Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020/03/02 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular AGENDA MARCH 2, 2020 6:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – SLP High School board room (6425 W 33rd St.) 1. Call to order 2. Roll call 3. Approval of minutes 3a. EDA meeting minutes Feb. 3, 2020 5. Reports 5a. Approval of EDA disbursements Recommended action: Motion to accept for filing EDA disbursement claims for the period of January 25 through February 21, 2020. 7. New business -- None 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – SLP High School board room (6425 W 33rd St.) 1. Call to order 1a. Pledge of allegiance 1b. Roll call 2. Presentations 2a. 2020 Census 2b. Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) update 2c. Proclamation – Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month – March 2020 3. Approval of minutes -- None 4. Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda. Recommended action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.) 5. Boards and Commissions 5a. Reappointment of representative to the Fire Civil Service Commission Recommended action: Motion to reappoint Bob Tift to the Fire Civil Service Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2022. 6. Public hearings -- None 7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – None Meeting of March 2, 2020 City council agenda 8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items 8a. Southeast area bikeway Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution accepting the project report, establishing Improvement Project No. 4018-2000, and approving the layout for the Southeast Area bikeway segments. 9. Communications – None Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the administration department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting of March 2, 2020 City council agenda Consent calendar 4a. Accept for filing city disbursement claims for the period of January 25, through February 21, 2020. 4b. 4c. Designate JL Theis, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder, and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $239,093.20 for concrete replacement – Project No. 4020-0003. 4d. Designate ASTECH Corp. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $393,745.19 for street maintenance– Project No. 4020-1200. 4e. Approve a temporary extension of the licensed premises for one-day events at Copperwing Distillery, located at 6409 Cambridge Street. 4f. Approve the proposed updates to the city’s financial management policies. 4g. Approve out-of-state travel of City of St. Louis Park Mayor Jake Spano and Councilmember Nadia Mohamed to attend the National League of Cities (NLC) Congressional City Conference in Washington, DC on March 8 - 11, 2020. 4h. Approve for filing planning commission meeting minutes of Feb. 5, 2020. 4i. Approve for filing fire civil service commission meeting minutes of Sept. 17, 2019. St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular city council meetings are carried live on civic TV cable channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for video on demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of city hall and on the text display on civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website. • Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance, setting its effective date on March 27, 2020. • Adopt Resolutions supporting and reflecting existing traffic controls related to the rescinded ordinance. Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: March 2, 2020 Minutes: 3a Unofficial minutes EDA meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota Feb. 3, 2020 1. Call to order President Harris called the meeting to order at 6:25 p.m. Commissioners present: President Harris, Tim Brausen, Larry Kraft, Anne Mavity, Margaret Rog, and Jake Spano. Commissioner absent: Nadia Mohamed. Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), Community Development Director (Ms. Barton), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Senior Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Sullivan), Project Engineer (Mr. Weisen), Senior Management Analyst (Ms. Solano), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas). 2. Roll call 3. Approval of minutes 3a. EDA meeting minutes Jan. 6, 2020 It was moved by Commissioner Spano, seconded by Commissioner Brausen, to approve the Jan. 6, 2020 EDA meeting minutes as presented. The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Mohamed absent). 4. Approval of agenda and items on EDA consent calendar It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Rog, to approve the EDA agenda as presented and the items on the consent calendar, and to accept for filing EDA disbursement claims for the period of Dec. 28, 2019 through Jan. 24, 2020. The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Mohamed absent). 5. Reports - none 6. Old business - none 7. New business - none 8. Communications – none 9. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, secretary Rachel Harris, president Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: March 2, 2020 Consent agenda item: 5a Executive summary Title: Approval of EDA disbursements Recommended action: Motion to accept for filing EDA disbursement claims for the period of January 25, through February 21, 2020. Policy consideration: Does the EDA desire to approve EDA disbursements in accordance with Article V – Administration of Finances, of the EDA bylaws? Summary: The finance division prepares this report on a monthly basis for the EDA to review and approve. The attached reports show 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 the information follows the EDA’s charter and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal stewardship. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: EDA disbursements Prepared by: Kari Mahan, accounting clerk Reviewed by: Tim Simon, chief financial officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:49:41R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 1Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 211,547.314800 EXCELSIOR APARTMENTS LLC 4900 EXC BLVD TIF DIST G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT 211,547.31 48,449.17BELT LINE PROPERTIES INC WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT 48,449.17 253,688.09BRIDGEWATER BANK SHOREHAM TIF DIST G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT 253,688.09 330.00CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES 330.00 214,501.58CEDAR LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS LLC ELIOT PARK TIF DIST G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT 214,501.58 295.00CITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TRAINING 295.00 817,672.91DUKE REALTY WEST END TIF DIST G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT 817,672.91 346.63EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 4900 EXC BLVD TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 346.63ELIOT PARK TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 346.63WEST END TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 346.63ELLIPSE ON EXC TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 346.63CSM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 346.63MILL CITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 346.63PARK COMMONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 346.63WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 346.58SHOREHAM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 346.63HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,466.25 79,741.23ELLIPSE II LLC ELLIPSE II G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT 79,741.23 5,000.00FRANZEN LAW & POLICY GROUP LLC HRA LEVY G&A LEGAL SERVICES 5,000.00 515,583.39GOTTMAR II LLC PARK COMMONS G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT 515,583.39 Economic development authority meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 2 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:49:41R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 2Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 617,889.23GOTTMAR LLC PARK COMMONS G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT 617,889.23 544.10HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER ELMWOOD APTS TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,137.504900 EXC BLVD TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,084.94ELIOT PARK TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,770.03WEST END TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,333.34ELLIPSE ON EXC TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 570.57VICTORIA PONDS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 752.43PARK CENTER HOUSING G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,466.77CSM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,108.71DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,231.17MILL CITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,406.41PARK COMMONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 610.52EDGEWOOD TIF DIST G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,074.86ELMWOOD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 715.55WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,251.87SHOREHAM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,153.27AQUILA COMMONS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 711.01HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 28,923.05 67,542.09HIGHWAY 7 BUSINESS CENTER LLC HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT 67,542.09 8,312.75HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNING 8,312.75 49.77IMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNING 49.77 392.94KENNEDY & GRAVEN BELTLINE SWLRT DEVELOPMENT LEGAL SERVICES 91.00MTKA BLVD PROPERTIES LEGAL SERVICES 323.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES 806.94 3,000.00LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES 3,000.00 185,325.94MMP HS OPCO CSM TIF DIST G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT Economic development authority meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 3 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:49:41R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 3Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 185,325.94 42,936.87MMP PT OPCO CSM TIF DIST G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT 42,936.87 343.00REDPATH & COMPANY DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC 343.00 275,075.67SIDAL REALTY CO LTD PARTNERSHIP LLLP MILL CITY G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT 275,075.67 50,812.85ST LOUIS PARK CONV & VISITORS BUREAU CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU COST REIMBURSEMENT-CVB 50,812.85 20,000.00ST LOUIS PARK FRIENDS OF THE ARTS PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20,000.00 25,000.00TWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 25,000.00 240.00URBAN LAND INSTITUTE DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 240.00 Report Totals 3,476,533.09 Economic development authority meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 4 Meeting: City council Meeting date: March 2, 2020 Presentation: 2a Executive summary Title: 2020 Census Recommended action: Provide feedback to city staff/complete count committee and help promote the 2020 Census! Policy consideration: None. Summary: April 1, 2020, is Census Day! The city has been busy preparing for the 2020 Census with various efforts that have been underway for over a year. There will be a short presentation about the Census from staff and a few of our complete count committee members. Our goal is to help promote the Census to others and motivate more people to self-respond to the Census questionnaire. Financial or budget considerations: None. This item was a budgeted activity. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Page 2 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 2a) Title: 2020 Census Discussion Background: What is the Census? It is a full count of the population and it is required by the Constitution of the United States. The Census Bureau has counted every resident in the U.S. every ten years, beginning in 1790. In previous censuses, most households returned their census forms by mail; census workers walking neighborhoods throughout the United States counted the remaining households. The upcoming Census adds an online response form to use modern and cost-efficient methods to count everyone once and in the right place. Why is the Census Important? The data that will be collected by the 2020 census are critical for states, counties and communities. Representation Funding Data Census data determines the number of seats each state has in the U.S. House of Representatives and districts for state government. Census data guides federal spending allocation of approximately $589 billion to local communities every year. Census data helps make informed decisions. Helps us plan roads, schools, programs and emergency services to best serve changing populations. Minnesota is at risk of losing a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Each person missed could mean a forfeited $28,000 in funding over ten years. This data helps us understand changes in demographics and shifting needs. General Timeline for the 2020 Census On or Between You Will Receive March 12-20, 2020 An invitation to respond online to the 2020 Census March 16-24, 2020 A reminder postcard If you haven't responded March 26 - April 3, 2020 A reminder postcard April 8-16, 2020 A reminder letter and paper questionnaire April 20-27, 2020 A final reminder postcard After April 27, 2020 In-person follow-up by Census worker Page 3 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 2a) Title: 2020 Census What are the predicted non-response rates in St. Louis Park? The U.S. Census Bureau predicts somewhat higher than normal non-response rates in several census tracts in St. Louis Park. Low self-response rates could result in undercounts of the city’s population and certainly more expensive and less efficient data collection. The map below shows the predicted non-response rates, which is the percentage of the people that will not submit the census forms on their own. Predicted non-response rates map. These estimates are based on the demographics of the areas and past response rates to the decennial Census and the American Communities Survey. These areas have more people that are historically undercounted, including renters, babies, people of color and indigenous, senior citizens, veterans, foreign born, migrant workers, language constrained, people with disabilities, snowbirds, college students, people living in poverty and people experiencing homelessness. We will be able to view “live” updates regarding response rates in each census tract and work with the Census Bureau to deploy additional resources to areas that have lower response rates. 15.1% 18.4% 21.5% 21.4% 14.2% 22.3% 22.3% 14.5% 19.6%21.6% 10.4% 21.0% 17.8% 13.3% 21% Page 4 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 2a) Title: 2020 Census Next steps: •Staff requests city council help in delivering the message about the importance of the 2020 Census to your constituents and help motivate people to self-respond. •Questionnaire assistance center (QAC). Staff are working through logistics to set up QACs in the community. QACs would assist people that want to respond to the census online, but do not have internet access at home or at work. o All Ramsey County libraries will likely be QACs. o We are exploring hosting a QAC at city hall or other city buildings. o We are exploring the possibility of the community education computer lab at Lenox being a resource. o We are exploring having pop-up events and using the community engagement vehicle as a mobile QAC during the census to areas with low response rates, especially near rental communities in parts of town that are showing low self- response rates. •Census response challenge? o We will be increasing outreach to neighborhood associations regarding the census. o We may organize a friendly competition among all of our organized neighborhoods to see who can improve their response rates the most over the 2010 Census response rates. •The human rights commission has included engagement around the census in their work plan. We look forward to seeing how that takes shape! •Use our city’s media tools to amplify messages about the upcoming census, including a broad email blast through Gov Delivery in mid-March. Meeting: City council Meeting date: March 2, 2020 Presentation: 2b Executive summary Title: Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) update Recommended action: None Policy consideration: Not applicable. Summary: Hennepin County Sheriff Dave Hutchinson will provide his annual update to the city council on the activities of the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office from 2019 to the present and outline the priority areas for the sheriff’s office. Council will have time at the end of the presentation to ask questions of Sheriff Hutchinson. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: None Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Meeting: City council Meeting date: March 2, 2020 Presentation: 2c Executive summary Title: Proclamation – Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month – March 2020 Recommended action: Mayor to read proclamation recognizing March as Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. Policy consideration: None Summary: In 1999, the Prevent Cancer Foundation led the charge to designate March as National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. To achieve the designation, the Foundation worked closely with legislators, the American Digestive Health Foundation and the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. The designation became official on November 19, 1999. While colorectal cancer affects both men and women in almost equal numbers and is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, there are several screening methods available, making the disease highly preventable. Promoting awareness can help save lives across all populations through cancer prevention and early detection. Blue has been designated the established color associated with colon cancer awareness. In addition to presentation of this proclamation, the Louisiana Bridge will be lit blue on Monday, March 9, 2020. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Proclamation Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 2c) Page 2 Title: Proclamation – Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month – March 2020 Proclamation Colorectal cancer awareness month March 2020 Whereas Colorectal cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer deaths in the U.S. among men and women combined but there is currently no cure; Whereas one in twenty-two men and one in twenty-four women will be diagnosed with colorectal cancer in their lifetimes; Whereas there are now more than one million survivors of colorectal cancer in the United States; Whereas approximately 1 in 4 Minnesotans 50 to 75 years of age and older are not up to date with colorectal cancer screening; Whereas an estimated 2,300 Minnesotans will be diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 790 Minnesotans may die from this disease in 2020; Whereas if the majority of people in the United States age 50 or older were screened regularly for colorectal cancer, half of all cases could be prevented entirely; Whereas it is critical that all people, of all ages, know the signs and symptoms of the disease; and; Whereas observing a Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month during the month of March would provide a special opportunity to offer education on the importance of early detection and screening. Now, therefore be it resolved, that the Mayor and City Council of the City of St. Louis Park do hereby proclaim March 2020 as Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this day of March 2, 2020. _________________________________ Jake Spano, Mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: March 2, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4a Executive summary Title: Approval of city disbursements Recommended action: Motion to accept for filing city disbursement claims for the period of January 25, through February 21, 2020. Policy consideration: Does the city council desire to approve city disbursements in accordance with Section 6.11 – Disbursements – How Made, of the City’s Charter? Summary: The Finance Division prepares this report on a monthly basis for the city council to review and approve. The attached reports show 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 follows the city’s charter and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal stewardship. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: City disbursements Prepared by: Kari Mahan, accounting clerk Reviewed by: Tim Simon, chief financial officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 1Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 600.00 ROBERT BEALKE INDUSTRIES SPECIAL EVENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 400.00HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00FABULOUS FRIDAYS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00LARGE EVENTS - ADMIN FEE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,400.00 216.003SI SECURITY SYSTEMS INC POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 216.00 68.00A PANE IN THE GLASS CONSTRUCTION BLDG & ENERGY G & A BUILDING 68.00 30.23A&A ELECTRIC & UNDERGROUND CONST. INC. BLDG & ENERGY G & A BUILDING 30.23 151.84A-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 151.84 55.68ABERNATHY, LISA ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 55.68 228.75ACCOUNTEMPSWATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 228.75SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 228.75SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 228.75STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 915.00 380.60ACE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 236.00REC CENTER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 616.60 1,112.50ACTIVE 911 INC OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,112.50 9,377.68ADVANCED ENG & ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS INC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9,377.68SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8,141.30SEWER UTILITY G&A ENGINEERING SERVICES 9,377.67STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 36,274.33 3,620.01ADVANCED FIRST AID INC REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 2 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 2Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 3,620.01 11,637.50AEM FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC.FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11,637.50 2,500.00ALLIANCE BUILDERS ESCROWS DEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFIC 2,500.00 342.00ALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 342.00 2,833.10ALLSTREAMIT G & A TELEPHONE 2,833.10 523.15ALTEC INDUSTRIES INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 523.15 80.29AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES IT G & A TRAINING 17.58TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 94.90CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT 192.77 387.00AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 387.00 319.59AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SERVICES OPERATIONS HEALTH & WELLNESS 319.59 3,934.84APEX BEVERAGE EQUIPMENT DIST. GROUP, LLC AQUATIC PARK BUDGET OTHER 3,934.84 603.75ARC DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 603.75 7,188.00ARCHIVE SOCIAL INC COMM & MARKETING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,188.00 2,455.00ASET SUPPLY AND PAPER INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 31,507.84SOLID WASTE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 33,962.84 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 3 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 3Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,517.03ASHPAUGH & SCULCO CPAS, PLC CABLE TV G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,517.03 3,065.31ASPEN MILLS OPERATIONS UNIFORMS 1,179.93OPERATIONSPROTECTIVE CLOTHING 4,245.24 350.39ATIR ELECTRIC CORPORATION FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,140.00MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 1,490.39 119.24ATOMIC RECYCLING FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 119.26PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 119.25WATER UTILITY G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 119.25VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 477.00 3,696.00AXON ENTERPRISE, INC.POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT 3,696.00 5,864.00BADGER STATE INSPECTION LLC WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET GENERAL 5,864.00 16,125.00BAKER TILLY VIRCHOW KRAUSE, LLP BLDG & ENERGY G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 16,125.00 2,500.00BARNWOOD GROUP INC ESCROWS DEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFIC 2,500.00 43.90BATTERIES + BULBS WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 43.90 684.21BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS 1,151.44REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,835.65 262.50BENNETT COMMUNITY CONSULTING GENERAL INFORMATION MEETING EXPENSE 262.50POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 525.00 475.00BESSNER LORI GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 4 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 4Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 475.00 1,792.00BETHEL ELECTRIC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 445.26SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 2,237.26 250.00BISSONNETTE GRACE GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00 87.63BLUE TARP FINANCIAL INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 87.63 8,834.00BOLTON & MENK INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,820.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11,654.00 1,430.26BOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 460.90OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 1,891.16 30.00BOYD CYNTHIA PICNIC SHELTERS REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 30.00 216.76BOYER TRUCKS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 216.76 136.00BOY'S ELECTRICAL AND BOY'S MECHANICAL BLDG & ENERGY G & A ELECTRICAL 136.00 500.00BRANTNER TRICIA ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR 500.00 1,103.00BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 1,103.00 514.86BREDEMUS HARDWARE COMPANY INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 514.86 744.00BRIN GLASS SERVICE MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 744.00 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 5 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 5Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 235.00BRUNS JASON BLDG & ENERGY G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 235.00 2,263.74BTR OF MINNESOTA LLC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 2,263.74 510.00BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION COMMUNICATIONS/DISPATCH TELEPHONE 510.00 579.89BUSINESS ESSENTIALS COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 579.89 500.00BUTCHER MATTHEW GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 250.00BYHRE JOAN GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00 18,260.97CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES 1,122.00ENGINEERING G & A LEGAL SERVICES 280.50PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 313.50CABLE TV G & A LEGAL SERVICES 594.00HOUSING REHAB G & A LEGAL SERVICES 462.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT LEGAL SERVICES 10,282.51STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A LEGAL SERVICES 11,425.73STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 429.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 214.50WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 379.50REILLY G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 66.00SOLID WASTE G&A LEGAL SERVICES 43,830.21 1,901.73CANON FINANCIAL IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,901.73 1,000.00CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 1,000.00 1,998.75CASTANEDA, DAN IT G & A TRAINING 1,998.75 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 6 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 6Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 752.81CBIZ FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS INC EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 752.81 5,502.36CDW GOVERNMENT INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 5,502.36 94.07CEDAR SMALL ENGINE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 94.07 2,667.36CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT DISCOUNT LOAN PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,800.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 950.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 12,715.00DOWN PYMT ASSISTANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19,132.36 12,598.78CENTERPOINT ENERGY FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GAS 96.74HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET LAND HELD FOR RESALE 3,993.61WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS 288.73REILLY G & A HEATING GAS 460.68SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS 1,479.97PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS 194.43WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS 218.70NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS 6,966.78REC CENTER BUILDING HEATING GAS 26,298.42 10,660.69CENTRAL PENSION FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT OTHER RETIREMENT 10,660.69 263.95CENTURY LINK CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE 263.95 118.20CINTAS CORPORATION FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 166.53FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 182.42REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 331.92VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 799.07 160.00CITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 529.66ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAINING 1,070.92ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 7 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 7Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 15.00RACE EQUITY & INCLUSION G&A TRAINING 22.76RACE EQUITY & INCLUSION G&A MEETING EXPENSE 105.77HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIES 460.33HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 154.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION 457.20HUMAN RESOURCES CONNECTION CREW 70.09HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING 49.91HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE 49.27COMM & MARKETING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 349.99COMM & MARKETING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 119.00ASSESSING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 525.00ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 1,596.00ASSESSING G & A TRAINING 149.00FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 810.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING 1,487.20FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 29.99POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 69.53-POLICE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,335.75POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 372.00POLICE G & A COMPUTER SUPPLIES 50.00POLICE G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT 185.00POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT 607.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 870.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 5,062.41POLICE G & A TRAINING 451.26POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS 673.33OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES 45.00OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 763.52OPERATIONSSMALL TOOLS 13.97OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 594.81OPERATIONSTRAINING 1,347.27OPERATIONSSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 111.43BLDG & ENERGY G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 535.11BLDG & ENERGY G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 640.00BLDG & ENERGY G & A TRAINING 58.00BLDG & ENERGY G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 109.00SUSTAINABILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 110.00SUSTAINABILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 139.93PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 60.54PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A MEETING EXPENSE 205.00TRAININGSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 8 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 8Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 77.52SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTS 770.76CABLE TV G & A OTHER 235.64WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES 614.99WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 48.95SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 406.59SOLID WASTE G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 195.46TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 88.03ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 44.95ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 300.00ORGANIZED REC G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 230.00HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 472.20BASKETBALLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 2,100.00LARGE EVENTS - ADMIN FEE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 575.63PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 579.94PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 13.97PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 13.52PARK MAINTENANCE G & A MEETING EXPENSE 185.10NATURAL RESOURCES G & A TRAINING 29.50WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 97.01WINTER BREAK GENERAL SUPPLIES 10.29REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 10.35REC CENTER BUILDING MOTOR FUELS 172.16REC CENTER BUILDING MEETING EXPENSE 95.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 174.95VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 399.99VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLS 99.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TRAINING 97.12GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 31,620.51 2,500.00CLARENDON PROPERTIES ESCROWS PMC ESCROW 2,500.00 199.95CLAREY'S SAFETY EQUIPMENT INC OPERATIONS TRAINING 199.95 6,187.50CLEAR GOV INC FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,187.50 700.00COACHOLOGY.US FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 700.00 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 9 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 9Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 455.00COLE PAPERS FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 455.00 21,880.42COLICH & ASSOCIATES ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES 21,880.42 35,510.00COLLINS ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION CO SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 35,510.00 125.98COMCASTOPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 106.34CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 314.55WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 29.42REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 576.29 696.00CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 696.00 642.25CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP.REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 642.25 2,036.85CORE & MAIN LP WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 2,036.85 8,750.00CORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 8,750.00 7,057.76CORPORATE MECHANICAL UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS 4,150.34REC CENTER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 765.00REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 4,750.16REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 16,723.26 113.26COSTAR REALTY INFORMATION, INC.ASSESSING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 113.26 15,795.00COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15,795.00 844.57CREATIVE RESOURCES LARGE EVENTS - ADMIN FEE GENERAL SUPPLIES City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 10 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 10Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 844.57 53.26CREEKSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 53.26 1,225.00CROWE PATRICK AND JENNY GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNT 1,225.00 81.44CROWN MARKING INC.COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 81.44 800.00CTW GROUP, INC.ESCROWS PMC ESCROW 800.00 28.93CUB KNOLLWOOD POLICE G & A JAIL SUPPLIES 28.93 52.00CULLIGANBLDG & ENERGY G & A PLUMBING 52.00 214.21CUMMINS SALES AND SERVICES GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 214.21 389.01CUSHMAN MOTOR CO INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 389.01 36.00CUSTOM HOSE TECH INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 36.00 2,679.10DALCO ENTERPRISES INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 211.00SOLID WASTE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 148.80CONCESSIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES 3,038.90 46.99DAWSON JOHN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 46.99 99.85DELEGARD TOOL CO VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 195.34GENERAL REPAIR SMALL TOOLS 295.19 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 11 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 11Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,282.50DENESEN KEVIN BROOMBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,282.50 280.00DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 280.00 3,978.56DO-GOOD.BIZ INC COMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGE 608.38COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING 4,586.94 250.00DONATELLE, JOAN HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 250.00 1,065.05ECM PUBLISHERS INC ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICES 300.00COMM & MARKETING G & A ADVERTISING 1,365.05 200.00EDDIE BETTY LLC.ESCROWS PMC ESCROW 200.00 500.00EDEN PRAIRIE POLICE DEPT POLICE G & A TRAINING 500.00 26.47EDMUNDSON EDWARD WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 26.47 88.00EGRESS WINDOW GUY BLDG & ENERGY G & A BUILDING 88.00 124.40EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 124.40 7,500.00EMLAVARTGO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 7,500.00 7,045.24ENTERPRISE FM TRUST EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT RENTAL EQUIPMENT 7,045.24 977.00ESP INC PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 977.00 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 12 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 12Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 14,500.00ESRIPUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14,500.00 51.81ESTATE OF JEAN CHAZEN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 51.81 115.59ESTATE OF JOHN RAYMOND HENKELS WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 115.59 1,500.00EVERGREEN MUSIC NETWORK, INC.LARGE EVENTS - ADMIN FEE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,500.00 2,500.00EVERLAST ENTERPRISES ESCROWS DEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFIC 2,500.00 1,821.08FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 449.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,270.08 702.00FADDEN DEREK BROOMBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 702.00 200.00FAHNDRICH PETER OR LIVIA GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00 178.00FAIRMONT FIRE SYSTEMS INC REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 178.00 3.50FASTENAL COMPANY ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 33.29WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS 11.28PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 48.07 33.00FEFFERMAN DEBORAH ART REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 33.00 117.70FEINBERG, GREG WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 117.70 1,610.35FERGUSON WATERWORKS WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,610.35 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 13 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 13Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 47.20FERRELLGASGENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 192.16REC CENTER BUILDING MOTOR FUELS 239.36 28.27FIFTH AVE PARTNERS WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 28.27 444.63FINANCE & COMMERCE, INC.STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 444.63 20,723.03FISCHER MINING LLC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 20,723.03 307.40FISHER, KALA SOLID WASTE G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 307.40 213.80FITZHENRY KATIE POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS 46.84POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE 260.64 180.00FLAGSHIP RECREATION LLC PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 180.00 362.63FORD, CHAUNTE POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS 362.63 500.11FORESTRY SUPPLIERS INC BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 500.11 146.16FRATTALONE'S/ST. LOUIS PARK REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 67.72GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 213.88 5,638.75FRERICHS CONSTRUCTION BLDG & ENERGY G & A BUILDING 5,638.75 4,186.33GALLS, LLC - DBA UNIFORMS UNLIMITED POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 132.00POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT 4,318.33 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 14 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 14Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 246.16GARLAND, MIKAEL POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 246.16 39,157.56GARLAND/DBS, INC.WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 39,157.56 5,084.89GATOR INVESTMENTS WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 5,084.89 475.93GEAR WASH LLC OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 475.93 2,289.25GILBERT MEDIATION CENTER, LTD.RIGHT-OF-WAY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,289.25 420.50GOLDBERG MICHAEL COMM & MARKETING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 420.50 200.00GOLDFARB STEVEN GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00 4,385.00GOLIATH HYDRO-VAC INC CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,385.00 326.75GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 326.75 287.82GRAINGER INC, WW GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 143.10FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 228.10-WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.98GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 212.80 225.00GRANNON BEN GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 225.00 97.40GRAY DARIUS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97.40 412.85GRIZZLY PROPERTIES LLC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 412.85 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 15 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 15Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 629.35H & L MESABI GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 629.35 22.99HAGEN, DENNIS POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 1,143.59POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1,166.58 1,161.00HAMILTON, MIKE BROOMBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,161.00 340.00HAMPTON, BOB OPERATIONS TRAINING 340.00 66.00HANSEN JESSICA ART REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 66.00 23,259.06HANSON NATHAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 23,259.06 2,495.00HAWK ANALYTICS, INC.POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,495.00 17,773.60HAWKINS INC WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 17,773.60 18.74HAWKINSON JOHN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 18.74 57.00HEALTHPARTNERSHUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,355.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT 9,975.00OPERATIONSHEALTH & WELLNESS 12,387.00 20.00HENNEPIN COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20.00 3,322.00HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER POLICE G & A JAIL/DETENTION SERVICES 2,482.92OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONS 6.00HIA ADMIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,940.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 16 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 16Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 2,940.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,880.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 11,760.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 103.83PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 29,434.75 16,387.69HENRICKSEN PSG FACILITIES MCTE G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT 16,387.69 268.42HERMAN JULIE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 268.42 57.90HINZ EMILY INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 57.90 30.00HOLY FAMILY CATHOLIC CHURCH GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNT 30.00 33.87HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 422.15FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 25.94ROUTINE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS 513.54WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,645.72LARGE EVENTS - ADMIN FEE GENERAL SUPPLIES 19.91PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 106.73PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 105.40PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 247.89PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 30.36PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 3,151.51 336.96HOTSY OF MN BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 336.96 27,506.00HOUSING AUTHORITY KIDS IN THE PARK RENT ASSIST OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 27,506.00 953.23HRDLICHKA, CINDY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 953.23 14,000.00HUE LIFE LLC ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14,000.00 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 17 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 17Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 400.00IACONO CHRIS BROOMBALL REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 400.00 146.75ICCBLDG & ENERGY G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 146.75 17,850.00IMAGETREND, INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 17,850.00 1,239.52IMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 1,239.51SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 1,239.51SOLID WASTE G&A POSTAGE 1,239.51STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 4,958.05 2,511.38INDELCOWATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,511.38 187,400.00INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #283 SCHOOL DISTRICT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 187,400.00 1,702.40INTERNATIONAL TAE KWON DO ACADEMY YOUTH PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,702.40 200.82INTERSTATE POWER SYSTEMS INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 1,074.88GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,275.70 317.71INVER GROVE FORD GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 317.71 10.18INVESTORS CAPITAL LLC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 10.18 979.17I-STATE TRUCK CENTER GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 979.17 525.00ITERIS INC PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 525.00 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 18 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 18Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 113.79JERRY'S HARDWARE WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS 17.52LARGE EVENTS - ADMIN FEE GENERAL SUPPLIES 188.50PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SMALL TOOLS 32.37PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 10.93PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 13.65GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 376.76 136.90JET ICE REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 136.90 5,000.00JIANG XIU QUN ESCROWS PMC ESCROW 5,000.00 123.45JOHNSON LAUREN INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 123.45 200.36JOSHI ASHWIN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 200.36 250.00KEENER EMILY GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00 160.00KENNEDY & GRAVEN ESCROWS PLACE 65.00ESCROWSPLATIA PLACE 225.00 500.00KEOGH LINDSAY GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 225.00KEYSTONE COMPENSATION GROUP LLC HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 225.00 210.00KIDCREATE STUDIO LITTLE TOT PLAYTIME OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 210.00 1,068.42KILLMER ELECTRIC CO INC WIRING REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 407.70INSTALLATIONOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 331.20UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS 1,807.32 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 19 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 19Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 9,920.00KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,128.69STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14,048.69 646.00KRISS PREMIUM PRODUCTS INC REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 646.00 1,175.00KSTP-FM LLC LARGE EVENTS - ADMIN FEE ADVERTISING 1,175.00 3,000.00L ANDERSON INVESTMENTS, LLC.ESCROWS PMC ESCROW 3,000.00 7,055.70LANO EQUIPMENT INC CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S INVENTORY 7,055.70 377.64LARSON DAVID WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 377.64 58.47LARSON MATTHEW WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 58.47 91.42LAUGHLIN MARK WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 91.42 331.31LAWSON PRODUCTS INC VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 331.31 5,400.00LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES POLICE G & A TRAINING 5,400.00 327.00LEAGUE OF MN CITIES ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 5,400.00POLICE G & A TRAINING 20.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 5,747.00 275.00LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE TRUST P&C UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS 275.00 225.00LEE, JON GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 225.00 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 20 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 20Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 940.00LEGEND TECHNICAL SERVICES WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 940.00 237.96LEIRAN MARILYN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 237.96 1,338.12LEWIS, DON POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 1,338.12 138.24LIFESAVER FIRE PROTECTION PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 138.24 31.69LINDAU DAVID WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 31.69 52.00LINN STAR TRANSFER BLDG & ENERGY G & A PLUMBING 52.00 2,291.28LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 2,291.28 140.00LOCKGUARD INC REC CENTER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 140.00 84.01LOCKHART CHRISTOPHER & SARAH WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 84.01 306.50LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 345.00REILLY G & A LEGAL SERVICES 651.50 284.24LOFFLERIT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 284.24 3,644.73LOFFLER COMPANIES IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 9,620.