \ 1 7 9 7 0 9 - S T L O U - C o m p r e h e n s i v e S a f e t y A c t i o n P l a n . a p r x Figure x1,500 0 1,500 Feet± North Ceda r L a k e T r a i l Cedar L a k e L R T T r a i l Legend St. Louis Park Prioritization Areas Legend 1 St. Louis Park tƌŝŽƌŝƟnjĂƟŽŶ ^ĐŽƌĞ 1 to 23 Te x a s A v e Te x a s A v e tĂ ƌ Ŭ t ů Ă Đ Ğ . ů ǀ Ě Lo u i s i a n a A v e .Ğ ů ƚ ů ŝ Ŷ Ğ . ů ǀ Ě W 26th St W 36th St W 36th St tĂ ƌ Ŭ / Ğ Ŷ ƚ Ğ ƌ . ů ǀ Ě City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 98 Project Prioritization Methodology Technical Memorandum – DRAFT July 16, 2025 Page 5 Based on the prioritization scores, locations were grouped into projects and a tiered system was developed to combine the high-priority locations information with phasing information such as current funding year to prioritize resources at locations that are not already funded and/or in the planning process. Locations with reconstruction planned in the next 3-10 years present a great opportunity for quick build installations while locations without Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) funding for reconstruction represent great opportunities for grant applications and/or future CIP funding along with potential quick build installations. The tiers are identified in Table 2. Table 2 - Prioritization Tiers Tier Criteria Action Items Tier 0 High scoring (23- 17) and moderate scoring (16-9) with planned reconstruction in progress or planned the by 2026 • Consider temporary safety improvements and/or additional construction management precautions before and during reconstruction • Review existing construction plans to ensure identified safety concerns and needs were accounted for in reconstruction plans • Post construction evaluation Tier 1 High scoring (23- 17) with no planned reconstruction • Identify key safety concerns • Assess short-term quick build solutions • Assess medium- and long-term solutions • Identify grant applications and/or future CIP funding Tier 1 High scoring (23- 17) with planned reconstruction in the next 3-10 years • Identify key safety concerns and propose countermeasures • Assess short-term quick build solutions to inform long-term design Tier 2 Moderate scoring (16-9) with no planned reconstruction • Identify key safety concerns and propose countermeasures • Assess short-term quick build solutions • Assess medium- and long-term solutions • Identify grant applications and/or future CIP funding Tier 2 Moderate scoring (16-9) with planned reconstruction in the next 3-10 years • Identify key safety concerns and propose countermeasures • Assess short-term quick build solutions to inform long-term design Tier 3 All other low scoring (1-8) locations • Monitor locations and conduct follow-up evaluation next time a crash analysis is completed. • Complete a post-fatal/severe crash review for all new fatalities or pedestrian/bicyclist crashes that occurred after the December 2023 collection period. • Identify system wide strategies such as education and enforcement to improve safety systemwide. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 99 Minnetonka Blvd Excelsio r B l v d Cedar Lake R d ev A s a x e T Lo u i s i a n a A v e L o u i s i a n a A v e ev A a t o k a D 36th St B e l t l i n e B l v d 961 961 493 493 001 001 7 7 1 2 3 4 56 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the GeographicInformation System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. Source: State of MN, City of St. Louis Park, SEH, Inc. Print Date: 3/18/2025 Project: STLOU 179709 Pa t h : X : \ P T \ S \ S T L O U \ 1 7 9 7 0 9 \ 5 - f i n a l - d s g n \ 5 1 - d r a w i n g s \ 9 0 - G I S \ 1 7 9 7 0 9 - S T L O U - C o m p r e h e n s i v e S a f e t y A c t i o n P l a n \ 1 7 9 7 0 9 - S T L O U - C o m p r e h e n s i v e S a f e t y A c t i o n P l a n . a p r x Figure 21,500 0 1,500 Feet North Ceda r L a k e T r a i l Cedar L a k e L R T T r a i l Prioritization Areas City of St. Louis Park Safe Streets Action Plan St. Louis Park, Minnesota Legend St. Louis Park Segments Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 2 - Small Area Intersections Tier 1 Tier 2 N City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 100 Project Prioritization Methodology Technical Memorandum – DRAFT July 16, 2025 Page 7 Table 3 and Figure 2 detail the top 28 project locations by tier. Tier 0 Locations There are four Tier 0 segments. These segments located on Cedar Lake Rd, Minnetonka Blvd and Louisiana Ave are either under construction or will be under construction within a year of the Action Plan. Action items for these locations include a review of temporary safety improvements and/or additional construction management precautions that can be taken before construction is complete as well as a post construction safety evaluation. Tier 1 Locations Six Tier 1 locations were identified with a score of 17 or higher. All six of these locations involve county and/or state-owned roadways and will involve cross-agency coordination. The projects along Minnetonka Blvd are all programmed under the county Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for 2028 and will be reviewed for key safety concerns to understand short-term demonstration projects that may benefit the corridor while also working with the county to inform the future corridor design. Highway 7 at Texas Avenue has been studied by MnDOT and they have planned improvements to improve mainline and intersection safety. Tier 2 Locations Of the 18 tier 2 locations, there are a mix of city, county and state-owned roadways and intersections. Table 3 – Top projects identified based on prioritization score and tier Project Location Project Type Priority Score Tier Planned Constructi on Ownership 1 Cedar Lake Rd (Rhode Island Ave S to Louisiana Ave) Segment 21 to 20 Tier 0 2026 City (MSA) 2 Minnetonka Blvd (Hwy 100 to Lake St) Segment 22 to 12 Tier 0 2025 County 3 Louisiana Ave (I-394 to W 22nd St) Segment 13 to 7 Tier 0 2025 City (MSA) 4 Louisiana Ave (W 22nd St to W 27th St) Segment 19 to 11 Tier 0 2026 City (MSA) 5 Minnetonka Blvd and Hwy 100 NB entrance ramp Intersection 22 Tier 1 2025 Pavement only MnDOT 6 Minnetonka Blvd (Cedar Lake Trail Bridge to Texas Ave) Segment 23 to 17 Tier 1 2028 County 7 Texas Ave (36th Ave S to Hwy 7) Segment 17 to 12 Tier 1 None City (MSA) 8 Texas Ave and Hwy 7 Intersection 17 Tier 1 None MnDOT 9 Excelsior Blvd (Powell Rd to Hwy 100) Segment 17 to 12 Tier 1 None County 10 Excelsior Blvd (Hwy 100 to W 36th 1/2 St) Segment 18 to 12 Tier 1 None County City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 101 Project Prioritization Methodology Technical Memorandum – DRAFT July 16, 2025 Page 8 Project Location Project Type Priority Score Tier Planned Constructi on Ownership 11 36th St (Regional Trail Crossing to Texas Ave) Segment 14 to 11 Tier 2 None City (MSA) 12 Wooddale Ave S (W 35th St to W 36th St) Segment 12 to 9 Tier 2 None City (MSA) 13 Cedar Lake Rd and Ridge Rd Intersection 10 Tier 2 None City (MSA) 14 Cedar Lake Rd and Hwy 169 Ramp Intersection 9 Tier 2 None MnDOT 15 26th St (Natchez Ave S to Joppa Ave S) Segment 9 to 7 Tier 2 None City (MSA) 16 Park Center Blvd (W36th St to Excelsior Blvd) Segment 12 to 9 Tier 2 None City (MSA) 17 Park Place Blvd (I-394 to Gamble Dr) Segment 11 to 8 Tier 2 None City (MSA) 18 Louisiana Ave (W 27th St) Intersection 10 Tier 2 None City (MSA) 19 W 30th 1/2 St and Viginia Ave S Intersection 15 Tier 2 None City 20 Aquila Neighborhood (Xylon Ave, Utah Ave S, W 30th 1/2 St, W 31st St, W 32nd St) Small Area 15 to 9 Tier 2 None City 21 Hwy 7 and Beltline Blvd Intersection 11 Tier 2 None County and City (MSA) 22 Beltline Blvd (Lynn Ave to Park Glen Rd) Intersection 10 Tier 2 None City (MSA) 23 Virginia Ave S (North Cedar Lake Regional Trail Crossing to Texas Ave) Segment 12 Tier 2 None City (MSA) 24 Hwy 7 and Blake Rd Intersection 12 Tier 2 None MnDOT 25 W 36th St and Hwy 100 Ramp Interchange Intersection 10 Tier 2 None MnDOT 26 Minnetonka Blvd (Cavell Ave to Boone Ave) Segment 11 to 9 Tier 2 2030 County 27 Hwy 169 ramps at Minnetonka Blvd Intersection 9 Tier 2 2030 MnDOT/ County 28 W 16th St and Duke Dr Intersection 9 Tier 2 None City (local) City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 102 Project Prioritization Methodology Technical Memorandum – DRAFT July 16, 2025 Page 9 NEXT STEPS A deeper review will be completed for the 28 projects to identify key safety concerns, proposed safety countermeasures, and future action items. The details of the analysis will be presented in the final Action Plan. The detailed crash analysis is located in the Safety Analysis Technical Memorandum. Appendix A – Transportation Equity Considerations Because low-income residents and residents who identify as a person of color are historically more likely to be victims of a fatal or severe injury crash 8, an equity analysis was conducted to inform the equity consideration for project prioritization. Table 4 describes the equity indicators that were mapped and figures A1-A15 show the mapped data. Table 4 - Transportation Equity Considerations Fig. # Equity Indicator Details 1 Affordable Housing Affordable/ subsidized housing (city, 2023 housing study prepared by Maxfield Research & Consulting) 2 At-grade trail crossings At-grade regional trail crossings locations (city) 3 Low Wage Worker Job Density Low wage worker jobs per acre (LEHD dataset) 4 Median Household Income Median household income (2022 ACS, US Census Bureau) 5 Percent of the population under 18 Percent of children under the age of 18 (2022 ACS, US Census Bureau) 6 Percent of the population with a disability Percent of population reported with any self- identified disability (2022 ACS, US Census Bureau) 7 Percentage of residents identifying as a person of color Percent of population self-identifying as a person of color (2022 ACS, US Census Bureau) 8 Population Density Persons per square mile (2020 Decennial Census, US Census Bureau) 9 Poverty Rate Percentage points above county average for people within 185% of the federal poverty rate (2022 ACS, US Census Bureau) 10 Schools Locations of both public and private school buildings (MN Dept. of Ed, 2024 school building locations) 8 An Analysis of Traffic Fatalities by Race and Ethnicity. Governors Highway Safety Administration. June 2021. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 103 Project Prioritization Methodology Technical Memorandum – DRAFT July 16, 2025 Page 10 11 Senior Housing Senior housing building locations (city, 2023 housing study prepared by Maxfield Research & Consulting) 12 Transit Stops Active transit stops as well as planned green line light rail extension transit stops (Metropolitan Council data server) 13 Vehicle Ownership Percentage of households without access to a personal vehicle (2022 ACS, US Census Bureau) Selecting Equity Considerations The TAC and Stakeholder committee were involved in the selection of the equity considerations and weighting into the project prioritization scoring. Based on the feedback, poverty rate, race, affordable/senior housing, population density, residents under the age of 18 and pedestrian generators including low-wage worker job concentrations and transit stops were included as scoring criteria. The residents with disabilities dataset was considered for inclusion, but due to significant overlap with affordable housing/senior housing data, it was removed. Grocery stores were also considered for inclusion by the stakeholder committee, but due to significant overlap with the low wage worker job concentrations, grocery store locations were not added to the scoring criteria. Schools were not selected because they were already included in the High-Risk dataset which received a higher weighting for the prioritization score. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 104 Engineers | Architects | Planners | Scientists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, MN 55110-3507 651.490.2000 | 800.325.2055 | 888.908.8166 fax | sehinc.com SEH is 100% employee-owned | Affirmative Action–Equal Opportunity Employer MEMORANDUM TO: Jack Sullivan (PE) FROM: Chelsea Moore-Ritchie (AICP) DATE: April 3, 2025 RE: St. Louis Park Safe Streets Action Plan - Summary of Public Engagement SEH No. STLOU 179709 14.00 Purpose In 2023, the City of St. Louis Park obtained a grant through the federal Safe Street and Roads for All (SS4A) program to develop an action plan to improve road safety. In June of 2024, the city launched the Safe Streets Action Plan to develop a plan to work towards reducing or eliminating serious injury and deadly accidents for everyone using the roads. Public engagement is a key component of developing recommendations and strategies, as well as identifying prioritization locations. Public input helped reinforce the safety and crash data findings. A public engagement campaign was designed to engage a wide range of stakeholders, including those who may not attend a traditional open house or participate in the decision-making process. The project team worked directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that their concerns were heard, understood, and considered. Objectives of the outreach included: • Creating awareness of the Safe Streets Action Plan and how safety impacts all road users. • Better understanding of ways people travel and their priorities and concerns. • Providing interactive, accessible, and approachable engagement opportunities throughout the project. • Reporting back to the community to ensure recommendations reflect public input. • Developing a Safe Streets Action Plan that will help guide future transportation investments. This document summarizes all the engagement activities and the key themes as part of the Safe Streets Action Plan. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 105 2 St. Louis Park, MN – Safe Streets Action Plan Summary of Public Input Phases of Engagement The public engagement campaign included three phases throughout the entirety of the project. • Phase 1 - The initial phase focused on creating community-wide awareness of the project and understand key concerns and priorities. An equity analysis was conducted to identify areas with higher percentage of higher-risk and disadvantaged populations (i.e., low wage workers, low-income households, residents with a disability, people of color, youth, seniors, households with zero vehicles). Engagement events were held at locations and events easily accessible to these groups. o Approximately 690 engagement interactions were made during this phase. • Phase 2 – The second phase worked with a Stakeholder Committee and Technical Advisory Committee to review public input and begin developing strategies and identifying prioritization locations. • Phase 3 – The third phase presented draft strategies and prioritization locations to the public. Public input during this phase to further refine recommendations and implementation strategies. Engagement Opportunities The City offered several engagement opportunities to engage the community in guiding recommendations and prioritization locations. Each of the outlined engagement activities provided an interactive experience to provide input, voice concerns, and identify future transportation priorities. Project Webpage The city hosted a dedicated webpage to serve as a central hub for the Safe Streets Action Plan. The site featured up-to-date project information, upcoming engagement events, and resources, allowing stakeholders to stay informed and engaged with the planning process. Yard Signs Yard signs with QR codes to the project website were placed at key locations with high pedestrian and bicycle traffic. These helped promote the project and online survey. Pop-up Workshops These casual and fun workshops brought the project directly to the public. Pop-up workshops were held during the first and third phases of the project. These workshops were held at popular community locations that attract a diverse audience, including local events and areas with heavy pedestrian and bicycle activity. During Phase 1, participants were able to learn about the project, share their top transportation priorities, and identify issues at specific locations. Phase 3 focused on presenting the process for selecting project locations and strategies, as well as gathering community input. Feedback from the community was used to further refine the project recommendations. The project hosted five pop-up workshops throughout the city: • Phase 1 Workshops o St Louis Park Art Fair at the Recreation Outdoor Center (August 7, 2024): 225 participants o Fire Department Open House (August 18, 2024): 53 participants o Aquila Park (October 21, 2024): 19 participants o Hennepin County-St. Louis Park Library (October 29, 2024): 49 participants • Phase 3 Workshop o Parktacular Festival (June 14, 2025): 148 participants Community Workshop A community workshop was held at the Westwood Nature Center on October 15, 2024. Approximately 19 people attended. The workshop had a variety of interactive stations and was an opportunity for stakeholders to learn about the project, ask questions, and share their feedback regarding transportation safety issues. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 106 3 St. Louis Park, MN – Safe Streets Action Plan Summary of Public Input Online Survey An online survey was conducted during the first phase (August 2024) with 133 participants taking the online survey. Participants were able to identify 1) their preferred travel modes, 2) improvements that would encourage them to walk, roll, bike, or use transit more, 3) their experience using transportation facilities, 4) the city’s future transportation priorities, and 5) factors that determine how transportation investments are made. The online survey summary can be found at the end of this document. Interactive Mapping Tool An online mapping tool allowed stakeholders to provide comments on specific locations, routes, and areas of interest. The mapping input helped identify popular destinations, areas with safety concerns, opportunities for improvements, and gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle network. 833 comments were submitted on the interactive map during phase one. Most common concerns were about unsafe or uncomfortable crossings, gaps in pedestrian and bicycle facilities, high speed traffic, and unsafe driving behavior. Mapping comments were concentrated along busier roads, including Excelsior Boulevard, Minnetonka Boulevard, Lake Street, Louisiana Avenue, Wooddale Avenue, and Cedar Lake Road. Figure 1 - Online Map Comments City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 107 4 St. Louis Park, MN – Safe Streets Action Plan Summary of Public Input Stakeholder Advisory Committee A Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) was established to guide the development of strategies and project locations to ensure that recommendations reflect community needs. Ten community members were selected using criteria designed to capture diverse backgrounds and perspectives. Selection factors included geographic representation (neighborhoods and wards), prior involvement in city commissions, primary modes of transportation, and a broad range of transportation-related insights. The Committee met three times during the second phase of engagement. The Committee also commented on the final report and was also influential in ensuring that the project team was engaging an audience that reflected the community’s demographic profile. Technical Advisory Committee A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established to provide comprehensive technical guidance throughout the development of project strategies and recommendations. The Committee included city staff from the Engineering, Communications, Public Works, Public Safety (Fire and Police), and Community Development departments, as well as representatives from partner agencies, including the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Hennepin County, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The TAC’s role was to provide technical insight on transportation needs, ensure alignment with existing plans and policies, and review proposed recommendations for feasibility and effectiveness. The Committee met regularly during the planning process and played a key role in refining strategies to ensure they were both technically sound and responsive to community goals. Report Comment Period A public comment period in coordination with a media advertising campaign was used to get the word out about the draft report and solicit comments for consideration. Key Takeaways The following key takeaways are based on public feedback gathered through the engagement activities outlined previously. This input reflects community concerns and priorities regarding transportation safety and infrastructure improvements, highlighting key areas such as pedestrian and bicycle safety, traffic calming measures, and public education. The following themes summarize the most frequently mentioned issues by stakeholders. Traffic Management and Speed Control The public highlighted frustrations about speeding and unsafe driving behaviors along busy streets, particularly along Excelsior Boulevard, Minnetonka Boulevard, Lake Street, Louisiana Avenue, Wooddale Avenue, and Cedar Lake Road. Feedback also mentioned that vehicles drive too fast along residential roads, especially those used as cut through streets. Survey respondents ranked calming vehicle traffic (selected by 64% of participants) as the top transportation priority, while traffic enforcement was ranked third (selected by 47%). Public input emphasized the need for traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speeds, especially near school zone areas, parks, and commercial areas. Public input highlighted the need to continue to provide education programs to improve driver behavior and safer pedestrian and bicycle practices. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety at Intersections The public highlighted safety concerns at intersections throughout the city, specifically along roads with high traffic, multiple lanes, faster speeds, or near commercial areas. Based on survey input, improving safety conditions at intersections (selected by 57% of participants) ranked second as a top priority for the city’s future transportation priorities. Many engagement participants shared that they do not feel safe walking or biking across busy streets with children, even at intersections with controlled crossings. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 108 5 St. Louis Park, MN – Safe Streets Action Plan Summary of Public Input Positive Feedback regarding City’s Multimodal Investments Throughout engagement events, many stakeholders shared their general support for the city’s continuous efforts to expand and improve the multimodal network. The pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure was highlighted as a key community asset in St. Louis Park. How this information was used Feedback from the online map was used directly in identifying top locations to help identify areas that may not have a strong crash history but may have near misses or other safety concerns not captures by the data analysis. The online survey also helped to inform the development of the equity indicators used in the prioritization methodology. And finally, public comments were reviewed during the Safety Analysis of the top priority locations, to inform treatment recommendations. For more information on how the public feedback was incorporated, see the Safety Analysis Technical Memorandum and the Prioritization Methodology Technical Memorandum. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 109 Phase 1 Community Survey Engagement Summary City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 110 44 89 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Partial Complete Participants Total: 133 participants City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 111 1. What is your most frequently used mode of transportation? Driving a personal vehicle 79% Walking 9% Biking 9% Transit 2%Other -Write In 1% City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 112 2. If conditions were ideal, what would be yourpreferred mode of transportation? Driving a personal vehicle 25% Walking / rolling 21%Biking 34% Transit 18% Carpool or car share 2% Other -Write In 1% City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 113 3. What would encourage you to walk more than youcurrently do? Select your top three (3) choices. 52.1 41.7 36.5 32.3 27.1 22.9 11.5 11.5 10.4 7.3 3.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Slower car speeds / calmer streets Shorter distances to destinations Separation from vehicles Improved sense of safety New facilities where there are none today (e.g, sidewalks, trails, etc.) Better winter maintenance Better lighting More facilities and amenities (e,g,, trees, landscaping, lighting, benches, etc. Other - Write In Protection from extreme heat and cold Nothing - I would not walk/roll more frequently % City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 114 A pedestrian light at bus stop behind knollwood Ability to safely and conveniently cross major roads: Minnetonka Blvd and Hwy 7/CSAH25 Drivers who obey the laws I am 89 years old Improved crosswalks where walkers automatically get a walk sign instead of always having to request a walk. More crosswalks with caution lights across Minnetonka west of 100 Stop signs need to be placed at the roundabouts instead of yields for traffic that is coming from highway 7. I frequently walk for exercise in this area and the roundabouts terrify me as a pedestrian fewer bicyclists unwilling to allow pedestrian access the vehicles in SLP speed excessively and nothing is done about it, the last project to reduce speed did nothing, and the police do absolutely nothing to stop it 3. What would encourage you to walk more than you currently do?Select your top three (3) choices. Other responses City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 115 4. What would encourage you or allow you to bikemore frequently? Select your top two (2) responses. 55.8 51.2 41.9 18.6 1.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Improved driver behavior Provide more separated facilities from cars New bikeways where there are none today (e.g., bike lanes, trails, sharrows, etc Other - Write In More bike repair stations % City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 116 Nothing. At 69 I cannot use a bicycle. Better weather Having children who are able to bike on their own and feeling more safe with them doing so I am 89 years old I do not bike I don't bike I won't bike on streets. Only trails. Too dangerous on streets. Also I don't bike for transportation but for recreation Improve ride share access for the last mile to public trans Owning a bike and wider paths on the trails since bikers and walkers share the path. Sometimes there are large groups of bikers. Roundabout solutions, treacherous for cars much less bikes… signaling with arms WHILE " curving " the bike is harder! The new trail tunnels under Dakota and Blake have encouraged me to bike more bicyclists with an understanding of shared responsibility features that show me as a pedestrian or cyclist that the drivers are going to be forced to slow down infrastructure that prioritizes people, not cars locations to store bike once arrived 4. What would encourage you or allow you to bike morefrequently? Select your top two (2) responses.Other responses City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 117 5. What would encourage you to take transit morefrequently? Select your top two (2) responses. 59.3 44.2 24.4 15.1 11.6 9.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 More transit options to the places I want to go More frequent services Other - Write In Better connections to transit stops Improved reliability Cheaper transit fares % City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 118 Safety A bus on France Avenue!!!! Free Fare. Figuring out the payment system is a hurdle I ride the bus to work multiple times a week. I used to live the bus, but now it's not fun due to the behavior of people on the buses and at bus stops while waiting (often far too long) for connections. I won't use public transit. I would not be likely to take public transit Improved safety on public transit Improved sense of safety/crime reduction More Police presence throughout the city. More ride share for the last mile. NA-traveling with multiple young children Nothing. Too dangerous Safety on transit and in transit stations Taking transit is challenging with a young child who needs a stroller. frequent to the point where I don't need to be a slave to a schedule n/a none, public transport is dirty and takes forever to get where you are going safety safety issues 5. What would encourage you to take transit more frequently?Select your top two (2) responses.Other responses City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 119 6. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with each of thefollowing statements about transportation in the City of St. Louis Park? Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral -I am not sure Somewhat agree Strongly agree I feel safe WALKING and ROLLING in most places throughout the city. 9.4% 21.2% 7.1% 40.0% 22.4% I feel that the sidewalks and trails in the city connect me to the places I want to go. 7.2% 16.9% 13.3% 42.2% 20.5% I feel safe BIKING in most places throughout the city. 10.1% 25.3% 25.3% 32.9% 6.3% I feel that the bikeways in the city connect me to the places I want to go. 6.4% 15.4% 25.6% 41.0% 11.5% I feel safe DRIVING in most streets throughout the city. 6.5% 7.8% 9.1% 31.2% 45.5% If there were more sidewalks, trails and bikeways in the city I would be more active. 7.8% 9.1% 16.9% 31.2% 35.1% I would like to see more trees, plantings, benches, etc. along the streets in the city. 1.3% 7.8% 16.9% 23.4% 50.6% City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 120 7. What should be the city's top transportation prioritiesfor the future? Please select your top four (4) responses.63.6 57.1 46.8 40.3 37.7 23.4 18.2 16.9 16.9 13 10.4 7.8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Calming vehicle traffic Improve safety conditions at intersections Traffic enforcement More walking, biking, and rolling routes to commercial areas Build more bicycle facilities throughout the city More shaded areas along walking/rolling routes Other - Write In Public education programs to improve behavior Improved access for people with disabilities More amenities along walking/rolling routes Safer routes to schools Improved access to transit stops % City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 121 Bring back the three parking spots Southeast of Hwy 100 and Cedar Lake Trail. It's hard to find a place to get on that trail. Coming up with an idea of how it wants Louisiana—its only continuous north-south artery—to look/feel/function, from 394 to Excelsior. How about a water bottle filling stations along the bike trail. I want speed bumps in my neighborhood. Delivery trucks and individuals are driving too fast. Kids play outside. People walk their dogs. My neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks. I would like to have sidewalks on Cambridge St. Improve signage for pedestrian crosswalks Limiting oversized trucks and SUVs on streets Make intersections and crossings safer for pedestrians. Drivers ignore walk signs, ignore crosswalks, and are so focused on turning right on red lights that they don't see or look for pedestrians with the right of way. Sidewalks become meaningless when you can't safely cross the street. Every time I walk by the roundabout by the Rec Center around rush hour, someone is having a fit because the car in front of them yielded (as required) to incoming traffic or a pedestrian. It's not safe STOP BUILDING ROUNDABOUTS! Sidewalks throughout!!!! Speedbumps for High speed highschoolers in residential neighborhoods more roundabouts where appropriate there is no bike lane on Louisiana Ave, WHY? Traffic is out of control on this road and nothing is done, most bikers use the sidewalk then, police do nothing to control traffic in this city! 7. What should be the city's top transportation priorities for thefuture? Please select your top four (4) responses.Other responses City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 122 8. If you had $10 to invest into making transportation facilities safer and moreaccessible, how would you distribute funds? Please include the amount you wouldinvest in each transportation facility type. The max amount should equal to $10.00. Type of Facilities Average Score Pedestrian facilities (e.g., sidewalks, trails, etc.) 3.9 Roadway improvements 3.6 Biking facilities (e.g., bike lanes, trails, bike repair stations, etc.) 3.1 Transit facilities and services (e.g., bus stops, frequency of service, etc.) 2.8 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 123 What should be most important when the city is selecting safety improvements? Rate each item with 1 = not important and 5 = very important. 