The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2026/05/04 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA MAY 4, 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 April 6, 2026 4. Consent items. a.Approve EDA disbursements b.Resolution approving sub-grant agreement related to Tax Base Revitalization Account grant for Beltline Station development - Ward 1 c.Resolution approving transfer of 4300 36 1/2 Street from the EDA to the city - 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.Present 2025 Human Rights Award b.Proclamation observing National Small Business Week c.Proclamation observing Bike Month d.Proclamation observing Asian American, Pacific Islander and Native Hawaiian Heritage Month e.Proclamation observing American Indian/Native American Heritage Month f.Proclamation observing Jewish American Heritage Month g.Proclamation observing Military Appreciation Month 4.Minutes. a.Study session meeting minutes of April 13, 2026 b.City council meeting minutes of April 20, 2026 c.Special study session meeting minutes of April 20, 2026 5.Consent items. a.Approve city disbursements b.Resolution accepting donations to the city to support parks and recreation department programs c.Resolution authorizing elected official representation on external boards, committees and organizations d.Approve Planning Commission/BOZA workplan addition Agenda EDA, city council and special study session meetings of May 4, 2026 e.Resolution accepting local climate action grant award from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency f.Approve bid for 2026 Pavement Management project (4026-1000) - Ward 1 g.Resolution authorizing an advance of Municipal State Aid funds - Ward 4 h.Resolution approving sub-grant agreement related to DEED grant for the Beltline Station development - Ward 1 i.Resolution accepting transfer of 4300 36 1/2 Street from the EDA to the city - Ward 2 j.Resolution approving purchase agreement for 4300 36 1/2 Street - Ward 2 k.Approve temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license - The Slavic Experience Members of the public can attend St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and city council meetings in person. At regular city council meetings, members of the public may comment on any item on the agenda by attending the meeting in-person or by submitting written comments to info@stlouisparkmn.gov by noon the day of the meeting. Official minutes of meetings are available on the city website once approved. Watch St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority or regular city council meetings live at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil or at www.parktv.org, or on local cable (Comcast SD channel 14/HD channel 798). Recordings of the meetings are available to watch on the city's YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/@slpcable, usually within 24 hours of the meeting’s end. City council study sessions are not broadcast. Generally, it is not council practice to receive public comment during study sessions. The council chambers are equipped with Hearing Loop equipment and headsets are available to borrow. If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952.924.2505. Following city council meeting – Special study session – Community Room Discussion items 1. Police department strategic planning report from The Axtell Group 2. Consider proposed study session topic: council ambassador program for advisory boards and commissions Written report 3. Fiscal year 2026 Q1 budget to actuals 6.Public hearing. a.Public hearing for Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) - Wards 1 & 3 7.Regular business – none. 8.Communications and announcements – none. 9.Adjournment. Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Minutes: 3a Unofficial minutes EDA meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota April 6, 2026 1. Call to order President Farris called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. a. Roll call. Commissioners present: Daniel Bashore, Jim Engelking, Sue Budd, Nadia Mohamed, Tim Brausen, Paul Baudhuin, President Yolanda Farris Commissioners absent: none Staff present: city manager (Ms. Keller), city attorney (Mr. Mattick), community engagement coordinator (Mr. Coleman), administrative services director (Ms. Brodeen), facilities superintendent (Mr. Eisold), deputy engineering director (Mr. Sullivan), deputy community development director (Mr. Walther), parks and recreation director (Mr. West) 2. Approve agenda. It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Mohamed, to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 3. Minutes. a. EDA meeting minutes of March 23, 2026 It was moved by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Brausen, to approve the EDA meeting minutes of March 23, 2026, as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 4. Consent items. a. Approve EDA disbursements b. EDA Resolution No. 26-09 authorizing application for the Met Council Livable Communities grant for Beltline Boulevard Redevelopment project - Ward 1 c. EDA Resolution No. 26-10 authorizing application for the Met Council Livable Communities grant for Wooddale Station Redevelopment project - Ward 2 d. EDA Resolution No. 26-11 authorizing application for a Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund grant for Wooddale Station Redevelopment project - Ward 2 Economic development authority meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: Meeting minutes of April 6, 2026 It was moved by Commissioner Baudhuin, seconded by Commissioner Brausen, to approve the consent items as listed and to waive reading of all resolutions. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Public hearings – none. 6. Regular business – none. 7. Communications and announcements – none. 8. Adjournment. The EDA meeting adjourned at 6:09 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: May 4, 2026 Consent agenda item: 4a Executive summary Title: Approve EDA disbursements Recommended action: Motion to approve EDA disbursement claims for the period of March 31 through April 28, 2026. Policy consideration: Does the EDA approve the disbursements listed for the period ending April 28, 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: Tiffany Stephens, interim deputy finance director Approved by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director PAYEE NAME BUSINESS UNIT OBJECT ACCOUNT Total BLUDOT TECHNOLOGIES LLC Development - EDA G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 6016 BELTLINE MIXED USE LLC Total 6016 CAMPBELL KNUTSON,P.A.EDA - 4300 36 1/2 G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 614.03 CAMPBELL KNUTSON,P.A. Total 614.03 CENTERPOINT ENERGY Heating Gas Utility EDA - 4300 36 1/2 G&A 958.05 CENTERPOINT ENERGY Total 958.05 CORPORATE MECHANICAL Repairs and Maintenance EDA - 4300 36 1/2 G&A 3497 CORPORATE MECHANICAL Total 3497 HKGI Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv Development - EDA G&A 7472.5 HKGI Total 7472.5 J.P SCHMITZ CONSTRUCTION CO LLC Repairs and Maintenance EDA - 4300 36 1/2 G&A 8000 J.P SCHMITZ CONSTRUCTION CO LLC Total 8000 KUTAK ROCK LLP 1248.5 KUTAK ROCK LLP Total 1248.5 NELSON DEAN PORTER Employee Mileage Reimbursement Development - EDA G&A 78.44 NELSON DEAN PORTER Total 78.44 PARTNERSHIP IN PROPERTY COMMERCIAL LAND Other Government Pass Through Development - EDA G&A 18352.4 PARTNERSHIP IN PROPERTY COMMERCIAL LAND Total 18352.4 PPL UNION PARK FLATS COMMUNITY LIMITED 5098.77 PPL UNION PARK FLATS COMMUNITY LIMITED Total 5098.77 XCEL ENERGY 251.4 XCEL ENERGY Total 251.4 Grand Total 51587.09 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK EDA Payment Summary 3/31/26 - 4/28/26 Economic Development Authority meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approve EDA disbursements Page 2 Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Consent agenda item: 4b Executive summary Title: Resolution approving sub-grant agreement related to Tax Base Revitalization Account grant for Beltline Station development - Ward 1 Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving a sub-grant agreement between the EDA and Beltline Mixed Use LLC, an affiliate of Sherman Associates. Policy consideration: Does the Economic Development Authority (EDA) support the proposed sub-grant agreement with developer which formalizes the respective parties’ obligations relative to the Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA) cleanup grant award? Summary: Sherman Associates, through its affiliated companies including developer, is currently redeveloping a 6.6 acre site at the southeast corner of CSAH 25 and Beltline Boulevard, and immediately north of the Beltline Boulevard station of the Metro Green Line extension. The development includes 380 housing units, of which 82 are affordable, approximately 21,000 square feet of commercial space, and a parking ramp which includes 268 park and ride stalls for Green Line riders. On Oct. 20, 2025, the EDA authorized an application to the Metropolitan Council for TBRA cleanup funds, and authorized future acceptance of grant funds, if received. The EDA was awarded $342,500 of TBRA funds in January 2026 and entered into a grant agreement with the Metropolitan Council in March 2026. Per the EDA’s grant agreement with the Metropolitan Council, the grant award is to be used for eligible environmental cleanup expenses. The sub- grantee agreement with the redeveloper formalizes the terms for the distribution of the grant funds. The EDA’s legal counsel drafted the proposed agreement and recommends its approval. Financial or budget considerations: The TBRA grant award is $342,500. Funds will be provided to the developer on a reimbursement basis, after expenses have been incurred by the project, and after the EDA has been reimbursed by the Metropolitan Council for eligible expenses. The EDA serves as the conduit for the grant funds. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing safe, reliable and well- maintained infrastructure and neighborhoods that connect people and places with an emphasis on walking, biking and transit. Supporting documents: EDA resolution Prepared by: Dean Porter-Nelson, redevelopment administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, deputy community development director Karen Barton, community development director and EDA executive director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Economic development authority meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Title: Resolution approving sub-grant agreement related to Tax Base Revitalization Account grant for Beltline Station development - Ward 1 EDA Resolution No. 26-_______ Approving a sub-grant agreement with Beltline Mixed Use LLC for a Tax Base Revitalization Account Contamination Cleanup Grant from the Metropolitan Council Whereas, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “authority”) and Beltline Mixed Use LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “developer”), have entered into an amended and restated contract for private development, dated May 19, 2025, as amended by the first amendment to contract for private development, dated Jan. 20, 2026 (the “development agreement”), pursuant to which the developer agreed to construct a multi-phase mixed-use development on certain property in the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “city”), including market rate housing, commercial space, and a parking (the “minimum improvements”); and Whereas, in connection with the minimum improvements, the authority applied for, on behalf of the developer, and secured a Tax Base Revitalization Account Contamination Cleanup Grant (Grant No. SG-25454) in an amount not to exceed $342,500 (the “TBRA grant”) from the Metropolitan Council (the “Metropolitan Council”) to finance grant-eligible clean-up activities (the “TBRA grant-eligible activities”) described in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Grant Agreement (the “grant agreement”) between the Metropolitan Council and the authority; and Whereas, the authority intends to distribute proceeds of the TBRA grant to the developer to reimburse the developer for expenditures related to the TBRA grant-eligible activities; and Whereas, there has been presented to the board of commissioners of the authority (the “board”) a form of a sub-grant agreement (TBRA grant) (the “sub-grant agreement”) between the authority and the developer, which sets forth the terms under which the authority will disburse proceeds of the TBRA grant to the developer, as sub-grantee, for the TBRA grant- eligible activities to be completed by the developer thereunder; and Now therefore be it resolved by the board of commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority as follows: 1. The board approves the sub-grant agreement in substantially the form presented to the board, together with any related documents necessary in connection therewith, including without limitation all documents, exhibits, certifications, or consents, referenced in or attached to the grant agreement or the sub-grant agreement (the “documents”). 2. The board hereby authorizes the president and executive director, in their discretion and at such time, if any, as they may deem appropriate, to execute the documents on behalf of the authority, and to carry out, on behalf of the authority, the authority’s Economic development authority meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 4b) Page 3 Title: Resolution approving sub-grant agreement related to Tax Base Revitalization Account grant for Beltline Station development - Ward 1 obligations thereunder when all conditions precedent thereto have been satisfied. The documents shall be in substantially the form on file with the authority and the approval hereby given to the documents includes approval of such additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by legal counsel to the authority and by the officers authorized herein to execute said documents prior to their execution; and said officers are hereby authorized to approve said changes on behalf of the authority. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officers of the authority herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such document in accordance with the terms hereof. This resolution shall not constitute an offer and the documents shall not be effective until the date of execution thereof as provided herein. 3. Be it further resolved that the authority to approve, execute and deliver future amendments to the sub-grant agreement entered into by the authority is hereby delegated to the President and Executive Director, subject to the following conditions: (a) the proposed amendments extend deadlines, amend the project budget or 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. 4. In the event of absence or disability of the officers, any of the documents authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed without further act or authorization of the board by any duly designated acting official, or by such other officer or officers of the board as, in the opinion of the city attorney, may act in their behalf. Upon execution and delivery of the documents, the officers and employees of the board are hereby authorized and directed to take or cause to be taken such actions as may be necessary on behalf of the board to implement the documents. 5. This resolution shall be effective upon approval. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority May 4, 2026: Karen Barton, executive director Yolanda Farris, president Attest: Melissa Kennedy, secretary Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Consent agenda item: 4c Executive summary Title: Resolution approving transfer of 4300 36 ½ Street from the EDA to the city – Ward 2 Recommended action: Motion to approve a purchase agreement related to the transfer of 4300 36 ½ Street from the Economic Development Authority (EDA) to the City of St. Louis Park. Policy consideration: Does the EDA wish to transfer the EDA-owned property at 4300 36 ½ Street to the City of St. Louis Park in order to sell the property to a potential buyer? Summary: The EDA acquired 4300 36 ½ Street in 2022 for $1.79 million to create a commercial land trust with Partnership in Property Community Land Trust (PIPCLT). At the Oct. 6, 2025 study session (agenda, minutes) city council determined the commercial land trust was no longer feasible and expressed its desire to sell the property. The city attorney recommends transferring the EDA-owned property to the City of St. Louis Park prior to selling since the land sale does not have any long-term redevelopment goals or reporting requirements. It is recommended this transfer occurs when the city enters into a formal purchase agreement with a buyer. The city council will also be asked to consider approving a purchase agreement for 4300 36 ½ Street on May 4, 2026. Financial or budget considerations: The property was originally acquired with funds from the city’s development fund and a $380,000 grant from Hennepin County. The grant will need to be repaid upon sale in order to release a restrictive affordable commercial covenant that was placed on the property related to the grant award. Any remaining sale proceeds will be returned to the development fund. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being an inclusive, equitable and vibrant city where everyone feels safe and experiences a strong sense of belonging. Supporting documents: Map, EDA resolution Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, planning and economic development manager Dean Porter-Nelson, redevelopment administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, deputy community development director Karen Barton, community development director, EDA executive director Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager Economic development authority meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Title: Resolution approving transfer of 4300 36 ½ Street from the EDA to the city – Ward 2 Economic development authority meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 4c) Page 3 Title: Resolution approving transfer of 4300 36 ½ Street from the EDA to the city – Ward 2 EDA Resolution No. 26 - ___ Authorizing conveyance of real property to the City of St. Louis Park Whereas, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“authority”) is the fee owner of real property located in the City of St. Louis Park, county of Hennepin, state of Minnesota, which is legally described as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto (collectively, the “property”); and Whereas, the authority has determined that the property is no longer needed to further the mission and goals of the authority; and Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park (“city”) has received an offer from a private party to purchase the property, contingent upon the city acquiring the property from the authority; and Whereas, the authority is willing to convey the property to the city pursuant to the terms and conditions of the purchase agreement; and Whereas, Minn. Stat. § 465.035 permits the authority to convey the property to the city for no or nominal consideration, upon terms as agreed by the parties; and Whereas, Minn. Stat. § 471.64, subd. 1, permits the Authority to enter a contract to convey the property to the city without regard to statutory or charter provisions, including the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 462.356, subd. 2 and 469.105; and Whereas, the authority originally acquired the property with grant funds from Hennepin County, and, pursuant to the grant and a declaration of restrictive covenants on the property, the amount of $380,000.00 will required to be paid to Hennepin County unless the property is sold to a qualifying buyer, Now therefore be it resolved by the board of commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, that: 1. The purchase agreement is hereby approved. 2. The authority president and authority executive director are hereby authorized to execute the quit claim deeds and any other documents necessary for the conveyance of the property to the City of St. Louis Park. 3. The resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Economic development authority meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 4c) Page 4 Title: Resolution approving transfer of 4300 36 ½ Street from the EDA to the city – Ward 2 Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority May 4, 2026: Karen Barton, executive director Yolanda Farris, president Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Economic development authority meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 4c) Page 5 Title: Resolution approving transfer of 4300 36 ½ Street from the EDA to the city – Ward 2 Exhibit A Legal Description of the Properties The South 177 feet of the North 357 feet of the East 127 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Meeting: City council Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Presentation: 3a Executive summary Title: Present 2025 Human Rights Award Recommended action: No formal action is requested. The city council is invited to join the Human Rights Commission in acknowledging the Parent Teacher Organizations (PTOs) of the St. Louis Park school district as the recipients of the 2025 Human Rights Award. Policy consideration: None at this time. Summary: The Human Rights Award honors individuals, groups, organizations or businesses that have made significant contributions to fostering understanding and cooperation among people from diverse backgrounds in St. Louis Park. This award celebrates those who have actively worked to advance human rights and justice within the city. Many commendable nominations were received this year and the Human Rights Commission (HRC) has selected a winner for 2025. The HRC recognizes the following PTO organizations from the St. Louis Parks Public Schools for their work in promoting human rights, justice, equity and inclusion in St. Louis Park: • Aquilla Elementary School PTO • Susan Lindgren Elementary School PTO • Peter Hobart Elementary School PTO • Park Spanish Immersion Elementary School • St. Louis Park Middle School Site Council The St. Louis Park HRC is honored to celebrate these recipients as the 2025 Human Rights Award honorees. Chair Isabel Anderson and vice chair Andrea Alvarez will present the award to this year’s winners. Financial or budget considerations: None at this time. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being an inclusive, equitable and vibrant city where everyone feels safe and experiences a strong sense of belonging. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Pat Coleman, community engagement coordinator Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: Present 2025 Human Rights Award Discussion Background: The Human Rights Award recognizes individuals, groups, organizations or businesses that have made an outstanding contribution toward uplifting human rights, justice, equity and inclusion in the community, and seeks out those who have fostered increased understanding and cooperation between people of different backgrounds in St. Louis Park. The Human Rights Commission received multiple outstanding nominations for the 2025 award. After much discussion and consideration, the HRC would like to recognize the winner. Present considerations: During Operation Metro Surge, the PTOs across St. Louis Park’s elementary and middle school played an essential role in supporting immigrant students and their families. As fear kept many families from appearing in public—including attending school—the PTOs stepped in to ensure students remained safe, connected and cared for. Their support efforts grew steadily over the winter months, evolving into a coordinated network of help that responded to whatever families needed most. Even as time went on and uncertainty persisted, the PTOs continued to provide steady, reliable assistance that helped families navigate an incredibly difficult period. The impact of their work extended beyond individual families. Their efforts strengthened the entire school district, making it more connected, compassionate, and resilient. Without their involvement, it would have been impossible for the district to meet the needs of its students during this crisis. Because their work was deeply grassroots and involved countless individuals, each school’s PTO is recognized as a representative of all the parents who came together. Their organizing efforts ensured that people knew how to help and how to receive help; the HRC honors and recognizes their work as deserving of the 2025 Human Rights Award. Meeting: City council Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Presentation: 3b Executive summary Title: Proclamation observing National Small Business Week Recommended action: Mayor is asked to read the proclamation designating May 3-9, 2026, as National Small Business Week. Policy consideration: Not applicable Summary: For over 60 years, the President of the United States has issued a proclamation announcing National Small Business Week, which recognizes the essential and significant contributions of America’s entrepreneurs and small business owners. National Small Business Week celebrates the more than 36 million small businesses which employ more than half of the country’s workforce and create two out of every three new jobs in the U.S. each year. As part of this year’s event, the Small Business Administration (SBA) and America’s Small Business Development Center (SBDC) will cohost a free online summit on May 5 and 6, 2026, that will feature critical resources, educational workshops, and networking to help entrepreneurs grow, seize new opportunities, and start new small businesses. In 2025, 59 St. Louis Park businesses used Elevate Hennepin’s small business services, receiving a total of 856 hours of support - continuing a steady rise in participation. Since the fourth quarter of 2020, 136 local businesses have engaged with Elevate Hennepin for a combined 2,274 hours of assistance. Separately, since 2022, this support has helped create 70 jobs and launch 18 new businesses in St. Louis Park. By promoting National Small Business Week, the City of St. Louis Park continues its long- standing tradition of recognizing its more than 2,100 local businesses and all they contribute to enrich the economic and social fabric of the city. In addition to this proclamation, this recognition 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 being an inclusive, equitable and vibrant city where everyone feels safe and experiences a strong sense of belonging. Supporting documents: Proclamation Prepared by: Jase Pater, economic development specialist Reviewed by: Jennifer Monson, planning and economic development manager Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Title: Proclamation observing National Small Business Week Proclamation observing “National Small Business Week” May 3-9, 2026 Whereas, St. Louis Park celebrates recognizes and values the dedication and entrepreneurial spirit within its community; and Whereas, small business are the backbone of St. Louis Park’s economy; Whereas, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration, there are nearly 560,500 small businesses in Minnesota, representing 99.5 percent of Minnesota businesses, 45.8 percent of the working population, and employing 1.3 million people; and Whereas, the President of the United States has proclaimed National Small Business Week every year since 1963 to highlight the programs and services available to entrepreneurs through the U.S. Small Business Administration and other government agencies; and Whereas, St. Louis Park supports and joins in this national recognition to help America's small businesses do what they do best: create jobs and ensure that our communities remain as vibrant tomorrow as they are today; and Whereas, the people of St. Louis Park are grateful to the many small, locally-owned businesses within the city for their generous contributions to the quality of life we all enjoy. Now therefore, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council of the City of St. Louis Park do hereby recognize May 3-9, 2026, as “National Small Business Week” in in the City of St. Louis Park and reminds residents of the importance of this community celebration which acknowledge and celebrate the achievements made by small businesses, both locally and nationally. Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this 4th day of May 2026. _________________________________ Nadia Mohamed, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Presentation: 3c Executive summary Title: Proclamation observing Bike Month Recommended action: Mayor to read proclamation observing May as Bike Month. Policy consideration: None. Summary: The City of St. Louis Park has promoted May as Bike Month since 2017. Throughout the month, businesses, community groups and individuals are encouraged to host and participate in events and activities that encourage new riders to try biking. Riders of all abilities are encouraged to try biking to work, school or other destinations. In 2026, the City of St. Louis Park will engage in the following events during Bike Month: •The city will have an “activity node” at Metro Transit’s Open Trails to Rails event on May 9, 2026, from 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., located on the Cedar Lake Regional Trail near the Louisiana Light Rail Transit Station. •As part of the 2026 NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials) Conference from May 12 -15, 2026, the city will host two “Walk Shops” to showcase the city’s investments in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. These events are intended to showcase the many benefits of bicycling in, around and through St. Louis Park. Financial or budget considerations: None Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing safe, reliable and well- maintained infrastructure and neighborhoods that connect people and places with an emphasis on walking, biking and transit. Supporting documents: Proclamation Prepared by: Nicolas Grothey, graduate engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering engineer Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 3c) Page 2 Title: Proclamation observing Bike Month Proclamation observing “Bike Month” Whereas, throughout the month of May, the residents of St. Louis Park and its visitors are encouraged to experience the joys of bicycling through commuting events or by simply getting out and going for a ride; and Whereas, the bicycle is an economical, healthy, convenient, equitable and environmentally sound form of transportation and an excellent tool for recreation and enjoyment of St. Louis Park; and Whereas, St. Louis Park’s road, bikeway and trail systems attract bicyclists each year, providing economic health, mobility and transportation; and Whereas, creating a bicycle-friendly community is consistent with the city’s strategic priorities and the established goals of the Climate Action Plan, our commitment to Racial Equity and Inclusion and the Connect the Park capital improvement plan; and Whereas, creating a bicycle-friendly community has been shown to improve health, well-being and quality of life, grow the economy, improve safety and reduce pollution and congestion; and Whereas, St. Louis Park has been designated a silver status bicycle friendly community by The League of American Bicyclists; and Whereas, as recognized by People For Bikes, St. Louis Park ranks third in the state— behind only Minneapolis and St. Paul—for the quality of its bike network; and Whereas, greater public awareness of bicycle operation and safety education is needed in an effort to reduce collisions, injuries and fatalities and improve health and safety for everyone on the road, Now therefore, let it be known that the mayor and city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, do hereby proclaim May 2026 as Bike Month in our community. Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this 4th day of May 2026. _________________________________ Nadia Mohamed, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Presentation: 3d Executive summary Title: Proclamation observing Asian American, Pacific Islander and Native Hawaiian Heritage Month Recommended action: Mayor to read proclamation observing May as Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders Heritage Month. Policy consideration: None. Summary: Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) Heritage Month is celebrated nationally in May in recognition of the rich history and contributions of AANHPI communities. St. Louis Park is better because of our diverse communities which include many AANHPI residents. This month is an opportunity to recognize this. Financial or budget considerations: None. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being an inclusive, equitable and vibrant city where everyone feels safe and experiences a strong sense of belonging. 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: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 3d) Page 2 Title: Proclamation observing Asian American, Pacific Islander and Native Hawaiian Heritage Month Resource page In Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) Heritage Month, the City of St. Louis Park invites you to: • Learn about the history of AANHPI communities o Asian Minnesotans | MN Compass o Understanding the Term AAPI and Who Makes Up the Community • Consider supporting AANHPI owned businesses and attending an event or exhibit that highlights AANHPI heritage o Council on Asian Pacific Minnesotans / Council on Asian Pacific Minnesotans o 15 Ways to Support and Celebrate Minnesota’s AAPI Community | Explore Minnesota • Connect with AANHPI organizations in Minnesota o Community-Based Organizations / Council on Asian Pacific Minnesotans (mn.gov) o St. Louis Park – Wat Promwachirayan, Thai City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 3d) Page 3 Title: Proclamation observing Asian American, Pacific Islander and Native Hawaiian Heritage Month Proclamation observing “Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Heritage Month” Whereas, Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) communities are an integral part of the diversity that makes St. Louis Park a vibrant city; and Whereas, this month celebrates the stories and resilience of Americans from across the Asian continent, including South Asia, the Pacific islands of Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia; and Whereas, AANHPI Minnesotans are over 320,000 individuals representing over 40 different AANHPI nationalities including but not limited to: Asian Indians, Bangladeshi, Burmese, Cambodian, Chinese, Filipinos, Hmong, Japanese, Karen, Korean, Lao, Nepalese, Pakistani, Taiwanese, Thai and Vietnamese; and Whereas, AANHPI peoples are the fastest growing population in Minnesota and the City of St. Louis Park is home to approximately 2,286 residents of AANHPI heritage; and Whereas, this month serves as an opportunity to build a brighter future while acknowledging how these communities have historically faced persecution, discrimination, oppression, xenophobia, anti-Asian Hate and model minority myth that contributed to the increase of violence against AANHPI communities; and Whereas, AANHPI from all walks of life - small business owners, community leaders, non-profit organizations and advocates have contributed greatly to the foundation of our country, Now therefore, let it be known that the mayor and city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, hereby observe May 2026 as Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander heritage month in our community. Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this 4th day of May 2026. _________________________________ Nadia Mohamed, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Presentation: 3e Executive summary Title: Proclamation observing American Indian/Native American Heritage Month Recommended action: Mayor to read proclamation observing May as American Indian/Native American Heritage month. Policy consideration: None. Summary: American Indian/Native American Heritage Month is observed in the state of Minnesota each May in recognition of the 11 Tribal nations who have ancestral and contemporary homelands in the state. It is observed with education, celebration and advocacy for topics impacting American Indian communities across the state. Financial or budget considerations: None. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being an inclusive, equitable and vibrant city where everyone feels safe and experiences a strong sense of belonging. Supporting documents: Resource page Proclamation Prepared by: Jocelyn I Hernandez Guitron, racial equity and inclusion specialist Reviewed by: Black, Indigenous and People of Color employee resource group, Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager Page 2 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 3e) Title: Proclamation observing American Indian/Native American Heritage Month Resource page To celebrate American Indian/Native American Heritage month, the City of St. Louis Park invites you to: •Get involved in how Minnesota celebrates May as American Indian Month. o May Events — Metro Urban Indian Directors o NACDI and Pow Wow Grounds Open House - Native American Community Development Institute o American Indian Month Kick-off Powwow & Open House | Explore Minnesota •Learn about the history of American Indian communities in our state and city. o The legacy of UMN’s American Indian Studies department - The Minnesota Daily o New map restores Native names to northern Minnesota | MPR News •Connect with American Indian organizations in Minnesota. o Celebrating and Supporting American Indian Cultural Traditions (maicnet.org) o Native American Community Development Institute •Education yourself on native land you reside or work in. o Native Land Digital Map Page 3 Proclamation observing “American Indian/Native American Heritage Month” Whereas, American Indian communities are an integral part of the diversity that makes St. Louis Park a vibrant city; and Whereas, Minnesota celebrates American Indian Month in May to recognize and honor tribal nations and the robust urban communities that include tribal affiliations from across the country; and Whereas, the lands that make up St. Louis Park are the ancestral and contemporary homelands of the Dakota people and Minnesota is a vibrant and diverse community composed of 11 sovereign tribal governments; and Whereas, Native American entrepreneurs, educators, artists, and leaders of community, spiritual and political spaces have helped create a more just and inclusive community for all; and Whereas, many Minnesotans remind us daily of significant American Indian contributions to the state, including Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan, Ojibwe, who grew up in the City of St. Louis Park and is the highest ranking Native American woman elected to executive office in the United States; Heid E. Erdrich, Ojibwe, author of seven award winning poetry collections; Henry Boucha, Ojibwe, Olympic silver medalist and National Hockey League legend; and Ohiyesa, also known as Charles Eastman, Dakota, physician and famed published author; and Whereas, state and federally sanctioned laws and practices have contributed to the historical and generational trauma and displacement of American Indian nations through broken treaties, policies of forced removal and discrimination against American Indian cultural practices; and Whereas, this month is an opportunity to take steps forward and work together to build practices and policies that eliminate discrimination and promote understanding and respect of American Indian communities and their tribal sovereignty, Now therefore, let it be known that the mayor and city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, hereby observe May 2026 as American Indian/Native American Heritage month in our community. Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this 4th day of May 2026. _________________________________ Nadia Mohamed, mayor City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 3e) Title: Proclamation observing American Indian/Native American Heritage Month Meeting: City council Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Presentation: 3f Executive summary Title: Proclamation observing Jewish American Heritage Month Recommended action: Mayor to read proclamation observing May as Jewish American heritage month. Policy consideration: None. Summary: Jewish American month is observed every May across the country and is especially meaningful in our city where we have a vibrant and significant Jewish population. Jewish migration to St. Louis Park was facilitated in part by access to homes that did not have restrictive covenants against Jewish people, unlike other cities at that time. It has since become a significant place of Jewish life in Minnesota, being home to several Synagogues and Jewish schools, businesses and communities. This month is a time to recognize the contributions of Jewish Americans and culture in Minnesota. Financial or budget considerations: None. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being an inclusive, equitable and vibrant city where everyone feels safe and experiences a strong sense of belonging. 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: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 3f) Page 2 Title: Proclamation observing Jewish American Heritage Month Resource page In Jewish American heritage month, the City of St. Louis Park invites you to: • Learn about the history of Jewish Americans. o Jewish American Heritage Month o From Exclusion to Integration: The Story of Jews in Minnesota | MNopedia o Why did so many Jewish people move to St. Louis Park decades ago? (startribune.com) • Consider supporting Jewish American owned businesses and exploring art that highlights Jewish American Heritage o The Jewish Museum - About the Collection o Online Exhibits | JHSUM o It Happened Right Here: Jewish Summer Camps | JHSUM Videos City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 3f) Page 3 Title: Proclamation observing Jewish American Heritage Month Proclamation observing “Jewish American Heritage Month” Whereas, Jewish American communities are an integral part of the diversity that makes St. Louis Park a vibrant city; and Whereas, Jewish American communities have played a large role in our city and state through entrepreneurship, religious leadership and civic involvement, helping create a more just and inclusive community for all; and Whereas, St. Louis Park is home to several Jewish schools, businesses, synagogues and diverse Jewish communities; and Whereas, acknowledgement and understanding can help challenge antisemitism and break negative stereotypes about Jewish Americans and the Jewish faith and furthers the city’s commitment to being a welcome, safe community; and Whereas, this month serves as an opportunity to better understand the Jewish American experience and celebrate the achievements and contributions of Jewish Americans in our city, state and country, Now therefore, let it be known that the mayor and city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, hereby observe May 2026 as Jewish American heritage month in our community. Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this 4th day of May 2026. _________________________________ Nadia Mohamed, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Presentation: 3g Executive summary Title: Proclamation observing Military Appreciation Month Recommended action: Mayor to read proclamation observing May as Military Appreciation Month. Policy consideration: None. Summary: Military Appreciation Month became an official observance designated by congress in 1999. May was chosen as the observance month due to the many military-related holidays that take place in this month, including the commemoration of the end of World War II, Military Spouse Appreciation Day and Memorial Day. This month is an opportunity to appreciate the contributions of military service members, past and present. Financial or budget considerations: None. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being an inclusive, equitable and vibrant city where everyone feels safe and experiences a strong sense of belonging. Supporting documents: Resource page Proclamation Prepared by: Jocelyn I Hernandez Guitron, racial equity and inclusion specialist Reviewed by: Jay Hall, Public Works Director Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 3g) Page 2 Title: Proclamation observing Military Appreciation Month Resource page In Military Appreciation Month, the City of St. Louis Park invites you to: • Learn about the history of this observance. o What is Military Appreciation Month? · United Service Organizations o Military Appreciation Months | Smithsonian Institution o State Summaries_Minnesota | Department of Veterans Affairs Open Data Portal City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 3g) Page 3 Title: Proclamation observing Military Appreciation Month Proclamation observing “Military Appreciation Month” Whereas, St. Louis Park recognizes and honors military service, both past and present, during the month of May; and Whereas, Minnesota Is home to nearly 290,000 veterans and many present service members; and Whereas, military service members face unique challenges that create barriers to participating into civilian life and relationships, including mental health and employment; and Whereas, the United States congress has proclaimed Military Appreciation Month every May since 1999 to recognize the contributions and sacrifices of military service and highlight resources available to service members through the U.S. department of veterans affairs and other government agencies; and Whereas, St. Louis Park takes part in this national recognition and opportunity to show gratitude to the service of the military in supporting national safety, Now therefore, let it be known that the mayor and city council of the City of St. Louis Park do hereby recognize May 2026, as “Military Appreciation Month” in our community. Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this 4th day of May 2026. _________________________________ Nadia Mohamed, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Minutes: 4a Unofficial minutes Study session meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota April 13, 2026 The meeting convened at 6:15 p.m. Council Members present: Daniel Bashore, Jim Engelking, Sue Budd, Tim Brausen, Yolanda Farris, Mayor Nadia Mohamed Council Member absent: Paul Baudhuin Staff present: deputy city manager (Ms. Walsh), acting finance director (Mr. Olson), financial analyst (Ms. Stephens), administrative services director (Ms. Brodeen), community engagement coordinator (Mr. Coleman) Guests: Mr. Boyer and Ms. Shelland of PTMA Financial Solutions Discussion Items 1.PTMA Financial Solutions investment update and investment 101 Mr. Olson introduced Mr. Boyer and Ms. Shelland of PTMA Financial Solutions. Mr. Olson stated approximately one year prior, the city issued a Request For Proposals for investment management services and selected PTMA, which now manages both the city's long-term investment portfolio and its 4MS funds. Mr. Boyer provided an overview of public funds investing in Minnesota, noting that Minnesota Statute 118A governs allowable investment types for public entities. He described the statute as comparatively conservative, limiting investments to lower-risk instruments such as U.S. Treasuries, agency securities, municipal bonds and commercial paper. Commercial paper is capped at 270 days and corporate bonds are not permitted. Mr. Boyer noted the only mechanisms for increasing returns within these constraints are extending duration or adding modest credit risk by diversifying into non-Treasury instruments. Mr. Boyer explained that PTMA worked with city staff to develop a forward-looking cash flow projection using budget documents and the capital improvement plan. This projection guides allocation decisions across three tiers: the 4MS Multi-Class Fund (daily liquidity), the 4MS Limited Term Duration Fund (monthly liquidity, approximately one-year duration) and the long- term core reserve portfolio managed by Ms. Shelland's team. The city's banking activity through U.S. Bank sweeps nightly into the 4MS liquid asset class, keeping the bank account at a zero balance. Mr. Boyer described the 4MS Multi-Class Fund as a pooled money market program with approximately 450 Minnesota public entity participants, currently yielding approximately 3.59%. He noted that rates have declined approximately 70 basis points over the past year as the Federal Reserve implemented cuts, but that a 3.6% rate remains strong by historical City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 4a) Page 2 Title: Study session meeting minutes of April 13, 2026 standards. The Limited Term Duration Fund, with approximately $5 million of city funds invested since June 2025, targets a one-year duration and yielded 4.58% in 2025. Its current market yield of approximately 3.53% is lower than the money market rate, reflecting the portfolio's positioning for a longer investment horizon. Council Member Brausen asked how the city covers expenditures if the U.S. Bank account is swept to zero nightly. Mr. Olson confirmed that the 4MS fund pulls funds back into the bank account as needed each morning. Ms. Shelland presented the core reserve portfolio, which holds just over $55 million in assets under management with a duration of approximately 2.5 years within a one-to-five-year target range. She noted the portfolio yield of 4.0% exceeds the benchmark index of 3.9% and that yields have risen modestly in recent weeks. She noted that performance is measured against the benchmark only from the point at which the portfolio was brought into alignment with the city's policy parameters, to avoid misleading comparisons. Council Member Brausen asked whether the firm engages in day trading. Ms. Shelland confirmed it does not, and that the goal is long-term growth of the portfolio. Council Member Budd asked what the inception date was; Ms. Shelland confirmed May 2025. Ms. Shelland provided a brief market outlook, noting the Federal Reserve remains divided between concerns about labor market softening and inflationary pressures from geopolitical events. She indicated the Federal Reserve is expected to hold rates at current levels for the near term, with a bias toward cuts rather than hikes. Corporate balance sheets remain strong and financial markets are well-positioned. Council Member Brausen asked why the city holds over $55 million in long-term reserves given a council policy of maintaining 45% of budget in reserve. Mr. Olson and Ms. Walsh explained that the balance reflects timing factors including large EDA expenditures associated with the Beltline development projects, the Minnetonka Boulevard Twinhomes project, and the cyclical receipt of property taxes in December which causes the balance to spike at year-end before declining. 2. Neighborhood funding discussion Mr. Coleman and Ms. Brodeen presented an update on the neighborhood grant program and facilitated a structured discussion to reach council direction on three policy questions: the primary priority of the program, the final funding formula for 2026 and beyond and how to address unspent program funds. Mr. Coleman recapped the special study session on Feb. 17, 2026, noting that council reaffirmed interest in a needs-based equity model but raised questions about whether the Tier 3 funding floor incentivizes participation. Staff were directed to return with additional funding structure options. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 4a) Page 3 Title: Study session meeting minutes of April 13, 2026 Mr. Coleman also summarized several process updates since February 2026: departments including fire, police, environment and sustainability, solid waste and natural resources were engaged to support neighborhood events; updated training materials were distributed informing neighborhood organizations that the IRS 1099 reporting threshold increased from $600 to $2,000; and a direct vendor payment process was established allowing the city to pay vendors on behalf of neighborhood organizations to reduce upfront costs. Council Member Budd asked for clarification on whether the city had previously paid vendors directly. Ms. Brodeen confirmed this was a new process established in response to concerns about upfront costs, noting it had already been used several times. Ms. Brodeen began to introduce the facilitated activity planned as a part of the council discussion and explained that prior discussions had surfaced competing priorities — maximizing spend, maintaining equity and expanding neighborhood participation — which can be in tension with one another. It will be helpful for the council to discuss their priorities around the funding formula before making a decision. Staff facilitated a brief individual and paired reflection activity to help council members identify and articulate their primary priorities before discussing the four funding formula options. The four options presented were: • Option 1: Double all tier allocations (Tier 3 floor raised from $1,000 to $2,000), preserving the equity model. Full utilization budget would require a program increase. • Option 2: Increase floors for Tier 2 and Tier 3 neighborhoods while modestly reducing the Tier 1 allocation. • Option 3: Retain the current formula. • Option 4: Equal distribution model providing the same allocation to every neighborhood. Council Member Bashore asked why the focus was on guaranteed floor amounts rather than treating the allocations as maximum caps subject to available funding, noting the program has historically spent well below its total allocation. Ms. Brodeen responded that the allocation model was developed following a racial equity impact analysis which found that wealthier neighborhoods with more organizational capacity had disproportionately utilized program funds. The allocation model was designed to ensure every neighborhood has access to reserved funding, regardless of organizational capacity. She confirmed the tier amounts basically function as the maximum for which a neighborhood may apply. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 4a) Page 4 Title: Study session meeting minutes of April 13, 2026 Council Member Bashore also noted the program has never fully spent its allocation across approximately six years of data and questioned why the response to low utilization would be to increase funding rather than first demonstrating program success. Ms. Brodeen acknowledged the valid tension and noted that simplifying the application process was a key rationale for moving away from a competitive grant model. Regarding the funding formula, Mayor Mohamed stated a preference for Option 3, the current formula, noting the program has not been given sufficient time to demonstrate results and that funding increases should follow demonstrated need and neighborhood activation rather than precede it. Mayor Mohamed shared that Council Member Baudhuin asked her to communicate his support of Option 3. Council Member Farris agreed with Mayor Mohamed's position. Council Member Engelking expressed a preference for Option 2 or Option 4. He noted that at least one neighborhood in his ward declined to participate after the funding floor was reduced to $1,000, citing the administrative overhead as not worth the effort. He stated that organized official neighborhood associations provide value by ensuring events are held on public land and are inclusive, and that expanding participation was equally or more important than the equity model structure. He noted that Tier 1 neighborhoods received $0 in each of the past three years under the current model, making the equity rationale less compelling in practice. Council Member Budd stated a preference for Option 2 and suggested the program budget not be increased beyond 50% of the maximum possible spend, citing six years of data showing actual expenditures well below allocations. Council Member Bashore stated support for Option 1 or 2 and agreed the program should not be fully funded to the theoretical maximum. He expressed a preference for loosening the constraints now and moving toward a more restrictive equity model only after documented program success, which he noted was the inverse of Mayor Mohamed's preferred approach. Council Member Brausen stated support for Option 2 and expressed willingness to fund the program at a higher level if demand emerges, noting recruitment of neighborhood association leaders is critical and difficult. A majority of council members indicated support for Option 2. Mr. Coleman summarized three options for handling unspent program dollars: • Option A, allow neighborhoods to exceed their tier allocation if funds remain; • Option B, use remaining funds for city-supported activities such as neighborhood network training, welcoming week participation and other city initiatives; • Option C, return unspent funds to the general fund. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 4a) Page 5 Title: Study session meeting minutes of April 13, 2026 Mayor Mohamed expressed support for Option B, favoring city-led or city-supported activities in under-activated neighborhoods to build engagement. She also indicated she would accept returning funds to the general fund. Mayor Mohamed shared Council Member Baudhuin’s support for Option B. Council Member Farris supported Option B. Council Member Engelking expressed a preference for Option C, stating that the goal of building strong neighborhood cohesion is better served by neighbors organizing themselves than by the city taking charge of organizing events. He noted his experience as a former neighborhood association president and indicated $50,000 would be more than adequate for the program's current needs. Council Member Bashore supported Option B and proposed that if the program approaches its budget cap, Tier 1 neighborhoods should be prioritized for funding over lower-tier neighborhoods. Mrs. Brodeen clarified that Option B would involve using remaining funds for training and enabling neighborhood participation in existing city programs such as Welcoming Week rather than the city holding standalone neighborhood events. Council Member Budd supported Option B. Council Member Brausen supported Option B, indicating a willingness to find additional funds if demand exceeds $50,000. Council Member Engelking ultimately supported Option A when asked to choose between Options A and B. A majority of council members indicated support for Option B. On the question of whether the total program budget should be increased to match the theoretical full-utilization cost of the selected funding model, a majority of council members indicated support for Option B — maintaining the current $50,000 allocation and monitoring actual spending before committing additional budget. Council Member Brausen supported Option A, indicating he would seek to find funds if utilization exceeded $50,000. Ms. Brodeen noted that staff would monitor spending through the summer and have sufficient information by August 2026 to assess whether additional resources might be needed. Written Report 3. Advisory commissions communications to city council – workplan updates City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 4a) Page 6 Title: Study session meeting minutes of April 13, 2026 Mayor Mohamed noted this item was a written report requiring no formal action. Council Member Budd asked for clarification regarding a reference in the Planning Commission's workplan to a new Item 6 on parking limitations, which cited a council consensus from Oct. 2025. Mr. Coleman indicated he did not have an answer available but would follow up. Council Member Engelking noted the workplan referenced a housing audit activity and asked whether the commission was aware of the city's contracted five-year housing survey, last completed in 2023 and next scheduled for 2028. He suggested staff ensure the commission is aware of that resource so it can be leveraged for any interim analysis rather than duplicating effort. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 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: May 4, 2026 Minutes: 4b Unofficial minutes City council meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota April 20, 2026 1. Call to order. Mayor pro tem Budd called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. a. Pledge of Allegiance. b. Roll call. Council members present: Daniel Bashore, Jim Engelking, Tim Brausen, Yolanda Farris, Paul Baudhuin, Mayor pro tem Sue Budd Council member absent: Mayor Nadia Mohamed Staff present: city manager (Ms. Keller), recreation supervisor (Ms. Abernathy), recreation superintendent (Ms. Friederich) deputy engineering director (Mr. Sullivan) 2. Approve agenda. It was moved by Council Member Brausen, seconded by Council Member Baudhuin, to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Mohamed absent). 