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 13,264.73 47,417.00LOGISIT G & A COMPUTER SERVICES 13,788.25TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 21 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 21Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 61,205.25 1,051.00LOTUS PRINT GROUP OPERATIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 1,051.00 1,790.20LUBE-TECH & PARTNERS LLC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 1,790.20 38.60LUEBKE CARA ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE 38.60 2,578.23LYNDE'S RESTAURANT & CATERING OPERATIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 2,578.23 25.00MACIAPOLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 50.00POLICE G & A TRAINING 75.00 2,044.93MACQUEEN EQUIP CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 2,044.93 45.00MAMAADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 45.00 4,441.34MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY OF GAINSVILLE, INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 4,441.34 2,490.00MARIE RIDGEWAY LICSW LLC POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,490.00 219.00MART CHRIS BLDG & ENERGY G & A LICENSES 219.00 444.81MASTER TECHNOLOGY GROUP TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 444.81 500.00MAXIM'S SNOW REMOVAL SNOW PLOWING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 35.21MCCHESNEY, WAYNE & SHERRY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 35.21 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 22 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 22Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 12.54MCCONNELL LAUREN POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS 12.54 36.62MCDONALD MATT WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 36.62 36.00MCHUGH, JOHN T CABLE TV G & A MEETING EXPENSE 36.00 218.39MCKEOWN COURTNEY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 218.39 4.00MCMONIGAL, MEG COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MEETING EXPENSE 37.70COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 41.70 165.12MENARDSFACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 94.54ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 17.96ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLS 19.62PAINTINGGENERAL SUPPLIES 4.99WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 38.88LARGE EVENTS - ADMIN FEE GENERAL SUPPLIES 29.88PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 154.98PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLS 38.49WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 90.56WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 655.02 12,635.00METRO CITIES ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 12,635.00 1,059.00METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS ASSOC. VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,059.00 3,400.00METRO WATERSHED PARTNERS STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 3,400.00 342,225.95METROPOLITAN COUNCIL OPERATIONS CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 342,225.95 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 23 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 23Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 97.97MICRO CENTER FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 70.98CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT 168.95 500.00MIDWEST OVERHEAD CRANE, CORP.PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 500.00 324.00MILLERBERND MFG CO CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 324.00 21,487.10MINGER CONSTRUCTION INC PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT B/S RETAINAGE PAYABLE 3,611.79PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 14,190.14WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 39,289.03 256.96MINIKAHDA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 256.96 400.00MINNEAPOLIS JEWISH FEDERATION OPERATIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 400.00 939.90MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CTR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT WAGE GARNISHMENTS 939.90 74.03MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 74.03 312.50MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 312.50 330.00MINUTEMAN PRESS COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 330.00 8,290.46MN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 8,290.46 315.00MR CUTTING EDGE REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 315.00 1,535.00MRA-THE MANAGEMENT ASSOC PUBLIC WORKS G & A TRAINING 1,535.00TRAININGSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 24 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 24Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,535.00SOLID WASTE G&A TRAINING 4,605.00 25.00MRPAORGANIZED REC G & A ADVERTISING 117.00ORGANIZED REC G & A MEETING EXPENSE 142.00 83.00MSC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 83.00 2,000.00MSP COMMUNICATIONS RECREATION OUTDOOR CENTER ADVERTISING 2,000.00 300.00MSSAPUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 300.00 58.07MTI DISTRIBUTING CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 58.07 29,378.26MUNICIPAL BUILDERS INC WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET RETAINAGE PAYABLE 29,378.26 17.00MURPHY JULIE ART REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 17.00 2,773.42NAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 25.99ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLS 20.73WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS 125.23GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,945.37 1,500.00NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BLACK ACCOUNTANTHUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT 1,500.00 6,000.00NATIONAL DIVERSITY COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 6,000.00 1,355.00NATOAFRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 1,355.00 574.16ND CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT WAGE GARNISHMENTS City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 25 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 25Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 574.16 210.00NELSON AMANDA VOLLEYBALL REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 210.00 13.43NELSON, MARK OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 13.43 2.75NEP CORP VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 2.75 393.23NORTH AMERICAN SAFETY INC PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 79.33PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 472.56 5,000.00NORTHERN LINES CONTRACTING ESCROWS DEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFIC 5,000.00 312.66NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 312.66 4,654.90NORTHLAND MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 4,654.90 670.26OAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 670.26 797.50OESTREICH, MARK WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 797.50 59.87OFFICE DEPOT ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 348.71ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 62.12COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING 242.20ASSESSING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 162.08FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 126.48COMM DEV PLANNING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 232.06FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 468.35POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 163.40OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES 125.70OPERATIONSSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 133.00BLDG & ENERGY G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 26 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 26Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 83.08PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 223.52ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 103.13WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 2,533.70 575.00OFFICE TEAM COMM & MARKETING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 575.00 238.82OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 64.97WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 303.79 176.50ON SITE SANITATION FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 105.50OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 282.00 50.00OSGOOD LAWRENCE GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 50.00 1,794.05OVERHEAD DOOR CO FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,794.05 294.61OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY INC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 294.61 337.50PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES INC REILLY G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 337.50 1,215.44PAGE ELIZABETH WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 1,215.44 2,000.00PAM BARTON PARTNERS, LLC.POLICE G & A TRAINING 2,000.00 40.16PARK CHRYSLER JEEP GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 40.16 20.08PARK JEEP GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 20.08 400.00PARKTACULARSPECIAL EVENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 27 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 27Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 400.00 302.88PARTSMASTERVEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLS 302.88 147.50PARTSTREE.COM GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 147.50 144.00PATROL PC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 144.00 2,000.00PERSPECTIVES INC.HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000.00 10.00PETTY CASH GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNT 21.69IT G & A TRAINING 20.88IT G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 34.40GENERAL INFORMATION MEETING EXPENSE 21.58POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS 18.62BLDG & ENERGY G & A MEETING EXPENSE 5.00CABLE TV G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS 132.17 12.98PETTY CASH - WWNC WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 31.88WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 44.86 2,909.84PFM ASSET MANAGEMENT CITY POOLED INVESTMENTS BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 2,909.84 35.00PLEAAPOLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 35.00 1,953.84POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 1,953.84 20,000.00POSTMASTERCOMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGE 20,000.00 437.01PRECISE MRM LLC PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 99.90SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTS City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 28 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 28Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 437.03WATER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 437.02SEWER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 437.02STORM WATER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 1,847.98 328.26PREMIUM WATERS INC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 328.26 200.46PUMP & METER SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 273.81GENERAL REPAIR BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 3,255.60BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 3,729.87 55.52QUEST ENGINEERING INC VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 55.52 614.75RAINBOW TREECARE TREE DISEASE PUBLIC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 614.75 4,266.06RANDY'S ENVIORMENTAL SERVICES FACILITIES MCTE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 2,362.49REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 6,628.55 329.00RANKIN DAVID BLDG & ENERGY G & A LICENSES 329.00 210.00RANZAU COLE VOLLEYBALL REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 210.00 16,563.27REACH FOR RESOURCES INC COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 16,563.27 3,409.00REACH MEDIA NETWORK TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 600.00REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,009.00 169.00RECON ROBOTICS INC ERU OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 169.00 200.00RED WING BUSINESS ADVANTAGE ACCOUNT PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 197.99WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 29 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 29Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 397.99 3,253.00REDPATH & COMPANY FINANCE G & A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC 57.00CABLE TV G & A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC 137.00HOUSING REHAB G & A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC 581.00WATER UTILITY G&A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC 655.00SEWER UTILITY G&A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC 313.00SOLID WASTE G&A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC 261.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC 5,257.00 44.48REGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS, LLC.POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 44.48 675.00REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 225.00NATURAL RESOURCES G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 900.00 4,290.00REHRIG PACIFIC CO SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS OTHER 4,290.00 594.72REINDERS INC PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 594.72 950.00RESOURCE EXPLORATION, LLC.ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAINING 950.00 240.00REUTER MARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 240.00 581.45RICOH USA INC IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 581.45 6,376.08ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 6,376.08 246.32SAFELITE AUTO GLASS GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 246.32 87.36SAM'S CLUB CONCESSIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 87.36 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 30 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 30Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 122.97SARGENT BLAIR WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 122.97 558.00SAVATREETREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 558.00 388.70SCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO.LARGE EVENTS - ADMIN FEE GENERAL SUPPLIES 388.70 103.67SCHMITT ERIC OPERATIONS TRAINING 103.67 200.00SCHUTZ MEGAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 200.00 6,370.65SEARLE, HUGO OPERATIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 6,370.65 102.42SERVION TITLE, INC.WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 102.42 90.00SETS DESIGN INC.COMMUNICATIONS/DISPATCH COMPUTER SUPPLIES 90.00 4,737.11SHAPCO PRINTING INC COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING 4,737.11 5,522.16-SHAW STEWARD LUMBER COMPANY GO BONDS - NATURE CTR BAL SH RETAINAGE PAYABLE 110,443.18GO BONDS - NATURE CENTER G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 104,921.02 600.00SHEILA MCNELLIS ASATO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 7,621.08SHITECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 7,621.08 1,575.59SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, INC.ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,575.59 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 31 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 31Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 17.08SHRED-IT USA MINNEAPOLIS ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7.62ASSESSING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7.63FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 85.40POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 17.08WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 17.08ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 151.89 98.10SHUBEEBLDG & ENERGY G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 98.10 342.12SKELLY GABE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 342.12 466.15SNYDER ELECTRIC PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 466.15 163.14SOUTH SIDE ELECTRIC BLDG & ENERGY G & A ELECTRICAL 163.14 2,525.00SPECIAL OPERATIONS TRAINING ASSOCIATION POLICE G & A TRAINING 325.00OPERATIONSTRAINING 2,850.00 4,000.00SPRINT CORPORATION WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET GENERAL 4,000.00 163.19SPS COMPANIES INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.59WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 190.42PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 363.20 4,562.52SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC IMS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 74,453.31STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 79,015.83 353.00ST LOUIS PARK LIONS CLUB SPECIAL EVENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 353.00 4,000.00ST LOUIS PARK POLICE EXPLORERS POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 4,000.00 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 32 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 32Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 275.00STANG LYNN GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 275.00 272.48STAR TRIBUNE ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 37.90SOLID WASTE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 310.38 5,949.00STATPACKS, INC.EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 5,949.00 275.00STORFER, LEON GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 275.00 152.01STREICHER'S POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 152.01 33.72STROUTS ZACHARY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 33.72 768.33SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY WATER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 768.33SEWER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 768.34STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 2,305.00 2,527.84SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 2,527.84 277.50SUMMIT COMPANIES OPERATIONS REPAIRS 277.50 32,814.47SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC REILLY G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 32,814.47 317.00SUN CONTROL OF MINNESOTA INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 317.00 19,400.00SUNDIAL ENERGY MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 19,400.00 250.00SUSA TREASURER PUBLIC WORKS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 33 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 33Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 250.00WATER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 125.00SEWER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 625.00 3,124.55SUSTAINABLE RESOURCES CENTER EMERGENCY REPAIR GRANTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,124.55 754.00SWANSON & YOUNGDALE INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 754.00 17,897.28SYLVESTER CUSTOM GRINDING, INC.TREE MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 17,897.28 56.98TAYLOR NATALIE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 56.98 193.50TELELANGUAGE INC ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 193.50 4,157.42-TELEMETRY & PROCESS CONTROL, INC. WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET RETAINAGE PAYABLE 27,716.20WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 27,716.18SEWER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 27,716.18STORM WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 78,991.14 88.28TERMINAL SUPPLY CO GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 88.28 87.00TERMINIX PROCESSING CENTER BRICK HOUSE (1324)BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 87.00WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 174.00 24,000.00TERRAZA 17, LLC.RIGHT-OF-WAY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 24,000.00 30.00TEXA TONKA TAILORING OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 30.00 138.24THE MPX GROUP COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING 138.24 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 34 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 34Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 182.04THE SHERWIN WILLIAMS, CO.LARGE EVENTS - ADMIN FEE GENERAL SUPPLIES 182.04 500.61THE SHERWINN WILLIAMS CO LARGE EVENTS - ADMIN FEE GENERAL SUPPLIES 263.27PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 763.88 288.00THE SIGN PRODUCERS FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 288.00 113.54THE STANDARD ADMINISTRATION G & A LIFE INSURANCE 116.38ADMINISTRATION G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 33.91RACE EQUITY & INCLUSION G&A LIFE INSURANCE 33.24RACE EQUITY & INCLUSION G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 89.79HUMAN RESOURCES LIFE INSURANCE 93.14HUMAN RESOURCES LONG TERM DISABILITY 63.75COMM & MARKETING G & A LIFE INSURANCE 62.63COMM & MARKETING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 116.71IT G & A LIFE INSURANCE 127.70IT G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 108.84ASSESSING G & A LIFE INSURANCE 107.00ASSESSING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 126.37FINANCE G & A LIFE INSURANCE 125.57FINANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 289.05COMM DEV G & A LIFE INSURANCE 286.51COMM DEV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 69.60FACILITIES MCTE G & A LIFE INSURANCE 68.28FACILITIES MCTE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 1,077.60POLICE G & A LIFE INSURANCE 1,060.48POLICE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 109.22COMMUNICATIONS/DISPATCH LIFE INSURANCE 107.19COMMUNICATIONS/DISPATCH LONG TERM DISABILITY 489.59OPERATIONSLIFE INSURANCE 484.93OPERATIONSLONG TERM DISABILITY 306.45BLDG & ENERGY G & A LIFE INSURANCE 322.09BLDG & ENERGY G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 19.30SUSTAINABILITY G&A LIFE INSURANCE 18.93SUSTAINABILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 73.79PUBLIC WORKS G & A LIFE INSURANCE 65.40PUBLIC WORKS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 243.84ENGINEERING G & A LIFE INSURANCE City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 35 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 35Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 243.98ENGINEERING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 209.17PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LIFE INSURANCE 223.10PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 51.18CABLE TV G & A LIFE INSURANCE 50.24CABLE TV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 20.83HOUSING REHAB G & A LIFE INSURANCE 20.45HOUSING REHAB G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 125.10WATER UTILITY G&A LIFE INSURANCE 122.66WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 70.49SEWER UTILITY G&A LIFE INSURANCE 81.93SEWER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 44.20SOLID WASTE G&A LIFE INSURANCE 43.31SOLID WASTE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 72.14STORM WATER UTILITY G&A LIFE INSURANCE 57.78STORM WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 8,177.62EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND G&A LIFE INSURANCE 129.54ORGANIZED REC G & A LIFE INSURANCE 132.15ORGANIZED REC G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 143.89PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LIFE INSURANCE 141.12PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 20.83NATURAL RESOURCES G & A LIFE INSURANCE 20.45NATURAL RESOURCES G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 65.15WESTWOOD G & A LIFE INSURANCE 58.07WESTWOOD G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 131.19REC CENTER SALARIES LIFE INSURANCE 128.67REC CENTER SALARIES LONG TERM DISABILITY 84.20VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LIFE INSURANCE 82.42VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 17,162.68 10.32THE UPS STORE WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 10.32 94.02THOMAS NANCY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 94.02 1,886.69THOMPSON, LINDSEY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,886.69 205.90THRIVEPASSEMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 205.90 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 36 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 36Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 148.00TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL COMM DEV PLANNING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 219.00SUSTAINABILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,144.50ENVIRONMENT & SUSTAINABILITY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,511.50 11.35TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 11.35 654.25TRI STATE BOBCAT GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 654.25 2,059.00TRUE COLORS INTERNATIONAL RACE EQUITY & INCLUSION G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,059.00 2,453.90TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 2,453.90 3,360.37TWIN CITY OUTDOOR SERVICES INC SNOW PLOWING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 17,320.00SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,170.00SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 26,850.37 209.96TWIN CITY SAW CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 209.96 360.00UHL CO INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,937.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 2,297.00 60.00UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT UNITED WAY 60.00 678.41US DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT WAGE GARNISHMENTS 678.41 260.42VAIL, LORI HUMAN RESOURCES MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 260.42 39.68VAUGHAN, JIM NATURAL RESOURCES G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 39.68 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 37 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 37Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 50.04VERIZON WIRELESS SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE 37,585.40CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT 71.12CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE 37,706.56 1,580.74VESSCO INC WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,580.74 11,700.00VIGILANT SOLUTIONS LLC DWI ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 11,700.00 50.59WAALK GERALDINE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 50.59 18.40WALL KAREN ENGINEERING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 18.40 89.64WALSH, CINDY S ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING 89.64 2,174.75WARNING LITES OF MN INC INSTALLATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,174.75 3,733.84WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 66,828.60SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 37,606.50SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICE 24,043.50SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE 36,707.85SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS ORGANICS 31,741.66SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 200,661.95 1,715.56WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,715.56 236.25WEINBERG E FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 236.25 1.00WELD & SONS PLUMBING INC BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 65.00BLDG & ENERGY G & A PLUMBING 66.00 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 38 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 38Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 750.00WENDELFACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 750.00 85.84WEST, JASON ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 85.84 69.00WESTWOOD HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC. NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 69.00 50.00WEXLER RACHEL BLDG & ENERGY G & A 1&2 SINGLE FAM. RENTAL 50.00 1,500.00WINCAN LLC SEWER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENT 1,500.00 100.00WRAP CITY GRAPHICS FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 100.00 2,249.50WSB ASSOC INC IT G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 295.70ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 220.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,765.20 12,830.63XCEL ENERGY FACILITIES MCTE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 4,025.31PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 30,912.24WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE 1,500.41REILLY G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 37.84SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,498.55STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE 67.22BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE 55.05WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE 483.09WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 24,820.15REC CENTER BUILDING ELECTRIC SERVICE 77,230.49 5,507.70YESHIVA OF MINNEAPOLIS WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 5,507.70 90.85ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 90.85 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 39 2/24/2020CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:53:15R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 39Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 2/21/20201/25/2020 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 488.68ZIEGLER INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 488.68 280.54ZIP PRINTING NATURAL RESOURCES G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 280.54 65.00ZOLLICOFFER MARC SKATEBOARD PROGRAMS REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 65.00 2,144.76ZUERCHER TECHNOLOGIES LLC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 2,144.76 Report Totals 2,462,621.65 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 40 Vendor Bond Trust Services Corp. Bond Trust Services Corp. Bond Trust Services Corp. Bond Trust Services Corp. Bond Trust Services Corp. Bond Trust Services Corp. Bond Trust Services Corp. Bond Trust Services Corp. Bond Trust Services Corp. Bond Trust Services Corp. Bond Trust Services Corp. Bond Trust Services Corp. City of St. Louis Park Disbursement by wire transfer January 30, 2020 wire for bond payments due February 1, 2020 Bond Issue 2010C G.O. Refunding (Louisiana Court Proj.) 2010D Taxable G.O. (Build Am. Bonds>Fire St) 2012A Taxable G.O. HIA (Greensboro Square) 2013A G.O. Rev. Refunding 2014A G.O. Debt Service 2016A G.O. (Rec. Ctr. Improvements) 2017A G.O. Debt Service 2018A G.O. Debt Service 2019A G.O. Abatement (WHNC) and Charter 2019C Taxable G.O. HIA (Suns_et Ridge) Refunding 20088 G.O. Tax Increment (West End) 2010A Tax Increment Rev. (Hoigaard Village #1) Object Amount Bond Principal 45,000.00 Bond Interest 37,852.50 Bond Principal 590,000.00 Bond Interest 225,080.63 Bond Principal 8,610,000.00 Bond Principal 55,000.00 Bond Interest 15,371.25 Bond Principal 0.00 Bond Interest 13,006.25 Bond Principal 970,000.00 Bond Interest 72,000.00 Bond Principal 1,000,000.00 Bond Interest 87,740.63 Bond Principal 765,000.00 Bond Interest 127,131.26 Bond Principal 520,000.00 Bond Interest 146,300.00 Bond Principal 0.00 Bond Interest 559,432.35 Bond Principal 190,000.00 Bond Interest 8,041.04 Bond Principal 460,000.00 Bond Interest 57,956.26 Bond Principal 155,000.00 Bond Interest 33,250.00 14,743,162.17 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 41 Meeting: City council Meeting date: March 2, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4b Executive summary Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Recommended action: •Motion to approve second reading and adopt Ordinance, setting its effective date on March 27, 2020. •Motion to adopt Resolutions supporting and reflecting existing traffic controls related to the rescinded ordinance. Policy consideration: Does the city council support staff’s recommendation to rescind Ordinance 535 in order to eliminate conflicts between the ordinance and state statute, and to simplify traffic control changes? Summary: On Jan. 21, 2020, the city council approved staff’s recommendation to change the traffic control at the intersection of Quebec Avenue and 29th Street from a single stop sign on the east approach to two-way stop controls on the north and south approaches. In a routine traffic approval process, council would approve a new resolution to enact the traffic control change and rescind any resolution that conflicts with the change. However, the stop sign at this intersection was approved through ordinance in 1959. As a result, approving the traffic committee’s recommendation requires a change to the ordinance. Instead of simply changing the ordinance with new language, staff recommends rescinding the ordinance in its entirety and implementing the traffic controls through resolutions. On Feb. 18, 2020, the city council approved the first reading of the ordinance to rescind Ordinance 535. For further information regarding the original ordinance, resolutions, and traffic study, please see the study session report from Jan. 13, 2020. Financial or budget considerations: Costs related to this ordinance change are minimal and will come from the general operating budget. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Ordinance and Resolutions – to be approved Ordinance 535 and Res. 93-16, 93-218, 3634, 95-85, 4854, 6553, 4944, 4806, 7435, 91-184, 1497, 4133, 1445 – to be rescinded Location map TS 713 study session report – Jan. 13., 2020 (pp. 72 – 116) TS 713 council approval – Jan. 21, 2020 (pp. 145 – 146) TS 713 first reading of ordinance – Feb. 18, 2020 (pp. 132 – 138) Prepared by: Ben Manibog, transportation engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Discussion Background: On Jan. 13, 2020, the city council received a report regarding Ordinance 535 and a related traffic request at the intersection of Quebec Avenue and 29th Street. The report details the process necessary to change or rescind the ordinance which involves rescinding other traffic resolutions and adopting new ones to reflect existing traffic control conditions. On Jan. 21, 2020, the city council approved staff’s recommendation to change the traffic controls at the intersection of Quebec Avenue and 29th Street from a single stop sign on the east approach to two-way stop controls on the north and south approaches. To make this change, staff recommended rescinding Ordinance 535 because it eliminates conflicts between the ordinance and state statute and to simplify future traffic control changes. On Feb. 18, 2020, the city council approved the first reading of the ordinance to rescind Ordinance 535. Because any ordinance must be read twice for it to take into effect, the related traffic resolutions covered in Ordinance 535 are brought to the second reading. Ordinance and resolutions: Ordinance 535 established the traffic controls for 24 intersections across St. Louis Park. Staff recommends that the existing traffic controls be preserved at all 24 intersections except for Quebec Avenue at 29th Street. For more information regarding this recommendation and specifics about Ordinance 535, please see the Jan. 13, 2020 study session report. To summarize the recommended rescinding and approval of resolutions and their relation to Ordinance 535, see the table below. For further information on the specifics of each resolution, please see the Jan. 13, 2020 study session report. Table item number Ordinance 535 location Contents Former resolution number(s) Remaining resolution number or new placeholder 1 2.A.1 Authorize installation of stop controls at 28th Street and Glenhurst Avenue 93-16 A 2 2.A.2 Authorize installation of stop controls at 28th Street and Huntington Avenue 93-16 B 3 2.A.3 Authorize installation of stop controls at 28th Street and Joppa Avenue 93-16 C 4 2.A.4 Authorize installation of stop controls at 28th Street and Quentin Avenue - 19-080 5 2.A.5 Authorize installation of stop controls at 28th Street and Toledo Avenue - D 6 2.B Authorize installation of stop controls at 37th Street and Inglewood Avenue 93-218 E 7 2.C Authorize installation of stop controls at 38th Street and Inglewood Avenue 93-218, 3634 F City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 3 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) 8 2.D Authorize installation of stop controls at 39th Street and Kipling Avenue 93-218 G 9 2.E.1 Authorize installation of stop controls at 41st Street and Webster Avenue - H 10 2.E.2 Authorize installation of stop controls at 41st Street and Xenwood Avenue - I 11 2.E.3 Authorize installation of stop controls at 41st Street and Yosemite Avenue 4854 J 12 2.F Authorize installation of stop controls at Morningside Road and Browndale Avenue - K 13 2.G.1 Authorize installation of stop controls at Walker Street and Quebec Avenue 6553 L 14 2.G.2 Authorize installation of stop controls at Walker Street and Rhode Island Avenue 4944 M 15 2.G.3 Authorize installation of stop controls at Walker Street and Sumter Avenue 1445 N 16 2.H Authorize installation of stop controls at 28th Street and Inglewood Avenue 4806 O 17 2.I Authorize installation of stop controls at 39th Street and Joppa Avenue 7435 P 18 2.J.1 Authorize installation of stop controls at Brookview Lane and Brunswick Avenue 91-184 Q 19 2.J.2 Authorize installation of stop controls at Cambridge Street and Brunswick Avenue 1497, 4133 R 20 2.K Authorize installation of stop controls at 29th Street and Quentin Avenue - S 21 2.L Authorize installation of stop controls at 29th Street and Toledo Avenue - T 22 2.M Authorize installation of stop controls at Lynn Avenue and Vallacher Avenue - - 23 2.N Authorize installation of stop controls at Joppa Avenue and 27th Street - - 24 2.O Authorize installation of stop controls at Pennsylvania Avenue and Lake Street - 3484, 4675 25 - Authorize installation of stop controls at Sunset Boulevard and Glenhurst Avenue 93-16 U 26 - Authorize installation of stop controls at Sunset Boulevard and Huntington Avenue 93-16 V 27 - Authorize installation of stop controls at Sunset Boulevard and Joppa Avenue 93-16 W 28 - Authorize installation of stop controls at 38th Street and Glenhurst Avenue 93-218, 3634 X 29 - Authorize installation of stop controls at Cedar Lake Avenue and Inglewood Avenue 95-85, 3634 Y 30 - Authorize installation of yield controls at Brunswick Avenue and Hamilton Avenue 1445 Z City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 4 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Future installation: Staff anticipates the traffic controls at the intersection of Quebec Avenue and 29th Street to be modified once the snow melts and ground thaws. This will most likely occur in April pending weather conditions. Next steps: Staff has developed the following steps for action on TS 713 and the adoption of the ordinance and resolutions. Second reading of ordinance March 2, 2020 Submit summary to Sun Sailor March 5, 2020 Summary publication March 12, 2020 Ordinance effective date March 27, 2020 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 5 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Ordinance No. ___-20 An ordinance rescinding Ordinance No. 535 The City of St. Louis Park does ordain: Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established a list of thru streets and stop- controlled intersections in Ordinance No. 535; and, Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Ordinance No. 535 into resolutions for better record keeping; and, Whereas, the intent of re-writing the ordinances into resolutions is to reflect existing traffic control conditions apart from the intersection of 29th Street and Quebec Avenue; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Section 1. Ordinance No. 535 is hereby rescinded. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney First Reading Feb. 18, 2020 Second Reading March 2, 2020 Date of Publication March 12, 2020 Date Ordinance takes effect March 27, 2020 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 6 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__A__ Authorize installation of stop controls at 28th Street and Glenhurst Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established a list of stop-controlled intersections in Ordinance No. 535 which included the intersection of 28th Street and Glenhurst Avenue; and, Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Ordinance No. 535 into resolutions for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Ordinance No. 535 was rescinded on March 2, 2020; and, Whereas, Resolution 93-16 also governed the placement of stop signs at the intersection of 28th Street and Glenhurst Avenue; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 93-16 be rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at all approaches of the intersection of 28th Street and Glenhurst Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 7 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__B__ Authorize installation of stop controls at 28th Street and Huntington Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established a list of stop-controlled intersections in Ordinance No. 535 which included the intersection of 28th Street and Huntington Avenue; and, Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Ordinance No. 535 into resolutions for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Ordinance No. 535 was rescinded on March 2, 2020; and, Whereas, Resolution 93-16 also governed the placement of stop signs at the intersection of 28th Street and Huntington Avenue; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 93-16 be rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at all approaches of the intersection of 28th Street and Huntington Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 8 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__C__ Authorize installation of stop controls at 28th Street and Joppa Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established a list of stop-controlled intersections in Ordinance No. 535 which included the intersection of 28th Street and Joppa Avenue; and, Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Ordinance No. 535 into resolutions for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Ordinance No. 535 was rescinded on March 2, 2020; and, Whereas, Resolution 93-16 also governed the placement of stop signs at the intersection of 28th Street and Joppa Avenue; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 93-16 be rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at all approaches of the intersection of 28th Street and Joppa Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 9 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__D__ Authorize installation of stop controls at 28th Street and Toledo Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established a list of stop-controlled intersections in Ordinance No. 535 which included the intersection of 28th Street and Toledo Avenue; and, Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Ordinance No. 535 into resolutions for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Ordinance No. 535 was rescinded on March 2, 2020; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at the north and south approaches of the intersection of 28th Street and Toledo Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 10 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__E__ Authorize installation of stop controls at 37th Street and Inglewood Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established a list of stop-controlled intersections in Ordinance No. 535 which includes the intersection of 37th Street and Inglewood Avenue; and, Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Ordinance No. 535 into resolutions for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Ordinance No. 535 was rescinded on March 2, 2020; and, Whereas, Resolution 93-218 also governed the placement of stop signs at the intersection of 37th Street and Inglewood Avenue; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that item 3 under section 1 of Resolution 93-218 be rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at all approaches of the intersection of 37th Street and Inglewood Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 11 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__F__ Authorize installation of stop controls at 38th Street and Inglewood Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established a list of stop-controlled intersections in Ordinance No. 535 which includes the intersection of 38th Street and Inglewood Avenue; and, Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Ordinance No. 535 into resolutions for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Ordinance No. 535 was rescinded on March 2, 2020; and, Whereas, Resolution 93-218 also governed the placement of stop signs at the intersection of 38th Street and Inglewood Avenue; and, Whereas, Resolution 3634 also governed the placement of stop signs at the intersection of 38th Street and Inglewood Avenue; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 3634 and item 6 under section 1 of Resolution 93-218 be rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at all approaches of the intersection of 38th Street and Inglewood Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 12 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__G__ Authorize installation of stop controls at 39th Street and Kipling Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established a list of stop-controlled intersections in Ordinance No. 535 which includes the intersection of 39th Street and Kipling Avenue; and, Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Ordinance No. 535 into resolutions for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Ordinance No. 535 was rescinded on March 2, 2020; and, Whereas, Resolution 93-218 also governed the placement of stop signs at the intersection of 39th Street and Kipling Avenue; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that item 9 under section 1 of Resolution 93-218 be rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at all approaches of the intersection of 39th Street and Kipling Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 13 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__H__ Authorize installation of stop controls at 41st Street and Webster Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established a list of stop-controlled intersections in Ordinance No. 535 which includes the intersection of 41st Street and Webster Avenue; and, Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Ordinance No. 535 into resolutions for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Ordinance No. 535 was rescinded on March 2, 2020; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at the north and south approach of the intersection of 41st Street and Webster Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 14 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__I__ Authorize installation of stop controls at 41st Street and Xenwood Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established a list of stop-controlled intersections in Ordinance No. 535 which includes the intersection of 41st Street and Xenwood Avenue; and, Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Ordinance No. 535 into resolutions for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Ordinance No. 535 was rescinded on March 2, 2020; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at the north and south approach of the intersection of 41st Street and Xenwood Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 15 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__J__ Authorize installation of stop controls at 41st Street and Yosemite Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established a list of stop-controlled intersections in Ordinance No. 535 which includes the intersection of 41st Street and Yosemite Avenue; and, Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Ordinance No. 535 into resolutions for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Ordinance No. 535 was rescinded on March 2, 2020; and, Whereas, Resolution 4854 also governed the placement of stop signs at the intersection of 41st Street and Yosemite Avenue; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 4854 be rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at all approaches of the intersection of 41st Street and Yosemite Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 16 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__K__ Authorize installation of stop controls at Morningside Road and Browndale Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established a list of stop-controlled intersections in Ordinance No. 535 which includes the intersection of Morningside Road and Browndale Avenue; and, Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Ordinance No. 535 into resolutions for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Ordinance No. 535 was rescinded on March 2, 2020; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at the north and south approaches of the intersection of Morningside Road and Browndale Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 17 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__L__ Authorize installation of stop controls at Walker Street and Quebec Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established a list of stop-controlled intersections in Ordinance No. 535 which includes the intersection of Walker Street and Quebec Avenue; and, Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Ordinance No. 535 into resolutions for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Ordinance No. 535 was rescinded on March 2, 2020; and, Whereas, Resolution 6553 also governed the placement of stop signs at the intersection of Walker Street and Quebec Avenue; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 6553 be rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at all approaches of the intersection of Walker Street and Quebec Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 18 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__M__ Authorize installation of stop controls at Walker Street and Rhode Island Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established a list of stop-controlled intersections in Ordinance No. 535 which includes the intersection of Walker Street and Rhode Island Avenue; and, Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Ordinance No. 535 into resolutions for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Ordinance No. 535 was rescinded on March 2, 2020; and, Whereas, Resolution 4944 also governed the placement of stop signs at the intersection of Walker Street and Rhode Island Avenue; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 4944 be rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at all approaches of the intersection of Walker Street and Rhode Island Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 19 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__N__ Authorize installation of stop controls at Walker Street and Sumter Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established a list of stop-controlled intersections in Ordinance No. 535 which includes the intersection of Walker Street and Sumter Avenue; and, Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Ordinance No. 535 into resolutions for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Ordinance No. 535 was rescinded on March 2, 2020; and, Whereas, Resolution 1445 also governed the placement of stop signs on a temporary basis at the intersection of Walker Street and Sumter Avenue; and, Whereas, stop signs are currently installed on the north and south approaches of the intersection of Walker Street and Sumter Avenue; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 1445 be rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at the north and south approaches of the intersection of Walker Street and Sumter Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 20 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__O__ Authorize installation of stop controls at 28th Street and Inglewood Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established a list of stop-controlled intersections in Ordinance No. 535 which includes the intersection of 28th Street and Inglewood Avenue; and, Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Ordinance No. 535 into resolutions for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Ordinance No. 535 was rescinded on March 2, 2020; and, Whereas, Resolution 4806 also governed the placement of stop signs at the intersection of 28th Street and Inglewood Avenue; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 4806 be rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at all approaches of the intersection of 28th Street and Inglewood Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 21 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__P__ Authorize installation of stop controls at 39th Street and Joppa Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established a list of stop-controlled intersections in Ordinance No. 535 which includes the intersection of 39th Street and Joppa Avenue; and, Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Ordinance No. 535 into resolutions for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Ordinance No. 535 was rescinded on March 2, 2020; and, Whereas, Resolution 7435 also governed the placement of stop signs at the intersection of 39th Street and Joppa Avenue; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 7435 be rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at all approaches of the intersection of 39th Street and Joppa Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 22 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__Q__ Authorize installation of stop controls at Brookview Lane and Brunswick Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established a list of stop-controlled intersections in Ordinance No. 535 which includes the intersection of Brookview Lane and Brunswick Avenue; and, Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Ordinance No. 535 into resolutions for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Ordinance No. 535 was rescinded on March 2, 2020; and, Whereas, Resolution 91-184 also governed the placement of stop signs at the intersection of Brookview Lane and Brunswick Avenue; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 91-184 be rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at all approaches of the intersection of Brookview Lane and Brunswick Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 23 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__R__ Authorize installation of stop controls at Cambridge Street and Brunswick Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established a list of stop-controlled intersections in Ordinance No. 535 which includes the intersection of Cambridge Street and Brunswick Avenue; and, Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Ordinance No. 535 into resolutions for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Ordinance No. 535 was rescinded on March 2, 2020; and, Whereas, Resolution 1497 also governed the placement of stop signs at the intersection of Cambridge Street and Brunswick Avenue; and, Whereas, Resolution 4133 also governed the placement of stop signs on a temporary basis at the intersection of Cambridge Street and Brunswick Avenue; and, Whereas, stop signs are currently installed at all approaches to the intersection of Cambridge Street and Brunswick Avenue; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolutions 1497 and 4133 be rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at all approaches of the intersection of Cambridge Street and Brunswick Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 24 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__S__ Authorize installation of stop controls at 29th Street and Quentin Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established a list of stop-controlled intersections in Ordinance No. 535; and, Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park received a request to review the traffic controls at the intersection of 29th Street and Quentin Avenue; and, Whereas, the traffic committee has reviewed the request and recommended the traffic controls at the intersection to be changed to be stop-controlled at the north and south approaches; and, Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Ordinance No. 535 into resolutions for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Ordinance No. 535 was rescinded on March 2, 2020; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs on the north and south approaches of the intersection of 29th Street and Quentin Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 25 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__T__ Authorize installation of stop controls at 29th Street and Toledo Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established a list of stop-controlled intersections in Ordinance No. 535 which includes the intersection of 29th Street and Toledo Avenue; and, Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Ordinance No. 535 into resolutions for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Ordinance No. 535 was rescinded on March 2, 2020; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install a stop sign at the east approach of the intersection of 29th Street and Toledo Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 26 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__U__ Authorize installation of stop controls at Sunset Boulevard and Glenhurst Avenue Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Resolution 93-16 for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Resolution 93-16 governed the placement of stop signs at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Glenhurst Avenue; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 93-16 be rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at all approaches of the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Glenhurst Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 27 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__V__ Authorize installation of stop controls at Sunset Boulevard and Huntington Avenue Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Resolution 93-16 for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Resolution 93-16 governed the placement of stop signs at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Huntington Avenue; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 93-16 be rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at all approaches of the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Huntington Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 28 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__W__ Authorize installation of stop controls at Sunset Boulevard and Joppa Avenue Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Resolution 93-16 for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Resolution 93-16 governed the placement of stop signs at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Joppa Avenue; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 93-16 be rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at all approaches of the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Joppa Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 29 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__X__ Authorize installation of stop controls at 38th Street and Glenhurst Avenue Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Resolution 93-218 for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Resolution 93-218 governed the placement of stop signs at the intersection of 38th Street and Glenhurst Avenue; and, Whereas, Resolution 3634 also governed the placement of stop signs at the intersection of 38th Street and Glenhurst Avenue; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 3634 and item 5 under section 1 of Resolution 93-218 be rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at all approaches of the intersection of 38th Street and Glenhurst Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 30 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__Y__ Authorize installation of stop controls at Cedar Lake Avenue and Inglewood Avenue Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write Resolution 95-085 for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Resolution 95-85 governed the placement of stop signs at the intersection of Cedar Lake Avenue and Inglewood Avenue; and, Whereas, Resolution 3634 also governed the placement of stop signs at the intersection of Cedar Lake Avenue and Inglewood Avenue; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 95-085 and 3634 be rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs at all approaches of the intersection of Cedar Lake Avenue and Inglewood Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 31 Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Resolution No. 20-__Z__ Authorize installation of yield controls at Brunswick Avenue and Hamilton Avenue Whereas, in Traffic Study 713, staff recommended to re-write many traffic Resolutions for better record keeping; and, Whereas, Resolution 1445 governed the placement of traffic controls on a temporary basis at seven locations including yield signs at the intersection of Brunswick Avenue and Hamilton Avenue; and, Whereas, yield signs are currently installed at the east and west approaches of the intersection of Brunswick Avenue and Hamilton Street; and, Whereas, the intent of this resolution is to reflect existing traffic control conditions; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 1445 be rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1.Install yield signs at the east and west approaches of the intersection of Brunswick Avenue and Hamilton Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Page 32 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Page 33 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Page 34 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Page 35 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Page 36 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Page 37 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Page 38 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Page 39 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Page 40 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713) Page 41 TS 713 location map 2844 2906 2850 28502851 2900 2855 2900 2905 2840 2845 2931 2924 2915 2904 2831 2844 2825 2830 2850 2824 2824 2831 2854 2920 7623 2834 29102914 2835 2854 7617 2930 2844 2925 2904 2845 2825 2901 2824 2855 2851 2931 2921 2840 2924 2921 2854 2914 2834 2930 2830 2900 2910 2918 2920 2841 2834 2910 2925 2917 2841 2830 2914 2911 2840 2835 29TH ST W QUEBEC AVE SRHODE ISLAND AVE SQUEBEC AVE S´0 50 10025 Feet Legend Proposed stop sign installation Proposed stop sign removal Existing stop signs Property lines City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Title: Second Reading to rescind Ord. 535 and multiple resolutions supporting intersection traffic control (TS 713)Page 41 Meeting: City council Meeting date: March 2, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4c Executive summary Title: Bid tabulation: Award bid for concrete replacement – project no. 4020-0003 Recommended action: Motion to designate JL Theis, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder, and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $239,093.20 for concrete replacement – Project No. 4020-0003. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to continue the city’s practice of repairing or replacing existing sidewalk, curb and gutter, and catch basins? Summary: Bids were received on Feb. 18, 2020 for miscellaneous concrete repair, including sidewalk, curb and gutter, and storm sewer catch basins at various locations in the city. This annual construction contract addresses needed concrete repairs in the pavement management area scheduled for routine pavement maintenance the following year as well as sidewalk trip hazards throughout the city. Four (4) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid results is as follows: CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT JL Theis, Inc.. $239,093.20 DK Concrete LLC $254,940.00 Pember Companies, Inc. $271,946.90 Concrete Idea, Inc. $262,888.50 Engineer’s Estimate $229,413.00 A review of the bid indicates JL Theis, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid. JL Theis, Inc. has completed this type and size of work successfully in other cities, including Minneapolis and Maple Grove. Staff recommends that a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $239,093.20. Financial or budget considerations: This project was planned for and included in the city’s adopted 2020 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), with an estimated budget of $287,500.00. This project is funded by the operations budget, stormwater utility, and pavement management funds. Funding details are provided in the discussion section. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, senior engineering project manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Title: Bid tabulation: Award bid for concrete replacement – project no. 4020-0003 Discussion Background: Bids were received on Feb. 18, 2020 for miscellaneous concrete repair, including sidewalk, curb and gutter, and storm sewer catch basins at various locations in the city. This annual construction contract addresses needed concrete repairs in the pavement management area scheduled for routine pavement maintenance the following year as well as sidewalk trip hazards throughout the city. Staff annually surveys the condition of sidewalks to identify hazards for repair. Panels of sidewalk that are cracked or have been lifted by tree roots create trip hazards that are repaired as a part of this contract. Curb and gutter with similar defects that create drainage or safety problems are also repaired. Deteriorating catch basins that are within the work area will also be repaired or rebuilt. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor on Jan. 23, 2020. In addition, plans and specifications are made available electronically via the internet by our vendor Quest CDN.com. Email notification was provided to four (4) minority associations, and final printed plans were available for viewing at Construct Connect and at City Hall. Sixteen contractors/vendors purchased plan sets, three (3) of which were Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) including JL Theis, Inc. Funding Details Based on the low bid received, cost and funding details are revised as follows: CIP Estimate Low Bid Construction Cost $270,000.00 $239,093.20 Engineering $17,500.00 $15,541.06 Total $287,500.00 $254,634.26 Revenues Pavement management fund $82,500.00 $80,719.68 Operations budget $95,000.00 $77,681.60 Stormwater utility $110,000.00 $96,290.48 Total $287,500.00 $254,634.26 Due to the nature of our construction projects, unexpected costs do come up. To address this, past practice has been to show a contingency for all aspects of the project. What follows is a table that shows this contingency and how this would affect the project costs. These contingency costs are within the funding identified in the CIP. If overruns occur, there are adequate funds to cover these costs. Low Bid Contingency (10%) Engineering (10%) Total Pavement Management $75,793.13 $7,579.31 $7,579.31 $90,951.75 Stormwater Utility $90,413.60 $9,041.36 $9,041.36 $108,496.32 PW Operations Fund $72,940.47 $7,294.05 $7,294.05 $87,528.57 Total $239,093.20 $23,914.72 $23,914.72 $286,922.64 Construction Timeline: All work required under this contract, except maintenance work, shall be completed by July 31, 2020. Meeting: City council Meeting date: March 2, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4d Executive summary Title: Bid tabulation: Award bid for street maintenance – project no. 4020-1200 Recommended action: Motion to designate ASTECH Corp. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $393,745.19 for street maintenance– Project No. 4020-1200. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to continue to implement this component of our Pavement Management program? Summary: This year’s street maintenance project will be performed in Area 4 of the city’s eight pavement management areas. It includes work in the Birchwood Neighborhood. This routine maintenance involves edge milling the existing pavement and overlaying a thin layer of bituminous. Bids were received on Feb. 18, 2020. Eight (8) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid results is as follows: CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT ASTECH Corp. $393,745.19 GMH Asphalt $412,947.10 Omann Contracting $431,795.99 S.M. Hentges $451,969.90 Northwest Asphalt $457,719.90 Bituminous Roadways $469,990.90 Park Construction $481,796.60 Molnau Trucking $499,236.90 Engineer’s Estimate $454,522.30 A review of the bid indicates ASTECH Corp. submitted the lowest responsible bid. ASTECH Corp. has completed this type and size of work successfully in other cities. Staff recommends that a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $393,745.19. Financial or budget considerations: This project was planned for and included in the city’s adopted 2020 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). This project is funded by the Operations budget, Stormwater utility, and Pavement management funds. Funding details are provided in the discussion section. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Location map Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, senior engineering project manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4d) Page 2 Title: Bid tabulation: Award bid for street maintenance – project no. 4020-1200 Discussion Background: Most streets in St. Louis Park were reconstructed between the mid-60s to early 80s. There are many variables, i.e., weather, traffic, soils, utility cuts, etc. that contribute to a pavement’s deterioration. In general, pavement lifecycle can range from 20 to 30 years. Applying this standard to St. Louis Park, most of the streets in the city have exceeded their useful life. Fortunately, the city’s streets are still in relatively good condition. This is due to the fact that the streets were built well, are situated on good soils, utilize curb and gutter for drainage, and have been well maintained. However, as pavements age, more aggressive maintenance strategies are needed to prolong their life. Also, more extensive maintenance is needed to “catch” certain streets and extend their life before total reconstruction is necessary. In 2004, to ensure that our streets continue to serve the community, the city council approved the pavement management program for local residential streets. The program’s basic elements consist of: •Evaluating and rating the street segments in a consistent and objective manner •Identifying segments in need of extensive maintenance or reconstruction •Applying the appropriate maintenance strategies at the appropriate times •Establishing a dedicated source of funding for the program •Implementing the identified projects on an 8-year/area cycle In order to evaluate the condition of street segments, the industry uses something called an Overall Condition Index. The Overall Condition Index (OCI) is a methodology used to evaluate and rate pavements on a range of 100 (newly surfaced pavement) to 0 (failed pavement). When the pavement management program was developed and then implemented in 2004, the council established a goal of maintaining a street network with an overall condition index (OCI) of no less than 70. This goal then drives the capital planning and revenue needs identified in our capital improvement plan (CIP). The pavement management program breaks out the city into 8 pavement management areas. Each area has about 15 miles of local streets. These areas are used to structure our 10-year capital improvement plan (CIP). Each year we perform pavement rehabilitation in one pavement management area. Not all the streets are rehabilitated. An average of 5 miles of the approximate 15 miles of street segments in that area are selected to be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation includes removing and replacing all or a portion of the pavement on the street. Curb and gutter is inspected and may be replaced as a part of this project. In addition, sidewalk, underground utilities along these street segments are also reviewed and replaced if the condition warrants. In general, pavements with an overall condition index (OCI) of 60 or less are selected for rehabilitation. If there are more than 5 miles of streets with a rating under 60, there will not be enough available funding. Street segments with ratings closer to 60 are held over for the next time we are in that pavement management area. Depending on street condition, operations may pave a 1-inch asphalt overlay to hold these streets together until we are back in the area. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4d) Page 3 Title: Bid tabulation: Award bid for street maintenance – project no. 4020-1200 When the condition of the roads in pavement management area 4 was reviewed to identify the segments to be included in the 2026 pavement rehabilitation project. The number of street segments that had a pavement condition index of under 60 exceeded available funding. In addition, the types of distresses on these streets are such that a sealcoat will not adequately hold the streets together until we are back in the area in 2034. The maintenance strategy that will address this is the proposed edge mill and thin overlay project. The proposed overlay project will extend the life of these streets 15 to 20 years, thereby repairing the pavement surface until we are next in the area for pavement rehabilitation. This work includes the edge mill and thin overlay of selected streets in pavement area 4 (see map). This work also includes installing a drain tile system on Zarthan Avenue to address chronic sump pump discharges from damaging the street pavement in the future. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor on Jan. 30, 2020. In addition, plans and specifications are made available electronically via the internet by our vendor Quest CDN.com. Email notification was provided to four (4) minority associations, and final printed plans were available for viewing at Construct Connect, and at City Hall. Twenty-two contractors/vendors purchased plan sets, five (5) of which were Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE). Funding Details Bids were received on Feb. 24, 2020 for this project. Based on the low bid received, cost and funding details are revised as follows: CIP Estimate Low Bid Construction cost $420,000.00 $393,745.19 Engineering $12,600.00 $11,813.35 Total $432,600.00 $405,558.54 Revenues Pavement management $427,790.00 $401,097.40 Operations budget $4,810.00 $4,461.14 Total $432,600.00 $405,558.54 Due to the nature of our construction projects, unexpected costs do come up. To address this, past practice has been to show a contingency for all aspects of the project. What follows is a table that shows this contingency and how this would affect the project costs. If overruns occur, there are adequate funds to cover these costs. Low Bid Contingency (10%) Engineering (10%) Total Pavement management $389,374.62 $38,937.46 $38,937.46 $467,249.54 Operations budget $4,000.00 $400.00 $400.00 $4,800.00 Total $393,745.19 $39,337.46 $39,337.46 $472,049.54 Construction Timeline: All work required under this contract, except maintenance work, shall be completed by July 31, 2020. YOSEMITE AVEXENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVEYOSEMITE AVEZARTHAN AVEZARTHAN AVEBLACKSTONE AVE28TH ST 28TH ST 28TH ST 29TH ST 29TH ST MINNETONKA BLVDALABAMA AVEVERNON AVEUTICA AVE27TH ST 26TH ST 27TH ST SERCI V E D R HI G H W A Y 7 ALABAMA AVEYOSEMITE AVEZARTHAN AVEXENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVEDATELIC. NO. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 52746 AARON J WIESEN O:\PUBWKS\ASSETS\STREETS\PAVEMENT MGMT\ANALYSIS\2020 M&O\2020 MO.DWG 11/19/2019 11:40 AMX/X/XXX DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED XX AJW AJW SHEET 2 OF 5 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 2020 MILL AND OVERLAY- AREA 4 St. Louis Park MINNESOTA GENERAL PLAN LAYOUT DATE BYNO.REVISIONS LEGEND EDGE MILL AND OVERLAY STREET FEETSCALE 0 400200 HORZ. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4d) Title: Bid tabulation: Award bid for street maintenance – project no. 4020-1200 Page 4 Meeting: City council Meeting date: March 2, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4e Executive summary Title: Temporary extension of licensed premises for events at Copperwing Distillery Recommended action: Motion to approve a temporary extension of the licensed premises for one-day events at Copperwing Distillery, located at 6409 Cambridge Street. Policy consideration: Does the applicant meet the requirements for temporary extension of their licensed premises for special, one-day events? Summary: Copperwing Distillery, located at 6409 Cambridge Street, has requested temporary extension of their licensed premises for multiple, one-day “Block Party” events over the course of the spring and summer, all from 2 pm - midnight. The 2020 events would be held on the following Saturdays: 3/14, 4/4, 5/16, 6/20, 7/25, 8/15, and 9/26. The current licensed premises does not include an outdoor space, and the applicant has proposed expanding the licensed premises to permit outdoor sales in the area immediately adjacent to the licensed premises for the events. The applicant has agreed to obtain written permission from the property owner and from the other businesses with doors within the proposed event zone. None of the other businesses in or adjacent to the event zone will be open during the events. In addition to on- street parking, guests will be also be able to park throughout the Business Center parking lot. The proposed event area will take up approximately 18 of the 340 off-street parking spaces. The events will feature Copperwing spirits, soda, water, multiple food trucks, and outdoor activities including games and music. Copperwing will block off a portion of the Business Center’s parking lot adjacent to the distillery, south of Cambridge Street. Access will be controlled, and guests will be required to show ID for entrance. Security will be on-duty throughout the event. Outdoor music will conclude by 11:30 p.m. or earlier. The applicant anticipates approximately 150-200 guests will attend the event. Staff reviewed the request and found no issues with the plans as proposed. Police and Fire will visit the site on the day of the events to ensure that all safety and security measures have been met. Copperwing has held similar events in the past and no issues or problems were experienced. St. Louis Park City Code Section 3-106 states that “proposed enlargement or substantial alteration which changes the character of the licensed establishment or extension of a premise previously licensed shall not be allowed unless the city council approves an amendment to the liquor license”. If approved, the temporary extension of the licensed premises would be valid only for the dates and times outlined in the request. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Exhibit A - written request from Copperwing Distillery Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Page 2 Title: Temporary extension of licensed premises for events at Copperwing Distillery Exhibit A: Written request from Brian Idelkope, Copperwing Distillery Name of group/individual hosting the event: Copperwing Distillery Contact: Brian Idelkope 612 354 0448 Address: 6409 Cambridge St. St Louis Park 55426 Phone number: 612 354 0048 Email: info@copperwingdistillery.com Name of the event: Outdoor Block Party Date(s): Saturdays in 2020 - March 14, April 4, May 16, June 20, July 25, August 15, September 26 Time(s): Start 2:00 PM End 12:00 AM Location of the Event: Copperwing Distillery/Business Centers Parking Lot, front of 6409 Cambridge Street (all activities to be held off-street) Expected # of participants:150-200 Purpose of the Event: Outdoor event to highlight Copperwing Distillery Ticketing: Non-ticketed event Access Control: Fence barriers will be erected as shown in the attached diagram to control entry to and exit from the event. EVENT DESCRIPTION: Copperwing’s Block Party(s) for 2020 will include outdoor activities and food and drink sales immediately adjacent to Copperwing Distillery at 6409 Cambridge Street. Copperwing will block off a portion (see attached overhead map) of the Business Centers’ parking lot. In the event area, guests will be invited to listen to pre-recorded or live music, enjoy food from one or two food trucks, and enjoy Copperwing beverages (alcoholic and non-alcoholic). ACTIVITIES AND TIMELINE: 1.MC - with music from 2pm - 9 pm 2.Food Trucks (Urban Sub and similar) 2pm- 7pm 3.Outdoor service of cocktails (1 location; see map) 4.Outdoor Games, if applicable for event (Bags, Ball Toss, Trivia) (5pm -9pm) REGARDING NOISE: Speakers used for music and any other audio will be directed to minimize any disruption to Copperwing’s nearest residential neighbors. Outdoor projected audio will conclude by 11:30 PM or before. OTHER BUSINESSES IMPACTED: Copperwing will obtain permission from the landowner and other businesses with doors within the event zone. None of the other businesses in or adjacent to the event zone will be open during the party time. PARKING PLAN: In addition to on-street parking available on Cambridge, Oxford, and Edgewood streets, parking will be available throughout the Business Centers parking lot. The event area will consume about 18 of the approximately 340 available off-street parking spaces. Guests are encouraged to bike (weather permitting) and/or use public transportation and/or ride-sharing services. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Page 3 Title: Temporary extension of licensed premises for events at Copperwing Distillery PRIOR EVENTS HOSTED BY COPPERWING DISTILLERY IN ST LOUIS PARK: Copperwing Distillery has previous experience hosting similar events. Previous events include: ●March 11, 2017, Copperwing’s Grand Opening included a food truck and served over 400 customers between 2 PM and midnight. ●April 22, 2017, Copperwing hosted “Drink for Science” in collaboration with Climate Generate: A Will Steger Legacy foundation and hosted a food truck. ●May 19, 2017, Copperwing hosted a Gin release event to showcase new spirits and cocktails and hosted a food truck. ●August 12, 2017, Copperwing hosted a large outdoor event in the same area proposed. ●October 14, 2017, Copperwing hosted an outdoor bicycle-themed Event in the same area proposed ●March 10, 2018, Copperwing’s One Year Birthday Party included outdoor service, a food truck in the same area proposed ●August 11, 2018, Copperwing hosted an outdoor event and hosted a food truck in the same area proposed ●September 15, 2018, Copperwing hosted an outdoor event in collaboration with Shout Out Loud to support suicide awareness in the same area proposed City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Page 4 Title: Temporary extension of licensed premises for events at Copperwing Distillery Meeting: City council Meeting date: March 2, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4f Executive summary Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Recommended action: Motion to approve the proposed updates to the city’s financial management policies. Policy consideration: Does the City Council desire to update the financial management policies to current best practices, City Charter and State Statutes? Summary: The City financial management policies are one of the most important aspects of long-term financial planning and continued financial management planning. Financial management policies play a vital role in the cities credit rating. We continually get the highest management scores for our comprehensive financial management policies from Standard and Poor’s. Department Directors, our Municipal Advisor (Ehlers), City Auditor, and the City attorney have reviewed the updated policies. With this update only a few recommendations are summarized in the discussion section of this report. A written report was provided to the city council on February 24, 2020. Later this year, we are implementing an electronic accounts payable system which will significantly reduce and, in many cases, eliminate paper in addition to many process improvements. Upon that implementation, staff may come back later this summer for approval of the adjustments in the purchasing policy section if necessary. Here is a summary of the recommended polices from the Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA). Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion Updated financial management policies Prepared by: Tim Simon, chief financial officer Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city management/HR director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Relative Importance of Financial Policy Types (GFOA, financial policies pg 29) Essential policies Highly advisable policies Fund balance and reserves Accounting and financial reporting Operating budget Revenues Capital budgeting and planning Internal Controls Debt management Expenditures Long-range financial planning Purchasing Investment Risk Management Economic Development City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 2 Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Discussion Background: All changes are updates from best practices/state statutes/city charter that work into the city’s operating practices. Our Municipal Advisor, Investment Advisor, City Attorney and staff have reviewed the financial management policies. Staff at least annually reviews our financial management policies. The changes to the policy are noted in red and are contained in pages 20-28. Summary of proposed financial management policy changes: Capital Improvements - Capitalization thresholds are for financial reporting purposes; staff recommends moving the “other assets” from $5,000 to $10,000. We have very few items classified here so increasing the limit will not materially change anything. For accounting purposes, the city uses the modified approach for street and trail system capital assets, so just adding the related language in our policy. Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting - The audit covers all funds, so “and account groups” can be eliminated as not applicable. Purchasing - Added clarification around price quotes and how long to maintain on file. Conflict of interest section was added to reference the city charter related sections. Also included per best practice that disciplinary action may be necessary. Staff recently completed a federal grant review and a few recommended changes to our policies have been incorporated to match federal rules and regulations under Federal purchases. Financial Management Policies City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 3 i Table of Contents Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Objectives ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Revenue and Expenditure ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Cash Management ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Investments ................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Fund Balance ................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Debt ............................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Capital Improvements ................................................................................................................................................. 20 Risk Management ........................................................................................................................................................ 21 Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting............................................................................................................ 21 Operating Budget ........................................................................................................................................................ 22 Purchasing ................................................................................................................................................................... 23 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 4 1 Purpose The City of Saint Louis Park is responsible to its citizens to manage its resources wisely and adopting financial policies is an important step to ensure that resources are managed responsibly. The policies provide the framework for the overall fiscal management of the city and guide the decision-making process. Most of the policies represent long standing principles, traditions and practices which have guided the city in the past and have helped maintain financial stability over the past years. These financial policies will be reviewed periodically to determine if changes are necessary. Objectives  Providing sound principles to guide the decisions of the City Council and management.  To provide both short-term and long-term financial stability to city government by ensuring adequate funding for providing and protecting infrastructure needed by the community today and for years to come.  Protecting and enhancing the city’s credit rating and prevent default on any municipal obligations.  To protect the City Council’s policy-making ability by ensuring that important policy decisions are not constrained by financial problems or emergencies.  To create a document that staff and Councilmembers can refer to during financial planning, budget preparation and other financial management issues. Revenue and Expenditure  The city will provide long-term financial stability through sound short and long term financial planning.  The city will estimate its annual revenues and expenditures in a conservative manner so as to reduce exposure to unforeseen circumstances.  The city will project revenues and expenditures for the next ten years and will update these projections each budget process.  Whenever user charges and fees are determined to be appropriate and the direct benefits are identifiable, the city will establish user charges and fees at a level related to the cost of providing the service (operating, direct, indirect, and capital). Fees will be reviewed annually.  To the extent feasible, one-time revenues will be applied toward one-time expenditures or placed into reserves. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 5 2 Cash Management It is the policy of the city to pool cash balances from all funds to maximize investment earnings. Exceptions include legal and specific practical requirements that demand segregation of funds. Funds received are to be deposited into an interest bearing account with the city’s currently designated official depository by the next business day. Cash on hand is to be kept to the minimum required to meet daily operational needs. Investments It is the policy of the City of St. Louis Park to establish guidelines for the investment of all public funds. This policy is designed to ensure the prudent management of public funds, the availability of operating and capital funds when needed and providing the highest investment return with maximum security and minimum risk. I.SCOPE This policy applies to all financial assets of the City of St. Louis Park. While separate investment funds are created to accommodate reporting on certain bonded indebtedness, individual investments are purchased using a pooled approach for efficiency and maximum investment opportunity. The City’s funds are defined in the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and include: •General Fund; •Special Revenue Funds; •Debt Service Funds; •Capital Project Funds; •Proprietary Funds; •Internal Service Funds. II.OBJECTIVES The primary objectives in priority order of the City’s investment activities will be: A.Safety of Principal Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. The objective will be to mitigate credit risk by purchasing only highly rated securities with adequate collateral and interest rate risk by matching maturities to cash flow needs. B.Liquidity The investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all operating and capital requirements that might reasonably be anticipated. A City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 6 3 portion of the portfolio may be placed in money market mutual funds or local government investment pools which offer same-day liquidity. C. Yield The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account investment risk constraints and liquidity needs. Yield is of secondary importance compared to the safety and liquidity objectives described above. III. STANDARDS OF CARE The prudent person standard shall be applied to the management of the portfolio. This standard states: “Investments shall be made with judgment and care, under circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion, and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the expected income to be derived.” Investment officers acting in accordance with written procedures and this investment policy and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security’s credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion and the liquidity and the sale of securities are carried out in accordance with the terms of this policy. IV. INVESTMENT AUTHORIZATION The City Treasurer is designated as the Investment Officer of the City and is responsible for investment management decisions and activities. The Treasurer shall carryout established written procedures and internal controls for the operation of the investment program consistent with this investment policy. The Treasurer is authorized, as allowed under the State Statute, to designate depositories and broker-dealers for City Funds. V. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Any city official involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program or which could impair his/her ability to make impartial investment decisions. Employees shall disclose any material interests in financial institutions with which they conduct business. Employees and officers shall refrain from undertaking personal investment transactions with the same individual with which business is conducted on behalf of the City. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 7 4 VI. AUTHORIZED FINANCIAL DEALERS AND INSTITUTIONS The City Treasurer will maintain a list of financial institutions authorized to provide investment services to the City. All broker/dealers who desire to become qualified bidders for investment transactions must supply the Treasurer with: • Audited financial statements and proof of National Association of Security Dealers (NASD) certification; • Proof of Minnesota Registration Broker Notification and Certification form required by Minnesota Statutes 118A prior to any investment transactions with the City. The Broker Notification must be updated annually. • The Official Broker/Dealer Questionnaire must be on file for each broker the City is currently doing business with. • Certification of having read the City’s investment policy and agreement to conduct investment transactions in accordance with the policy and objectives, as well as state statutes. • Written agreement to disclose potential conflicts of interest or risk to public funds that might arise out of business transactions between the firm and the City. VII. AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS The City will be permitted by this policy to invest funds in those security types that are permitted by Minnesota Statue 118A. Further investment parameters can be found in section X. VIII. COLLATERALIZATION Full collateralization will be required on non-negotiable certificates of deposit. All deposits will be insured or collateralized in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 118A. IX. SAFEKEEPING All trades of marketable securities will be executed (cleared and settled) on a delivery vs. payment (DVP) basis to ensure that securities are deposited in the City of St. Louis Park’s safekeeping institution prior to the release of funds. If investments are held in safekeeping at a broker/dealer, they shall be kept at the broker/dealer in the City’s name. Certificates will be held at the financial institution in the City’s name. All securities should be a risk category one according to the Government Accounting Standard No.3 Investments may be held in safekeeping with: 1. Any Federal Reserve Bank; City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 8 5 2. Any bank authorized under the laws of the United States or any state to exercise corporate trust powers, including, but not limited to, the bank from which the investment is purchased; 3. A primary reporting dealer in United States government securities to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; or 4. A securities broker-dealer or an affiliate of it, that is registered as a broker-dealer under chapter 80A or is exempt from the registration requirements; is registered by the securities and exchange commission; and maintains insurance through the Security Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) or excess insurance coverage in an amount equal to or greater than the value of the securities held. X. INVESTMENT PARAMETERS The City’s investments shall be diversified as to specific maturity, issuer and institution in order to minimize the risk to the portfolio. Investments should be purchased to match expected cash flow needs, minimizing the market risk associated with the early sale of the investments. The following diversification parameters have been established and will be reviewed periodically by the City Treasurer for all funds: Sector Sector Maximum (%) Per Issuer Maximum (%) Minimum Ratings Requirement1 Maximum Maturity U.S. Treasury 100% 100% N/A 7 Years (7 year avg. life for GNMA) GNMA 40% Other U.S. Government Guaranteed (e.g. AID, GTC) 10% Federal Agency/GSE: FNMA, FHLMC, FHLB, FFCB 75% 40%4 N/A 7 Years Federal Agency/GSE other than those above 5% Municipals (Revenue) 25% 5% Highest ST or Two Highest LT Rating Categories (SP-1/MIG 1, AA-/Aa3, or equivalent) 7 Years Municipals (General Obligations) Highest ST or Three Highest LT Rating Categories (SP-1/MIG 1, A-/A3, or equivalent) Collateralized Bank Deposits 50% None, if fully collateralized None, if fully collateralized. 7 Years FDIC-Insured Bank Deposits 100% FDIC limit for insurance None, if fully FDIC-insured. 7 Years Commercial Paper (CP) 25%2 5%3 Highest ST Rating Category by two NRSROs (A-1/P-1, or equivalent) 270 Days Bankers Acceptances (BA) 15% 5%3 Highest ST Rating Category by two NRSROs (A-1/P-1, or equivalent) 270 Days Intergovernmental Pools (LGIPs) 100% 100% Highest Fund Quality and Volatility Rating Categories by all NRSROs, if rated N/A City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 9 6 (AAAm/AAAf, S1, or equivalent) Notes: 1 Rating by at least one SEC-registered Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (“NRSRO”), unless otherwise noted. ST=Short-term; LT=Long-term. 2 Maximum allocation to all corporate and bank credit instruments is 25% combined. 3 Maximum across all non-government permitted investment sectors (excluding Treasuries, U.S. Federal Agencies and Agency MBS) is 5% combined per issuer. 4 Maximum exposure to any one Federal agency, including the combined holdings of Agency debt is 40%. XI.REPORTING AND REVIEW A.The investment portfolio will be managed in accordance with the parameters outlined in this policy. The portfolio will be designed with the objective of obtaining a rate of return throughout budgeting and economic cycles, commensurate with the investment risk constraints and cash flow needs. B.The City’s investment policy shall be adopted by resolution by the City Council. The City’s investments shall be reported to the City Council quarterly. The information reported to the City Council should include: 1.A listing of individual securities held at end of reporting period. 2.A listing of investments by maturity date. 3.The percentage of the total portfolio in each type of investment. 4.Rate of return for quarter. 5.Market to market analysis. C.Interest earned on investments shall be allocated to various funds based on each fund’s average monthly cash balance. XII.STATUTORY AUTHORITY Specific investment parameters for the investment of public funds by the City are found in Minnesota Statutes Chapters 118A. XIII.POLICY CONSIDERATIONS A.Interest Allocation The general fund shall be allocated a management fee equal to three percent of the total net investment earnings of the investment pool, excluding investments related to the Economic Development Authority. B.Amendments Any changes must be approved by City Council. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 10 7 Fund Balance The purpose of the fund balance policies is to establish appropriate fund balance levels for each fund that is primarily supported by property tax revenues or user fees. These policies will ensure that adequate resources are available to meet cash flow needs for carrying out the regular operations of the City, as well as to meet the fund balance requirements identified in the City’s Long Range financial Management Plan. The City Council authorizes the Chief Financial Officer and/or City Manager to assign fund balance that reflects the City’s intended use of those funds. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City’s policy to first use restricted resources, and then use unrestricted resources as they are needed. When unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City’s policy to use resources in the following order; 1) committed 2) assigned 3) unassigned. These fund balance classifications apply only to Governmental Funds, not Enterprise Funds. A.Classification of Fund Balance/Procedures 1.Nonspendable Amounts that cannot be spent because they are not in a spendable form or are legally or contractually required to be maintained intact. Examples are inventory or prepaid items. 2.Restricted Amounts subject to externally enforceable legal restrictions. Examples include grants, tax increment and bond proceeds. 3.Unrestricted The total of committed fund balance, assigned fund balance, and unassigned fund balance: Committed fund balance – amounts that can be used only for the specific purposes determined by a formal action of the government’s highest level of decision-making authority. Commitments may be changed or lifted only by the government taking the same formal action that imposed the constraint originally. Assigned fund balance – amounts intended to be used for a specific purpose; intent can be expressed by the government body or by an official or body to which the governing body delegates the authority. Unassigned fund balance – residual amounts that are available for any purpose in the general fund. The General fund should be the only fund that reports a positive unassigned fund balance amount. This classification is also used to account for deficit fund balances in other governmental funds. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 11 8 A.General Fund The city will maintain an unassigned General fund balance of not less than 40-50% of subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures with a target of 45%; however, this need could fluctuate with each year’s budget objectives. Annual proposed General fund budgets shall include this benchmark policy. Council shall review the amounts in fund balance in conjunction with the annual budget approval, and make adjustments as necessary to meet expected cash-flow needs. In the event the unassigned General fund balance will be calculated to be less than the minimum requirement at the completion of any fiscal year, the city shall plan to adjust budget resources in the subsequent fiscal years to bring the fund balance into compliance with this policy. The City Council may consider appropriating (for authorized purposes) year-end fund balance in excess of the policy level or increasing the minimum fund balance. An example of preferred use of excess fund balance would be for one-time expenditures, such as: 1.to fund one-time capital items 2.to fund a one-time (non-recurring) expenditure or grant match opportunity 3.to provide catch-up funding or long-term obligations not previously recognized 4.to fund a one-time unplanned revenue shortfall 5.to fund an unplanned expenditure due to an emergency or disaster 6.to retire existing debt 7.to fund policy shifts by other governmental entities having a negative impact on the city Appropriation from the minimum fund balance shall require the approval of the City Council and shall be used only for non-recurring expenditures, unforeseen emergencies or immediate capital needs that cannot be accommodated through current year savings. Replenishment recommendations will accompany the decision to utilize fund balance. At the discretion of the City Council, fund balance may be committed for specific purposes by resolution designating the specific use of fund balance and the amount. The resolution would need to be approved no later than the close of the reporting period and will remain binding unless removed in the same manner. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 12 9 B. Enterprise Funds These funds were established to account for the operation of Water, Sewer, Solid Waste, and Storm Water operations which are designed to be self-supporting from user charges. 1) Water Utility This fund is used to account for the provision of water services to the customers of the City related to administration, operations, maintenance, billing and collection. This fund is financed predominantly through user charges. The City will strive to maintain an unrestricted net position in the Water Utility Fund in the range of 35-50% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. Since a significant source of revenue in the Water Utility Fund comes from user charges, maintaining an unrestricted net position that is equal to at least 35-50% of the subsequent year’s expenditures ensures that sufficient resources are available to fund basic City functions between receipts of user charges. In addition, due to the mature water infrastructure within the City, a higher percentage of fund balance is prudent to address any potential issues. 2) Sewer Utility This fund is used to account for the provisions of sewer services to the customers of the City. All activities necessary to provide this utility to the customers are administration, operations, maintenance, billing and collection. This fund is financed predominantly through user charges. The City will strive to maintain an unrestricted net position in the Sewer Utility Fund in the range of 35-50% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. Since a significant source of revenue in the Sewer Utility Fund comes from user charges, maintaining an unrestricted net position that is equal to at least 35-50% of the subsequent year’s expenditures ensures that sufficient resources are available to fund basic City functions between receipts of user charges. In addition, due to the age of sewer infrastructure within the City, a higher percentage of fund balance is prudent to address any potential issues. 3) Solid Waste Utility This fund is used to account for the provisions of solid waste services to the customers of the City related to collection, disposal and recycling of solid waste. This fund is financed predominantly through user charges and investment income. The City will strive to maintain an unrestricted net position in the Solid Waste Utility Fund in the range of 25-40% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. Due City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 13 10 to less volatility, an unrestricted net position percentage is justifiable. This will ensure that sufficient resources are available to fund basic Solid Waste activities. 4)Storm Water Utility This fund is used to account for the provision of storm water to the customers of the City related to administration, operations, maintenance, billing and collection. This fund is financed predominantly through user charges and investment income. The City will strive to maintain an unrestricted net position in the Storm Water Utility Fund in the range of 25-40% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. Due to less volatility, an unrestricted net position percentage is justifiable. This will ensure that sufficient resources are available to fund basic Storm Water activities. C.Special Revenue Funds The city will maintain reserves in the Special Revenue funds at levels sufficient to provide working capital for current expenditure needs plus an amount that is estimated to be needed to meet legal restrictions, requirements by external funding sources and/or pay for future capital projects. Future capital projects must be identified and quantified in a written plan for the fund, which shall be included in the city’s annual CIP and in congruence with the long range financial management plan. D.Debt Service Funds The city will maintain reserves in the Debt Service funds at levels sufficient to provide working capital for current debt service expenditure needs plus an amount that is estimated to be needed to meet legal restrictions and requirements by external funding sources. E.Capital Project Funds The city will maintain reserves in the Capital Project funds at levels sufficient to provide working capital for current expenditure needs plus an amount that is estimated to be needed to meet legal restrictions, requirements by external funding sources and/or pay for future capital projects. Future capital projects must be identified and quantified in a written finance plan for the fund, which shall be included in the city’s annual CIP and in congruence with the long range financial management plan. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 14 11 Debt It is the policy of the City of St. Louis Park to establish guidelines for the use of debt in financing capital acquisitions, repayment of debt, and management of the overall level of debt in the city. A.Credit Ratings: The City of St. Louis Park seeks to maintain the highest possible credit ratings for all categories of short- and long-term General Obligation debt that can be achieved without compromising delivery of basic City services and achievement of adopted City policy objectives. The City recognizes that external economic, natural, or other events may from time to time affect the creditworthiness of its debt. Nevertheless, the Mayor and City Council are committed to ensuring that actions within their control are prudent and consistent with the highest standards of public financial management, and supportive of the creditworthiness objectives defined herein. B.Financial Disclosure: The City is committed to full and complete financial disclosure, and to cooperating fully with rating agencies, institutional and individual investors, City departments and agencies, other levels of government, and the general public to share clear, comprehensible, and accurate financial information. The City is committed to meeting disclosure requirements on a timely and comprehensive basis. Official statements accompanying debt issues, Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, and continuing disclosure statements will meet (at a minimum) the standards articulated by the Municipal Standards Rulemaking Board (MSRB), the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB), the National Federation of Municipal Analysts, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The Finance Department shall be responsible for ongoing disclosure to established national information repositories (NRMSRs) and for maintaining compliance with disclosure standards promulgated by state and national regulatory bodies. C.Debt Capacity: The City will keep outstanding debt within the limits prescribed by State statute and at levels consistent with its creditworthiness objectives. D.Purposes and Uses of Debt The City will normally rely on existing funds, project revenues, and grants from other governments to finance capital projects such as major maintenance, equipment acquisition, and small development projects. Debt may be used for capital projects only when a project generates revenues over time that are used to retire the debt, when debt is an appropriate means to achieve a fair allocation of costs between current and future beneficiaries. a.Asset Life: The City will consider the use of debt for the acquisition, development, replacement, maintenance, or expansion of an asset only if it has a City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 15 12 useful life of at least five years. Debt will not be issued for periods exceeding the useful life or average useful lives of the project or projects to be financed. b. Project Financing: In general, the City expects to make a cash contribution to any project with an expected useful life of less than 10 years, rather than relying on 100% debt financing. c. Debt Standards and Structure Debt will be structured for the shortest period consistent with a fair allocation of costs to current and future beneficiaries or users. Debt will be structured to achieve the lowest possible net cost to the City given market conditions, the urgency of the capital project, net revenues expected from the project (if any), and the nature and type of security provided. Moreover, to the extent possible, the City will design the repayment of its overall debt so as to recapture rapidly its credit capacity for future use. The City shall strive to repay at least 50 percent within ten years. d. Backloading: The City will seek to structure debt with level principal and interest costs over the life of the debt. "Backloading" of costs will be considered only when natural disasters or extraordinary or unanticipated external factors make the short-term cost of the debt prohibitive, when the benefits derived from the debt issuance can clearly be demonstrated to be greater in the future than in the present, when such structuring is beneficial to the City’s overall amortization schedule, or when such structuring will allow debt service to more closely match project revenues during the early years of the project’s operation. E. Refundings: a. Advance refunding bonds shall not be utilized unless present value savings of 4% to 5% of refunded principal is achieved and unless the call date is within 3 years. The state law minimum is 3% of refunded principal. Bonds shall not be advance refunded if there is a reasonable chance that revenues will be sufficient to pre-pay the debt at the call date. b. Current refunding bonds shall be utilized when present value savings of 3% of refunded principal is achieved or in concert with other bond issues to save costs of issuance. c. Special assessment or revenue debt will not be refunded unless the Chief Financial Officer determines that special assessments or other sufficient revenues will not be collected soon enough to pay off the debt fully at that call date. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 16 13 F. Debt Administration and Practices In general, City debt will be issued through a competitive bidding process. Bids will be awarded on a true interest cost basis (TIC), providing other bidding requirements are satisfied. In the event that the City receives more than one bid with identical TICs, the tie may be broken by a flip of a coin. a. Municipal Advisor: The City will retain an external municipal advisor, selected by the City’s Finance Division of the Administrative Services Department. The utilization of the municipal advisor for particular bond sales will be at the discretion of the Chief Financial Officer on a case by case basis and pursuant to the municipal advisory services contract. The municipal advisors will have comprehensive municipal debt issuance experience with diverse financial structuring requirements and pricing of municipal securities. b. Bond Counsel: The City will retain external bond counsel for all debt issues. No debt will be issued by the City without a written opinion by bond counsel affirming that the City is authorized to issue the debt, stating that the City has met all state constitutional and statutory requirements necessary for issuance, and determining the debt’s federal income tax status. c. Fiscal Agents: The Finance Division will utilize a fiscal agent on all City indebtedness. Fiscal agent fees for outstanding bonds will be paid from the Bond Interest and Redemption Fund, unless specified otherwise by the Chief Financial Officer. d. Disclosure: The city shall comply with SEC rule 15(c)2(12) on primary and continuing disclosure. Continuing disclosure reports shall be filed no later than 180 days after receipt of the city’s annual financial report. e. Arbitrage: The city shall complete an arbitrage rebate report for each issue no less than every five years after its date of issuance. f. Communication: The city will maintain frequent and regular communications with bond rating agencies about its financial condition and will follow a policy of full disclosure in every financial report and bond prospectus. The city will comply with Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting requirements. g. Reporting: The City will report at least annually the outstanding bonds to the City Council. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 17 14 G.Post Issuance Debt Compliance Policy The City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “Issuer”) issues tax-exempt governmental bonds (“TEBs”) to finance various public projects. As an issuer of TEBs, the Issuer is required by the terms of Sections 103 and 141-150 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder (the “Treasury Regulations”), to take certain actions after the issuance of TEBs to ensure the continuing tax-exempt status of such bonds. In addition, Section 6001 of the Code and Section 1.6001-1(a) of the Treasury Regulations impose record retention requirements on the Issuer with respect to its TEBs. This Post-Issuance Compliance Procedure and Policy for Tax-Exempt Governmental Bonds (the “Policy”) has been approved and adopted by the Issuer to ensure that the Issuer complies with its post-issuance compliance obligations under applicable provisions of the Code and Treasury Regulations. 1.Effective Date and Term. The effective date of this Policy is the date of approval by the City Council of the Issuer (November 5, 2012) and this Policy shall remain in effect until superseded or terminated by action of the City Council of the Issuer. 2.Responsible Parties. The City’s Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer (the “Compliance Officer”) shall be the party primarily responsible for ensuring that the Issuer successfully carries out its post-issuance compliance requirements under applicable provisions of the Code and Treasury Regulations. The Compliance Officer will be assisted by the staff of the Issuer and other officials when appropriate. The Compliance Officer of the Issuer will also be assisted in carrying out post-issuance compliance requirements by the following organizations: (a)Bond Counsel (as of the date of approval of this Policy, bond counsel for the Issuer is Kennedy & Graven, Chartered); (b)Municipal Advisor (as of the date of approval of this Policy, the municipal advisor of the Issuer is Ehlers & Associates, Inc.); (c)Paying Agent (the person, organization, or officer of the Issuer primarily responsible for providing paying agent services for the Issuer); and (d)Rebate Analyst (the organization primarily responsible for providing rebate analyst services for the Issuer). The Compliance Officer shall be responsible for assigning post-issuance compliance responsibilities to members of the Finance Department and other staff of the Issuer, Bond Counsel, Paying Agent, and Rebate Analyst. The Compliance Officer shall utilize such other professional service organizations as are necessary to ensure compliance with the post-issuance compliance requirements of the Issuer. The Compliance Officer shall provide training and educational resources to Issuer staff responsible for ensuring compliance with any portion of the post-issuance compliance requirements of this Policy. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 18 15 3. Post-Issuance Compliance Actions. The Compliance Officer shall take the following post-issuance compliance actions or shall verify that the following post-issuance compliance actions have been taken on behalf of the Issuer with respect to each issue of TEBs: (a)The Compliance Officer shall prepare a transcript of principal documents (this action will be the primary responsibility of Bond Counsel). (b)The Compliance Officer shall file with the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”), within the time limit imposed by Section 149(e) of the Code and applicable Treasury Regulations, an Information Return for Tax-Exempt Governmental Obligations, Form 8038-G (this action will be the primary responsibility of Bond Counsel). (c)The Compliance Officer shall prepare an “allocation memorandum” for each issue of TEBs in accordance with the provisions of Treasury Regulations, Section 1.148- 6(d)(1), that accounts for the allocation of the proceeds of the tax-exempt bonds to expenditures not later than the earlier of: (i)eighteen (18) months after the later of (A) the date the expenditure is paid, or (B) the date the project, if any, that is financed by the tax-exempt bond issue is placed in service; or (ii)the date sixty (60) days after the earlier of (A) the fifth anniversary of the issue date of the tax-exempt bond issue, or (B) the date sixty (60) days after the retirement of the tax-exempt bond issue. Preparation of the allocation memorandum will be the primary responsibility of the Compliance Officer (in consultation with the Municipal Advisor and Bond Counsel). (d)The Compliance Officer, in consultation with Bond Counsel, shall identify proceeds of TEBs that must be yield-restricted and shall monitor the investments of any yield-restricted funds to ensure that the yield on such investments does not exceed the yield to which such investments are restricted. (e)In consultation with Bond Counsel, the Compliance Officer shall determine whether the Issuer is subject to the rebate requirements of Section 148(f) of the Code with respect to each issue of TEBs. In consultation with Bond Counsel, the Compliance Officer shall determine, with respect to each issue of TEBs of the Issuer, whether the Issuer is eligible for any of the temporary periods for unrestricted investments and is eligible for any of the spending exceptions to the rebate requirements. The Compliance Officer shall contact the Rebate Analyst (and, if appropriate, Bond Counsel) prior to the fifth anniversary of the date of issuance of each issue of TEBs of the Issuer and each fifth anniversary thereafter to arrange for calculations of the rebate requirements with respect City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 19 16 to such TEBs. If a rebate payment is required to be paid by the Issuer, the Compliance Officer shall prepare or cause to be prepared the Arbitrage Rebate, Yield Reduction and Penalty in Lieu of Arbitrage Rebate, Form 8038-T, and submit such Form 8038-T to the IRS with the required rebate payment. If the Issuer is authorized to recover a rebate payment previously paid, the Compliance Officer shall prepare or cause to be prepared the Request for Recovery of Overpayments Under Arbitrage Rebate Provisions, Form 8038-R, with respect to such rebate recovery, and submit such Form 8038-R to the IRS. 4.Procedures for Monitoring, Verification, and Inspections. The Compliance Officer shall institute such procedures as the Compliance Officer shall deem necessary and appropriate to monitor the use of the proceeds of TEBs issued by the Issuer, to verify that certain post-issuance compliance actions have been taken by the Issuer, and to provide for the inspection of the facilities financed with the proceeds of such bonds. At a minimum, the Compliance Officer shall establish the following procedures: (a)The Compliance Officer shall monitor the use of the proceeds of TEBs to: (i)ensure compliance with the expenditure and investment requirements under the temporary period provisions set forth in Treasury Regulations, Section 1.148-2(e); (ii)ensure compliance with the safe harbor restrictions on the acquisition of investments set forth in Treasury Regulations, Section 1.148-5(d); (iii) ensure that the investments of any yield-restricted funds do not exceed the yield to which such investments are restricted; and (iv) determine whether there has been compliance with the spend-down requirements under the spending exceptions to the rebate requirements set forth in Treasury Regulations, Section 1.148-7. (b)The Compliance Officer shall monitor the use of all bond-financed facilities in order to: (i) determine whether private business uses of bond-financed facilities have exceeded the de minimis limits set forth in Section 141(b) of the Code as a result of leases and subleases, licenses, management contracts, research contracts, naming rights agreements, or other arrangements that provide special legal entitlements to nongovernmental persons; and (ii) determine whether private security or payments that exceed the de minimis limits set forth in Section 141(b) of the Code have been provided by nongovernmental persons with respect to such bond-financed facilities. The Compliance Officer shall provide training and educational resources to any Issuer staff who have the primary responsibility for the operation, maintenance, or inspection of bond-financed facilities with regard to the limitations on the private business use of bond- financed facilities and as to the limitations on the private security or payments with respect to bond-financed facilities. (c)The Compliance Officer shall undertake the following with respect to each outstanding issue of TEBs of the Issuer: (i) an annual review of the books and records maintained by the Issuer with respect to such bonds; and (ii) an annual physical inspection of the facilities financed with the proceeds of such bonds, conducted by the Compliance City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 20 17 Officer with the assistance with any Issuer staff who have the primary responsibility for the operation, maintenance, or inspection of such bond-financed facilities. 5.Record Retention Requirements. The Compliance Officer shall collect and retain the following records with respect to each issue of TEBs of the Issuer and with respect to the facilities financed with the proceeds of such bonds: (i) audited financial statements of the Issuer; (ii) appraisals, demand surveys, or feasibility studies with respect to the facilities to be financed with the proceeds of such bonds; (iii) publications, brochures, and newspaper articles related to the bond financing; (iv) trustee or paying agent statements; (v)records of all investments and the gains (or losses) from such investments; (vi) paying agent or trustee statements regarding investments and investment earnings; (vii)reimbursement resolutions and expenditures reimbursed with the proceeds of such bonds; (viii) allocations of proceeds to expenditures (including costs of issuance) and the dates and amounts of such expenditures (including requisitions, draw schedules, draw requests, invoices, bills, and cancelled checks with respect to such expenditures); (ix)contracts entered into for the construction, renovation, or purchase of bond-financed facilities; (x) an asset list or schedule of all bond-financed depreciable property and any depreciation schedules with respect to such assets or property; (xi) records of the purchases and sales of bond-financed assets; (xii) private business uses of bond-financed facilities that arise subsequent to the date of issue through leases and subleases, licenses, management contracts, research contracts, naming rights agreements, or other arrangements that provide special legal entitlements to nongovernmental persons and copies of any such agreements or instruments; (xiii) arbitrage rebate reports and records of rebate and yield reduction payments; (xiv) resolutions or other actions taken by the governing body subsequent to the date of issue with respect to such bonds; (xv) formal elections authorized by the Code or Treasury Regulations that are taken with respect to such bonds; (xvi) relevant correspondence relating to such bonds; (xvii) documents related to guaranteed investment contracts or certificates of deposit, credit enhancement transactions, and financial derivatives entered into subsequent to the date of issue; (xviii)copies of all Form 8038-Ts and Form 8038-Rs filed with the IRS; and (xix) the transcript prepared with respect to such TEBs. The records collected by the Issuer shall be stored in any format deemed appropriate by the Compliance Officer and shall be retained for a period equal to the life of the TEBs with respect to which the records are collected (which shall include the life of any bonds issued to refund any portion of such TEBs or to refund any refunding bonds) plus three (3) years. 6.Remedies. In consultation with Bond Counsel, the Compliance Officer shall become acquainted with the remedial actions under Treasury Regulations, Section 1.141- 12, to be utilized in the event that private business use of bond-financed facilities exceeds the de minimis limits under Section 141(b)(1) of the Code. In consultation with Bond Counsel, the Compliance Officer shall become acquainted with the Tax Exempt Bonds Voluntary Closing Agreement Program described in Notice 2008-31, 2008-11 I.R.B. 592, to City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 21 18 be utilized as a means for an issuer to correct any post-issuance infractions of the Code and Treasury Regulations with respect to outstanding tax-exempt bonds. 7.Continuing Disclosure Obligations. In addition to its post-issuance compliance requirements under applicable provisions of the Code and Treasury Regulations, the Issuer has agreed to provide continuing disclosure, such as annual financial information and material event notices, pursuant to a continuing disclosure certificate or similar document (the “Continuing Disclosure Document”) prepared by Bond Counsel and made a part of the transcript with respect to each issue of bonds of the Issuer that is subject to such continuing disclosure requirements. The Continuing Disclosure Documents are executed by the Issuer to assist the underwriters of the Issuer’s bonds in meeting their obligations under Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.15c2-12, as in effect and interpreted from time to time (“Rule 15c2-12”). The continuing disclosure obligations of the Issuer are governed by the Continuing Disclosure Documents and by the terms of Rule 15c2-12. The Compliance Officer is primarily responsible for undertaking such continuing disclosure obligations and to monitor compliance with such obligations. 8.Other Post-Issuance Actions. If, in consultation with Bond Counsel, Municipal Advisor, Paying Agent, Rebate Analyst, or the City Council, the Compliance Officer determines that any additional action not identified in this Policy must be taken by the Compliance Officer to ensure the continuing tax-exempt status of any issue of governmental bonds of the Issuer, the Compliance Officer shall take such action if the Compliance Officer has the authority to do so. If, after consultation with Bond Counsel, Municipal Advisor, Paying Agent, Rebate Analyst, or the City Council, the Compliance Officer determines that this Policy must be amended or supplemented to ensure the continuing tax-exempt status of any issue of governmental bonds of the Issuer, the Compliance Officer shall recommend to the City Council that this Policy be so amended or supplemented. 9.Taxable Governmental Bonds. Most of the provisions of this Policy, other than the provisions of Section 7, are not applicable to governmental bonds the interest on which is includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes. On the other hand, if an issue of taxable governmental bonds is later refunded with the proceeds of an issue of tax-exempt governmental refunding bonds, then the uses of the proceeds of the taxable governmental bonds and the uses of the facilities financed with the proceeds of the taxable governmental bonds will be relevant to the tax-exempt status of the governmental refunding bonds. Therefore, if there is any reasonable possibility that an issue of taxable governmental bonds may be refunded, in whole or in part, with the proceeds of an issue of TEBs, then for purposes of this Policy, the Compliance Officer shall treat the issue of taxable governmental bonds as if such issue were an issue of TEBs and shall carry out and comply with the requirements of this Policy with respect to such taxable governmental bonds. The Compliance Officer shall seek the advice of Bond City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 22 19 Counsel as to whether there is any reasonable possibility of issuing TEBs to refund an issue of taxable governmental bonds. 10.Qualified 501(c)(3) Bonds. If the City issues bonds to finance a facility to be owned by the City but which may be used, in whole or in substantial part, by a nongovernmental organization that is exempt from federal income taxation under Section 501(a) of the Code as a result of the application of Section 501(c)(3) of the Code (a “501(c)(3) Organization”), the City may elect to issue the bonds as “qualified 501(c)(3) bonds” the interest on which is exempt from federal income taxation under Sections 103 and 145 of the Code and applicable Treasury Regulations. Although such qualified 501(c)(3) bonds are not governmental bonds, at the election of the Compliance Officer, for purposes of this Policy, the Compliance Officer shall treat such issue of qualified 501(c)(3) bonds as if such issue were an issue of tax-exempt governmental bonds and shall carry out and comply with the requirements of this Policy with respect to such qualified 501(c)(3) bonds. Alternatively, in cases where compliance activities are reasonably within the control of the relevant 501(c)(3) Organization, the Compliance Officer may determine that all or some portion of compliance responsibilities described in this Policy shall be assigned to the relevant organization. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 23 20 Capital Improvements The city will maintain buildings, infrastructure, utilities, parks, facilities, and other assets in a manner that protects the investment and minimizes future maintenance and replacement costs. The Chief Financial Officer will annually prepare and submit to the City Council a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for the next ten fiscal years and in congruence with the Long Range Financial Management Plan. At a minimum, the CIP will include a description of the proposed improvement, the estimated cost, timing and potential sources of funding. If applicable, the CIP will identify implications for the operating budget created by the proposed improvement. The city will maintain a system of capital charges for sanitary sewer, storm water, and water services. The charges will be collected when undeveloped land is platted and when new users connect to the system. Revenues from the capital charges will be accumulated and used to pay for the capital investment related to the maintenance and expansion of the utility systems. The city will strive to maximize the revenues collected from capital charges in order to protect existing utility users from bearing the costs associated with growth. The city will maintain an equipment acquisition and replacement program. The city will annually update the plan to provide funding for all equipment purchases over $25,000 to be made in the next ten fiscal years. The city shall attempt to fund the program without the use of debt. It is recognized that State imposed levy limits may create the need to incur debt for equipment acquisition. The city will prepare an on-going plan for the reconstruction of all city streets. The city will provide a sustainable source of funding for the street reconstruction program. The city will annually prepare cash flow projections for street reconstruction projects to ensure adequate and ongoing funding. Capital Assets and Capitalization Thresholds A capital asset is a tangible asset that has a life expectancy of more than one year. For financial statement reporting purposes, the city reports capital assets using the modified approach for street and trail system capital assets in the following categories and has established a capitalization threshold for each category: Capitalization Category Threshold__ Land All Buildings $5,000 Other Improvements $25,000 Machinery and equipment $10,000 Vehicles $10,000 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 24 21 Infrastructure $250,000 Construction in progress Accumulate all costs and capitalize if over $100,000 when completed Other assets $10,0005,000 Another criterion for recording capital assets is capital-related debt. Capital assets purchased with debt proceeds should be capitalized and depreciated over their estimated useful life. The amount to record for a capital asset is any cost incurred to put the asset into its usable condition. Donated capital assets should be reported at fair value at the time of acquisition. Risk Management 1. The city will maintain a Risk Management Program that will minimize the impact of legal liabilities, natural disasters or other emergencies through the following activities:  Loss Prevention. Prevent negative occurrences.  Loss Control. Reduce or mitigate expenses of a negative occurrence.  Loss Financing. Provide a means to finance losses.  Loss Information Management. Collect and analyze relevant data to make prudent loss prevention, loss control and loss financing decisions. 2. The city will maintain an active Safety Committee comprised of city employees. 3. The city will periodically conduct educational safety and risk avoidance programs, through its Safety Committee and with the participation of its insurers, within its various departments. 4. The city will maintain the highest deductible amount, considering the relationship between cost and the city’s ability to sustain the loss. Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting  The city will establish and maintain the highest standard of accounting practices, in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).  The city will attempt to maintain the GFOA Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting.  The city will arrange for an annual audit of all funds and account groups by independent certified public accountants or by the State Auditor’s Office.  Regular monthly reports present a summary of financial activity by major type of funds as compared to budget. Department directors will review monthly reports comparing actual revenues and expenditures to the budgeted amounts. Any negative variance in any revenue or spending category (Personal Services, Supplies, Other Charges and Services, Capital Outlay) for their department as a whole projected to exceed $10,000 by year-end will be reported in writing to the Chief Financial Officer and the City Manager. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 25 22 Operating Budget  The City Manager, when submitting the proposed budget to the City Council, will submit a balanced budget in which appropriations will not exceed the total of the estimated General fund revenue and the fund balance available after applying the General Fund Reserve Policy.  The city may annually appropriate a contingency appropriation in the General fund budget to provide for unanticipated expenditures of a non-recurring nature.  In the event there is an unanticipated shortfall of revenues in a current year budget, the Chief Financial Officer may recommend the use of a portion of the General fund balance, not to exceed the amount of available cash or reserved for working capital or already appropriated to the General fund current budget.  The budget will provide for adequate maintenance of buildings and equipment, and for their orderly replacement.  The Chief Financial Officer will prepare regular monthly reports comparing actual revenues and expenditures to the budgeted amount. All significant variances will be summarized in a written report to the City Manager and City Council.  The operating budget will describe the major goals to be achieved and the services and programs to be delivered for the level of funding provided.  Before adding a new program or service, the city will consider the cost benefit analysis of using outside contractors versus in-house provided services.  The city will not sell assets or use one-time accounting principle changes to balance the budget for any fund.  The city will provide ample time and opportunity for public input into its budget setting deliberations each year, including any required public hearings.  Directors will be responsible for administration of their departmental operating budget. Requests for budget adjustments must be submitted and approved before any program incurs cost overruns for the annual budget period.  The budget shall be adjusted as needed to recognize significant deviations from original budget expectations. The council shall consider budget amendments each December. Budget amendments are intended to recognize changes made by the council during the year, to reflect major revenue and expenditure deviations from budgeted amounts, and to consider year-end budget requests. Budget amendments are not intended to create a budget that matches budgeted revenues and expenditures to actual revenue and expenditures.  Administrative budget amendments may be made throughout the year by department directors to adjust line item budgets within their department as long as the total departmental budget does not change. These line item budget changes exclude personal service and capital outlay categories. Administrative budget admendments must be requested in writing and approved by the City Manager and Chief Financial Officer. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 26 23 Purchasing Purpose To provide a guide for general purchasing, contracts and professional services. Purchasing for the City of St. Louis Park is established by the City Council under the City Charter, the City Code and State Statute. This is intended as a guide; questions regarding this document should be directed to the Chief Financial Officer or City Manager. Policy To ensure that the goods and services required by the City are obtained using established procedures that comply with all legal requirements for public purpose expenditures while promoting fair and open competition to ensure public confidence in the procurement process, ensure fair and equitable treatment of vendors who transact business with the City, and provide safeguards for the maintenance of a procurement system of quality and integrity. I. Responsibility a.The City Manager is the chief purchasing agent of the City and has the authority to approve purchases up to $175,000 per the City Charter and State Statute. The City Manager has delegated the authority to approve purchases up to $50,000 to the Chief Financial Officer and Directors. Purchases in excess of $175,000 typically require Council approval and usually require competitive bid letting. b.The City Manager shall identify Directors or other staff who shall be responsible for each fund or department in the annual budget. These individuals shall be responsible for compliance with the annual budget and for all expenditures for their departments and funds. The responsibility lies with each department to keep the City Manager and Chief Financial Officer informed of purchases. c.Directors or their designee are responsible to follow purchasing regulations and procedures such as, but not limited to: obtaining bids or quotes, maintain records of bids or quotes in accordance with records retention requirements, place actual orders, receive and verify deliveries, and approve invoices for payment. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 27 24 General Purchasing Required Approvals Contract or purchase amount Documentation Director Chief Financial Officer City Manager Council Less than $5,000 Open Market Or Designee Less than $25,000 2 or more quotes if practical X X $25,000- $50,000 2 or more quotes or sealed bids – competitive bidding is allowed but not required. X X $50,000- $175,000 2 or more quotes or sealed bids – competitive bidding is allowed but not required. X X X $175,000+ Competitive bids required X X X X II.General purchasing a.Under City Charter and Ordinance, it has been determined purchasing will follow the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 471.345. This allows the City Manager the authority to incorporate changes to our purchasing limitations in accordance with MN Statutes. City Manager may develop a process which may be more restrictive than State Law, but may not be less restrictive. A "contract" (general purchasing) means an agreement entered into by a municipality for the sale or purchase of supplies, materials, equipment or the rental thereof, or the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of real or personal property. b.Capital item purchases that have been authorized by the City Council through either the budget process or the Capital Improvement Plan approval may be made using these guidelines. If an item has not been specifically approved during these annual processes, then they must be taken back for explicit approval. c.When purchasing use the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy. The policy can be found at the following link: O:\CITYWIDE\SHARE\EP3 Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy . City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 28 25 d.When purchasing, reference resolution 10-060 supporting minority-owned business, women’s business enterprises and small business in contracting, professional services and purchasing. The resolution can be found at the following link: O:\CITYWIDE\RECORDSLIBRARY\Resolution Council\2010\10- 060.pdf . III.Purchases less than $5,000. If the amount is below $5,000, the purchase may be made in the open market. Department Directors may authorize any person in their department to make purchases at this level. IV.Purchases less than $25,000. If the amount is estimated to be greater than $5,000 up to $25,000, the contract may be made by quotation or in the open market. If the contract is made upon quotation it shall be based, so far as practicable, on at least two quotations. Where it is recommended to purchase from other than the low quote, the justification must be clearly presented. The documentation presented must be kept on file for at least one year. Where it is deemed impossible to obtain more than one quotation, the reason therefore will be documented and kept on file for one year. V.Purchases from $25,000-$175,000. If the amount is estimated to exceed $25,000 but not to exceed $175,000, the contract may be made either by upon sealed bids or by direct negotiation, by obtaining two or more quotations for the purchase or sale when possible and without advertising for bids or otherwise complying with the requirements of competitive bidding. VI.Purchases in excess of $175,000. Sealed bids shall be obtained by public notice for major purchases with final award by the City Council. Bids must be advertised in the city’s legal newspaper, publicly opened and approved by Council resolution. There are some exceptions to this law, including contracts that are funded in part by special assessments as set forth in M.S, 429.041, subd.1. Questions about this process or thresholds should be directed to the City’s Chief Financial Officer. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 29 26 Exceptions to Competitive Bidding The following are some of the more common exceptions to the competitive bidding requirements: Contracts less than $175,000 Cooperative purchasing organizations Intergovernmental contracts Noncompetitive supplies and equipment Real estate purchases Professional services including: o Architectural o Auditing o Engineering o Legal o Group Insurance o Banking Services o Investment Services o Financial Service Providers o Construction Management o Surveying o Emergency Purchases Contractor’s Bond The city is required to obtain both a payment and performance bond for all public work contracts over $175,000. Payment and performance bonds protect the city as well as subcontractors and persons providing labor and materials. When the public work contract is let, the amount of the bond needs to be equal to the contract price. If the contract price increases due to change orders, unforeseen conditions, cost overruns or any other reason after the contract is signed, the city has the option of increasing the amount of the contractor’s bond. Consideration may be given for the percentage of the contract that is complete in relation to the contractor’s bond and the increase in the contract price. VII.Professional Services Contracts for professional services in excess of $175,000 shall be submitted to the City Council for approval. The term “Professional Services” applies to all advisory services such as, but not limited to: auditing, engineering, financial, legal, personnel, technical, training, or other services. Contracts for professional services shall be made only with responsible consultants who have the capability to successfully fulfill the contractual requirements. Consideration shall be given to their past performance and experience, their financial capacity to complete the project, the availability of personnel, and other appropriate criteria. The nature of the professional service is typically written as a request for proposals (RFP). City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 30 27 Required Approvals Professional service Documentation Director City Manager Council Up to $50,000 2 or more quotes if possible X $50,000- $175,000 Multiple quotes recommended X X $175,000+ Multiple quotes recommended X X X VIII.Emergency Purchases Minnesota Statute §12.37 gives the City the ability to declare an emergency situation for a limited period of time. During such an emergency, the City is not required to use the typically mandated procedures for purchasing and contracts. Emergency purchases require approval by the City Manager, Chief Financial Officer and, when necessary because of the dollar amount, formal City Council action. An emergency purchase is defined as one where an immediate response is required to protect the health, welfare or safety of the public or public property. IX.Conflicts of Interest Minnesota State Statutes §471.87 and §471.88 prohibit the purchase of goods and services wherever a conflict of interest may exist. City of St. Louis Park Personnel Rules require employees to disclose to their immediate supervisor any personal financial interest in the selling or buying of goods or services for the City of St. Louis Park. No purchase orders, contracts or service agreements shall be given to an employee of the City or to a partnership or corporation of which an employee is a major stockholder or principal. No employee shall enter into the relationship with a vendor where the employee's actions are, or could reasonably be viewed as, not in the best interests of the City. If any employee becomes involved in a possible conflict situation, the employee shall disclose the nature of the possible conflict to his or her supervisor and to the City Manager. The City Manager shall promptly notify the individual in writing of an approval or disapproval of the activity. If disapproved, the employee shall remove himself or herself from the conflict situation. In addition, any disciplinary actions may be considered. In addition, City Charter section 12.18. Personal financial conflicts of public officials and section 12.19. Financial conflicts of association of public officials; contract and transaction voidable. X.Federal purchases Under uniform grant guidance (2 CFR 200.317–326) there are additional procurement requirements that need to be considered when making purchases related to a federal program. Five procurement methods are identified including: micro-purchase (<$10,0003,500), small purchase procedures (<$250150,000), sealed bid (>$17550,000), competitive proposal (>$17550,000), and noncompetitive proposal (>$3,500). The City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 31 28 general purchasing policy addresses many of these requirements and the City will also consider the full requirements in relation to each method as described in 2 CFR. The micro-purchase threshold which is set by Federal Acquisition Regulation at 48 CFR Subpart 2.1 is subject to change with inflation. The City will follow changes to thresholds as modifications occur. When practicable, micro-purchasing will be distributed among qualified suppliers. The city will review the excluded parties list (https://www.sam.gov), to ensure than no tentative parties, suspended and/or debarred contractors are contract with using federal dollars. When using federal funding and making purchases in excess of $2,000 for construction dollars are subject to the Davis-Bacon Act. Also, the city will avoid unnecessary/duplicate purchases, encourage use of excess Federal surplus property, documenting rationale for procurement method used for purchases, and documentation of selection of contract type maintained in the files. In addition, the city will consider intergovernmental agreements where appropriate for procurement or use of common or shared goods and services. XI.Other This document is not intended to cover all purchasing situations and regulations. For instance, purchases needed for emergency operations should follow procedures set out in the Emergency Plan and other regulations as approved by the City Manager or designee. If there are questions regarding purchasing, they should be directed to your Director or the Chief Financial Officer. Formatted: Indent:Left: 0.5" City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Annual updates to city financial management policies Page 32 Meeting: City council Meeting date: November 4, 2019 Consent agenda item: 4g Executive summary Title: Approve out-of-state travel – NLC Congressional City Conference Recommended action: Motion to approve out-of-state travel of City of St. Louis Park Mayor Jake Spano and Councilmember Nadia Mohamed to attend the National League of Cities (NLC) Congressional City Conference in Washington, DC on March 8 - 11, 2020. Policy consideration: Pursuant to MN Statute 471.661 and Resolution No. 06-007, City of St. Louis Park Elected Official Out-of-State Travel Policy, the city council is required to approve any travel outside the State of Minnesota for elected officials. Financial or budget considerations: This is a 2020 budgeted item. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: None Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Meeting: City council Meeting date: March 2, 2020 Minutes: 4h OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA February 5, 2020 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Lynette Dumalag, Courtney Erwin, Claudia Johnston- Madison, Jessica Kraft, Carl Robertson MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Eckholm STAFF PRESENT: Jacquelyn Kramer, Sean Walther 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of November 20, December 4, December 18, 2019 and January 8, 2020. Commissioner Beneke made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0. 3. Public Hearings A. Zoning ordinance amendment allowing dogs on patios Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case Nos: 20-01-ZA Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor, stated the city attorney has advised this issue should be handled in the city licensing code rather than the zoning code; therefore, staff recommend the item be tabled indefinitely and proceed to the city council for a public hearing. Commissioner Robertson made a motion, Commissioner Beneke seconded, recommending tabling the item. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. B. Cedar Place development (The Quentin) Applicant: Patrick Crowe, Crowe Companies LLC Case Nos: 19-36-CP, 19-37-PUD, 19-38-S Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner, presented the staff report. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4h) Page 2 Title: Planning commission meeting minutes February 5, 2020 The applicant requests a comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary and final plat and preliminary and final planned unit development (PUD) subject to conditions recommended by staff. Ms. Kramer stated the area is at the intersection of Cedar Lake Road, Old Cedar Lake Road and Quentin Avenue South east of Highway 100. She noted the proposal is The Quentin with 79 dwelling units, including a mix of studio, one, one + den and two- bedroom units, two-levels of structured parking, vehicular access off Cedar Lake Road, and a new trail connection. Ms. Kramer stated that because tax increment financing (TIF), comprehensive plan amendment and planned unit development are being requested, the development would include 10% of units affordable at 50% of area median income (AMI) in compliance with the city’s inclusionary housing policy. She noted the upper floor of the parking structure have been designed so they could, at a later date, be transformed into retail space or additional housing units, if parking demands decrease and/or the city ever allows higher residential densities in this area in the future. Ms. Kramer stated the first request tonight is to change the future land use classification of 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road from office to high density residential. Ms. Kramer explained comprehensive plan goals that are met by this development, including residential land goals, housing goals and affordable housing, and meets green standards. She stated the amendment is one step in the approval process. Ms. Kramer stated the second request is for a preliminary and final plat. She explained that the applicant proposes combining three parcels into one. Ms. Kramer explained the new parcel will contain standard drainage and utility easements, sidewalks in the area will be preserved and a new ten-foot sidewalk/bike trail will be added. Staff recommend the city collect park and trail dedication fees in lieu of park land. The parks and recreation advisory commission will review this issue. Ms. Kramer explained the final request is for a preliminary and final planned unit development or PUD. A PUD is both a zoning map amendment and a zoning text amendment that establish the regulations for a specific property. The site is currently zoned R-C high-density multiple-family residence, and the applicant requests to create a new PUD zoning district. The site does not currently meet the 2-acre minimum for a PUD request. The city council may waive this requirement. Ms. Kramer explained staff support the use of a PUD zoning for this property as it allows for conditions and requirements that fit the context and character of the individual site and advances the city’s climate action goals. The applicant also requests allowing the use of more fiber cement panel (Nichiha) for the exterior of the building than the code currently allows. This material is currently classified as class II per the zoning ordinance and it is limited to 40% per building elevation. However, this material has been approved in greater amounts for other PUDs in the city including PLACE’s Via Sol development. Ms. Kramer explained staff City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4h) Page 3 Title: Planning commission meeting minutes February 5, 2020 recommends allowing >5/8” fiber cement panel as a class I material for this development. The project meets the city’s parking requirements, including the electric vehicle service equipment and bike parking requirements. The plan includes 84 trees, pollinator, grass and native grass plantings, and provides 13% of the land area as designed outdoor recreation area (DORA). Ms. Kramer stated the building will adhere to the city’s green policies and will include the following sustainability features: a rooftop solar array, green roof, local and sustainable materials, and energy efficient building systems. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting and a summary of the meeting was provided in the staff report, including concerns with parking and traffic. Ms. Kramer stated that staff recommends the chair open the public hearing, take testimony, then close the public hearing. Staff also recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary and final plat and preliminary and final PUD. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if the 10% of units at 50% AMI was a reduction. Ms. Kramer stated it’s not a reduction, because the inclusionary policy provides flexibility to developers to provide 20% of units at 60% AMI, 10% of units at 50% AMI, or 5% of units at 30% AMI. So, it is an issue of how the pro-forma is working out and how the developer would like to comply with the policy. Commissioner Roberson asked about the additional right-of-way at Cedar Lake Road and the history behind that. Ms. Kramer explained all the parcels in this development are unplatted, and it is common for unplatted parcels to include area in right of way. The affected portion of the property is already encumbered with an easement for the roadway. Commissioner Erwin asked where the trash would be located on the site. Ms. Kramer stated the trash room is on the lower floor of the parking and pointed this out on the site plan. She stated trash bins would be taken to the curb cut on Cedar Lake Road, and the turnaround area in the surface parking lot is designed to allow for a wide turn there. Commissioner Beneke asked if parking demand would be lesser in the future. Ms. Kramer said there are no immediate plans in the next few years to convert the parking structure to other uses. It is simply a long-range strategy to provide an adaptable building. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4h) Page 4 Title: Planning commission meeting minutes February 5, 2020 Chair Kraft opened the public hearing. Gail Linsk, 4412 Cedar Lake Road #1, has concerns about traffic on Cedar Lake Road, which is a condensed area. She is concerned about making a left turn there into the development form Cedar Lake Road and if car waiting to turn into the development will make traffic back up into the intersection and create traffic congestion. She added there is not a lot of parking on Cedar Lake Road, so she has concerns about overflow parking. She asked if Old Cedar Lake Road could have a driveway that might allow for entrances and exits. Craig Aizman, 4225 West 25th Street, stated he grew up in St. Louis Park and has seen a lot of growth in this area. He stated this area has been a blighted area the past few years, so it will be good to see this development go in and he is happy this area will be rejuvenated. Jessica Duplessi, 1632 Princeton Avenue, has concerns about traffic with the frontage road and the West End area. She is concerned about the small number of guest parking spots and asked where folks will park. She stated her street is adjacent to the property and will be where overflow from visitors would park. She added the taller buildings are in the West End area, and this six-story high rise will not fit with the other buildings in the Cedarhurst neighborhood and should be in the West End area. Evan Sundquist, 1632 Princeton Avenue, has concerns about the tall height of the building in a neighborhood of two-story homes. He is also concerned about traffic and asked if the report is based on present or future traffic. He noted 1,500 units within the West End vicinity, excluding the new development being discussed tonight, and 3,000 units in the adjacent area have recently been built. He is concerned about traffic exiting onto Hwy 100 and safety in the neighborhood. Roger McCabe, 1620 Princeton Avenue, has been in the neighborhood for 30 years. He has concerns about the extra traffic proposed in the area, and this site is also adjacent to Benilde St. Margaret’s entrance. He has concerns for the safety of children in the neighborhood and traffic back-ups. He would like to see the city come up with a policy to restrict traffic from passing through the area. Robert Lazear, 1519 Natchez Avenue, Golden Valley, stated they have lived here since 1987, and they hope to stay there. He added they are used to growth and change in the area, adding there was not good communication about this project, which is blocks from their home. They found out about the meeting tonight on Nextdoor. He stated they would like more time to look at this plan. He added this area is triangular and cars come off Hwy 100 very fast and this five-story building is being shoehorned here. He stated he did not see a coherent traffic study in the report. His neighborhood is landlocked and his concern is this development does not meet the two-acre requirement and it will loom over his neighborhood and there are only five visitor parking spots. He urged the commission to stop this project and to visit the site and ask if this makes sense for the city. He stated it is far too large of a project for this small site. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4h) Page 5 Title: Planning commission meeting minutes February 5, 2020 Jess Anderson, 1345 Natchez Avenue South, Golden Valley, shared she is not against development and has lived in this area since the West End was developed. She stated this feels too large and invasive, and over 50% of the traffic in our area is speeding. She said it feels like the development will create a danger in her neighborhood, and it should be redone to fit the neighborhood. It will be at the end of her block and she asked the commission to think about this, adding she only found out about the project a few days ago. She asked if there is a way to keep the traffic out of the neighborhood, and have the developer create something more appropriate to the neighborhood. Daon Karpan, 1400 Natchez Avenue South, Golden Valley, has lived here for 25 years. She stated they found out about this project through Nextdoor and that is a concern. With the West End project, there was major notification and ample opportunities to give feedback. She stated the size and scale does not fit the area, and she noted a 50% traffic increase to 500 cars per day on Natchez since 2015 and speed in the neighborhood is already a problem. Additionally, she has concerns about noise. She added she is concerned this is one of many projects to be introduced in the neighborhood. Ron Hongell, 4345 Sussex Road, Golden Valley, has traffic concerns here and back-ups during rush hour. He added the attitude there will be public transportation used here will be limited, compared to the number of cars, and having five spots for guest parking is too limited. He stated there is no commuter information about how to get to the West End and the continuation of the trail does not lead to anything. Doug Broad, 1631 Princeton Avenue, Golden Valley, stated he found out about this meeting on Nextdoor and notification has been woefully inadequate. He stated parking and traffic are major concerns, along with five guest parking spots, and is terribly short- sighted. He stated during rush hour it is a nightmare, and Benilde students speed in this area. He invited the commission and the developers to stand there at 8 a.m. to see for themselves the traffic concerns. Jeff Geodort, 2537 Inglewood Avenue South, stated his concern is in seeing something much larger, like the Verge, going up, which is not pleasing or with thoughtful landscaping. He would like to see something in this space be well-thought out, and he stated he was happy with the plans presented tonight. Mark Brinkman, 4327 Alabama Avenue South, understands the concerns about traffic. He stated the area is blighted and he would like to see something in that space. He is supportive of the project. Chelsey Sondeland, 1636 Princeton Avenue, stated this is not the right project. Traffic is already a problem. Her son rides the school bus and catches the bus on the corner, with no sidewalks or stop signs, and it’s very dangerous in the dark morning, weaving between parked cars. She stated she asks drivers to not come through their area which is so overcrowded already. If it must go in then there will need to be sidewalks, lighting, signage, and a bike path that goes somewhere. She added she cannot walk to West End because it is not safe with traffic, and noted this development is not safe either. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4h) Page 6 Title: Planning commission meeting minutes February 5, 2020 Stacy Pompiu, 1520 Natchez, Golden Valley, stated the lack of notification was disgraceful for the neighbors in this area. She is disappointed Golden Valley is not on par with this development yet, and they are one block from the area. She stated this is not the West End and is the east side of Hwy 100 adding this project is completely inappropriate for their neighborhood. She stated traffic will be awful on Natchez and will continue to be if this project is approved. She asked the commission to scale this back and go to the site and view it during the times of most concern. She also noted the city should partner with Golden Valley on this. Zack Locker, 4648 Cedar Lake Road, stated he is in support of this project, although does see the traffic concerns. He does not think there will be additional traffic in the area, but there should be traffic calming on Natchez. He stated five spots might be too little, but stated it is not unreasonable for folks to park on Cedar Lake Road. Karen Dorn, 2817 Quentin, stated she travels through this area quite often and feels the five-story building is out of place there, with single-family dwellings. Traffic is also a concern, stating there would be up to 125 people living there, each with their own car. She added we think folks will use bikes, but in Minnesota, we use cars, so rethink this. She stated grasses and perennials don’t do well in the winter and we have a lot of winter here, so shrubs might be better. She agreed it is a blighted area. Jon Kuskie, 1660 Princeton Avenue South, thanked city staff for their quick communication when answering his questions about the project. He stated he will live in the shadow of this project. He stated his concern is this is a residential neighborhood with one-story homes, and he will be right in the shadow of this five-story building. He implored the commission to rethink this and consider something else on this site. A letter from Claris Hanson, 1628 Princeton Avenue South, was read into the record. Four additional emails will be forwarded to the city. Patrick Crow stated he lives in St. Louis Park and is the owner/developer. He felt the area was blighted and he wanted to help the area. He explained guests will have access to additional parking spots inside the parking garage through special temporary key fobs, which will reduce the issues with parking, as well as street parking in the area. He added they have set the driveway as far back from the intersection as possible, to allow for as much stacking as possible. He stated he did not know about the issues with Natchez Avenue. He pointed out there are many trees they are trying to save on the site, and will also bring in native plantings where possible, as well as green space. Mr. Crow added there were questions on shading, but for spring, summer and fall, the shadowing will be less as it is pushed back and meets the city code requirements. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked the developer if Golden Valley had contacted him. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4h) Page 7 Title: Planning commission meeting minutes February 5, 2020 Mr. Crow explained he had spoken with Golden Valley city staff and they discussed the trails, and a connection from the West End and Golden Valley for easier access for pedestrians. He stated his goal would be to think about the future and allowing for connectivity for bikers going to the lakes or commuting. He added there is a bus stop in the front of the building as well. Commissioner Dumalag asked about the change in affordable housing and asked him to comment on it. Mr. Crow stated it was an economic decision and added the units offered will be indistinguishable from the others. He stated there will be a representative mix of units throughout the building and an even distribution. He added affordable housing is important to him and he will try to meet all the goals and the intentions of the city. Commissioner Robertson appreciated Mr. Crow waited until after the public comments to make his comments. He added this is a well-thought out project and design, the orientation is fine and architecture is nice, however added it is a difficult site with existing traffic issues. Commissioner Robertson stated there will be increase in traffic on Natchez, but they won’t be big changes, and he trusts staff’s traffic analysis. Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated she is very familiar with this area and it can be very crazy with traffic. She stated this is a good project and it enhances that area which has looked sick for a long time. She stated it is not the project per se, whether in St. Louis Park or Golden Valley. She stated the traffic issues over time are not good but could be affecting how the residents are looking at the project. She also stated the developer connected with Golden Valley over one month ago, so the responsibility was on Golden Valley to connect with their residents. Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated we don’t stop to wait for traffic studies to arrive, adding there may be a need for more conversations about traffic in the area. Mr. Walther stated the city is required to mail notices to all property owners within 500 feet and that was followed, and if that extends into Golden Valley those residents are also notified. Notice was also published in the Sun Sailor and a large sign was posted on the property announcing there was a proposed development for at least 10 days before the public hearing. The city also posts notice on Nextdoor to affected neighborhoods and contacts neighborhood leaders in organized neighborhoods in St. Louis Park. He added the efforts that went into the West End development in 2006 and 2007 went way beyond the typical area because of the massive scale of that project. He stated this is a smaller scale project, and did not rise to the level to justify a third-party consultant to conduct a traffic study. Traffic generation estimates and review was completed by the city engineering and community development staff. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4h) Page 8 Title: Planning commission meeting minutes February 5, 2020 Commissioner Robertson stated the proposal combines the three lots in an area planned for high density residential, and there is not a lot of change with this project. He asked if anything was relaxed under the PUD process under the high-density residential zoning. Ms. Kramer stated all three parcels already allow high-density residential and if there was not a PUD, the project would have needed variances for setbacks from property lines. She noted the distance between the road and building is substantial due to the wide public right of way. In exchange for flexibility on the setback requirements, the PUD allows the city to ask for more from the developer, including compliance with the green building policy and inclusionary housing policy. Chair Kraft added this lot has been identified for higher density development, so it seems appropriate. She added the concerns about the traffic are independent of this project, and should be looked at, but this project might not be the one to use to solve the traffic concerns. Commissioner Dumalag thanked Mr. Walther for his explanation of the notification process and she is in support of the project. She stated she has some concern on ingress and egress of the project and this might be a challenge but can be up for further discussion, as well. Commissioner Erwin stated she would be interested in seeing more traffic study here, and would be interested if there could be a left-turn-only egress or ingress to help with traffic issues from the site. She added it is relevant to study traffic now and in the future in this area. Commissioner Robertson stated the commission has heard the residents’ comments, and this will not be the last action on this project; it will continue to the city council for final decision. Chair Kraft closed the public hearing. Commissioner Robertson made a motion, Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded, recommending approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, the preliminary and final plat and the preliminary and final planned unit development (PUD) subject to the conditions recommended by staff, and with more traffic studies of this area. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Ms. Kramer stated this will be presented to city council on April 6, 2020. 4. Other Business Commissioner Robertson moved that Commissioner Kraft be nominated to be chair, and Commissioner Dumalag be nominated to be vice chair of the commission. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded. The motion passed 6-0. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 4h) Page 9 Title: Planning commission meeting minutes February 5, 2020 5. Communications a. Next meeting agenda, February 19, we have two planned public hearings on the regular meeting agenda. i. Cedarwood Dachis Addition (plat). Proposal to subdivide the single-family lot at 4000 25th Street West into three lots ii. CUP for St. Louis Park High School to replace the existing track and field west of the school building with a synthetic turf field. The CUP is for the import and export of materials on the site iii. Study session: Staff will update commissioners on several upcoming development proposals. b. February 24 boards and commissions annual meeting. c. March 4 meeting will be a study session. Topics will include: i. Review the draft Historic Walker Lake ordinance, 6-7 p.m. We plan to hold the first part of the meeting in the Westwood Room. ii. Race equity and inclusion 101 training, 7-8:30 p.m., in the council chambers. This will be a joint meeting/training with the housing authority and environment and sustainability commission. d. Joint study session with city council. Potential dates are March 9, May 26 or June 8. We will indicate a preference for March 9. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Meeting: City council Meeting date: March 2, 2020 Minutes: 4i FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MINUTES September 17, 2019 – 9:00 a.m. FIRE STATION 1 1.The meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m. by President Tift. 2.In attendance were Commissioners Bill MacMillan, Stuart Williams and Bob Tift. Also present were Ali Timpone, HR Manager/Staff Liaison; Steve Koering, Fire Chief; John Wolff, Deputy Fire Chief; Cary Smith, Assistant Chief; Shawn Glapa, Fire Lieutenant; Brian Oberschmid, Firefighter; and Michael Sund, Elections Specialist. 3.Minutes of the May 29, 2019 Fire Civil Service meeting were approved as presented. 4.Deputy Chief Wolff presented the completed recruitment process for the position of Firefighter. Although there are currently no vacancies, it is expected that we will need to hire from this list in the next two years. We had 166 applicants, nearly 50 were invited to first round group interviews, a smaller pool had a second round interview, and the final eligibility roster has 15 candidates. President Tift asked Firefighter Oberschmid how the union felt about the process and was given a positive response. A motion was made by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Williams to approve the 2019 Firefighter Eligibility Roster. Motion carried unanimously. 5.Deputy Chief Wolff presented the recommended promotional process for the position of Captain. The current list will expire in February 2020, and staff would like to begin creating a new list. There are currently no vacancies for the position of Captain but it’s anticipated that there will be in the coming years. The process is recommended to be largely the same as the recent Lieutenant process, with the addition of an In-Basket Exercise to evaluate candidate skills in judgment and decision making. Discussion followed about the importance of a well- rounded process that allows for different ways of evaluating candidate strengths. A motion was made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner MacMillan, to approve the recommended Fire Captain recruitment process. Motion carried unanimously. 6.Elections Specialist Michael Sund presented information to the commission about the upcoming election in St. Louis Park, which will be our first ever ranked choice voting election. Michael provided a voting guide and sample ballot and answered questions about the process of ranked choice voting for our local elected officials. 7.The Commission adjourned at 9:36 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Ali Timpone HR Manager/City Staff Liaison Meeting: City council Meeting date: March 2, 2020 Action agenda item: 5a Executive summary Title: Reappointment of representative to the Fire Civil Service Commission Recommended action: Motion to reappoint Bob Tift to the Fire Civil Service Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2022. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to reappoint Bob Tift to serve another term on the Fire Civil Service Commission? Summary: The Fire Civil Service Commission is regulated by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 420. Section 420.03 states that “all vacancies in the commission shall be filled by appointment by the council within 30 days after the vacancy occurs”. Bob Tift’s term on the Fire Civil Service Commission expired on December 31, 2019. He has communicated with staff that he wishes to be reappointed to a new term on the Fire Civil Service Commission. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: None Prepared by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Meeting: City council Meeting date: March 2, 2020 Action agenda item: 8a Executive summary Title: Southeast area bikeway Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution accepting the project report, establishing Improvement Project No. 4018-2000, and approving the layout for the Southeast Area bikeway segments. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish staff to continue to pursue the installation of the bikeway segments identified for the Southeast Bikeway Improvements project? Summary: Council has requested staff to complete preliminary designs for bike facilities in the southeast area of St. Louis Park as outlined in the Connect the Park plan. The segments create a continuous bikeway from the Rec Center to the city’s south border with Edina as well as connect Minneapolis and the Chain of Lakes to the Excelsior and Grand area. In all, the southeast area bikeways will add 1.72 miles to the network. On Feb. 18, the city council held a public hearing regarding the project. At the meeting, staff gave a presentation, and 39 community members testified to the council. In this report, staff provides additional information based on council’s and community members’ questions regarding the project. If approved, the final design will be brought to council in early summer of 2020 with a request to authorize advertisement for bids. Construction would occur from Fall 2020 to Spring 2021. Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city’s 2020 capital improvement plan (CIP) and will be paid for using general obligation bonds. The total project cost is estimated at $556,250. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Overview map Jan. 27 study session report (pp. 12 – 113) Feb. 18 public hearing report (pp. 139 – 146) Feb. 18 public testimony video (1:22:40 – 1:53:20 for presentation and 1:53:20 – 3:45:20 for public testimony) Resolution Public comments Neighborhood petition Prepared by: Ben Manibog, transportation engineer Jack Sullivan, senior engineering project manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 2 Title: Southeast area bikeway Discussion Background: Staff was directed to recommend a bikeway design on the following road segments as a part of the Connect the Park capital improvement plan (CIP). All the segments, which make up 1.72 miles of bikeways, are collectively called the Southeast Bikeway Improvements: •38th Street from Excelsior Boulevard to France Avenue (0.4 miles) The four segments below together complete a bike route from the Rec Center to the Edina border (1.32 miles): •From the Rec Center west along the south side of Wolfe Park (0.32 miles) •South from Wolfe Parkway on Park Commons Drive to the intersection with Quentin Avenue (0.07 miles) •South along Quentin Avenue from Park Commons Drive to Princeton Avenue at 42nd 1/2 Street (0.58 miles) •South along Wooddale Avenue from 42nd 1/2 Street to 44th Street (0.35 miles) These segments were first identified as a part of the Active Living: Sidewalk and Trails Plan in 2007 and were then integrated into Connect the Park plan in 2013. Connect the Park is designed to create a system that provides sidewalks approximately every quarter mile and bikeways every half-mile in order to improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity throughout the community. The proposed north-south and east-west corridors provide key connections that will enhance walking and biking in the city by connecting destinations such as parks, businesses, the Rec Center, the ROC, Edina, and Minneapolis. As in the case with most of the bikeways in the Connect the Park initiative, this transportation project is a retrofit project rather than a full reconstruction of the street. Reconstruction of any of these segments is not on the current 10-year CIP. Instead, this project will make improvements at key locations to further the city’s policy goals of safer travel for all modes of traffic. At the Feb. 18, 2020 public hearing, staff provided the city council with a report and a presentation regarding this project. After, 39 community members provided testimony to the council about the project. Video of staff’s presentation, council’s discussion, and the community’s testimony can be viewed on the city’s YouTube account linked in the report. Many more community members provided written comments which are attached to this report. Further project information can be found in the Jan. 27, 2020 study session report. Preliminary layout recommendation: The recommended layout for the segments of this project remains as described in the study session packet from Jan. 27, 2020. They are summarized below: 1. 38th Street (Excelsior Boulevard to France Avenue) •Advisory bike lanes with no changes to existing parking restrictions. 2.Wolfe Park (Wolfe Parkway to Monterey Drive) City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 3 Title: Southeast area bikeway •Use existing trails on the south side of the park parallel to Wolfe Parkway to connect the bikeway from Park Commons Drive and West Wolfe Parkway to the pedestrian crossing of Monterey Drive at 36th 1/2 Street. 3.Park Commons Drive (Quentin Avenue to West Wolfe Parkway) •Convert and widen north sidewalk to shared use path and narrow the road with no changes to existing parking restrictions. 4.Princeton and Quentin Avenues (Park Commons Drive to 42nd 1/2 Street) •Shared lane/”sharrow” bikeway with no changes to existing parking restrictions. 5.Wooddale Avenue (42nd 1/2 Street to 44th Street) •On-street conventional bike lanes with parking bays. Mainline on-street parking is restricted on both sides of the road. Center road striping is removed. Public hearing questions: The following questions came up during the public hearing and have not been directly addressed in previous council reports or in public engagement materials. •Can an evaluation for a 4-way stop at the intersection of Wooddale Avenue and Morningside Road be made as a part of this project? o In order to make an informed recommendation, staff would need to collect additional traffic data. This can be done in the spring. However, based on staff’s understanding of the traffic volumes, speeds, sightlines, and accident history, it is unlikely to meet the Minnesota Manual for Uniform Traffic Control’s criteria for the installation of all-way stop controls. If it does not meet the criteria, the traffic committee would not recommend the installation of additional stop signs at this location. This is consistent with policy. o When the traffic committee does not recommend installation of a traffic control, the city council has the authority to approve signs that do not meet these all-way stop sign criteria based on feedback from the neighborhood. o Staff can evaluate this request as part of the project approval process or as an independent traffic request. •Can an evaluation for a 3-way stop at the intersection of Park Commons Drive and Quentin Avenue be made as a part of this project? o The redevelopment near this intersection has impacted how pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles navigate the area. Staff recommends an intersection evaluation similar to the process described above for the intersection of Wooddale Avenue and Morningside Road. o Staff can evaluate this request as part of the project approval process or as an independent traffic request. •What safety measures are taken into account for the angled parking at Fresh Thyme? o The angled parking is located on the east side of Quentin Avenue from Excelsior Boulevard to Park Commons Drive adjacent to Fresh Thyme Grocery. A shared lane is recommended on Quentin Avenue at this location due to the existing angled parking. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 4 Title: Southeast area bikeway Front-in angled parking is not recommended on roads with bike lanes because of a driver’s limited ability to see the bike lane. No additional measures are proposed at this time. •For the narrowing of Park Commons Drive for the shared use path, what part of the road is getting narrowed? o To accommodate a shared use path on the north side of Park Commons Drive east of Quentin Avenue, the north curb line will be shifted south about 5 feet to narrow the road to 32 feet. The north side currently has parking restrictions; parking will remain on the south side of the Park Commons Drive adjacent to Fresh Thyme. •Can a pilot project be done on the Wooddale Avenue segment prior to any construction? o Yes. However, before undertaking a pilot project it would be necessary to define the objective(s) of the effort and related metrics (what is it we want to learn and how do we measure it), duration and so on. As a result, any pilot project would require additional community engagement to further define the pilot, followed by project design and cost analysis and then approval to proceed by the council. Staff can explore this further at the direction of the council. •Are there other bikeway routes that could be used instead of or in addition to Wooddale Avenue from 42nd 1/2 Street to 44th Street? o Wooddale Avenue has been identified in our Connect the Park Capital Improvement Plan since approval of the plan in 2013. o Browndale Avenue was evaluated during the early community engagement. Staff ultimately did not recommend it because the route was circuitous, did not connect well with Edina’s existing bike network, and was not intuitive. Having a safe facility on the same routes as vehicles promotes biking because it connects directly to destinations that are desirable to everyone. Directing bicycles to take a more circuitous route, at the convenience of vehicles, does not prioritize bicycling. o Joppa Avenue (and Grimes Avenue in Edina) were mentioned during the public hearing testimony as another alternative route. At this time, this route is not included in St Louis Park’s CIP. In addition, the majority of this route is within the City of Edina. Further exploration of this alternative route would require coordination and collaboration with the City of Edina and further community engagement with the Minikahda Vista and Morningside (Edina) neighborhoods. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 5 Title: Southeast area bikeway Financial considerations: This project is funded using general obligation (GO) bonds. Estimated project cost for all segments of the project is $556,250. Southeast area bikeway CIP Engineer's estimate 38th Street (France Avenue to CSAH 3) $15,000 Wolfe Park $20,000 Park Commons (Wolfe Park to Quentin Avenue) $160,000 Quentin/Princeton avenues (Park Commons Drive to 42nd 1/2 Street) $50,000 Wooddale Avenue (42nd 1/2 Street to 44th Street) $200,000 Construction total $450,000 $445,000 Engineering and administration $112,500 $111,250 Project total $562,500 $556,250 Funding sources General obligation bonds $562,500 $556,250 Other financial considerations: Operation and maintenance costs: This project creates new city infrastructure, including bikeways and enhanced pedestrian crossings. With new infrastructure, there will be operation and maintenance costs. Annual operational efforts include snow removal, pavement sweeping, and general upkeep. In addition, there are long term costs associated with the replacement of new pavement markings for bicycles and pedestrians that occur on longer cycles of every 3 to 5 years. Signs are replaced every 15 to 20 years. There is expected to be minimal increases with the annual operations costs since most of the bikeway is a retrofit within the existing roadway. However, there will be more long-term costs associated with the replacement and upkeep for the addition of on-street bicycle pavement markings. As final plans are developed, staff will work on identifying the new incremental costs and will present them when this project is presented to council for final plan approval and authorization for bids. Proposed schedule: Approve preliminary layout and authorize final plans March 2, 2020 City council – approve final plans and order ad for bid Early summer 2020 Construction Fall 2020 – Spring 2021 GWX ?A@ GWX 3 100 17 LYNNAVESMORNINGSIDE RD NATCHEZAVESQUENTINAVESPRINCETONAVESKIPLINGAVESWOOD D A L E A V EPARK CENTER BLVDGRAND WAY P A R K NICOLLET BLVDW O LF E PKW Y41ST S T W COOLIDGEAVESBROWNDALEAVESBROOKAVESMACKEYAVESUTICAAVESJOPPA AVE S 42 1/2 ST W PARK C O M M O N S D R 43 1/2 ST W GLENHURSTAVES42ND ST W PARK C O M M O N S D R BROWNDALEAVESOTTAWAAVES42ND ST WPRINCETONAVESVALLAC H E R A V E 40TH ST W 37TH ST W 39TH ST W 38TH ST W 36 1/2 ST W 39TH S T W 42NDS T W 44TH ST WGLEN PLQUENTINAVESINGLEWOODAVESRALEI GHAVESSALEMAVESMONTEREYAVESRALEI GHAVESHUNTINGTON AVE SFRANCEAVESDARTAVE SVERNONAVESOTTAWAAVESTOLEDO AVE SSALEMAVESVERNONAVES40TH L N W PA R K CE NTE R B L V D 0 500 1,000250 Feet ´ Southeast Bikeway Improvements Legend Proposed Bikeways New Alignment Existing Sidewalks Existing Trails City Limits City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 6 Resolution No. 20-___ Resolution accepting the project report, establishing improvement project no. 4018-2000, approving the staff recommended layout for the project and authorizing the design of final plans Whereas, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Project Engineer related to the Southeast Bikeway Improvements – Project No. 4018-2000; and, Whereas, the project report consists of bikeways on 38th Street, Park Commons Drive, Quentin Avenue, Princeton Avenue, 42nd 1/2 Street, Wooddale Avenue, and in Wolfe Park; and, Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1.The project report regarding Project No. 4018-2000 Southeast Bikeway Improvements is hereby accepted. 2.Such improvements as proposed are necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in the project report. 3.The following bikeway segments are established and ordered for final plans as detailed on Table A. Table A: Number Road segment description Bikeway classification Parking changes 1 38th Street from Excelsior Boulevard to France Avenue Advisory bike lanes None 2 Wolfe Park bikeway Existing shared use paths N/A 3 Park Commons Drive from West Wolfe Parkway to Quentin Avenue Shared use path None 4 Quentin Avenue from Park Commons Drive to Excelsior Boulevard Shared lane/”sharrow” None City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 7 5 Quentin Avenue from Excelsior Boulevard to 42nd Street Shared lane/”sharrow” None 6 Princeton Avenue from 42nd Street to 42nd 1/2 Street Shared lane/”sharrow” None 7 Wooddale Avenue from 42nd 1/2 Street to 44th Street Conventional bike lanes Mainline on-street parking restricted. Parking bays provided with 13 spaces. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 2, 2020 Jake Spano, mayor Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 8 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Marie Baudek Sent:Monday, February 24, 2020 1:42 PM To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Southeast Bikeway project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Dear Ben:   Please include the following comments regarding the Southewat Bikeway in the final report to the city council.   Thank you!  Marie Baudek  Dear Mayo Spano and Council Members:  I was not able to attend the public hearing last week so I would like to weigh in one last time about the  Wooddale section of the Southeast Bikeway prior to next week’s vote.   I am going to put in one last plea that you VOTE NO FOR THE WOODDALE PORTION OF THE PROJECT as  currently proposed. Bikers have a number of options to “connect to the park”, instead of biking the 2 blocks  on Wooddale should they not feel comfortable in doing so. Once trees are cut down and bump‐outs replace  the boulevards, we have no options of going back to the beautiful tree‐canopied, historic neighborhood that  we all chose to live in and love.   Please, please consider an alternative option for the Wooddale portion of the project.  Sincerely,   Marie Baudek  4320 Wooddale Ave.  22‐year resident  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 9 From:Rachel Harris To:Ben Manibog Jr; Cc:Debra Heiser; Tom Harmening Subject:Fw: Proposed changes to Wooddale Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2020 3:18:14 PM Hi Ben, I'm reaching out now to forward comments from Georgie. On Sunday in the nippy 25degree weather, I attended a walking meeting with residents along Wooddale Ave. Clad inwinter coats and boots, we walked up and down Wooddale as I listened to residents'ideas. Sharing Georgie's thoughts now...please read below. P.S. Would you include them in the public record? And, connect with Georgie on anyquestions she has...Thanks! Sincerely,Rachel Rachel Harris (she/her/hers) City Council, Ward 3 | City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 www.stlouispark.org Experience LIFE in the Park. From: Georgie Yiannias Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2020 11:22 PM To: Tim Brausen <tbrausen@stlouispark.org>; Rachel Harris <rharris@stlouispark.org>; Anne Mavity <amavity@stlouispark.org>; Margaret Rog <mrog@stlouispark.org>; Nadia Mohamed <NMohamed@stlouispark.org>; Larry Kraft <LKraft@stlouispark.org>; Jake Spano <jspano@stlouispark.org> Cc: Subject: Proposed changes to Wooddale CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am writing to ask that the proposed street changes to Wooddale be rejected as unsafe and environmentally unsound. The designation of Wooddale as a 'major collector" street will add to traffic concerns as speeds will increase. Bump-outs are confusing and unwieldy to through traffic and residents alike. As an avid bike rider, it strikes me that there is no continuity or real connectivity in this plan. It would create an isolated island of unproven changes that comes from nowhere and leads to nowhere. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 10 Surely there must be other creative engineering solutions to ensure safety for pedestrians, bikers and drivers. Please consider alternatives such as creating a "sharrow" instead of launching this project. I am enclosing below, with his permission, some comments from a concerned friend for your consideration. Georgie - As an 87 year old who has biked hundreds of times on that section of Wooddale, I can attest that I have never felt the least bit unsafe as it is now. So count me as someone who is skeptical of bike safety as any justification of the proposal. In fact, if reconfigured with bump outs as proposed, it may render that section less safe for bikers. Also, what sense does it make to do the 44th to 42&1/2 section of Wooddale when from there to Excelsior is not bike friendly? Bill Hay Edina resident, but St. Louis Park bike-rider Respectfully yours, Georgie Yiannias 4374 Dart Ave. St. Louis Park, MN 55424 Direct: City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 11 1 Ben Manibog Jr From: Sent:Saturday, February 22, 2020 2:39 PM To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Southeast bike way improvements CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  Please don’t vote for the bikeway improvements. Bikes are starting to have so many lanes & right of ways it’s ridiculous.  Not to mention all the beautiful trees you will be removing. Please vote “NO”!  Joanne Webster  Sent from my iPhone  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 12 From: To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Southeast Bikeway Public Hearing communication Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2020 3:34:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear St. Louis Park City Council Members, My name is Lynn Wagner and I live at 4506 Wooddale Avenue one block south from the two and half blocks of Wooddale between 44th Street and 42 and a 1/2 Street that are slated under this proposal to be changed from a residential street to a collector road, in order to accommodate designated biking lanes. This part of the proposal does not make financial sense, as it will widen a historic, quiet section of a residential street, thereby encouraging faster car speeds and volumes, degrades the immediate neighbors’ quality of life due to loss of mature trees and on-street parking, and most importantly, it does not in fact promote biker safety. Rather it makes it less safe for bikers on this two and a half block stretch of road, which an average biker going an average speed of 10 miles per hour will be riding on for approximately one and a half minutes or less. This designated bike lane proposal with parking bays is not the safest way to encourage biking on this small stretch of road according to the most recent National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations on designated bike lanes, published a few months ago in November of 2019. A safer and far less expensive alternative is a share the road option or “Sharrow”. A Sharrow is in fact the safest, as well as least expensive option to encourage biking in the neighborhood. It should be noted that a few years ago, the City of Edina did in fact have designated bike lanes with no center line (the same as this proposal, without parking bays) on a portion of Wooddale between 54th Street and 50th Street for less than a year and they then removed those bike lanes and replaced them with a Sharrow system, because both bikers and drivers complained of confusion and safety issues. Therefore, the best option here would be posting “share the road” signs as Edina has done on Wooddale directly south of the area in question, or create a Sharrow system like on 44th Street which is directly perpendicular to this part of City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 13 Wooddale and is a designated Collector Road. This type of change in residential street designation to a major Collector Road and re-design, coupled with a loss of the urban forest, would not only unnecessarily cost tens of thousands of dollars, while negatively impacting the character of this historic, residential part of Wooddale Avenue, but it also would not accomplish anything positive. Bikers and cars already safely and effectively share the road along with many children, dogs and elderly people who on a daily basis walk on the Wooddale sidewalks and use the crosswalks (which would be removed under this plan) that lead to a neighborhood park in one direction and an elementary school in the other direction. The St. Louis Park City Council needs to listen to the affected residents, be good financial stewards of precious financial resources, and focus on the most recent NTSB published data on biker safety, and vote against this part of this expensive, wasteful, and unsafe plan. Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter. Lynn Wagner 4506 Wooddale Ave. Edina, MN 55424 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 14 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Kurt Timian Sent:Thursday, February 20, 2020 7:25 AM To:Ben Manibog Jr; Jake Spano; Larry Kraft; Nadia Mohamed; Tom Harmening Subject:Southeast area Bikeways -Wooddale Ave CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  For the record  As I sat through the February 18, 2020 City of St. Louis Park City Council public hearing about the Wooddale Bikeway I  was struck with several thoughts that didn’t occur to me before.  1. Everyone from the city was really paying attention and being respectful to the speakers. 2. Members of the biking coalition who spoke in favor of this bike facility are white and male. 3. None of these guys live in the Browndale neighborhood, and they really don’t have anything to lose, like property value or a green environment. 4. These biking enthusiasts who spoke are not the 51%‐56% Interested or Concerned target of this bike facility on Wooddale. In my opinion, they didn’t seem concerned about anybody but themselves. They could make it easy to add to their bragging rights about how many miles they ride each year by taking an alternate route. I recommend Browndale or Grimes. 5. Many of my neighbors have been consumed by this issue for almost 2 years because getting answers from the staff or city council has been a constant exercise in futility. They have been forced to become extremely well educated on everything about bike safety; traffic counts, traffic calming, tree health, storm sewer capacity, water run‐off and on and on. They are justifiably frustrated because we have been dismissed by the city staff and in particular our ward representative. People get angry when they don’t feel they are being listened to, especially after they have spent countless hours preparing for a presentation. 6. Anne Mavity brought up errors in the petition I signed such as number of trees to be cut down and crosswalks taken away. These errors are on the city. The residents who put together the petition got the information from the city staff. 7. There was lots of this kind of stuff going on throughout the presentation from Ben, Jack and Anne: Distract by focusing on unimportant details to disrupt and confuse. Strategic and unnecessary questioning and requests for “clarification”. Divide attention and conquer. Misinform and misdirect. 8. If this destructive plan goes through, it is a big discrimination issue against anybody who is old, disabled, not physically fit, and doesn’t have the time, energy or resources to devote to fighting for the environment and property rights. We all need healthy trees and growing grass to help us breathe (bikers included). We do NOT concrete parking stalls. 9. This process, if you can call it that, has been conducted in a very un‐Democratic manner. I realized how easy the city made it for themselves to not listen to the protests and objections of the people who live on Dakota Avenue. I believe the city had already designed the bike plan they wanted that took away parking from the residents on Dakota, and the city was bound and determined to approve it. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 15 2 10. Trust has been broken. I’m afraid that because this permanently destructive and expensive plan is the only plan Anne Mavity and the city engineers want, they will do anything to push it through. 11. I really hope the city council and the mayor will vote NO on the Wooddale section of this plan. 12. I love this street just as it is with green boulevards and tree canopy. I love the Browndale Neighborhood, and most of my neighbors. 13. I ask you to work with us to install a non‐destructive and less expensive option, such as a pilot project or alternate routes. 14. Please listen to us who live here. This issue concerns the entire City of St. Louis Park, not just a small area of a single neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration.  Kurt Timian   4274 Wooddale Avenue Since 1986  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 16 From: To:Jake Spano; Margaret Rog; Anne Mavity; Rachel Harris; Tim Brausen; Larry Kraft; Nadia Mohamed; Astein Osei; pollock.clarence@slpschools.org; Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Southeast Bikeway Improvements - Wooddale Avenue Date:Sunday, February 16, 2020 12:17:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. February 16, 2020 To: Mayor Spano Council Members Rog, Mavity, Harris, Brausen, Kraft, and Mohamed Superintendent Osai Principal Pollock Engineer Manibog I will not be able to attend the Public Hearing scheduled for February 18, 2020. Please include my comments to the Mayor and Council Members. With all of the discussion regarding the changes to be made to Wooddale Avenue, the most important thing is getting lost, and that is that Wooddale Avenue is first and foremost a Route to School. Before you make your final decision, I urge you to view the project in this light. PLEASE take five minutes to stand at the three way intersection of Wooddale/Quentin/42 1/2 Street. Stand on the West side of Wooddale where the trail crosses Browndale and connects to this intersection. Notice how no moving cars stop at these stop signs. Notice how everyone is driving well over the posted 30 MPH speed limit. How there is only crosswalk paint at two of the crossings, and it is faded and barely visible. How there are no signs, or lights, or "school children" present alerts. And think about all of the children that collect at this intersection before they walk their final block to Susan Lindgren Elementary school, and then home again. And all of the children that collect at this intersection, and all along Wooddale, to catch their buses to the Middle and High Schools. It happens every day. And next year, due to start time changes, our youngest children, those in Kindergarten to 5th grade, will be walking to school at RUSH HOUR. - When you are standing on this corner, look left, because Mary walks South on Wooddale, without benefit of a sidewalk, and must get to Quentin with no crosswalks to help her. - Jamila, who lives on Quentin, must also cross over without sidewalks or crosswalks to help her. - Look right because my children, Priyanka and Devendra, walk North on Wooddale, on the West side, to this intersection, where they sometimes wait for ten minutes for a driver to notice them and slow down so that they can cross over two roads with faded crosswalk paint and no signs. - Sophia lives across the street, on the East side of Wooddale, and she runs the same risk every day. - Abbey lives on 42 1/2 Street and needs to cross this three way intersection too, as she has no other way to get to school. - And so does Aidan, who lives on Morningside, and walks North on Wooddale to meet up with other kids on his way to school. - Jake has to cross Wooddale mid-block to get to his bus, and the stop sign arm stretching out from the bus is not enough to stop cars an alarming portion of the time. These are REAL KIDS, and there are SO MANY OTHERS! I have read all of the research from the City, the Neighborhood Group, the NTSB, MnDOT, and have been to every hearing and study session. And in the midst of all of the differing opinions, and people City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 17 choosing to believe different research, what is getting lost is the common sense approach that first and foremost, WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR SCHOOL CHILDREN. I implore you to read about the MnDOT's "Safe Routes to School" program. Here is the link, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/saferoutes/. They advocate for lower speed limits, calming traffic, enhanced crosswalks with lights and signs, and large barriers, such as a row of parked cars and planted boulevards, between kids and moving vehicles. The idea is to get as much space as possible between anything moving - including cars, bikes, and scooters - and our kids, who are hopefully walking down straight and wide sidewalks! We need RRFB, Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon, crosswalk signs all along Wooddale - at 41st Street, at many corners of Quentin/42 1/2, and at Morningside - AT A MINIMUM - the more we let people know that Wooddale is a major Route to School, the better. Kids lives are at stake. A girl was just hit on France Avenue while walking to her bus, with its outstretched stop sign, by a driver who was going too fast, swerved into the dedicated bike lane, which he thought was part of the road, hit her, and then drove off. It happens more often than you would think possible. We need to reduce the speed limit on Wooddale to 25 MPH. "kids are THREE TIMES as likely to get HIT BY A CAR when traffic speed EXCEEDS 25 MILES per hour" (1), and in fact, "kids cannot reliably detect a car approaching at speeds HIGHER THAN 20 MPH" (1), which is why school speeds limits are generally below this. Wooddale is a major route to school, as well as three nearby parks. All destinations that kids, families, and other pedestrians visit. I know that if you change the designation on Wooddale from Local Residential Street to Major Collector Road, as is the city's plan, then you will get State Aid for our road. Please DO NOT do this. We have no commercial business and we are 100% residential. Major Collector Roads cannot be less than 30 MPH without variances, and we need a lower speed limit, and and even lower School Speed Limit. The amount of traffic that we currently have allows us to fit very well in the Local Residential Street designation and the only reason to change us to Major Collector Road is to get State Aid. Major Collector Roads allow 9 ton trucks, instead of the 6 ton truck limit that we have now. And even now, my kids are terrified when these trucks speed by them, shaking the ground and shaking our house. Nine ton trucks, going 30+ MPH, down a residential street with kids walking to school and parks, is a DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN. Please think outside the box, think about the future, think about livability, think about this Route to School, and reduce the speed limit on our street. I know that all of the changes being made to Wooddale are to make way for a dedicated bike lane in each direction from 42 1/2 Street to 44th Street. And my kids love to bike! But there is no way, without traffic calming, a lower speed limit, and RRFB crosswalk signs that I would let my kids bike down Wooddale - to school or to parks. The green stripe of "bikeway paint" that is going to mark the bike crossing at Wooddale/Quentin/42 1/2 Street is only going to add to the confusion - for everybody. The big green stripe of paint looks like a "go" sign and bikers will take the right of way over cars, school kids, and pedestrians, believing they can do so without stopping at all. And it is confusing to have Share the Road streets both South & North of the 2 1/2 block stretch of Wooddale - try explaining these inconsistent types of bikeways over such a short space of road to an 8 year old! They are not going to understand, and will be biking down the middle of Wooddale the whole way to the park, putting themselves and everyone else in great peril. If we were to make Wooddale, Quentin, Browndale ALL Share the Road streets, while reducing the speed limit on Wooddale, calming traffic, and adding enhanced crosswalks on the Route to School and parks, think of how safe and livable our street would be for next generation! I hope that you will PLEASE take the five minutes to stand on our three way intersection, with our kids in mind. Imagine this street was in front of the home that you share with your young children that walk to the local school up the street. I have watched our neighborhood transition over the years, from older retired couples, to young couples moving in, renovating homes, and having children. Where we once had neighbors with grown children, we are now surrounded on all sides by couples with children under the age of four. The number of the kids on our street is expanding exponentially and we need to make Wooddale, and our whole neighborhood, safe for them when they make their journey to school in a few years. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 18 Thank You! Stephanie Steiner (1)FULL ARTICLE about the reasons kids get hit by cars can be found here: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/full-frontal-psychology/why-kids-get-hit-by-cars.html City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 19 Page1 •I’m Stephanie Schwartz/4378 Dart Ave. •Block Captain on wonderful Dead-end Dart Ave, which is one block west of beautiful tree-lined Wooddale Ave. It is one block long. The only access is from 44th Street. It contains 15 houses and dead ends where it runs into Browndale Park. I moved to SLP after living in Linden Hills because I fell in love with quiet Dart Ave. •Am I concerned that Wooddale will be made less safe because a bike-only lane + parking bays creates the perception of a wider (not narrower) street, which I believe will result in drivers going faster? Yes. On Wooddale, a street I use daily, I routinely see cars going over the speed limit and not stopping at stop signs. In fact, on Sunday I was in the well- marked crosswalk at 44th & Wooddale when the driver of a SUV going north decided that it didn’t matter that I was there – the driver just went through the crosswalk. That’s Wooddale. •Am I concerned about the approximately $200,000 cost for this proposal? A proposal that impacts a mere 2.5 blocks? Yes. •Am I concerned that the proposal includes cutting down mature trees and pouring in concrete and/or asphalt in place of the trees, which will change the beautiful canopy on Wooddale? Of course I am. •You have heard from residents who live on Wooddale. Members Kraft, Mohamed, Harris, and former members Miller and Hallfin met with my Wooddale neighbors, and I heard it was a warm and informative experience each time. Thank you, and I invite those City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 20 Page2 who haven’t met with us to do so. But perhaps you haven’t heard much from concerned residents (and non-residents) who don’t live on Wooddale. •Therefore, there are two points I want to make: 1. This proposal impacts everyone in the Browndale Neighborhood, not just residents who live on Wooddale. I am just as concerned about this proposal as those who live on Wooddale. Why? I drive on Wooddale too! It’s the closest, fastest way for me to get to Excelsior Blvd. and Hwy. 100. 2. I am concerned that if my dear neighbors who live on Wooddale don’t have close-by, safe parking they will park on dead-end Dart. Dart is only one block long and can’t handle such congestion. Did I mention that there is only one large, flat driveway on Dart Ave. Guess whose driveway that is? I know it’s really popular to use it to turn around in, because when people unfamiliar with the neighborhood cruise down Dart Ave. thinking they will be able to continue to drive north, only to discover it’s a dead-end, guess whose driveway they use to turn around? But do not get me wrong – that is a mere annoyance (beyond reducing the life of my driveway). What is most important – vitally important - is that you understand and hear – really hear – that the voices you’re hearing are from the Browndale Neighborhood. The proposed plan impacts and concerns many more city residents than just those residing on Wooddale Ave. Our voices are important, too. Please listen to them. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 21 Page3 •I will also add this: please consider a pilot project before you decide to take such drastic action. How about adding signs so that bikers know they can use our city sidewalks? If they knew that, it’s likely they wouldn’t bike in this busy stretch of Wooddale, and the bike lanes wouldn’t be necessary. See how that goes for a couple of years. Or how about a share the road pilot that includes Browndale Avenue and Edina’s Grimes Ave? That’s also worth considering. •As a Browndale Neighborhood resident, I ask that you take a step back and consider some alternatives before making drastic changes to historic, tree-lined Wooddale Avenue. Your Browndale constituents are happy to work together with you and city staff on this, I promise. THANK YOU. Stephanie Schwartz February 18, 2020 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 22 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:carolyn rusch Sent:Thursday, February 20, 2020 10:18 AM To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Wooddale bike submission, for record for council members CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Ben manibog, My name is Carolyn Rusch and I live at 4328 W 43 1/2 St which is a cul de sac off of Wooddale. I am speaking about the Wooddale section of the Bikeway. The bicycle plan proposed by the city for Wooddale Ave flew under the radar for 1 1/2 years as there was no consultation or information provided to the affected neighborhood until May of 2019. By the time most of the people affected by the Bikeway learned that a Bikeway was proposed, the parking bay plan was already adopted. The city seems determined to put in parking bays and doesn't seem to be open to alternate ideas. I have lived on Wooddale for 25 years with its beautiful tree lined streets. Most of my neighbors are also long time residents of 30-35 years. Although we are happy to have bikers in a share the road setting, as we approach our 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, we are not as able as we would like to bike ourselves due to age, health problems and ease of use. We rely on cars as our transportation needs and parking is thus vital. We still want safety for bikers and walkers who use our street and sidewalks and think that intersections are all very important component of our street scape safety plan. Please reject the parking bay plan and consider a pilot plan with parallel share the road Bikeways on Wooddale Ave and Browndale Ave. Thank you. Carolyn Rusch     Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 23  &-/);%=7)0)'8-32+9-()`&-/);%=7)0)'8-32 *MKYVI       N N N N N N N N N N   7IITEKIJSVEHMWGYWWMSRSJEPXIVREXMZIWMJXLITVIJIVVIHFMOI[E]X]TIMWRSXJIEWMFPI 2SXIW City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 24 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Brenda Rosenhamer Sent:Thursday, February 20, 2020 6:54 AM To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Southeast Bikeway Wooddale, Public Hearing February 18, 2020 - Volume and Speed Attachments:Volume and Speed.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Ben,  Please add the note below and attachment to the public record for the Southeast Bikeway Wooddale, Public Hearing  February 18, 2020.  ‐ Volume and Speed  Thank you.  Brenda Rosenhamer  Wooddale Avenue 4262  Dear Mayor Spano and Council Members,  It has come to light that the sole decision making research used to determine two important factors for the design of the  current Wooddale plan is this one page graph.  A GRAPH.  Volume and speed were based on this one page graph to  decide on a conventional lane which could have just as easily been argued for Share the Road.  When the NTSB has  published a complete and authoritative investigation of over 100,000 cyclists crashes and documents the performance  statistics of designs, auto speed safety and auto volume safety, our sole research was a GRAPH.  This is the extent of the  FHWA and MNDOT guidance we are using.  It’s alarming.  Guidance provided by Engineer Ben Manibog.  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 25 2 The FHWA and MnDOT resources can be accessed at the links below:  FHWA ‐ Bikeway Selection Guide  https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf  Publication information is at the beginning of the document.   MnDOT ‐ MnDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual  https://www.dot.state.mn.us/bike/bicycle‐facility‐design‐manual.html   It doesn't appear there is similar publication information on the website or document other than it was  updated in Feb. 2020. You can contact Hannah Pritchard at MnDOT, whose name/contact info is listed on the  manual's website, for further information about that.   As far as what is referenced in your excerpt below, see the following:  FHWA o Page 23, Figure 9 MnDOT o Pages 3‐8 and 3‐9, Exhibit 3‐3 Please consider a Share the Road  PILOT for Wooddale, for quarter mile lengths, that will be  SAFE and follow the NTSB guidance we know is factual and whole.  Thank you.  Brenda Rosenhamer  4262 Wooddale  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 26 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Brenda Rosenhamer Sent:Wednesday, February 19, 2020 11:36 AM To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Southeast Bikeway Wooddale, Public Hearing February 18, 2020 - Public Record Document CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Ben,  Please add the following document to the public record.      Thank you!  ‐Brenda Rosenhamer  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  Dear Mayor Spano and Council Members:  Southeast Bikeway Wooddale Public Hearing February 18, 2020 – Public Record Document  Please see exhibit 1.0 below.  Conventional bike lane – proper right turn.  Please see exhibit 2.0 below.  Since Wooddale is too narrow for this application, I would likely apply Council Member  Margaret Rog’s previous comment to my auto driving.  To the effect – “as a biker, to get out in front of the traffic to  control the traffic is safer than relying on driver judgment...”  Because of the confusing situation created on Wooddale  with the driveways….I would do the same on Wooddale but for bikers.  Because I don’t want to depend on the biker to  see me, especially since they would be coming from a short sight intersection  ‐  I will be USING the bike lane to get out  in front of the biker 30 feet before my turn into my driveway, to control the biker traffic from unexpectedly coming up  my right side in the middle of a turn.  There really is no other risk management option for the driver on Wooddale.  The  biker will have the option to wait for me to finish my turn.      Since we have 38 driveways – the entire bike lane will double as a right turn lane for autos AND/OR be a constant source  of confusion as to the right of way.    This will cause additional crash risk.  Midblock.  In addition, overtakes and hit from behinds will likely increase since timing is difficult on a busy road with  many moving parts, making it difficult to gauge all of the speeds of the surrounding participants.  Following the guidance of the FHWA, NACTO and NTSB guidance on driveways, Wooddale does NOT qualify for a  conventional lane due to a high density of driveways which cause a high crash risk. This is another example, why.  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 27 2 Exhibit 1.0  Exhibit 2.0  This is yet another reason to propose a PILOT for Wooddale as a “3 option ‐Share the Road” with lower  volume,  lower speeds, possible road diets and creating a sustainable and livable neighborhood for Connect  the Park 2.0.  Thank you for your consideration.  Sincerely,  Brenda Rosenhamer  4262 Wooddale Avenue CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any attachments. Thank you. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 28 I’m Brenda Rosenhamer on Wooddale Avenue 4262, for 20 years. The future of biking is SAFETY. So that all abilities can be comfortable and safe and our communities, livable. It follows, then, we should be following the National Transportation Safety Board, Biking Safety Report. It is the highest authority in transportation safety in the United States. They recently investigated over 100,000 cyclist crashes because of an alarming uptick in biking fatalities. And published in November of 2019, a large-scale investigation documenting performance and statistics of bike lane designs, auto volumes and auto speeds for safety. In relation to NACTO? bike specific guidance without performance. In relation to FHWA? generalized highway safety guidance. with limited bike guidance. This current plan is using FHWA and MNDOT, generalized automobile guidance with limited biking knowledge. We asked… *We asked for traffic calming? The FHWA does not have countermeasures. So the #1 countermeasure to lowering speeds, On-street parking, was eliminated. Interestingly, FHWA recommends not to remove parking if all properties do not have adequate vehicle storage space. (Wooddale.) *We asked to lower volume? In reverse, the city applied for collector road status, allowing for 10,000 ADT and 9-ton vehicles. Both NTSB and NACTO recommend ONLY vertically, physically, protected lanes over 6000 ADT and 30 mph operational speeds. Wooddale cannot support high volumes of traffic and a bike lane, we are a residential road without the space for protected lanes. Given the logic of the city. Lastly, NTSB calls for possible road diets at 2000 or above. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 29 *When we asked to lower speeds? a collector road cements us at 30 mph. Which is unfortunate, the NTSB found 30mph to have a high crash and fatality risk. Large urban cities including Minneapolis and St. Paul are already adopting 25mph defaults. *Instead of research (NTSB), the city is using a one-page vague FHWA graph to support the sophisticated decision on volume and speed for our biking lanes! It can be manipulated to fit the narrative of a ‘collector road’ which we are not. •FHWA o Page 23, Figure 9 •FHWA - Bikeway Selection Guide •https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf Negligent and Dangerous! *When we asked for Share the Road because 38 driveways and sight risk in a conventional lane plan create high crash risk? The FHWA should have been applied consistently to disqualify the current plan. 2019 FHWA says: •The driveways are frequent (we have 38 in two blocks) - disqualifier •Driveways with limited sight lines are a high crash risk (4200 ½) - disqualifier •There are relatively short distances between driveways (Wooddale) - disqualifier ---------------- Let’s pivot. I suggest we pilot the next generation of biking, a “Share the Road” plan- Connect the Park 2.0 – it follows the NTSB safety, creates all abilities biking in quarter mile increments, creates livable, sustainable neighborhoods and is on budget. Thank you. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 30 W o o d d a l e A v e n u e B i k e L a n e P a g e 1 | 1 Sources: Southeast Bikeway Wooddale Biking Guidance Please see the following sources. It was provided in good faith, and was triple checked that all of this information supplied is correct and accurate. FHWA Separated Bike Lane Guide 2014 https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2-4_FHWA-Separated-Bike-Lane-Guide-ch-5_2014.pdf National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide: http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/ FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/guidance/info_guide/ch3.cfm#s335 NTSB Biking Report Palo Alto, CA https://www.altaprojects.net/files/7313/1247/9077/Palo_Alto_BPTP_Draft_Appendices_rev_8-3.pdf NTSB https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1901.pdf City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 31 W o o d d a l e A v e n u e , N T S B A u t h o r i t a t i v e B i k e L a n e P a g e 1 | 1 NTSB is the authority in transportation for the United States. Their report on Bike Safety published November 2019 surpasses prior biking guidance such as NACTO, making them the authority in biking safety and design. A graph is located below as some people are more visual. And following, you can see the differences in direction for safe biking designs, auto speeds and auto volumes. NTSB Guidance: All guidance includes midblock considerations, intersection considerations, and intersections transition treatments. NACTO follows these guides as well. 2019. 1.Volumes. Cut-offs as follows: a.0-2000 b.2000-6000, (not 3200 as presented in current plan) c.6000+, Separated bike lane only – vertical, physical protected 1.Speeds. Lowering operational speeds is highly recommended in all cases. NACTO follows. a.0-25mph operational speed ▪RECOMMENDED IN ALL CASES ▪Multiple bike lane styles including Share the Road ▪Traffic calming ▪Road Diets, Possibly b.30-35mph – operational speed ▪45% of all crashes and 65% chance higher fatalities. ▪Separated bike lane only – vertical, physical protected ▪Road diets ▪Traffic calming c.40-45 mph – operational speed ▪185% chance higher fatalities ▪Separated bike lane only– vertical, physical protected 2.Conventional lanes are not recommended for roadways with a high density of vehicle curb cuts, driveways or highly active operational curbs. 3.Share the road is appropriate for up to 6000 cars per day. o Lower Speeds, recommend 25mph operational speed or below o Traffic Calming, create safety and comfort o Road Diets, possibly limit auto lanes 0 10 20 30 40 Biking Transportation, Authority and Guidance NTSB NACTO FHWA City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 32 From:Rachel Harris To:Ben Manibog Jr; Cc:Debra Heiser; Tom Harmening; Jack Sullivan Subject:Fwd: Southeast Bikeway Wooddale, Pilot Wooddale, Feb 18th Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2020 3:45:42 PM Attachments:NTSB.docx FHWA.docx Sources.docx Hi Ben, I hope you enjoyed the President's Day weekend holiday! I'm reaching out now to forward pilot project comments from Brenda R. We had a walking meeting with residents along Wooddale Ave. Sharing Brenda's thoughts about a pilot project now...please read below. P.S. Would you include them in the public record? And, connect with Brenda on any questions she has...Thanks! Sincerely, Rachel From: Brenda Rosenhamer Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 9:26 AM To: Rachel Harris Subject: Southeast Bikeway Wooddale, Pilot Wooddale, Feb 18th CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Member Harris, Thank you once again for visiting our street with us! I am following up with better information on FHWA and NACTO and NTSB in hopes this will be helpful for tonight’s meeting. The next generation of biking means we create a biking plan that will age well. And the future of biking is SAFETY. Safety is the foundation for sustainable neighborhoods, livability and all- abilities biking. My request is to pilot a “Share the Road” plan for Wooddale, it follows the leading guidance on biking safety from the NTSB and NACTO. Its safety will be the foundation for a footprint that can be successfully repeated elsewhere in St. Louis Park as we look to develop quarter mile lengths of biking paths. Let’s build Minnesota’s SAFE biking reputation. Not so interestingly, the current plan looks an awful lot like what we’ve always done, 20 years on copy and paste using FHWA guidance. Let’s open dialogue. FHWA safety guidance isn’t specific to biking. It’s not working. For example, why do you think the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) published a 150-page review of over 100,000 cyclists’ crashes? Because they were asked! It’s an important enough issue that the NTSB published 150 pages of direction. And our city isn’t using it. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 33 The NTSB is the highest authority in the United States for Transportation. They have the authority to investigate any mode of transportation, and a perfect recent example of that is their investigation of the I-35 Bridge collapse in Minneapolis. The NTSB found that biking fatalities have a concerning trend higher since 2007. It’s a safety epidemic, exponential, and they were asked to find out WHY? Why so many fatalities; 8,908 fatalities since 2007. That’s more than any plane crash in the United States in our history. Would that be tolerated by the FAA? A good example is Boeing. Boeing had two planes that crashed of faulty design and the response was to sideline its whole fleet of that plane design until the problem was corrected. Boeing is held accountable why not biking facilities. Yet, we copy and paste our old biking designs. Minnesota is no different from other states, we also have high fatalities. If we want to be a number one bike friendly state, but we don’t care to have thoughtful design and to do this right, our drivers won’t respect the biking community. Stunningly, 3 out of 4 fatalities, were adult men. The ratio of bike to work is 3:1, men to women. The roads with operational speeds of 30-35mph result in 45% of all crashes and increase fatalities by 65% per crash. The story is beginning to make sense. The 4-7% of confident bikers using the higher operational speed roads ARE NOT SAFE using the bike designs we’ve always used; much less the all-abilities biker. The current plan design is doubling down on what we have always done, and it’s lethal. Based on Emergency Department records, there were 2,183,000 biking injuries in just 12 years! So, when I say the story is starting to make sense, this is not a story, these are facts that need to be followed. Our cities need to be willing to connect the dots, to have an open dialogue about safety and to have local government representatives that want to do the right thing, that want safety and want to pivot. FHWA.  The guidance being used for the Wooddale Southeast Bikeway is the FHWA, an organization responsible for general auto and highway traffic design, with limited biking specific guidance. That we are using non-specific bike guidance for ADT volume and speed, two of the major factors in design is alarming. Furthermore, the guidance seems to be applied inconsistently because if one reads further into the FHWA documents – had it been applied consistently - the current plan would have been disqualified. See attachment. NTSB is the authority in transportation for the United States.  Their report on Bike Safety published November 2019 surpasses prior biking guidance such as NACTO, making them the authority in biking safety and design.   A graph is attached as some people are more visual. You will see the differences in direction for safe biking designs, auto speeds and auto volumes. Had it been applied; the current plan would have been disqualified. See attachment. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 34 A vote for the current plan is a vote for the status quo of high fatality risk. Let’s pilot Wooddale Avenue as a sustainable neighborhood bike plan, a three-street Share the Road plan.   It follows the latest NTSB findings.  It creates sustainable neighborhoods for future quarter mile lengths of biking paths.  It is the FUTURE of biking – SAFETY.  It gives options to all abilities of biking.  And it is budget friendly. I look forward to seeing you at the public hearing this evening and depending on available time, am hoping to speak on this topic. Please feel free to reach me with any questions, I am available most days as a small business owner (and evenings.) Sincerely, Brenda Rosenhamer 4262 Wooddale Avenue M. Email. February 18, 2020 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 35 FHWA Wooddale Avenue, Guidance not specific to biking Page 1 | 1 FHWA. The guidance being used for the Wooddale Southeast Bikeway is the FHWA, an organization responsible for general auto and highway traffic design, with limited biking specific guidance. Furthermore, the guidance seems to be applied inconsistently because if one reads further into the FHWA documents – had it been applied consistently - the current plan would have been disqualified. Points of concern are as follows. 1.FHWA is not specific to Biking. They are guidance for general highway auto use. NTSB reported in November of 2019 FHWA’s lack of specific biking design elements and countermeasures. Page 41. 2.FHWA has no specific biking countermeasures, to ensure safety of bikers. “There are no bicycle-specific countermeasures on the FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures list (2019), despite the DOT’s 2010 policy calling for the improvement of bicycle and pedestrian safety.” NTSB Page 44. This shows a simple reason why on-street parking, a #1 countermeasure for lowering speed, has not been applied in the current plan; it is not in the tool box of measures. 3.FHWA DOES publish Driveway guidance in their one guide for biking, this was omitted in the Wooddale plan. It would have disqualified the conventional lane. “Driveways that intersect with separated bike lanes create a potential crash risk due to the conflict between turning motor vehicles and through bicyclists. The risk is increased at locations where there is poor sight distance. “…” consolidate or relocate driveways and access to minimize the number of conflict points along the corridor.” Page 89. Wooddale has 38 driveways in two blocks and short sights! 4.FHWA DOES publish Midblock design elements and conflict points. These were omitted in the Wooddale plan. They would have disqualified the conventional lane. “Identify Midblock Design Challenges and Solutions. Driveways present concerns due to challenges with sight distance and driver expectations that can be minimized through design treatments and driveway consolidation.” Page 75. Applied correctly, as was done by Palo Alto, CA – application of conventional lanes is not appropriate for roadways with a high density of vehicle curb cuts (parking bays)/driveways. 5.FHWA DOES publish Intersection design elements, which were omitted from the Wooddale plan. They would have disqualified the conventional lane. Wooddale does not have room in 30 feet of road and two lanes of auto traffic for proper intersection safety design for conventional striped bike lanes. Page 78, 106, 111, 114 etc. 6.FHWA promotes road diet design elements to improve safety. The small amount of guidance that the FHWA DOES have on biking safety is promoting others’ contributions to safety - “3.4 Road Diet Handbook: Setting Trends for Livable Streets.” The FHWA is promoting livable street design when incorporating biking. o Improve safety o Reduce speeds o Mitigate queues associated with left-turning traffic o Improve pedestrian environment o Improve bicyclist accessibility o Enhance transit stops. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 36 Wooddale Avenue, NTSB Authoritative Bike Lane Page 1 | 1 NTSB is the authority in transportation for the United States. Their report on Bike Safety published November 2019 surpasses prior biking guidance such as NACTO, making them the authority in biking safety and design. A graph is located below as some people are more visual. And following, you can see the differences in direction for safe biking designs, auto speeds and auto volumes. NTSB Guidance: All guidance includes midblock considerations, intersection considerations, and intersections transition treatments. NACTO follows these guides as well. 2019. 1.Volumes. Cut-offs as follows: a.0-2000 b.2000-6000, (not 3200 as presented in current plan) c.6000+, Separated bike lane only – vertical, physical protected 1.Speeds. Lowering operational speeds is highly recommended in all cases. NACTO follows. a.0-25mph operational speed RECOMMENDED IN ALL CASES Multiple bike lane styles including Share the Road Traffic calming Road Diets, Possibly b.30-35mph – operational speed 45% of all crashes and 65% chance higher fatalities. Separated bike lane only – vertical, physical protected Road diets Traffic calming c.40-45 mph – operational speed 185% chance higher fatalities Separated bike lane only– vertical, physical protected 2.Conventional lanes are not recommended for roadways with a high density of vehicle curb cuts, driveways or highly active operational curbs. 3.Share the road is appropriate for up to 6000 cars per day. o Lower Speeds, recommend 25mph operational speed or below o Traffic Calming, create safety and comfort o Road Diets, possibly limit auto lanes 0 10 20 30 40 Biking Transportation, Authority and Guidance NTSB NACTO FHWA City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 37 Wooddale Avenue Bike Lane Page 1 | 1 Sources: Southeast Bikeway Wooddale Biking Guidance Please see the following sources. It was provided in good faith, and was triple checked that all of this information supplied is correct and accurate. FHWA Separated Bike Lane Guide 2014 https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2-4_FHWA-Separated-Bike-Lane-Guide-ch-5_2014.pdf National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide: http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/ FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/guidance/info_guide/ch3.cfm#s335 NTSB Biking Report Palo Alto, CA https://www.altaprojects.net/files/7313/1247/9077/Palo_Alto_BPTP_Draft_Appendices_rev_8-3.pdf NTSB https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1901.pdf City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 38 F H W A W o o d d a l e A v e n u e , G u i d a n c e n o t s p e c i f i c t o b i k i n g P a g e 1 | 1 FHWA. The guidance being used for the Wooddale Southeast Bikeway is the FHWA, an organization responsible for general auto and highway traffic design, with limited biking specific guidance. Furthermore, the guidance seems to be applied inconsistently because if one reads further into the FHWA documents – had it been applied consistently - the current plan would have been disqualified. Points of concern are as follows. 1.FHWA is not specific to Biking. They are guidance for general highway auto use. NTSB reported in November of 2019 FHWA’s lack of specific biking design elements and countermeasures. Page 41. 2.FHWA has no specific biking countermeasures, to ensure safety of bikers. “There are no bicycle-specific countermeasures on the FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures list (2019), despite the DOT’s 2010 policy calling for the improvement of bicycle and pedestrian safety.” NTSB Page 44. This shows a simple reason why on-street parking, a #1 countermeasure for lowering speed, has not been applied in the current plan; it is not in the tool box of measures. 3.FHWA DOES publish Driveway guidance in their one guide for biking, this was omitted in the Wooddale plan. It would have disqualified the conventional lane. “Driveways that intersect with separated bike lanes create a potential crash risk due to the conflict between turning motor vehicles and through bicyclists. The risk is increased at locations where there is poor sight distance. “…” consolidate or relocate driveways and access to minimize the number of conflict points along the corridor.” Page 89. Wooddale has 38 driveways in two blocks and short sights! 4.FHWA DOES publish Midblock design elements and conflict points. These were omitted in the Wooddale plan. They would have disqualified the conventional lane. “Identify Midblock Design Challenges and Solutions. Driveways present concerns due to challenges with sight distance and driver expectations that can be minimized through design treatments and driveway consolidation.” Page 75. Applied correctly, as was done by Palo Alto, CA – application of conventional lanes is not appropriate for roadways with a high density of vehicle curb cuts (parking bays)/driveways. 5.FHWA DOES publish Intersection design elements, which were omitted from the Wooddale plan. They would have disqualified the conventional lane. Wooddale does not have room in 30 feet of road and two lanes of auto traffic for proper intersection safety design for conventional striped bike lanes. Page 78, 106, 111, 114 etc. 6.FHWA promotes road diet design elements to improve safety. The small amount of guidance that the FHWA DOES have on biking safety is promoting others’ contributions to safety - “3.4 Road Diet Handbook: Setting Trends for Livable Streets.” The FHWA is promoting livable street design when incorporating biking. o Improve safety o Reduce speeds o Mitigate queues associated with left-turning traffic o Improve pedestrian environment o Improve bicyclist accessibility o Enhance transit stops. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 39 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Brenda Rosenhamer Sent:Monday, February 24, 2020 6:49 AM To:Jake Spano; Margaret Rog; Larry Kraft; Rachel Harris; Tim Brausen; Nadia Mohamed; Anne Mavity Cc:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Alternative Bike Lane Idea + Right Turns for those who are Visual, For the Record CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Dear Mayor and Council Members,  For those that are visual, I am attaching 1. Right turn design graphics for conventional bike lanes and 2. Alternative Idea  that could be incorporated with another share the road.    1.Creating a respectful bike plan for bikers.  The decision tree for volume and speed using the FHWA and MNDOT guide should have brought the decision for Wooddale to STOP.  The FHWA mentions driveways 15 times with language such as infrequent, long distances apart and with sight lines.  None of these apply to Wooddale.  A conventional lane should have been disqualified and since there is no other safe lane for 30 mph or high volume and no traffic calming, EXCEPT a separate vertically physically protected lane, the decision should have STOPPED as Wooddale cannot retrofit such a lane. 2.Second, the decision tree for volume and speed using FHWA, NACTO and NTSB guidance should have brought the decision to add traffic calming, lowering speed to 25 mph and potentially a road diet – THEN a sharrow lane is the only viable option for Wooddale because again – the driveways should have disqualified the conventional lane.  Should the speed be brought to 20 mph, perhaps a 9 foot fully buffered lane plus on‐street parking may potentially have been an option.  Very slow traffic and very slow biking. 3.Right turn lanes are suggested by NACTO in conventional bike lane designs. Exhibit 1.0  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 40 2 Exhibit  2.0  4.Another interesting Idea.  When applying our neighborhood collaboration, we are able to find many solutions.  Below is a version of an alternative plan that can be used in conjunction with a sharrow plan.   This would also fix the storm system that is over capacity and requiring replacement or permanent repair. The Ride:  Beginning from 4200 ½  intersection, we repurpose a city area that needs repair anyway (an old storm water  system) and take the already existing walking path into a multi‐use path to Quentin.  Quentin is a short little one block,  quiet, nearly no traffic street, perfect for all‐abilities bikers.  Quentin would sharrow across Morningside and into  Browndale Park.  Then, we would cut an all‐abilities bike path through Browndale park to the south that links to either  Dart or Glen Plc – also one block streets.  Those streets are super quiet and could easily be sharrows for all‐abilities  biking.     Depending on how fancy you want to get, the Browndale Park path could head straight to Dart, or take a curve  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 41 3 around the pond to take in another water feature and connect to Glen Plc.  It really would take advantage of the  investments at Browndale Park (warming house, baseball field, open green area, playground) – making it a destination  park??  We need picnic tables maybe to do that??  A bike repair spot at the warming house (Matt Delisle’s idea.)    Did that make sense?  Sunday will be a good time to speak about it – get your thoughts.  Glad to answer any questions  then or now if you like.  As you know, the storm system in our back yards needs to be replaced or given a permanent repair for years to come.    This bike plan would be a repurpose repair that creates a new way to handle storm water, a pond with a culvert in the middle that will allow release of water both ways, in/out.  The 90 degree angle pipe below the ground would need to be fixed, but the rest of the pipe system could be used??  So this picture isn’t quite exactly correct because it doesn’t have the culvert. The pond could be simply finished in rock with rain water plants.  The design is relatively simple. We already have historical trees in our back yards and so this could be a once and done beauty of a path.  Once we can stop the flooding, we have a chance at planting more trees in our yards. The water area is surrounded by berms to control water flooding – in our case to the neighborhood homes destroying our yards. The top of the berm could be the raised multi‐use lane behind 4200 ½ ‐ creating a multi‐use path that leads to Quentin.   A public waking path already exists here.  We would be rebuilding an already public space. Since there is a path located here for walking anyway, we are used to public traffic. You have plenty of space to develop something beautiful. It’s already on the St. Louis Park list for snow clearing. I have attached storm water pictures for you to reference, work needs done. The preference then for confident bikers who want direct routes, this would be a nearly direct route from 4200 ½ to 44th – just one block parallel to Wooddale. The residents will want a good looking fence, we already have had some random vandalism and dog waste problems in the public area which is our back yards. A raised bike path will keep mischief lower, not inviting people to leave the lane. It would need good lighting in the evenings. Perhaps we would need to bury some electrical lines. Please consider a pilot project , a Connect the Park 2.0, one that considers the options and uses the resources of the  community as a  way to involve and evolve biking for the good, getting all bikers involved with biking, including the 56%  of interested and concerned.  It’s where we meet tax payer needs, and also create value for the city.  Thank you.  Brenda Rosenhamer  Brenda Rosenhamer Wooddale Avenue CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any attachments. Thank you. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 42 From:Jack Sullivan To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:FW: Southeast area bikeway project Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2020 3:59:36 PM Jack Sullivan Senior Engineering Project Manager | City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Office: 952.924.2691 www.stlouispark.org Experience LIFE in the Park. From: Tim Brausen <tpbrausen@gmail.com>  Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 3:54 PM To: Derek Reise  Cc: Tom Harmening <THARMENING@stlouispark.org>; Debra Heiser <dheiser@stlouispark.org>; Jack Sullivan <jsullivan@stlouispark.org> Subject: Re: Southeast area bikeway project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thanks, Derek.  By copy of this email I am forwarding your comments to our staff, for inclusion in our Council feedback materials.  Regards, Tim TIMOTHY PAUL BRAUSEN Attorney at Law 8301 Virginia Circle North St. Louis Park, MN 55426-2447 Telephone: 952-451-8492 Certified Real Property Law Specialist as certified by the Minnesota State Bar Association On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:51 AM Derek Reise wrote: Tim, As a resident of Ward 4, I would like to voice my support for the proposed plan for the southeast area bikeway project. This is an important part of the Connect the Park vision. I believe the project will increase safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as encourage bicycling as an alternative to cars. I hope the council will support the project without reservation. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 43 Sincerely, Derek Reise 2044 Idaho Ave S, St Louis Park, MN 55426 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 44 From:Rachel Harris To:Ben Manibog Jr Cc: Tom Harmening; Jack Sullivan Subject:Fw: Do Not Proceed & Cancel Changes to Wooddale Avenue between Excelsior & 44th Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2020 3:33:20 PM Hi Ben, Over the weekend I met with residents along Wooddale Ave for a walking meeting. As they shared their ideas and hopes, I requested an email encapsulating their comments. Relaying Gwen's email now...please read below. P.S. Would you incorporate these into the public record? Sincerely, Rachel Rachel Harris (she/her/hers) City Council, Ward 3 | City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 www.stlouispark.org Experience LIFE in the Park. From: Gwen Mortenson Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2020 7:30 PM To: Jake Spano <jspano@stlouispark.org>; Anne Mavity <amavity@stlouispark.org>; Margaret Rog <mrog@stlouispark.org>; Rachel Harris <rharris@stlouispark.org>; Tim Brausen <tbrausen@stlouispark.org>; Larry Kraft <LKraft@stlouispark.org>; Nadia Mohamed <NMohamed@stlouispark.org> Subject: Do Not Proceed & Cancel Changes to Wooddale Avenue between Excelsior & 44th CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor and Council Members, We join our neighbors is being against changes proposed for Wooddale Avenue, and we ask you all to put a stop to all aspects of this plan once and for all. A "Major Collector Road" is totally inappropriate in this residential neighborhood. It's an appalling surprise that the city has come up with this plan that will decrease the livability and beauty of our neighborhood in many respects. The changes you're considering will negatively affect all residents of the neighborhood and City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 45 only benefit people who don't live here. Commercial and other transit traffic can continue to go several blocks East to travel on France or utilize Hwy. 100. As neighborhood residents who live a couple blocks away on Salem, we drive on Wooddale, and often enjoy biking on Wooddale and taking walks on Wooddale's sidewalks and see no need for or advantages to proposed changes. People who actually live here need the parking spaces that would be lost to give people who are not residents a faster route. The higher speeds that occur on Major Collector Roads and all roads with less street parking that therefore appear wider will decrease safety for drivers and all of us walkers and our kids heading to school, plus likely adversely affect property values for the lovely homes on Wooddale. Loss of the huge, beautiful trees that have survived pests and climate challenges for decades and continue to thrive would also be horrible and definitely not in line with our city's vision goal to lead in environmental stewardship and maintain green space. Our tax dollars can be better spent on positive improvements and maintenance in our great city. One thing definitely needing improvement is snow removal. We need to get snow plowed as adequately and excellently as it was in the past. I chose to live in St. Louis Park, and it feels like we live in Minneapolis now as our streets narrow from lack of plowing curb to curb in recent years. Spending dollars on that, instead of bad changes to Wooddale, would benefit everyone in our city, and there are other "good spends" that would benefit our community. In the "Culture Statement" on the city website, the Quality section says that: We are committed to providing programs and services of the highest quality that fulfill the needs of residents in an innovative, effective and respectful way. Changes to Wooddale don't meet that mission. Be good stewards for our neighborhood and city and please act to stop changes proposed to Wooddale without delay. Sincerely, Gwen & Mike Mike Lebus & Gwen Mortenson 4200 Salem Ave S St. Louis Park, MN 55416 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 46 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:James D. Kremer Sent:Friday, February 21, 2020 6:48 PM To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Southeast/Wooddale Bike Path -- Follow Up to Public Meeting Attachments:IMG_0814.jpg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Ben – I am writing this to supplement the thoughts I shared during the public meeting on February 20.  I request this be  provided to the members of the City Council and included in the public record.  We have resided at 4346 Wooddale for  20 years.  In the limited 3 minutes available to me during the Public Hearing, I focused on your statement that the current  proposed plan for Wooddale constitutes the “next best thing” to bike paths separated and protected from traffic by  bollards or some other physical barrier.  You candidly acknowledged during your presentation to the Council on  roadways with higher traffic speeds and volume – such as Wooddale – there is a increased, greater need for protection  of bikers through the use of bollards or another physical barrier.  You also candidly acknowledged that Wooddale is a  narrow street as it is; that widening the street is not a feasible option for economic and other reasons (including the  substantial loss of trees that would accompany any widening); and that therefore truly protected bike lanes through the  use of physical barriers between the bicyclist and automobile traffic is not an option.  After thus ruling out the only safe bike lane option for a narrow street with high traffic volume and automobile speed,  you stated that Staff decided to recommend the “next best thing” – the current plan of dedicated bike lanes and  removing the center line striping on the narrow street that is Wooddale.  I challenged the notion that the current plan is  truly the “next best thing,” particularly when perfectly reasonable and significantly safer alternative routes are readily  available.  The most obvious alternative routes include the Browndale routing option that apparently was considered  and rejected.  I and several of my neighbors have repeatedly asked both Staff and Councilmember Mavity “why not  the  Browndale route”  Councilmember Mavity’s response was that she thinks the “biking public” wants a more direct route  using Wooddale and would not use the Browndale route.  Of course, no underlying objective or even anectdotal data or  evidence was provided by Ms. Mavity in support of her belief … something we her constituents have unfortunately  grown accustomed to throughout this process.  Perhaps Ms. Mavity was expressing her personal viewpoint as someone  who is clearly an experienced biker and falls outside the “interested but concerned” bicyclist population we’ve been told  repeatedly is the target audience of this effort.  That clearly is not a  sound basis for making irrevocable changes to an  established neighborhood at exorbitant expense, blindly pushing ahead with the so‐called “next best thing” that clearly  compromises the safety of the “interested by concerned” bicyclist for the benefit  of the few experienced bicyclists who  use Woodale in its current state.  The Memorandum prepared by Staff for the Public Hearing addressed the question of whether an alternate route was  considered for Wooddale Avenue.  I’d like to respond to the bullet point statements set forth in the memorandum  purportedly addressing this central question, first setting forth the Staff statement and then my thoughts.  “During the community engagement process, an alternative bicycle route was explored using Browndale Avenue, Morningside Road, Quentin Avenue, and an existing trail to get to the intersection of Wooddale Avenue and 42 ½ Street.  When shown at the second open house in September 2018, there was no strong support for the alternative over the Wooddale Avenue route.” City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 47 2 o The suggestion that “there was no strong support for the alternative over the Wooddale Avenue route” with reference only to the September 2018 open house is incredibly misleading and unfaithful to the record here.  The September 2018 open house occurred long before the Browndale neighborhood was even aware of the City’s plan.  As should be plainly evident from the several formal and informal meetings that have occurred since this issue came to the affected public’s attention last spring, a petition with some 1700 signatures on it, and the comments made at the Public Hearing,  there is widespread and almost universal opposition to the Wooddale route … the only exception being the councilperson who is supposed to be representing our interests, and the handful of experience biking enthusiast who do not live in the area and do not fall within the “interested but concerned” target  audience.  To suggest that there has not been vociferous support for the Browndale route alternative simply is not accurate. “According to the FHWA, effective bicycle networks lead to more people bicycling by creating bicycle routs that are efficient, seamless, and easy to use.  The three most important principles (out of seven) are safety, comfort, and connectivity.” o This statement  is not followed by any effort to explain how the Wooddale route most effectively addresses and advances two of the “three most important principles” – namely safety and comfort.  The reason for this omission, as reflected by the comments of many of my neighbors who are themselves enthusiastic bicyclists, is obvious – because the Wooddale plan as compared to the Browndale alternative (or the Grimes/Joppa options) clearly compromises safety and comfort by any reasonable comparison. “Having a bikeway on Wooddale Avenue over an alternative route focuses on the connectivity principle.  Trips within a bicycle network should be direct and convenient and offer access to the same destinations served by the roadway network.” o In other words, the current plan gives controlling weight to the “connectivity principle” at the expense of safety and comfort.  Who does that serve?  Certainly not the “interested but concerned” bicyclist who values safety and comfort over all else and will be dissuaded from using a bike route – even a more direct route – that is not safe.  Certainly not the taxpaying citizens of St.  Louis Park who risk financial exposure to personal injury liability when – as will inevitably occur if this reckless plan is  adopted – there is a serious automobile/bicycle incident on the Wooddale stretch with completely unprotected bike lanes.  Implementing the bike lanes on Wooddale as currently proposed is akin to creating an attractive nuisance that invites the novice or child biker to ride directly next to fast moving and high volume traffic under the misassumption that the path must be safe because the City would not have put it in were it otherwise.  Someone going to get serious hurt, if not killed, if the Wooddale plan is adopted and implemented.  When that happens and the City and members of the Council who approved this reckless plan are asked why Wooddale as opposed to a safer alternative, do you really believe the “connectivity principle” will be a an acceptable response in the eyes of the  public, a judge, and a jury – particularly when  myself and my neighbors will be ready and willing to attest as witnesses to the dangers of Wooddale, the fact that we repeatedly relayed to Staff and the Council our first hand experience’s living on this street and  how the current plan  is incredible unsafe, and we pleaded with the Staff and Council to select a reasonable, alternative, safer route. “Excessive distance is frequently notes as the most powerful deterrent to bicycling.  Research indicates that for an  alternative low‐stress route to be viable, the increase in trip length should be less than 30 percent.  To change the route from Wooddale Avenue to the Browndale Avenue route, it would increase the trip length by approximately 50 percent.” o With all due respect, the Wooddale route is 0.35 miles in length.  This statement suggests that Browndale would be a viable alternative route if the increased distance of that route in comparison to City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 48 3 Wooddale was less than 30 percent – for example, 0.0875 miles would be a 25 percent increase in  length.  As it is,  the Browndale route is a whopping 0.175 miles – 924 feet; less than the length of three  football  fields (including the end  zones).  Are you really saying that Bowndale would be a viable “low‐ stress” route if it only added 462 feet to the route, but an additional 462 feet makes it no longer  viable?  Are you really rejecting a safer, low‐stress alternative route over 462 feet in distance?    “Having a safe facility on the same routes as vehicles promotes biking because they connect directly to destinations that are desirable for everyone.  Directing bicycles to take a more circuitous rate, at the convenience of vehicles, does not prioritize bicycling.” o Are we prioritizing bicycling at all costs, even at the expense of safety?  One would think that the goal here should be the promotion of safe bicycling employing a low‐stress, safe route that encourages the “interested but concerned” individual.  This statement simply begs the question of whether the current plan if implemented will create a “safe facility” on Wooddale.  For the reasons set forth above, it clearly will not.  It certainly will not attract the “interested but concerned” biker.  Moreover, what precisely is the “desirable destination” that Wooddale route serves that would not similarly be served by a safer, adjacent, alternative route?  If,  as appears to be the case, the current recommended proposal is intended  to prioritize “connectivity” by the most direct route to “desirable destinations” (such as the Rec Center) then the best and clearly safest route is Grimes/Joppa – an arrow straight route from north to south from Excelsior and leading directly to the Rec Center north of Excelsior.  This route would come with the distinct added advantage of avoiding Wolfe Park, the roadway past the entrance/exit to Fresh Thyme, etc. – and would be substantially less expensive than what is currently planned. As should be clear from the above, the rationale for rejecting “an alternative bicycle route” to the 2+ block Wooddale  Avenue stretch simply cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny.  The current plan is not safe and clearly not the safest  viable option available; does not promote increased bicycling by the “interested but concerned” target audience;  promotes the interests of the limited group of experienced, bicycling enthusiasts who already use Wooddale; and, quite  frankly, is reckless from a fiscal and public safety standpoint.  Finally, please indulge a few very personal comments.  When our son Ben was born in August 1990 our dreams for him  were those of all first‐time parents – that he grow up healthy, happy and strong.  That he enjoy his childhood days as  many of us did, running and playing outside, tossing the football and baseball around with his friends, and – yes – riding  his bike with friends and family.  For Ben, however, that was not meant to be.  While apparently healthy at birth, by the  time Ben was nine months old he was not sitting up or crawling.  We were told by a neurologist that Ben had been born  with cerebral palsy.  As you might imagine, for parents – particularly first time parents – this news was devastating.  In  retrospect, however, I can honestly say that if we could wave a magic wand, eliminate the physical limitations and  challenges that Ben has, and live a different life over the past 29+ years we would not change a thing.  Ben has been  a  blessing of immense magnitude, not only to his Mom and  I,  but to his sisters, their friends, our friends and  family.  Although Ben cannot walk, cannot talk, cannot eat regular food (he has a  feeding tube), and do all of these  things we do every day and take for granted, he is the happiest person I know on the planet.  He brings joy to our lives  and the lives of everyone who has had the opportunity to meet and get to know Ben.  He lives at home with us and  always will.  What does any of this have to do with the Wooddale bike lane plans?  With his severe physical limitations, taking Ben to  family gatherings and events at other peoples’ homes is a significant challenge.  In many instances, it is simply  impossible.  As a consequence of this, our home has become the gathering place for friends and family who want to see  Ben  and include Ben in holidays, birthday parties, and other social gatherings.  It is not uncommon for us to have 30‐40  house guests, many who travel from outstate and other locations around the Twin Cities.  Not surprisingly, they travel to  our home in cars which must be parked.  Our single lane driveway cannot accommodate more than 3‐4 cars, so  our  guests park on the street.  There is a lot of parking on our street, particularly on nights, holidays and weekends when  friends and family gather.  If the current plan for Wooddale is adopted, parking within any reasonable walking distance  of our home will be eliminated.  A few parking bays accommodating 13 cars serving some 50 homes in this 2+ block  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 49 4 stretch of Wooddale will mean that at most times there will be little or no parking available.  What will that mean for us  and for Ben?  It will mean a devastating life change.  The gathering of family and friends at our home that Ben loves and  that are such a central part of his social life and well‐being simply will no longer be possible.  Is it fair or reasonable to  ask Ben to sacrifice such an important part of his life so that a handful of bicyclers are not inconvenience with a bike  path detour to avoid Wooddale of less than 2/10ths of a mile?  I ask each council member when he or she casts a vote on the Wooddale plan to think about Ben and how their vote will  dramatically impact the life of this wonderful young man.  Think about the elderly and others whose physical abilities  don’t allow them to jump on a bike, walk long distances or – like Ben – walk at all.  The decision you make on this will  have very, very real and meaningful impacts on people’s lives, including that of our son Ben.  Removing our parking is  not just an inconvenience for us and Ben.  It will be life altering in a very negative way.  I implore you to keep that  in  mind.  Keep Ben in mind.  I’ve attached a picture of Ben so you know whose way of life truly rests in your hands with  this vote.  Thank your for considering our thoughts.  Jim & Barb Kremer  4346 Wooddale Ave S  St.  Louis Park,  MN 55424  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 50 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 51 From: To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Bikeway Project Date:Tuesday, February 11, 2020 9:33:39 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Message submitted from the <St. Louis Park, MN> website. Site Visitor Name: Faith Kelley Site Visitor Email: I am writing to express my opposition to the bikeway project on Wooddale Avenue .I have lived on Browndale for over 30 years and walked on Wooddale hundreds of times. I have rarely seen bikers on the road. Removing trees and eliminating parking would benefit few, but harm the homes on Wooddale. I think it is a poor use of taxpayer money. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 52 ke d a/is/ao ? 8:3dm <ill. Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. My name is Susie Kaufman. My husband Gabe, and our two daughters, and I have lived at 4360 Wooddale Avenue for almost 4 years. We have significant concerns about the proposed bike lane with parking bays. We share many of the concerns voiced by our neighbors, but tonight I will speak specifically about the potential for increased speeds on our road. According to several studies our neighbors have shared with you, the elimination of parked cars along most of Wooddale will result in increased speeds of cars. This is incredibly problematic on a street that children use to walk to the bus stop, walk to their elementary school, walk to parks, and walk to friends' homes. As I recently mentioned to the city engineers, we already have a problem with cars that only come to a rolling stop at 44th and Wooddale. This is of particular concern to us, as our six year old's Saint Louis Park bus stop requires her to cross 44th Street into Edina twice each day. I am fearful of the day that drivers speed even more carelessly down Wooddale and roll right through that stop sign that many find incidental already. So as you consider making Saint Louis Park more bike and walker friendly, please note that increased speeds are inevitable according to your current plan, and therefore, dangerous to all Wooddale residents and visitors. Thank you. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 53 } m y nan? Is Ai [<dalway, d 1 f+,/a± +th at' we&lalac {s, cal' wWood&le laecase of jrz,,, re gs. So ma @b0>e 6 o' dale Vfihj no +- o e a ! \Woo&ale 4wi Vo ve og; case {ay r Js,uwM ' e es, P\-ease do»'+ ct Jo tu City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 54 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Ramona Johnson Sent:Monday, February 24, 2020 12:09 PM To:Ben Manibog Jr Cc:Jake Spano; Margaret Rog; Anne Mavity; Rachel Harris; Tim Brausen; Nadia Mohamed; Larry Kraft Subject:PLANNING INTEGRITY Additional Comment: Public Hearing of the Southeast Bikeway (Wooddale segment) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  City Council Members:  I understand that it has been brought to the attention of the SLP City Council an additional concern and design oversight  regarding the Wooddale section of the Southeast bikeway: “The MNDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual, which staff was  following for the design, indicates that the curb gutter pan is not to be included in the width of the bike path. The gutter  pan on Wooddale is 1.5 feet from the curb. This effectively decreases the bike lane width to 3.5 feet on a very busy, high  vehicle speed roadway. 3.5’ of bike path does not meet the minimum bike path width.”  This amplifies my concern that the overall design of this segment will not safely deliver on the multiple‐use  intent of the Southeast bikeway for bicyclists or pedestrians. Instead, the current design ironically continues to  favor automobile traffic.   SLP is a well‐regulated city in many respects, and I hope these additional facts will stir further reflection and  put the brakes on this project until a better and safer design is found.  Regardless how this is accomplished let me add that the current residential speed limit of 30 mph contributes to these  problems, throughout the City. I once heard a city officer remark that 25 mph is more common. My own cursory  research bears this out; in fact, 20 mph significantly decreases the mortality rate among persons being struck by  vehicles.   In addition to rethinking the Wooddale segment of the Southeast bikeway, please take up the issue of city‐ wide speed limits to equalize the benefits and safety of street and neighborhood life for bicyclists and  pedestrians, as well as for auto traffic. The Connect‐the‐Park effort requires this kind of integrity.  Ramona Johnson  4280 Wooddale Av  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 55 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:James Jerney Sent:Sunday, February 23, 2020 8:33 PM To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Southeast Bicycle Improvements CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Mr. Manibog,   Please add the following to the record for the Southeast Bicycle Facility Project:  Wooddale and 38th are the narrowest streets the city has ever proposed or constructed a bicycle lane. The community has not been provided with a final draft of the plan which includes all the details including crosswalks. Staff has acknowledged that a two foot buffer would increase safety, and has acknowledged that such a buffer is not possible on Wooddale. Staff has acknowledged that its expects box delivery trucks to use parking bays. Staff has also provided information reflecting this would block all or most of the bicycle lane. Staff has acknowledged a mid size car parked legally within 12 inches of the curb with its door open would block all or most of the bicycle lane. Storm drains may reduce the width of the bicycle facility to less than 5 feet. The intersection at Wooddale and 42 1/2 has poor sight lines, and may prevent cars from seeing cyclists, allowing a "right hook" accident to occur. It is foreseeable that students en route to Susan Lindgren will be attracted to the bicycle lane on Wooddale, and away from safer routes. The city has acknowledged there are lower traffic routes for child cyclists. The doctrine of "sovereign immunity" may not protect the city against tort liability where the city shows reckless disregard for human life. Respectfully,  Jim Jerney  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 56 From:Rachel Harris To:Ben Manibog Jr Cc:Tom Harmening; Jack Sullivan Subject:Fw: SE SLP bikeway project Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2020 3:23:21 PM Hi Ben, On Sunday in the nippy 25 degree weather, I attended a walking meeting with residentsalong Wooddale Ave. Clad in winter coats and boots, we walked up and down Wooddaleas I listened to residents' ideas. After the walk and talk, I requested that residents send anemail encapsulating their comments. Sharing Jennifer's thoughts now...please read below. P.S. Would you include them in the public record? And, connect with her on any questionsshe has...Thanks! Rachel Harris (she/her/hers) City Council, Ward 3 | City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 www.stlouispark.org Experience LIFE in the Park. ________________________________________ From: Jennifer Janovy Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2020 3:23 PM To: Jake Spano; Larry Kraft; Nadia Mohamed; Margaret Rog; Anne Mavity; Rachel Harris; Tim Brausen Subject: SE SLP bikeway project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear St. Louis Park Mayor and City Council: I served on the Edina Transportation Commission for about nine years, Bike Edina Task Force for around six, spearheaded Edina’s Living Streets policy and plan, and did the lion’s share of work on Edina’s Bike Friendly Community application that earned Edina Bronze level a few years ago. I am writing in opposition to the proposed bike lanes on Wooddale Avenue between 42nd and 44th in SE SLP. I understand the goal of building out a bike network. I also understand that bike lanes may be recommended above 3,000 VPD. I do not have speed data, but understand staff believes visually narrowing the road will have some beneficial impact on speeds (it is likely to be very slight). I also understand there are bike advocates who feel any marked or signed bike facility is an improvement. Understanding this, I don’t see the bike lanes as necessary. I don’t believe they will make enough of a functional difference to justify the cost and loss of trees. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 57 There are times when plans should go forward, even when neighbors object. Trails and sidewalks are examples. There are other times when plans should not go forward. As thinking about bike facilities have progressed (not to mention research and guidance), plans for bike facilities need a second look. The best solution for a bike route may be to keep it free of bike markings. W. 44th is an example. It is unmarked, heavily used by cyclists and has higher volumes than Wooddale. It works. Adding bike markings would not have been a functional improvement. This is more the current thinking. Is it a functional improvement? Are there other alternatives? For example, if painting a fog line and removing the center line might help to reduce speeds, do that. It doesn’t require adding bike lanes or removing parking. Consider keeping the crossing at Morningside Rd. and adding a pedestrian flasher. Consider “Bikes May Use Full Lane” signs. Please listen to the wisdom of neighbors on this issue. They know the street best. Thanks for your consideration. Jennifer Janovy City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 58 From:Rachel Harris To:Ben Manibog Jr Cc: Tom Harmening; Jack Sullivan Subject:Fw: Southeast Bikeway and Adjacent Bike Network Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2020 3:25:53 PM Attachments:Existing and Proposed Bikeway Design Type.pdf Hi Ben, I attended a walking meeting with residents along Wooddale Ave on Sunday in the nippy25 degree weather. Clad in winter coats and boots, we walked up and down Wooddale asI listened to residents' ideas. After the walk and talk, I requested that residents send anemail encapsulating their comments. Sharing Ed's thoughts now...please read below. P.S. Would you include them in the public record? And, connect with him on any questionsshe has...Thanks! Rachel Harris (she/her/hers) City Council, Ward 3 | City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 www.stlouispark.org Experience LIFE in the Park. From: Ed Idzorek Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2020 1:46 PM To: Rachel Harris <rharris@stlouispark.org> Subject: Southeast Bikeway and Adjacent Bike Network CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Councilmember Harris, Thank you for taking the time to visit with us regarding the Wooddale segment of the Southeast Bikeway. As I mentioned, the proposed design of striped bike lanes on Wooddale is inconsistent with the majority of the surrounding existing and proposed bike network. The attached pdf shows the Existing and Proposed Bikeway Design Type. Solid lines on the map are existing facilities. Dashed lines are proposed facilities. Green is Share the Road design. Pink is Striped Bike Lane. Yellow is Barrier Separated. The numbers on the map indicate the 2018 Average Daily Traffic volume. The majority of the bike network surrounding the 42-1/2 to 44th Street segment of Wooddale is Share the Road design. In some cases the Share the Road designs are on significantly higher volume streets with similar width to Wooddale (44th Street in Minneapolis and Edina, Wooddale Avenue south of 56th Street in Edina, Sheridan Avenue from 39th Street to 43rd Street in Minneapolis). City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 59 As you can see on the map, the locations with Striped Bike Lanes (pink) share the common characteristics of much higher traffic volume, and typically much lower density of driveways. See Richfield Road along Bde Maka Ska in Minneapolis, Wooddale Avenue (southbound only) along the Edina Country Club golf course, Interlachen Boulevard in Edina, and Vernon Avenue in Edina. I am available via email, or by phone most evenings should you have any questions, or wish to discuss this further. And thank you again for taking the time to visit with us this morning. Sincerely, Ed Idzorek 4335 Wooddale City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 60 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 61 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 62 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Ed Idzorek Sent:Saturday, February 22, 2020 7:30 AM To:Ben Manibog Jr Cc:Jake Spano; Margaret Rog; Anne Mavity; Rachel Harris; Tim Brausen; Larry Kraft; Nadia Mohamed Subject:Comments for Southeast Bikeway Public Record CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  RE: Southeast Bikeway Public Hearing – Wooddale Segment      February 18, 2020  Mayor and Councilmembers:  My name is Ed Idzorek. I have lived at 4335 Wooddale Avenue for 33 years. I am a lifelong “Somewhat  Confident” bicyclist who has biked along this segment of Wooddale ever since I moved here. I am also a  licensed professional engineer practicing in transportation and traffic engineering for over 30 years.  We agree with the transportation goals and priorities outlined in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan of pedestrians  first, bicycles second, transit third, and autos fourth. We also agree with the stated goal of providing a safe  bike network that will attract the “Interested but Concerned” bicyclist.  As Councilmember Rog noted previously, the staff proposed design of striped bike lanes for the Wooddale  segment of the Southeast Bikeway will not attract the target “Interested but Concerned” bicyclist to  Wooddale Avenue. Both as a bicyclist and as a traffic engineer I agree with this assessment.  We propose a “Pilot Project” for the Wooddale segment of the Southeast Bikeway that recognizes the  dispersed origins and destinations of bicyclists. The Browndale, Wooddale, and Joppa/Grimes corridors should  all be designated (signed and striped) as “Share the Road” facilities. As noted by Councilmember Rog, a “Share  the Road” designation on the Wooddale segment would provide a more attractive facility for the “Highly  Confident” and “Somewhat Confident” bicyclists who already use Wooddale.  The “Interested but Concerned” bicyclists on the short segment of Wooddale can be served by the existing 6  foot wide sidewalks along both sides of the street. Designating of the existing sidewalk as a “Shared Use” trail  would accomplish this.  The network of Browndale, Wooddale, and Joppa/Grimes corridor as a future bikeways was shown on both  the Open House #2 and Open House #3 invitations (dated September 6, 2018, and April 22, 2019 respectively). We respectfully ask the Council to reject the proposed striped bike lane for the Wooddale segment of the  Southeast Bikeway because it fails to attract the target “Interested but Concerned” bicyclist, it is very  expensive (about $200,000 by staff’s estimate), and has unacceptable environmental and livability impacts.  The Browndale, Wooddale, and Joppa/Grimes pilot project described above could be an order of magnitude  less expensive (perhaps as little as $20,000). The pilot project utilizes the existing infrastructure, has a higher  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 63 2 likelihood of attracting the target “Interested but Concerned” bicyclist, and will actually enhance the livability  of the neighborhood.  We recognize the approach described above may not meet all of our collective goals. We request the  opportunity to collaborate with the council, staff, and other interested groups to develop an alternative for  the Southeast Bikeway that recognizes and accomplishes the goals of the community as a whole.  Respectfully,  Ed Idzorek  4335 Wooddale Avenue  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 64 From: To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Southeast Bikeways / Wooddale Avenue Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2020 2:46:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ben, Per your instructions... To follow is my entire letter regarding the Wooddale Section of the Southeast Bikeways in case I am not able to speak at the public hearing tonight. Thank you for your help. Helen Southeast Bikeways - Wooddale Avenue To: Mayor Spano, City Council Members, Margaret Rog, Anne Mavity, RachelHarris, Tim Brausen, Larry Kraft, Nadia Mohamed, and city staff member BenManibog and Tom Harmening, City Manager My name is Helen Hughes I want to thank you for the time you took to meet with concerned residentson Wooddale. We appreciate the fact that you wanted to see for yourselveswhy we are so passionate about saving our street and preserving theBrowndale Neighborhood. We are actually nice people who are simplyfrustrated and angry with the position we find ourselves in today. I have lived at 4274 Wooddale for more than 34 years, and had planned tolive out my retirement years in this home I love. I grew up in Linden Hills,lived four doors from the West shores of Lake Harriet for a few years, then on West 45th in the Edina Morningside neighborhood for 5 years, and finally onWooddale. I chose this location in St. Louis Park because of the closeproximity to the lakes, excellent schools, parks and recreation, and good citygovernment. Throughout my 40 year real estate career I confidently soldhomes in St. Louis Park to clients including friends and family for exactly thesereasons. I assured buyers that property values were solid in St. Louis Park, and Ipersonally relied on reasonable home appreciation as part of my retirementfinances. I am opposed to the extremely destructive plan for a bikeway requiring treesto be cut down, and green boulevards removed to build asphalt or concreteparking bays on 2 ½ blocks of Wooddale. This portion of the SoutheastBikeways has caused me to question the confidence I once had in the cityand its’ process. Where is the transparency and engagement with residents weexpect from good government? Who decided to eliminate other lighter touchand less costly options? Where are the disclosures and answers to ourquestions? City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 65 Unfortunately, along with the majority of my neighbors, I have been worndown by this entire process. I'm sure you are tired, too. We are in favor ofincreased bicycling. We want to improve our city for everyone to enjoy, and ingeneral, we support Connect the Park as part of the big vision. But, I am left towonder why it is so important to drastically and permanently change this 2 ½block stretch of Wooddale when there are other options? Couldn’t we worktogether to test a pilot project of “Share the Road” on three routes such asBrowndale, Wooddale and Grimes OR implement *our vision? Let’s try tomake it a win-win for all as much as possible. I completely agree with the need to make the best plans for our future,which includes an increase in commuter bicycling and the use of publictransportation. And, I’ve been a team player my entire life. I believe in doingthe right thing to benefit the greater good, even if it means making a sacrifice.However, I’m not willing to personally suffer a financial loss on the bet thatthis bike facility plan which requires cutting down trees and removing greenboulevards for concrete parking bays will benefit our city today, or even in50-100 years. Safety and the environment aside, I’m not convinced there hasbeen enough consideration for the impact this would have on anyone who isnot young, able-bodied or a bike rider. I’m in my late 60s. I rely on cars fortransportation due to health issues, as do many of my neighbors. Thisbikeway plan goes way beyond the idea that you can’t please everyone. Ithas me experiencing “senior discrimination”. We’re all aging. Plans for thefuture must include older residents. You must not ignore the needs of taxpaying senior citizen residents in favor of an unsubstantiated number ofpotential bicyclists. I believe you all take pride in doing your job well. Pleaseput yourself in my position. Ask yourself if you’d want to be forced to livewith the consequences of your decision, and treat others as you wish to betreated. Regarding The Wooddale Avenue portion of the Southeast Bikeways: (Treeremoval and elimination of green boulevards to build parking bays). This partof “Connect The Park” would dramatically change Wooddale to install a 2 ½block bike facility with a costly plan inconsistent with the bikeways feeding into it on either end (beginning at 42 ½ Street South to 44th Street). Proposed plan/design with parking bays causes the following destructionwhich is *costly in other ways: *Loss of property value and appreciation which is gained by having a greenboulevard and a mature tree in front of the house. Higher home values equalhigher tax revenue for the city. I speak from experience because I soldresidential real estate for 40 years. It’s referred to as “curb appeal”. Curbappeal is of key importance to real estate value. The feeling of a streetmatters a great deal to any homeowner whether they are selling or not. All ofour streets are unique. The loss of the tree canopy on any street isdevastating. The entire neighborhood is negatively affected. Cars parked in abay would be in direct contact with the sidewalk and several feet closer to thefront door of a home than the current distance of on-street parking. The actualloss of property value due to diminished curb appeal is difficult to calculate,although it’s very real. It is not as easy to determine as, say, property taxincreases. Once the damage is done, and a lovely street is ruined, it is unlikelythat homes would be quickly re-evaluated. I went through this process in 2018when, thankfully, I had access to extensive real estate data to make my case.Properties must be re-assessed to reduce the value before any reduction inproperty taxes are approved. However, even reduced taxes over several yearswould not be enough to compensate for the financial loss at the time of City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 66 sale. More importantly, I don’t want to move! Everyone agrees that safety is the primary concern. We were told that theEngineering staff was directed to design the safest bike plan for theSoutheast Bikeways as part of Connect the Park. The safest, not the mostdirect route. Residents have repeatedly asked for evidence that this proposed plan isactually safer for bicyclists than other options. We have requested data to backup the decision to install this extreme and much more costly design provingit will achieve the goal of attracting interested or concerned bicyclists to useWooddale. We have yet to receive information on the research for andrejection of much safer, although less direct streets such as Grimes orBrowndale. There has been insufficient explanation as to why this 2 ½ blocksegment of the project can’t begin with a lighter touch plan. Together withreduced speed (25 mph) and traffic calming, “Share the Road” is not onlysafe, it is much less expensive and consistent with Princeton/Quentin and West 44th Street bikeways. Overall, I am disappointed that the city staff has failed to: 1. Provide information supporting the reasons that other proposed optionswere not chosen (Browndale/Grimes/Share the Road). 2. Provide research data to prove this extreme and costly plan is the safest. 3. Provide statistics to show the goal (51%-56% interested but concernedbikers) or projected increase in the number of bicyclists who will actually usethis bike facility. 4. Provide the research that was done which made the City Council concludethat this 2 ½ block stretch must be a different design than Share theRoad. 5. Fully disclose to tax payers the cost of this plan, including fees paid to SRF,and alternative plans with supporting comparison data proving this bike facilitywill attract more bicyclists to use Wooddale instead of otherstreets. The losses associated with this plan are potentially enormous: *Loss of any green boulevards and 10 trees destroyed to install asphalt orconcrete is contrary to all environmental goals. What are the additional costsfor street sweeping, plowing, and snow removal to maintain the parking bays?What is the impact of the chemical run-off which will have no place to goexcept onto the sidewalk and most likely end up in the front yards? Doesn’t thisalso cause thousands of gallons of extra run-off into already overburdenedstorm drains? *Loss of the safety and the residential street quality if Wooddale were tobecome a major collector road. Wooddale will become a cut-through street. State Aid guidelines were first acknowledged at the December 3rd meeting.Regardless of the source, money must be spent wisely. The actual cost for thisshort segment of road has been repeatedly talked “around” by staff, but notfully disclosed. Estimates for the bike facility with parking bays areapproximately $200,000 for this plan as opposed to $20,000 for Share theRoad. If Connect the Park is already over-budget, isn’t this an opportunity for ourcity to pause, look at the goals, and move forward together with a safe, City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 67 more economical plan such as Share the Road or a Pilot Project to test 3routes? I’m not yet convinced to trust that the City of St. Louis Park will consider thesafer alternate route(s), plans, or Share the Road. This is one time, I truly hope I’m wrong. In this case, I would welcome the correction because this proposed design will destroy so much more than myplans for a happy future. Please vote “NO”. Do not approve the Wooddale 42 ½ - 44th portion of theSoutheast Bikeways that requires green boulevard and tree removal to buildparking bays. Thank you. Helen Hughes 4274 Wooddale Avenue S. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 *Wooddale/Browndale Citizens United for Safe Streets Our Vision for Wooddale is a simple plan that makes it a Safe & Livable Street forEVERYONE! . Posted 25 mph speed limit . Enhanced crosswalks at the Routes to School & Parks at 41st Street, 42 ½ Street, Quentin, Morningside and 44th Street . “Share the Road with Bikes” road paint and signs . Road width and curbs staying where they are & the double yellow line removed . Planted boulevards with all of the existing trees, and even more trees . Street parking along the West side of the street . Designation as a Local Residential Street in the 2040 City Plan and beyond City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 68 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:HELEN HUGHES Sent:Sunday, February 23, 2020 5:57 PM To:Ben Manibog Jr Cc:Jake Spano; Tom Harmening; Jack Sullivan Subject:For the record Southeast Bikeways - Wooddale Avnue CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Ben,  Please enter my comments about the public hearing on the record.  Thank you.  Helen Hughes  Southeast Bikeway – Wooddale Avenue – Public hearing February 18, 2020  To the members of the St. Louis Park City Council and staff; thank you for the time you allowed St. Louis Park Residents to speak.   I want to go on record with my thoughts about the plan that was proposed at the public hearing last Tuesday.  The plan presented by Jack Sullivan was the same plan presented to residents in the Spring of 2019, at the meeting on December 3rd at Rec Center, and again on January 27th. I am deeply disappointed and concerned that there were no changes to the Wooddale section of the plan in spite of the fact that residents from the Browndale Neighborhood have had several meetings with and many emails to city council members and staff members.   It is truly unfortunate that this part of Connect the Park as it is now, is set up to be adversarial. It is a city wide issue that discriminates against the elderly and physically disabled in favor of young, able-bodied pleasure bicyclists.  We have offered suggestions for alternative routes and less expensive and safer plans. We are and have been begging you to consider the updated safety information several of my neighbors have spent countless hours gathering during the past several months. We implore you to listen our objections.  Jack Sullivan stated that this bike facility plan is “the next best design”. I am appalled that removing one tree much less ten, and eliminating grass boulevards to install massive amounts of concrete is still considered the next best to anything. The environmental City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 69 2 impact of melting snow and heavy rain run-off alone would make most people pause and think about how this contradicts sound planning for the future.  Nadia Mohamed very thoughtfully asked “If this doesn’t pass, what happens then?”  I ask the mayor and the city council vote NO on this plan.   Then…  Could we please truly work together to create a bike plan to help the environment, and save property values while maintaining a safe and welcoming neighborhood that will keep the park connected at a reasonable cost?  Thank you for your consideration.  Helen Hughes  4274 Wooddale Avenue City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 70 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Tom Hillstrom Sent:Wednesday, February 19, 2020 7:05 AM To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Southeast Bikeway Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Ben,    Please consider my comments on the Southeast Bikeway Project    1) Silent Majority  I’m afraid that much of the input you will hear will come from opponents of the project who do not want to see  changes in front of their houses.  Please know that there are many people who appreciate improvements but do  not attend the meetings.  Those who do not live on the affected streets are probably reluctant to stand up in  front of these opponents and present support for theproject.  However, once the improvements are complete  and are absorbed into our daily walking, biking, driving lives, we are all happy for the result.    2) Purpose of City Right of Way  Please consider the primary purposes of City right of way.  Is transportation more important than storage of  private property (parking)?   If transportation is more important than parking, the bikeway should be approved  along Wooddale.  The City is being generous in replacing some of the lost parking.    3) Importance of bicycles as transportation  The use of bicycles as transportation is increasing.  This increasing trend aligns with city goals laid out in the  Climate Action Plan, Health in the Park and Connect the Park.  Having safe and efficient bicycling infrastructure  aligns with the city’s vision.    4) Wooddale is a crucial link in the bike network.    After reading the project analysis, consideration of alternatives and staff recommendations, I believe that the  southeast bikeway project is needed, alternatives have been thoroughly studied and that staff are  recommending the best solution.    Please approve this project.  It will be appreciated after it is built.    Tom Hillstrom      City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 71 From: To:Ben Manibog Jr; Jack Sullivan Subject:Wooddale Ave Bike Lane Proposal Date:Friday, February 14, 2020 3:33:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Manibog, I hope I'm sending this to the correct place! I saw that you were open to feedback prior to February 24th in the form of an email. My husband and I are first-time homebuyers currently looking in the areas of St. Louis Park, Bryn Mawr, and Hopkins. We have prioritized these areas because of their more modest home sizes, good access to parks, and generally decent access to public transportation (yay SWLRT!) We also want to live somewhere where we can be as minimally car-dependent as possible, for our health and for its value to the community. We've looked at several homes on Wooddale and in the area, though have hesitated to commit to making any offers because the area is more isolated, and would require us to drive more often. The value of living so close to the lakes seems lost if I cannot safely or easily get there without strapping myself and my baby into a car. In contrast, the number of safe and protected bike lanes in Hopkins has led us to look more aggressively in that area. (As a side note, the speed and general pedestrian un-friendliness of Excelsior Blvd has been a sticking point in our discussions regarding both areas, but that's another issue and a Hennepin County issue, I think.) You are obviously fielding a ton of feedback from current and not simply prospective residents, but I wanted to take the opportunity to give voice to those of us who would be overjoyed to see something like the Wooddale Ave project go forward. I am sorry to see how few protected lanes exist in the area considering how residential it is. If I could safely walk and/or bike from my home in the area to parks, Lake Harriet, Trader Joe's/ Linden Hills Co- Op, we would be much more likely to purchase there and raise our family. We will be watching for news with our fingers crossed! Thank you for all your hard work. Katherine Hill City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 72 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Reed Heffelfinger Sent:Monday, February 24, 2020 12:11 PM To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:In regards to the February18, 2020 Council meeting, agenda ID 6d CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Dear Ben As has been brought to your attention by Eric T. Curran-Bakken: “The MNDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual, which staff was following for the design, indicates that the curb gutter pan is not to be included in the width of the bike path. The gutter pan on Wooddale is 1.5 feet from the curb. This effectively decreases the bike lane width to 3.5 feet on a very busy, high vehicle speed roadway. 3.5’ of bike path does not meet the minimum bike path width. The section in the manual where this can be found is section 5-40. It reads as follows: “If a gutter pan is present, it is not included as part of the bike lane width unless the gutter is incorporated into the width of the bike lane and results in no longitudinal joint or seams parallel to a bicyclist’s line of travel. If there are no joints or seams, the nine inches of the gutter pan adjacent to the curb can be considered clearance to the vertical curb. If there is no gutter pan, such as in cases where a roadway has been overlaid to its full width, a nine-inch clearance from the vertical curb is necessary.” After the public hearing, I asked staff if they considered the gutter pan as part of the bike path width. Ben said they were counting this in the 5 foot bike path. I then asked if he knew that the design manual indicates that the gutter pan is not to be counted in the width. He said he was not aware of this and didn’t know about it. How can this be? I have shared this information with staff. Even if the seam to the gutter pan was somehow eliminated, the manual states that the bike path width measurement should start 9” from the curb. This is unacceptable and another indication of why this section of road should not be used as a bike path. Please vote against this section of the plan.” I also ask you, Ben, to please vote against this section of the plan. Reed Heffelfinger 4375 Glen Place City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 73 1 In regards to the 2/18/2020 Council meeting, agenda ID 6d My name is Reed Heffelfinger, I have resided at 4375 Glen Place for 32 + years I thank you Mayor Jake Spano and Council Members Tim Brausen , Rachel Harris, Larry Kraft, Anne Mavity, Nadia Mohamed, and Margaret Rog, for the opportunity for us to share a snippet of our concerns and requests. I would also like to invite you to come and personally meet my neighbors and I and experience the neighborhood where we have chosen to place our roots. I have become reticent to speak with St Louis Park Council members, or any one whose salary is paid by the city of St Louis Park due to my past interactions with the city. In order for you to understand my feelings on this issue, I will share with you the finest, blatantly truthful and raw example. A number of years ago letters of invitation were sent to all property owners whose properties bordered the Browndale Park wetlands, the subject of the meeting was the expansion of the path around the wetlands. Councilman Chris Gear hosted the meeting. Also, in attendance was Martha McDowell, the Browndale Neighborhood liaison. A discussion ensued. All but one of the property owners were adamantly against the expansion. Suddenly Councilman Gear stood up and stated (word for word) "Bottom Line We Don't Care What You Think! If we decide to do it tomorrow, we will.” City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 74 2 End of meeting. And They Did Within the following few days the City of St Louis Park did, what all along they had intended from the beginning. At least Chris Gear honestly named what others won't, as they prefer the pretense, of pretending as if, as if they cared about 'Other' This is only one of many examples I can share regarding my experiences with St Louis Park. Truthfully, the worst neighbor I have had in my 70 years. If you would like to know of my other experiences, I would be more than happy to share them with you. At the Council meeting I heard others share their similar concerns regarding the pretense they were sensing. Perhaps, they have also had their own previous experiences with Pretense in their dealings with City of St. louis Park. Perhaps a little self-reflection is in order. I have recently become aware of the Wooddale Segment of the Southeast Bikeway. My response was, at first, to ponder my general opinion of bikeways across Minneapolis, Edina, St Louis Park and beyond. I find that the majority of bicyclists do not follow the laws of the roads and pathways, putting others in harm’s way or at least causing unnecessary confusion. For instance: City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 75 3 Very few stop at stop signs or stoplights if it 'appears' there is no one coming, yet I am, as well as others, witnessing their disobedience. Often, they ride 2,3 + abreast and do not take into consideration "other”. The majority of the time there is no signaling to show their intentions. I have personally been run over by a speeding bicyclist, having my bike and body damaged, while having the bicyclist just continue on his way racing the wrong way on a one-way pathway. I have never seen bicyclists be ticketed for running a light or stop sign or hogging the whole roadway, in which some, at that point, have crossed over the dividing line and are riding against traffic. For the above reasons I find it incredible that bicyclists have the same rights as vehicles and required to adhere to the same laws, yet they feel excused from doing so. As you heard numerous times during the council meeting: I, as well as many of my neighbors witness vehicles speeding down Wooddale Ave as well as 44th St. This will only be getting worse due to the increase of traffic, with the high-income housing going in on Sunnyside and France, soon, supposedly, to be followed similarly on 44th and France. A thought might be to first enforce the laws of the road that already exist, which, as we are aware, has not been the case. Also, it was confirmed that there are not many bicyclists on Wooddale Ave. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 76 4 The Bike Squad speakers from outside of our neighborhood who wholeheartedly applauded the city’s plan, were an interesting touch. None of them were in the category the “Interested But Concerned” recreational bikers, and none of them lived in the area. Even though they biked down Wooddale, they did not appreciate the experience. If, for whatever reason, individuals don’t appreciate their bike ride down Wooddale, they have a number of options; They can travel: 2 minutes eastward to Grimes or 3-4 minutes eastward to France or 1 minute westward to Browndale or 2-3 minutes westward to Brookside All roads take them to Excelsior Blvd and beyond, which is your goal, right? I find your desire to funnel bike riders all down a single street a very controlling and manipulative enterprise. As I have shared with you in a previous email, and others, in their own words, shared with you at the Council meeting: None of this is just about us, none of this is just about the bicyclists, none of this is just about the Southeast Bikeway or the city of St Louis Park. Though the list can go on and on, my point is that this is all adding to the confusion and chaos. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 77 5 The bikeway system is not cohesive which makes them confusing for all in the areas they run through. I feel that there should be enough similarity that the rules of flow are apparent no matter where in town you are riding, while taking into consideration that neighborhoods are made up of neighbors, so the highest priority is their safety, their health, the protection of the beauty (natural resources) which they have chosen to surround themselves. Instead of the apparent high entropy (disorder / uncertainty) of the current plan, we can lower the entropy (order / certainty) by making the final decision in the best interest of all, which also includes: Our natural resources, i.e., Water, Soil, Plants, Animals and Humans and thereby bringing order, certainty into the equation. Also, I feel, it is High Priority to Keep It Simple. Simplicity in the Philosophy of Science The view that simplicity is a virtue in scientific theories and that, other things being equal, simpler theories should be preferred to more complex ones has been widely advocated in the history of science and philosophy, and it remains widely held by modern scientists and philosophers of science. It often goes by the name of “Ockham’s Razor.” The claim is that simplicity ought to be one of the key criteria for evaluating and choosing between rival theories, alongside criteria such as consistency with the data and coherence with accepted background theories. Simplicity, in this sense, is often understood ontologically, in terms of how simple a theory represents nature as being—for example, a theory might be said to be simpler than another if it posits the existence of fewer entities, causes, or processes in nature in order to account for the empirical data. However, simplicity can also be understood in terms of various features of how theories go about explaining nature—for example, a theory might be said to be simpler than another if it contains fewer adjustable parameters, if it City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 78 6 invokes fewer extraneous assumptions, or if it provides a more unified explanation of the data. Why the compulsion to Grand Scale everything? Where is the City of St Louis Park putting Our money? SLP is increasing its surface area of cement by expanding concrete usage. As you know, increasing cement usage is one of the worst things you can do to the environment. We are putting all sorts of new sidewalks in and various other plans that are against and contrary to the Climate Action Plan. Why are decisions being made that are inconsistent with the facts? We have known for a long time that, until recently, St. louis Park has had no Climate Action Plan, Our Natural Resource Division is, basically, treated as an afterthought which is, technically, a big part of OUR problem. For example, the City of Minnetonka has 5 full time people in their Natural Resource division, SLP has 1 full time person in its Natural Resources Division. Why? It would seem that the Wooddale Bikeway Project funds could fulfill current needs of pre-existing departments, such as our Natural Resources Division. On the City of St Louis Park's website, it is stated: "Natural resources is a division that works to protect, restore and enhance the natural areas and resources of St. Louis Park, including a diverse urban tree population." City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 79 7 This might be an important division, during these important times, to keep well-funded so it can fully participate in SLP Climate Action Plan vs your current plan of tree removal and increasing cement usage etc. If you want to bring about change, start simple and maybe that is enough. Please listen and respond to our earnest requests of not expanding OUR funds into new areas, within which exist simpler solutions than the ones that you are presenting. To reiterate: Self-Reflect Drop the Pretense Lower the entropy Keep it Simple and Please listen and respond to our earnest requests Appreciatively, Reed Heffelfinger City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 80 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Eric Harvey Sent:Friday, February 21, 2020 11:38 AM To:Ben Manibog Jr Cc:Jake Spano; Larry Kraft; Nadia Mohamed; Margaret Rog; Rachel Harris; Tim Brausen Subject:Southeast Bikeway Comments for Final Report Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  As follow‐up to the February 18th Southeast Bikeway public hearing, please add these comments to the final report to  city council. These comments are specific to the Wooddale segment proposal of Jake Sullivan and Ben Manibog.  Cost and Prioritization. The engineers propose to spend at least $200,000 in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the  city, on something that is widely opposed (see petition). Instead please use the taxpayer money in a neighborhood with  demonstrated need and on a more impactful issue such as affordable housing.  Climate and Environment. Destroying greenspace and trees to replace with pavement should only be done in extreme  situations where there is undeniably no alternative. Remove this aspect of the proposal and provide the engineers with  revised guidance going forward.  Important Details. At the 2/18 public hearing, councilmember mavity requested clarity on the number of trees that will  be cut down. The fact is the engineers have not shared a final plan regarding parking bay locations. The engineers might  remove 10 trees, or they might remove 50, nobody knows.   Safety. The engineer’s proposal introduces more safety concerns than it addresses. The threat is vehicular speed. Their  proposed bike lanes entice cars to drive fast. Share the road forces cars to slow down.  Win‐win solution. Implement share the road, lower the speed limit to 25mph, and make Wooddale/Morningside a 4‐ way stop. Minimal cost, no adverse environmental impact, and significantly safer for all. The Wooddale segment is a  little over 1 block, maybe 60‐90 seconds on a bike. Keep it practical and proportional!   Eric Harvey  4383 Wooddale Avenue  Sent from Mail for Windows 10  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 81 I am a 38-year resident of Wooddale Avenue. I have several concerns regarding the proposed Wooddale Avenue street re-design. As a recreational bicyclist, I find the lack of consistency in bike lane markings between Southeast Bikeway segments to be a recipe for confusion. As well, the cost is not cheap, and Connect-the-Park’s track record of projects coming in over budget is further concerning. But tonight, I’d like to focus on issues of livability, and specifically access, and how this further connects with pedestrian safety. Livability requires access to residential properties. Access is the key word. We invite you to come and see our access issues, as several of your colleagues have. While residents in this area have driveways, many are not long and, more importantly, they are not accessible by various vehicles. Think Uber, think delivery vehicles – Amazon, FedEx, UPS, etc. Think contractor and construction vehicles. Last year we had simultaneous projects involving cement trucks on a one-block stretch. These vehicles need access to the residences that they will be serving, not some parking bay that might be half a block away and already occupied. Busy streets such as France Avenue and Xerxes Avenue have retained parking on at least one side (and in some stretches on both sides) in recognition that a residential community needs to provide adequate access to its residential units. This makes sense. Next, looking at lack of access and how it relates to pedestrian safety. We have been assured by the council that pedestrian safety is one of the main objectives of Connect the Park. However, the current plan for Wooddale has same side parking bays that range up to 1,385 feet from resident homes for the closest bay – assuming it’s available. A closer bay on the other side of the street would necessitate jay- walking to access it, or walking to the end of the block to cross over. By removing the bulk of the parking access on the 2-1/2 block stretch of Wooddale Avenue, service providers, visitors, and in some cases even residents, will be forced to park potentially blocks away, as Wooddale is further hampered by no parking zones on nearby side streets. Affected visitors and residents include the elderly, small children and people with disabilities, in a region that adds the challenge of icy sidewalks (or no sidewalks if accessing Wooddale from certain directions) for several months of the year. For a Connect the Park initiative that prides itself on improving safety, it is counter-intuitive to propose a plan that puts the safety of pedestrians at risk. All this for a limited number of bikers – whose safety will also be compromised by this proposed plan, as others have and will illustrate in their comments here tonight. So, in closing, I ask you: What good is big picture thinking if it ignores livability and pedestrian safety issues in affected neighborhoods? Better options exist. Options that do not involve significant cost, and that do not sacrifice livability and pedestrian safety. Let’s work together to implement them. Thank you for your time. Jane Haakenstad 4380 Wooddale Avenue City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 82 How Our City Can Be A Leader In Bike Safety 2.18.2020 Debra Fisher Goldstein Browndale/Wooddale I want SLP to be a real leader in bicycle and pedestrian safety. That’s why I’m suggesting we make Wooddale a pilot program. We have the opportunity here to get it right, be the city that tries options and if they don’t work safely, then we try something else. Let’s have collaborative dialogue with bikers, most especially those that the city says it wants to attract: the “Interested But Concerned” cyclist, that 51—56%, the vast majority of the biking population - according to the city’s own research. As seen in staff’s presentations, the “Interested But Concerned” cyclist is “often not comfortable with bike lanes, may bike on sidewalks even if bike lanes are provided…may not bike if bicycle facilities do not meet needs for perceived comfort.” And that is me, and the vast majority of your constituents. The “Interested But Concerned” biker doesn’t require the most direct route; we want the safest and most comfortable one. We risk all these irreversible changes on Wooddale for a bike facility that our targeted audience will not use. And should not use. In fact, we may inadvertently be attracting the novice cyclist who doesn’t realize it’s not safe. An unprotected striped bike lane is a false sense of security. It is safe only on streets with speeds under 25 mph. Wooddale's speed is 30 mph; drivers whizz through at 35+. I, in no way, want to be that close to cars going that fast. Would you? This striped bike path is going to be narrower than normal bike paths, squeezing the biker into dodging debris, drains, and cars backing out of 38 driveways. I can’t stop or dodge that fast or sharply. I’m not that kind of biker. Are you? Are your children? Your parents? City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 83 How Our City Can Be A Leader In Bike Safety p.2 Debra Fisher Goldstein Browndale/Wooddale Parked cars are one of the best ways to narrow a street and slow down traffic. Not a one-dimensional flat stripe on the road. Think about your own driving experience: If you drive through the narrow streets of Country Club and you come upon a parked car, you have to slow down to make sure you don’t hit the car. But you can veer onto a flat line of paint and not incur any damage. There’s no incentive to slow down. Plus, without the large, 3-dimensional car taking up space, the road looks wider, and it’s a natural tendency to go faster. Wooddale is only for the Highly or Somewhat Confident biker who knows how to Share-The-Road. Which is less than 16% of bikers, if you add the Highly and Somewhat Confident biker categories together. If you dig deeper into the research, the volume count on Wooddale is within the range of what is recommended for a sharrow, and an engineer has discretion as to how she or he applies this data. Just look at 44th Street, which has higher volumes by far than Wooddale, and it is a successful and safe sharrow. For the Interested But Concerned biker, Wooddale is not the safest option. We have better and safer streets in our network. Let’s make the Wooddale portion a Pilot Program. Let’s be the city that really got it right. Let’s truly be a leader in bicyclist safety. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 84 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Harvey Goldstein Sent:Monday, February 24, 2020 1:38 PM To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Wooddale Bike Path_Unsafe For The Novice/Amateur AND Experienced CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  For the public record:  From Harvey Goldstein, 4340 Wooddale Ave. South  Wooddale Bike Path_Unsafe For The Novice/Amateur AND Experienced Biker, Such As I AM  I am a confident, recreational cyclist that puts on 2,000 miles between April and November, largely on city streets.  I have ridden in the 72 mile option of the Tour de Pepin for the last 13 years. Portions of the ride are on highly trafficked  Highway 61, with cars, semi‐trucks, trucks with boat trailers traveling at 60 mph. This ride is not for the feint of heart.  Riding on Wooddale Ave. South is not for the feint of heart, either.  This bike path is being constructed narrower than standard bike path guidelines ‐ thinner by 1 foot. As well, the path as  currently designed does not take into consideration drainage curb gutter pans (1.5 ft), which are NOT to be included in  the width of the bike path. This makes the path 3.5 ft.  I am a confident biker and I would never confine myself to that width. I would sooner be biking in traffic.  But when there is a bike lane, traffic is expecting me to be in it.  Biking out of the bike lane is not expected bike behavior, and I’ve experience aggressive car behavior in these instances. Rush hour auto traffic during the week, and heavy auto traffic on the weekends will make this narrow bike path even  more treacherous for the novice and amateur biker, as they will become nervous and uncomfortable with speeding cars  so close to them.  A protected bike lane will not prevent UPS, Amazon, FedEx, and city trucks from parking on the bike lane. What does the  novice biker do when faced front‐on with these obstacles?  The novice biker also has to be aware of cars backing out of and pulling in to 38 driveways along this 2.5 block stretch.  The 2.5 stretch is a short, unpredictable route that’s not for the feint of heart. I fear for the safety of any inexperienced  biker. Please vote no on the currently proposed plan.  Thank you for your time and consideration.  Harvey Goldstein  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 85 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Tom Harmening Sent:Tuesday, February 18, 2020 7:03 PM To:Ben Manibog Jr; Jack Sullivan; Debra Heiser Subject:FW: Bike Lanes Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged FYI  Tom Harmening (he, him, his)  City Manager | City of St. Louis Park  5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416  Office: 952‐924‐2526  www.stlouispark.org  Experience LIFE in the Park.   From: Matthew Flory  Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 5:56 PM  To: Larry Kraft <LKraft@stlouispark.org>; Nadia Mohamed <NMohamed@stlouispark.org>; Margaret Rog  <mrog@stlouispark.org>; Anne Mavity <amavity@stlouispark.org>; Rachel Harris <rharris@stlouispark.org>; Tim  Brausen <tbrausen@stlouispark.org>; Jake Spano <jspano@stlouispark.org>  Cc: Tom Harmening <THARMENING@stlouispark.org>  Subject: Bike Lanes  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Honorable Council Members   If our city is committed to north‐south routes, to multi‐model transport and to climate change than we should be willing  to make change when it is difficult, not simply when it is easy.  Change can be hard for people who are accustomed to  the status quo but sometimes circumstances merit discussion.  When I ride a bike, it is recreational and a safe route on a quiet street is probably preferable to a direct route alongside  traffic.  Personally I'd prefer that we budget for more bikeways like the one on cedar lake road and I'd be willing to  defend a local sales tax increase if that was the way to get it done.    In addition, I recognize that some bikers are commuters and they prefer direct routes.  The easier we make it for them,  the more likely we can get people out of their cars.  That's good for the environment and good for congestion (every car  off the road is one less in front of me).   I thought urban design was goofy until highway 7 and Woodale were grade separated.  It improved my experience on  foot, on bike and by car and greatly increased the chances that I would travel to the Rec Center and Excelsior and Grand  without my car keys (much less my car).  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 86 2 City sidewalks and streets belong to everyone that uses them.  That is a hard thing for homeowners to hear and  whatever the outcome, I appreciate that all of you are leaning into a difficult space.  Thank you for your time and your public service  Matt Flory  3244 Edgewood Ave  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 87 From:Debbie Fischer To:Jack Sullivan; Ben Manibog Jr; Debra Heiser Subject:FW: St Louis Park City Council: Save Wooddale Date:Thursday, February 13, 2020 2:20:31 PM FYI, This email (see below) to "info@stlouispark.org" is being included in council's electronic mail folder today. Debbie Debbie Fischer (she/her/hers) Office Assistant - Administration | City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Office: (952) 924-2525 www.stlouispark.org Experience LIFE in the Park. -----Original Message----- From: Kaylin Eidsness Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 6:21 AM To: Info@stlouispark.org Subject: St Louis Park City Council: Save Wooddale CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the St. Louis Park City Council: I wanted to write in opposition of the road construction project slated for Wooddale Avenue. If the residents who live on that street, and affected by the project the most, are adamantly opposed to it then please reconsider. The points they make are very valid. I drive that street everyday on my way to work and the large trees that line it make it one heck of a charming street. Also, if SLP has a climate action plan I don’t believe cutting down very mature trees is part of it. If we’re going to preserve this planet for future generations, we need all the mature trees that we can get. We should be planting more and more trees, too! Yes bike lanes are needed in this city. I bike often in the summer so I get that. But there’s always a compromise. Please work toward that. Sincerely, Kaylin Eidsness St. Louis Park resident Sent from my iPhone City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 88 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Eric Curran-Bakken Sent:Wednesday, February 19, 2020 8:36 AM To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Southeast Bikeway Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hello Ben,  I was at the meeting last night and spoke about my concerns with regard to the Wooddale Ave section of the plan. Here  are my notes that I would like entered into the public record. I was unable to share all of my thoughts in the 3 minutes  allotted.  From:  Eric Curran‐Bakken, 4333 Wooddale Ave, Saint Louis Park, MN 55424  To:  Saint Louis Park City Council  Re: Southeast Bikeway Plan Comments  My wife and I have owned our home on Wooddale for over 30 years. My wife has lived in this house since 1965 when  her parents purchased it. We have major concerns with the proposed bike lane plan for Wooddale Ave. I am an avid  cyclist and I’m in favor of improving our City’s bicycle infrastructure, but the process must be correct, and the decisions  made must be good for all abilities of bicyclists.   1.Safety: The elimination of parked cars removes the buffer that slows vehicle speeds. This has been proved in many studies that have been previously shared withy council. The removal of parking and adding painted bike lanes will create the impression of a wider road and this will increase vehicle speeds. These studies have also been provided to council in previous correspondence. 2.Bicyclist numbers: The ridership will not increase on this section of busy road because most non‐competent riders will not feel safe on this section of road. Bicyclists will take the safer path which is on less busy, slower speed roads. The bike plan should appeal to 50%‐60% of the bicyclist population and this section will not. 3.When I reviewed the MNDOT Bikeway Facility Design Manual It states that an Advisory Bike Lane like what is proposed for a portion of the Southeast Bike trail requires a request to experiment (RTE). This type of bike lanes is considered experimental. Is that what we want? An experimental bike lane? This manual also refers to vehicle speeds and bicycle speeds should be similar. I don’t know any bicyclists that drive 34 mph and that is the average speed on this section of Wooddale. Process: Our City has commissions for many aspects to assist the City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 89 2 council with plans that make sense. Shouldn’t we have a transportation commission? So many of the bikeway  plan options could have been avoided entirely had this process been vetted in the beginning of the process.   4.Pilot project: I would propose that the council step back from making a huge, costly mistake on the Wooddale section and implement a pilot project first. Beef up the crosswalks, eliminate the painted road lines and add sharrow markings. This is advantageous for many reasons. The cost is minimal compared to the major changes of our roadway and the destruction of our tree canopy. Ask the City of Edina how this type of plan has worked on 44th Street. It’s a higher volume road and it works. The pilot project should include adding sharrows on Browndale and Joppa connecting to Grimes in Edina where it seems they plan to add a bike sharrow.  Let’s see how this affects bicycle ridership and safety. It’s vitally important that the City not make a mistake if the current plan for Wooddale ave. is implemented. You only need to look at Seattle, Baltimore and Boulder who implemented poor bike lane ideas and are now looking at making major changes or even eliminating them. This report has also been shared with council. The proposed changes cannot be turned back. The City needs to get this right prior to making a huge mistake. Our neighborhood has a lot of educated, smart people that have provided a multitude of studies and documents outlining why this plan is bad. Please be responsible with our safety, the beauty of our street and our tax dollars and take the time to get this done correctly. 5.Notes and observations from MNDOT Bikeway Facility Design Manual. Safety Characteristics: “The real value of on‐road bike lanes is to segregate modes of traffic by their speed. This provides for uniform speeds, eliminating the slowing of vehicle traffic due to a bicycle lane.” The bicycle lanes on Wooddale will only increase vehicle speed which is already averaging 34 mph. “Traffic volumes, both peak hour and daily for both vehicular and bicycle traffic‐Higher motor vehicle traffic volumes increase risks for bicyclists; therefor, the bikeway requires increased width to separate bicyclists from motor vehicles.” Wooddale Ave is 30 feet wide in the summer. In the winter it is quite less than that due to snow volume at the curb. The City proposes 5 foot bike lanes on each side of the road, leaving 20 feet for vehicles to maneuver around each other. There are a few problems with this theory. In the MNDOT manual it is stated: “If a gutter pan is present, it is not included as part of the bike lane width unless the gutter is incorporated into the width of the bike lane and results in no longitudinal joints or seams parallel to a bicyclist’s line of travel. If there are no joints or seams, the nine inches of gutter pan adjacent to the curb can be considered clearance to the vertical curb.” The gutter pan on Wooddale is 1 ½ feet wide. This leaves 3 ½ feet for the bike lane and even less when you consider that bicyclists will avoid the gutter pan seam. This is far too little for such a busy roadway. Intersections and Driveways: “Most bicycle crashes with motor vehicles occur at intersections and driveways. Adding bike lanes without full consideration of travel throughout the corridor may increase conflicts with turning vehicles.” There are 38 driveways on the Wooddale section. These are all major conflict points. Topography, grades and sight distances: “the topography of the roadway affects the width of the bike lane. Additional bikeway width of separation from the roadway may be needed on roads with hills or curves.” As you well know, there is a major curve at 42 ½ street. While there is a stop sign there, a vast majority of vehicles don’t stop at this sign. Some don’t even slow down. Following Wooddale south towards 44th street this is a considerable incline. Bicyclists will be traveling much slower on this incline, but a wider lane is not being considered. More danger for the bicyclist. Volume of large trucks: “Where there is more than 10 percent of the daily volume, or over 250 heavy vehicles, during the peak hour, an increase in land width, an off‐road bikeway, or in increase in separation between the bike lane and the travel lane should be considered.” There is a very large volume of heavy truck traffic on Wooddale. Considerations for heavy vehicle traffic has not been taken into consideration with the current plan. Thank you for listening to us.  