1 (Not important)2 3 (Neutral) 4 5 (Very important) Minimizing impacts to adjacent properties 15.3% 16.7% 31.9% 19.4% 16.7% Protecting people most at risk for severe and fatal injuries (i.e., people walking, biking and rolling) 0% 0% 1.4% 16.4% 82.2% Taking advantage of upcoming projects to minimize construction impacts and cost 2.8% 5.6% 23.9% 35.2% 32.4% Prioritizing mobility needs for underserved populations 4.2% 7.0% 14.1% 42.3% 32.4% Providing the highest safety benefit 0% 1.4% 9.7% 34.7% 54.2% Proximity to schools and senior centers 1.4% 13.9% 20.8% 36.1% 27.8% Locations near transit stops 4.2% 6.9% 27.8% 36.1% 25.0% Locations near trail crossings 2.8% 8.3% 20.8% 43.1% 25.0% High traffic areas 0% 2.8% 12.5% 27.8% 56.9% Locations with excessive speeding 0% 2.7% 13.7% 15.1% 68.5% Page 124 10. What is your relation to the City of St. Louis Park?Please select all that apply. 98.8 17.1 1.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 I live in St. Louis Park I work in St. Louis Park I own a business in St. Louis Park % City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 125 11.How did you hear about this survey?Please select all that apply 27.5 26.3 17.5 16.3 11.3 7.5 2.5 0 10 20 30 Other - Write In City website Social media (Facebook, X, Tik Tok, etc.) Lawn signs A family member, neighbor, or friend Community event or festival Flier % City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 126 Email Email Email from city Council member email Email Email from the city Fall sustainability news newsletter email from SLP email from you sustainability newsletter walking in the park 11. How did you hear about this survey? Please select all that apply. Other responses City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 127 12. How would you identify your race or ethnicity? Black, African American, or African origin 3% White, European American or Caucasian 88% Hispanic or Latino 7% Other race(s), ethnicity or origin 3% City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 128 13. How would you identify yourself? Female 47% Male 50% Non-binary or other 3% City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 129 14. What is your age? 18 -30 years old 12% 31 -50 years old 50% 51 -70 years old 27% Over 70 years old 12% City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Title: Resolution approving the Safe Streets Action Plan and supporting a Vision Zero goal Page 130 Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5d Executive summary Title: Approve bid for 2026 Mill and Overlay (Area 2) project (4026-1200) – Wards 1 and 2 Recommended action: Motion to designate GMH Asphalt Corporation the lowest responsible bidder and authorize the execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $201,457.41 for the 2026 Mill and Overlay (Area 2) project no. 4026-1200. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to pursue the 2026 Mill and Overlay (Area 2) project as described in this report? Summary: Bids were received on March 19, 2026, for the Mill and Overlay (Area 2) project (4026-1200). This year's project will mill and overlay 1.07 miles of street in the Triangle neighborhood (Ward 1) and the Minikahda Vista neighborhood (Ward 2). A total of seven (7) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid results is as follows: Contractor Bid amount GMH Asphalt Corporation $ 201,457.41 Park Construction Company $ 216,633.40 Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp. $ 222,619.63 Valley Paving Inc. $ 224,088.50 Northwest Asphalt, Inc. $ 236,757.37 Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $ 237,452.50 C.S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. $ 247,569.50 Engineer's estimate $ 223,466.00 A review of the bids indicates that GMH Asphalt Corporation submitted the lowest bid. GMH Asphalt Corporation is a reputable contractor that has completed similar projects in the past. Staff recommend that a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $201,457.41. Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2026 at $221,600; the low bid is within the CIP budget for this project. Funding will be provided using franchise fees (pavement management fund). Additional information on the breakdown of the funding can be found later in this report. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Project map Prepared by: Mark Elgaard, engineering project manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Tiffany Stephens, interim deputy finance director and financial analyst Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5d) Page 2 Title: Approve bid for 2026 Mill and Overlay (Area 2) project (4026-1200) – Wards 1 and 2 Discussion Background: Bids were received on March 19, 2026, for the Mill and Overlay (Area 2) project (4026-1200). This year's project will mill and overlay 1.07 miles of street in the Triangle neighborhood (Ward 1) and the Minikahda Vista neighborhood (Ward 2) that are currently in need of maintenance. These streets serve single-family homes, multi-family homes, and businesses. The project scope includes removing 1.5 inches of the existing pavement, replacing aging or damaged manhole lids and castings, and installing 1.5 inches of new bituminous pavement. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor on Feb. 26 and March 5, 2026, and in Finance and Commerce on Feb. 26 through March 4, 2026. In addition, plans and specifications were made available electronically via the internet on the city's OneOffice website. Information regarding this bidding opportunity was shared with three (3) minority associations and 39 Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) contractors. Due to new federal regulations, the Minnesota Unified Certification Program (MnUCP) directory for DBE certifications is being reevaluated. During this time, we do not have access to this directory, but there is an option for contractors/vendors to self-report DBE status to the city when downloading plans. Twenty-three (23) contractors/vendors downloaded plan sets. Two contractors/vendors self-reported a DBE status as DBE, WBE (women-owned business enterprise), TGB (targeted group business enterprise), SBE (small business enterprise) or a combination thereof. Present considerations: Staff have reviewed the bids and determined that GMH Asphalt Corporation is the lowest responsible bidder. Based on the low bid received, cost and funding details are as follows: Cost type CIP Low bid Construction cost $210,000.00 $201,457.41 Engineering and administration $ 11,600.00 $ 11,600.00 Total $221,600.00 $213,057.41 Funding Sources Pavement management fund $221,600.00 $213,057.41 Total $221,600.00 $213,057.41 Bid Analysis: The low bid construction cost is $8,542.59, or 4.1% under the CIP amount. Due to the nature of our construction projects, unexpected costs do come up. The capital funds have unobligated balances that can be used to handle cost overruns above and beyond the awarded bid. Next steps: Construction is anticipated to begin in May 2026 and should be completed by October 2026. M O N T E R E Y D R M O N T E R E Y D R MINNETONKA BLVDMINNETONKA BLVD MIN NETONKA BLVDMINNETONKABLVD 36 1/2 ST W 36 1/2 ST W 36TH ST W36TH ST W36THST W36THST W PA R K C E N T E R B L V D PA R K C E N T E R B L V D PA R K C E N T E R B L V D PA R K C E N T E R B L V D RA L E I G H A V E S R A L E I G H A V E S LY N N A V E S LY N N A V E S K I P L I N G A V E S K I P L I N G A V E S I N G L E W O O D AV E S I N G L E W O O D AV E S J O P P A A V E S J O P P A A V E S M I N IK A HD A CT M I N IK A HD A CT H U N T I N G T O N A V E S H U N T I N G T O N A V E S BE L T LI N E B L V D BE L T LI N E B L V D FR A N C E A V E S FR A N C E A V E S EXC E L S I O R B L V D EXC E L S I O R B L V D G L E N H U R S T A V E S G L E N H U R S T A V E S J O P P A A V E S J O P P A A V E S 31ST ST W31ST ST W SA L E M A V E S SA L E M A V E S EXC E L S I O R BLV D EXC E L S I O R BLV D N A T C H E Z A V E S N A T C H E Z A V E S M O N T E R E Y A V E S M O N T E R E Y A V E S F R A N C E A V E S F R A N C E A V E S OT T A W A A V E S OT T A W A A V E S COUNT Y ROAD 25 COUNT Y ROAD 25 RANDAL L A V E RANDAL L A V E 36TH ST W36TH ST W 34TH ST W34THSTW SERVICE DR HIG HWAY 7SERVICE DR HIG HWAY 7 37TH ST W37TH ST W G L E N H U R S T A V E S G L E N H U R S T A V E S H U N T I N G T O N A V E S H U N T I N G T O N A V E S I N G L E W O O D AV E S I N G L E W O O D AV E S COUNT Y R O A D 25 COUNT Y R O A D 25 LY N N A V E S LY N N A V E S SERVICE DR HIGHWAY 7 SERVICE DR HIGHWAY 7 31ST ST W31ST ST W 31ST ST W31ST ST W Q U E N T I N A V E S QU E N T I N A V E S WOL FE PK WY WOL FE PK WY M O N T E R E Y A V E S M O N T E R E Y A V E S 33RD S T W 33RD S T W M O N T E R E Y D R M O N T E R E Y D R LY N N A V E S LY N N A V E S SA L E M A V E S S A L E M A V E S SERV I C E DR HIGHW AY 7 SERV I C E DR HIGHW AY 7 35TH ST W 35TH ST W BACKAG E R D BACKAG E R D PARK GLEN RD PARK GLEN RD RA L E I G H A V E S R A L E I G H A V E S WŽůĨĞ PĂƌŬWŽůĨĞ PĂƌŬ CĂƌƉĞŶƚĞƌ PĂƌŬ CĂƌƉĞŶƚĞƌ PĂƌŬ BĂƐƐ LĂŬĞ PĂƌŬ BĂƐƐ LĂŬĞ PĂƌŬBĂƐƐ LĂŬĞ PƌĞƐĞƌǀĞ BĂƐƐ LĂŬĞ PƌĞƐĞƌǀĞ LŝůĂĐ PĂƌŬ LŝůĂĐ PĂƌŬ RĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ OƵƚĚŽŽƌ CĞŶƚĞƌ ;ROCͿ RĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ OƵƚĚŽŽƌ CĞŶƚĞƌ ;ROCͿ 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet p 2026 Mill and Overlay Pavement mill and overlay Updated 9/26/2025 M I N N E A P O L I S City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5d) Title: Approve bid for 2026 Mill and Overlay (Area 2) project (4026-1200) – Wards 1 and 2 Page 3 Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5e Executive summary Title: Approve bid for 2026 Concrete Replacement project (4026-0003) Recommended action: Motion to award the bid to Concrete Idea, Inc., and authorize the execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $153,419 for the Concrete Replacement project no. 4026-0003. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to continue the city’s practice of repairing or replacing existing sidewalk, curb and gutter, and catch basins? Summary: Bids were received on March 26, 2026, for concrete repair at various locations in the city. This annual construction contract addresses concrete repairs in the pavement management area scheduled for mill and overlay the following year, as well as sidewalk trip hazards throughout the city. Six (6) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid results is as follows: Contractor Bid amount Concrete Idea, Inc. $153,419.00 Create Construction LLC $159,888.00 Standard Sidewalk, Inc. $168,341.25 JL Theis, Inc. $215,821.40 Pember Companies, Inc. $233,996.95 S.M. Hentges & Son, Inc. $324,999.00 Engineer’s estimate $188,158.30 A review of the bid indicates that Concrete Idea, Inc., submitted the lowest responsible bid. Concrete Idea is a capable contractor who has successfully completed concrete replacement projects in the city. Staff recommend that a contract should be awarded to the firm. Financial or budget considerations: This project is in the 2026 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) at $414,400. The bid is lower than the CIP budget. Funding will be provided by municipal building and infrastructure, stormwater utility and franchise fees funds. The remaining funds will be used to address other sidewalk repairs in the city. Details are in the discussion section of this report. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Sarah Schweiger, engineering services manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director; Tiffany Stephens, interim deputy financial director and financial analyst Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5e) Page 2 Title: Approve bid for 2026 Concrete Replacement project (4026-0003 Discussion Background: Bids for the concrete replacement project were received on March 26, 2026. This annual construction contract addresses needed concrete repairs, including sidewalk, curb and gutter, and storm sewer catch basins at various locations within the city. Staff annually survey the condition of sidewalks to identify hazards for repair. Panels of sidewalks that are cracked or have been lifted by tree roots create trip hazards and are repaired as part of this contract. Curb and gutter with similar defects that create drainage or safety problems are also repaired. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor on March 5 and March 12, 2026, and in Finance and Commerce from March 5 through March 11, 2026. In addition, plans and specifications were made available electronically via the internet on the city’s OneOffice website. Information regarding this bidding opportunity was shared with three (3) minority associations and 39 Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) contractors. Due to new federal regulations, the Minnesota Unified Certification Program (MnUCP) directory for DBE certifications is being reevaluated. During this time, we do not have access to this directory, but there is an option for contractors/vendors to self-report DBE status to the city when downloading plans. Fourteen (14) contractors/vendors downloaded plan sets. Two contractors/vendors self-reported a DBE status as DBE, WBE (women-owned business enterprise), TGB (targeted group business enterprise) or a combination thereof. Present considerations: Based on the low bid received, cost and funding details for the project are as follows: Costs CIP Low bid Construction $370,000.00 $153,419.00 Engineering and administration $44,400.00 $22,200.00 Total $414,400.00 $175,619.00 Funding sources Municipal Building and Infrastructure $145,600.00 $69,647.71 Franchise fees (pavement management fund) $134,400.00 $70,053.64 Stormwater utility $134,400.00 $35,917.65 Total $414,400.00 $175,619.00 Since bidding this project, staff have found additional concrete sidewalks that need to be repaired and will be added to this contract. Any additional available budget will be used to fund the city’s sidewalk shaving program, which effectively addresses trip hazards where feasible. Next steps: All work in this contract shall be completed by Aug. 31, 2026. Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5f Executive summary Title: Resolution authorizing acceptance of the Hennepin County IGNITE funding award – Ward 2 Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing acceptance of the award from the Hennepin County IGNITE Community Climate Mitigation Fund. Policy consideration: Does the council wish to authorize acceptance of the funding award from the Hennepin County IGNITE Community Climate Mitigation Fund? Summary: The City of St. Louis Park was awarded $14,975 for a lighting retrofit at the Municipal Service Center (MSC) parking lot. Using these funds, the city will replace 11 inefficient high- pressure sodium high pole area lights with energy-efficient LED alternatives. The project, which will save 7.4 metric tons of CO2e annually, follows many sustainability improvements at the building, including two public EV charging ports, solar panels and high-speed efficient garage doors. The project is another successful collaboration between sustainability division staff who led the funding application and facilities division staff who will lead project management. Financial or budget considerations: All funding received will assist with the project financial feasibility and offset the amount of city funds needed for the project. There is no match required. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Clancy Ferris, legislative & grants analyst Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5f) Page 2 Title: Resolution authorizing acceptance of the Hennepin County IGNITE funding award – Ward 2 Resolution No. 26-__ Authorizing acceptance of the Hennepin County IGNITE funding award Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “city”) on behalf of its building and energy department may enter into a professional services agreement with Hennepin County; and Whereas, the funds will be used to replace obsolete lighting fixtures at the Municipal Service Center in the City of St. Louis Park; and Whereas, the city has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration, Be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota that Mayor Nadia Mohamed and City Manager Kim Keller, or successors, are hereby authorized to execute such agreements necessary to receive the funds and implement the project (the agreement) on behalf of the City of St. Louis Park and to be the fiscal agent and administer the funding. Reviewed for administration: ____________________________________ Kim Keller, city manager Attest: ____________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, secretary Adopted by the city council April 6, 2026: ____________________________________ Nadia Mohamed, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5g Executive summary Title: Resolutions authorizing application for the Minnesota DEED contamination cleanup and investigation grant for Wooddale Station redevelopment project - Ward 2 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 Wooddale Station redevelopment project. • Motion to adopt a resolution committing local match provided by the developer and authorizing contract signature for the grant application for Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development contamination cleanup and investigation grant for Wooddale Station redevelopment project. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to authorize an application for and, upon award, acceptance of the award for eligible grant expenses to support the Wooddale Station redevelopment project? Summary: The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority entered into a preliminary development agreement with Sentinel Management Company on March 2, 2026, to redevelop the Wooddale Station redevelopment site, which includes a city-owned parcel at 5950 36th Street West. The proposed redevelopment includes a new mixed-use building with approximately 265 apartments, including approximately 58 affordable units and approximately 7,000 square feet of commercial space. If awarded, the Minnesota DEED contamination cleanup grant will support environmental cleanup and construction costs at the Wooddale Station redevelopment site. A local match will be provided by the developer. Financial or budget considerations: None. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Resolutions Prepared by: Clancy Ferris, legislative & grants analyst Reviewed by: Dean Porter-Nelson, redevelopment administrator Jennifer Monson, planning and economic development manager Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5g) Page 2 Title: Resolutions authorizing application for the Minnesota DEED contamination cleanup and investigation grant for Wooddale Station redevelopment project - Ward 2 Resolution No. 26-__ Authorizing a grant application for Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development contamination cleanup and investigation grant for the Wooddale Station redevelopment project Be it resolved that the City of St. Louis Park approves of the Contamination Cleanup grant application, to be submitted to the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) by May 1, 2026, by the city of St. Louis Park for the Wooddale Station redevelopment site. Be it further resolved that the City of St. Louis Park is located within the seven-county metropolitan area defined in section 473.121, subdivision 2, and is participating in the local housing incentives program under section 473.254. Reviewed for administration:      Adopted by the city council April 6, 2026:                              Kim Keller, city manager      Nadia Mohamed, mayor             Attest:                                     Melissa Kennedy, city clerk         City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5g) Page 3 Title: Resolutions authorizing application for the Minnesota DEED contamination cleanup and investigation grant for Wooddale Station redevelopment project - Ward 2 Resolution No. 26-__ Committing Local Match Provided by the Developer, and Authorizing Contract Signature for the grant application for Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development contamination cleanup and investigation grant for Wooddale Station redevelopment project Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park acts as the legal sponsor for project(s) contained in the Contamination Cleanup Grant Program application to be submitted by May 1, 2026, and the city manager is hereby authorized to apply to the Department of Employment and Economic Development for funding of this project on behalf of the city of St. Louis Park; and Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park has the legal authority to apply for financial assistance, and the institutional, managerial, and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and Whereas, the sources and amounts of the local match identified in the application are committed to the project identified; and Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park has not violated any federal, state or local laws pertaining to fraud, bribery, graft, kickbacks, collusion, conflict of interest or other unlawful or corrupt practice; and Whereas, upon approval of its application by the state, the City of St. Louis Park may enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota for the above-referenced project(s), and that the City of St. Louis Park certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulation as stated in all contract agreements, Now therefore be it resolved that the mayor and the city manager are hereby authorized to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. Reviewed for administration:      Adopted by the city council April 6, 2026:                              Kim Keller, city manager      Nadia Mohamed, mayor             Attest:                                     Melissa Kennedy, city clerk         Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5h Executive summary Title: Resolution authorizing application for the Met Council Water Efficiency grant Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the application for – and, upon award, acceptance of the award - the Met Council Water Efficiency grant. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to authorize an application for – and, upon award, acceptance of the award - eligible grant expenses for the Met Council Water Efficiency grant? Summary: The Water Efficiency Grant Program helps fund activities that reduce existing water use at residential, commercial and municipal properties. Met Council-approved grant activities include the replacement of specific water-using devices with more efficient alternatives. The City of St. Louis Park will use grant funds to provide rebates to residents when they purchase energy star rated appliances. This grant has a two-year cycle and was awarded to the city in 2022 and 2024. This grant requires 20% match from the city. 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 & grants analyst Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5h) Page 2 Title: Resolution authorizing application for the Met Council Water Efficiency grant Resolution No. 26- ___ Authorizing application for the Met Council Water Efficiency grant and accepting grant funds if awarded Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park on behalf of its public works department desires to apply for, and upon grant application acceptance, enter into an agreement with the Met Council for the 2026-2028 water efficiency grant; and 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 public works department apply for a grant and upon acceptance, enter into a grant agreement with the Met Council for the 2026-2028 water efficiency grant; and 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: ____________________________________ Kim Keller, city manager Attest: ____________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, secretary Adopted by the city council April 6, 2026: ____________________________________ Nadia Mohamed, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5i Executive summary Title: Resolution authorizing grant application and execution of grant agreement for sanitary sewer lining and rehabilitation projects Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the submission of a grant application and execution of a grant agreement to assist with funding for city sewer lining and rehabilitation projects. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to authorize an application for the Metropolitan Council inflow/infiltration grant program? Summary: Metropolitan Council offers a grant program that assists with the expense of inflow and infiltration work that was done from Jan. 1, 2024 through Dec. 31, 2025. Financial or budget considerations: This grant will recover some expenses from the 2024-2025 sanitary sewer main lining capital improvement projects. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Clancy Ferris, legislative & grants analyst Reviewed by: Kala Fisher, public services superintendent & deputy public works director Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5i) Page 2 Title: Resolution authorizing grant application and execution of grant agreement for sanitary sewer lining and rehabilitation projects Resolution No. 26-__ Authorizing grant application and execution of grant agreement for sanitary sewer lining projects Whereas, the Metropolitan Council coordinates applications and distributes state bond funds for inflow/infiltration mitigation; and Whereas, the city council of St. Louis Park adopted the capital improvement projects for 2024 and 2025 sewer lining; and Whereas, sewer lining projects are a critical component to protect the city’s sanitary sewer system from inflow/infiltration and reduce expenses for sewer treatment by Metropolitan Council; and 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 public works department apply for a grant and upon acceptance, enter into a grant agreement with the Metropolitan Council for the inflow/infiltration 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: ____________________________________ Kim Keller, city manager Attest: ____________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, secretary Adopted by the city council April 6, 2026: ____________________________________ Nadia Mohamed, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5j Executive summary Title: Resolution approving agreements for vehicle towing and impound and impound lot lease Recommended action: Motion to approve the resolution for vehicle towing and impounding agreement and impound lot lease with Bobby & Steve’s Auto World Eden Prairie, LLC. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to approve the vehicle towing and impounding agreement and impound lot lease with Bobby & Steve’s Auto World Eden Prairie, LLC? Summary: The current vehicle towing and impounding agreement and impound lot lease with Bobby & Steve’s Auto World Eden Prairie, LLC will expire on April 30, 2026. The proposed impound lot lease covers use of the current impound lot space adjacent to the water tower on Park Glen Rd. Staff recommends that the vehicle towing and impounding agreement and impound lot lease be approved to ensure ongoing services for vehicle towing and impounding, benefiting safety on the roads and highways in St. Louis Park while simultaneously being able to provide a location within the city that is convenient for our community members. The vehicle towing and impounding agreement and impound lot lease agreement has been reviewed and approved by the city attorney. There were no significant modifications to either agreement. The daily storage fee in section five of the vehicle towing agreement was increased from $35 per day to $45 per day and is reflective of industry standards. The impound lot lease agreement rate calculation increase year-over-year was changed to a flat 3%, moving away from a more complicated system that relied upon the Consumer Price Index. Financial or budget considerations: None. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Resolution Vehicle towing and impounding agreement Impound lot lease Prepared by: Gregory Weigel, police lieutenant Reviewed by: Bryan Kruelle, chief of police Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5j) Page 2 Title: Resolution approving agreements for vehicle towing and impound and impound lot lease Resolution No. 26-___ Approving vehicle towing and impounding agreement and impound lot lease with Bobby & Steve’s Auto World Eden Prairie, LLC Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park and Bobby & Steve’s Auto World Eden Prairie LLC entered into a lease agreement in October 2023, regarding the lease of real property at 5100 Park Glen Road for use as a city impound lot and a related vehicle towing and impounding agreement in October 2023 that are in effect through April 30, 2026, and propose to enter into a new lease and towing and impounding agreement, both to be in effect through April 30, 2029, Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows: A. The mayor and city manager are hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the city, the lease and the impounding agreement. B. City staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council April 6, 2026: Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk 238687v1 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK VEHICLE TOWING AND IMPOUNDING AGREEMENT AGREEMENT, made as of ___________, 2026, between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and Bobby & Steve's Auto World Eden Prairie, LLC ("Contractor"). The City and the Contractor agree as follows: 1.WORK TO BE PERFORMED The Contractor agrees to perform the following services upon receipt of a specific request from the City: To remove, impound and transport, or tow to storage facilities, all stolen, abandoned, damaged, illegally parked or other vehicles upon proper police request found in the public streets or elsewhere in the City of St. Louis Park. The Contractor also agrees to care for and store all such cars when requested by the City and to preserve and deliver them to the owners or persons entitled to the possession of them upon payment of towing and storage fees, all in accordance with the provisions of the State and City statutes and ordinances and these Contract documents. The Contractor represents that the Contractor has a commitment for and agrees to maintain storage facilities large enough to accommodate at least two hundred (200) automobiles, at the following location, 5100 Park Glen Road St. Louis Park, MN 55416. 