3. Presentations a. Presentation accepting a donation to the city to support the summer concert series Ms. Abernathy spoke on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Department. She recognized the St. Louis Park Rotary for their continued support of the summer concert series held at Veterans Memorial Amphitheater. Throughout the summer, Ms. Abernathy noted the series includes Wednesday morning kids’ concerts, Wednesday evening concerts, an open mic series, theater performances and Saturday night concerts. Rotary also participates in the evening performances and Ms. Abernathy encouraged residents to attend the summer concert series. b. Proclamation observing International Compost Awareness Week Council Member Brausen read the proclamation recognizing the week of May 3–9, 2026 as International Compost Awareness Week, consistent with the declaration of the Composting Council Research and Education Foundation. The proclamation highlighted composting as a method of organic waste reduction, soil enrichment and conservation. He called attention to the 2026 theme “Feed the Soil that Feeds Us” and its relationship to the fact that organic materials comprise approximately 30% of trash. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Title: City council meeting minutes of April 20, 2026 Council Member Brausen stated he was previously unaware of the Minnesota and U.S. Composting Councils and encouraged all residents to compost. Mayor pro tem Budd shared that she composts at home and expressed appreciation for how much less waste is generated as a result. c. Proclamation observing National Therapy Animal Day Mayor pro tem Budd read the proclamation observing National Therapy Animal Day on April 30, 2026, in St. Louis Park. The proclamation recognized the work of therapy animal teams serving students, veterans, seniors, patients and those approaching end of life. Bonnie Theiss and her therapy dog Annie received the proclamation on behalf of North Star Therapy Animals. Mayor pro tem Budd noted her sister is a member of a therapy animal team and acknowledged the meaningful impact of their work. d. Recognition of donations Mayor pro tem Budd recognized a donation from the St. Louis Park Rotary in the amount of $7,250 to support the Parks and Recreation Summer Concert Series. 4. Minutes. a. City council meeting minutes of April 6, 2026 b. Special study session meeting minutes of April 6, 2026 It was moved by Council Member Bashore, seconded by Council Member Engelking to approve the April 6, 2026 city council and special study session meeting minutes as presented. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Mohamed absent). 5. Consent Items a. Resolution No. 26-059 accepting a donation to the city to support the summer concert series b. Resolution No. 26-060 accepting grant award from the Park Public Schools and Community Foundation c. Resolution No. 26-061 authorizing recognition event for Westwood Hills Nature Center volunteers d. Approve donation of retired city computer equipment to PCs for People e. Resolution No. 26-062 approving 2026 -2028 International Association of Fire Fighters Local #993 Assistant Chief Battalion Chief labor agreement f. Approve mobility sharing licenses for Spin and Lime g. Approve extension of dates for special event h. Approve temporary seasonal premises amendment for liquor establishment City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 4b) Page 3 Title: City council meeting minutes of April 20, 2026 Mayor pro tem Budd commented on item 5d, noting that donating retired computer equipment to PCs for People diverts equipment from landfill. She highlighted that 32,000 pounds of e-waste was saved, more than 200 metric tons of CO₂ equivalent was prevented and the environmental impact is equivalent to removing 46 cars annually from the road. Council Member Brausen commented on item 5e, thanking human resources staff and the firefighters' union for reaching a new labor agreement. He expressed his appreciation for consistently peaceful labor relations in St. Louis Park. He also commented on item 5f, encouraging residents to utilize the Spin and Lime shared mobility scooters responsibly and to avoid leaving them on sidewalks. It was moved by Council Member Brausen, seconded by Council Member Farris, to approve the consent items as listed; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Mohamed absent). 6. Public hearings - none. 7. Regular business – none. 8. Communications and announcements – none. Ms. Keller announced upcoming community events and budget planning dates: Community Events: ● Earth Day celebration at the library on Wednesday, April 22, 2026, from 2:00–4:00 p.m. ● Creek cleanup event on Saturday, April 25, 2026, beginning at the Municipal Service Center. Attendees were encouraged to dress for the weather. ● Annual kite fly at Louisiana Oaks Park on Saturday afternoon, April 25, 2026, beginning at noon, in partnership with the Minnesota Kite Society. Budget Planning: ● Aug. 3, 2026 is the general fund proposed budget presentation during council’s study session. ● Sept. 8, 2026 is the capital plan presentation during council’s study session. ● Sept. 22, 2026 is the preliminary levy consideration during council’s regular meeting. Ms. Keller also announced the launch of a new online budget book, replacing the traditional printed format, allowing residents to explore department-level accomplishments and expenditures on the city's website. 9. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 4b) Page 4 Title: City council meeting minutes of April 20, 2026 ______________________________________ ______________________________________ 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: May 4, 2026 Minutes: 4c Unofficial minutes Special study session meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota April 20, 2026 The meeting convened at 6:38 p.m. Council Members present: Daniel Bashore, Jim Engelking, Tim Brausen, Yolanda Farris, Paul Baudhuin, Mayor pro tem Sue Budd Council Members absent: Mayor Nadia Mohamed Staff present: deputy engineering director (Mr. Sullivan) Guest: Jim Alexander, Metro Transit Green Line Extension project team Discussion Item 1. Metro Green Line Extension Light Rail Construction Overview and Update Mr. Sullivan introduced Mr. Alexander, noting their working relationship spanning approximately 13 to 14 years across preliminary design, final design and construction phases. Mr. Sullivan noted the council had participated in a station tour earlier that evening visiting the Louisiana, Wooddale and Beltline stations. Mr. Alexander provided an overview of project status and next steps. The project is approximately 95 % complete. Civil construction is essentially finished, including stations, track, roadways and trails. The general contractor, London Crossing Joint Venture, achieved substantial completion in November 2025 and is expected to reach final completion in summer 2026. The systems contractor, Aldrich Parsons Joint Venture, is completing installation of traction power, signaling and communications components, which are primarily located in Minneapolis. Approximately 5,500 workers have been employed on the project through March 2026, with roughly 80% from within Minnesota. Transit-oriented development of approximately $3.3 billion has been permitted or built along the alignment from 2011 through 2024, representing an estimated 9,800 residential units. Mr. Alexander described the system integration testing (SIT) structure across three phases. Phase 1, covering Southwest Station in Eden Prairie to Beltline Station, has been underway since July 2025 and is projected to conclude in June 2026. Phase 2 covers the main line nearly to the 21st Street Station in Minneapolis. Phase 3 will encompass the full line including the Kenilworth Tunnel. SIT is projected to be completed in early December 2026, after which operations staff will conduct their own testing and familiarization. Revenue service is anticipated in 2027, with a specific opening date expected to be announced in fall 2026. The Hopkins Rail Support Facility, located near Shady Oak Station, is approximately 82% complete. Mr. Alexander noted that nearly all trails along the corridor have been restored to final condition, with a small bypass segment just east of West Lake Station in Minneapolis expected City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Title: Special study session meeting minutes of April 20, 2026 to be resolved by June 2026. A Trails to Rails celebration event is planned for Saturday, May 9, 2026, featuring a ribbon cutting and speaking program at 11:00 a.m. with community trail tours in partnership with Three Rivers Park District and station activations along the corridor. Mr. Alexander reported that a first responder familiarization event was held in February 2026 at Southwest Station, with approximately 75 participants including lead representatives from St. Louis Park police and fire departments. This was followed by a series of events that included over 200 police and fire staff members from the corridor cities. Additional tabletop and on-site mock emergency exercises are planned. Six light rail vehicles are currently in use for testing, two of which are wrapped with safety messaging and revenue service announcements. Mr. Alexander expressed interest in returning with Metro Transit's General Manager, the St. Louis Park Police Chief and operations leadership to discuss the launch effort with the city council, which he described as a deliberate "flawless launch" initiative. Council Member Baudhuin asked whether the approximately 12% decline in Green Line ridership from 2025 levels might be partially attributable to the expansion of rapid bus service rather than solely to safety concerns. Mr. Alexander acknowledged the growth of the bus network, citing the recently opened E-Line as an example, but emphasized that the rail and bus systems function as a network with the Blue and Green Lines serving as the primary spines. Mayor Pro Tem Budd suggested that Metro Transit's focused enforcement in transit-dependent communities, may have discouraged ridership more broadly. Mr. Alexander added that Blue Line state-of-good-repair work, which required service shutdowns for multiple days in 2025, also reduced ridership opportunities on that line. Council Member Farris expressed concern that safety issues, including visible drug use and homelessness on trains, continue to deter riders - particularly those traveling at night. Mr. Alexander acknowledged these concerns and noted that overall crime on the system is down approximately 22% compared to the same period in 2025. He attributed this in part to increased presence through the Metro Transit Police force, TRIP (Transit Rider Investment Program) agents authorized by recent legislation to issue fare citations, supplemental security officers under a newly signed contract, and community service officer interns working toward police officer status. Mayor Pro Tem Budd noted that Metro Transit's recently appointed Chief of Police has made safety and security on the light rail system his primary focus. Mr. Alexander confirmed the chief has approximately 20 years of transit experience and served as interim chief for an extended period prior to his appointment. Council Member Engelking noted that each light rail vehicle includes bike hanger facilities, facilitating multimodal commuting. Council Member Baudhuin expressed enthusiasm about the upcoming service and noted that bike hangers on the trains are easier to use than front-loading bike racks on buses. He also asked about complimentary passes for all users at the opening of service. Mr. Alexander indicated free rides were done for the Blue and Green Line launches and offered that he will bring this back to Metro Transit for consideration. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 4c) Page 3 Title: Special study session meeting minutes of April 20, 2026 Mayor Pro Tem Budd reflected on approximately 18 to 19 years of involvement with the project and highlighted the transit-oriented development visible throughout the corridor as a significant outcome. Council Member Farris noted appreciation for the heated station facilities, given Minnesota's winter climate. Written Report 4. Housing Activity Report There were no comments regarding the written report. The meeting adjourned at 7:01 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: May 4, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5a Executive summary Title: Approve city disbursements Recommended action: Motion to approve city disbursement claims for the period of March 31 through April 28, 2026. Policy consideration: Does the city council approve city disbursements for the period ending April 28, 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: Tiffany Stephens, budget analyst Approved by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 212.503RD LAIR Organized Rec G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 212.50 46.46A-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC General Fund BS Inventory 46.46 44.23ABERNATHY, LISA Organized Rec G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 44.23 3,136.00ADVANCED ENG & ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS Water G&A 1,224.75Sewer G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 4,360.75 196.00ADVANCED FIRST AID INC Rec Center Gen Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 196.00 530.00ADVANCED GRAPHIX INC Vehicle Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 530.00 741.33ALL CITY ELEVATOR INC Facilties Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 741.33 9.42ALL TRUCK AND TRAILER PARTS General Fund BS Inventory 9.42 4,368.00ALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 713.00Facilties Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 5,081.00 1,026.42AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING INC Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,026.42 32.90AMERICAN TIME Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 32.90 65.00AMP'D ELECTRIC Building and Energy G&A 65.00 225.00ANCHOR BUILDERS LLC.Housing Rehab G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 225.00 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: ApprovĞ city disbursements Page 2 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 976.12ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS Police E-911 Restriction G&A Technology Supplies 741.00Fire Department G&A Repairs, Maint, Serv on Tech 1,717.12 250.00ANDERSON DALE Water G&A 250.00 306.62ARC DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC Technology G&A Short Term Lease/Rentals Pay 306.62 1,204.16ART PARTNERS GROUP Fire Department G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,204.16 3,529.89ASPEN MILLS Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 3,529.89 12,082.63AXON ENTERPRISE, INC.Technology G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 12,082.63 650.00BANG ELECTRIC Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 650.00 2,795.00BARNUM COMPANIES, INC.Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 2,795.00 600.00BART ROUSH Climate Investment G&A 600.00 17.40BAUER, SUSAN J Westwood G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 17.40 2,060.00BAY WEST LLC Water Reilly G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 2,060.00 725.00BCX PRINTING Rec Center Gen Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 725.00 4,383.60BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS Park Improvement G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 4,383.60 1,300.00BELL RYAN Climate Investment G&A Page 3 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,300.00 1,500.00BIALON NICK General Fund BS UNION PARK APTS 1,500.00 576.67BIDINGER KATE Water G&A 576.67 331.14BISHOP JEFFREY Water G&A 331.14 1,470.07-BLACKSTONE CONTRACTORS, LLC.Storm Water Utility BS RETAINAGE PAYABLE 29,401.31Storm Water Utility G&A 27,931.24 6,016.00BLUDOT TECHNOLOGIES LLC Development - EDA G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 6,016.00 150.00BLUE NET, INC.IT G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 150.00 422.86BOLDENOW BEN Water G&A 422.86 580.84BOLTON & MENK INC Franchise Fees G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 581.48Water G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,326.80Sewer G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 736.88Storm Water Utility G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 3,226.00 1,164.72BORDER STATES ELECTRIC- MPL Public Works G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,164.72 2,190.43BOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 2,190.43 4,951.00BREDEMUS HARDWARE COMPANY INC Facilties Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 4,951.00 1,236.00BRIN GLASS COMPANY Facilties Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 1,236.00 Page 4 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 917.70-BUCKINGHAM TRUCKING LLC Solid Waste G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 190,802.95Solid Waste G&A Solid Waste Utility 117,154.75Solid Waste G&A Recycling Utility 307,040.00 65.54BUSINESS ESSENTIALS Rec Center Gen Division G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 65.54 419.00BYLL VIVIANE Water G&A 419.00 633.75CALIBRATIONS AND CONTROLS INC Water G&A Repairs and Maintenance 633.75 13,368.52CAMPBELL KNUTSON,P.A.City Clerk's Office G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 95.94MSA Capital G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 614.03EDA - 4300 36 1/2 G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 14,078.49 3,535.40CANON FINANCIAL IT G&A Telephone Communications 3,535.40 146.46CARDEN LUKE Water G&A 146.46 2,321.67CDW GOVERNMENT INC IT G&A Capitalized Tech Hardware 15,195.81Water G&A 12,138.96Technology G&A Technology Devices 3,280.03Technology G&A Capitalized Tech Hardware 32,936.47 3,180.00CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Climate Investment G&A 97,200.00Affordable H Trust G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 626.00Housing Rehab G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 101,006.00 14,513.85CENTERPOINT ENERGY Facilties Maintenance G&A Heating Gas Utility 958.05EDA - 4300 36 1/2 G&A Heating Gas Utility 6,787.75Water G&A Heating Gas Utility 469.69Water Reilly G&A Heating Gas Utility Page 5 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 510.85Sewer G&A Heating Gas Utility 9,372.09Park Maintenance G&A Heating Gas Utility 32,612.28 10,535.62CENTRAL PENSION FUND Employee Benefits BS OTHER RETIREMENT 10,535.62 259.07CENTURY LINK IT G&A Telephone Communications 259.07 11.60CHAMBERLAIN LAURA Community Development G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 11.60 529.22CINTAS CORPORATION Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 117.47Public Works G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 301.43Water G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 30.12Park Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 284.50Park Maintenance G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 483.31Park Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 213.00Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 394.71Rec Center Gen Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 228.16Vehicle Maintenance G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 2,581.92 12,072.50CITY OF BLOOMINGTON Water G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 12,072.50 1,800.00CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS RECEIVABLES Police G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,800.00 825.00CITY OF SAINT PAUL Police G&A Other Travel, Conv & Conf 825.00 41,524.00CITY OF SLP HA-KIDS IN THE PARK Affordable H Trust G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 41,524.00 5,500.00CJC CONSTRUCTION, LLC.Property Casualty BS RETAINAGE PAYABLE 4,000.00Property Casualty G&A Property Insurance 9,500.00 710.00CLARK MAUREEN Climate Investment G&A Page 6 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 710.00 37.70CLARKE LISA Assessing G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 37.70 224.51CLAUSEN DAIN Water G&A 224.51 21.00CM2 SUPPLY Aquatic Division G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 21.00 419.48COHEN TZVI Water G&A 419.48 251.82COLE NATHAN Water G&A 251.82 20,655.99COLICH & ASSOCIATES City Clerk's Office G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 20,655.99 18,398.00COLLINS ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION CO Public Works G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 18,398.00 195.78COMCASTComm & Marketing G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 70.95Police G&A Electric Utility 64.22Fire Department G&A Electric Utility 30.03Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 360.98 71.50CONWAY SHIELD Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 71.50 7,154.72CORE & MAIN LP Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 7,154.72 142.40COREMARKPublic Works G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 12.19Vehicle Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 154.59 3,497.00CORPORATE MECHANICAL EDA - 4300 36 1/2 G&A Repairs and Maintenance 3,497.00 Page 7 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 3,206.63CREATIVE RESOURCES Organized Rec G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 3,206.63 89.63CREEKSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REI G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 89.63 119.00CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 119.00 547.95CUMMINS SALES AND SERVICE Facilties Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 3,640.74Water G&A Repairs and Maintenance 6,627.55Sewer G&A Repairs and Maintenance 10,816.24 1,807.96CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES SSD 2 G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,215.68SSD 3 G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,140.25SSD 4 G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 996.94SSD 5 G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 9,600.00Park Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 14,760.83 1,882.60CUSTOM REFRIGERATION INC Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 649.18Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 2,531.78 426.36CVETNIC JACK Water G&A 426.36 3,767.20DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY Building and Energy G&A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 3,767.20 441,708.52DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MSA Capital G&A 54,203.14Water G&A 495,911.66 10,309.22DEPT EMPLOYMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTEmployee Benefits G&A UNEMPLOYMENT 10,309.22 152.04DILLARD MICHAEL Water G&A 152.04 Page 8 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,270.00DIWHY, LLC.Westwood G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,270.00 268.38DO-GOOD.BIZ INC Street Capital G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 277.45Franchise Fees G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 344.23Water G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 573.09Water G&A Water Utility 699.23Sewer G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 573.09Sewer G&A Water Utility 573.09Solid Waste G&A Water Utility 73.74Storm Water Utility G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 573.08Storm Water Utility G&A Water Utility 3,955.38 460.82DTN, LLC.Public Works G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 460.82 180.00DYNAMIC FIRE PROTECTION Building and Energy G&A 180.00 1,077.36ECM PUBLISHERS INC City Clerk's Office G&A Postage & Delivery 1,077.36 400.00EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC General Fund BS GENERAL 991.94Mera Wayzata Project TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 991.94 Beltline Residences TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 991.94Wooddale Ave Ap TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 991.94Texa Tonka TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 991.94Parkway Residual TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 991.94Bridgewater Bank TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 991.94Wooddale Station TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 991.94Duke West End TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 295.00Development - EDA G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 991.94Park Commons TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 991.94Rise on 7 TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 991.85Hwy 7 Business Center TIF G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 11,606.25 809.92EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE General Fund BS Inventory 809.92 Page 9 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 151.91ENGER MICHAEL Water G&A 151.91 2,766.76ENTERPRISE FM TRUST Vehicle Maintenance G&A Short Term Lease/Rentals Pay 2,766.76 3,319.00EUREKA CONSTRUCTION INC.Public Works G&A Misc Expenditures 3,319.00 325.00EVERLAST REHAB Sewer G&A Repairs and Maintenance 325.00 6,642.54EXCELSIOR & GRAND LLC Water G&A 6,642.54 212.64FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO General Fund BS Inventory 352.50Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 565.14 119.24FALK BARB Water G&A 119.24 675.00FAUL PSYCHOLOGICAL PLLC Human Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 675.00 85.16FEDOR ANDREW Water G&A 85.16 233.51FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 233.51 15,561.03FERGUSON WATERWORKS Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 15,561.03 82.43FERRELLGASVehicle Maintenance G&A Vehicle Fuels 82.43 459.92FIDELIS SAFETY SOLUTIONS Fire Department G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 459.92 Page 10 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 12,500.00FIFTH ASSET, INC.Software G&A Software Licensing Less 12 Mo 12,500.00 437.13FINANCE & COMMERCE, INC.Franchise Fees G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 49.60Water G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 19.18Sewer G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 75.53Storm Water Utility G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 581.44 640.42FIRST ADVANTAGE Human Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 640.42 102.23FLECK, JAMIE Westwood G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 102.23 29.90FRATTALLONESPark Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 29.90 84.10FRIEDERICH NIKKI Organized Rec G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 84.10 11,500.00FRSECURE LLC Technology G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 11,500.00 523.73GAUER JACKIE Water G&A 523.73 11,541.13GERBER COLLISION- MIDWEST INC Property Casualty G&A Property Insurance 11,541.13 160.00GO PERMITS Building and Energy G&A 160.00 340.00GO PERMITS, LLC Building and Energy G&A 340.00 11,460.48GOLDEN VALLEY, CITY OF Organized Rec G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 11,460.48 140.00GRAFF GINA Westwood G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 140.00 Page 11 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 374.46GRAINGER INC.Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 372.00Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 29.16Vehicle Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 775.62 128.00GRAPHIC SOURCE INC Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 128.00 191.00GREAT RIVER AUTOMATION LLC Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 191.00 100.00GREEN SARAH MARIE Rec Center Gen Division G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 100.00 247.19GROSSFIELD JORDANA GREEN & MARC Water G&A 247.19 2,028.48GROUP HEALTH NON-PATIENT A/R Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 2,028.48 319.95GUARDIAN FLEET SAFETY Property Casualty G&A Property Insurance 319.95 19,036.00H & L MESABI General Fund BS Inventory 19,036.00 1,022.49HAARSTAD VETERINARY DERMATOLOGY Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,022.49 98.66HALLOCK COMPANY INC Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 98.66 23,071.70HAWKINS INC Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 23,071.70 3,584.25HEALTHPARTNERS OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE Human Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 3,584.25 6.00HENNEPIN COUNTY S. Cedar Trails HIA G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 6.00 Page 12 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 2,765.65HENNEPIN COUNTY ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE Police G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 4,796.80Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 2,488.34Fire Department G&A Radio Communications 269.82Public Works G&A Radio Communications 269.82Water G&A Radio Communications 269.82Sewer G&A Radio Communications 269.82Storm Water Utility G&A Radio Communications 655.73Park Maintenance G&A Solid Waste Utility 11,785.80 5,400.00HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE Fire Department G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 5,400.00 46.75HENNESSY CHARLES E Vehicle Maintenance G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 46.75 871.42HENRICKSEN PSG Rec Center Gen Division G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat 871.42 7,472.50HKGIDevelopment - EDA G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 7,472.50 1,520.00HOLDGRAFER RACHEL Climate Investment G&A 1,520.00 575.20HOTSY MINNESOTA Vehicle Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 575.20 358.00HUMERA TECH INC Rec Center Gen Division G&A Repairs, Maint, Serv on Tech 358.00 68.00HURLBURT HEATING & PLUMBING Building and Energy G&A 68.00 1,785.00I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 Employee Benefits BS UNION DUES 1,785.00 1,500.00ICON HOMES LLC Storm Water Utility BS GENERAL 1,500.00 Page 13 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,568.00IDEAL SERVICE INC Water G&A Repairs and Maintenance 1,568.00 905.74IMPACT POWER TO CONNECT Water G&A Postage & Delivery 905.73Sewer G&A Postage & Delivery 905.74Solid Waste G&A Postage & Delivery 905.74Storm Water Utility G&A Postage & Delivery 3,622.95 215.68IMPERIAL DADE Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 215.68 54.80IMPERIAL SUPPLIES LLC Vehicle Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 54.80 31.66INDUSTRIAL NETWORKING SOLUTIONS Police G&A Postage & Delivery 31.66 150.00INGCO INTERNATIONAL Comm & Marketing G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 305.76Sustainability G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 455.76 9,235.30-INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES USA, LLC Sewer BS RETAINAGE PAYABLE 184,706.00Sewer G&A 175,470.70 1,337.80INVOICE CLOUD INC Water G&A Misc Expenditures 1,337.80 55.00ISI SPORTS INDUSTRY Rec Center Gen Division G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 55.00 4,867.55I-STATE TRUCK CENTER General Fund BS Inventory 4,867.55 732.50IVERSON EMMA Climate Investment G&A 732.50 151.20J & F REDDY RENTS Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 151.20 Page 14 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 8,000.00J.P SCHMITZ CONSTRUCTION CO LLC EDA - 4300 36 1/2 G&A Repairs and Maintenance 8,000.00 300.00JARA FAUSTO Water G&A 300.00 1,300.33JAYTECH, INC.Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,300.33 900.00JEWISH COMMUNITY RELATIONS COUNCIL Police G&A Other Travel, Conv & Conf 900.00 6,876.00JLG ARCHITECTS Park Improvement G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 6,876.00 2,198.94JOHNSON PAPER & SUPPLY CO.Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 2,198.94 1,000.00JOSH ROGERS & TATUM EVERETT General Fund BS UNION PARK APTS 1,000.00 145.00JULIAR JAY Building and Energy G&A 145.00 18,301.00JULOTA INC Software G&A Software Licensing Less 12 Mo 18,301.00 44.95JUREK JESSIE Assessing G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 44.95 173.48JURHS TAYLORGRACE Rec Center Gen Division G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 173.48 304.00KIDCREATE STUDIO Organized Rec G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 304.00 18,174.47KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC MSA Capital G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 8,477.55Franchise Fees G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 961.87Water G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 372.12Sewer G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,464.80Storm Water Utility G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv Page 15 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 29,450.81 167.42KINGS III EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS LLC Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 167.42 99.17KIRKLAND TOM Water G&A 99.17 2,420.00KRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & ASSOCIATES INC Park Improvement G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 2,420.00 4,871.28KUTAK ROCK LLP General Fund BS GENERAL 1,248.50Development - EDA G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 6,119.78 46.00LAUMANN, JOHN Water G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 46.00 4,507.26LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES INC Employee Benefits BS UNION DUES 4,507.26 162.98LAWSON PRODUCTS INC Vehicle Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 162.98 182,114.37LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE TRUST Property Casualty G&A Property Insurance 182,114.37 2,916.40LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS LLC IT G&A Telephone Communications 2,916.40 666.67LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS Police G&A Software Licensing Less 12 Mo 666.67 185.30LIBERTY TIRE SERVICES LLC Vehicle Maintenance G&A Recycling Utility 185.30 355.00LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 355.00 3,750.00LIGHT STEVEN Climate Investment G&A 3,750.00 Page 16 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,159.00LOCKGUARD LOCKSMITHS Facilties Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 1,159.00 1,720.55LOFFLERTechnology G&A Short Term Lease/Rentals Pay 1,720.55 313.02LOFFLER COMPANIES INC Technology G&A Short Term Lease/Rentals Pay 313.02 1,031.89LOGISTechnology G&A Computers/Tech Services 725.00Technology G&A Capitalized Tech Software 15.00Technology G&A Capitalized Tech Hardware 11,867.00Software G&A Computers/Tech Services 13,638.89 2,000.00LOVING CHARLYNE R.Climate Investment G&A 2,000.00 43.86LUTTRELL PETER Water G&A 43.86 232.00LYONS SARA Westwood G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 232.00 30.00MAAPAssessing G&A Other Travel, Conv & Conf 30.00 2,840.37MACQUEEN EQUIP CO General Fund BS Inventory 2,840.37 25.67MALIK PRAKSHI Cable TV G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 25.67 20,023.53MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY OF GAINSVILLE, INC General Fund BS Inventory 20,023.53 3,220.00MARIE RIDGEWAY LICSW LLC Police G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 3,220.00 200.00MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS Public Works G&A Operations Supplies & Mat Page 17 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 600.00Water G&A 800.00 435.00MASTER TECHNOLOGY GROUP IT G&A Repairs, Maint, Serv on Tech 620.00IT G&A Computers/Tech Services 1,055.00 2,776.06MCDERMOTT JAMES Employee Benefits G&A 2,776.06 50.00MEMAFire Department G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 50.00 448.02MESSERLI & KRAMER Employee Benefits BS WAGE GARNISHMENTS 448.02 44,258.14METES & BOUNDS Water G&A 44,258.14 120.00METRO BLOOMS Storm Water Utility G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 120.00 888.00METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS ASSOC. Organized Rec G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 888.00 7,380.45METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Building and Energy G&A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 3,300.00Water G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 1,950.00Water Reilly G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 474,319.79Sewer G&A Water Utility 486,950.24 9,439.00MGX EQUIPMENT SERVICES, LLC Vehicles & Equipment G&A Vehicles/Machinery Purch 619.20Vehicle Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 10,058.20 31,190.00MILLERBERND MFG CO Public Works G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 190,680.00Municipal Building & Infra G&A Other Capital Expenditures 221,870.00 1,569.24MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CTR Employee Benefits BS WAGE GARNISHMENTS 1,569.24 Page 18 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 112.77MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Franchise Fees G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 12.80Water G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 4.94Sewer G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 19.49Storm Water Utility G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 150.00 23.00MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROLAGENCY Sewer G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 23.00 290.00MN DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY Facilties Maintenance G&A Dues, Memberships, Licenses 290.00 131.00MN FIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION BOARD Fire Department G&A Other Travel, Conv & Conf 131.00 8,240.00MOMENTUM ADVOCACY LLP Adminstrative Operations G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 8,240.00 437.00MR CUTTING EDGE Rec Center Gen Division G&A Repairs and Maintenance 437.00 2,400.00MRUFF STRATEGIES LLC Finance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 2,400.00 1,374.12MTI DISTRIBUTING CO General Fund BS Inventory 48,727.68Vehicles & Equipment G&A Vehicles/Machinery Purch 211.60Park Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 50,313.40 100.00NAPAPolice G&A 100.00 159.48NAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)General Fund BS Inventory 159.48 78.44NELSON DEAN PORTER Development - EDA G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 78.44 61.67NELSON GORDON Water G&A 61.67 Page 19 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 6,639.89NEW LOOK CONTRACTING INC Park Impovement BS RETAINAGE PAYABLE 6,639.89 6,370.00NEWPUBLICASustainability G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 6,370.00 35,000.00NKP LLC General Fund BS UNION PARK APTS 35,000.00 72.00NMS MECHANICAL CORP Building and Energy G&A Construction Permits 72.00 250.00NOKOMIS SHOE SHOP Park Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 250.00 491.03NORTH AMERICAN SAFETY INC Park Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 491.03 40.00NORTH STAR FENCE Building and Energy G&A 40.00 1,217.76NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC Vehicles & Equipment G&A Vehicles/Machinery Purch 1,217.76 202.49NORTHSTAR MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT INC Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 202.49 21,144.81NYSTROM PUBLISHING Comm & Marketing G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 21,144.81 34.08OELRICH JETHRO Assessing G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 34.08 58.73OESTREICH, MARK Westwood G&A Employee Mileage Reimbursement 58.73 244.20OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 244.20 39.05OLSON BRENDA Water G&A Page 20 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 39.05 1,041.00ON SITE SANITATION Organized Rec G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,041.00 37.25O'REILLY FIRST CALL Property Casualty G&A Property Insurance 37.25 7,632.20OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY OF THE NORTHLANDFacilties Maintenance G&A Repairs, Maint, Serv on Tech 1,539.00Facilties Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 562.05Property Casualty G&A Property Insurance 9,733.25 438.34OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY INC Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 438.34 950.00PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES INC Water Reilly G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 950.00 18,901.71-PARK CONSTRUCTION CO Street Capital BS RETAINAGE PAYABLE 378,034.10Street Capital G&A 359,132.39 18,352.40PARTNERSHIP IN PROPERTY COMMERCIAL LANDDevelopment - EDA G&A 18,352.40 5,059.20POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC General Fund BS Inventory 5,059.20 27.92POTTORFF ANNIE Sustainability G&A In-State Travel 27.92 5,098.77PPL UNION PARK FLATS COMMUNITY LIMITED Development - EDA G&A 5,098.77 310.50PRECISE MRM, LLC.Public Works G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 310.50Water G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 310.50Sewer G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 310.50Storm Water Utility G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,242.00 Page 21 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,310.00PRECISION DRIVING CENTER Police G&A Other Travel, Conv & Conf 1,310.00 212.69PREMIUM PROPERTY GROUP INC Water G&A 212.69 271.29PREMIUM WATERS Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 271.29 4,025.00PUMP & METER SERVICE Vehicle Maintenance G&A Repairs and Maintenance 4,025.00 600.00QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC Water G&A Repairs and Maintenance 600.00 5,028.00R & R SPECIALTIES OF WISCONSIN, INC. Park Improvement G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 280.00Rec Center Gen Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 5,308.00 4,276.79REACH FOR RESOURCES INC Organized Rec G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 4,276.79 10,000.00REDPATH & COMPANY LLC Finance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 10,000.00 21,982.87REPUBLIC SERVICES Facilties Maintenance G&A Solid Waste Utility 19,402.67Rec Center Gen Division G&A Solid Waste Utility 41,385.54 234.85RIEDELL SHOES, INC.Rec Center Gen Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 234.85 519.48ROBERT B HILL CO Rec Center Gen Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 519.48 1,377.34ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY Comm & Marketing G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,377.34 35.59ROSEVILLE MIDWAY FORD General Fund BS Inventory 34.87Property Casualty G&A Property Insurance 70.46 Page 22 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 10,372.25RTVISION INC Software G&A Software Licensing Less 12 Mo 10,372.25 72.53RYAN SCOTT Water G&A 72.53 5,555.00SAFRAN TRUSTED 4D INC Police E-911 Restriction G&A Technology Supplies 5,555.00 4,308.85SAFTEY VEHICLE SOLUTIONS Fire Department G&A Radio Communications 4,308.85 147.69SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE LLC Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 147.69 1,406.05SAND CREEK EAP LLC Employee Benefits G&A HEALTH INSURANCE 1,406.05 470.00SCHERER BROTHERS Building and Energy G&A 470.00 568.16SCHNEIDER CHAD Fire Department G&A Out-of-State Travel 568.16 75.00SCHWAB, SARAH Rec Center Gen Division G&A Refunds/Reimbursements 75.00 522.87SCHWEIGER TRAVIS Water G&A 522.87 55.00SETS DESIGN INC.Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 55.00 42,000.00SHADYWOOD TREE EXPERTS & LANDSCAPING Water G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 6,648.00Natural Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 48,648.00 7,233.39SHAPCO PRINTING INC City Clerk's Office G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 12.35City Clerk's Office G&A Postage & Delivery 395.00City Clerk's Office G&A Admin/Office Supplies & Mat Page 23 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 325.00Storm Water Utility G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 801.48Natural Resources G&A Other Supplies & Materials 8,767.22 4,462.10SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP Water G&A 1,039.50Technology G&A Capitalized Tech Software 5,501.60 3,000.00SHINGLEDECKER SARA General Fund BS UNION PARK APTS 3,000.00 4,212.22SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, INC.Street Capital G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,156.12MSA Capital G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 4,032.27Franchise Fees G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 5,147.77Water G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 678.81Sewer G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,358.94Storm Water Utility G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 16,586.13 63.00SINAR LLC Water G&A 63.00 3,746.32SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 3,746.32 3,223.07SLP FF ASSOC IAFF LOCAL #993 Employee Benefits BS UNION DUES 3,223.07 183.27SMITH CAITLYN Water G&A 183.27 421.53SMITH CAROL Water G&A 421.53 1,018.36SPS COMPANIES INC Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 349.17Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,367.53 8,273.73SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC Sewer G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 8,273.73 Page 24 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 12,080.00STATE OF MINNESOTA Vehicles & Equipment G&A Misc Expenditures 12,080.00 49.84STERICYCLE, INC.City Clerk's Office G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 446.74Finance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 172.75Police G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 24.92Building and Energy G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 24.92Public Works G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 719.17 223.64STEWART KATHLEEN Water G&A 223.64 5,450.00STRATUS BUILDING SOLUTIONS OF ST. PAUL Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 2,850.00Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 8,300.00 2,027.64STREICHER'S Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 2,027.64 7.50SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE General Fund BS Inventory 7.50 4,187.12SUNBELT RENTALS INC Park Improvement G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 4,187.12 3,940.00SURE-CLOSE INC Climate Investment G&A 3,940.00 196.66SWANSON SUSANNE Water G&A 196.66 1,282.49SYSCO-MINNESOTA INC Rec Center Gen Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 16.23Rec Center Gen Division G&A Misc Expenditures 1,298.72 240.00TARPS INC Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 240.00 1,000,000.00TERASA LLC Affordable H Trust BS Loans Receivable - Long Term 1,000,000.00 Page 25 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 488.60TERMINIX COMMERCIAL Facilties Maintenance G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 146.72Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 635.32 29,200.00TERRALUNA COLLABORATIVE Adminstrative Operations G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 29,200.00 100.50THAT PROPERTY PLACE LLC Water G&A 100.50 20,118.75THE DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY Natural Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 20,118.75 2,562.00THE KNOX COMPANY Fire Department G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 2,562.00 1,187.25THE MPX GROUP Comm & Marketing G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,187.25 2,000.00THE RESET Adminstrative Operations G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 2,000.00 1,833.00THE SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO Public Works G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 17.41Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,410.53Park Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 3,260.94 806.00THE SIGN PRODUCERS INC Facilties Maintenance G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 806.00 163.84THOMAS DAVE Water G&A 163.84 1,302.91TK ELEVATOR CORPORATION Rec Center Gen Division G&A Repairs and Maintenance 1,302.91 50.00T-MOBILE USA INC Police G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 50.00 13.64TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat Page 26 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 13.64 8,154.96TOTAL MECHANICAL SERVICES, INC.Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 8,154.96 85,232.07TRASH CONTRACORS LLC Solid Waste G&A Yard Waste Utility 85,232.07 5,704.00TREE TRUST Natural Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 5,704.00 438.87TRI-STATE BOBCAT General Fund BS Inventory 438.87 9,498.50TRUE BUILDING MAINTENANCE LLC Water G&A 9,498.50 1,703.93TUBE PRO INC Aquatic Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,703.93 5,000.00TWIN CITIES ROAD CREW REI G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 5,000.00 8,360.00TWIN CITY OUTDOOR SERVICES INC SSD 1 G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 2,945.00SSD 3 G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 11,305.00 300.00TYSLEY TAYLOR Adminstrative Operations G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 300.00 130.59ULINERec Center Gen Division G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 130.59 20.00ULSTAD MARISSA PLAYGROUNDS REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 20.00 5,100.80USDA, APHIS, GENERAL Natural Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 5,100.80 19,900.02VALLEY-RICH CO INC Water G&A Repairs and Maintenance 21,770.48Sewer G&A Repairs and Maintenance Page 27 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 41,670.50 116.00VERIFIED CREDENTIALS LLC.Human Resources G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 116.00 39,928.28VERIZONIT G&A Telephone Communications 39,928.28 957.00VESSCO INC Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 957.00 1,490.00VETERAN ELECTRIC Rec Center Gen Division G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 1,490.00 277.27VUKO IVAN Water G&A 277.27 31.90WARD ANDRA Park Maintenance G&A Other Travel, Conv & Conf 31.90 1,471.40WARNING LITES OF MN INC Water G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 1,471.40 2,623.36WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC Water G&A Repairs and Maintenance 2,623.36 195.30WHEELER, BENJAMIN Water G&A 195.30 15.56WHITEIS ERIC Water G&A 15.56 436.29WINTERS JOHN Water G&A 436.29 301.31WM CORPORATE SERVICES INC Park Maintenance G&A Solid Waste Utility 301.31 382.20WM MUELLER & SONS INC Public Works G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 382.20 Page 28 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK Council Check Summary 4/28/20263/31/2026 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 10,410.00WOLD ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS Municipal Building & Infra G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 10,410.00 351.50WSB ASSOC INC IT G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 351.50 20,257.02XCEL ENERGY Facilties Maintenance G&A Electric Utility 22,751.73Public Works G&A Electric Utility 251.40EDA - 4300 36 1/2 G&A Electric Utility 30,294.57Water G&A Electric Utility 1,639.60Water Reilly G&A Electric Utility 5,357.62Sewer G&A Electric Utility 2,316.41Storm Water Utility G&A Electric Utility 240.12Park Maintenance G&A Electric Utility 22,461.12Rec Center Gen Division G&A Electric Utility 105,569.59 4,983.75YOUNG ENV. CONSULTING GROUP, LLC. Storm Water Utility G&A Consulting Fees/Fees For Serv 4,983.75 3,210.00ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC Public Works G&A Operations Supplies & Mat 3,210.00 90.29ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION Vehicles & Equipment G&A Other Cap Equip Purchased 90.29 Report Totals 4,888,568.14 Page 29 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approve city disbursements Meeting: City council Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5b Executive summary Title: Resolution accepting donations to the city to support parks and recreation department programs Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving acceptance of donations to the city to support the parks and recreation department programs. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to accept the gifts with restrictions on their use? Summary: State statute requires city council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary to make sure the city council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation prior to it being expended. •Donation of trees and labor for Arbor Day celebration, to be held May 14, 2026. o Tree Trust (approximate value $12,000) •Donation for Access to Fun at Westwood Hills Nature Center. o John and Maureen Drewitz, $1,000 •Donation of 24 binoculars for Westwood Hills Nature Center. o Jodie Harmon •Donation of $83.23 for programs at Westwood Hills Nature Center. o Westwood Hills Nature Center visitors Financial or budget considerations: These donations will be used to support the Parks and Recreation Department programs as specified. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a city that delivers reliable services, uses city resources responsibly, operates transparently and builds strong relationships with residents. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, administrative coordinator Reviewed by: Mike Bahe, natural resource manager Mark Oestreich, Westwood Hills Nature Center manager Jason T. West, parks and recreation director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5b) Page 2 Title: Resolution accepting donations to the city to support parks and recreation department programs Resolution No. 26 - ___ Approving acceptance of donations in the amount of $1,083.23, trees and labor, and binoculars to the City of St. Louis Park for Parks and Recreation Programs 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 of trees and labor from Tree Trust is given to the city to support the Arbor Day celebration; the donation from John and Maureen Drewitz in the total amount of $1,000 is given to the city to support Access to Fun at Westwood Hills Nature Center; the donation of $83.23 is given to the city from visitors at Westwood Hills Nature Center to support programs or park enhancements at Westwood Hills Nature Center and the donation of 24 binoculars from Jodie Harmon is given to the city for use at Westwood Hills Nature Center; and Now therefore be it resolved, by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park that the gifts are hereby accepted with thanks and appreciation. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council May 4, 2026: Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5c Executive summary Title: Resolution authorizing elected official representation on external boards, committees and organizations Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution authorizing elected official representation on external boards, committees and organizations. Policy consideration: Does the city council want to formally authorize elected official representation on various regional and community boards, committees and organizations? Summary: Historically, the city has not had a consistent process for managing council representation on external bodies. While some appointments were formally authorized by the council, others were coordinated informally through the city manager’s office. The recommended action establishes a standardized process for tracking and approving external appointments to ensure transparency and equitable distribution of representative roles. Moving forward, staff recommend that all official appointments be handled through formal council action. • Scope: This process applies only to instances where a council member serves as an official representative of the city. • Exclusions: This does not apply to personal or professional development, or voluntary participation in organizations where the member is acting in an individual capacity. • Objectives: A formal process will streamline tracking, provide a clear mechanism for regular review, and help distribute these roles as evenly as possible among all council members. The attached resolution lists the current council representation on external board, committees or organizations. Primary representatives are noted along with alternate representatives where applicable. Moving forward, the council will review and approve all external appointments annually during the first meeting of each calendar year. Should new opportunities arise mid- year, staff will facilitate the formal approval process as needed. Financial or budget considerations: None. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a city that delivers reliable services, uses city resources responsibly, operates transparently and builds strong relationships with residents. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Page 2 Title: Resolution authorizing elected official representation on external boards, committees and organizations Resolution No. 26-___ Authorizing elected official representation on external boards, committees and organizations Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is regularly requested to participate in or is mandated to have representation on various regional, state and local external boards, committees and organizations; and Whereas, the St. Louis Park City Council desires to maintain strong cooperative relationships with these external bodies to advocate for and represent the interests of the community; and Whereas, the city council has reviewed the list of external appointments and determined that representation on these bodies is in the best interest of the public, Now therefore be it resolved by the St. Louis Park City Council that the following council members are authorized to serve as the designated representatives to the external organizations listed. 1. Community Education Advisory Council a. Primary – Sue Budd 2. Met Council Metro Green Line Extension Corridor Management Committee a. Primary – Tim Brausen b. Alternate – Nadia Mohamed 3. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Policy Advisory Committee a. Primary – Sue Budd 4. Minnesota Cities Climate Coalition a. Primary – Sue Budd 5. National League of Cities – Global Engagement Advisory Committee a. Primary – Nadia Mohamed 6. PLACES – Public Art Committee (SWLRT) a. Primary – Tim Brausen 7. Westopolis Board of Directors a. Primary – Nadia Mohamed Be it further resolved that the designated representatives are authorized to participate in the meetings, deliberations and activities of these external bodies, and to vote on matters brought before them, consistent with the policies and strategic priorities of the City of St. Louis Park and the bylaws of the external organization (if applicable). Be it further resolved that the designated representatives shall act as conduits of information, ensuring that the city council and city manager are updated on the activities of these external organizations. Be it further resolved that this resolution shall be reviewed annually and designated representatives shall remain in effect until a successor is appointed. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5c) Page 3 Title: Resolution authorizing elected official representation on external boards, committees and organizations Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council May 4, 2026: Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5d Executive summary Title: Approve Planning Commission/BOZA workplan addition Recommended action: Motion to approve planning commission workplan additions. Policy consideration: None at this time. Summary: In the winter of 2025, the city council approved a communication tool that allows boards and commissions to communicate directly with the council. One use of this tool is to submit requests for adding new items to existing workplans. Following the study session on April 13, 2026, the proposed workplan additions from the planning commission have been advanced to the consent agenda for the council’s consideration. Financial or budget considerations: None at this time. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a city that delivers reliable services, uses city resources responsibly, operates transparently and builds strong relationships with residents. Supporting documents: Discussion, planning commission/BOZA workplan draft Prepared by: Pat Coleman, community engagement coordinator Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5d) Page 2 Title: Approve Planning Commission/BOZA workplan addition Discussion Background: In recent years, it became clear that the city needed a more consistent and intentional approach to developing board and commission workplans. Workplans were traditionally created once a year, often with limited city council involvement, and there were few opportunities for mid-year adjustments. This contributed to uncertainty among some commissions about their purpose, priorities and connection to council direction. To strengthen alignment and improve communication, the council committed to taking a more active role in how workplans are shaped and updated. A council–staff workgroup met in early 2025 to review current practices, identify gaps and establish clearer expectations for how boards and commissions interact with the council throughout the year. These discussions informed the recommendations presented at the study session on Feb, 3, 2025. As a result, the council adopted a new workplan process for 2025 and beyond. Under this updated approach, workplans are treated as living documents that can be amended at any time rather than created only once at the start or end of the year. To support this flexibility, an advisory communication tool was created to allow boards and commissions to submit proposed workplan changes directly to the council through their staff liaison. This enables ongoing communication and ensures the council can actively shape and approve workplan updates throughout the year. Following this adoption, boards and commissions prepared workplans that were approved on Feb. 18, 2025. Each commission participated in a scheduled check in with the council to review progress, discuss any completed or ongoing items and identify areas where updates might be needed. These check-ins created space for commissions to revisit their approved workplans and consider whether new items should be added. Present considerations: This consent item provides an opportunity to use the updated process for bringing new items forward. The planning commission has developed several new workplan proposals and is now submitting them for council’s approval. The planning commission voted to approve this workplan on March 25, 2026, prior to the adoption of the city’s new strategic priorities. As a result, this version still reflects the previous priorities. Items #1 and #2 are existing workplan items that the commission intends to continue. The remaining items are new requests. Items #3 (Arrive + Thrive – implementation updates) and #4 (Zoning Code – transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2) represent next-phase work that builds on completed 2025 workplan efforts. Items #5 and #6 are entirely new proposals the commission is seeking approval to add. Next steps: The planning commission will take the approved additional workplan items and begin to carry out those initiatives in 2026. These workplans will be revisited during scheduled boards and commissions check-in meetings throughout 2026. Board and Commission Annual work plan Presented to council: April 13, 2026 1 Work plan │ planning commission and board of zoning appeals 1 Initiative name: Planning and zoning application review Initiative type: ☒Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐Independent research project ☒Gather community feedback ☐Lead community event Initiative origin: ☒Applicant-initiated ☐Staff-initiated ☐Commission-initiated ☐Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐Yes ☒No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): All commissioners/board members If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Initiative description: Review planning and zoning applications from third parties to the city; hold public hearings to help inform commission recommendations, and BOZA and council decisions. Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☒ Research report ☒ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☐ N/A Target completion date: Ongoing This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: n/a, application fees generally cover city direct costs Staff support required: plan review, neighborhood meeting support, staff reports, recommendations Liaison comments: Due to statutory requirements that the city respond to formal applications within 60 days, the volume and effort involved in this initiative is a primary responsibility and impacts the progress on other initiatives list in the work plan. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5d) Title: Approve Planning Commission/BOZA workplan addition Page 3 2 2 Initiative name: Broaden participation Initiative type: ☒Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐Independent research project ☐Gather community feedback ☐Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐Applicant-initiated ☐Staff-initiated ☒Commission-initiated ☐Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐Yes ☒No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): All commissioners/board members If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Initiative description: Identify strategies to broaden, and reduce barriers to, public participation. Strategic Priority: ☒ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☒ N/A Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☒ Other ☐ N/A Target completion date: Ongoing This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☒ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☐ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: not to brainstorm ideas; but to implement ideas may require resources, yes. Staff support required: TBD, but most likely, yes. Liaison comments: Have a joint meeting with other commission(s) on topic of shared interest/responsibility. Hold a planning commission meeting at an off-site location to foster community relationships. (e.g. study sessions with topics of general interest, development project tours, etc.) Help recruit community members with diverse experiences to apply for vacancies on boards and commissions, task forces, committees, or other volunteer opportunities. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5d) Title: Approve Planning Commission/BOZA workplan addition Page 4 3 3 Initiative name: Implement light rail station plans (Arrive + Thrive) Initiative type: ☒Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐Independent research project ☐Gather community feedback ☐Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐Applicant-initiated ☐Staff-initiated ☐Commission-initiated ☒Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐Yes ☒No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): All commissioners/board members If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Initiative description: Launch Arrive + Thrive online implementation tracker. Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☒ 2 ☒ 3 ☒ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☒ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A Target completion date: Q1 2026 This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: Plan was/is budgeted in community development department planning studies. Implementation steps may be folded into future budgeting. Staff support required: Yes. GIS staff are creating the online tracker and staff will need to maintain and update the tracker as more elements of Arrive + Thrive are implemented. Liaison comments: The planning commission and council approved the plan in 2025. The plan includes implementation steps that may need to be incorporated into existing commission initiatives and future work plans. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5d) Title: Approve Planning Commission/BOZA workplan addition Page 5 4 4 Initiative name: Zoning code update – phase 2 Initiative type: ☒Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐Independent research project ☒Gather community feedback ☐Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐Applicant-initiated ☐Staff-initiated ☐Commission-initiated ☒Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐Yes ☒No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): All commissioners If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Initiative description: Hold public hearing and make recommendation regarding changes to the zoning map and non-residential district and performance zoning standards to better reflect the city’s strategic priorities. This includes, but is not limited to, expansion of mixed use districts and creation of a high-density mixed use district for transit oriented development areas near rail stations. Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☒ Research report ☒ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☐ N/A Target completion date: Q1 2026 This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☒ Review and decide ☐ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: yes, budgeted in community development budget for planning studies Staff support required: Yes Liaison comments: Staff and the planning commission made an extensive effort to complete this phase of the zoning code update within one year of phase 1 adoption. Remaining tasks to adopt and smooth implementation will also require staff resources beyond adoption and throughout the year. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5d) Title: Approve Planning Commission/BOZA workplan addition Page 6 5 5 Initiative name: 2050 Comprehensive Plan Initiative type: ☒Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐Independent research project ☒Gather community feedback ☐Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐Applicant-initiated ☐Staff-initiated ☐Commission-initiated ☒Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☒Yes ☐No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): All commissioners If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Initiative description: Kick off to the 2-year comprehensive planning process. The planning commission will provide guidance on how new strategic priorities resulting from Vision 4.0 should frame the comprehensive plan. Efforts in 2026 involve establishing a framework for the planning process, creating a community engagement plan for the planning process, and beginning to analyze existing conditions of the city. Strategic Priority: ☒ 1 ☒ 2 ☒ 3 ☒ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☒ Research report ☒ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A Target completion date: Adoption by end of 2028 This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☒ Review and comment or reply ☒ Review and decide ☐ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: Yes. Included in community development dept. planning studies budget – other departments should have dedicated budget and/or staff time set aside for data/research required for their topics within the comprehensive plan. Staff support required: Yes – community development staff will lead the planning effort, but input from other departments will be required. Liaison comments: As a multi-year effort, the focus in 2026 will be getting elements together, and preparing for robust community engagement and plan drafting in 2027. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5d) Title: Approve Planning Commission/BOZA workplan addition Page 7 6 6 Initiative name: Parking discussions Initiative type: ☒Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☒Independent research project ☒Gather community feedback ☐Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐Applicant-initiated ☐Staff-initiated ☒Commission-initiated ☐Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐Yes ☒No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): All commissioners If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐Yes ☒No ☐N/A Initiative description: Through the work on Phase 2 of the zoning code update, the planning commission identified the need for deeper analysis regarding the topic of parking minimums within the zoning code. The planning commission wants to learn more about the impacts of parking minimums, explore opportunities to remove parking minimums from more of the city or reduce the parking requirements for individual land uses. Through this research and discussion, the planning commission hopes to identify policy recommendations and frame next steps to present to the city council. Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☒ 2 ☒ 3 ☒ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☒ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☐ N/A Target completion date: December 2026 This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☒ Review and comment or reply ☒ Review and decide ☐ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: Yes. This topic was identified by the planning commission and has not been included in community development dept. planning studies budget. The scope of this study has not been finalized, but will depend on staff time to undertake. Staff support required: Yes Liaison comments: The planning commission and staff propose several parking reforms in the zoning code update phase 2 language; staff presented this approach to the city council in November 2025 at a study session and received positive feedback. The purpose of this work is to allow the planning commission to delve more deeply into this specific topic and potentially recommend future policy changes. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5d) Title: Approve Planning Commission/BOZA workplan addition Page 8 7 Initiative Origin Definitions Applicant-initiated – Project initiated by 3rd party (statutory boards) Staff-initiated – Project initiated by staff liaison or other city staff Commission-initiated – Project initiated by the board or commission Council-initiated – Project tasked to a board or commission by the city council Strategic Priorities 1.St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all. 2.St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. 3.St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. 4.St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. 5.St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement Modifications Work plans may be modified, to add or delete items, in one of three ways: Work plans can be modified by mutual agreement during a joint work session. If immediate approval is important, the board or commission can work with their staff liaison to present a modified work plan for city council approval at a council meeting. The city council can direct a change to the work plan at their discretion. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5d) Title: Approve Planning Commission/BOZA workplan addition Page 9 8 Future ideas Initiatives that are being considered by the board or commission but not proposed in the annual work plan. Council approval is needed if the board or commission decides they would like to amend a work plan. Initiative Comments Water conservation and water recycling Explore ways to encourage reduced water use, capture and reuse of storm water, and protect ground water resources. Housing analysis Explore setting policy targets for different housing types in the city based on present inventory and unmet demand and promote homeownership opportunities as well as inclusionary housing goals. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5d) Title: Approve Planning Commission/BOZA workplan addition Page 10 Meeting: City council Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5e Executive summary Title: Resolution accepting local climate action grant award from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution accepting a local climate action grant award from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Policy consideration: Does the city council want to adopt a resolution accepting a local climate action (LCA) grant award from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)? Summary: The community development department, in conjunction with the engineering and public works departments and with input from the environment and sustainability commission, is laying the groundwork for a ten-year Climate Action Plan (CAP) update to be submitted for city council consideration in 2028. This will require hiring a consultant to assist with revised implementation strategies and the greenhouse gas emissions reduction calculations associated with those strategies. To partially fund this effort, sustainability division staff applied for an LCA grant from the MPCA in the amount of $40,000. Staff were recently notified that the city has been awarded the full funding request. Financial or budget considerations: This grant funding would assist with the project financial feasibility and offset the amount of city operating funds needed for the project. A 50% match is required for this grant. $20,000 to fund the match will be requested through the 2027 budget process. Accepting this grant does not obligate the city council to provide the funding match. However, if matching funds are not allocated, the grant will have to be returned. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a climate leader that cares for the planet and maintains dynamic parks that connect people and nature. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Clancy Ferris, legislative & grants analyst Reviewed by: Sean Walther, deputy community development director Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Page 2 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5e) Title: Resolution accepting local climate action grant award from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Resolution No. 26-__ Accepting a local climate action grant award from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park was awarded a $40,000 local climate action grant award from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to support updates to the climate action plan. 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 may enter into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for the local climate action 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 May 4, 2026: ____________________________________ Nadia Mohamed, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5f Executive summary Title: Approve bid for 2026 Pavement Management project (4026-1000) - Ward 1 Recommended action: Motion to designate GMH Asphalt Corporation as the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $5,995,928.36 for the 2026 Pavement Management Project (4026-1000). Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to pursue the pavement rehabilitation, utility improvements and sidewalk installation as a part of this project? Summary: A total of four (4) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid results is as follows: Contractor Bid amount GMH Asphalt Corporation $5,995,928.36 Park Construction Company $6,388,786.30 Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $6,622,709.00 Northwest Asphalt, Inc. $6,784,719.52 A review of the bids indicates GMH Asphalt Corporation submitted the lowest bid. GMH Asphalt Corporation is a reputable contractor and has performed several projects in the city. Staff recommend that a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $5,995,928.36. Financial or budget considerations: These projects are included in the city's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2026. The low bid is $1,793,421.54, or 20% under the CIP budget. Funding will be provided by the following sources: franchise fees (pavement management fund), utility funds and general obligation bonds (sidewalks). 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 safe, reliable and well- maintained infrastructure and neighborhoods that connect people and places with an emphasis on walking, biking and transit. Supporting documents: Discussion Location map Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, engineering project manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5f) Page 2 Title: Approve bid for 2026 Pavement Management project (4026-1000) - Ward 1 Discussion Background: Bids were received on April 21, 2026, for the 2026 Pavement Management project. This year's work will be performed in Area 4 of the city's eight pavement management areas. It includes work in the Bronx Park neighborhood, Ward 1. Selection of street segments included in the project was based on street condition and field evaluations to determine the current conditions of the pavement, curb and gutter, and the city's underground utilities. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor on March 26, 2026, and April 2, 2026, and in Finance and Commerce on March 26, 2026, through April 1, 2026. In addition, plans and specifications are made available electronically via the internet on the city's OneOffice website. Information regarding this bidding opportunity was shared with three (3) minority associations and 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; 46 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: Staff have analyzed the bids and determined that GMH Asphalt Corporation is a qualified contractor that can complete this work during the 2026 construction season. Based on the low bid received, the combined cost and funding details for both projects are as follows: Cost type CIP Low bid Construction cost $7,760,000 $5,995,928.36 Engineering and administration $1,164,000 $1,134,650.10 Total $ 8,924,000 $7,130,578.46 Funding sources CIP Low bid Franchise fees (Pavement management fund) $4,002,000 $3,379,615.76 Water utility $2,771,500 $2,258,151.80 Stormwater utility $ 989,000 $769,986.60 Sanitary sewer utility $ 207,000 $155,891.40 GO bonds (sidewalks) $ 954,500 $566,932.90 Total $8,924,000 $7,130,578.46 Bid analysis: The low bid construction cost is $1,793,421.54, or 20% 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/June 2026 and should be completed by October 2026. 2026 Pavement Management Project DA K O T A AV E S MINNETONKA BLVD GE O R G I A A V E S 29TH ST W 27TH ST W 28TH ST W 26TH ST W 31ST ST W LO U I S I A N A A V E S KE N T U C K Y A V E S JE R S E Y A V E S ID A H O A V E S HA M P S H I R E A V E S FL O R I D A A V E S ED G E W O O D A V E S BR U N S W I C K A V E S CO L O R A D O A V E S BL A C K S T O N E A V E S AL A B A M A A V E S Dakota ParkDakota Park Nelson ParkNelson Park Roxbury Park Roxbury Park Cedar Knoll Park Cedar Knoll Park Bronx ParkBronx Park Date: 4/27/2026 Pavement reconstruction Pavement reconstruction and watermain replacement Existing sidewalk Existing trail Approved sidewalk p 0 500 1,000250 Feet 30' to 26'30' to 26'30' to 26'30' to 26'30' to 26'30' to 26'30' to 26'30' to 26'30' to 26'30' to 26'30' 30 ' 30 ' 30 ' 30 ' 30 ' 30 ' 30 ' 30 '30 ' 30 ' 30 ' 30 ' 30 ' 27 ' 34'34'34'34'34'34'34'34'30'30'26' XX' to XX' : Recommended street width changes on 29th Street No parking on north side XX' : Existing street width (No changes) City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5f) Title: Approve bid for 2026 Pavement Management project (4026-1000) - Ward 1 Page 3 Meeting: City council Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5g Executive summary Title: Resolution authorizing an advance of Municipal State Aid funds – Ward 4 Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution approving an advance of Municipal State Aid Street funds. Policy consideration: Does the city council want to advance Municipal State Aid construction funds to support timely payment of eligible costs associated with projects? Summary: The Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue Improvement project is a major infrastructure investment that includes reconstruction of Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue, utility replacement, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and other safety enhancements. The project is currently under construction and is an approved Municipal State Aid (MSA) Street project. Currently, the city’s MSA account balance is zero. Advancing MSA funds is appropriate for this project because the project is already underway, includes eligible State Aid improvements and represents a significant one-time construction cost that exceeds the city’s current state aid balance. Without an advance, the city would need to delay reimbursement of eligible project costs until future State Aid allocations are received in January 2027. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has advance guidelines which require municipalities to submit a State Aid Advance Resolution authorizing the advance by the city council. Advance requests are valid only for the year requested and are subject to MnDOT State Aid approval and available funding. Approval of the resolution does not create a new project or change the approved project scope. Rather, it authorizes the city to request an advance of MSA funds so the city can continue to finance eligible project costs. Repayment of the advance will be made from future allocations to the city’s MSA construction account until fully repaid. Staff recommend approval of the resolution to request an advance from the MSA Street Fund to support timely payment of eligible costs associated with projects. Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2025 and 2026. Funding is provided by the following sources: Municipal state aid, federal aid, state appropriation- local road improvement program (LRIP) and utility funds. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a city that delivers reliable services, uses city resources responsibly, operates transparently and builds strong relationships with residents. Supporting documents: Discussion, Resolution Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, engineering project manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Tiffany Stephens, interim deputy finance director Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5g) Page 2 Title: Resolution authorizing an advance of Municipal State Aid funds – Ward 4 Discussion Background: The Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue Improvement project is a major infrastructure investment that includes reconstruction of Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue, utility replacement, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and other safety and accessibility enhancements. There are two phases for this project. Phase 2 of this project is currently under construction and is an approved Municipal State Aid (MSA) Street project. A summary: Phase 1: Cedar Lake Road (TH169 to Rhode Island Avenue) – Project No. 4023-1100 • Construction completed in 2024 Phase 2: Cedar Lake Road (Rhode Island Avenue to Kentucky Avenue) and Louisiana Avenue (Wayzata Boulevard to BNSF railroad) – Project No. 4024-1100 • Construction in 2025 and 2026 MSA funds are an important funding source for the project. However, the project requires State Aid funds more than the amount currently available in the city’s MSA construction account. Minnesota Statutes, section 162.14, subdivision 6, allows municipalities to request an advance from future MSA allocations. MnDOT’s State Aid advance process is intended to help municipalities proceed with eligible construction projects that may otherwise be delayed due to funding availability. Advancing MSA funds is appropriate because the project includes eligible State Aid improvements and represents significant costs that exceed the city’s annual State Aid allocation. Without an advance, the city would need to delay reimbursement of eligible project costs until future State Aid allocations are received. Advancing funds allows the city to better align the timing of available State Aid funding with the timing of expenditures, while preserving local funding capacity for other locally funded capital needs. Using future State Aid allocations for this purpose is consistent with the intent of the MSA program. MnDOT’s advance guidelines require municipalities to submit a State Aid Advance Resolution authorizing the advance by the city council. The resolution must identify the current account balance, anticipated allotments, estimated project disbursements and the requested advance amount. Advance requests are valid only for the year requested and are subject to MnDOT State Aid approval and available funding. Approval of the resolution does not create a new project or change the approved project scope. Rather, it authorizes the city to request an advance of MSA funds so the city can continue to finance eligible project costs. Repayment of the advance will be made from future allocations to the city’s MSA construction account until fully repaid, consistent with Minnesota Statutes, section 162.14, subdivision 6, and Minnesota Rules, chapter 8820.1500, subpart 10b. Financial/budget considerations: The following table includes a summary of the updated cost and anticipated funding for all phases of the Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue project. This advance will be used for reimbursement on projects currently under construction. Based City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5g) Page 3 Title: Resolution authorizing an advance of Municipal State Aid funds – Ward 4 on the final payment for phase 1 (4023-1100) and the low bid and costs to date for phase 2 (4024-1100), cost and funding details are as follows: Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue Improvement project overall project cost (2024-2026) Projects No: 4023-1100 and 4024-1100 Cost type 4023-1100 and 4024-1100 overall CIP budget 4023-1100 Phase 1 2024 construction (final payment) 4024-1100 Phase 2 2025-26 construction (low bid and costs to date) Overall Phase 1 and 2 Total Construction cost $19,998,470.00 $7,839,742.51 $12,837,837.21 $20,677,579.72 Engineering and administration $5,734,500.00 $2,493,346.09 $3,241,373.09 $5,734,719.18 Land acquisition $2,520,000.00 $434,365.45 $1,768,291.80 $2,202,657.25 Total: $28,252,970.00 $10,767,454.05 $17,847,502.10 $28,614,956.15 Funding sources Federal aid $7,000,000.00 $2,262,695.50 4,737,304.50 $7,000,000.00 Congressional directed spending $2,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $0 $2,000,000.00 State appropriation (LRIP) $5,000,000.00 $1,839,896.94 $3,160,103.06 $5,000,000.00 Municipal state aid $6,537,823.00 $2,614,585.05 $3,678,667.63 $6,293,252.68 General obligation bonds $3,120,207.00 $0 $3,344,955.03 $3,344,955.03 Local funds (franchise fees) $0 $0 $84,742.20 $84,742.20 Sanitary sewer fee revenue $50,000.00 $23,880.71 $325,097.60 $348,978.31 Watermain revenue bond proceeds $3,403,470.00 $1,239,188.34 $2,161,632.08 $3,400,820.42 Stormwater fee revenue $1,141,470.00 $787,207.51 $355,000.00 $1,142,207.51 Total: $28,252,970.00 $10,767,454.05 $17,847,502.10 $28,614,956.15 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5g) Page 4 Title: Resolution authorizing an advance of Municipal State Aid funds – Ward 4 Resolution No. 26-____ Authorizing an advance of Municipal State Aid funds Whereas, the Municipality of St. Louis Park is currently implementing Municipal State Aid street projects in 2026, which will require State Aid funds in excess of those available in its State Aid construction account; and Whereas, said municipality is prepared to proceed with the construction of said project(s) through the use of an advance from the Municipal State Aid Street Fund to supplement the available funds in their State Aid construction account, and Whereas, the advance is based on the following determination of estimated expenditures: Account balance as of May 4, 2026 $0 Less estimated disbursements: SAP 163-296-007 $1,500,000 SAP 163-010-040 $463,186 SP 163-276-041 $400,000 Total estimated disbursements $2,363,186 Advance amount (amount in excess of acct balance) $2,363,186 Whereas, repayment of the funds so advanced will be made in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 162.14, Subd. 6 and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8820.1500, Subp. 10b; and Whereas, the Municipality acknowledges advance funds are released on a first-come- first-serve basis and this resolution does not guarantee the availability of funds, Now therefore be it resolved that the Commissioner of Transportation be and is hereby requested to approve this advance for financing approved Municipal State Aid Street projects of the Municipality of St. Louis Park in an amount up to $2,363,186. I hereby authorize repayments from subsequent accruals to the Municipal State Aid Street Construction Account of said Municipality from future year allocations until fully repaid. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council May 4, 2026: Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5h Executive summary Title: Resolution approving sub-grant agreement related to DEED grant for the Beltline Station development - Ward 1 Recommended action: Motion to adopt city resolution approving a sub-grant agreement between the city and Beltline Mixed Use LLC, an affiliate of Sherman Associates. Policy consideration: Does the city council support the proposed sub-grant agreement with Beltline Mixed Use LLC which formalizes the respective parties’ obligations relative to the DEED (Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development) cleanup grant award? Summary: Sherman Associates, through its affiliated companies including Beltline Mixed Use LLC, is currently redeveloping a 6.6-acre site at the southeast corner of CSAH 25 and Beltline Boulevard, and immediately north of the Beltline Boulevard Station of the METRO Green Line extension of light rail transit (LRT). The development includes 380 housing units, of which 82 are affordable, approximately 21,000 square feet of commercial space, and a parking ramp which includes 268 park and ride stalls for LRT riders. On Nov. 10, 2025, the city council authorized an application to DEED and authorized future acceptance of environmental cleanup grant funds, if received. The city was awarded $303,071 of DEED funds in January 2026 and entered into a grant agreement with DEED in March 2026. Per the city’s grant agreement with DEED, the grant award is to be used for eligible environmental cleanup expenses. The sub-grant agreement with Beltline Mixed Use LLC formalizes the terms for the distribution of the grant funds. The City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority’s legal counsel drafted the proposed agreement and recommends its approval. Financial or budget considerations: The DEED grant award is $303,071. Funds will be provided to the developer on a reimbursement basis, after expenses have been incurred by the project, and after the city has been reimbursed by DEED for eligible expenses. The required match for the DEED grant will be provided by the developer. The city serves as the conduit for the grant funds. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing safe, reliable and well- maintained infrastructure and neighborhoods that connect people and places with an emphasis on walking, biking and transit. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Dean Porter-Nelson, redevelopment administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, deputy community development director Karen Barton, community development director and EDA executive director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5h) Page 2 Title: Resolution approving sub-grant agreement related to DEED grant for the Beltline Station development - Ward 1 Resolution No. 26-___ Approving a sub-grant agreement with Beltline Mixed Use LLC for grant from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development and taking other actions in connection therewith Whereas, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “authority”) and Beltline Mixed Use LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “developer”), have entered into an amended and restated contract for private development dated May 19, 2025, as amended by the first amendment to contract for private development dated January 20, 2026 (the “development agreement”), pursuant to which the developer agreed to construct a multi- phase mixed-use development on certain property in the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “city”), including market rate housing, commercial space, and a parking structure (the “minimum improvements”); and Whereas, in connection with the minimum improvements, the city applied for, on behalf of the developer, and secured a grant (Grant No. 281703) in an amount not to exceed $303,071 (the “DEED grant”) from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (“DEED”) to finance grant-eligible clean-up activities (the “DEED grant-eligible activities”) described in the Grant Contract Agreement No. CCGP-25-0024-Z-FY26 (the “grant agreement”) between DEED and the city; and Whereas, the city intends to distribute proceeds of the DEED grant to the developer to reimburse the developer for expenditures related to the DEED grant-eligible activities; and Whereas, there has been presented to the city council of the city (the “city”) a form of a sub-grant agreement (DEED grant) (the “sub-grant agreement”) between the city and the developer, which sets forth the terms under which the city will disburse proceeds of the DEED grant to the developer, as sub-grantee, for the DEED grant-eligible activities to be completed by the developer thereunder; and Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota as follows: 1. The council approves the sub-grant agreement in substantially the form presented to the council, together with any related documents necessary in connection therewith, including without limitation all documents, exhibits, certifications, or consents, referenced in or attached to the grant agreement or the sub-grant agreement (the “documents”). 2. The council hereby authorizes the mayor and city manager, in their discretion and at such time, if any, as they may deem appropriate, to execute the documents on behalf of the city, and to carry out, on behalf of the city, the city’s obligations thereunder when all conditions precedent thereto have been satisfied. The documents shall be in substantially the City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5h) Page 3 Title: Resolution approving sub-grant agreement related to DEED grant for the Beltline Station development - Ward 1 form on file with the city and the approval hereby given to the documents includes approval of such additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by legal counsel to the city and by the officers authorized herein to execute said documents prior to their execution; and said officers are hereby authorized to approve said changes on behalf of the city. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officers of the city herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such document in accordance with the terms hereof. This resolution shall not constitute an offer and the documents shall not be effective until the date of execution thereof as provided herein. 3. Be it further resolved that the authority to approve, execute and deliver future amendments to the sub-grant agreement entered into by the authority is hereby delegated to the President and Executive Director, subject to the following conditions: (a) the proposed amendments extend deadlines, amend the project budget or 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. 4. In the event of absence or disability of the officers, any of the documents authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed without further act or authorization of the council by any duly designated acting official, or by such other officer or officers of the council as, in the opinion of the city attorney, may act in their behalf. Upon execution and delivery of the documents, the officers and employees of the council are hereby authorized and directed to take or cause to be taken such actions as may be necessary on behalf of the council to implement the documents. 5. This resolution shall be effective upon approval. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council May 4, 2026: Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5i Executive summary Title: Resolution accepting transfer of 4300 36 ½ Street from the EDA to the city – Ward 2 Recommended action: Motion to approve a purchase agreement related to the transfer of 4300 36 ½ Street from the Economic Development Authority (EDA) to the City of St. Louis Park. Policy consideration: Does the City of St. Louis Park wish to accept ownership of the EDA- owned property at 4300 36 ½ Street and sell the property to a potential buyer? Summary: The EDA acquired 4300 36 ½ Street in 2022 for $1.79 million to create a commercial land trust with Partnership in Property Community Land Trust (PIPCLT). At the Oct. 6, 2025 study session (agenda, minutes) city council determined the commercial land trust was no longer feasible and expressed its desire to sell the property. The city attorney recommends transferring the EDA-owned property to the City of St. Louis Park prior to selling since the land sale does not have any long-term redevelopment goals or reporting requirements. It is recommended this transfer occurs when the city enters into a formal purchase agreement with a buyer. The city council is also asked to consider approving a purchase agreement for 4300 36 ½ Street on May 4, 2026. Financial or budget considerations: The property was originally acquired with funds from the city’s development fund and a $380,000 grant from Hennepin County. The grant will need to be repaid upon sale to release a restrictive affordable commercial covenant that was placed on the property related to the grant award. Any remaining sale proceeds will be returned to the development fund. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being an inclusive, equitable and vibrant city where everyone feels safe and experiences a strong sense of belonging. Supporting documents: Map, resolution Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, planning and economic development manager Dean Porter-Nelson, redevelopment administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, deputy community development director Karen Barton, community development director, EDA executive director Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5i) Page 2 Title: Resolution accepting transfer of 4300 36 ½ Street from the EDA to the city – Ward 2 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5i) Page 3 Title: Resolution accepting transfer of 4300 36 ½ Street from the EDA to the city – Ward 2 Resolution No. 26-___ Resolution approving acquisition of real property Whereas, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“authority”) is the fee owner of real property located in the City of St. Louis Park, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, which is legally described as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto (collectively, the “Property”); and Whereas, the authority has determined that the property is no longer needed to further the mission and goals of the authority; and Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park (“city”) has received an offer from a private party to purchase the property, contingent upon the city acquiring the property from the authority; and Whereas, the authority has authorized the conveyance of the property to the city pursuant to the terms and conditions of the purchase agreement; and Whereas, Minn. Stat. § 465.035 permits the city to acquire property from the authority for no or nominal consideration, upon terms as agreed by the parties; and Whereas, Minn. Stat. § 471.64, subd. 1, permits the city to enter a contract to acquire the property from the authority without regard to statutory or charter provisions, including Minn. Stat. § 462.356, subd. 2; and Whereas, the property is subject to declaration of restrictive covenants in favor of Hennepin County, which requires that $380,000.00 be paid to Hennepin County unless the property is sold to a qualifying buyer, Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The purchase agreement is hereby approved 2. The city manager is hereby authorized to take all actions necessary to effectuate the transaction contemplated by this resolution. The city manager is also authorized to cancel the transaction if the city manager determines it is in the city’s interest to do so. 3. City staff are directed to cause the quit claim deed for the property to be filed of record in the Office of the Hennepin County Recorder or the Office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles, as applicable 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5i) Page 4 Title: Resolution accepting transfer of 4300 36 ½ Street from the EDA to the city – Ward 2 Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council May 4, 2026: Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5i) Page 5 Title: Resolution accepting transfer of 4300 36 ½ Street from the EDA to the city – Ward 2 Exhibit A Legal Description of the Properties The South 177 feet of the North 357 feet of the East 127 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Meeting: City council Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5j Executive summary Title: Resolution approving purchase agreement for 4300 36 ½ Street – Ward 2 Recommended action: Motion to approve a purchase agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and Chinh Van and Thanh Nguyen related to the sale of 4300 36 ½ Street. Policy consideration: Does the City of St. Louis Park wish to enter into a purchase agreement with Chinh Van and Thanh Nguyen related to the proposed sale of the city-owned property at 4300 36 ½ Street? Summary: The economic development authority (EDA) acquired 4300 36 ½ Street in 2022 for $1.79 million to create a commercial land trust with Partnership in Property Community Land Trust (PIPCLT). At the Oct. 6, 2025 study session (agenda, minutes) city council determined the commercial land trust was no longer feasible and expressed its desire to sell the property. The city approved a letter of intent (LOI) on March 23, 2026, from Chinh Van and Thanh Nguyen (buyers). The LOI states the buyers propose purchasing the property for $1.75 million after a 90-day due diligence period where the proposed buyers would complete physical inspections and structural assessments, environmental analysis, a review of title, survey and zoning, secure necessary financing, and obtain all licenses and permits. Per the LOI, the 90-day due diligence period commences upon approval of a purchase agreement. The purchase agreement includes a purchase price of $1.75 million, which is supported by two city-commissioned appraisals and a broker opinion of value (BOV). Per the purchase agreement, the buyers will provide $10,000 earnest money in escrow, and a will pay the remaining purchase amount in cash at closing. The purchase agreement also specifies the seller and buyer’s responsibilities at closing, including each party paying 50% of the closing costs. The buyers are St. Louis Park small business owners seeking to purchase their first commercial property and relocate their business. They plan to occupy a portion of the building and lease the remaining space. The proposed sale advances several city priorities and helps retain this business in St. Louis Park. Financial or budget considerations: The property was originally acquired with funds from the city’s development fund and a $380,000 grant from Hennepin County. The grant will need to be repaid upon sale to release a restrictive affordable commercial covenant placed on the property related to the grant award. Any remaining sale proceeds will be returned to the development fund. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being an inclusive, equitable and vibrant city where everyone feels safe and experiences a strong sense of belonging. Supporting documents: Map, resolution Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, planning and economic development manager Reviewed by: Sean Walther, deputy community development director Karen Barton, community development director, EDA executive director Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5j) Page 2 Title: Resolution approving purchase agreement for 4300 36 ½ Street – Ward 2 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5j) Page 3 Title: Resolution approving purchase agreement for 4300 36 ½ Street – Ward 2 Resolution No. 26 -_____ Approving sale of real property Whereas, the city has entered into an agreement to acquire real property located in the City of St. Louis Park, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, which is legally described as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto (collectively, the “property”), from the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“authority”); and Whereas, the city staff has negotiated a purchase agreement for the sale of the property to Chinh Van and Thanh Nguyen, (“buyers”); and Whereas, the city has determined that the property is not needed by the city for any public purpose; that selling the property is in the best interests of the city; and is willing to sell the property pursuant to the terms and conditions of the purchase agreement; and Whereas, Minnesota Statutes § 462.356, subd. 2, requires that the planning commission review the city’s proposed sale of real property for compliance with the comprehensive plan and to report to the city council in writing its findings; and Whereas, Minnesota Statutes § 462.356, subd. 2, further provides for an exception from the requirement for review by the planning commission upon 2/3 vote of the city council dispensing with the requirement and finding that the acquisition or disposal of the real property has no relationship to the comprehensive municipal plan, Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The conveyance of the property has no relationship to the comprehensive municipal plan and review by the planning commission of the acquisition of the subject property is hereby dispensed with. 2. The purchase agreement is hereby approved. 3. The mayor and city manager are authorized and directed to execute the purchase agreement and any instruments of conveyance necessary to effectuate the conveyance of the property. The city manager is authorized and directed to execute all other documents necessary to effectuate the purchase agreement. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5j) Page 4 Title: Resolution approving purchase agreement for 4300 36 ½ Street – Ward 2 Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council May 4, 2026: Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 5j) Page 5 Title: Resolution approving purchase agreement for 4300 36 ½ Street – Ward 2 Exhibit A Legal Descriptions of the Properties The South 177 feet of the North 357 feet of the East 127 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Meeting: City council Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Consent agenda item: 5k Executive summary Title: Approve temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license – The Slavic Experience Recommended action: Motion to approve a temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license for The Slavic Experience at the ROC, 3700 Monterey Drive, on Aug. 1-2, 2026. Policy consideration: Does the applicant meet the requirements for issuance of a temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license? Summary: The Slavic Experience applied for a temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license for a fundraising event taking place at the ROC on Aug. 1-2, 2026. The purpose and mission of Slavic Experience is to create a welcoming space for people of Slavic heritage to commemorate, celebrate, and share the richness and diversity of Eastern European traditions and customs with the greater Twin Cities community. Their goal is to accomplish this in an educationally and culturally significant way while providing a fun and family-friendly experience. Food – including a best pierogi contest – live music and a variety of activities will be offered. The Slavic Experience is affiliated with Top Pierogi, and they will provide catering and service staff for the two-day event. Additionally, clear boundaries will be designated for alcoholic beverage service areas with controlled access points. The police department completed a background investigation and found no reason to deny the temporary license. The applicant meets all requirements for the issuance of the license, and staff recommends approval. Financial or budget considerations: The fee for a temporary liquor license is $100 per day. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being an inclusive, equitable and vibrant city where everyone feels safe and experiences a strong sense of belonging. Supporting documents: None. Prepared by: Amanda Scott-Lerdal, deputy city clerk Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Meeting: City council Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Public hearing: 6a Executive summary Title: Public hearing for Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) - Wards 1 and 3 Recommended action: Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony and close public hearing. The city council will be asked to act on this project at the meeting on June 1, 2026. Policy consideration: 1. Does the city council support Concept B as the recommended design for phase 2 of the Minnetonka Boulevard Reconstruction project? 2. Does the city council want to pursue the relocation of overhead utilities to underground within this corridor? Summary: Hennepin County is proposing to reconstruct Minnetonka Boulevard (CSAH 5) between Highway 100 and Aquila Avenue in St. Louis Park in 2028 and 2029. They hired Alliant Engineering Inc. as their consultant to complete the project planning and engagement. Since 2025, engineering, communications and public works staff have been working with Hennepin County’s project team to develop the design for this project. In addition to working with city staff, their project team has done extensive community engagement to help inform Concept B as the recommended design. While community feedback has generally been positive towards Concept B, parts of the biking community have expressed concerns with the design. Concept B (attached) is recommended because it would provide the best “all ages and abilities”, avoid operational impacts present in other concepts and result in lower city costs. The project team has prepared a preliminary layout of the preferred alternative that will be presented at the public hearing. Financial or budget considerations: The total cost for the project is estimated to be $39.22 million, with Hennepin County covering $26.20 million. The city's share of the project cost included in the capital improvement plan (CIP) is $13,050,000; however, the new cost estimate is $1,621,320 higher than the CIP budget. In addition, the three concepts each affect annual city operating and maintenance costs and are highlighted in more detail in this report. The city’s project costs will be paid for using utility funds and general obligation bonds. Any operating and maintenance cost increases would be paid for by the general levy. Additional information on the breakdown of the costs and funding, and the potential Xcel undergrounding can be found in the discussion section of the report. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing safe, reliable and well- maintained infrastructure and neighborhoods that connect people and places with an emphasis on walking, biking and transit. Supporting documents: Discussion, Design Concepts (A, B and C), Open House Summary from April 15, 2026 Prepared by: Mark Elgaard, engineering project manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director; Jack Sullivan, assistant city engineer; Tiffany Stephens, interim deputy finance director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 6a) Page 2 Title: Public hearing for Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) - Wards 1 and 3 Discussion Background: Minnetonka Boulevard, located between Highway 100 and Aquila Avenue, is a concrete roadway with a four-inch bituminous overlay. Due to the bituminous overlays of this road, there are many locations where the curb is only one or two inches high. Constructed in 1956, the roadway is nearing the end of its useful life. Hennepin County plans to reconstruct the roadway because routine maintenance activities, such as bituminous overlays and crack seals, are no longer cost-effective. The current roadway and sidewalk design does not meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards and does not adequately serve people walking, biking, or those with limited mobility. City staff have heard from the community that there are safety concerns for pedestrians crossing the road. The existing bike facilities consist of on-street bike lanes created by converting roadway shoulders and restriping them. These facilities do not meet the city council’s goal of providing “all ages and abilities” bicycle infrastructure, and community feedback has consistently indicated that riding directly adjacent to vehicle traffic is not perceived as comfortable or safe. In order to provide “all ages and abilities” bicycle infrastructure on Minnetonka Boulevard, off- street facilities are recommended. City watermain and utility infrastructure under the road have experienced multiple failures over the last five years, including two instances that caused private property damage. For these reasons, the watermain is recommended to be replaced. Additionally, the county’s storm sewer system on Minnetonka Boulevard requires upgrade and expansion. Currently, stormwater is largely conveyed through the adjacent city system. This project will reconstruct the corridor’s storm sewer infrastructure and incorporate water quality treatment for roadway runoff. Information regarding this project was shared with the city council in a written report at the study session on March 23, 2026. Preferred concept recommendation considerations: Staff recommend that the city council approve Concept B as the preferred concept design for this project. Here is some additional information regarding staff’s decision-making process. The city and Hennepin County’s goals for bikeways are to create the best “all ages and abilities” facilities possible. This goal aims to create a facility that anyone of any bicycling confidence level or age can utilize. The existing facilities on Minnetonka Boulevard are on-street painted bike lanes, which, according to the Federal Bikeway Selection Guide, only “highly confident bicyclists” (4-7%) utilize, along with an additional “somewhat confident” (5-9%). These two groups are the typical users of on-street bicycle facilities, meaning on-street facilities like bike lanes are comfortable or somewhat comfortable to use for 9-16% of the general community. Off-street facilities aim to make bicycle travel safe and comfortable for the 51-56% who are “interested but concerned” users. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 6a) Page 3 Title: Public hearing for Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) - Wards 1 and 3 While all the proposed concepts create off-street facilities that aim to reach the broader biking community, city staff believe Concept B creates the best “all ages and abilities” bike facility for a few reasons. Two-way facility: Concept A has one-way bike facilities on both sides of the street, i.e., if a person starts on the north side of the street and wants to bike East, they must cross Minnetonka Boulevard to get to their correct one-way facility on the south side of the road. This can create situations where a community member who is making a short trip or is not comfortable crossing Minnetonka Boulevard may choose to bike the wrong way down a one-way cycle track or on the sidewalk. We frequently see “wrong-way” biking on other similar facilities in the city. Concept B has shared-use trails on both sides of the road. Shared-use trails are two-way facilities, i.e., regardless of which side of the street a community member starts on, you can go both directions legally, safely and more comfortably. In concept B, they would only need to cross Minnetonka Boulevard if their destination was on the other side of the roadway. Concept C is similar to Concept B, but the two-way facility is only on one side of the road; anyone choosing to bike on the side of the road opposite the shared-use trail must cross Minnetonka Boulevard to do so. This can create situations where a community member who is making a short trip or is not comfortable crossing Minnetonka Boulevard may choose to bike on the sidewalk. Since the sidewalk is only six (6) feet wide, there is not adequate room for bicyclists and pedestrians to pass by each other comfortably. Separation from vehicle traffic: The shared-use trail near the right of way line creates a larger separation from vehicle traffic. The proposed concept has six to eight (6-8) foot- wide boulevards with space to plant new trees that will create a greater sense of separation than the back-of-curb facility present in Concept A. Biking away from the back of curb will offer a greater sense of comfort for all users. Coordinating work – city maintenance and operations: The three concepts each have different impacts for snow removal, solid waste collections and the community as described below. Snow removal: Most of the roadway and pedestrian facility maintenance associated with the facilities being constructed with this project will remain unchanged. Hennepin County is responsible for snow removal on Minnetonka Boulevard. The city is responsible for snow removal on sidewalks, trails and separated bikeways within the county right of way. While city staff remove snow for these facilities within the county right of way, different city departments remove snow on sidewalks/one-way bikeways than on trails/two-way bikeways. Public works utilities division removes snow on sidewalks/one-way bikeways while the parks and recreation department removes snow on trails/two-way bikeways, meaning staffing and equipment requirements will differ by facility. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 6a) Page 4 Title: Public hearing for Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) - Wards 1 and 3 Equipment Due to the width difference between sidewalks/one-way bikeways and trails/two-way bikeways, four to six (4-6) feet wide and eight to ten (8-10) feet wide respectively, the equipment utilized for snow removal is different. The equipment for clearing snow on a sidewalk/ one-way bikeway is a Trackless sidewalk plow (“Trackless”), and the equipment used to remove snow on a trail/two-way bikeway is a standard pickup truck or tractor. Some key differences between the two pieces of equipment are noted below and summarized in Table 1. • Trackless is a specialized piece of equipment, which has a higher upfront cost and higher yearly maintenance cost as compared to a pickup or tractor. • Trackless is only used for sidewalk/one-way bikeway snow removal and sits unused for the remainder of the year. A Pickup or tractor can be used year- round, resulting in a lower maintenance cost. • Trackless moves slower than a pickup or tractor and has less horsepower, so it takes longer to clear snow over the same distance. This is true for both heavy snowfall (two inches or more) and light snowfall (less than two inches). Table 1. Snow removal equipment comparison Equipment Department Purchase price Maintenance cost per year Average speed (<2 in snow event) Average speed (>2 in snow event) Pickup or tractor Parks and recreation $125,000 $17,200 7.5 mph 5 mph Trackless Public works $218,000 $30,900 2 mph 0.75 mph Personnel and level of service Existing utility division: • Six (6) existing sidewalk/one-way bikeway routes that need to be cleared after every snow event; each, on average, is just under twelve miles. • Minnetonka Boulevard in the project area currently has four miles of sidewalk, or approximately one-third of the route. • Snow removal time on a typical sidewalk/one-way bikeway route depends on the amount of snow received: o Light snow event (less than two inches) – to substantially remove snow on a single route, on average, 10-14 hours of staff time. o Heavy snow event (two inches or more) – to substantially remove snow on a single route, 20-40 hours of staff time. Existing parks and recreation department: • Three existing trails/two-way bikeways routes that need to be cleared after every snow event; each, on average, is just over thirteen (13) miles. • Minnetonka Boulevard currently has zero trails within the project area. • Snow removal time on a typical trail/ two-way bikeway route depends on the amount of snow received: o Light snow event (less than two inches) – to substantially remove snow on a single route, on average, seven to eleven (7-11) hours of staff time. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 6a) Page 5 Title: Public hearing for Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) - Wards 1 and 3 o Heavy snow event (two inches or more) – to substantially remove snow on a single route, 14-22 hours of staff time. Concept A: If Concept A is approved, the split cycle tracks and sidewalks on both sides of the street would add an additional four miles of sidewalk/one-way bikeway to the utility division. Because of this, we would be adding nearly a third of a route to the city system. With current routes taking ten or more hours to clear light snow events already, the city utilities division would be asking for an additional full-time employee and an additional Trackless to maintain a similar level of service for sidewalk snow removal. If an additional employee and equipment were not included to create an additional city sidewalk plow route, light snow events may result in a two-day timeframe for snow removal, and heavy snow events may reach a three-day removal timeframe. Concept B: If Concept B is approved, the four miles of existing sidewalks would be replaced by four miles of trails. This switches snow removal responsibilities from the utility division to the parks and recreation department. This would alleviate some of the utility division’s mileage and might increase the level of service of our sidewalk system slightly, but the parks and recreation department would be asking for an additional pickup truck or tractor to aid in redundancy for their snow-clearing operations. They would be able to clear snow with existing staffing levels. With the increased horsepower and speed at which snow can be removed along trails in comparison to sidewalks, the additional four miles of trail would have a smaller impact on the overall parks and recreation department’s snow removal routes. The main impact would be that ice rinks would take up to an hour longer to be cleared following a snow event, and city-owned parking lots at parks with no ice rinks or winter activity nodes may be cleared the following day. Parking lots at city-owned parks that have ice rinks or winter activity nodes would be cleared in a similar time frame as today. Concept C: If Concept C is approved, the existing four miles of sidewalk would become two miles of sidewalk and two miles of trail. This would reduce the city utility division’s route by two miles and add two miles to the parks and recreation department route. This change would still require a new pickup or tractor for the parks and recreation department but would not require a new Trackless or employee for the utility division. Snow removal costs: When it comes to cost, snow removal equipment, speeds, equipment costs and staffing all directly influence the level of service, or the time it takes to clear snow along a corridor. Trackless moving slower, having a higher yearly maintenance cost and having additional mileage to clear with Concept A quickly starts to raise the cost to remove snow. In Table 2 below, the per snow event for the existing condition and each concept is shown. All of these calculations have a built in assumption that expectations regarding the length of time in which snow needs to be cleared have not changed. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 6a) Page 6 Title: Public hearing for Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) - Wards 1 and 3 Table 2. Cost to remove snow on Minnetonka Boulevard, per snow event. Concept Light snowfall (<2 in) Heavy snowfall (>2 in) Existing $2,621.20 $6,989.87 A $5,242.40 $13,979.73 B $264.32 $396.48 C $1,442.76 $3,693.17 Using data from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) on average yearly snow events, we can assume seven heavy snow events and thirty light snow events per year. This gives us a yearly estimated cost to remove snow along Minnetonka Boulevard for the existing condition and the three concepts, seen in Table 3 below. Note that Concept A would be an increase in yearly cost from the existing conditions, while Concepts B and C would be a decrease in yearly cost. Table 3. Yearly cost to remove snow along Minnetonka Boulevard, per concept Concept Yearly total cost Existing $127,565.07 A $255,130.13 B $10,704.96 C $69,135.01 Factoring in requested employees and equipment, yearly equipment maintenance costs, and the yearly estimated cost of snow removal, the total anticipated year one and continuous yearly costs are shown below in Tables 4 and 5. Table 4. Anticipated year one cost to the city for snow removal along Minnetonka Boulevard, per concept Concept Annual snow removal Upfront equipment Annual equipment Annual personnel Total A $255,130 $218,000 $30,900 $125,000 $629,030 B $10,705 $125,000 $17,200 $152,905 C $69,135 $125,000 $17,200 $211,335 Table 5. Anticipated year two and future costs to the city for snow removal along Minnetonka Boulevard, per concept Concept Annual snow removal Annual equipment Annual personnel Total A $255,130 $30,900 $125,000 $411,030 B $10,705 $17,200 $27,905 C $69,135 $17,200 $86,335 Impact on annual budget: Each concept would have future impacts on the city’s annual budget. Because the costs above are based on 2025 costs, and this project is not anticipated to be completed until winter 2029/2030, staff have added inflation and calculated the anticipated impact on the annual budget for each concept. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 6a) Page 7 Title: Public hearing for Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) - Wards 1 and 3 If Concept A is approved, staff would ask for the purchase of a new trackless machine and the addition of a staff member during the 2028 budget process for the 2029 levy, potentially resulting in a one-time levy increase of $245,000 to purchase new equipment. In addition, a new position would need to be added to the utility division. Since utility division staff are paid for using water and sanitary sewer funds, this may increase our water and sewer rates or result in less funding being available for infrastructure replacement. This would be an ongoing annual cost of $140,000 for staff and annual maintenance cost of $35,000. If Concept B or C is approved, and assuming expectations around the timeliness of snow clearing don’t change, staff would need a new pickup or tractor in 2028 for the 2029 levy, potentially resulting in a one-time levy increase of $140,000 to purchase new equipment. There would also be an ongoing annual maintenance cost of $19,300. Solid waste collection: A recent lesson learned from the installation of a one-way cycle track and sidewalks on Cedar Lake Road, which is similar to Concept A, pertains to solid waste collection. In locations where a facility runs along the back of the curb in areas serviced by front yard waste collections, property owners lose the option to place their bins in the boulevard space behind the curb. Since bins cannot be placed in travel lanes, i.e., the road or a bicycle facility, in a location with a back-of-curb facility, they must be placed behind the paved surface, often six to eight (6-8) feet behind the curb. This creates challenges for our solid waste collectors as they can no longer reach the waste bin with the mechanical arm on the vehicle. This results in one of two options for the solid waste collector: • Driving partially on the back-of-curb facility, partially blocking the bikeway and traffic or; • Stopping in the vehicle lane, climbing out of the vehicle into traffic, pulling the bin across the back-of-curb facility, then moving it back behind the facility and moving to the next pickup location. Both of the above options create conflicts for bicyclists and can place the waste collection staff in active travel lanes and slow down collections. Additionally, we have observed property owners placing their bins directly on the back- of-curb facility, blocking it. While this is technically not allowed by city code, when there is snow on the boulevard, there is limited room for them to place their bins. Operational drawbacks of a back-of-curb facility: A few other common concerns we have heard from the community regarding back-of-curb facilities, like those in Concept A, are as follows: • They allow vehicles to drive over the curb and park in the off-street facility. This is most seen with deliveries, contractors or pickup/drop-offs. When a vehicle parks within the off-street facility, it creates a dangerous situation where a biker may have to enter the roadway unexpectedly for drivers to avoid an obstruction. No parking is allowed on Minnetonka Boulevard. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 6a) Page 8 Title: Public hearing for Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) - Wards 1 and 3 • A back-of-curb facility can also create a feeling of a wider roadway. The presence of additional hard surface in proximity to the roadway can make the corridor feel wider, reducing the benefits of narrowing the road to slow traffic. • The additional hard surface pushes tree planting further from the roadway, once again reducing speed reduction benefits typically created by the vertical elements of planted trees. This can also increase the heat island effect as the roadway receives less shade from trees planted further away. • While a back-of-curb bike facility is separated from the roadway, the close proximity to moving vehicles can still create unease in less confident bicyclists. • With a back-of-curb facility, snowplows removing snow from the roadway push snow over the curb and into the bike facility. This creates additional work for the city crew clearing the snow on the facility behind the curb. With Minnetonka Boulevard being a county roadway, the city crews removing snow from the bike facility do not have the same ability to coordinate snow removal operations internally that they would have if it were a city-owned street with city-owned snowplows. This can create operational delays or challenges as city crews must wait for county crews to clear the street before they can remove snow on the bikeway. • There are many driveways along the street, and each pass of snow removal equipment, whether operated by the city or the county, can leave a windrow of snow across driveway openings. The city’s Trackless would need to make two separate passes: one to clear the bikeway and one to clear the sidewalk. As a result, a driveway could receive multiple windrows from city operations, in addition to the windrow left at the curb by the county’s street plow. Depending on the amount of snow, the number of passes needed and the timing of each operation, this condition can be frustrating for property owners. Coordinating work – relocation of overhead utilities: There are existing overhead utilities in two sections of the project corridor: • East of Blackstone Avenue • West of Oregon Avenue Xcel Energy has provided the city with preliminary estimates to underground the overhead utilities along Minnetonka Boulevard for both sections in the project corridor. The segment east of Blackstone Avenue is estimated to cost $200,000 and the segment west of Oregon Avenue is estimated to cost $5,300,000. The total cost to relocate the overhead utilities underground throughout the corridor is estimated at $5,500,000. This estimate is the cost of the new underground system minus the cost of pole relocations. Due to the preliminary nature of the county's road design, it does not include the following: • Right of way/easement costs for new utility infrastructure where there is not adequate room in the existing right of way. • Private cost for properties to modify their wiring to accommodate underground service. These costs are dependent on the final design of the street reconstruction project and what is needed to convert each customer from overhead to underground service. Staff anticipate that City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 6a) Page 9 Title: Public hearing for Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) - Wards 1 and 3 these items could increase the cost by 5-20%, resulting in an overall cost of $5,775,000 to $6,600,000. The cost to underground these facilities would be borne by the city, with the county’s share capped at $500,000 if the county commits funding for the work. There are two ways to fund the city's portion of the cost for relocating the overhead utilities underground. Funding can be provided by a City Requested Special Facilities Surcharge (CRFS), or city funds. A CRFS is a pass-through charge that Xcel will add to the bills of all St Louis Park electric customers. The fee has a set duration and a maximum total allowed. It is estimated that the maximum fee that could be recovered in a one-year period is $1,567,380. However, the CRFS cannot be used to fund private costs. The other way to fund undergrounding would be to use general obligation bonds. For the work to relocate the utilities underground in phase 1, east of Highway 100, the costs were funded by a citywide CRFS. This charge has not yet taken effect, and, at the time of approval, Xcel estimated it would cost a single-family household $8.40 per year, while a low- income household would pay $3 per year for three years. The cost to underground the overhead utilities in phase 1 was estimated to cost $1,220,000. We are still waiting for Xcel Energy to provide us with the final cost, at which time, the charges will be added to their customer bills. Financial or budget considerations: The following table outlines the estimated project cost and anticipated funding sources for Concept B. Cost type CIP Engineer’s estimate Construction $7,743,680 $8,700,000 Engineering and administration $2,120,000 $2,350,000 Contingency $0 $1,000,000 Right of way/Land acquisition $1,565,000 $1,000,000 Total $11,428,680 $13,050,000 Funding sources General obligation bonds $4,988,680 $7,485,853 Sanitary sewer utility $700,000 $502,300 Water utility $5,740,000 $4,061,847 Total $11,428,680 $13,050,000 The engineer's estimate is 12.4% greater than the CIP and does not include the city's share of the preliminary estimate to underground the overhead utilities. This cost was not included in the CIP estimate. As with the overhead relocation in phase 1 of the Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project, staff recommend funding the relocation with CRFS. Staff are currently waiting for estimated surcharges from Xcel Energy and will provide them at a later date. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 6a) Page 10 Title: Public hearing for Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) - Wards 1 and 3 City staff are pursuing additional funding to help cover city costs for this project. This includes submitting the project for Fiscal Year 2027 Community Project Funding for the city’s share of the cost. In addition to the project construction cost, there is a future impact on the city’s annual budget for operation and maintenance. To ensure that snow removal is completed at our current level of service for Concept B, staff would ask for the purchase of a new truck or tractor in 2028 for the 2029 levy, potentially resulting in a one-time levy increase of $140,000. Open house community feedback summary: Hennepin County provided the city with the attached summary of the third open house, hosted on April 15, 2026, at the Lenox Community Center. Key themes that were heard at the open house are detailed in the summary. An overview of the most common themes follows: • Overall sentiment was positive towards the recommended design • Common concerns around bike-pedestrian shared space • Some community members noted a preference for on-street bike lanes • Tree removal • Removal of roundabouts • Pedestrian Safety Staff recommendations: Preferred concept Staff recommend that the city council approve Concept B as the preferred concept design for the Minnetonka Boulevard Reconstruction project for the reasons detailed in this report. In summary: • Concept B provides a two-way facility on both sides of the street. Regardless of which side of the street a person starts on, they can go both directions legally, safely and more comfortably. They would only need to cross Minnetonka Boulevard if their destination was on the other side of the road. • It does not have the operational drawbacks for property owners or solid waste collections that we have observed for a facility like Concept A. • Annual cost for operation and maintenance is lower. Relocating the overhead utilities underground Staff recommend continuing to work with Xcel Energy to get a better handle on the cost to relocate the overhead utilities underground. To understand these additional costs, the overhead relocation design will need to be refined in conjunction with the development of the county's final plans. If the council does not support the work, the preferred alternative design, Concept B, can still be built if the overhead utilities are not buried. In that situation, the poles would be relocated to the boulevard space between the curb and the trail. A final decision is not required at this time. If this work is pursued, it will require separate approval from the city council. This would be brought before the city council in the second quarter of 2026, along with an updated cost estimate and funding recommendations. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 6a) Page 11 Title: Public hearing for Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) - Wards 1 and 3 Next steps: A high-level schedule for the project: City council public hearing May 4, 2026 City council project decision June 1, 2026 Construction 2028 and 2029 Design concepts Below are the three design concepts community members provided input on through the focus group, open house and online survey. Concept A features separated areas for people who walk, bike, and roll with one-way bicycle paths and sidewalks on each side, comparable to Cedar Lake Road. Of the three designs, Concept A features the least amount of greenspace but preserves priority trees. Snow clearing and storage for this concept would be the most challenging of the three. Concept B features a shared use path on each side the boulevard, allowing bicycles to ride in either direction on each side of the street. Concept B features more greenspace and provides more trees than Concept A. Snow clearing and storage of this concept would be the least challenging of the three. Tradeos for this design are potential conicts between pedestrians and cyclists. Concept C features a shared use path on one side of the boulevard and a sidewalk on the other side of the boulevard. Bicyclists are limited to cycling in either direction to one side of the street. Of the three designs, Concept C provides the most greenspace and preserves the most trees and presents less challenges for snow clearing and storage than Concept A. City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public hearing for Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) - Wards 1 and 3 Page 12 Open house summary Minnetonka Boulevard | Open House 3 Hennepin County Overview On Wednesday, April 15, 2026, the project team hosted an open house meeting at Lenox Community Center to present the recommended design for Minnetonka Boulevard (County Road 5) between Vernon Avenue and Xylon Avenue. The event was advertised through Hennepin County’s channels with a mailing to the project area, GovDelivery eblasts, and business door knocking. About 120 community members attended to review the design and provide feedback. Input was largely positive, with some concerns about bicycle and pedestrian conflicts on the shared- use paths. Many residents requested construction detour and phasing information, emphasizing the need for continued communication and engagement as the project enters final design and construction preparation. Materials included: •Informational boards detailing the project’s background and how the project team chose the preferred design •A tabletop plot of the preferred design with sticky notes and pens for comments •Sign-in sheets, comment cards, and project handouts •An interactive demographic activity to understand who attended the event •An interactive Minnetonka Boulevard trivia game •A large coloring page for youth •Water, cookies, and fruit Meeting Item Item Description Date Wednesday, April 15 Time 5 to 7 p.m. Location Lenox Community Center 6715 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park Format In-person open house City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public hearing for Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) - Wards 1 and 3 Page ϭ3 # of attendees 120 Comment method and comment period Layout plot with sticky notes Conversations with staff Online comment map open April 15 to 31 # of comments 20 Staffing •Jason Staebell, Hennepin County •Jack Sullivan, St. Louis Park •Mark Elgaard, St. Louis Park •Jase Peter, St. Louis Park •Nick Turner, Alliant •Abigail Blonigen, BMI •Justin Vorndran, BMI City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public hearing for Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) - Wards 1 and 3 Page ϭ4 Key themes •Overall sentiment was positive, with many attendees expressing support for the proposed design. •Common concerns mirrored previous feedback, particularly around bike-pedestrian conflicts on shared-use paths, e‑bike use, and boulevard maintenance concerns. •Some community members noted a preference for on-street bike lanes as opposed to the shared-use path. •Tree removal generated fewer concerns than anticipated. •Opinions on removing roundabouts from the design were split roughly evenly. •Pedestrian safety was a recurring theme, with requests for more and better‑controlled crosswalks, improved sightlines, raised sidewalks, and safer crossings, especially near schools, transit stops, and under the railroad bridge. •Several location‑specific issues were noted, including transit operations and bus stop placement, missing sidewalks and crosswalks, drainage and erosion near the railroad bridge, and interest in design details such as seating and prairie plantings. •Many residents requested construction detour and phasing information, emphasizing the need for continued communication and engagement as the project enters final design and construction preparation. Layout comments Intersection Comment General Keep on street bike lanes General Keep bike lanes on street – separate from pedestrians General Seems like keeping bike lanes on road and shrinking mixed use to one side would be nicer. I run and bike. General Generally concerned w/ tree removal General Bituminous trail is HOT on dog paws General Raised sidewalks to increase cross-street stop compliance Xylon Ave Consider more crosswalks – Make all of them controlled. Pedestrian safety priority. Xylon Ave Left turn at Aquila school – am peak Texas Ave Signal timing questions related to bus stops Rhode Island Ave Missing crosswalk at Rhode Island Quebec Ave Why bus stop and RRFB at different blocks? Pennsylvania Ave Bus stops holding traffic Pennsylvania Ave Prairie (mixed native grasses, flowers) here at NE corner except for 3’ where city destroys it with bad snow removal. Do NOT replace w/ seed! City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public hearing for Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) - Wards 1 and 3 Page ϭ5 Between Nevada Ave and Maryland Ave Stone block benches? I like them! Louisiana Ave Ex transit stops go away? Heavily used... Georgia Ave Missing sidewalk Georgia Ave S. block 3000 eastside Between Brunswick Ave and Blackstone Ave RR bridge drainage. Are pipes on bridge broken? Erosion issues below bridge. Can we fix? Between Brunswick Ave and Blackstone Ave Check sight lines under RR bridge Between Brunswick Ave and Blackstone Ave Blackstone or Brunswick would be better location for ped xing? Xenwood Ave Site line analysis Comment cards •My major concern is the traffic backups that will occur on Mtka Blvd due to stopped vehicles in the lanes – specifically Metro buses – at the busiest times. There’s no “shoulder” for necessary stopping. •1. I’ve noted before & I’ll continue: I have native plantings (grasses & forbs) on the NE corner of Pennsylvania Ave at Mtka Blvd. Your sidewalk snow plows already destroy the 1st few feet north of the sidewalk. Any destruction north of that MUST be replaced by plugs at minimum since these are mature plants (south of the sidewalk is destroyed by your street plows that cannot stick to the road – they run over the curb). 2. How far into the boulevard and sidewalk will your new scheme extend? There is retaining wall holding back hillside/abutting the sidewalk. Any removal & extension of the boulevard/biking/sidewalk scheme must have retaining wall to hold the hill back. Demographics Race/ethnicity Count White/Caucasian 44 Asian/Pacific American; Asian/Pacific Islander (API) 1 More than one race or not listed here 1 American Indian; Native American 0 African-American; African; Black, and/or African descent or the African diaspora 0 Alaska Native; Native Hawaiian 0 Latino/a/x/Hispanic 0 Middle Eastern/North African (MENA) 0 Gender identity Count Female 29 Male 22 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public hearing for Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) - Wards 1 and 3 Page ϭ6 Zip code Count 55426 23 55416 18 Other 2 55436 0 Relationship to Minnetonka Boulevard Count Live on or close by Minnetonka Boulevard 46 I frequently travel through or along Minnetonka Boulevard 10 I come to the area for shopping, goods or services 3 I come for recreation, entertainment, or cultural gatherings 2 Work on or close by Minnetonka Boulevard 0 I come to the area but do not live or work here 0 City council meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public hearing for Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project phase 2 (4028-7000) - Wards 1 and 3 Page 17 Meeting: Special study session Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Discussion item: 1 Executive summary Title: Police department strategic planning report from The Axtell Group Recommended action: No formal action is being requested at this time. Policy consideration: Does the council wish to address the gap between services desired of the police department and what they are able to sustainably deliver by 1) reducing services or 2) planning for an increased financial allocation? Summary: In June 2025, the St. Louis Park Police Department (SLPPD) issued a request for proposal process, soliciting bids on a strategic planning and implementation project. The purpose of the two-phase project was to answer the questions, “What does community policing look like for the SLPPD for the next 20 years?” and “How will the department need to be structured, resourced and work operationally to effectively meet that vision?” Through a request for proposal (RFP) process, The Axtell Group was selected as the consultancy group for this work. After a significant level of stakeholder engagement, data collection, policy and process reviews, environmental scan, and additional supporting work associated with the project, The Axtell Group completed its final report. The overarching theme of the final report was a misalignment of the police department's capacity and the community policing vision provided by stakeholders. Capacity gaps were identified in seven strategic areas. At the study session, the Axtell Group will present the final report, department staff will discuss its impact and outline steps taken to date and direction from council will be requested. Council direction will inform future budget asks and programming decisions. This direction is needed to ensure an alignment of stakeholder expectations with the SLPPD’s operational capabilities. Financial or budget considerations: None at this time. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a city that delivers reliable services, uses city resources responsibly, operates transparently and builds strong relationships with residents. Supporting documents: The Axtell Group final project report Prepared by: Bryan Kruelle, police chief Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Special study session meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Police department strategic planning report from The Axtell Group Discussion Background: In June 2025, the St. Louis Park Police Department issued a request for proposal process, soliciting bids on a strategic planning and implementation project. The purpose of the two-phase project was to answer the questions, “What does community policing look like for the SLPPD for the next 20 years?” and “How will the department need to be structured, resourced and work operationally to effectively meet that vision?” After reviewing more than 15 submissions for the project, a local consultancy firm, The Axtell Group, was chosen to complete this analysis. The decision was due to their deep operational knowledge of Minnesota law enforcement, track record of effectiveness in these types of studies, outstanding reputation and strong commitment to engagement, as our commitment to community-oriented policing demands. The project was deliberately structured in two phases. Phase I established a clear, forward- looking strategic vision grounded in the department’s longstanding commitment to community- oriented policing, professionalism, accountability, and non-traditional approaches to public safety. Phase II evaluated the department’s current organizational capacity, staffing model and support systems to determine whether they were positioned to execute that vision effectively and sustainably over the next 10–20 years. The report summarizes the multi-step strategic planning effort conducted in partnership with The Axtell Group to align the SLPPD's long-term direction with community expectations and the evolving demands of modern policing. Present considerations: Axtell Report findings: Phase I of the report articulates a long-range strategic vision spanning 10–20 years, building on the department’s core mission of community-oriented policing. The vision was developed through qualitative input from community members, officers and other city staff members, city leaders and elected officials. It emphasizes continuous improvement in service delivery while retaining flexibility to respond to societal and professional changes. The report affirms the SLPPD is a highly professional and compassionate agency, supported by strong community support, dedicated partnerships and a commitment to balancing enforcement with equity and wellness. The study was not designed to be statistically reliable. Instead, its purpose was to provide strong directional insight by identifying and analyzing themes. Participants in Phase I included the Police Advisory Commission (PAC), the Police Multi-cultural Advisory Committee (PMAC), the Human Right Commission (HRC) neighborhood leaders and block captains, members of faith-based groups, the Hispanic and Somali communities, rental communities, the St. Louis Park School Board, business leaders, non-profits and others (see full list in report). Internally, the department’s strengths are clear. SLPPD has a highly-capable, values-driven workforce and specialized functions including its Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), Behavioral Health Unit (BHU) and tactical teams. These capabilities are further supported by strong regional partnerships through mutual aid and the Southwest Consortium. Community- Special study session meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Police department strategic planning report from The Axtell Group oriented policing is deeply embedded in the organization, fostering trust and positive outcomes. At the same time, the report identifies several internal limitations – not as critical failures but as areas requiring targeted investment to maintain high performance in a dynamic environment. These include: • Capacity constraints, including heavy reliance on secondary assignments that impact employee wellness • Outdated or insufficient technology, equipment and facilities • Opportunities to strengthen leadership processes, communication, recruiting, field training and cross-departmental alignment within the city These challenges are manageable but, if left unaddressed, will increasingly limit the department’s ability to sustain its current level of service. Externally, the department benefits from strong public support and trust, high approval of its services, and clear alignment with elected officials around community-oriented policing and employee wellness. Collaborative relationships with the fire department, emergency medical services, neighboring agencies and mutual aid partners are effective and position the department well for regional coordination, including anticipated impacts from light rail expansion. At the same time, the external environment is becoming more complex. Demand for service is increasing not just in volume but in complexity. Contributing factors include: • An aging population • Increased mental and behavioral health needs • Growth in multifamily housing • Evolving community expectations for more time-intensive, relationship-based responses In addition, reduced police staffing in Minneapolis continues to create spillover impacts, including increases in cross-jurisdictional crime (such as auto theft), greater coordination demands and the need for heightened awareness. Uncertainty related to light rail expansion, limitations within social services organizations and broader political dynamics will continue to place pressure on the department’s capacity. These factors reinforce the need for proactive adjustments to the service model and resource allocation. To realize the vision, the report recommends four interconnected strategic directions: 1. Deepen community relationships through increased neighborhood engagement 2. Realign structure and expanding capacity with judicious personnel additions (including non-sworn roles) 3. Upgrade technology, equipment and infrastructure for efficiency and safety 4. Enhance leadership processes, communication and training consistency Phase II of the Strategic Planning and Implementation project conducted a detailed capacity assessment using the framework of Demand, Capacity, Alignment and Sustainability. The department’s organizational design and strategic direction remain sound and closely aligned Special study session meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 1) Page 4 Title: Police department strategic planning report from The Axtell Group with Phase I priorities. However, current staffing, support systems and infrastructure create structural constraints. Although the department meets its baseline obligations through professionalism and dedication, it operates at or near critical minimum capacity in multiple areas. This limits proactive, preventive and community-engaged policing while also creating officer wellness impacts. Key findings by functional area are: Department Supervision: Executive leaders and sergeants are highly engaged but spend excessive time on reactive, staff-level and administrative tasks. This is due in part to limited clerical support and a lack of consolidated data dashboards. • Key observations: Front-line supervisory development is at times inconsistent and largely “on-the-job” due to current organizational capabilities, which can lead to variability in practices. • Key challenges: Fragmented leadership focus and reduced capacity for coaching, quality assurance and strategic execution as a result of organizational capacity. • Investment considerations: Include dedicated administrative support, management- level analytics, and structured ongoing supervisory development programs to address these capacity challenges. Patrol Operations: Patrol is the department’s foundation, but it is sustained through heavy overtime, 12-hour emergency shifts, and redeployment of specialty unit personnel to meet minimum staffing levels. • Key observations: Call complexity has increased significantly with digital evidence demands and higher expectations for thorough, relationship-based responses. • Key challenges: Fatigue, reduced proactive and community engagement time, and misalignment with Phase I’s emphasis on problem-solving and visible neighborhood presence. • Investment considerations: Include reevaluating deployable staffing models, building training and leave buffers, reducing structural dependence on overtime, and increasing sworn staffing levels to better achieve the balance between operational needs, staffing leaves and wellness. Investigations: Caseloads are stable but constrained. Aggressive supervisory triage results in some solvable cases (especially property-type crimes) being forced to be deprioritized. • Key observations: Digital evidence volume and prosecutorial expectations have dramatically increased the workload. • Key challenges: Concentration of work on a small core of personnel, limited case- management technology and investigators frequently redeployed to patrol. • Investment considerations: Include additional investigative support such as civilian analysts or assistants, integrated case-management tools and full-time property/evidence specialists. Special study session meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 1) Page 5 Title: Police department strategic planning report from The Axtell Group Specialty Units: Units such as the Behavioral Health Unit (BHU), School Resource Officers (SROs), Violent Crime Reduction Unit (VCRU), electronic forensics (SSTFO), and task forces deliver high-value non-traditional services. • Key observations: These units operate with minimal buffer and are routinely redeployed to patrol. The result is an inability to achieve the operational value of these positions. Several positions are currently vacant or unstaffed. • Key challenges: Disrupted continuity, delayed follow-up, and reduced preventive impact. • Investment considerations: Include protecting specialty staffing from routine patrol backfill, evaluating civilian “force multipliers” for outreach, and support roles. Professional Staff and Support Functions: Records, property/evidence, PSAP/dispatch, and crime analysis handle expanded digital workloads, crime reporting, discovery and public-data requests with limited depth. • Key observations: The dispatch center frequently operates with solo dispatchers for part of the day, and a significant percentage of crime analysis work could benefit from automation, freeing up time to address core investigative needs and support leadership decision making through dashboards and similar. • Key challenges: Backlog risk, fatigue and vulnerability during absences. • Investment considerations: Include additional records, property room, PSAP staffing, expanded analytical capacity and executive administrative support. • Additional opportunity: Exploring dispatch service contracts with neighboring communities is also an opportunity to address funding gaps and uplift inter-agency partnerships. Department Training: The department meets or exceeds all mandatory POST and regulatory requirements and benefits from strong internal expertise. • Key observation: One of the department’s notable strengths is its foundation of internal training expertise, although it is constrained by agency capacity and scheduling from meeting its full potential. • Key challenges: Nearly all 2025 training occurred during overtime because staffing models have been incapable of building in dedicated training time. • Investment considerations: Include integrating training time into deployment planning, and expanding interactive, risk-reduction-focused training as staffing stabilizes. Technology, Systems, and Data Environment: Core systems (CAD/RMS, online reporting, property/evidence) function independently and require extensive manual workarounds. • Key observation: Many efficiency features (AI report writing, automated workflows) are underutilized or inconsistently implemented. • Key challenges: Include fragmented data flow, increased administrative burden, and limited real-time analytics for leadership. • Investment considerations: Include system integration, workflow automation, full utilization of existing RMS capabilities, and user-centered design to reduce redundancy and support strategic decision-making. Special study session meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 1) Page 6 Title: Police department strategic planning report from The Axtell Group Police department leadership response: Following the release of The Axtell Group report, police department leadership engaged in multiple planning sessions to review the recommendations and develop an initial response plan. This included meeting with the department’s nearly 20 formal leaders. In that meeting, the group responded to five key questions focused on capacity, wellness, leadership support, operational realities, and priorities for the future. Responses were candid and aligned closely with Phase II findings. Supervisors confirmed that minimum staffing thresholds are routinely met only through overtime and redeployment. This leaves specialty units and proactive work under-resourced. They highlighted wellness impacts from sustained 12-hour shifts, frequent holdovers of officers to fill open shifts, and difficulty using allocated time off. Leadership visibility and communication were viewed positively for operational matters. However, supervisors were aligned that the department and its leaders would benefit from added structural preparation for new roles, updated documentation of expectations and additional administrative support to reduce “staff-level” work on command and front-line leaders. The group emphasized that current conditions force reactive rather than preventive policing. Supervisors expressed strong support for filling identified gaps – especially patrol depth and specialty protection – while exploring civilian “force multipliers” to preserve sworn resources for licensed duties. This is especially important given current industry challenges in hiring sworn officers, and the amount of time it takes before newly sworn officers can fill shift gaps – a process that takes at least six, but more often, nine to twelve months. Overall, supervisors affirmed the report’s accuracy and urgency. They viewed it as a roadmap for sustainable alignment with the department’s vision rather than criticism of current efforts. They also noted that St. Louis Park is not alone in these challenges; many of the difficulties being felt at the SLPPD are similar to those experienced by other agencies. Police Department leadership views the Phase II findings as confirmation that the strategic vision remains the right direction. However, that vision requires strategic changes and targeted investments to close capacity gaps. These investments will help ensure the department continues to meet and maintain community expectations for timely, thorough, and relationship-based service. Work already underway: The police department has already begun work to address specific gaps identified in the report. One major step is the rollout of a data integration platform that connects fragmented data into actionable, real-time intelligence. This newly funded technology, set to roll out in Q2 or Q3 2026, will begin to address several capacity issues noted in the report, including crime analysis, departmental dashboards and administrative-related strategic planning functions. In addition, the department has created a new officer recruitment and retention team, updated its field training program, and refined its leadership development program. Special study session meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 1) Page 7 Title: Police department strategic planning report from The Axtell Group Near-term priorities: Given hiring realities of sworn officers, city and police leadership are preparing to invest further in civilian support that relieves pressure from investigations and patrol while also advancing our city priorities and community policing approach. The department is ready to shift budgeted resources from up to two unfilled sworn positions in the short-term as it continues to recruit and hire sworn-officers. However, there is reluctance to commit to this strategy in the long-term without a strong understanding from council that, when appropriate officer candidates are available, the department should be able to hire them and not have permanently reduced its sworn capacity. It is clear from this report that addressing the gaps identified will require a multi-year approach. Also evident is that the SLPPD has a mission-focused, resilient, dedicated and empathic workforce that remains committed to serving everyone in the community at the highest level. Like the city, the SLPPD prides itself on innovation, adaptability, responsibility and service. Next steps: Staff is looking for direction from the council on the appetite to consider new investments that address gaps identified in The Axtell Group report. Council is also asked to identify a high level timeline by which they would like to see gaps addressed. With this direction from the council, staff will be able to begin preparing a detailed plan and engage with internal and external stakeholders, as needed, on relevant policy- or program- related aspects. Staff anticipates additional conversations featuring the Axtell Group report as part of upcoming budget processes and study session discussions on the new strategic priority: A welcoming, safe community. Meeting: Special study session Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Discussion item: 2 Executive summary Title: Consider proposed study session topic: council ambassador program for advisory boards and commissions Recommended action: City council and city manager review the proposed agenda topic and determine next steps. Policy consideration: Does the city council want to move forward with additional discussion regarding the implementation of a council ambassador program for the city’s five (5) advisory boards and commissions? Summary: Council Members Bashore, Brausen and Budd submitted a study session topic proposal related to implementation of a council ambassador program for the city’s five (5) advisory boards and commissions (Community Technology Advisory Commission, Environment & Sustainability Commission, Human Rights Commission, Police Advisory Commission, Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission). City staff reviewed the proposal and provided a high-level analysis of the request. The next step is for the council to decide, as a group, if they want to schedule a future study session discussion on the proposed topic. Financial or budget considerations: None at this time. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a city that delivers reliable services, uses city resources responsibly, operates transparently and builds strong relationships with residents. Supporting documents: Study session topic proposal and staff analysis Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City Council Study Session Topic Proposal Request Form Date: Prepared by: Proposed agenda topic: Brief description of topic (no more than 200 words): How does this topic align with the council's strategic priorities? If it does not, why should the council consider the topic?: If approved, would an advisory board/commission review this proposal? If so, select up to two of the options below: ☐ESC ☐PRAC ☐PAC ☐HRC ☐CTAC ☐NONE ** Please email completed forms to Kim Keller and Melissa Kennedy. Special study session meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 2) Title: Consider proposed study session topic: council ambassador program for advisory boards and commissions Page 2 City Council Study Session Topic Proposal Staff Analysis Date: April 22, 2026 Prepared by: Pat Coleman, community engagement coordinator Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Proposed agenda topic: Boards and Commissions – Council Ambassadors to the non-statutory boards and commissions Staff analysis of request: (Please provide a high-level review of the proposed topic. Focus on key points, facts, impact, legal and/or future considerations .) Council members are proposing a study session to discuss establishing a city council ambassador for each of the five advisory boards and commissions: the Environment and Sustainability Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, Police Advisory Commission, Human Rights Commission, and the Community Technology Advisory Commission. The intent of this model is to strengthen communication between the city council and advisory bodies, responding to an ongoing desire for more consistent and meaningful connection. This concept has surfaced before. During the May 20, 202 4 study session on the broader boards and commissions program, the council discussed how it wished to provide policy direction to advisory bodies. At that time, the idea of a council liaison was raised, but there was no consensus to move forward because council members felt they did not have the capacity to effectively support a liaison structure. The idea has since re-emerged as the council continues exploring ways to increase its presence and engagement with advisory boards and commissions. To examine the concept more deeply, a previously established working group—consisting of three council members and three staff liaisons—met on February 24, 2026. The discussion was facilitated by Pat Coleman. The purpose of this meeting was to explore what a council ambassador model could look like, including the role, expectations, and boundaries necessary for the program to be successful. Special study session meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 2) Title: Consider proposed study session topic: council ambassador program for advisory boards and commissions Page 3 The meeting focused on identifying the core purposes and intent of the ambassador program. The following topic areas and recommendations reflect the consensus of the working group: 1.Purpose and Intent a.Increase visibility between council and commission b.Strengthen lines of communication c.Demonstrate council’s commitment to board and commission work 2.Ambassador Role Definition a.What should ambassadors be: i.Observers and listeners (“ears”) ii.Information sharers about council consensus on decided matters iii.Thought partners (with careful boundaries) iv.Conduit for quicker communication b.What ambassadors should not be i.Commissioners themselves ii.Replacements for staff liaisons iii.Decision makers of the full council iv.Voices speaking for the entire council (unless sharing already- decided positions) 3.Responsibilities and expectations a.Minimum of 2 meetings per year b.To coordinate ambassador’s attendance in meetings, staff liaisons will add the assigned council ambassador to email threads with agenda packers with eh same RSVP expectations as commissioners c.Ambassadors should defer to staff liaison for most questions during meetings d.Commission members should continue using formal communication processes rather than directly contacting ambassadors e.Outside-of-meeting contact should go through proper forms and processes f.Ambassadors can share updates on council decisions already made 4.Boundaries and guardrails a.Ambassadors must be clear when speaking personally versus sharing council positions b.Formal communication processes must still be used for commission business c.Staff liaisons remain operational leads d.No outside meeting or lobbying by individual commissioners to ambassadors 5.Matching and assignment process a.Initial interest-based pairing, with annual review opportunities 6.Training and onboarding needs a.Commission rosters Special study session meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 2) Title: Consider proposed study session topic: council ambassador program for advisory boards and commissions Page 4 b.Rules and procedures document c.Current workplans d.City code sections relevant to the commission 7.Communication structure (with full council) a.Standing agenda item following written reports on study session agendas for verbal updates that need to be shared with the full council 8.Evaluation and continuous improvement a.Annual review process i.Review assignments and program effectiveness at the beginning of each year ii.First review to occur at the beginning of 2027 (less than a full year to get earlier feedback) b.Commissioner feedback: i.Annual email survey to all current commissioners for anonymous feedback ii.Exit interviews for commissioners completing their service (not seeking reappointment or term-limited) 9.Relationship-building and recognition a.Council-signed thank you notes for departing commissioners Resources required: (Include relevant information such as cost, staffing, capacity) Council’s capacity to commit to the role and responsibility are required to ensure that the duties established can be carried out consistently across all ambassadors. Other dependencies: (Include relevant information that could impact this proposal, such as other agencies/jurisdictions, a pending policy discussion or action by council on related item, additional research that may be required to answer pending questions ) None identified. Projected timeline: (Given current business levels and capacity, what is the projected timeline for staff to be able to work on and implement? If this was to be done now, what would the impact be on other projects and/or standard line of business?) If council wishes to take up this topic, staff recommend that it be handled once 2026 appointments are made. Recommended disposition: (select one) ✓Study session discussion Council action at regular meeting Written report Include with another item already planned/scheduled Meeting with requesting councilmember(s) Handle offline Special study session meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 2) Title: Consider proposed study session topic: council ambassador program for advisory boards and commissions Page 5 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: May 4, 2026 Written report: 3 Executive summary Title: Fiscal year 2026 Q1 budget to actuals Recommended action: None. Policy consideration: Reporting on the City of St. Louis Park’s quarterly performance adheres to the city’s financial reporting policy. Summary: The quarterly budget-to-actuals report provides an overview of the city’s performance for the first quarter of fiscal year 2026. Finance staff closely monitor city spending on a daily basis, comparing all transactions to the adopted budget. Current city spending is consistent with the prior fiscal year (2025), with a variance of approximately 1%. Financial or budget considerations: Budget-to-actuals breakdown is attached for additional detail. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a city that delivers reliable services, uses city resources responsibly, operates transparently and builds strong relationships with residents. Supporting documents: none. Prepared by: Tiffany Stephens, interim deputy finance director Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager All funds - FY2025 Q1 vs FY2026 Q1 $42,005,961.90 Expenses in Mar 2026 $0 $5M $10M $15M $20M $25M $30M $35M $40M $45M Mar 2025 Mar 2026 FY25 Q1 vs FY26 Q1 2025 Budget March 2025 Actual 2026 Budget March 2026 Actual Personnel - Salaries Expense $35,795,359 $7,363,546 $37,860,760 $7,752,218 Service Expenses $27,001,851 $5,004,889 $28,766,722 $5,092,578 Debt Expenses $8,083,373 $6,849,151 $10,750,279 $7,244,746 Personnel - Benefits Expense $13,212,844 $3,070,566 $13,733,872 $2,051,888 Capital Expenses $21,356,027 $1,557,744 $8,093,629 $972,220 Miscellaneous Expenses $1,285,624 $5,758,802 $10,869,703 $5,568,605 Internal Service Fund Charges $1,325,446 $1,325,446 $8,176,063 $8,176,063 Other Financing Uses $3,298,218 $4,078,374 $3,632,303 $3,632,303 Supplies & Materials Expenses $3,592,258 $1,549,362 $3,657,046 $1,515,342 Depreciation Expense $2,102,626 $0 $2,147,773 $0 Gain on Fund Balance $0 $0 $2,739,748 $0 TOTAL $117,053,625 $36,557,879 $130,427,897 $42,005,962 FY2026 Q1 - Budget to Actuals FY25 Q1 vs FY26 Q1 Data Updated Apr 28, 2026, 7:39 AM FY26 Q1 - Budget to Actuals · April 28, 2026 1 Special study session meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 3) Title: Fiscal year 2026 Q1 budget to actuals Page 2 All funds - FY26 Q1 Expenses $42,005,961.90 Expenses in Mar 2026 Internal Service Fun... Personnel - Salaries... Debt Expenses Other Service Expenses Miscellaneous Expens... FY26 - Q1 Expenses 2026 Budget March 2026 Actual Personnel - Salaries Expense $37,860,760 $7,752,218 Service Expenses $28,766,722 $5,092,578 Debt Expenses $10,750,279 $7,244,746 Miscellaneous Expenses $10,869,703 $5,568,605 Internal Service Fund Charges $8,176,063 $8,176,063 Personnel - Benefits Expense $13,733,872 $2,051,888 Capital Expenses $8,093,629 $972,220 Other Financing Uses $3,632,303 $3,632,303 Supplies & Materials Expenses $3,657,046 $1,515,342 Gain on Fund Balance $2,739,748 $0 Depreciation Expense $2,147,773 $0 TOTAL $130,427,897 $42,005,962 FY26 - Q1 Expenses Data Updated Apr 28, 2026, 7:39 AM FY26 Q1 - Budget to Actuals · April 28, 2026 2 Special study session meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 3) Title: Fiscal year 2026 Q1 budget to actuals Page 3 All funds - FY26 Q1 Revenues $23,735,524.09 Revenues in Mar 2026 Local Revenues & Loc... Other Non-State/Non-Federa... State Revenues Other Financing Sour... Internal Service Fun... FY26 - Q1 Revenues 2026 Budget March 2026 Actual Local Revenues & Local Sales $110,862,447 $8,763,514 Internal Service Fund Charges (Revenues)$8,203,463 $8,176,063 Use of Fund Balance $8,906,208 $0 Other Financing Sources $3,632,303 $3,632,303 State Revenues $3,771,303 $2,290,538 Federal Revenues $3,267,000 $91,771 Sale of Fixed Assets/Surplus equipment, Insurance Recovery and Judgment $1,543,847 $292,369 Non-State/Non-Federal Revenues Aid/Grants $1,280,109 $488,966 TOTAL $141,466,680 $23,735,524 FY26 - Q1 Revenues Data Updated Apr 28, 2026, 7:39 AM FY26 Q1 - Budget to Actuals · April 28, 2026 3 Special study session meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 3) Title: Fiscal year 2026 Q1 budget to actuals Page 4 General Fund - FY26 Q1 Expenses $19,509,505.27 Expenses in Mar 2026 Police Parks & Recreation General Fund City-Wi... Other Fire Administrative Servi... FY26 - Q1 GF Expenses 2026 Budget March 2026 Actual Police $16,478,631 $4,440,274 Parks & Recreation $13,482,557 $2,902,931 Administrative Services $7,826,631 $2,483,765 Fire $7,105,885 $1,763,398 General Fund City-Wide $2,693,100 $2,764,924 Communication & Technology $3,622,913 $1,643,516 Public Works $3,940,382 $1,252,601 Building & Energy $3,950,625 $1,178,273 Community Development $2,878,711 $651,789 Engineering $1,178,534 $428,033 TOTAL $63,157,969 $19,509,505 FY26 - Q1 GF Expenses Data Updated Apr 28, 2026, 7:39 AM FY26 Q1 - Budget to Actuals · April 28, 2026 4 Special study session meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 3) Title: Fiscal year 2026 Q1 budget to actuals Page 5 General Fund - FY26 Q1 Revenue $7,283,036.69 Revenues in Mar 2026 General Fund City-Wi... Other Administrative Servi... Public Works Parks & Recreation Building & Energy FY26 - Q1 GF Revenue 2026 Budget March 2026 Actual General Fund City-Wide $50,726,386 $2,958,434 Building & Energy $4,131,533 $2,384,214 Parks & Recreation $3,811,616 $818,328 Police $1,468,512 $56,529 Public Works $1,011,140 $500,060 Community Development $1,071,409 $39,950 Fire $587,000 $143,736 Administrative Services $288,800 $296,757 Engineering $225,000 $79,731 Communication & Technology $0 $5,298 TOTAL $63,321,396 $7,283,037 FY26 - Q1 GF Revenue Data Updated Apr 28, 2026, 7:39 AM FY26 Q1 - Budget to Actuals · April 28, 2026 5 Special study session meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 3) Title: Fiscal year 2026 Q1 budget to actuals Page 6 Utility Funds - FY26 Q1 Expenses $7,569,989.69 Expenses in Mar 2026 Sewer Storm Water Solid Waste Water FY26 Q1 Utilities Expenses 2026 Budget March 2026 Actual Sewer $10,685,545 $3,143,688 Water $10,466,154 $2,394,964 Solid Waste $7,736,342 $1,248,980 Storm Water $3,463,648 $782,357 TOTAL $32,351,689 $7,569,990 FY26 Q1 Utilities Expenses Data Updated Apr 28, 2026, 7:39 AM FY26 Q1 - Budget to Actuals · April 28, 2026 6 Special study session meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 3) Title: Fiscal year 2026 Q1 budget to actuals Page 7 Utility Funds - FY26 Q1 Revenue $3,747,231.82 Revenues in Mar 2026 Water Solid Waste Storm Water Sewer FY26 Q1 Utilities Revenue 2026 Budget March 2026 Actual Water $10,465,275 $1,489,955 Sewer $10,684,667 $1,185,800 Solid Waste $7,726,670 $452,940 Storm Water $4,158,083 $618,537 TOTAL $33,034,695 $3,747,232 LOGOTYPE OpenGov Add links Powered by OpenGov FY26 Q1 Utilities Revenue Data Updated Apr 28, 2026, 7:39 AM FY26 Q1 - Budget to Actuals · April 28, 2026 7 Special study session meeting of May 4, 2026 (Item No. 3) Title: Fiscal year 2026 Q1 budget to actuals Page 8