2.LEASE OF REQUIRED STORAGE FACILITY Contractor is leasing from the City a portion of the property commonly referred to as the Water Tower property located at 5100 Park Glen Road upon which its required storage facility is located ("Water Tower Property Lease). The City's early termination of the Water Tower Property Lease as a result of a default of the Lease terms by Contractor shall constitute a breach of this Contract entitling the City to early termination pursuant to Paragraph 13 herein. The early termination of the Water Tower Property Lease as a result of a MnDOT acquisition shall also terminate this Agreement. 3.TERM This Contract will be for a term of three (3) years commencing May 1, 2026 and ending April 30, 2029, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Paragraph 13 of this Contract. 4.DUTIES OF THE CONTRACTOR 4.1 The Contractor further agrees to pay all persons furnishing labor, supplies, equipment, space, or material to the Contractor in and about the performance of this City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5j) Title: Resolution approving agreements for vehicle towing and impound and impound lot lease Page 3 238687v1 Contract, these persons to be paid first, out of the amount due the Contractor, its agents or assigns. 4.2 The Contractor shall take immediate possession of any vehicle duly ordered impounded by the City and shall tow, not drive, such vehicle to the impounding storage facility. All vehicles being held for evidentiary or investigative reasons by the Police Department may not be released without authorization by the City Manager, Chief of Police or other designee. Other vehicles may be released as provided herein without formal authorization from the City Manager or Chief of Police. 4.3 The Contractor shall be responsible to check the theft status of any impounded vehicle in the Contractor's possession at least once every week. 4.4 The Contractor also agrees to establish the identity of the registered owners and lien holders, if any, of impounded vehicles through the Department of Public Safety automobile titles, insurance papers, and dealer bills of sale. 4.5 It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor, immediately upon the deposit of a towed vehicle in the storage lot, to send the registered owner and lien holder of record a notice by certified mail specifying the date and place of the taking, the year, make, model, and serial number of the vehicle towed and the right to reclaim. Said notice shall include the procedure for reclaiming the impounded vehicle. The notice shall comply with Minn. Stat. 168B.06 and any other applicable law. A record of this notice shall be retained by the Contractor during the term of this Contract, and for an additional two (2) years after the expiration of this Contract. The cost of this notice is included in the Contractor's portion of the administrative fee. If the owner of the impounded vehicle subject to a lien fails to reclaim the vehicle, the Contractor shall provide notice to the lien holder, if any, prior to disposition of the vehicle. Exception: When the vehicle is an abandoned vehicle (as defined by Minnesota law) more than seven model years of age, is not currently licensed, and is missing vital component parts, the Contractor may, with the approval of the Chief of Police, immediately dispose of such vehicle pursuant to Minn. Stat, 168B.01 et. seq. and any other applicable law. 4.6 The Contractor shall be solely responsible for all matters relating to the operation of the storage facility as provided for in the City Code. Said storage facility shall be fenced in a secure manner. 4.7 The Contractor agrees to keep safely all impounded vehicles, equipment and accessories contained therein, and personal property, and, notwithstanding the foregoing, to retain possession of same until all charges against the impounded vehicle have been satisfied, and to reimburse the City and the owners for any and all losses relating thereto. All personal property valued at One Hundred and no/100Dollars ($100.00) or more shall be removed from the vehicle and stored in a City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5j) Title: Resolution approving agreements for vehicle towing and impound and impound lot lease Page 4 238687v1 secured place until returned to the owner at the time said vehicle is released. Personal property that, in the judgment of the Police Department is necessary for health and safety purposes, shall be released upon order of the Police Department. 4.8 The Contractor shall be required to keep, in a manner acceptable to the City, a monthly report of all vehicles towed, released, and still held. The report shall be forwarded to the Police Department no later than the tenth day of the following month. The report shall also include the reason why vehicles, if any, towed in the preceding month have not been released. All clerical, administrative, and late fees due the City shall be paid no later than the tenth of the month following that in which the charges accrued. 4.9 To promote the general welfare and safety, in all cases where the Contractor shall fail to respond to any call for tow trucks within thirty (30) minutes, the City shall be paid Fifty and no/100 Dollars ($50.00) by the Contractor. If the Contractor fails to respond within sixty (60) minutes, another vendor may be contacted to provide services, and the Contractor shall be responsible for the cost of the tow. 4.10 Contractor shall insure that all employees dress in appropriate attire that is clean and well maintained. Clothing should display the name of the contractor displayed in a contrasting color visible on the front of the employee's shirt. 5.TOWING CHARGES Towing charges for service provided by the Contractor under this Contract shall be $129.50 per tow. The Contractor will not charge additional fees for specific services provided nor particular circumstances relating to any individual tow. The prohibited fees include, but are not limited to the following: Show up but not hoisted; show up hoisted and dropped; use of one dolly; waiting time, regardless of the amount; unusual labor required (e.g., more than fifty feet off the roadway, in a lake, etc.); and winching more than fifty feet. No additional administrative fees or charges of any kind, other than those specifically listed in this Contract, shall be charged. Vehicles which are snowed in and require shoveling by tow truck operator prior to towing shall be charged a $25.00 labor charge in addition to the standard towing fee. Towed vehicles exceeding one ton capacity shall be charged the standard tow fee plus an additional labor charge pro-rated per hour or part thereof at $100.00 per hour, plus material costs. The fee charged for storage of towed cars by Contractor will be the sum of $45.00/ per car space per day, calculated from midnight to midnight. The Contractor's towing charges shall include an additional administrative fee of fifty and no/100 dollars ($50.00) per vehicle towed, of which twenty-five and no/100 dollars ($25.00) per vehicle towed shall be paid to the City monthly, within ten (10) days of the end of each month, by the Contractor for clerical and administrative expenses of the City. City vehicles that require towing shall be towed without charge to the City. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5j) Title: Resolution approving agreements for vehicle towing and impound and impound lot lease Page 5 238687v1 Contractor will not be liable to tow oversized City vehicles (i.e. firetrucks and maintenance equipment) without charge. Vehicles towed and stored pursuant to seizure under state law, at the request of the City, shall be charged a storage fee by Contractor of $3.00 per day. Contractor's storage fee and tow fee for vehicles held pursuant to seizure under state law shall not exceed $540.00 per vehicle. Any private cars towed and/or stored in error at the request of the City shall be returned to the registered owner at no charge to the registered owner or the City. All tow prices shall include the clean-up of the street or highway by the Contractor. 6.STORAGE AND RELEASE OF IMPOUNDED VEHICLES Any vehicle directed to be impounded, from the time it is taken possession of by the Contractor and during the time it is impounded, and until it is reclaimed, shall be considered to be in the custody of the law, and no work shall be done on it by the Contractor, nor shall the Contractor permit anyone to do any work on it until the vehicle has been reclaimed. All vehicles, when ordered released by the City Manager or Police Department, shall be released to the registered owner without other charges other than the impounding and storage fees. During the time the vehicle is impounded, the Contractor shall not permit the owner or other persons to take or remove the vehicle or any parts or change or repair any parts. All vehicles impounded may be stored in inside garages or in fenced designated parking lots with a minimum fenced height of six (6) feet. The Contractor's hours of operation for release of impounded vehicles shall be as follows: Monday through Friday Saturday Sunday and holidays 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 Noon 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5j) Title: Resolution approving agreements for vehicle towing and impound and impound lot lease Page 6 238687v1 Contractor shall allow the vehicle owner to pick up a towed vehicle after Contractor's hours of operation by paying an extra $100.00 fee. 7.RELEASE FORM No vehicles shall be released by the Contractor without authorization from the City. No vehicle shall be released without proper proof of ownership and proof of current automobile insurance. Vehicles ordered held by the Police Department shall not be released without written authorization from the Police Department. At the time of the return of the vehicle, the Contractor shall give a release in writing which shall state the date of such release together with the charges enumerated thereon and the purpose for which the charges were made. The release shall be made in one original and two copies, all of which shall be signed by the Contractor and the person to whom the release is made. The Contractor shall retain the original of the release and shall deliver one copy to the owner of the vehicle and one copy to the Police Department. 8.CHARGES FOR OPERATIONS To the extent allowed by law, all charges for towing and storage shall be secured by a lien against the vehicle and its contents impounded and carried on account until the sale or other proper disposition of such vehicle is authorized by the City. 9.COMMUNICATIONS The Contractor shall provide a constant telephone answering service 24 hours a day, seven days per week, for the purpose of receiving requests for service pursuant to this Contract. 10.INSURANCE During the term of this Contract, the Contractor shall secure and maintain all bonds and insurance policies as will protect them from claims arising out of or as a result of Contractor's operations under this Contract whether such operations be by Contractor or by a Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor or anyone directly or indirectly employed by any one of them, or by anyone for whose acts any of them may be held liable. Approval of the insurance by the City shall not in any way relieve or decrease the liability of Contractor hereunder, and it is expressly understood that the City does not in any way represent that the required insurance or liability limits hereunder are sufficient or adequate to protect Contractor's liabilities, obligations or interests. The Contractor, at its expense, shall procure and maintain in force for the duration of this Agreement the following minimum insurance coverages: A.General Liability. The Contractor agrees to maintain commercial general liability insurance in a minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence; $2,000,000 annual aggregate. The policy shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, products completed operations, personal City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5j) Title: Resolution approving agreements for vehicle towing and impound and impound lot lease Page 7 238687v1 injury, advertising injury, and contractually assumed liability. The City shall be endorsed as additional insured. B.Automobile Liability. If the Contractor operates a motor vehicle in performing the Services under this Agreement, the Contractor shall maintain commercial automobile liability insurance, including owned, hired, and non-owned automobiles, with a minimum liability limit of $1,000,000 combined single limit. C.Workers' Compensation. The Contractor agrees to provide workers' compensation insurance for all its employees in accordance with the statutory requirements of the State of Minnesota. The Contractor shall also carry employers liability coverage with minimum limits are as follows: •$500,000 — Bodily Injury by Disease per employee •$500,000 — Bodily Injury by Disease aggregate •$500,000 — Bodily Injury by Accident Contractor shall furnish City an Insurance Certificate in the form approved by the City's Risk Assessment Manager and/or City Clerk. Any insurance agent for coverage required by this Contract shall have in force and effect errors and omissions coverage in limits of not less than $500,000 per occurrence and $500,000 aggregate. Contractor shall not begin any work until the City has reviewed and approved the Insurance Certificates and has so notified Contractor directly in writing. Notice to proceed shall be subject to such approval of the City. Certificate of Insurance shall show that the required insurance is currently in force, and providing that said coverage shall not be terminated or changed by the Insurer except upon sixty (60) days prior written notice to the City. Failure to comply with the provisions of this section shall automatically suspend this Contract until said insurance provisions have been satisfied. A notice of insurance renewal shall be provided to the City (30) days prior to the renewal date of this insurance or the annual anniversary date of this Contract. Failure to provide the City with evidence of renewal shall automatically suspend this Contract until satisfactory evidence of renewal is provided the City. No policy shall contain any provisions for exclusion from liability other than the provisions for exclusions from liability forming part of the standard, basic, unamended and unendorsed form or policy, except no exclusion will be permitted if it conflicts with the coverage expressly required by this Contract or which would conflict with or in any way impair coverage under the Contractual coverage applying to this Contract. Compliance by the Contractor with the foregoing requirements to carry insurance and furnish certificates shall not relieve Contractor from liability assumed under any provision of this Contract. The insurance requirements may be met through any combination of primary and umbrella/excess insurance. The Contractor's policies shall be the primary insurance to any other valid and collectible insurance available to the City with respect to any claim arising out of Contractor's performance under this Agreement. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5j) Title: Resolution approving agreements for vehicle towing and impound and impound lot lease Page 8 238687v1 11.LIABILITY The Contractor will be liable for the loss of or damage to any impounded vehicle, including equipment thereon, and any personal property or other contents, which loss or damage is caused by the Contractor, its employees, agents or subcontractors. This liability would take effect from the time the Contractor or the Contractor's agent signs the receipt for the vehicle provided by the Police Department or takes custody of the vehicle by hooking or hoisting, whichever occurs first. The Contractor shall take all precautions necessary to protect the public against injury, and will defend and hold the City harmless from all damages and claims of damage that may arise by reasons of the towing and storage of vehicles pursuant to this Contract. 12.INDEMNIFICATION The Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including attorneys' fees, which may be asserted against or incurred by the City or for which the City may be held liable because of bodily injury including death at any time resulting therefrom, property damage including loss of use thereof, economic loss of, or any other type of damage arising out of the performance of this Contract by the Contractor, its employees, agents or subcontractors. 13.EARLY TERMINATION The City shall have the right to terminate this Contract in the event of breach thereof by the Contractor, and a continuing breach shall not be deemed to be waived because it was not followed by prompt termination. Upon breach of this Contract, neither party shall be entitled to any administrative hearing to establish the fact of default or a party's right to terminate. Rather, all parties retain any and all rights at common law to obtain redress for breach of this Contract. This Contract shall terminate, and neither party nor officer of the City shall be liable for further performance after such termination if the Contract shall become invalid by reason of any present or future law other than an ordinance of the City. 14.EXCUSE FOR PERFORMANCE The work shall be done with resources which are adequate to ensure the satisfactory towing of vehicles under all adverse conditions. Weather, breakdown, and similar hindrance which on other work might be regarded as "acts of providence" shall not apply to relieve the Contractor of the responsibility for carrying out the work. 15.PERFORMANCE BOND The Contractor shall execute and deliver to the City Clerk a letter of credit or a performance bond executed by a corporate surety company authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota in the sum of Twenty-Five Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($25,000.00) to secure the faithful performance of this Contract by said Contractor conditioned upon that the Contractor shall well and truly perform and carry out the covenants, terms and conditions of this Contract in strict accordance with its provisions. This Contract shall be subject to termination by the City at any time if said bond shall be canceled or if the surety thereon is relieved from liability because of the Contractor's failure to pay the premium or upon the occurrence of the expiration of the period of the bond without renewal thereof. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5j) Title: Resolution approving agreements for vehicle towing and impound and impound lot lease Page 9 238687v1 16.SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS The Contractor, its successors, executors, administrators, and assigns are bound jointly and severally to the City in respect to all covenants of this Contract. The Contractor shall not assign or transfer any part of the Contractor's interest in this Contract, or sublet as a whole, nor shall the Contractor assign any moneys due, or to become due, without the City's prior written consent. 17.SALE AND/OR DISPOSAL OF VEHICLES When the total of all charges for towing, storage and necessary additional charges equals or exceeds the value of the vehicle impounded, the Contractor shall sell at sheriffs’ sale or dispose of by any other legal means the said vehicle. In disposing of impounded vehicles, the Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Minnesota Statute 168B.09, Subd. (1) and (2) and any other applicable law. The Contractor shall report all transactions of sale or disposal, and the proceeds received therefrom, to the Office of the City Manager within two business days. The Contractor shall keep a record of all losses and profits from the sale or disposal of said vehicles and report annually. 18.INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR At all times and for all purposes herein, the Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. No statement herein shall be construed so to find the Contractor an employee of the City. The Contractor shall not be entitled to any benefits from the City, including, without limitation, insurance benefits, sick and vacation leave, workers’ compensation benefits, unemployment compensation, disability, severance pay, or retirement benefits. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute a partnership, joint venture or agency relationship between the Parties. 19.NON-DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE During the performance of this Contract, the Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment or other individual because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, age, sexual preference, or any other basis prohibited by federal, state or local law. The Contractor shall post in places available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause and stating that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment. The Contractor shall incorporate the foregoing requirements of this paragraph in all of its subcontracts for program work, and will require all of its subcontractors for such work to incorporate such requirements in all subcontracts for program work. 20.AFFIRMATIVE ACTION The Contractor recognizes that the City is an equal opportunity employer and agrees during the life of this Contract to take affirmative action to provide equal employment opportunity without regard to race, creed, color, national origin, age, sex, marital status, City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5j) Title: Resolution approving agreements for vehicle towing and impound and impound lot lease Page 10 238687v1 sexual preference, physical or mental disability, membership or activity in a local committee or status with respect to public assistance. 21.COMPLIANCE In providing services pursuant to this Contract, Contractor shall abide by all statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations pertaining to the performance of this Contract. Failure of the Contractor to comply with any of the obligations of this Contract shall constitute a breach of the Contractor's obligations and shall entitle the City to terminate the Contract and collect all damages, including the arrearages and all costs of collection including reasonable attorneys' fees. 22.RECORDS AVAILABILITY AND RETENTION Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 16C.05, Subd. 5, Contractor agrees that the City, the State Auditor, or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of Contractor and involve transactions relating to this Contract. 23.DATA PRACTICES All data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated or used for any purposes in the course of this Contract by any 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. 24.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 With Copy to: St. Louis Park City Attorney Campbell Knutson, P.A. Grand Oak Office Center I 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, MN 55121 If to Contractor: Bobby & Steve's Auto World Eden Prairie, LLC 8100 Flying Cloud Drive City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5j) Title: Resolution approving agreements for vehicle towing and impound and impound lot lease Page 11 238687v1 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 25.WHOLE AGREEMENT This Contract embodies the entire agreement between the parties including all prior understandings and agreements and may not be modified except in writing signed by both parties. 26.GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. All proceedings related to this Agreement shall be venued in Hennepin County, Minnesota. 27 RECORDS ACCESS The Contractor shall provide the City access to any books, documents, papers, and records which are directly pertinent to the specific contract, for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcriptions, for six (6) years after final payment and other pending matters related to this Agreement are closed. The six (6) year retention period shall be extended for additional periods if required for City compliance with state or federal auditing or data practices requirements. 28.WAIVER The waiver by either party of any breach or failure to comply with any provision of this Agreement by the other Party shall not be construed as or constitute a continuing waiver of such provision or a waiver of any other breach of or failure to comply with any other provision of this Agreement 29.SAVINGS CLAUSE If a court finds any portion of this Agreement to be contrary to law, invalid, or unenforceable, the remainder of the Agreement will remain in full force and effect. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5j) Title: Resolution approving agreements for vehicle towing and impound and impound lot lease Page 12 238687v1 EXECUTED as of the day and year first written above. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By: ______________________ ______ Kim Keller, City Manager CONTRACTOR: By: _______________________________ Owner __________________________________ City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5j) Title: Resolution approving agreements for vehicle towing and impound and impound lot lease Page 13 238688v1 LEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEASE (the "Lease"), made as of this ____ day of ________, 2026, by and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), as Lessor and Bobby & Steve's Auto World II, LLP, a Minnesota limited liability partnership, ("Lessee") as Lessee. WHEREAS, the City is the owner of the real property located at 5100 Park Glen Road and legally described as Lot 3, Block 2, Beltline Business Park Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Water Tower Property"); and WHEREAS, contemporaneously with the execution of this Lease, Lessee is entering into a Vehicle Towing and Impounding Agreement with the City for a term of three (3) years commencing on May 1, 2026 and terminating on April 30, 2029 (subject to early termination) ("City Towing Contract"); and WHEREAS, as a condition of the City Towing Contract, Lessee is leasing approximately three- fourths of an acre of the Water Tower Property as shown on Exhibit "A" hereto ("Subject Property") from the City, and the City is leasing the Subject Property to Lessee, under the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1.Demise of Subject Property. Subject to and upon the terms, conditions, covenants and undertakings hereinafter set forth, the City hereby leases to Lessee, and Lessee hereby leases from the City, the Subject Property. 2.Lease Term. The term of this Lease shall commence on May 1, 2026 and terminate upon expiration or early termination of the City Towing Contract, except that Lessee shall have thirty (30) days after such expiration or termination to remove its office trailer and personal property from the Subject Property and otherwise complete its operations. 3.Rent. The rent for the term of this Lease shall be Two Thousand two hundred and eighty No/100 ($2,280) dollars per month, payable on the first day of each month commencing May 1, 2026. The rent shall be increased each year on May 1 by 3%. The rent shall never be decreased. Rent: Tax: May 1, 2026 to April 30, 2027 = $2,280 $684 May 1, 2027 to April 30, 2028 = $2,348 $704 May 1, 2028 to April 30, 2029 = $2,413 $723 4.Real Estate Taxes. In addition to rent, Lessee will pay to the City at the time of each monthly rent payment an additional thirty percent (30%) of the rent payment as reimbursement to the City for its "payment in lieu of taxes" to Hennepin County. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5j) Title: Resolution approving agreements for vehicle towing and impound and impound lot lease Page 14 238688v1 5.Condition of Subject Property. Lessee accepts the Subject Property in its "as is" existing at the commencement of the Lease term. 6.Use. Lessee may use the Subject Property for the operation of its towing business. No other use will be permitted without the written consent of the City. 7.Maintenance and Upkeep. Lessee is responsible, at its expense, for maintenance and upkeep of the Subject Property, including, but not limited to fencing, lighting, landscaping, and snowplowing. Lessee is also responsible, at its expense, for maintenance and upkeep of the asphalt customer/employee parking areas and driveways into and out of the Subject Property including sweeping, snowplowing, patching, and seal coating. All vehicles and equipment should be parked inside the fence. No owned vehicle of Lessee or in control of Lessee shall block City's access to the water tower entrance or driveway. 8.Utility Charges. During the term of this Lease, Lessee shall pay or cause to be paid when due all gas, water, steam, electricity, heat, power, sewer, and other charges incurred in the operation, maintenance, use, occupancy, and upkeep of the Subject Property. 9.Quiet Enjoyment. The City covenants that upon Lessee paying the rent reserved herein, and performing all conditions and covenants set forth in this Lease, Lessee shall and may peaceably have, hold, and enjoy the Subject Property for the term of this Lease. Lessee covenants that upon expiration of this Lease, it shall give the City peaceable possession of the Subject Property, together with the Improvements constructed thereon pursuant to this Lease. 10.Insurance. Lessee will comply with all insurance requirements contained in the City Towing Contract which are specifically incorporated herein by reference. 11.Indemnification. Lessee will indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all claims, including attorney fees and costs, arising out of Lessee's use of the Subject Property, except to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of City or its officials, employees, contractors or invitees. 12.MnDOT Acquisition. The parties acknowledge that during the term of this Lease the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) may need to acquire by easement or fee title to all or a portion of the Subject Property for storm water ponding purposes. If MnDOT acquires all or a portion of the Subject Property by eminent domain or negotiation, this Lease will terminate in all respects at the time of such acquisition. Lessee will not be entitled to any compensation paid by MnDOT to the City. 13.Assignment. Lessee may not assign this Lease without the written consent of the City. 14.Events of Default Defined. Any one or more of the following events shall be an "Event of Default" under this Lease: City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5j) Title: Resolution approving agreements for vehicle towing and impound and impound lot lease Page 15 238688v1 (a)Failure by Lessee to pay any payment required to be paid hereunder at the time specified herein; and (b)Failure by either party to observe and perform any covenant, condition or agreement on its part to be observed or performed. 15.Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default shall have happened and be continuing, the nondefaulting party may take, but only upon not less than five (5) days' written notice to the defaulting party, one or any combination of the following remedial steps: (a)If Lessee is in default, the City may: (i) without terminating this Lease, reenter and take possession of the Subject Property and exclude Lessee from using the Subject Property until the Event of Default is cured; or (ii) terminate the Term of this Lease and exclude Lessee from possession of the Subject Property. (b)Take any action at law or in equity which may appear necessary or desirable to enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant contained herein. 16.No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to either party is intended to be exclusive and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this Lease or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. 17.Binding Effect. This Lease shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon Lessee, the City and their respective successors and assigns. 18.Severability. In the event any provision of this Lease shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof. 19.Amendments, Changes and Modifications. This Lease may be amended or any of its terms modified only by written amendment authorized and executed by the City and Lessee. 20.Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Lease, a notice, demand, or other communication under the Lease by either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally, to the following addresses (or to such other addresses as either party may notify the other): To Lessee: Bobby and Steve’s Auto World 1221 Washington Ave S. Minneapolis, MN 55415 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5j) Title: Resolution approving agreements for vehicle towing and impound and impound lot lease Page 16 238688v1 To City: City of St. Louis Park Attn: City Manager 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2518 21.Governing Law. This Lease shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. All proceedings related to this Lease shall be venued in Hennepin County, Minnesota. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Lease as of the date first written above. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By: ________________________________________ Nadia Mohamed, Mayor By: ________________________________________ Kim Keller, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of __________, 2026 by Nadia Mohamed and Kim Keller, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. __________________________________ Notary Public City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5j) Title: Resolution approving agreements for vehicle towing and impound and impound lot lease Page 17 238688v1 LESSEE By: ________________________________________ Owner STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of __________, 2026 by __________________________ , the ____________________ of Bobby and Steve’s Auto World II, LLP, a Minnesota limited liability partnership, on behalf of the said partnership. __________________________________ Notary Public City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5j) Title: Resolution approving agreements for vehicle towing and impound and impound lot lease Page 18 238688v1 EXHIBIT A City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5j) Title: Resolution approving agreements for vehicle towing and impound and impound lot lease Page 19 Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5k Executive summary Title: Resolution designating polling places for 2026 election cycle Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution designating polling places for the 2026 election cycle. Policy consideration: Does the proposed resolution fulfill the statutory requirement related to the designation of polling places? Summary: Minnesota Statute 204B.16 requires the city council to designate a polling place for every precinct. State law requires that: • Polling places be maintained unless a change is required for one of the reasons provided by statute, such as in the case of an emergency or because a site is unavailable. • A new or different polling place be designated at least 90 days before an election. • No changes can be made between the state primary and the state general election. Elections staff review polling locations annually and are responsible for coordinating the use of facilities to serve voters on Election Day. Since redistricting in 2022, the city’s polling locations have remained consistent. However, Westwood Lutheran Church (Ward 4, Precinct 12) notified staff that they will be undergoing renovations in 2026. Because of this construction, the facility is unavailable to serve as a polling place this year. Staff evaluated several options and recommend Westwood Hills Nature Center, located at 8300 Franklin Ave. W., as the best option to serve voters in Ward 4, Precinct 12. This site meets all requirements of state law (located within one (1) mile of a precinct boundary, fully accessible, ample space to accommodate election activities, space separated from other activities and smoke/liquor/cannabis-free) and satisfies the city’s internal criteria related to voter convenience, parking, traffic, safety and security. When evaluating polling places, the goal is to find the best available option to meet service needs. The ability to utilize a city-owned and operated facility is also beneficial in terms of more efficient coordination and oversight of site conditions and operations. Following approval of the change, elections staff will notify affected voters, facilitate updates to pertinent systems and all supplies and resources for this year’s election. Financial or budget considerations: None at this time. Costs related to the administration of elections are included in the 2026 budget. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion, Resolution, 2026 ward and precinct map Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5k) Page 2 Title: Resolution designating polling places for 2026 election cycle Discussion What are polling places? • A polling place is the location voters go to cast their ballots on Election Day. Every precinct must have a designated polling place that is either located within the precinct or within one mile of a precinct boundary. What are the requirements for polling places? • Federal and state laws detail requirements for polling places. All polling places must be: o Fully accessible o Large enough to accommodate election activities o Free of other, non-election activities o Smoke free o Liquor and cannabis free and not adjacent to a liquor or cannabis service area o Located within the precinct or within one mile of a precinct boundary • Federal and state laws require that all polling places be fully accessible and usable by elderly or disabled person: o Paved parking with wide spaces reserved for disabled persons o Curb cuts or temporary ramps o Paved main routes free of stairs or with ramps or elevator bypasses o Entrances/doorways a minimum of 32 inches wide o Walkways and hallways at least 36 inches wide o Hallways free of protrusions overhanging the floor o Handrails on all stairs o Signs directing voters around obstructed entrances or stairs to accessible routes o Signs outlining the assistance available to voters, and o One or more wheelchair accessible voting booth(s) or station(s) with writing surface 34 inches high Elections staff routinely visit polling locations to verify that designated locations are accessible and work closely with each facility on setup and signage. When evaluating polling locations, staff must consider all the requirements outlined above and the availability of the facility. Aside from public facilities, the city cannot require any facility to serve as a polling location. Additional considerations are given to security of the facility, co-occurring uses, availability of parking, disruption to surrounding neighborhood (traffic, parking), and voter convenience. To the extent possible, elections staff selects locations that limit the distance a person would have to travel to vote on Election Day. Elections staff also publish transit options (by vehicle, by public transit, by bike) to each polling place on the city website. Will the proposed changes impact where a person goes if they want to vote before Election Day? • No, the proposed change and designated polling places relate to where a person would vote on Election Day. In-person voting services before Election Day will continue to be available at city hall during the 46-day period before each election. These services are for all eligible St. Louis Park voters. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5k) Page 3 Title: Resolution designating polling places for 2026 election cycle Resolution No. 26-___ Designating polling places for the 2026 election cycle Whereas, the state primary election will be held on August 11, 2026, and the state general election will be held on November 3, 2026; Now therefore be it resolved by the St. Louis Park City Council that all elections in 2026, as well as any required special elections, will take place at the following precinct polling locations: Ward 1 Precinct 1 – Beth El Synagogue, 5225 Barry St. W. Ward 1 Precinct 2 – Wat Thai Buddhist Center, 2544 Highway 100 South Ward 1 Precinct 3 – St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. Ward 2 Precinct 4 – St. Louis Park Recreation Center, 3700 Monterey Dr. Ward 2 Precinct 5 – Vista Lutheran Church, 4003 Wooddale Ave. S. Ward 2 Precinct 6 – St. Louis Park Municipal Service Center, 7305 Oxford St. Ward 3 Precinct 7 – St. Louis Park Senior High School, 6425 33rd St. W. Ward 3 Precinct 8 – Aquila Elementary School, 8500 31st St. W. Ward 3 Precinct 9 – Lenox Community Center, 6715 Minnetonka Blvd. Ward 4 Precinct 10 – St. Louis Park Middle School, 2025 Texas Ave. S. Ward 3 Precinct 11 – Park Harbor Church, 1615 Texas Ave. S. Ward 4 Precinct 12 – Westwood Hills Nature Center, 8300 Franklin Ave. W. Be it further resolved, the city clerk is authorized to make any changes as deemed necessary in the case of an emergency, or if a polling place becomes unavailable. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by city council April 6, 2026: Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Shelard Parkway Fl a g A v e Lo u i s i a n a A v e Ed g e m o r e D r Lo u i s i a n a A v e Te x a s A v e Ex c e l s i o r W a y Burlington N o r t h e r n R R Fr a n c e A v e Excelsio r B l v d Na t c h e z A v e 44th St Douglas Ave Cedar L a k e 33rd St W Minnetonka Blvd Rd Precinct 8 Precinct 1 Precinct 12 Precinct 6 Precinct 7 Precinct 9 Precinct 10 Precinct 2 Precinct 5 Precinct 4 Precinct 3 Precinct 11 D D    D  D  E   E Precinct 1 - Beth El Synagogue, 5225 Barry St W Precinct 2 - Wat Thai of Minnesota, 2544 Highway 100 S Precinct 3 - St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd WARD 1 St. Louis Park Polling Locations Precinct 4 - St. Louis Park Rec Center, 3700 Monterey Dr Precinct 5 - Vista Lutheran Church, 4003 Wooddale Ave Precinct 6 - St. Louis Park Municipal Service Center, 7305 Oxford St WARD 2 Precinct 7 - St. Louis Park Senior High School, 6425 33rd St W Precinct 8 - Aquila Elementary School, 8500 31st St W Precinct 9 - Lenox Community Center, 6715 Minnetonka Blvd WARD 3 Precinct 10 - St. Louis Park Middle School, 2025 Texas Ave S Precinct 11 - Park Harbor Church, 1615 Texas Ave S Precinct 12 - Westwood Hills Nature Center, 8300 Franklin Ave W WARD 4 District Line 46A 46B DRAFT 3/25/2026 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5k) Title: Resolution designating polling places for 2026 election cycle Page 4 Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5l Executive summary Title: Approve temporary seasonal premises amendments for liquor establishments Recommended action: Motion to approve amendments to the licensed premises for Hazelwood Food & Drink – St. Louis Park, Ullsperger Brewing LLC and Haggard Barrel Brewing. Policy consideration: Do the applicants meet the requirements to amend the licensed premises for the sale and service of alcohol to include temporary/seasonal outdoor spaces? Summary: In 2025, the city implemented a process for issuing annual commercial patio permits for temporary/seasonal outdoor spaces. Establishments that also hold liquor licenses are required to obtain approval of the temporary extension of their licensed premises to include the temporary/seasonal outdoor space. The following establishments have applied for temporary extension of their licensed premises to include a temporary/seasonal outdoor space: Hazelwood Food & Drink – St. Louis Park, Ullsperger Brewing LLC and Haggard Barrel Brewing. Applications from each of these establishments have been reviewed and approved by zoning, building and the city clerk’s office. If approved by the council, the proposed amendments to the licensed premises for the sale and service of alcohol will be valid for the duration of the commercial patio permits. If the license holders want to utilize the seasonal-use outdoor space in future years they will need to go through the permitting and premises amendment processes. Specific details of each premises amendment can be found in the discussion section of this report. St. Louis Park City Code Section 3-68 (a) states “each license shall be issued only for the exact rooms and square footage described in the application. A license is valid only in the compact and contiguous building or structure situated on the premises described in the license”. St. Louis Park City Code Section 3-106 states that “proposed enlargement or substantial alteration which changes the character of the licensed establishment or extension of a premises previously licensed shall not be allowed unless the city council approves an amendment to the liquor license”. All zoning and building requirements have been met and any additional SAC charges have been paid to the Met Council. The applicants have provided proof of liquor liability insurance to cover the additional temporary outdoor space. Staff recommend approval of the proposed premises amendments for Hazelwood Food & Drink – St. Louis Park, Ullsperger Brewing LLC and Haggard Barrel Brewing. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion, maps of each proposed licensed premises extension Prepared by: Amanda Scott-Lerdal, deputy city clerk Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5l) Page 2 Title: Approve temporary seasonal premises amendments for liquor establishments Discussion Hazelwood Food & Drink: Excelsior Blvd., LLC, dba Hazelwood Food & Drink – St. Louis Park currently holds an on-sale intoxicating liquor license with Sunday sales. The license holder applied for an amendment to the existing licensed premises located at 4450 Excelsior Boulevard, Suite #120. The proposed amendment will add approximately 927 square feet of seasonal-use outdoor space and will provide seating for 51 additional guests. Ullsperger Brewing: Ullsperger Brewing dba Ullsperger Brewing LLC currently holds a taproom on-sale liquor license with Sunday sales, as well as a brewer’s off-sale liquor license. The license holder applied for an amendment to the existing licensed premises located at 2314 Louisiana Avenue South. The proposed amendment will add approximately 42 square feet of seasonal- use outdoor space and will provide seating for six additional guests. Haggard Barrel Brewing: Haggard Barrel Brewing Co., LLC dba Haggard Barrel Brewing currently holds a taproom on-sale liquor license with Sunday sales, as well as a brewer’s off-sale liquor license. The license holder applied for an amendment to the existing licensed premises located at 6413 Cambridge Street. The proposed amendment will add approximately 400 square feet of seasonal-use outdoor space and will provide seating for eight additional guests. S S S 36" 36" R R FURNITURE / EQUIPMENT PLAN NOTES 1. BUILT-IN CABINETRY AND BAR ARE BY MILLWORKER. FIELD VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO FABRICATION. SEE SPECS FOR SHOP DRAWING SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. 2. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR BOOTHS. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SHOP DRAWING SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. 3. SEE KITCHEN DRAWINGS FOR BAR AND KITCHEN EQUIPMENT INFORMATION. 4. IT IS THE GENERAL CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY AND CONFIRM W/ VENDORS ALL EQUIPMENT AND QUANTITIES. CONFIRM THE ORDERED EQUIPMENT MATCHES EQUIPMENT PLAN AND MODEL NUMBER IN THE EQUIPMENT/ FURNITURE SCHEDULE. REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO ARCHITECT AND VERIFY WITH ENGINEERS DRAWINGS (OR DESIGN BUILD M.E.P. AS APPLICABLE). 5. G.C. TO SET IN PLACE ALL KITCHEN AND BAR EQUIPMENT (INCLUDING WALK-IN BOXES). ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR AND PLUMBING CONTRACTOR ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTROL AND INTERCONNECTION WIRING FOR WALK-IN BOXES AND HOODS. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR AND PLUMBING CONTRACTOR ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL FINAL CONNECTIONS TO EQUIPMENT. 6. KITCHEN VENDOR TO VERIFY CLEAR DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO ORDERING WALK-IN BOXES. COORDINATE W/ G.C. TO PROVIDE 1-1/2" AIR SPACE AROUND WALK-IN BOXES. 7. G.C. TO FIRMLY ANCHOR ANY FURNITURE OR EQUIPMENT REQUIRED TO BE FIXED. CAULK AND SEAL TO WALLS AND FLOOR. 8. KITCHEN EQUIPMENT BELOW HOOD MUST BE ON CASTERS AND INSTALLED WITH QUICK DISCONNECTS FOR CLEANING PURPOSES. 9. 3" GROMMET WITH SLEEVE TYP. IN COUNTERTOP AT MONITORS, PRINTERS, ETC. G.C. TO COORDINATE EXACT LOCATION WITH OWNER. 10. G.C. TO SEAL ALL WALK-IN BOX PENETRATIONS. 11. XXXX P R E L I M I N A R Y FURNITURE / EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE NOTES 1. DENOTES ITEMS TO BE COORDINATED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 2. DENOTES ITEMS TO BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 3. DENOTES ITEMS TO BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED BY OWNER / SHEA AND COORDINATED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 4. DENOTES ITEMS TO BE FURNISHED BY OWNER INSTALLED AND COORDINATED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 5. DENOTES ITEMS TO BE FURNISHED BY OWNER / SHEA AND INSTALLED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 5.1 6.2 7.3 8.2 Q P N.5 N 876 O M BAR DINING 1 101 HOST 100 DINING 1 103 DINING 2 102 PIZZA 114 DISH ROOM 113 KITCHEN 112 COOK LINE 107 EXPO 106 OFFICE 110 108 LIQUOR STORAGE 109 WALK-IN COOLER BAR 105 BAR DINING 2 104 PATIO 115 111 WALK-IN FREEZER B-01 CH-03 T-01 T-04 T-04T-04 T-01T-04T-04 T-02 T-02 T-15 T-02T-02T-06 T-06 T- 0 9 T- 0 9 T-10 T-08 T-11 T- 0 8 T- 0 8 T- 0 8 T-03 T-13 T-13 T-13 T-13 T-14 T-14 T-14 T-12 CH-02CH-02 CH-02 CH-02 CH-02 CH-05 CH-05CH-05 CH-05 CH-05CH-05 CH-05CH-05 CH-05CH-05CH-05CH-05 CH-01 T-08T-08 B-10 B-10 T-08 CH-06CH-06 CH-06CH-06 CH-06CH-06 B- 0 2 B- 0 2 B-05 B-06 B-09 B-03 B-03 B-03 B-03 B-04 B-04 B-04B-04 B-06 CH-08 CH-08 CH-08 T-16 CH-08 CH-08 T-16 T-16 CH-07 T-16 B-11 CH-09CH-09 CH-09 CH-09 CH-11 CH-10 CH-10 T-17 T-14 CH-06CH-06 11 1 1 1 T-16 T-16 T-16 T-16 T-16 T-16 T-16 CH-07CH-07 CH-07CH-07 CH-07CH-07 CH-07 T-16 CH-08 T-16T-16 CH-08CH-08 CH-08CH-08CH-08CH-08CH-08 T-16T-16T-16 CH-08CH-08CH-08CH-08CH-08CH-08 T-16T-16 CH-08CH-08CH-08CH-08CH-08 T-16T-16 CH-08CH-08 CH-01 CH-01CH-01 CH-01CH-01CH-01CH-01 CH-01CH-01CH-01CH-01 CH-01CH-01 CH-01CH-01CH-01 CH-01 CH-01CH-01 CH-01CH-01 CH-04 TYP CH-04 TYP CH-04CH-04 TYP B- 0 8 T- 0 7 B- 0 8 B- 0 8 B- 0 8 B- 0 8 T- 0 7 B- 0 8 B- 0 8 T- 0 7 B- 0 8 CH-01CH-01CH-01CH-01 CH-01CH-01CH-01CH-01CH-01CH-01 CH-01CH-01 CH-02CH-02 CH-03CH-03 CH-03 CH-03CH-03 CH-03 CH-02 CH-05 CH-05 CH-05 2 2 2 2 2 B-07 T-05 B-07 B-07 T-05 B-07 B-07 T-05 B-07 B-07 T-05 B-07 CH-12 CH-12 CH-12 T-18 33 33 consultant project title seal project no. sheet title drawn client issue date checked GAUSMAN & MOORE 1700 WEST HIGHWAY 36, SUITE 700 ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 BOELTER PREMIER 7120 NORTHLAND TERRACE MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55428 P R E L I M I N AR Y 10 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 t 612_339-2257 sheadesign.com 4/ 1 7 / 2 0 2 0 1 1 : 1 9 : 4 1 A M C: \ R e v i t P r o j e c t s \ A 1 9 _ 8 2 0 9 . 0 0 - N O V A S T L O U I S P A R K _ j e n n i f e r s . r v t 8209.00 JLS BD/HS/EF FURNITURE-EQUIPMENT PLAN A150 © 2019 shea, inc. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PAT WOODRING ISSUE FOR PERMIT <CLIENT ADDRESS -LINE 2> <CLIENT ADDRESS -LINE 1> HAZELWOOD FOOD + DRINK 4400 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 2020-03-26 (NOT ALL KEYNOTES MAY BE USED ON THIS SHEET) FURNITURE / EQUIPMENT KEY NOTES NO.DESCRIPTION REV. 1 EQUIPMENT BY OTHERS, SEE KITCHEN EQUIPMENT AND MECHANICAL DRAWINGS 2 MILLWORK ITEM, SEE A550- 3 50" FLAT SCREEN TV BY OWNER, CENTERED ON COLUMN, CEILING MOUNT SEATING OCCUPANCY SCHEDULE LOCATION SEATS BAR DINING 114 DINING 94 208 PATIO 51 51 TOTAL SEATING 259 (SEE FURNITURE / EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE NOTES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION) FURNITURE SCHEDULE TAG DESCRIPTION NOTES QTY B-01 BANQUETTE 1 B-02 U-SHAPED BOOTH 2 B-03 BOOTH 4 B-04 L-SHAPED BOOTH 4 B-05 U-SHAPED BOOTH 1 B-06 L-SHAPED BOOTH 1 B-06 L-SHAPED BOOTH 1 B-07 BOOTH 8 B-08 BOOTH 8 B-09 U-SHAPED BOOTH 1 B-10 U-SHAPED BOOTH 2 B-11 BANQUETTE 1 CH-01 DINING CHAIR 34 CH-02 BAR DINING CHAIR 8 CH-03 BAR DINING CHAIR 7 CH-04 BACKLESS BARSTOOL 31 CH-05 BARSTOOL 15 CH-06 BAR BENCH 8 CH-07 PATIO DINING CHAIR 8 CH-08 PATIO DINING CHAIR 26 CH-09 PATIO LOUNGE CHAIR 4 CH-10 PATIO LOUNGE CHAIR 2 CH-11 PATIO LOUNGE SOFA 1 CH-12 BENCH 3 T-01 DINING TABLE 30" DIA X 30"H 2 T-02 DINING TABLE 32"DIA X 30"H 4 T-03 DINING TABLE 60"DIA X 30"H 1 T-04 DINING TABLE 26"W X 30"D X 30"H 5 T-05 DINING TABLE 48"W X 26"D X 30"H 4 T-06 DINING TABLE 60"W X 26"D X 30"H 2 T-07 DINING TABLE 72"W X 26"D X 30"H 4 T-08 DINING TABLE 52"W X 30"D X 30"H 7 T-09 DINING TABLE 54"W X 30"D X 30"H 2 T-10 DINING TABLE 50"W X 49"D X 30"H 1 T-11 DINING TABLE 60"W X 48"D X 30"H 1 T-12 DINING TABLE 76"W X 42"D X 30"H W/ CHAMFER 1 T-13 BAR DINING TABLE 30"DIA X 42"H 4 T-14 BAR DINING TABLE 48"W X 26"D X 42"H 4 T-15 CUSTOM BAR TABLE 1 T-16 PATIO DINING TABLE 30"D X 27"W X 30"H 21 T-17 PATIO FIRE TABLE 36" DIA 1 T-18 PATIO FIRE TABLE 72"W X 20"D 1 Per 1108.2.9.1 - Dining surfaces are used for these calculations ADA SEATING SCHEDULE INTERIOR ADA OCCUPANCY - REQUIRED (5%)220 5% 12 EXTERIOR ADA OCCUPANCY - REQUIRED (5%)51 5% 3 271 15 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A150 1 FURNITURE PLAN TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH no. date issued for ADA OCCUPANCY - PROVIDED (INTERIOR)12 ADA OCCUPANCY - PROVIDED (EXTERIOR)3 TOTAL PROVIDED 15 City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5l) Title: Approve temporary seasonal premises amendments for liquor establishments Page 3 i3et. ,0·,•[ -o'M City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5l) Title: Approve temporary seasonal premises amendments for liquor establishments Page 4 Ullsperger Brewing - 2314 Louisiana Avenue South Page 5City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5l) Title: Approve temporary seasonal premises amendments for liquor establishments Haggard Barrel Brewing Co., LLC - 6413 Cambridge Street Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5m Executive summary Title: Approve temporary extension of licensed premises - Ullsperger Brewing Recommended action: Motion to approve temporary extension of the licensed premises for one-day events at Ullsperger Brewing, located at 2314 Louisiana Avenue South. Policy consideration: Does the applicant meet the requirements for temporary extension of their licensed premises for special, one-day events? Summary: Ullsperger Brewing, located at 2314 Louisiana Avenue South, has requested a temporary extension of their licensed premises for several one-day events. The “Monthly Patio Series” events are proposed to occur from noon – 10:00 p.m. on the following dates: May 2, June 13, July 11, Aug. 8, Sept. 19 and Oct. 3, 2026. The applicant has proposed expanding the licensed premises temporarily to the area immediately adjacent to the licensed premises for the events. None of the other businesses in or adjacent to the event will be open during the times requested and Ullsperger Brewing has obtained permission from the property owner and other businesses at the Westwood Shopping Center. Ullsperger Brewing has secured the required liquor liability insurance to cover the extended premises on the proposed event dates. Approximately 25-50 guests are expected to attend each event, and any amplified music will conclude by 10 p.m. Traffic safety barriers around the event space will control entry and exit from the proposed area and Ullsperger staff will be responsible for enforcing rules related to the sale and service of alcohol, including age verification of guests. Parking spaces will be available throughout the Westwood Shopping Center parking lot. The event area will consume four (4) of the approximately 90 available parking spaces. Staff reviewed the request and found no concerns with the proposed plans, including the police and fire departments, who will ensure safety precautions are followed on the day of the events. This application is the third by Ullsperger Brewing for a temporary extension of licensed premises. In 2024 and 2025, Ullsperger Brewing successfully held several events of this type with no major issues reported. St. Louis Park City Code Section 3-106 states that “proposed enlargement or substantial alteration which changes the character of the licensed establishment or extension of a premise previously licensed shall not be allowed unless the city council approves an amendment to the liquor license”. If approved, the temporary extension of the licensed premises will be valid only for the dates and times outlined in the request. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Exhibit A – Event space map Prepared by: Amanda Scott-Lerdal, deputy city clerk Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5m) Page 2 Title: Approve temporary extension of licensed premises - Ullsperger Brewing Exhibit A – Event space map Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5n Executive summary Title: Resolution accepting a donation to the city for Kim Keller to attend the 2026 ICMA Local Government Reimagined conference Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution accepting a donation in an amount not to exceed $649 to the city for Kim Keller, city manager, to attend and speak at the 2026 International City/County Management Association (ICMA) Local Government Reimagined Conference: Democracy and the Public Trust. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to accept the donation with restrictions on its use? Summary: State statute requires city council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order to make sure the city council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation prior to it being attributable. ICMA is donating up to $649 for the conference registration fee for Kim Keller, city manager, to speak at the upcoming 2026 Local Government Reimagined conference May 13 through 15, 2026, in Philadelphia, PA. Per ICMA, the conference will focus on the mission and work of ethical, professional local government management and building public trust, even in times of incivility. The city attorney has reviewed this matter. His opinion is that state law permits the payment of such expenses by this organization, regardless of whether the funds come from primary or secondary sources. It is treated as a gift to the city and needs to be a resolution adopted by the city council determining that attendance at this event serves a public purpose and accepting the gift. The resolution needs to be adopted before attendance at the conference. Financial or budget considerations: This donation will be used toward the expenses incurred by Kim Keller’s attendance at the 2026 ICMA conference. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Kalli Olek, office assistant Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 5n) Page 2 Title: Resolution accepting a donation to the city for Kim Keller to attend the 2026 ICMA Local Government Reimagined conference Resolution No. 26 - ____ Approving acceptance of donation to the City of St. Louis Park in an amount not to exceed $649 for Kim Keller, city manager, to attend the 2026 ICMA Local Government Reimagined conference Be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota as follows: Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is required by state statute to authorize acceptance of any donations; and Whereas, the city council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donor; and Whereas, the donation from ICMA is given to the city to compensate up to $649 in costs for the city's manager, Kim Keller, to attend the 2026 Local Government Reimagined conference, Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks and appreciation. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council April 6, 2026: Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Action agenda item: 7a Executive summary Title: Resolution adopting Vision 4.0 Strategic Priorities Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution approving the final Vision 4.0 strategic priorities. Policy consideration: Does the council approve the final Vision 4.0 strategic priorities? Summary: After a year and a half engagement and refinement process, the council is being asked to consider the final set of strategic priorities for final adoption. These priorities represent the collective input of community members, stakeholders, and community partners and reflect the core values and long-term aspirations of the St. Louis Park community. On March 23, 2026, the council reviewed the final draft of the strategic priorities, which included the integration of feedback from the annual retreat held on Feb. 27, 2026, and reached a consensus to support them. Following adoption, the consultants and staff will work together to develop a strategic plan that translates these priorities into clear goals, defined timelines and actionable implementation steps. Financial or budget considerations: None at this time. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Discussion Resolution Prepared by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 7a) Page 2 Title: Resolution adopting Vision 4.0 Strategic Priorities Discussion Background: Since 1995, the City of St. Louis Park has demonstrated a deep commitment to engaging residents, community organizations, businesses and partners through three extensive ten‑year visioning processes. These efforts have been instrumental in shaping a vibrant, cohesive community and have led directly to operational changes and policy development. Operational changes have included revising council reports, budget discussions and communications to align with strategic priorities, while policies such as the city’s comprehensive plan, “Connect the Park” and the Climate Action Plan were informed and strengthened by visioning outcomes. Full reports from each of these visioning processes are available online through the City of St. Louis Park. Between March and September 2025, the city engaged approximately 1,600 residents through surveys and small group discussions. This outreach prioritized hearing from diverse voices, including youth, renters and BIPOC residents. Through this engagement, several high-level themes emerged: • Safety: Creating a community where all people in the area feel safe. • Infrastructure: Building and maintaining connected, reliable and people-first public spaces. • Sustainability: Leading as responsible stewards of our natural and financial environment. • Community and belonging: Fostering a vibrant, connected and inclusive community where everyone belongs. • Housing and affordability: Ensuring a diverse and attainable range of housing options for all. On Dec. 8, 2025, the city council was presented the final Vision 4.0 report, which provided a comprehensive overview of the engagement methods used, present community profile data highlighting who participated, underscored the key themes and feedback gathered, and offered data-driven recommendations to inform the next stage of the visioning process. On Jan. 20, 2026, the council held an initial facilitated discussion led by TerraLuna Collaborative consultants to begin the process to begin determining the final set of strategic priorities. On Feb. 27, 2026, the council held an additional facilitated discussion during their annual retreat led by TerraLuna Collaborative consultants to further refine the final set of strategic priorities. On March 23, 2026, the council reviewed the final draft of the strategic priorities, which included the integration of feedback from the annual retreat held on Feb. 27, 2026, and reached a consensus to support them. Present considerations: The council will consider the following strategic priorities that reflect the core values of the St. Louis Park community for final adoption: 1. A Welcoming, Safe Community An inclusive, equitable and vibrant city where everyone feels safe and experiences a strong sense of belonging. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 7a) Page 3 Title: Resolution adopting Vision 4.0 Strategic Priorities 2. Good Governance A city that delivers reliable services, uses city resources responsibly, operates transparently and builds strong relationships with residents. 3. Connected, Safe Infrastructure Safe, reliable and well-maintained infrastructure and neighborhoods that connect people and places with an emphasis on walking, biking and transit. 4. Diverse, Affordable and Dignified Housing A range of quality, affordable and attainable housing options. 5. Climate Leadership and Natural Spaces Climate leader that cares for the planet and maintains dynamic parks that connect people and nature. Next steps: TerraLuna Collaborative will engage with staff April through June 2026 to develop an actional strategic plan that includes goals and metrics based upon the newly adopted set of strategic priorities. City council meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 7a) Page 4 Title: Resolution adopting Vision 4.0 Strategic Priorities Resolution No. 26-__ Adopting the City of St. Louis Park’s Vision 4.0 strategic priorities Whereas, since 1995, the City of St. Louis Park has maintained a long-standing commitment to community visioning, using extensive public engagement to shape the city’s core policies, budgets and operational priorities; and Whereas, between March and September 2025, the city initiated the Vision 4.0 engagement process, reaching approximately 1,600 residents through surveys and small-group discussions, with a specific priority on hearing from youth, renters and BIPOC residents; and Whereas, the council translated the Vision 4.0 community feedback into actionable goals through facilitated sessions and an annual retreat, culminating in a final consensus on the strategic priorities intended to guide the city’s future; and Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the following strategic priorities resulting from the Vision 4.0 community engagement initiative are hereby approved: 1. A Welcoming, Safe Community: An inclusive, equitable and vibrant city where everyone feels safe and experiences a strong sense of belonging. 2. Good Governance: A city that delivers reliable services, uses city resources responsibly, operates transparently and builds strong relationships with residents. 3. Connected, Safe Infrastructure: Safe, reliable and well-maintained infrastructure and neighborhoods that connect people and places with an emphasis on walking, biking and transit. 4. Diverse, Affordable and Dignified Housing: A range of quality, affordable and attainable housing options. 5. Climate Leadership and Natural Spaces: A climate leader that cares for the planet and maintains dynamic parks that connect people and nature. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council April 6, 2026: Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: Special study session Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Discussion item: 1 Executive summary Title: Separation ordinance discussion Recommended action: There is no formal action on this item. Policy consideration: Does the council wish to pass a separation ordinance that would, (1) limit the St. Louis Park police from cooperating with or employing crowd control measures in coordination with immigration enforcement, (2) establish a formal reporting protocol for city employees who interact with federal immigration enforcement, and (3) limit the usage of city resources and property by federal immigration authorities? Summary: In January 2026, three council members requested that council consider the topic of a separation ordinance, identifying the three policy considerations noted above to help frame the discussion. After reviewing the staff report and holding a brief discussion at the city council study session on Feb. 17, 2026, the council’s consensus was to move forward with a more complete discussion on the practical, tactical and legal aspects of an ordinance. As a result, the special study session discussion was scheduled on April 6, 2026, for the purpose of formally considering the three policy considerations, with the existing staff analysis report helping to inform that discussion. Financial or budget considerations: None 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: None Prepared by: Bryan Kruelle, police chief Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Separation ordinance discussion Discussion Background: Often, separation ordinances seek to include elements that limit police departments from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement activities, limit the usage of city resources and property by federal immigration authorities and also establish formal reporting protocols for city employees. Separation ordinances are adopted in addition to largely uniform policies and procedures for cities in Hennepin County that have recognized local police agencies do not enforce federal immigration law or ask about immigration status unless required by law. Multiple cities in the Twin Cities metro area have adopted or are officially considering some form of a separation ordinance from federal immigration enforcement. Some cities have done so, though what is specifically included varies from community to community. Below is a brief summary of key points: • Minneapolis: Establishes that employees may not enforce federal civil immigration laws or inquire about immigration status except when required by law, and must continue to provide city services, including police protection, to all individuals regardless of status. It also limits cooperation with federal immigration enforcement by restricting the sharing of information and access to individuals in custody without proper legal authority, outlines procedures, and ensures compliance with applicable state and federal laws. • Burnsville: prohibits the use of city resources—including property, funds, personnel, and facilities—for enforcing federal immigration laws (absent a lawful warrant), for discriminatory purposes, or for personal gain, and bars any agency from using city property to stage immigration enforcement operations without legal authorization. It also ensures that no special access to city property is granted for such enforcement activities. • Richfield: Prohibits the use of city property and resources to support or stage federal immigration enforcement activities, except where required by law or judicial authorization, and affirms that city resources must be used for lawful, nondiscriminatory public purposes. The ordinance is temporary and is set to expire one year after its effective date unless extended by the city council. • Golden Valley: Establishes that city resources—including property, staff, and funds— may only be used for lawful public purposes in a nondiscriminatory manner and prohibits their use for enforcing federal immigration laws or supporting related staging operations, except where required by legal authorization. It also requires internal reporting of prohibited use requests or incidents and clarifies that compliance with state and federal law remains mandatory. • St. Paul: General prohibition on city employees inquiring about immigration status for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration laws. Also considering a new ordinance which would increase city working training on separation ordinance and add a mechanism for reporting of alleged violations. Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Separation ordinance discussion Present considerations: At the request of council members in January 2026, three areas were identified for examination as policy considerations within a separation ordinance. The policy questions were (1) should the St. Louis Park Police be formally limited from cooperating with or employing crowd control measures in coordination with immigration enforcement, (2) should a formal reporting protocol be established for city employees who interact with federal immigration enforcement, and (3) should the usage of city resources and property by federal immigration authorities be limited? Discussions on a possible separation ordinance were also held this year with both the Police Advisory Commission (PAC) and Police Multicultural Advisory Committee. Primarily, the discussions with both groups centered around the first policy question. Neither body came to definitive conclusions on how best to achieve the balance between the values of St. Louis Park being represented in locations where federal immigration enforcement activities were taking place, addressing the harms that have been committed as a result of the federal activities, and how the St. Louis Park Police Department should fit. There was clarity that St. Louis Park Police Department should not interfere with lawful activity and assembly but should utilize crowd control tactics when there is unlawful behavior. The presence of the St. Louis Park Police was generally seen as beneficial to ensure the city’s values and beliefs were represented. The PAC recommended that St. Louis Park Police Department not interfere with people documenting situations involving federal agents. These rights are consistent with the First Amendment of the Constitution and codified in the department’s policy on First Amendment assemblies as well. The PAC did note that there was likely value in the council reviewing St. Louis Park Police Department policies associated with civil unrest response and First Amendment rights to ensure the council fully understands the issues, without noting anything specific in that regard. There were questions about how significant incidents, especially those where there is a use of force, are documented. Current protocols were shared with PAC verbally and are outlined in the department’s policies and procedures. The PAC did not have any formal recommendations related to this topic. Finally, while there was no formal recommendation, PAC members offered that the city may benefit from establishing or appointing someone independent of the police department who could work with law enforcement in accepting complaints regarding federal immigration enforcement. This was thought to be helpful if an individual is not comfortable with our current process. Should the St. Louis Park Police be formally limited from cooperating with or employing crowd control measures in coordination with immigration enforcement? The St. Louis Park Police Department’s mission is to provide a safe community through quality service, community partnerships and professionalism. The mission is grounded in and guided by a commitment to community-oriented policing. Two critical core values Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 1) Page 4 Title: Separation ordinance discussion are at the center of this commitment: a belief that ethics and integrity are the foundation of public trust and confidence, and all meaningful relationships are built on these values. To achieve the mission, the department is driven by a widely-held belief that the prevention of crime and disorder is the best solution to protect our community. These beliefs and approaches are what lead the department to confront the many challenges that it routinely faces. As its mission and trust in the community are tested through the federal enforcement of immigration, now more than ever, the department feels strongly that it continues to consistently lean into the very elements that have defined its core values and police-response systems that have proven the test of time to be effective in St. Louis Park. Trust and effectiveness in the St. Louis Park Police-Community relationship emanate from a comprehensive and detailed training model, an expansive oversight system and a passion for service. These structures, guided by sound policy and execution, drive police response to all calls-for-service, including those that may be attached to immigration in some form. While it is clear that the St. Louis Park Police Department does not enforce federal immigration law, request documentation of immigration status, or maintain that data in its records, they may respond to federal requests for assistance to provide available support services, such as traffic control, per department policy. Additionally, police officers have a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution and protect everyone in the community. In doing so, they have a demonstrated history of effectively honoring individual First Amendment rights and their placement within the delivery system of public safety. This has not always been easy or straightforward, but the department’s training and actions have consistently demonstrated how much the police- community relationship is valued. The police department feels strongly that not responding when necessary, as based upon their training and experience and guided by policy, would be to abandon their commitment to the community in moments that have divided so many. It would also relinquish control and influence on a scene to any other agency, whether or not the agency shares our values. The department’s goal in responding to any scene where emotions are high is to lower the temperature and keep everyone safe by leveraging the skills that local police officers use every day and are specialists in. Our officers are highly trained in de-escalation, relationship building, use-of-force decision making and application of the law. These are the very things that keep our community members and infrastructure safe, and why we are proud to call our police officers our own. Local officers are best suited to navigate these environments and represent St. Louis Park. Should a formal reporting protocol be established for city employees who interact with federal immigration enforcement? The city has existing protocols to address this question. Any formal interactions with federal immigration enforcement by an employee require their department head to be notified. Employees are further instructed that they are not authorized representatives of the city in this realm and that assistance from the police department should be requested. Initial protocols were distributed in December 2025, with updates provided in January 2026 and supervisor training in early February 2026. Additionally, protocols are in place within the police department for any request for assistance involving a federal law enforcement action. In these situations, a duty Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 1) Page 5 Title: Separation ordinance discussion sergeant should respond to the scene to assess the operation and need for support. The duty sergeant should then contact the police department’s watch commander to ensure a member of the command staff is also aware. Should the usage of city resources and property by federal immigration authorities be limited? Potential ordinances seeking to limit the usage of city resources and property by federal immigration authorities should take into account both legal and operational challenges. Legal review raises questions about the enforceability of a separation ordinance, specifically, whether a local jurisdiction has the authority to create laws regulating the activity of a higher level of government. Should an ordinance be challenged in court, the way in which the suit is filed would impact whether we have insurance coverage for legal defense or whether the city would be responsible for that cost. Operationally, the city should be cognizant that regardless of any policy or laws, federal agents may, in fact, ignore the ordinance and proceed with entry or staging operations on city property. Irrespective of the ordinance, city employees and officials should not physically obstruct such efforts, which could result in personal injury, property damage, criminal charges for obstruction of justice, and a civil lawsuit against the city. To that end, it should be understood that enforcement of this ordinance be akin to nuisance and property maintenance violations; the police department may make contact with the goal of stopping the behavior (i.e., the federal immigration officials moving from the area), and/or the city may issue a cease and desist letter similar to that issued by the City of St. Paul, not immediate criminal punishment through issuance of a misdemeanor citation. Most, if not all, Minnesota cities that have passed such an ordinance have openly stated that enforcement should not be expected. Even when cities and elected officials clearly state to community members that the ordinance is intended to be a deterrent and is not enforceable, there can be significant confusion, leading to additional loss of trust by residents in their local governments. As an example, please see this social media string from the days following a neighboring city passing an ordinance restricting the use of the city-owned and controlled property. Some of this confusion was also reflected in the St. Louis Park public comment from Feb. 10, 2026, where some members of the public speaking in support of an ordinance acknowledged that it would be symbolic, while others lauded it because then we could restrict Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from public spaces. Next steps: Should council decide to pursue a separation ordinance, staff would need specific policy objectives outlined. The policy development process would include drafting of language by the city attorney, review by our Police Advisory Commission and Police Multicultural Advisory Committee, and a study session discussion to review the draft language with council. Should the language meet council’s objectives, formal consideration and adoption, including a public hearing, would be scheduled. Meeting: Special study session Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Discussion item: 2 Executive summary Title: Automated License Plate Reader cameras discussion Recommended action: There is no action requested at this time. Policy consideration: Does the council wish to make any changes to the police department’s current Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR) camera system program to provide additional resident protections? Summary: In January 2026, three city council members requested a study session to better understand the police department’s use of ALPR camera system. Specifically, the questions asked were: 1) What is the demonstrated investigative value of the ALPR data? 2) What is the likelihood and consequence(s) of DHA/ICE/CBP access to this data? 3) What actions are available to preclude access to the data and what are the impacts of those actions? ALPRs are automated camera systems deployed on poles and in squad cars that use specialized imaging and software to (1) capture digital images of vehicle license plates as cars pass the camera, (2) record the time, date and GPS location of each capture, (3) store a vehicle image and certain visible vehicle characteristics, such as make and model, (4) convert and log the plate number into a searchable database for secured law enforcement use, and (5) compare license plates captured to a “Minnesota Hotlist” provided by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), such as stolen auto status or a wanted person. The systems do not perform facial recognition or collect individual data beyond what is visible on license plates and vehicles. The St. Louis Park Police Department began using ALPR through the FLOCK vendor in August 2023. As part of the decision-making process, discussions were held with the City Council, Police Advisory Commission and Police Multicultural Advisory Committee. Financial or budget considerations: Should the existing contracts with Flock be cancelled, the city would likely be required to pay out the remaining term of the agreement, as well as the value of the grant-funded systems. These would be unbudgeted expenses up to $15,000. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Bryan Kruelle, police chief Reviewed by: Kim Keller, city manager Study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: Automated License Plate Reader cameras discussion Discussion Background: ALPRs have become a critical tool in policing; expanding a police department’s ability to prevent, detect and investigate crime. Their usage in the United States has become commonplace, with some Congressional estimates noting that more than 70% of police departments are using the technology. The St. Louis Park Police Department (SLPPD) began initial use of ALPR technology in 2018 when two patrol squads were outfitted with the ALPR cameras. Today, ALPR technology is incorporated into all the department’s patrol vehicles. In 2023, the SLPPD began using stationary Flock ALPR cameras. The locations where the equipment is deployed is based on crime data and operational priorities. Present considerations: What is the demonstrated investigative value of the ALPR data? From both patrol and investigative perspectives, ALPR data is relied upon daily at the SLPPD. With a limited number of patrol officers, leveraging the technology and data to direct resources is not only a widely adopted strategy in policing, but it is also effective in proactively addressing and solving crimes. Because the technology alerts officers to license plate data alone, the possibility for bias to enter into the situation is greatly reduced as well. In less than three years, our Flock ALPR cameras have alerted to 159 stolen license plates, 188 stolen autos, 488 warrants, 18 missing persons, 488 alerts for suspects who pose a serious threat to the public or law enforcement (KOPS alerts), and more than 180,000 driver’s license violations. A few specific examples of Flock ALPR-related outcomes as follows: • October 2025 – Suspect involved in multiple Park Shore burglaries was located and arrested through an external agency Flock hit. • November 2025 – A nine-year-old child believed to be kidnapped and held hostage was reported to SLPPD by family members. The use of Flock data was integral in helping to locate the child, who was found safe, and avoiding additional “ransom” money from being paid by the mother as part of the scam. • January 2026 – A suspect involved in a St. Louis Park criminal sexual conduct investigation was located at Target Knollwood and arrested. The suspect appeared to be actively targeting additional victims at the time he was located. • February 2026 – A road rage incident occurred in St. Louis Park that involved the display of a firearm. Flock data was used to identify and locate the suspect involved, leading to the execution of a search warrant and charges being submitted. Additionally, the following table highlights how SLP Flock data has been used for investigative purposes in the first half of February 2026 by the SLPPD: Study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Title: Automated License Plate Reader cameras discussion Purpose Code Number of Searches Assault and Battery 10 Suspicious Vehicle at Bus Stop 4 Damage to Property 4 Hit and Run 4 Homicide 19 Indecent Exposure 2 Theft 19 Missing and Endangered Person 8 Stolen Auto 32 Fleeing Vehicle 3 Sexual Assault 9 Traffic Leave improper plate 2 Weapons Offense 9 Total 125 What is the likelihood and consequence(s) of DHA/ICE/CBP access to this data? What actions are available to preclude access to the data and what are the impacts of those actions? It is critical to understand the regulatory and system safeguards in place that help ensure Flock ALPR data is only being used for its intended investigative purposes. To that end, the data is well regulated by the State of Minnesota and includes third party bi-annual audit requirements, data deletions after 60 days (Flock auto deletes data after 30 days), limiting photos to the license plate captured and the vehicle, classification as private data, and shared data protected in the same manner as the standard by which the originating agency is held to, including a usage log with purpose code. Furthermore, data can only be compared to a BCA “hotlist” file, with no other system connections, and the system deployments in St. Louis Park only capture an image of the rear license plate. The latter point helps diminish concerns over driver images being captured if the systems are set up to acquire a front license plate and any privacy worries this may carry. There are additional system safeguards in place as well. Data that an individual agency collects remains with that agency, along with the user initiating the search itself. Any agency requesting ALPR data from SLPPD must select a “purpose,” or “reason” code, for which the information is being sought. The purpose code selected must match a purpose code that is allowed within the State of Minnesota. Only then does the system release relevant data. The St. Louis Park Police Department has the following additional safeguards in place: 1. The city has a signed agreement with every agency that we share data with, guiding its use. 2. Requests for St. Louis Park data from agencies outside of the system must be made through our Investigations Division, with the requesting agency required to explain its law enforcement need. 3. Each agency within the agreement completes bi-annual audits. The last audit for SLPPD was completed in July 2025. Study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 2) Page 4 Title: Automated License Plate Reader cameras discussion The ALPR data also cannot be used for immigration purposes, diminishing the likelihood and the consequences of Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection gaining access. The SLPPD only provides shared Flock data access to Minnesota law enforcement agencies that have signed agreements with us attesting to the fact that any data they seek is for active criminal investigative purposes only and all state laws will be followed. For example, Statute 13.824 notes that, “automated license plate reader data that are not related to an active criminal investigation may not be shared with, disseminated to, sold to, or traded with any other individual or entity unless explicitly authorized by this subdivision or other law.” Any agency requesting automated license plate reader data from the SLPPD must select a “purpose” code. An agency wishing to obtain this data and selecting the “immigration” reason code would not be provided with the data. If any data were to be shared inappropriately, there can be potential criminal and employment penalties for an individual who knowingly or willfully violates the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Government entities can be held financially liable for failing to protect or improperly releasing data. Per state statute, any pattern of noncompliance with automated license plate reader audit requirements can result in the immediate suspension by the commissioner of administration of an agency’s program. Any permanent or temporary stoppage to the Flock ALPR program would shift police operations in numerous ways, including a change from proactively addressing crime and community safety to a more reactive approach. With limited staffing, the patrol division relies on Flock data to direct its resources to where known issues are present and where experience and data demonstrate crimes are likely to occur. Additionally, the Flock data systems augment police special operations targeting higher crime areas and act as a deterrent to some due to their presence. Stolen autos, stolen license plates and criminal warrants are consistently companion crimes to shoplifting, illegal firearms, drugs and fleeing in a motor vehicle, elevating the SLPPD's ability to proactively address a multitude of crimes, including those classified as violent. Additionally, the ability of our investigations division to solve crimes or timely respond to them would be eliminated or significantly impaired in certain cases. The Minnesota police agencies we partner with would also be affected. The impact of removing automated sharing of data will result in significant investigatory time needing to be dedicated to supporting our partner agencies. What currently takes place without any St. Louis Park city staff intervention for Minnesota agencies that have a signed sharing agreement with us would require city staff to manually check our Flock ALPR database. For the first two weeks of February 2026, this would have resulted in more than 1,000 searches. There is also a concern that moving these searches to manual would result in slower investigatory response time. In the most critical cases, these time delays would have affected 19 homicide-related searches and eight (8) missing/endangered person searches over the same time period. With staff capacity being a significant current challenge that the police department is faced with, the ability to leverage technology to not only effectively uplift public safety, but to do so in a manner that is more efficient is critical. A greater amount of staff time will be required with a more reactive police model, particularly to investigate cases. Additionally, with one less piece Study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 2) Page 5 Title: Automated License Plate Reader cameras discussion of evidence to support prosecutions, case outcomes - as well as attaining justice for victims - stand to be negatively impacted. The Police Advisory Commission (PAC) and Police Multicultural Advisory Committee (PMAC) reviewed the use of Flock cameras in 2023 and supported their implementation. In early 2026, the PAC and PMAC both reviewed the system again and were supportive of the police department’s continued use of the technology, noting its investigative benefits. Both groups acknowledged concerns around data protection and the importance of this area. The PAC recommended that any agency that has its ALPR program suspended by the State of Minnesota due to data or operating concerns as it relates to state law, should have its access removed from the St. Louis Park system. Additionally, the PAC noted the importance of more frequent internal audits and recommended that the department have strong agreements with other agencies that have access to data from St. Louis Park. The police department has already taken steps to implement these three recommendations. There are currently no agencies whose programs have been suspended that have access to St. Louis Park Flock ALPR data. Additionally, the police department has instituted quarterly Flock ALPR system audits to ensure that usage of the system and data is associated with a legitimate law enforcement purpose. Finally, the department already has in place individual sharing agreements with all agencies. Next steps: The city council should advise staff on any adjustments they would like to make to the Flock ALPR system, including usage, data collection, data sharing and audits. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Discussion item: 3 Executive summary Title: 2026 Market Value Update Recommended action: No action needed. This summary report is provided for informational purposes to update the council on the local real estate market dynamics and prepare for the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization process that begins in April 2026. Policy consideration: None at this time. Summary: The assessed market valuation and classification for each property determines their individual tax capacity and thus the overall tax capacity of the community. In addition to fiscal budgeting and property tax implications, the composition of value and trending are important for council to understand as they focus on overall governance of the community. This review is being made to give the council additional information on how the community’s real estate is reacting among the variety of housing stock (single-family, condo, cooperatives, townhomes and apartments), market performance trends for commercial-industrial space, thoughts on the current market cycle, and the foundation to look forward. This overview is reflective of the assessment as of Jan. 2, 2026, with a reminder that in the equitable sense all adjustments are derived from the preceding year market activity. Events occurring after January 2026 are viewed to have significant potential for influence in terms of real estate values, conflicting market forces, interest rates and the valuation outlook. These influences will be reflected in the next assessment. The St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization convenes on April 13, 2026, with the follow-up meeting, if necessary, tentatively slated for April 27, 2026. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Cory Bultema, city assessor Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager Study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: 2026 Market Value Update Discussion Overview of the Minnesota Property Tax System Minnesota law establishes a specific process and timeline for the entire property tax system, including the assessment of property. The system is summarized as follows: 1. All real property is valued annually at fee simple market value and classified according to actual use. The owners are notified of the assessed valuation and classification in March with informal and multiple formal options for discussion and appeal. 2. State law defines how the value is translated into tax capacity annually via class rate structures, programs, exclusions and credits (e.g. homestead, blind, disabled, veteran exclusion, low-income rental, community land trusts, agricultural et al). These refinements are administratively maintained. 3. Budgets for each taxing jurisdiction are set annually. Funding sources include the property tax levy, voter approved market value referendums, bonding, special assessments, user fees, grants and programs in a variety of operational sources which vary among jurisdictions. 4. In Minnesota, property taxes are a levied budget. The property tax budget levied in each jurisdiction is divided by the total tax capacity of that unique area (e.g. city, county, school district, met council et al). The result is the respective total levy extension multiplier (rate). The multipliers are applied to each individual property to calculate the property taxes in the year following the assessment and setting of the budget. It is essential to understand that the property tax “rate” is simply a math equation and not a full reflection of all revenue sources, tax base composition, service level, efficiency or performance. The Assessing function deals primarily with the first step and portions of the second while our work is such that we often explain the basic system outline to taxpayers/owners. As noted above, the process begins with measurement of market activity as staff renders an opinion of market value and classification annually for 17,000+ parcels in St. Louis Park as of January 2 each year. The assessment must comply with standards established by Minnesota law, interpretations by the Minnesota Department of Revenue, and review/oversight by the Hennepin County Assessor’s Office. Market value is defined in Minnesota Statute 272.03 subd 8 as “the usual selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied shall be at the time of assessment; being the price which could be obtained at a private sale or an auction sale, if it is determined by the assessor that the price from the auction sale represents an arm's-length transaction. The price obtained at a forced sale shall not be considered.” Classification of the property use is also defined by Minnesota statute. The rationale for this requirement is that the Minnesota property tax system applies differing classification rates in determining how the value is translated into tax capacity. The classification system greatly favors residential property types (single-family, condo, townhome, apartments) versus business property types (commercial and industrial). This differential is increased further by specific programs and laws such as fiscal disparities and state-wide levies. Study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: 2026 Market Value Update The Assessment Process The purpose of the assessment is to annually render an accurate and equitable opinion of market value of each parcel of property. Doing so requires current information about the properties being assessed and the local real estate market. In addition to the economic forces at work, the location, use and physical characteristics play a major role in the valuation. The St. Louis Park Assessing division maintains a record of every property in the city including location, physical characteristics and condition. As there are 17,000+ parcels in the city, it is impossible to have complete knowledge of each parcel, which may or may not sell each year. The Minnesota property tax system therefore requires periodic inspections. The current cycle of inspection is on a five-year rotating schedule (known as the quintile) which may be altered due to physical change of the property due to new construction, renovations, additions and damage. The goal of the periodic and interim inspection process is to assess the characteristics and corresponding market value of each property as closely as possible versus the property’s competitive position. Due to the importance of current and accurate information on the property characteristics and condition, it is standard policy to require an interior inspection in the last year when reviewing appeals. It is important to know that the assessment process for residential properties in the State of Minnesota is based on mass appraisal. The valuations are modeled by a computer assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) methodology. To summarize, the physical characteristics for each property are maintained in a large database which allows recalibration of the individual valuations based upon the location, style and physical characteristics for each property. While sometimes viewed as a mathematical equation to be manipulated, a truly functional CAMA system allows focused modeling based upon competitive marketability. The purpose is to fashion a mirror image of market performance based on properties that have sold during the comparison period (state dictated sales period which is time trended; fact-based modeling). Minnesota requires almost all sales to be recorded in an electronic Certificate of Real Estate Value (e-CRV) data system. The sales information is scrutinized and qualified. Initial clerical screening occurs at the city and county level. The sale information is often augmented with more detail from a variety of professional data services. Staff may complete direct buyer/seller verifications and re-inspections in cases where we may have imperfect information. Evidence suggesting anything but an arms-length transaction (a forced sale, foreclosure, a sale to a relative, etc.) results in the sales information being excluded from the sale study. This is important as the market information constitutes the measurable database for the statistical comparisons necessary to make the property assessment. The mass appraisal process is different from the individual appraisal system used by banks, mortgage companies and others. Mass appraisal is a modeling process using groups of sales to review competitively similar groups of properties. The individual appraisal process is comparing one subject property with a limited number of similar competing properties. In the appeal process, assessing staff looks to both the mass valuation and current individual appraisal analysis for further review. Study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Title: 2026 Market Value Update Big Picture of the Residential Market – Realtor Perspective Before discussion of the 2026 assessment, we want to provide a big picture overview from the perspective of realtors. The broad spectrum of owner based residential real estate is often carried in the news media and the industry does comprise a highly significant variable in the local, regional and national economy. The following chart is an aggregate of single-family homes, condos and townhomes from 2017 through 2025 on an annual basis. This provides a comparative reference for St. Louis Park and our immediate neighbors over the years. In contemplating the historical figures above, the primary owner-based housing options are included. This aggregate price structure gives an interesting overall perspective for each community. The variation from year to year depends on which market segment has more sales as well as the volume of sales with new construction/major renovations. The refinement chart below shows the dominant options available and their sale performance in the past year. Several facts in the above table are notable. First, and often surprising to some, is that our annual transaction volume is generally high in terms of turnover rate. This is due in part to our pricing structure, the mix of housing options available, and the numerical balance between single-family, condo and townhome stock. The most significant fact in the table above, however, is timing of market exposure (Days on Market). All of the local communities are clearly showing extremely short exposure times over multiple years within the single-family market sector. Condos were considerably more volatile in 2025 with a rapid uptick in days on market as well as a bit of unraveling on sale pricing. This phenomenon is notable in the context of the city’s assessment and inner ring suburbs. Additional discussion on this topic will occur during the study session discussion on April 6, 2026. 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 St. Louis Park 264,663 287,000 305,000 327,750 340,000 360,000 375,000 380,000 386,750 Edina 460,000 450,000 473,606 520,000 595,000 580,000 600,500 619,500 675,000 Golden Valley 312,750 309,950 343,000 367,450 388,620 425,000 424,000 424,900 436,500 Hopkins 218,650 250,000 259,950 288,000 297,450 315,000 325,000 365,000 365,000 Minnetonka 335,000 347,500 358,250 358,250 437,000 460,000 465,000 498,450 500,000 Historic Median Sale Price – Aggregate of Single-Family Homes, Condos and Townhomes #Median Days on #Median Days on #Median Days on Sales Sale Price Market Sales Sale Price Market Sales Sale Price Market St. Louis Park 551 420,000 13 152 205,000 70 64 282,000 32 Edina 501 886,500 18 214 213,950 68 45 510,000 41 Golden Valley 213 512,000 17 27 143,170 69 37 287,000 41 Hopkins 105 415,000 12 40 124,400 41 22 239,500 18 Minnetonka 498 600,000 14 110 192,500 61 117 350,000 26 Annual 2026 Market Performance: Sale Volume – Median Sale Price – Days on Market Single-Family Condominiums Townhomes Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors Sales Data (MAAR) Study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 3) Page 5 Title: 2026 Market Value Update Summary of the St. Louis Park 2026 Assessment Roll The Notice of Valuation and Classification commence mailing in March of each year. Each notice reflects the property value and classification for a two-year period with the format as required by the Minnesota Department of Revenue. As of Jan. 2, 2026, the total valuation of the city stands at $10.32 billion; versus $9.99 billion for 2025; versus $9.94 billion for 2024; versus $9.71 billion for 2023; versus $9.41 billion for 2022; and versus $8.55 billion for 2021. The year- over-year change for the 2026 assessment is explored below. Assessed Market Value Change for Dominant Sectors (Comparing 2026 to 2025 Assessment) Single-Family Residential + 2.1% Market Basis versus + 2.5% with Improvements Condominium - 6.3% Market Basis versus - 6.2% with Improvements Townhomes + 3.1% Market Basis versus + 3.2% with Improvements Apartments + 0.9% Market Basis versus + 0.9% with Improvements Commercial - 0.6% Market Basis versus - 0.6% with Improvements Industrial + 1.2% Market Basis versus + 1.4% with Improvements St. Louis Park Total + 0.5% Market Basis versus + 0.7% Gross Change Source: St. Louis Park Assessing Office. The “total” line is subject to slight refinement (0.3% to 0.5% generally) as the state assessed rail and utility values are assumed and not available at report writing. Market basis reflects a roughly “apples-to-apples” comparison of the primary use sectors from one year to the next. This measure is the primary focus of the mass appraisal methodology reflected by review of qualified transactions. There are also nominal shifts associated with use change, divisions/combinations of parcels and changes to exemptions. Gross change reflects the total taxable valuation of the city which includes improvement values arising from new construction, additions, renovations and use repositioning. This metric reflects the full scale of economic activity as assessed and by tax capacity. Improvement values were moderate for the 2026 assessment given that we are a largely built-out community. Each of the above categories will be explained at further length in the following summary with a reminder that an assessment is fashioning a mirror image of the market. It has included the traditional sales review, extensive qualification review, on-market listings multiple times per year, income-expense relationships, construction trending and the quintile inspection cycle. We begin our review of the overall residential sector by breaking it down into the three dominant categories: low density (single-family homes); mid-to-high density ownership based (condos and townhomes) and apartment units. Interest rates and economic waffling continued to be the major drivers during the sales study period (Oct. 1, 2024, through Sept. 30, 2025) for virtually all property types. While the market has stabilized in many respects for residential uses, sales volume remains down a bit although improving (644 sales for the 2026 study, 590 sales in the 2025 study period versus 750-800 from 2015 through 2020). Single Family Homes: Just under one-half of the total housing units are single family homes. For reference, the city’s median market value was at $306,400 for assess 2020; at $330,250 for assess 2021; pandemic induced spiking at $371,800 for assess 2022; leveling off at $373,300 for Study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 3) Page 6 Title: 2026 Market Value Update assess 2023; modest growth at $377,200 for assess 2024; and 2025 ($387,200); and $398,300 for the 2026 assessment. The city of St. Louis Park is broken down into 35 neighborhoods which are configured to local history rather than competitive influences. Of the 32 neighborhoods with single-family properties; the range of adjustment was -5.1% to +11.0% with six neighborhoods downward and the remainder being upward. Most of the market movement was in a range of -1.0% to +5.0% with the lower value brackets more on the lower end of the spectrum while the upper brackets, being less interest rate sensitive, were toward the upper end of the range. This is viewed from the context of a more balanced market following multiple years where the lower end stock was moving upward much more rapidly than the upper brackets. This return to a broader market value range is generally positive although the relative movement of the lower versus upper brackets are a clear sign that affordability has cooled over the recent two-to-three years. Condominiums: There are 46 distinct condominium complexes in the community. The complexes are a decidedly diverse stock in terms of structural vintage and structural design format (apartment conversions, row-house, low-rise, high-rise and most everything in between). As noted in prior years, condos tend to be considerably more volatile year-over-year. This is generally due to four major factors: condos have an in-complex sub-market which can swing quickly; the complexes compete locally and more readily with those in nearby cities; perceptions of value differ between the owner-occupant buyer versus the investor/rental buyer; and sale pricing can be affected in a very significant manner by association assessments and maintenance. This complexity is emphasized in the 2026 assessment with a significant downward valuation shown throughout the city. The city-wide median value was at $171,600 for 2020; at $173,000 for 2021; at $193,500 for 2022; hard shift to $208,800 for 2023; stabilizing to $203,900 for 2024; and at $204,000 for 2025; and down hard 8.7% for the 2026 assessment at $186,250 per unit. Townhomes: There are 19 distinct complexes in the community. Just under one-half of them are relatively small with fewer than 20 units. The other half are predominantly in the 20-50 unit count bracket. Three larger complexes tend to dominate the aggregate percentage change annually. In general, the market forces at play in this property type are similar to that of the condos with price point being a significant point of departure. The higher median unit value is normally a more moderating influence while also being interest rate sensitive. The city-wide median market value for this stock was at $211,200 in 2020; to $222,100 in 2021; rapid growth to $272,900 in 2022; stabilizing back to $260,700 in 2023; at $252,200 in 2024; at $261,000 in 2025; and at $265,900 for the 2026 assessment. The following map links are included for your reference: • Qualified single-family sales, color coded price brackets: Sales Residential TA 2026 • Assessed median value for single-family neighborhoods: 2026 Neighborhood Values • Assessed median value for condos & townhomes by complex: Condo Townhomes 2026 Study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 3) Page 7 Title: 2026 Market Value Update Charts follow to provide additional overview and five-year tracking. Page 8 reflects the single- family neighborhoods. Pages 9-10 provides the condos and townhomes. The charts include parcel count reference and shading to denote their annual quintile inspection schedule. (Remainder of page intentionally blank) Study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 3) Page 8 Title: 2026 Market Value Update Year of Assessment 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 a.Median Assessed Value:371,800 373,300 377,200 387,200 398,300 b.City-Wide Static Change:12.6% 0.4% 1.0% 2.7% 2.9% #Neighborhood Reference 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Parcels Median 1 Shelard Park N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Kilmer 14.3% -2.4% 1.4% 7.8% 0.4% 246 347,600 3 Crestview 6.3% 3.4% 1.5% 5.4% 3.4% 70 528,500 4 Westwood Hills 13.4% 9.5% -3.6% 11.2% 0.2% 292 631,000 5 Cedar Manor 13.1% 0.3% 0.7% 9.5% 3.7% 578 412,300 6 Northside (x) Willow Park 17.7% -1.5% -3.2% 10.3% 11.3% 303 401,700 7 Pennsylvania Park 10.9% 6.0% -4.3% 7.6% 9.3% 306 384,500 8 Eliot 12.0% -1.7% 0.9% 2.1% 1.1% 511 345,800 9 Blackstone 5.9% 3.1% 1.5% 4.5% 1.5% 94 304,450 10 Cedarhurst 14.4% 5.0% 6.1% 2.0% -0.3% 49 383,500 11 Eliot View 9.1% 5.7% -2.4% 1.6% 4.5% 167 361,400 12 Cobblecrest 12.0% 5.5% -4.8% -0.5% -5.1% 385 412,100 13 Minnehaha 14.7% 0.8% 6.1% 3.8% -3.2% 129 545,300 14 Amhurst N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15 Aquila 15.1% -0.9% 0.9% 3.3% 2.0% 506 333,800 16 Oak Hill 10.2% -2.9% 4.5% 6.6% 4.7% 640 366,900 17 Texa Tonka 16.9% 0.6% 0.4% 2.5% -0.4% 387 333,500 18 Bronx Park 10.6% -0.8% 2.1% 5.9% 1.2% 996 365,400 19 Lenox 11.6% -3.1% 5.5% 6.4% 1.3% 835 374,700 20 Sorenson 13.9% 5.2% -2.9% 3.5% 1.8% 452 379,950 21 Birchwood 12.2% 0.2% 2.3% 3.8% 1.2% 636 393,050 22 Lake Forest 3.9% 2.7% 1.0% 9.7% 1.5% 198 766,200 23 Fern Hill 12.9% 1.9% 0.3% 6.6% 0.3% 962 570,600 24 Triangle 17.9% -3.2% 0.8% 3.9% 3.5% 94 352,400 25 Wolfe Park 15.8% 0.2% 1.5% 5.3% 3.3% 16 386,450 26 Minikada Oaks 10.9% 4.8% 0.0% 4.3% 5.4% 77 535,200 27 Minikada Vista 12.2% -0.3% 0.9% 10.4% 6.3% 800 611,050 28 Browndale 9.2% 1.3% 2.4% 3.9% 4.0% 551 543,400 29 Brookside 16.9% 2.0% 2.2% 3.0% 2.4% 329 409,400 30 Brooklawns 12.4% -2.5% 1.1% 4.0% -0.1% 151 403,400 31 Elmwood 14.3% -3.1% 1.1% 4.0% -0.3% 266 407,750 32 Meadowbrook N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 33 South Oak Hill 9.4% 1.2% 2.5% 14.6% 10.5% 291 373,600 34 Westdale 9.9% 2.6% 6.2% 3.3% 0.7% 106 370,850 35 Creekside 16.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.2% 2.4% 171 420,100 Quintile Counts 2,464 2,923 1,358 2,561 2,919 11,594 a:Median assessed market values for all single-family parcels - including improvement values. b:The % change is market driven value change and does not include improvement values. Three neighborhoods do not include single-family residential parcels. Source: Annual Compilations by the St. Lous Park Assessing Office St. Louis Park -- Single Family Residential Properties Historical Change of Assessed Market Values (Quintile Cycle) Study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 3) Page 9 Title: 2026 Market Value Update Year of Assessment 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 a.Median Assessed Value:193,500 208,800 203,900 204,000 186,250 b.City-Wide Static Change:11.80% 7.90% -2.30% 0.05% -8.70% Code Complex Reference Yr Blt 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Units Median MO Monterey Coop 1995 5.40% 6.60% -3.10% 0.50% -6.50%8 108,550 AC Aquila Commons Coop 2006 0.00% -1.00% -5.30% 0.00% -6.50% 106 202,000 33 3300 On The Park 1980 15.40% 4.90% 2.40% -0.70% -15.60% 128 183,000 35 35th St Condos - Apt Conver 2003 16.80% -8.90% -1.90% -0.40% -6.40% 11 150,800 55 55+ Condos 2006 -1.10% -1.00% 0.00% 9.90% -15.30% 60 231,400 BK Brookside Lofts - 4100 Vernon 2006 20.90% 9.70% 2.10% -19.10% 1.10% 27 268,100 BK Brookside Lofts - 4132 Vernon 2006 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 14 N/A BR Bridgewalk - Conversion 1980 1.40% 14.90% 14.90% -0.50% -17.00% 92 146,000 CA Calhoun Hill 2014-15 -7.10% 6.60% 0.00% -0.50% -6.50%7 373,200 CH Coach Homes 1980 5.00% 13.20% 0.10% -6.00% -0.10% 128 178,100 CS Cedar Trails - (South Condo Twnhme)1977 9.20% 5.80% 3.10% -5.10% 7.80% 32 252,150 CT Cedar Trails - (North of CLR)1973 10.60% 3.40% -4.50% -2.60% -7.00% 280 151,900 CW Cedar Trails - (S-West Condo Twnhme)1977 -1.00% 25.00% -4.00% 1.70% -2.90% 48 270,450 EV Elmwood Village 2005 7.80% 9.00% -4.10% 1.30% -1.20% 77 381,000 FH Fern Hill 2001 26.00% 4.70% -2.00% 2.10% -19.70% 30 175,300 GR Greensboro Condos - HIA 1970 16.40% -0.70% 2.30% 6.20% -15.30% 164 122,300 HV Harmony Vista (Hoigaards) 2008 0.00% 6.70% -2.00% -0.50% -13.80% 74 214,100 IB Inglewood Boutique 2008 5.50% 4.50% -2.00% 6.50% -6.50%6 376,750 LN Lynn Ave Condos - Apt Conver 2003 -1.00% -8.90% -2.00% 1.40% -6.40% 12 184,600 LY Lynwood Condos 1966 5.50% 6.70% -2.00% -0.50% -5.00% 11 209,500 MC Monterey Pl - Apt Convers 2005 3.70% -0.20% -2.00% 14.80% -6.50% 30 275,950 MR Murphy Ridge Condo Twnhme 2006 5.40% 6.60% -1.90% -0.40% -6.40%4 170,000 MW Monterey West - Condo Twnhme Coop 1995 5.50% 6.70% -2.00% -0.50% -6.50%7 242,200 NP Natchez Pl 1987 5.40% 20.90% -5.70% 1.30% -5.30% 27 225,400 OX Oxford Gardens - Apt Convers 2003 -4.80% 6.50% -1.90% -0.40% 1.90% 12 105,800 P0 Parkside Urban Lofts - 460 Bldg 2005 1.00% 15.70% -7.50% -3.00% -6.50% 24 337,400 P2 Parkside Urban Lofts - 462 Bldg 13-14 2.60% 16.10% -7.50% -3.00% -6.50% 22 327,100 P4 Parkside Urban Lofts - 464 Bldg 14-15-16 4.60% 2.00% 1.00% -3.00% -6.50% 22 299,150 PP Pondview Park - Apt Conver 2003 0.20% 15.20% -1.90% 5.70% -3.90% 30 177,000 PW Pointe West Condos 2001-03 5.60% 14.40% -10.40% -0.50% -6.50% 86 339,900 S1 Sungate 1 - East of Alabama (North)1978 5.40% 15.80% -1.90% 5.80% -6.40% 20 174,900 S2 Sungate 2 - East of Alabama (South)1979 17.10% 6.70% -2.00% 5.80% -5.00% 26 221,200 S3 Sungate 3 - West of Alabama 1979 1.70% 6.70% -2.00% -0.40% -6.50% 14 215,500 SR Sunset Ridge - HIA 1981 7.10% 12.80% -6.20% -3.70% 1.00% 240 163,700 TF Twin Fountains 1980 1.70% 5.70% 2.80% -5.00% -6.40% 88 138,200 EL Excelsior Lofts (T Joe Site) 2007 -2.20% 6.60% -4.40% 4.80% -10.90% 86 254,800 GW Grand Way (NE Bldg)2004 4.00% 9.10% -10.10% 6.50% 1.20% 124 383,400 TG The Grand NW @ Excelsior 2007 3.60% 5.10% 13.70% 2.30% -5.00% 96 523,850 VL Village Lofts 2006 4.10% 1.40% -4.40% -7.80% -3.30% 60 211,200 WE Westmoreland - HIA 1980 7.60% 7.70% 5.50% 4.90% -16.40% 72 121,500 WF Wooddale Flats 2014 9.10% -2.00% 12.30% 3.70% -5.50% 33 517,400 WL Wolfe Lake 1972 -2.90% 6.20% 0.50% -0.50% -8.10% 131 189,000 St. Louis Park -- Condominium Properties Historical Change of Assessed Market Values Study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 3) Page 10 Title: 2026 Market Value Update WM Westmarke Condos 2007 2.70% 16.20% 0.00% -7.30% -9.00% 64 231,150 WO West Oaks 2007 3.10% 6.10% -4.10% 2.80% -7.90% 75 266,600 WV Westwood Villa - HIA 1971 4.90% 20.80% -1.60% 1.10% -6.10% 66 148,600 WY Wynmoor 1969 11.00% 2.90% 1.10% -1.70% -6.40% 56 133,600 Quintile Counts 440 587 437 693 440 2,830 a:Median assessed market values for all Condos - including improvement values. b:The % change is market driven value change and does not include improvement values. Source: Annual Compilations by the St. Louis Park Assessing Office Year of Assessment 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 a.Median Assessed Value:272,900 260,700 252,200 261,000 265,900 b.City-Wide Static Change:22.90% -4.50% -3.30% 3.50% 1.90% Code Complex Reference Yr Blt 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Units Median BG Brunswick Gables 1987 14.10% -8.50% -0.20% 2.80% 2.50%7 300,100 DB Dan-Bar Rental Twnhme 1986 14.10% -2.00% -0.30% 2.80% 2.50%4 257,700 EW Excelsior Way Rentals 1999 21.40% -1.90% 6.80% 2.80% 2.70% 38 302,700 GR Greensboro - HIA 1970 9.00% -2.70% 7.50% 2.50% 1.40% 96 243,000 HE Hampshire Estates 1985 16.40% 0.00% -0.20% 2.80% 2.40%8 225,900 HH Hampshire House 1973 11.80% 0.00% 3.80% 2.70% 2.40% 13 230,600 LL Lamplighter Park 1995 14.20% -2.10% -0.30% 2.80% 2.50%5 488,900 LA Lohmans Amhurst 1984 22.90% -4.50% -3.20% 3.50% 1.90% 276 261,900 ME Medley Row 2013 14.20% -2.10% -0.30% 2.80% -7.70% 22 357,700 MP Montery Park 1995 14.90% -2.10% -0.30% 2.80% 2.50% 18 492,500 PC Princeton Court 1985 21.70% 5.90% -8.50% -10.80% 2.50% 13 483,000 QC Quentin Court 1987 14.20% 4.00% -7.50% -3.40% 2.50% 10 479,800 SH Shamrock 1982 15.70% -5.10% -0.30% 2.00% 2.50% 16 234,700 SK Skyehill 1984 14.20% 0.10% 4.60% -1.20% 6.00% 31 328,300 SW Sungate West 1984 21.70% 3.50% -1.40% 8.20% -2.90% 48 252,100 VP Victoria Ponds 1997 17.50% -1.70% -1.70% 5.50% 9.40% 72 517,900 WT Westwood 1971 22.10% -1.30% -4.00% 8.80% 2.00% 38 306,200 ZA Zarthan Apt Twnhomes 1973 15.30% 9.20% -0.30% 5.20% 6.40% 18 332,400 ZP Zarthan Park 1979 3.50% -1.00% -0.30% 7.00% 2.50% 16 278,600 Quintile Counts 276 132 293 30 749 a:Median assessed market values for all Townhomes - including improvement values. b:The % change is market driven value change and does not include improvement values. Source: Annual Compilations by the St. Louis Park Assessing Office St. Louis Park -- Townhome Properties Historical Change of Assessed Market Values Study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 3) Page 11 Title: 2026 Market Value Update Apartments: This sector is largely driven in the historic sense by tenant supply/demand, the income stream and owner return expectations. This use category has exhibited very robust growth for an extended period of time (effectively increasing total unit counts by 40%+ in the last decade with many more projects under construction and in the pipeline). Thus, we provide a longer historical perspective on market change and improvement values: • For 2014 – market change at + 8.2% and +20.2% with multiple new complexes on-line • For 2015 – market change at +12.1% and +13.3% for the next phase of new complexes • For 2016 – market change at +12.0% and +17.8% including new construction • For 2017 – market change at + 6.4% and + 9.5% including new construction • For 2018 – market change at + 7.5% and +13.3% including new construction • For 2019 – market change at + 8.2% and +11.4% including new construction • For 2020 – market change at +11.4% and +15.2% including new construction • For 2021 – market change at + 2.3% and + 3.9% including new construction • For 2022 – market change at + 9.7% and + 13.6% including new construction • For 2023 – market change at + 2.6% and + 7.0% including new construction • For 2024 – market change at - 0.7% and + 7.5% including new construction • For 2025 – market change at - 2.8% and - 1.3% including new construction • For 2026 – market change at + 0.9% and + 0.9% including new construction Looking at the above historical pattern presents a very clear picture of extended market appreciation in conjunction with active renovations and robust new construction. The totals above reflect aggregate value change, which includes mixed market change annually for the Class A-B-C stock. The market demand for units is primarily attributed to our location adjacent to the Minneapolis core with proximity to major employers in the west metro as well as cultural and natural amenities. For the 2024 and 2025 assessments, the market driven change cooled for the existing stock. The primary influences were relatively flat rents, increased interest rates, expenses also under some pressure and capitalization rates. For the 2026 assessment, the market has largely stabilized with a modest growth of 0.9%. Class A projects have been the primary focus for new construction due to the inter-connected nature of the traditional approaches to valuation; cost to build, income stream and sales. It is important to recognize that Class A and B stock were severely under-built dating back to the mid-1980 to mid-1990 time periods. The new complexes are helping to broaden and diversify the housing stock in that the total unit count is now distributed with approximately 40% being class C stock (typically fewer than three stories, built circa 1960-1975) and 60% being Class A and B stock. For reference, the 2026 median unit values for the stock are: Class A at $280,500 with an overall change of 1.3%, Class B are in a range of $183,000 to $197,500 at an overall change of 0%, and the median value for the Class C stock is $124,000 per unit at an overall change of 0%. The current assessment reflects the influx of additional units still being absorbed in the market as well as ramifications from interest rate increases. Study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 3) Page 12 Title: 2026 Market Value Update Commercial and Industrial: Value changes year-over-year are heavily dependent on how these uses are performing in a range of national, regional and immediately local economies. Commercial and industrial properties are valued across jurisdictional boundaries to a significant extent with the specific use dictating the extent of geographic market areas. This sector exhibited continuous market appreciation and new construction growth for an extended period approaching two decades. The 2021 assessment ended that market appreciation streak due to the pandemic with the general economy limitations continuing into the 2022-2023-2024 assessments with the majority of shifting among the use categories being stabilized for the 2025 assessment with one notable exception being the office market. The overall market adjustment for the 2026 valuation on the commercial properties was up 1.0% inclusive of nominal new construction value. The essentially flat value change was driven by the continued weaknesses in the Class B office markets which segued into the B+ and A- markets as businesses have rolled through remote/virtual work being combined with in-office work and responses on productivity versus how much space is needed. Without a doubt, these are business decisions that are expected to evolve given the rapid advances in technology. We have also seen a decrease in the hotel sector with less business travel and discretionary spending. The bulk of other uses are essentially stabilized with moderate to no growth. The smaller “mom & pop” properties have continued to sell at a premium prompting increases for the 2026 assessment in some of these properties. While the city’s variety of use types, and their spread locations, essentially gives a great deal of cushion in the overall sense, the total performance – i.e. dominant tax base – is expected to continue having a degree of variation. These uses have weathered through the pandemic, the interest rate environment, supply chain driven inflationary pressures, space use mismatch between what was and what is desired in the market. The overall market adjustment for the industrial stock was up 1.9%, which was predominantly market driven with minimal improvement value for the year. As an inner-ring suburb, our industrial stock is not a high percentage of the parcel count, valuation and tax capacity. Three observations are made. The first is that value changes in this use category vary with the general economy – many buildings viewed as functionally obsolete are having an extension of economic life due to demand for space and construction costs. Whether that use extension beyond economic/physical life will continue is an annual question. Secondly, a significant volume of the current industrial stock is located near the future light rail station areas which have been, and are expected to continue to be, major drivers of use change, demolition, redevelopment plays and interim holding. The two preceding issues bring us to the economic reality of underlying land values. As a mature inner-ring suburb – heavily engaged in redevelopment – our land value per square foot can be a limiting factor for industrial users. The reason being that industrial uses are typically land intensive and low-rise while our location and associated land values are effectively a self-reinforcing value premium driven by density. Meeting: Special study session Meeting date: April 6, 2026 Written report: 4 Executive summary Title: Housing Activity Report Recommended action: The purpose of this report is to update council on city housing programs and activity. This report is informational only. No formal action is needed. Policy consideration: None. Summary: The housing activity report is prepared annually by staff and has been presented to the city council each year since 2005. The report provides an overview of the city’s housing policies and initiatives, summarizes historical trends, and includes data on affordable housing and local housing programs in St. Louis Park. An executive summary of the full report is provided on the first two pages. Approximately every five years, the housing authority commissions a comprehensive housing study conducted by an independent consultant. The most recent study was completed and presented to the city council in 2023. Additional details on the policies and programs referenced in the housing activity report, as well as the 2023 housing study, can be found on the St. Louis Park city website. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: 2025 housing activity report Prepared by: Marney Olson, housing manager Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Page 1 2025 Housing Activity Report 2025 Housing Activity Report Executive summary The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the 2025 housing program activity. The report provides information on new initiatives and updates as well as historical trends, program descriptions, and data on city and federally funded housing programs and activity that support the city’s housing goals. Affected household area median income (AMI) is noted in parenthesis next to the policy or program where applicable. 1.City housing policies (see page 3) a.Inclusionary Housing (30%, 50% and 60% AMI) b.Tenant Protection Ordinance (60% AMI and below) c.Housing Trust Fund d.NOAH preservation strategies: i.4D tax incentive program (60% AMI and below) ii.Multifamily rental rehab program (60% AMI and below) iii.Legacy program (60% AMI and below) 2.Remodeling activity (see page 9) a.Housing rehab project (general remodeling) permits were fairly consistent with 2024. Most projects were financed without using city loans. b.Utilization of the city’s Architect Design Services and Remodeling Advisor Services usage has remained steady over the last three years. c.In 2025, there were 40 home additions and 75 major remodeling projects, with average valuations of $136,250 and $82,250 respectively, representing a slight increase over 2024. d.The Construction Management Plan (CMP) program, in place since November 2014, continued to see increased activity. In 2025, CMP letters were issued for 29 major additions, four demolition/rebuild projects, and four new homes. A map is included on page 13 of the report showing the location of these projects. 3.Affordable home ownership, Community Development Block Grant and emergency rental assistance (see page 16) a.The down payment assistance (DPA) has expanded in recent years, reaching a peak in 2025 with 34 loans provided to first-time homebuyers (at or below 115% AMI). b.The First-Generation Homeownership Program, launched in late 2021, continues to grow. Five loans closed in 2025, bringing the program total to 14 loans. c.Homes Within Reach (West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust) added four homes in St. Louis Park in 2025, bringing the total to 31 permanently affordable homes in the community. d.Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds supported the Deferred Loan Program for low-income homeowners (at or below 80% AMI) and Homes Within Reach activities. 2025 is the final year St. Louis Park will receive a direct CDBG allocation. Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 2 Page 2 2025 Housing Activity Report e.The city’s Emergency Repair Grant Program assisted five low-income homeowners (at or below 50% AMI) in 2025. f.Through a competitive social services Request For Proposal (RFP), the city awarded $154,000 to the St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) for emergency rental assistance and an additional $50,000 to address food insecurity in 2025. 4.Housing matrix (see page 18) a.Owner-occupied properties account for 51% of the housing stock, while rental properties account for 49%. b.The ownership rate for single-family homes is 92%. c.There are 1200 units of senior housing in St. Louis Park. d.Maxfield Research completed a rental study for the St. Louis Park in 2023. Of the 8,101 market rate units inventoried, 26.4% are affordable to households earning 50% AMI and 24.5% are affordable to households at 60% AMI. e.The 2025 affordable ownership purchase price increased to $306,500, up $16,300 from 2024. Approximately 29% of homes in St. Louis Park are assessed at or below this threshold, including single-family homes, townhomes and condominiums. 5.Foreclosures (see page 24) a.The foreclosure rate in St. Louis Park remains extremely low. 6.Housing Authority rental assistance programs (30% AMI) (see page 25) a.In 2025, the St. Louis Park Housing Authority served approximately 620 households through rental assistance programs. While eligibility thresholds are up to 50% AMI for Housing Choice Vouchers and 80% AMI for public housing, the majority of households served are at or below 30% AMI. Overall, 98% of households served are at or below 50% AMI, with 81% below 30% AMI. Federally funded programs are categorized as serving households at 30% AMI, as participants typically pay 30% of their income toward rent. b.The Housing Authority administers several special-purpose voucher programs, including the Family Unification Program, Mainstream Vouchers and VASH (Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing) serving households at or below 50% AMI. c.The St. Louis Park Housing Authority, in partnership with Hennepin County, continues to administer the Stable HOME rental assistance program to individuals and families experiencing or transitioning out of homelessness (at or below 50% AMI). d.The Kids in the Park program, which received increased funding in 2023, served 30 families in both 2024 and 2025 (50% AMI and below). e.Lou Park Apartments – 19 residents residing at Lou Park with project-based vouchers were transitioned to tenant-based vouchers administered by the Housing Authority (50% and below AMI). Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 3 Page 3 2025 Housing Activity Report Housing authority rental assistance programs by AMI in 2025 HUD income definitions Extremely low income 30% AMI Very low income 31- 50% AMI Low income 51-80% AMI Above low income 81% AMI + Percentage of Households 81% 17% 2% 0% 1.City housing policies The City of St. Louis Park has undertaken new initiatives and updates to current policies to address affordable housing needs in the community. Inclusionary housing In June 2015, the city council adopted an inclusionary housing policy that requires the inclusion of affordable housing units for lower income households in new market rate multi-unit residential developments receiving financial assistance from the city. The goal of the inclusionary housing policy is to increase the supply of affordable housing and promote economic and social integration. The policy is regularly reviewed and updated as needed. Table 1: Inclusionary housing policy requirements Current Policy Rental Projects •20% of units at 60% AMI •10% of units at 50% AMI •5% of units at 30% AMI Ownership Projects •10% of the units at or below 80% AMI; or •Payment in lieu as calculated under the policy In 2025 the policy was updated to: •Remove requirements that projects seeking a comprehensive plan amendment must comply with the policy. •Allow developers to provide affordable for-sale units as an alternative to paying a fee in lieu. •Ensure equal access to amenities and common areas for affordable and market-rate units. •Permit income averaging for qualifying projects . Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 4 Page 4 2025 Housing Activity Report Table 2: Affordable units created and approved since adoption of the Inclusionary Housing Policy Development Year built Length of affordability Total Units Affordable Units Affordability Level O-bedroom Affordable Units 1-bedroom Affordable Units 2-bedroom Affordable Units 3+bedroom Affordable Units Completed projects Shoreham 2017 25 148 30** 50% 4 13 13 4800 Excelsior 2017 25 164 18 60% 1 10 7 Central Park West (199 units total) 2017 25 119 in SLP 6* 60% 1 2 2 1 Parkway 25 2018 112 Arlo West End 2020 25 164 5* 50% 1 1 2 1 The Quentin 2020 25 79 8 50% 3 4 1 0 Elmwood 2021 25 70 17 60% 5 12 Urban Park Apartments 2021 61 0 Parkway Place 2022 94 0 Zelia on 7 2023 25 217 22 65 50% 60% 36 29 15 5 – 3BR 2 – 4BR Parkway Residences – rehab 2023 25 24 24 50% 1 15 8 Parkway Flats 2023 25 6 6 60% 6 Caraway 2023 25 207 8* 60% 2 3 2 1 Volo at Texa Tonka 2023 25 112 23 50% 7 12 4 0 Rise on 7 2023 26 city 30 HTC* 120 19 22 21 58 30% 40% 50% 60% 57 39 24 Risor 2023 25 170 18 50% 1 11 5 1 Corsa 2023 25 250 25 50% 5 15 3 2 Parkway Commons 2023 37 0 Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 5 Page 5 2025 Housing Activity Report Development Year built Length of affordability Total Units Affordable Units Affordability Level O-bedroom Affordable Units 1-bedroom Affordable Units 2-bedroom Affordable Units 3+bedroom Affordable Units Arbor Court 2024 26 city 30 HTC* 114 5 5 104 30% 50% 60% 27 50 37 Union Park Flats 2024 26 city 50 LURA** 60 16 27 17 30% 50% 60% 10 5 30 10 - 3 BR 5 - 4 BR Mera 2024 25 233 47 50% 10 19 16 2 Totals 2,561 616 Under Construction Beltline Station Bldg 1 20 152 0 Beltline Station Bldg 2 40 city 82 20 23 39 30% (PBVs) 50% 60% 2 14 44 22 Beltline Station Bldg 3 146 0 Totals 380 82 Approved Parkway Plaza 73 0 Achromatic 6013 36 0 2625 Louisiana Ave 57 0 Terasa 26 223 45 50% 17 14 13 1 Totals 389 45 Some properties have a longer affordability term than the terms required by the inclusionary housing policy. The additional affordability period is noted below the inclusionary housing policy affordability period. * Housing tax credit (HTC) **Land use restrictive covenants (LURA) for tax credits Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 6 Page 6 2025 Housing Activity Report •Central Park West Phase 1 and Phase 2 and Luxe were not subject to the Inclusionary Housing Policy and voluntarily included affordable units •Parkway Residences, Parkway Place, Parkway Flats, Parkway Commons and Parkway Plaza were all approved under Parkway Residences and all of the affordable units are in Parkway Residences and Parkway Flats Housing Dashboard The City of St. Louis Park is committed to promoting quality multifamily development and affordable housing options for low- and moderate-income households. The multifamily housing dashboard shows the total number of rental units and the number of affordable units created since the inclusionary housing policy was adopted. Note that it does not reflect the total number of affordable rental units in the city, nor does it reflect affordable units that have been approved but have not yet been completed. The dashboard also includes a second tab, affordable housing goals, that shows the progress the city is making towards the affordable housing goals set by the Metropolitan Council. Tenant Protection Ordinance The city council adopted a Tenant Protection Ordinance in 2018 to support residents of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) properties during ownership transitions. The ordinance establishes a three-month tenant protection period following the sale of a qualifying multifamily property. During this time, if a new owner increases rents, re-screens existing tenants, or issues non-renewals without cause and a tenant chooses to move as a result, the owner is required to provide relocation assistance. NOAH properties are defined as multifamily buildings in which at least 18% of units are affordable to households earning at or below 60% of area median income (AMI), consistent with the city’s inclusionary housing policy at the time of adoption. The ordinance does not prohibit these management actions but requires relocation benefits if they occur within the protection period and result in tenant displacement. The intent of the three-month period is to provide residents with time to access housing resources and secure alternative housing if needed. New property owners are required to notify tenants of these protections within 30 days of the sale. The tenant protection period begins upon transfer of ownership and extends through the end of the third calendar month following the month in which notice is provided. A sale of a NOAH property does not necessarily result in a loss of affordability. Some properties maintain affordability through income-restricted units, while others remain naturally affordable. For example, properties sold in 2019 and 2023 included HUD project-based units that require ongoing affordability. Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 7 Page 7 2025 Housing Activity Report NOAH properties required to comply with the tenant protection ordinance based on sale date: •3 in 2019 •2 in 2020 •2 in 2021 •1 in 2022 •3 in 2023 •1 in 2024 •2 in 2025 Affordable housing trust fund (AHTF) The Minnesota Legislature passed a bill in 2017 that allows local communities to establish housing trust funds. The housing trust fund may be established by ordinance and administered by the city. The city council established a local affordable housing trust fund for St. Louis Park in 2018 and the local housing trust fund guide was approved in 2019. Housing trust funds are distinct funds established by city, county or state governments that receive ongoing dedicated sources of public funding to support the preservation and production of affordable housing. Housing trust funds can also be a repository for private donations. Money in a housing trust fund may only be used to: •make grants, loans, and loan guarantees for the development, rehabilitation or financing of housing; •match other funds from federal, state, or private resources for housing projects; or •provide down-payment assistance, rental assistance and homebuyer counseling services; •pay for administrative expenses not to exceed 10% of the balance of the fund. The city may finance the fund with any money available to a local government, unless expressly prohibited by state law. Since 2020, the primary sources of funding for the city’s trust fund is an annual budgeted allocation of HRA Levy funds and pooled tax increment for affordable housing through special legislation allowing the city to deposit unobligated tax increment into the fund. The majority of the city’s housing programs are funded by the AHTF. Land banking Land banking is the practice of aggregating parcels of land for future sale or development. The Economic Development Authority (EDA) purchased parcels near the Beltline and Wooddale stations to facilitate redevelopment, which will include housing. The EDA also purchased four single-family homes on Minnetonka Boulevard between 2018 and 2022 for affordable homeownership redevelopment purposes. Single family affordable legacy program – 60% AMI and below The single-family affordable legacy program connects potential sellers with a local land trust, Homes Within Reach, to expand and preserve affordable ownership housing in St. Louis. Since 2022, four homes have been referred to and sold directly to Homes Within Reach through the legacy program and will remain affordable homeownership opportunities in perpetuity. Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 8 Page 8 2025 Housing Activity Report 4d - 60% AMI and below St. Louis Park’s 4d affordable housing incentive program helps preserve affordable homes in the city by providing financial incentive to qualified apartment owners for state property tax reductions in exchange for dedicating 20 percent or more of their rental units affordable. The program also offers grants to help owners improve energy efficiency and make safety improvements to their properties. This program was developed and implemented in 2018 to preserve affordable housing in St. Louis Park with the first application for 4d in 2019. Enrollment year 4d tax year Number of properties Number of units 2019 2020 1 17 2023 2024 4 464 2024 2025 3 38 2025 2026 3 39 Multifamily rental rehab program - 60% AMI and below The multifamily rental rehab program provides moderate housing rehabilitation assistance to eligible owners of St. Louis Park multifamily residential rental properties with three or more units. The targeted properties are NOAH properties that are in good standing with the city, wish to make improvements to their properties and have been maintained the buildings. Buildings must be at least 30 years old and meet the St. Louis Park definition of a NOAH property. The maximum loan amount per qualified rent- restricted unit is $5,000 with a maximum loan per building/development of $100,000. Loans have 0% interest and are due upon the sale of the property. Owners are required to restrict the rents for 20-years or until the sale or transfer of the ownership of the property. Loans are forgiven after 20 years. The goal of this program is to provide a rehab incentive for NOAH properties to improve their property without raising rents above the 60% AMI rent level. Since 2022, seven loans have closed for a total of $403,446, preserving affordability in 281 units. 2.Remodeling activity Residential permitting activity measures remodeling and maintenance activity. This section shows historical trends of remodeling activity. Permit Trends •“Alteration Residential” or General Remodeling General remodeling work includes residential projects with permit valuations of less than $37,500. The average value per job in 2025 is approximately $10,000, an increase of $300 compared to 2024. Permits include a wide range of projects including remodeling of existing spaces, window and door replacement, drain tile, insulation, foundation work and more. Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 9 Page 9 2025 Housing Activity Report Chart 1: Trend of General Remodeling Permits valued under $37,500 •Roofing and Siding Activity Reroofing and residing permits are tracked separately. Almost 60% of the homes in the city had roofs replaced between 2008 and 2011 due to storm damage. Roof replacements fluctuate over the years. The number of roofing permits began rising in 2020 but decreased in 2025 compared to the most recent years. Residing has been more consistent over the last ten years. Chart 2: Reroofing and Residing Permits •Additions and Major Remodeling The number of major remodeling permits (valued at more than $37,500) and additions increased from last year. The average permit valuation for additions during 2025 is $136,250, which is approximately $51,500 less than the average permit valuation in 2023 and $3,000 less than 2024. The 2025 average valuation for major remodels is approximately $82,250, which is an increase of $6,000 from 2024. 1074 1203 1170 983 996 1044 1001 1018 811 796 766 0 500 1000 1500 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Nu m b e r o f P e r m i t s I s s u e d Year Maintenance & minor remodeling permits Alteration Residential (Minor) 80 107 163 162 296 591 590 1176 1114 421 86 62 85 63 122 205 205 156 227 143 0 500 1000 1500 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Nu m b e r o f P e r m i t s I s s u e d Year Reroofing and residing permits Reroof Reside Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 10 Page 10 2025 Housing Activity Report Chart 3: Number of Addition and Major Remodeling Permits •Permit Valuation The following chart shows historical remodeling permit valuation for additions, major remodels, remodeling and maintenance, garages/decks, reroofs and siding. Permits with additional valuations were issued for plumbing, heating and electrical work are not shown here. Chart 4: Permitted Residential Remodeling 59 49 49 63 62 38 67 40 77 82 85 104 107 93 69 75 0 40 80 120 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Nu m b e r o f P e r m i t s I s s u e d Year Addition and major remodel permit activity Addition Residential Major Remodels $25 $26 $28 $25 $31 $40 $36 $44 $38 $28 0 20 40 60 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Pe r m i t V a l u a t i o n - Mi l l i o n $ Year Residential remodeling permit valuation Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 11 Page 11 2025 Housing Activity Report City Housing Improvement Services, Loans Trends and Program Descriptions Home Improvement Services The city’s architectural design service, remodeling advisor and Home Energy Squad visits offer programs for residents who are considering remodeling or making energy improvements. The architectural design program provides a two-hour architectural consultation for residents to assist with remodeling and expansions. Residents select an approved architect from a pool developed in conjunction with the Minnesota Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. The cost to homeowners is $25 with a limit of one architectural design consultation per household. The city partners with the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) to make remodeling advisor services available to St. Louis Park homeowners. Their experienced remodeling advisors come to the home to discuss remodeling ideas at no charge. They can answer questions about renovating existing space or building an addition and contractor bids. The sustainability division administers the home energy visits. Chart 5: Architect and remodeling advisor visits The Home Energy Squad program is a comprehensive residential energy program designed to help residents save money and energy and stay comfortable in their homes. The program is administered by the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE). The city pays 50 % of the visit and the resident pays the other 50%. The program leverages funds from Xcel Energy, Center Point Energy and CEE. Free home energy visits are available to low-income households. The city’s portion of the visit costs are funded using the Climate Investment Fund. A Home Energy Squad expert evaluates energy saving opportunities and installs the energy-efficiency materials the homeowner choses including door weather stripping, water heater blanket, programmable thermostat, LED light bulbs, high efficiency shower heads and faucet aerators. They will also perform diagnostic tests including a blower door test to measure the home for air leaks, complete an insulation inspection, safety check the home’s heating system and water heater and help with next steps such as finding insulation contractors. All single family, duplex, triplex and quadplex homeowners are eligible. 31 33 39 52 47 36 18 12 11 18 76 76 83 51 45 30 37 18 14 15 0 20 40 60 80 100 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Nu m b e r o f V i s i t s Year Architect and remodeling advisor visits Architect Services Remodeling Advisor Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 12 Page 12 2025 Housing Activity Report The Home Energy Squad visit qualifies residents for CEE’s low interest financing and utility rebates and provides information regarding city loans and cost share opportunities. Chart 6: Home energy visits Construction Management Plan Major additions (second story additions or additions of 500 square feet or more), demolitions and new construction projects are required to comply with the Construction Management Plan (CMP). In 2025, the following neighborhood notifications were sent: 29 major additions, four demo/rebuilds and four new builds. The total permit valuation for CMP additions in 2025 was $4,695,850 with an average cost of $162,000. Chart 7: CMP Activity 170 109 85 130 166 128 112 216 246 294 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Nu m b e r o f V i s i t s Year Home energy squad visits 37 33 33 17 19 38 19 8 23 29 10 9 7 8 11 4 5 4 1 46 3 2 0 2 2 1 0 0 4 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 00 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025Nu m b e r o f C M P P r o j e c t s Year Construction Management Plan Activity Additions Demo/New Build New Build Demo only Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 13 Page 13 2025 Housing Activity Report Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 14 Page 14 2025 Housing Activity Report City loans and rebates The chart below summarizes activity for the Move Up Loan and Discount Loan programs. Under the Discount Loan program, the city buys down the interest rate on the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency’s Community Fix-Up Loan for loans up to $35,000. Beginning in 2020, market interest rates fell below the city’s buydown rate, eliminating the need for this assistance through 2022. The program resumed in 2023 and is administered by the Center for Energy and Environment. The Move Up Loan program was designed to encourage residents to expand their homes and remain in St. Louis Park. The program provides a deferred, 0% interest loan covering up to 25% of eligible project costs, with a maximum loan amount of $35,000. Loans are forgiven after 30 years if the homeowner remains in the property. Program utilization has varied over time and staff will continue to evaluate its effectiveness in 2026. Chart 8: Use of city financial incentives Move-Up in the Park loans are deferred until the sale of the home or forgiven after thirty years. Table 3: Move-Up Transformation Loans Paid off in the last five years Year Number of Loans Paid Off Amount of Loans 2021 4 $77,876 2022 2 $50,000 2023 5 $96,514 2024 2 $48,699 2025 2 $50,000 Total paid off $323,089 10 6 3 6 1 2 2 5 6 2 11 6 5 6 5 0 0 7 5 4 0 25 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Nu m b e r L o a n s - Re b a t e s Year Move up and discount loans Move up loans Discount loans Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 15 Page 15 2025 Housing Activity Report Table 4: Housing rehab and homeownership programs YEAR Move-Up loan Discount loan Architectural Design Services Remodeling Advisor Services Down payment assistance loan First-generation loan Total City Cost 2006 27 $591,264 88 $186,205 102 $22,950 157 $20,410 $820,829 2007 27 $620,000 50 $74,000 62 $12,400 179 $23,270 $729,670 2008 18 $330,937 55 $114,129 49 $11,025 130 $16,900 $472,991 2009 17 $329,650 52 $106,000 12 $7,200 126 $16,380 $459,230 2010 9 $209,769 64 $86,263 30 $6,750 89 $11,510 $314,292 2011 10 $226,877 22 $29,213 29 $6,525 82 $10,250 $272,865 2012* 6 $106,232 26 $31,276 29 $6,525 69 $8,970 $153,003 2013 6 $145,071 22 $33,063 37 $8,325 69 $8,970 $195,429 2014 $7662 $138,740 17 $26,079 41 $9,225 95 $12,350 $186,394 2015 7 $173,000 13 $17,577 22 $4,950 69 $15,525 $211,052 2016 10 $231,057 11 $27,001 31 $6,975 76 $17,100 $282,133 2017 6 $137,950 6 $5,907 33 $7,425 76 $17,100 $168,382 2018 3 $75,000 5 $12,904 39 $8,775 83 $18,865 $115,544 2019 6 $142,350 6 $16,577 52 $11,700 51 $11,475 8 $87,621 $269,723 2020 1 $25,000 5 $7,506 47 $10,575 45 $10,125 10 $135,428 $188,634 2021 2 $50,000 0 0 36 $8,125 30 $7,500 10 $127,900 $193,525 2022 2 $39,210 0 0 18 $4,050 37 $9,250 12 $177,590 1 $50,000 $280,100 2023 5 166,081 7 $17,842 12 $2,700 18 $4,500 22 $310,050 4 $186,125 $687,298 2024 6 $209,114 5 $21,670 11 $2,475 14 $3,500 24 $350,895 4 $211,800 $799,454 2025 2 $70,000 4 $27,913 18 $4,050 15 $3,750 34 $476,822 5 $279,587 $862,122 Total $7,662,670 Detailed descriptions of each Move-Up Program are listed at the end of the report. Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 16 Page 16 2025 Housing Activity Report 3.Affordable home ownership, Community Development Block Grants and emergency rental assistance Home ownership - down payment assistance program – 100%/115% AMI and below The down payment assistance program (DPA) provides down payment/closing cost assistance to first-time homebuyers, or those that have not owned a home in the last three years, to purchase a home in St. Louis Park. The loan is a 0% interest, deferred loan up to $15,000, not to exceed 5% of the purchase price. An additional $5,000 is available for employees of St. Louis Park businesses and St. Louis Park renters. Income restrictions apply. 34 DPA loans were closed in 2025. First generation program The first-generation homeownership program is designed to address historic injustices and inequities and to support inclusive and equitable communities by facilitating affordable homeownership and providing a means for wealth-building. To be considered for the program, a buyer must be a first-generation homeowner meaning they have never owned a home and parents must have never owned a home. The program is available to homebuyers with a maximum household income at or below 80% of area median income. The maximum loan amount is based on the household’s income and purchase price of the homes with a maximum of $75,000. The loan is forgiven at 5% per year over a 20-year owner occupancy period. Housing staff have partnered with several non-profits on the development of the program as well as outreach to first generation homeowners. These non- profits work with first-time home buyers and are also dedicated to advancing homeownership equity in Minnesota. The program was launched in November 2021 and the first loan was closed in September 2022. Four loans were closed in 2023, four loans closed in 2024 and five loans in 2025, representing a total investment of $727,512 by the city. Housing Improvement Area (HIA) The HIA is a financing tool to assist with the preservation of the city’s existing townhome and condominium housing stock. An HIA is a defined area within a city where housing improvements are made with the cost of the improvements paid in whole or in part from fees imposed on the properties within the area. The association borrows low interest money from the city, improvements are completed and unit owners repay the loan through fees imposed on their properties and collected with property tax payments. To date, nine HIAs have been established and nearly fourteen million dollars of improvements have been made to 1,310 units. Emergency Repair Grant (50% AMI) The city offers emergency repair grants for households below 50% area median income to make immediate emergency repairs such as furnace replacement, roof repair, plumbing or electrical emergencies, etc. This program is administered by Sustainable Resources Center (SRC). The emergency repair grant is funded through the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 17 Page 17 2025 Housing Activity Report Five homeowners received emergency grants in 2025. The maximum grant amount is $5,000. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) (80% AMI) The CDBG calendar year runs from July 1 – June 30. The Fiscal Year 2025 CDBG allocation of $169,216 was directed to the low-income deferred loan program administered by Hennepin County. 2025 is the last year the city will receive direct allocation CDBG funds from Hennepin County. Low-income deferred loan program Hennepin County administers the low-income deferred loan program for St. Louis Park and other suburban cities in Hennepin County. This program is a 15-year deferred loan for low- income homeowners that is forgiven after 15 years if the homeowner remains in the home. Demand for this program has continuously grown. Eight projects were completed and six loans approved in St. Louis Park in 2025 with CDBG funds. The city is adding a St. Louis Park deferred loan in 2026 using AHTF dollars. West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust, dba Homes Within Reach (HWR) (80% AMI) Homes Within Reach is a program of West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust that purchases properties, rehabilitates, and then sells the home to qualified low to moderate income households. Buyers pay for the cost of the home only and lease the land for 99 years. City funds are leveraged with CDBG, Hennepin County Affordable Housing Incentive Fund (AHIF), HOME Partnership, Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Housing and other funds. Homes Within Reach uses the community land trust model to create and preserve affordable homeownership for families in suburban Hennepin County. Four homes were purchased in 2025. To date, Homes Within Reach has purchased 31 homes in St. Louis Park. Emergency rental assistance and Social Services RFP Beginning in 2025, the City of St. Louis Park began using a competitive Request for Proposal process for social services funding which includes providing emergency rental assistance in St. Louis Park. In 2025, the St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) submitted a proposal to administer an emergency rental program for St. Louis Park residents who have an unexpected, resolvable crisis and cannot pay rent. Documentation is requested at the time of application. Priority is given to those with incomes at or below 50% AMI. STEP also receives Community Development Block Grant funds through the Hennepin County Consolidated RFP for emergency assistance. The City of St. Louis Park awarded $154,000 in funding to STEP for emergency rental assistance and $50,000 to address food insecurity through the 2025 RFP. Senior Community Services was awarded $15,000 for the HOME Chore program to provide services that support and help seniors in St. Louis Park remain living independently in their home. Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 18 Page 18 2025 Housing Activity Report 4. Housing matrix and development The housing matrix below shows the numbers and percentages of housing types, tenure (owner or rental), affordable units, senior-designated units and large single-family homes. The matrix is a guide to evaluate future housing development proposals. • 13.975 units (49% of units) in St. Louis Park have a rental license. • The chart shows percentages of rental vs. owner-occupied units over time. Prior to 2017, the chart reflects homestead versus non-homesteaded properties. Starting in 2017, the chart uses rental licenses to count the number of rental properties in St. Louis Park since not all non-homesteaded properties are rental. • 92% of single-family detached homes were owner-occupied (did not have a rental license), and 83% of condos/townhomes were owner-occupied (no rental license) • The city hired Maxfield Research to update the city’s comprehensive housing analysis. The report was completed and presented to council in 2023. Chart 9: Percentage of owner occupied units *Rental license data included beginning in 2017 Single-family rentals in St. Louis Park: A non-owner-occupied license (rental license) is required for any non-owner-occupied unit, including vacant units and properties that are not owner- occupied for at least six months per year. The city does not track the various types of licensed single-family homes and therefore does not have data on how many of the properties are occupied versus vacant homes, or properties in which the homeowner does not occupy the home for at least six months. In 2025, there were 932 single-family rental licenses in St. Louis Park including 37 single-family public housing units owned and operated by the St. Louis Park Housing Authority. Over the past ten years, the number of single-family non-owner-occupied licenses has fluctuated between 89 93 94 94 93 93 93 93 92 92 67 78 79 81 83 80 82 82 83 83 0 50 100 2016 2017*2018*2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Pe r c e n t a g e YEAR Percent owner occupied (no rental license) Single Family Detached Homes Condos & Townhomes Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 19 Page 19 2025 Housing Activity Report 814 and 936 as shown in the chart below. Staff monitor the single-family rental license trends in St. Louis Park annually. Chart 10: Single-family non-owner-occupied licenses Family-size single-family homes “Family-size single-family homes” are defined as exceeding 1,500 square feet of living space, having three or more bedrooms, two or more baths, and at minimum, a two-car garage. According to the Assessing Department, 2,552 – or 22% – of St. Louis Park single family homes meet this threshold. This is an increase of 19 homes over last year, most likely due to additions, demo/rebuilds and remodels. Although this size home is not considered large when compared to newly constructed housing, in St. Louis Park, 74% of single-family homes have a foundation size less than 1,200 square feet and 45% of single-family homes have less than 1,200 square feet above ground. Senior housing The following information provides an overview of senior housing is available in St. Louis Park: •Ten senior (including senior preference) housing rental developments, for a total of 1,200 units. •Hamilton House offers a preference for seniors, but not all residents are seniors. •Three senior housing developments are “affordable.” Hamilton House (public housing), Menorah West and Menorah Plaza (multi-family subsidized). •Two senior housing developments have a mix of market rate and affordable units. The Elmwood has 17 affordable housing units and Risor has 18 affordable units. These affordable units are required by the inclusionary housing policy. •Two senior ownership developments, for a total of 166 units. •Total rental and home ownership units: 1,366. 899 855 850 814 828 871 849 900 936 932 740 760 780 800 820 840 860 880 900 920 940 960 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Single-family non-owner occupied licenses Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 20 Page 20 2025 Housing Activity Report Table 5: Senior housing table RENTAL Project name Address Total units Affordable units Occupied Date Type of Senior Hamilton House 2400 Nevada Ave S 110 110 1976 Public Housing (Senior Preference) Menorah West Apartments 3600 Phillips Parkway 45 1986 Affordable/Subsidized Menorah Plaza 4925 Minnetonka Blvd 151 1981 Affordable/Subsidized, Assisted Living Offered Parkshore Place 3663 Park Center Blvd 207 1988 Senior Knollwood Place 3630 Phillips Parkway 153 1987 Senior TowerLight 3601 Wooddale Ave 43 29 33 2012 Senior Assisted Living Memory Care Roitenberg Family 3610 Phillips Parkway 52/24 2002 Assisted Living Memory Care Parkwood Shores 3633 Park Center Blvd 68 23 2001 Assisted Living Memory Care Comfort Residence at St. Louis Park 7115 Wayzata Blvd 12 10 2014 Assisted Living Memory Care The Elmwood 5605 W 36th St 70 17 2021 53 market rate/ 17 affordable @ 60% AMI Risor 3510 Beltline Blvd 170 18 2023 152 market rate/18 affordable @ 50% AMI TOTAL RENTAL UNITS: 1200 145 affordable rental units HOME OWNERSHIP Project name Address No. of Units Occupied Date Type of Senior Aquila Commons 8200 W 33rd St 106 2012 Coop Village in the Park 3600 Wooddale 60 2007 Senior Living TOTAL OWNER UNITS 166 Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 21 Page 21 2025 Housing Activity Report Affordable Housing The Metropolitan Council sets the rental affordability limit at 60% area median income (AMI) and 80% AMI for ownership affordability. Below is a chart showing the number of market-rate affordable (naturally occurring affordable housing) multifamily rental units in St. Louis Park with affordable levels from 30% AMI to 80% AMI based on the Maxfield Research update from 2023. Program participants with a St. Louis Park Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) can utilize vouchers in market-rate rentals reducing the rents to 30 – 40% of a voucher holder’s income. The average HCV client’s income is below 30% AMI. The following information is an excerpt of the 2023 Maxfield Research Housing Study for the City of St. Louis Park. The city updates the housing study approximately every five years. Among the 8,101 market rate units inventoried by unit mix and monthly rent, 26.4% are affordable to households with incomes at 50% AMI while 24.5% are affordable to households with incomes at 60% AMI. Table 6: Multifamily market-rate rental units by AMI Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 22 Page 22 2025 Housing Activity Report Chart 11: 2023 Maxfield report - Naturally occurring affordable housing by AMI Source: Maxfield research & Consulting LLC Affordable housing rental projects The multifamily housing dashboard shows the total number of rental units and the number of affordable units created since the inclusionary housing policy was adopted. Affordable homeownership •The 2025 affordable ownership purchase price is $306,500, which is the affordable homeownership purchase price for households at 80% AMI ($97,800). The affordable purchase price at 80% AMI increased by $16,300 over the previous year. The matrix also shows the data for single-family homes, condos and townhomes valued at $225,300 or less, which is the 60% AMI affordable ownership purchase price, and is an increase in purchase price of $7,900. •In 2025, 4,384 (29%) of the single-family homes, condos and townhomes in St. Louis Park were considered affordable at or below 80% AMI based on valuation data from assessing compared to 3,957 in 2024. The Metropolitan Council used the following assumptions in determining the affordable ownership price in 2025: o Fixed-interest, 30-year home loan o Interest rate of 6.25% o A 28% housing debt-to-household income ratio Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 23 Page 23 2025 Housing Activity Report o A 3.5% down payment o A property tax rate of 1.00% of the property sales price o Mortgage insurance at 0.55% of unpaid principal o $219/month for hazard insurance (Remainder of page intentionally blank) Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 24 Page 24 2025 Housing Activity Report Table 7: St. Louis Park Housing Matrix December 31, 2025 Housing Units by Type Large Single Family Homes, Affordable, and Senior Housing Housing Type Housing Units Owner Occupied (No Rental License) Rental Licenses Family sized single family homes over 1500 square feet Affordable ownership: SF, Condo and TH Units 60% | 80% 2023 Maxfield Research Affordable Market Rate (NOAH) Rental Units 60% | 80% Rent restricted units *Does not include tenant based vouchers Senior Designated Single Family Detached 11,607 43% 10,675 932 2,552 160 1548 37 public housing Duplex 436 2% 80 356 Condos and townhomes 3,563 13% 2,974 589 1712 2,836 166 Apartments 11,198 42% 11,198 4153 6603 1,073 1200 Totals 26,804 13,731 51% 13,075 49% 2,552 22% 1872 12% 4384 29% 4153 51% 6603 81.% 1,110 8% 1366 5% % of SF Homes % of SF, Condo & TH % of Multifamily surveyed % of Rental % of Total Housing Units The rental unit numbers are rental license data provided by the building and energy department. The percentage of owner occupied (no rental license) units to rental (units with a rental license) units is 52% owner (no rental license) and 48% of units with a rental license. Met Council revises the affordable housing income standards annually and affordability is defined as owner occupied units at 80% AMI and rental units at 60% AMI. Some years 80% AMI rental units have also been considered affordable. This chart shows all single family homes, condos and townhomes with an assessed value based on 60% and 80% AMI. The chart also shows multifamily rental units affordable at 60% AMI and 80% AMI based on Maxfield Research data. The percentage of affordable units for multifamily is based on the percentage of multifamily units surveyed by Maxfield Research in 2023. More data is on the previous page related to affordable rents based on the number of bedrooms in a unit. Rent restricted units include project based vouchers, public housing and inclusionary housing units. This does not include the tenant ba sed Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8), Kids in the Park, or Stable HOME vouchers which are not tied to a specific unit. Data source: St. Louis Building and Energy and Assessing departments, St. Louis Park Housing Authority and Maxfield Research & Consulting. Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 25 Page 25 2025 Housing Activity Report 5.Foreclosures Foreclosures are measured by the number of sheriff sales. The number of residential foreclosures in St. Louis Park remains low with 11 foreclosures in 2025. Chart 12: St. Louis Park residential foreclosures by year The trend chart below shows foreclosure by housing type over time. Chart 13: Residential foreclosures by housing type *Townhome & DB = Townhome and Double Bungalow/Duplex 31 36 19 15 4 4 7 11 13 11 0 40 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Nu m b e r o f f o r e c l o s u r e s Year Residential foreclosures by year 21 25 16 11 3 2 6 6 11 2 6 9 2 4 1 1 1 3 2 8 4 2 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 10 50 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Nu m b e r o f f o r e c l o s u r e s Year Residential foreclosures by housing type Single Family Detached Condos Townhome & DB Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 26 Page 26 2025 Housing Activity Report 6.Housing Authority and rental assistance programs The St. Louis Park Housing Authority (HA) administers programs that ensure the availability of safe and desirable affordable housing options in the St. Louis Park community. These programs include the Public Housing program, Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance program, the family self-sufficiency program, Stable HOME, Kids in the Park and Bring it Home programs. The HA currently serves over 615 eligible, low-income households through their housing programs. Public Housing Restricted to households at or below 80% AMI. However, the majority of public housing residents have incomes below 50% AMI, with a significant number below 30% AMI. The Housing Authority (HA) owns Hamilton House, a low-rise apartment building (108 one- bedroom units and two two-bedroom units) built in 1975, and 37 scattered site single-family units (three to five bedrooms) acquired or constructed between 1974 and 1996. Hamilton House is designated for general occupancy, however, priority is given to elderly and disabled applicants. The single-family scattered site units house families with children. The HA also holds the HUD Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) and maintains a waiting list for 12 two-bedroom Public Housing apartment units located at Louisiana Court. The average annual income for households at Hamilton House is $16,680 which is below 30% AMI. The average income for the scattered site single-family homes (three to five bedrooms) is $45,799 and average income for the 12 Louisiana Court public housing two-bedroom units is $20,480. Table 8: Percentage of public housing units by AMI 30% AMI 31 - 50% AMI 51-80% AMI 81%+ AMI 77% 19% 3% 1% Public housing residents pay 30% of their income towards rent. If a household’s income rises above the limit, on the second anniversary of exceeding the HUD over-income limit (120% AMI), households are given notice that they are no longer eligible for public housing and need to move on from the program. Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 27 Page 27 2025 Housing Activity Report Table 9: Public Housing Public Housing Total Units 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR 5-BR Hamilton House 110 108 2 Scattered Site Single Family 37 17 17 3 Louisiana Court, Metropolitan Housing Opportunity (MHOP) Units 12 12 Total (bedroom size) 108 14 17 17 3 Total Units 159 Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) – 50% AMI The HA has an allocation of 381 Housing Choice Vouchers plus 25 Mainstream vouchers for a total allocation of 406 vouchers from HUD. This rent assistance program provides rent subsidies for low-income individuals and families in privately owned, existing market rate housing units. The rent subsidy is paid directly to the owner of the rental property by the Housing Authority (HA) with funds provided by HUD. The HA administers tenant-based, project-based and newly awarded special program vouchers as noted below. 46 vouchers of the HA’s allocation are designated for use in three privately owned developments (Vail Place, Wayside and Bickham Court) and are referred to as project-based vouchers. The average income of voucher holder households in St. Louis Park is $20, 256 which is below 30% AMI. HCV participants pay at least 30% of their income towards rent and can choose to pay up to 40%. Despite the number of HCV units allocated to a Housing Authority by HUD, HAs are limited in the number of vouchers that can be administered by the annual funding allocated by HUD. Family Unification Vouchers (FUP) The HA has an allocation of 27 FUP vouchers. FUP is a program in which Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) are provided in order to lease decent, safe and sanitary housing in the private housing market to: • Families for whom the lack of adequate housing is a primary factor in either: the imminent placement of the family’s child(ren) in out of home care or the delay in the discharge of the child(ren) to the family from out of home care. There is no time limitation on family FUP vouchers, or • Youth who are at least 18 years and not more than 24 years old who: left foster care at age 16 or older or will leave foster care within 90 days and are homeless or at risk of homelessness. FUP vouchers used by youth were previously limited by statute to 36 months of housing assistance. The CARES Act has changed the limit to 60 months. The HA is partnering with Hennepin County on this program. In 2025, 27 families were served by the FUP program. 25 FUP vouchers were utilized as of Dec. 31, 2025. Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 28 Page 28 2025 Housing Activity Report Foster Youth to Independence (FYI) The Foster Youth to Independence (FYI) initiative allows Housing Authorities who partner with a Public Child Welfare Agency (PCWA) to request targeted Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) to serve eligible youth with a history of child welfare involvement that are homeless or at risk of being homeless. Rental assistance and supportive services are provided to qualified youth for a period of up to 36 months. As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act in 2021 the Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities (FSHO) amendment allows housing authorities to provide youth with an extension up to 24 months if they meet one of the statutory requirements, this extension allows the youth 60 months total on the FYI program. Statutory requirements include one of the following: participation in a Family Self Sufficiency Program, or youth who are required to care for a dependent child under age six or an incapacitated person, or are participating in drug or alcohol treatment, or are enrolled in an institution of higher education, or are participating in a job training program or are employed. Hennepin County partners with the HA in the administration of the FYI program. The HA administers the rental assistance vouchers for the participants, while the county is responsible for engaging service agencies to provide the required support services. The regulations overseeing the issuance and administration of the FYI rental vouchers are the same as those for Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) with the exception of the 36-month limit on assistance, with extensions up to 24 months for eligible activities. HUD is the funding source for both the housing assistance and the administration fees for the program, similar to the HCV program. As of Dec. 31, 2025, housing authority has a total of 24 FYI vouchers and 24 of them are leased up. Mainstream The HA has an allocation of 25 Mainstream vouchers. These Mainstream vouchers provide vouchers to assist non-elderly persons with disabilities who are transitioning out of institutional or other segregated settings, at serious risk of institutionalization, at serious risk of homelessness or are experiencing homelessness. It was designed to further to the goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by helping persons with disabilities live in the most integrated setting. Families or individuals with a Mainstream voucher must have a household member at least 18 years of age and less than 62 years of age with a disability at the time of eligibility determination. In 2025, 25 mainstream vouchers were utilized. Lou Park Apartments Lou Park is an apartment complex in St. Louis Park owned and managed by Bigos Management. Bigos notified tenants that in 2018 they would be completing a contract transfer of their 32 project-based units to another property. As of July 1, 2019, tenants were eligible to request to move to the new property or remain at Lou Park using an enhanced voucher administered by the St. Louis Park Housing Authority. This added 32 additional vouchers to the Housing Authority’s allocation. Initially, 31 tenants chose to utilize the tenant protection voucher at Lou Park. As of Dec. 31, 2025, 19 tenants remained at Lou Park and the remainder have chosen to use their voucher to move to a different complex. Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 29 Page 29 2025 Housing Activity Report Bickham Court In 2024, the former owner, Perspectives, Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and was required to sell the property as part of the bankruptcy proceedings. Trellis Co. purchased the five buildings and maintained all affordable restrictions. Trellis partnered with Missions as their provider of supportive services. Missions is a nonprofit organization who provides housing, emergency shelter and supportive services to domestic abuse survivors and those seeking recovery from substance use disorders. In September 2024, Trellis named the property Bickham Court after George Bickham, a teacher and mentor at Perspectives for 22 years. He passed away in January 2022 at the age of 46. The St. Louis Park Housing Authority Board approved the assignment of the project-based contract with Perspectives to Trellis in July 2024 for 22 project-based units and a 20-year project-based contract extension at the September 2024 board meeting. Since taking over the property in 2024, Trellis has made significant improvements to the property and has plans in place for additional work in 2026 using over $8 million in funding awarded by Minnesota Housing in late 2024. Wayside The Housing Authority (HA) has provided project-based vouchers (PBV) to Wayside House properties located at 1341 and 1349 Jersey Avenue South since 2023. Wayside provides supportive housing and programming for women in recovery. Wayside currently has 16 project- based vouchers and they self-subsidize rents on four of their units. Table 10: HCV Lease-Up Report HCV (and special purpose voucher) Lease Up Report as of December 31, 2025 Utilized (leased and vouchers issued) Allocated Housing Choice Voucher 252 250 Project Based Vouchers (PBV) 36 36 Family Unification Program (FUP) *including 7 project- based vouchers 25 27 Lou Park (tenant protection vouchers) 19 19 Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) 22 25 Foster Youth to Independence (FYI) 24 24 Mainstream *including 3 project-based vouchers 23 25 Total (99% utilized) 401 406 Port Ins 22 NA Approximately 330 of the leased vouchers are leased up in St. Louis Park. The remaining vouchers are leased in other communities through the portability option with the HCV program. There are 22 “port ins” as shown in the chart above, which are voucher holders living in St. Louis Park but their voucher belongs to a different Housing Authority. Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 30 Page 30 2025 Housing Activity Report Stable HOME Rental Assistance Program – 50% AMI – federal/county funded The Stable HOME program provides rent assistance to low-income singles and families who were homeless or would otherwise be at risk of homelessness. Rent assistance is limited to three years. During the three years, participants must establish good rental histories. They must also work to improve their earnings enough to where they do not need rental assistance or find a permanent subsidy program. The Stable Home program is administered by the Housing Authority, but participants are free to choose a rental unit anywhere in Hennepin County except Minneapolis. Participants are referred to the program by Hennepin County. This program is funded with federal HOME funds allocated to the county. With a program size of 45 vouchers limited to three years of rental assistance, 57 families throughout suburban Hennepin County were served by this program in 2025. Kids in the Park Rent Assistance Program – 50% AMI – city funded Kids in the Park provides rent assistance to households with school-age children for up to four years. Participants receive a flat, monthly rental assistance subsidy that decreases annually over the four-year period. Eligible households must have an income at or below 50% of the area median income, a child attending school in St. Louis Park, one parent or guardian that works a minimum of 28 hours per week, live in rental housing in St. Louis Park and comply with their lease. Families with disabled and elderly heads of household do not need to comply with the work requirement. The program was developed in partnership with the St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) and the St. Louis Park School District. The Kids in the Park program began serving 9 families in December 2017. Funding was increased for 2018 to serve 14, 2019 served 17 families and in 2020 that number increased to 20 families. In 2023 funding was increased so that 30 families were able to be served by Kids in the Park. The Kids in the Park program was again fully utilized in 2025. Bring It Home (BIH) – 30% AMI - state funded Bring It Home (BIH) is a state program authorized by the legislature in 2023 to create rental assistance opportunities for low-income families across Minnesota. Funded by state appropriations and a metro sales tax for housing, the program provides grants to program administrators who will administer the program as direct assistance for renter households. The HA is a BIH program administrator. By statute, the HA must prioritize households with children and household income up to 30% AMI. Minnesota Housing, the state agency responsible for oversight of delivery of the BIH program across Minnesota, requested responses to a Request For Proposals in February 2025. In April 2025, the HA submitted a response to the RFP; for ease of administration, the HA proposed a program that will closely mirror the HCV program, with several modifications intended to create efficiency while continuing to provide high quality programming and service to which the community is accustomed. The BIH program will give priority to families at 30% AMI, with children aged 18 and younger in the household and a residency preference (lives, works or goes to school in St. Louis Park). Additional preferences include: elderly, near elderly or disabled, veterans’ preference and intent to lease in place. BIH vouchers awarded to the HA can only be used in St. Louis Park. Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 31 Page 31 2025 Housing Activity Report In August 2025, staff were notified that the BIH RFP was awarded $31,700 for program startup costs, $1,199,664 for rental assistance and $147,292 in admin costs which will serve approximately 52 families over two years. After completion of the due diligence process in place by Minnesota Housing, a contract was executed Dec. 12, 2025 and staff began implementation of the BIH program. Special study session meeting of April 6, 2026 (Item No. 4) Title: Housing Activity Report Page 32