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 90 3 Eric and Michaeleen Curran‐Bakken  Sent from Mail for Windows 10  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 91 1 Ben Manibog Jr From: Sent:Thursday, February 20, 2020 3:31 PM To:Ben Manibog Jr; Subject:Southeast bikeway improvement project Wooddale segment Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hi Council members, Jack Sullivan and Ben Manibog. My name is Kathy Curran, and I was at the Public Hearing Tuesday, February 18 and support all requests to have a pilot project share the road alternative for the Wooddale segment. In addition to all the reasons raised in opposition to a dedicated bike lane, one additional reason became clear on Tuesday night. In response to a question raised about installing a stop sign at Morningside, Mr. Sullivan responded that this issue could not be studied until the spring. Putting a stop sign at Morningside may impact Wooddale in such a way that traffic will be calmed and eleviate any reason for a dedicated bike lane. The stop sign and the bike lane should definitely be considered together before any extreme irreversible changes are made. Regards, Kathy Curran 4370 Wooddale City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 92 Southeast Bikeway Improvements; Wooddale Segment Comments presented February 18, 2020 Good evening. My name is John Curran. My wife, Kathy, and I have lived on Wooddale for 34 years. Over the past several months, when voicing our concerns about this extreme proposal, a common response has been “Well, we can’t make everybody happy.” I interpret this response to mean, “We know you don’t like it, but we are going to do it anyhow.” So I ask myself the question, ok, who will be made happy by this project? 1. I can state with confidence that it is not the residents of this two block stretch of Wooddale. The majority of my neighbors are vehemently opposed. 2. Is it the taxpayers of SLP? I don’t think so. Footing a tax bill of hundreds of thousands of dollars for a two block project won’t make the taxpayers happy. 3. Is it the pedestrians? You would think it would be, given that pedestrian safety is our stated number one priority. Unfortunately, the answer is an emphatic ‘no”, not with the reduction of existing traffic calming features such as boulevard trees, and, in stretches, no barrier between the street and the sidewalk. 4. Maybe it’s the auto drivers? Nope, can’t be. The auto driver ranks at the very bottom of our City’s stated priorities. 5. It surely is not those of us who care for the environment. Tearing down trees and ripping out grasses, and replacing them with concrete, is the antithesis of environmentally friendly. 6. But isn’t the answer obvious? The bicyclists will be happy, right? Count me as skeptical. Bikers will self select the best routes, and despite all these changes, Wooddale will not be one of them. Running parallel to Wooddale just a block and a half to the west is Browndale Avenue. It has significantly less traffic and runs right into Browndale Park. Running parallel to Wooddale just a block and half to the east is Grimes Avenue. It City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 93 becomes Joppa, which runs up to Excelsior, and Grimes is that much closer to the France 44 area and the chain of lakes. It, too, has less traffic and its relevant that the City of Edina preliminarily has designated Grimes as its bike route of choice. I understand Councilperson Rog indicated at the study session that casual bikers, the very group targeted to benefit from this project, may very well not bike on Wooddale, even after all of this work. I wholeheartedly agree. Browndale and Grimes are much better bike routes, and ultimately will be the ones bikers will choose. So that brings me back to square one. I agree that we can’t please everyone, but for the life of me, I just can’t figure out who will be made happy by going forward with this extreme proposal. It benefits no one and in fact harms many of your constituents. I urge you not to adopt it, but rather adopt a less intrusive plan. Thank you for your time. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 94 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Jennifer Cook Sent:Wednesday, February 19, 2020 10:22 AM To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:wooddale project - Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Ben, I am writing to express my concern about the proposed plan for Wooddale. I really think this plan needs to be re- evaluated as it will not meet the expectations the city is anticipating. this is not a safe bike route. this plan is going to turn woodland ave into an even bigger thoroughfare than it already is. People today do not obey the stop signs or speed limits. Spend some time during the evening rush hour and see for yourself. I am afraid to walk in the crosswalk at that time as people are not paying attention at all. I have nearly been hit two times crossing the street with my puppy. Removing the center lane, making the street appear wider, people are going to use the bike as a passing lane for those who go the speed limit. I feel this is a huge safety issue for the children of the neighborhood and others. thanks for your consideration in reading my note. Jennifer Cook Raleigh Ave -St Louis Park, MN City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 95 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Dave Carlson Sent:Tuesday, February 18, 2020 5:55 PM To:Ben Manibog Jr; Jack Sullivan Subject:Fwd: Meeting tonight CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Ooops, forgot Deb was not going to be at the meeting tonight… here is what I sent her.   Hope it goes well tonight!   Begin forwarded message:  From: Dave Carlson Subject: Meeting tonight  Date: February 18, 2020 at 5:52:16 PM CST  To: Debra Heiser <dheiser@stlouispark.org>  Cc: Marc Berg George P Hagemann Hi Deb,   Very sorry… I came down with some kind of bronchial virus or something yesterday.  I thought I was  improving but I am still wiped out and would cough a lot if I came tonight.  Marc Berg will be there and he will speak.  Hopefully there will be other supporters there as well.  I don’t know if this is allowable under public hearing rules, but here is a statement that could be read  into the record, if you think this will help:  I have been involved in the St. Louis Park Visioning sessions on transportation for  many years and I am a big supporter of the Connect the Park program.  There have  been many successful implementations of bicycling infrastructure around the city  and I believe it is still very important to continue to provide these connections,  especially to adjacent communities like Edina and Minneapolis.  While there are  some concerns about the short stretch of Wooddale, the SE Bikeways project has  many desirable aspects and connections.  Hopefully the rest of the project, which  has generated little controversy, will be approved by the City Council.  Dave Carlson  7006 West 23rd Street  Feel free to use my name and address if you use this,  Thanks Deb, good luck tonight, I’ll try to watch on the cable channel.  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 96 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Susanna Brauer Sent:Thursday, February 20, 2020 8:58 AM To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:South East Bikeway Comments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  Mr. Manibog,  I’m emailing you with comments I have for the final report to city council on the proposed plans for the Southeast  Bikeway improvement project as I was unable to attend the public hearing on Feb. 18.  I strongly disagree with the plan for adding a bike lane on Wooddale Ave. between 42 1/2 st. and 44th st. I live one block  away from Wooddale Ave. so these changes are very near to my home. I acknowledge it’s an enormous challenge to  create a direct, safe, and cost effective bikeway with the narrow and often winding streets in this area of the city and the  perfect solution probably doesn’t exist. However, I don’t believe the benefits of this proposed bike lane make it worth  the huge sacrifice of beautiful mature trees and parking spaces. Most importantly, adding a bike lane on this busy road  with a multitude of driveways is not enough to make it safe for bicyclists. I personally would not feel comfortable riding  this route, especially with my young daughter in tow, and will continue to use less busy side streets when I bike. While  not ideal, I think a less direct route is important to protect people’s health and safety, and preserve trees and parking for the community.  I’m sure this hasn’t been and easy project and I thank you for your hard work for our city.  Sincerely,  Susanna Brauer  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 97 1 Ben Manibog Jr From: Sent:Saturday, February 22, 2020 6:38 PM To:Jack Sullivan; Ben Manibog Jr; Debra Heiser Cc:Margaret Rog Subject:Southeast Bikeway Project - Wooddale - additional comment CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Deb, Jack, and Ben, I spoke at the February 18th public hearing but also wanted to submit this additional comment in response to some of the references by other speakers to the November 2019 NTSB report, "Bicyclist Safety on US Roadways: Crash Risks and Countermeasures" (hereinafter the "report"), available at https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1901.pdf As you will recall from the public hearing, several speakers cited to the report as supporting the argument that striped bike lanes are unsafe, and that sharrows are preferable for a street like Wooddale. After the public hearing, I reviewed the report and saw that it does not at all support this argument. The discussion of bike lane options appears in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the report, at pages 26-36. While this portion of the report expresses a strong preference for protected bike lanes (referred to as "separated bike lanes," see report, p. 32, fn. 34) where feasible, this section of the report contains no findings or recommendations regarding the relative safety or effectiveness or sharrows versus striped bike lanes (also referred to as "conventional" bike lanes, see report, p. 33, fn. 38). Instead, the report refers to the existing practice, referenced in the FHWA guidance (and your staff presentation) on bike lane selection that considers "local context" of the street at issue - i.e., traffic volumes, prevailing speeds, number of traffic lanes, and presence of intersections and driveways. See report, at pp. 26, 33. As such - and in stark contrast to what several speakers suggested - the report does NOT contradict the FHWA guidance, and does not state that striped bike lanes are unsafe, or that sharrows are preferable to striped bike lanes, regardless of whether protected bike lanes are an available option. For this reason I found several of the comments that relied upon the report to be misleading, and even a bit disingenuous. It is my understanding that the principal objections to the plan for striped bike lanes on Wooddale are (a) loss of parking, (b) loss of trees, and (c) cost. Anyone who argues that the recommendations in the NTSB report should be accepted as controlling in this case should be asking the city to install protected bike lanes on Wooddale. The catch, of course, is that installing protected bike lanes on this segment of Wooddale would entail more loss of parking, more loss of trees, and higher cost. The staff recommendation for striped bike lanes follows the existing FHWA guidance, and appropriately considers local context of traffic volumes, prevailing speeds, etc. Therefore, in my opinion, the staff recommendation represents the best option for Wooddale. While the Wooddale residents and their neighbors have every right to weigh in on their preferences for bicycle infrastructure options on this street, they should cite their sources in an accurate, non-misleading fashion. I would appreciate it if you would include this email with the final comments to council. Marc M. Berg 2913 Webster Avenue South St. Louis Park, MN 55416 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 98 From: To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Resident Comment for Connect the Park Plan for Wooddale Avenue South--Please Include in Pre-Vote Council Report Date:Wednesday, February 12, 2020 12:03:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mayor Spano and City Council Members, As a 35+ year resident of St. Louis Park, I am writing to the City Council to express my hope and request that you will reject the current proposed plan to “Connect the Parks” by logging Wooddale Avenue to install parking bays. To me, this plan ignores logic and common sense and unfairly burdens Wooddale residents. I can’t imagine any knowledgeable, smartphone toting cyclist who will choose Wooddale over many of the parallel and calmer N/S side streets in our neighborhood simply because of a bike path designation and some road striping. By moving the parking into the current curbed borders, the proposed plan effectively widens Wooddale, which I’m guessing will tempt drivers to go faster, which would be a horrible, avoidable consequence of the current plan. This stretch of Wooddale also has a beautiful and beneficial canopy of trees that has taken years (decades in some cases) to grow that will be scarred by building cutouts for about a dozen scattered on-street parking spaces. For those cyclists who prefer or limit their routes to marked bike paths, why couldn’t St. Louis Park use a calmer street? Or keep it on Wooddale, but save the trees and use some of those reflective bike path signs that currently line the equally busy shared bike/car route around the corner on 44th Street? I applaud and appreciate the City’s foresight and willingness to create more convenient and safer routes for cyclists citywide, but cannot believe that this admirable goal can only be accomplished in our southeast corner by scarring Wooddale or ignoring the logical, sensible and united wishes of our neighbors. Dave Zubke City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 99 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Tim Brausen Sent:Friday, February 21, 2020 11:29 AM To:Paul Zeigle Cc:Tom Harmening; Jack Sullivan; Ben Manibog Jr; Anne Mavity Subject:Re: Wooddale bikeway project Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Flagged Thank you, Mr. Ziegle.  By copy of this response, I am sharing your email with our staff to be part of the public record on  this project.  ‐ Tim  Tim Brausen  Telephone:   Sent from my iPad  On Feb 21, 2020, at 10:27 AM, Paul Zeigle wrote:  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  Hi Tim,  I am writing to share my support for the bikeway infrastructure improvements along Wooddale Avenue in St. Louis Park. As an avid bicycle commuter, my perspective is based on the lived experience of riding our roadways. I have been commuting by bicycle for over 25 years on Wooddale Avenue. I was also a member on the original Connect the Park task force who’s goal was to create safe accessibility for bicyclists and pedestrians. In addition, I contributed to Edina’s bicycle/pedestrian plans as it is very important that these plans are aligned across adjacent communities. Wooddale Avenue was identified as the best north south corridor in both of these plans. That was based on ridership feedback and the identification of the route being the safest and most direct option. Daily I see other bicycle commuters using this corridor including young children riding to school. Contrary to some letters being written, the proposed plan will make it safer for cyclists and pedestrians by calming traffic and creating a safe zone for cyclist. In addition it is aligned with the Cities Climate Action Plan. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 100 2 I hope SLP City Council staff will move forward with this plan and continue to create a safer and more accessible city for those who choose alternative transportation to the automobile.  Thanks, Paul Zeigle St. Louis Park  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 101 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Monika Weeks Sent:Monday, February 24, 2020 3:55 PM To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Wooddale Avenue Bike Lane Proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Good Afternoon, Ben:   My name is Monika Weeks, and I have lived at 4238 Wooddale Avenue S. for close to 19 years. I grew up just a block off  Wooddale Avenue and Valley View Road in Edina, so Wooddale Avenue has been a part of my life for a very long time. I  remember driving up and down Wooddale Avenue to and from St. Louis Park as a child and daydreaming that one day, I  could live along the beautiful, tree‐lined road as an adult.  I was not part of the original plan to add bike lanes from 42 1/2 to 44th Street along Wooddale Avenue and was only  recently made aware of this city plan in November 2019. Once I heard about the plan, I chose to become involved as  there were many concerns raised by my neighbors that I also share.  I am not for the proposed plan for the following reasons:  1) It is not a safe plan‐‐Wooddale Avenue is a very busy road and most drivers drive much faster than the posted 30 mph, and it is rare for a driver to come to a complete stop at the stop sign at 42 1/2 Street & Wooddale Avenue‐‐as witnessed by Jake Spano and Tim Brausen on 2/23/20 when me and my neighbors met with them on the street, Rachel Harris on 2/16/20, and Nadia Mohamed and Larry Kraft on 2/9/20. I feel that the proposed bike lane on a busy and narrow road does not make sense‐‐especially if you consider that the width of the gutter pan to the curb is 1.5' wide, which only allows for a 3.5' wide bike lane. During winter months with ice and snow build up, it will be a tight ride for a biker to ride in their dedicated lane. Also, there are 38 driveways (points of conflict) along this two‐block stretch of road, which poses many more safety risks. 2) The plan takes away the majority of on‐street parking going from 63 parking spaces to 13. The only side street available to park on in this two‐block stretch is Morningside Avenue and only on the west side as the east side is in Edina and no parking is permitted. The west side of Morningside Avenue is very steep and very slippery during the winter months with a sidewalk only on the south side of the street. With the location of the proposed parking bays, people parking on the street will have to walk quite a distance to get to where they need to be. Wooddale Avenue has many older people who have lived in their homes for 40‐50 years and many of their family and friends will not want to visit due to lack of parking for them, as well as lack of parking for Amazon, UPS, FEDEX drivers, contractors, service workers, etc. 3) We don't want to lose any of our beautiful trees and I believe many others will sustain damage and die. I think with the amount of traffic, salt and sand along Wooddale Avenue, it will be difficult to grow new trees‐. 4) This project is way too expensive for such a short distance. Let's please try something else first‐‐we have lots of ideas. Let's come together as a community and develop a successful plan that works for everyone that doesn't cost the city and taxpayers this much money. Please vote no on this plan. Sincerely,  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 102 2 Monika Weeks  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 103 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Tim Brausen Sent:Monday, February 24, 2020 4:51 PM To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Fwd: Southeast Bikeway Project Tim Brausen  Telephone:  952‐451‐8492  Sent from my iPad  Begin forwarded message:  From: "Wandzel, Matt"  Date: February 19, 2020 at 9:55:20 AM CST  To: "tbrausen@stlouispark.org" <tbrausen@stlouispark.org>  Subject: Southeast Bikeway Project  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  Councilmember Brausen,  I wanted to thank you for taking the time last night to listen to so many responses regarding the bike  lane proposals. As a cyclist and St Louis Park resident, I again wanted to voice my support for this  project. The city engineers and you as a council member have done a great job to prepare a solution  which strikes a great balance for everyone in the community. As I mentioned in my time last night, this  plan does great things for bike safety not only on a street that often faces heavy congestion on  Wooddale, but also helps the other pieces of the project. It also is forward thinking with connecting the  south part of the city to the light rail that will be stopping just a few blocks north of these bike lanes.  Thank you again for your hard work,  Matt Wandzel  Realtor | Edina Realty  Vice Chair | Minneapolis Area Realtors Foundation  Past Chair | MAR Young Professionals Network  ALERT! Edina Realty will never send you wiring information via email or request that you send us personal financial information by email. If you receive an email message like this concerning any transaction involving Edina Realty, do not respond to the email and immediately contact your agent via phone. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 104 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Tim Brausen Sent:Monday, February 24, 2020 4:50 PM To:Brenda Rosenhamer Cc:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Re: Cedar Lake is not Wooddale Thank you for your comments.   Our City is enhanced by an active citizenry willing to be engaged in its management by  sharing their thoughts with the staff and City Council.   We will make sure your comments are included in the official record prior to Council decisions being made on this  matter.  As always, we’ll try to do our best in determining what the citizens of our City want and how to get it done.  Regards,  Tim  Tim Brausen  St. Louis Park Ward 4 City Council Member  On Feb 24, 2020, at 1:35 PM, Brenda Rosenhamer  wrote:  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  CM Brausen,  Thank you again for walking Wooddale.  1.I’m certain you were able to see Wooddale is NOT Texas Avenue – Wooddale is solely residential and the road is nearly two lanes narrower. 2.You mentioned Cedar Lake has driveways.  We hope you can see that Cedar Lake is NOT Wooddale as we are an ALL residential road.  Cedar Lake is a LARGE portion of commercial and the street is wider.  The plan is less responsive for the 56% of interested but concerned bikers and 10% of interested and somewhat confident. 3.In fact the engineers were USING the FHWA guidance of a vertically, physically, protected bike lane for Cedar Lake ‐ Cedar Lake Road is an outdated application (conventional lane) according to today’s guidance in most situations. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf   In addition, no care was taken to mark each Cedar Lake driveway as an intersection, the FHWA calls for this as does NACTO and NTSB.  Each driveway should have green striping. 4.The engineers wholly ignored the mention of driveways 15 times in FHWA, “Driveways/Intersection Frequency”, “The frequency of driveways and intersections also impacts decisions regarding the amount of separation needed between the street and the City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 105 2 vertically physically separated bike lane” , “Care should be given to the design of intersections,  driveways, and other conflict points” , “fewer driveways and intersections reduce conflict  points” , There is relatively long distances between driveways”, “Vertical separation is relatively  constant because of infrequent driveways” , “There is no parking along the roadway, as all  properties have driveways and adequate vehicle storage space. There are relatively long  distances between driveways”, “Vertical separation is relatively constant due to infrequent  driveways”,   etc.  None of these reflect Wooddale.    5.The trend is to FIX the 5 foot conventional lanes, as they are turning out not to be safe.  Work‐ arounds are being used to widen those lanes to 8 and 9 feet, to better shelter the biker from autos.   It’s been seven years since the start of this plan, we know more, we know that a 5 foot conventional lane is going to need to be FIXED.  They are not comfortable or safe.    My guess is you will be fixing Cedar Lake for the discomfort of their narrow bike lane. 6.Wooddale has zero width tolerance for any additional safety measures, and in fact, the FHWA guidance shows that the gutter pan is NOT part of the width of the lane.  Therefore, Wooddale lane is per the FHWA only 3.5 feet wide. 7.To develop a comprehensive, citywide system of bikeways, sidewalks and trails that: Provides local and regional connectivity Improves safety and accessibility Enhances overall community livability The integrity that it takes to promote safety in St. Louis Park resides on the shoulders of the city council,  not the engineers.  I hope that you see our city speed limits of 25 mph will democratize safety and that  outdated conventional lanes reverse our progress.  Tax money, whether for the biking project or traffic,  all comes from the same tax payer and should be spent for safe plans.  We hope you will see that it’s  time to begin afresh, vote no to the old style conventional lane on Wooddale, and begin to lead our city  with reform in safety.  Building a city that respects the biker will educate even the biker.  Thank you.  Brenda Rosenhamer  Wooddale is not suited to this plan.  Please vote to stop the Wooddale plan.   Brenda Rosenhamer  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any attachments. Thank you.  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 106 3 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 107 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Evan Ramstad Sent:Saturday, February 22, 2020 11:41 AM To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:comment on Quentin/Wooddale bike trail improvements Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  Hi Mr. Manibog,  My name is Evan Ramstad and I live at 4106 Quentin Ave., a house just across from the parking lot entrance of Lindgren  School. I went to the public hearing on Tuesday about the proposed bike trail changes and came away with a couple of  questions for you. First, a quick bit about me. I’ve moved here in January 2014 and, for the first two or three years, I  frequently biked downtown to work and, in the evenings, up Wooddale to 44th and ultimately up to Vernon Ave. where  my parents live in a senior apartment across from Jerry’s Foods. In recent years, I only bike downtown about once a  week, though I kind of gave up last summer because the trail closings were shifting so much. I will try again in spring and  see if I can find a route I like. All to say, I feel I have seen both directions of the area where the improvements discussed  Tuesday are to happen.  It was interesting for me to hear the vernacular used by the bikers about their confidence level etc. I’m 54, just an urban  biker, not one who goes thousands of miles a year. I enjoy it but am not dogmatic or fanatical about biking or the  imperative for trails and lanes. I’ve never worried about biking in either direction on Wooddale between 44th and the  little turn on to Princeton/Quentin, where the controversial trail is to be built. My gut feeling is the share‐the‐road  markings are enough, coupled with a four‐way stop at Morningside and Wooddale and speed signage for vehicles.  Cutting down trees and widening the road is an extreme response given the existing bike traffic, or prospective increase  in the future.  My questions:  1) I’m not sure whether it was you or a colleague who mentioned, in response to a question about placing stop signs at the intersection of Wooddale and Morningside, that the intersection didn’t meet the criteria for one. The specifics weren’t discussed, but I wonder if you can summarize them briefly. My thought is that, if the criteria is on traffic volume, then I could understand. It doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of turning volume there. However, there’s a visibility factor that you may want to consider that may lie outside normal formulas. Three of the four sides of that intersection are rising, and drivers must pitch forward a bit to check cross traffic. Are angles and visibility a consideration in determining the need for a four‐way stop at an intersection? 2) Would the creation of bike lanes on Wooddale count as something “more” in the evaluations of other authorities who monitor St. Louis Park’s progress in transit infrastructure? Left unspoken at the hearing was the degree to which outside incentives or goals affect the proposal. Several levels of government, and outside organizations, have set goals and/or created incentives for entities like St. Louis Park to change their roads. Is putting in a bike lane for that approximate one‐ third of a mile worth more in their eyes than, for instance, the share‐road markings that will be in front of my house on Quentin? City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 108 2 Thanks for the time. You don’t have an easy job having to respond to so many constituencies and people.  Evan  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 109 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Lori Larson Sent:Monday, February 24, 2020 1:29 PM To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:SLP Wooddale Bikeway Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Hello Ben,     I have been following the dialog about the proposed dedicated bikeway on Wooddale for the last several months and  understand there will be a council vote on the current plan next week.  I believe the current plan includes taking out  trees and boulevard areas for a limited number of parking spots.  I would ask if it is possible for this change to be a two  step process if it is voted in.  Could we first just take away the parking and build the bike lanes and then down the road,  if the neighborhood finds the need for a few parking spots, to then consider taking down the trees and taking out the  boulevards if necessary.  I think making such a drastic change for so few parking spots that may be rarely, if ever, used is  not productive from an economic or environment standpoint.  I feel it is more prudent to take this one step at a time.    My understanding from Jack Sullivan is that his first design for dedicated bike lanes did NOT include the parking bays and  he only added them based on resident feedback.  As one of the residents, I would much prefer NO parking on Wooddale  than parking bays and because it isn’t necessary to meet the council’s desire for a bikeway, why can’t it be a two step  process of change since the second step may never be needed.    This option has never been presented to me or my neighbors, so I do not know if it would be widely accepted, but based  on many I have talked to, they are in agreement with me.    Thoughts?    Lori Larson     City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 110 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Tim Brausen Sent:Monday, February 24, 2020 4:52 PM To:James Jerney Cc:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Re: Incident on Wooddale, Part 2 Thank you for your comments.   Our City is enhanced by an active citizenry willing to be engaged in its management by  sharing their thoughts with the staff and City Council.   We will make sure your comments are included in the official record prior to Council decisions being made on this  matter.  As always, we’ll try to do our best in determining what the citizens of our City want and how to get it done.  Regards,  Tim  Tim Brausen  St. Louis Park Ward 4 City Council Member  On Feb 23, 2020, at 8:12 PM, James Jerney wrote:  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  Anne,   Tonight at 7:55 PM a southbound Audi S4 Wagon passed in front of my house at 4269 Wooddale  Avenue at freeway speed.   Playing games with road paint would not have slowed it down.  This is the street to which your plan will attract children on bicycles.  Your.Political.Agenda.Will.Get.Someone.Killed.  Have a wonderful night.  Respectfully,  Jim Jerney  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 111 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Holden, Chris Sent:Monday, February 24, 2020 4:24 PM To:Jack Sullivan; Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Wooddale Improvements. Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Jack and Ben,  I am writing to you this afternoon to share my support for the scheduled improvements to Wooddale Avenue.  I am both  a resident, 3936 Natchez Avenue South, and a bike commuter.  During all four seasons I use Wooddale Avenue 2 x daily  for my commute to Edina.  The current set up for bikes, pedestrians and cars on Wooddale, while adequate is by no  means ideal.  Traffic moves quickly on Wooddale and that stretch of road is the LEAST safe of my entire commute from  my home to the Edina Community Center.  I applaud the City’s efforts to balance the need for parking, pedestrians and  bicyclists with the current proposal.  While 10 trees will be lost, the enhanced safety of cyclists and the traffic calming  effects of this project outweigh this cost.  I understand that change is difficult for residents along Wooddale, but the  greater interests of all SLP residents and drivers should take precedence on a public roadway.    Chris Holden  Principal, Normandale Elementary French Immersion School  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 112 Dear Mayor Spano and Council Members Rog, Harris, Brausen, Mohamed, Kraft, and Mavity: I want to extend my deepest thanks to the Mayor and Council Members for walking Wooddale with residents and experiencing first-hand the situation on our unique street. You listened to our concerns and for that we are grateful. One matter of grave concern regards the safety of bikers, pedestrians, and particularly our children should this ill-fated plan be approved. I want to tell you a story about the worst moment of my life. When my daughter Juliet was in second grade, she was hit by a car at the corner of 44th and Wooddale. It was a glorious spring day and an SUV waved my daughter across the street and she took off… just as a car was heading across the intersection from Country Club north on Wooddale. Mothers stood on each corner, including me. Yet there was not a thing any of us could do but watch as my young daughter was struck. It happened in seconds. The EMTs arrived and she was in shock, but thankfully not seriously injured. However, she was traumatized for years and terrified to cross a street. She and my husband lobbied the city councils of SLP and Edina to add crosswalks at this intersection and both cities installed them. Of course they did—it was the right thing to do. She spoke to both city councils and advocated for safety. She was eight years old. This is a lesson that council members would do well to follow. In opposing this destructive, dangerous and costly plan—a plan that can NEVER BE REVERSED, Wooddale residents have been forced to become experts on bicycle and pedestrian safety. For many of us, mornings, evenings, and weekends have been sacrificed to investigate the latest research. We have consulted with top engineers in the fields of traffic and transportation, studied environmental concerns and tree survival rates, as well as crafted 5 additional alternative plans accommodating every level of cyclist. We sincerely wish all of our research had supported engineering staff’s findings, but unfortunately it does not, because the proposed plan is not based on the most authoritative research, such as NTSB, and fails to consider the “frequent and high-density” of driveways (38) with short distances between them. These driveways create 152 conflict points that intersect with the designated bike lane. These circumstances alone disqualify this hazardous bike plan for ALL cyclists. Please vote NO on this plan. At the very least CREATE A 2-YEAR PILOT PROGRAM to study the effects of a “Share the Road” design. As research on bike safety is changing dramatically, I implore you to go back to the drawing board and adjust your plans to be in line with the latest, safest research and design a “CONNECT THE PARK” 2.0 plan. Your constituents will applaud your open minds, due diligence, and your priority for constituent safety. Thank you, Marianne Herrmann 4386 Wooddale Ave. S. St. Louis Park City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 113 Traffic Counts of Collector Roads St Louis Park Wooddale Ave S (residential west of Highway 100) 2,850 vdp in 2014 3,250 vpd in 2017 (Highway 100 & 169 construction traffic) Proposed to be designated as Major Collector! Existing Major Collector • 36th Street - 15,500 vpd. • Woodale West of Hwy 100 - 10,500 vpd To be designated as Major Collector • Park Center Blvd. - 13, 700 vpd • Belt Line Blvd - 14,900 vpd • Wooddale Ave S – 3,250 vpd ??? RANGE: 10,500 – 15,500 vpd State Aid Street to designated Minor Collector 1) Brookside Ave - 3,550 vpd 2) 38th Street – 3,300 vpd (stop signs on every block). Appx 10 driveways in .4 miles (not 37 like Wooddale) 3) 26th Street – 4,450 vpd 4) 28th Street – 2,550 vpd RANGE 2,250 – 4,550 vpd This information is from SLP Comp Plan and MN Traffic count records. City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 114 February 15, 2020. Texas Avenue – Bike Lanes obstructed by park cars in many instances because of piled snow City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 115 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 116 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 117 February 7, 2020 Minnetonka Boulevard & Jersey Ave City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 118 February 1, 2020 Wooddale and Morningside Cone is 2 feet from parking line City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 119 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Matt Delisle Sent:Monday, February 24, 2020 4:27 PM To:Ben Manibog Jr Cc:Matt Delisle Subject:Comments for St Louis Park City Council - Wooddale Final Report Attachments:EXHIBIT A - Existing Bike Lanes in SLP - Snow Examples.pdf; EXHIBIT B - Wooddale - Major Minor Collector Road Information.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Hi Ben,    Below and attached are my comments for the final report.  Please confirm receipt.      Dear City Council Members:    As a pedestrian and biker, I am not in support of bike lanes on Wooddale Avenue between 42 1/2 St and 44th  St in St Louis Park.    I ask that you please vote "NO" for the St Louis park Southeast Bikeway as it stands.    Some comments:    1) Non‐separate bike lanes, like what is being proposed on Wooddale between 44nd 1/2 and 44th streets, are  proven less safe.   Existing non‐separate bike lanes might sound great but, in reality, they do not work well  already in St Louis Park given our large amount of snow fall in the winter months and some of the snow needs  to be placed onto the edge of the road for the season (where bike lanes are placed).  See attached Exhibit A.    1)  Quentin/Princeton Ave south of Wooddale is proposed to be desigated as a Minor Collector with  sharrow.  Why is Wooddale being proposed to be designated as a Major Collector and not Minor Collector  ?  Wooddale Ave from Excelsior to 44th St is very far below traffic counts for a Major Collector.  Nearby Major  Collector streets are 10,500 ‐ 15,500 vpd (Vehicles Per Day).  Wooddale's 2014 traffic was 2,850 vpd; in 2017  Highway 169 was closed, in that year Wooddale vpd were still only 3,250!  Nearby Minor Collectors range  2,250 ‐ 4,550 vpd.  See attached Exhibit B.    This plan is not well thought out.  Lets take a step back and do this the right way instead!      Thanks,    City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 120 2 Matt Delisle  4272 Wooddale Ave S  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 121 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Cindy Brausen Sent:Monday, February 24, 2020 4:31 PM To:Ben Manibog Jr; Tim Brausen Subject:Comments on Southeast Bike way Improvements due 2/24/20 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Subject: Southeast Bike Way Improvements due 2/24/20 Attn: Larry Kraft & Tim Brausen     Additional housing has been on the rise in St. Louis Park and taking away any existing parking does not make sense for future plans for more housing constructions.    Per Metro-mobility driver and an "avid bike rider" - Woodale should be left as the main through fare for cars and the city should use the parallel side streets for bike lanes, which are safer.     "You might think that all cycling advocates would support bicycle lanes. You'd be wrong. Some cyclists oppose bike lanes on the grounds that they protect only from rear-end collisions (which are rare), and increase the likelihood of collisions at intersections (which are more common)."     Bike Lanes in Minnesota - parking restrictions should be reduced to the actual months that the majority of the bikers are using the lanes. Are these bike lanes monitored for use?    Thanks!  Cindy                  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 122 1 Ben Manibog Jr From: Sent:Monday, February 24, 2020 4:16 PM To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Opposition to the Wooddale segment plan... Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hi Ben…please add the below into the public record for the Wooddale  section of the Southeast Bikeway project:  Mayor Spano and Council Members: I am JC Beckstrand, residing at 4386 Wooddale for the past 32 years. I  have served St. Louis Park for a decade as a Charter Commission  Commissioner by appointment of the Chief Judge of the Hennepin County District Court. I am also a nationally recognized authority on risk  management matters over 30 years of large corporate and public entity  experience. Sometimes, despite our best efforts, we simply get things wrong. Tonight,  our neighborhood is here to halt what is readily apparent to anyone who  has lived, walked, biked or visited Wooddale…the current bikeway  project, as proposed, is simply WRONG. It is totally OFF THE MARK… The current plan does not fit the intended purpose, does not address the  target “Interested but Concerned” cyclist audience/rider, it is overly  costly for the subjective value, it does not follow current best safety  practices, does not conform to the tenets of the 2040 Comp Plan,  requires several variances from the State of Minnesota to be  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 123 2 accommodated and it will result in bodily injury if implemented as  proposed. I should know…my daughter was hit by a car, on Wooddale 16  years ago in an unmarked crosswalk at 44th and Wooddale! Why have we  had to FIGHT for safety on this street!  It should be understood that this is a car first plan masquerading as a bike  plan. Why? Because despite our best neighborhood efforts, staff  steadfastly refuses to reduce the posted speed (why not?) or reduce the  traffic volume (again…why not?) and, as a result of the refusal to address  these root cause issues, bike and pedestrian safety will be compromised.  Remember…notwithstanding what the staff has incorrectly stated (we  have the emails to prove this deceptive characterization), this is a local,  residential road and is not, nor ever should, be a Major Collector.  There are 38 driveways on the short section with 4 intersections and the  proposed plan will turn Wooddale into a residential freeway death zone if  approved.  Through it all, we have attempted to develop win‐win solutions while  enduring dismissive and divisive criticism by our Councilmember… being  called “bullies;” “told to move if we don’t like it;” “that it will go through  regardless of what we think” and that “this is not about you, but for the  next hundred years.” This is not representative local government, it is  unbecoming of an elected official in St. Louis Park and does not represent  the values of our City.  Regarding the plan “for the next 100 years?” We had mass transit one  hundred years ago on West 44th. It was called the Como‐Harriet‐Hopkins  streetcar that was replaced with busses by the government in the name  of progress. That didn’t seem to work out so well since we are now  spending BILLIONS to put in light rail…the current lexicon for streetcars.  As I said…people make mistakes…let’s not make another on Wooddale  with this plan.   City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 124 3 Rather than trying to shoehorn in an extreme, one‐size fits all disaster  of a plan, let’s consider some more reasoned approaches:  1.Share‐the‐road (sharrow) 2‐year pilot project on Wooddale with actual performance metrics to see if the stated project criteria are being met or not. 2.Sharrow on Grimes, Wooddale and Browndale to meet all of the target users and better Connect the Park. A triple treat for cyclists! 3.Establish a Transportation Commission to better engage the community and have the residents most affected more directly engaged at the earliest planning stage and their joint solutions employed. 4.Do nothing…the street has functioned well for over a hundred years…leave it alone…it already Connects the Park! I will ask my fellow Charter Commissioners to consider eliminating Ward  representation and propose a plan for all elected council positions to be  “at Large” to eliminate the current quid‐pro‐quo between wards,  especially for city‐wide and regional projects.  We are connected by neighbors, by shared history, by community affinity  and relationships that bind…we are part of the fabric of humanity that  comprises St. Louis Park. To desecrate this street is to shred the VERY  fabric of this community. That is why this is so important and why it must  be stopped in its present form. I URGE YOU TO VOTE NO TO THE  CURRENT PLAN.  Below are but a few of the many simple questions that we presented to  staff that have never been answered:  1.Why did this project start out as a share the road concept and suddenly veer to an extreme elimination of parking, loss of trees and road reclassification project? City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 125 4 2.Why has the proposed road reclassification to major collector been hidden? What are the residential impacts of traffic volume and speeds of this action alone absent the bikeway project? 3.Have neighboring communities, like Edina, been advised of the proposed Wooddale road reclassification? What studies have been done in connection with Country Club? 4.Why have complete studies not been provided to Wooddale residents that include bicycle usage, traffic speed and volume increases, climate impacts from boulevard plant and greenery elimination. 5.How many cyclists use Wooddale now and how many are projected after the project? 6.Why have we not been given an environmental assessment of the impact of adding impervious surface area? 7.Does this project conflict with the recently adopted livable streets initiative? The Comp 2040 Plan? 8.What traffic calming measures are being considered to reduce traffic volumes and speeds? JC Beckstrand  4386 Wooddale Av S  St. Louis Park, MN 55424  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 126 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Ben Manibog Jr Sent:Tuesday, February 25, 2020 5:09 PM To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:FW - IMPORTANT INFORMATION     Ben A. Manibog Jr. (he/him/his)  transportation engineer | City of St. Louis Park  5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416  Office: 952‐924‐2669   www.stlouispark.org  Experience LIFE in the Park.     ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Ben Manibog Jr <bmanibog@stlouispark.org>   Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 5:08 PM  To: Ben Manibog Jr <bmanibog@stlouispark.org>  Subject: FW ‐ IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO BE ENTERED INTO THE 2‐18‐20 SLP PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS FOR  COUNCIL MEMBERS ‐ PLEASE CONFIRM RECEIPT OF THIS EMAIL         Ben A. Manibog Jr. (he/him/his)  transportation engineer | City of St. Louis Park  5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416  Office: 952‐924‐2669   www.stlouispark.org  Experience LIFE in the Park.     ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Marianne Herrmann    Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 2:51 PM  To: Ben Manibog Jr <bmanibog@stlouispark.org>  Subject: IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO BE ENTERED INTO THE 2‐18‐20 SLP PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS FOR COUNCIL  MEMBERS: PLEASE CONFIRM RECEIPT OF THIS EMAIL     CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.      I have several questions for the Council Members related to the Wooddale Section of the Southeast Bikeway project  that I would like entered into the Public Record.    It is our understanding, as explained to us by our Ward Representative on December 3rd, that Council Members as a  whole are to direct staff and not give direction on a one‐on‐one basis, either publicly or privately, according to the Home  Rule Charter of the City of St. Louis Park. Any directions, suggestions, or orders a Council Member may have for staff  must go through the City Manager.  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 127 2 We are therefore very confused, as our Ward Representative and the proposed plan staff project engineer, Jack Sullivan,  were witnessed by multiple residents walking together and then meeting in a private passenger vehicle on our street at  the project site on January 21st at 5:00 p.m. This seems highly improper under the circumstances of this project. One of  the residents spoke to the Ward Representative during this visit and there is a video record as well.  If this action is as improper as the Ward Representative stated on December 3rd, what was the purpose of such a private  meeting with Mr. Sullivan on Wooddale? Could anything that was stated or discussed in this meeting have been  interpreted by Mr. Sullivan as direction?  Thank you,  Marianne Herrmann  4386 Wooddale Ave. S.  SLP  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 128 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Eric Curran-Bakken Sent:Monday, February 24, 2020 5:51 PM To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Fwd: Southeast bikeway CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    I hope it’s not too late to add this to the record. I’ve listed the verbiage regarding the gutter pan that is in the MNDOT  manual. This needs to be taken into consideration.  Eric T. Curran‐Bakken  Hempworx Affiliate      Sent from my iPad    Begin forwarded message:  From: Eric Curran‐Bakken   Date: February 24, 2020 at 09:18:03 CST  To: "amavity@stlouispark.org" <amavity@stlouispark.org>  Subject: Southeast bikeway   After the public hearing I realized I did not share with the council likely one major oversight by staff when designing the Wooddale section of the Southeast bikeway. The MNDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual, which staff was following for the design, indicates that the curb gutter pan is not to be included in the width of the bike path. The gutter pan on Wooddale is 1.5 feet from the curb. This effectively decreases the bike lane width to 3.5 feet on a very busy, high vehicle speed roadway. 3.5’ of bike path does not meet the minimum bike path width.     The section in the manual where this can be found is section 5‐40. It reads as follows: “If a gutter pan is  present, it is not included as part of the bike lane width unless the gutter is incorporated into the width  of   the bike lane and results in no longitudinal joint or seams parallel to a bicyclist’s line of travel. If there  are no joints or seams, the nine inches of the gutter pan adjacent to the curb can be considered  clearance  to the vertical curb. If there is no gutter pan, such as in cases where a roadway has been overlaid to its  full width, a nine‐inch clearance from the vertical curb is necessary.”    After the public hearing, I asked staff if they considered the gutter pan as part of the bike path width.  Ben said they were counting this in the 5 foot bike path. I then asked if he knew that the design manual  indicates that the gutter pan is not to be counted in the width. He said he was not aware of this and  didn’t know about it. How can this be? I have shared this information with staff. Even if the seam to the  gutter pan was somehow eliminated, the manual states that the bike path width measurement should  start 9” from the curb.   City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 129 2 This is unacceptable and another indication of why this section of road should not be used as a bike  path.  This section of the bikeway should be voted down.  Eric T. Curran‐Bakken  Sent from my iPad  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 130 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Cindy Brausen Sent:Tuesday, February 25, 2020 4:20 PM To:Ben Manibog Jr; Tim Brausen Subject:Re: Comments on Southeast Bike way Improvements due 2/24/20 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    One last comment for bikers on congested streets like Woodale. Why are bike lanes not on non-congested Streets? You may get a good workout on your daily bike commute, but breathing in air pollution from heavy traffic can be harmful to your lungs.   On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 4:30 PM Cindy Brausen  wrote:  Subject: Southeast Bike Way Improvements due 2/24/20 Attn: Larry Kraft & Tim Brausen     Additional housing has been on the rise in St. Louis Park and taking away any existing parking does not make sense for future plans for more housing constructions.    Per Metro-mobility driver and an "avid bike rider" - Woodale should be left as the main through fare for cars and the city should use the parallel side streets for bike lanes, which are safer.     "You might think that all cycling advocates would support bicycle lanes. You'd be wrong. Some cyclists oppose bike lanes on the grounds that they protect only from rear-end collisions (which are rare), and increase the likelihood of collisions at intersections (which are more common)."     City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 131 2 Bike Lanes in Minnesota - parking restrictions should be reduced to the actual months that the majority of the bikers are using the lanes. Are these bike lanes monitored for use? Thanks! Cindy City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 132 1 Ben Manibog Jr From:Mary Daenzer Sent:Tuesday, February 25, 2020 8:32 PM To:Ben Manibog Jr Subject:Biking on Wooddale CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  My husband and I  have lived on Wooddale for 12 years, not as long as some of my neighbors  have been.  We find it difficult to speak in a public setting so have found it easier to just share  our thoughts  in writing.  We both want to thank all of the members of the city council for  their tireless work on this bike project. I sense that you all care deeply about it.  Please let  some common sense guide your decision.  We feel that trying out the bike lanes for several  years certainly would be a compromise and also help by not making costly mistakes.  I know it  is important to get more cars off the street but it seems  a drastic decision to just remove such  a large amount  of parking before there really is a need for it.  It also doesn’t take into account  the feelings of 90% of the  people who live on this street.    It’s also a lot of money.  My taxes  have gone up in the last 5 years double  what the valuation of my house has risen.  Please  make a wise decision.  I will pray that it is a decision that we can all live with.  I love living in  Minnesota and having the opportunity to watch my grandchildren grow.   Thank you for your service to this community.  We love our community and city. Thank you for your service,   Chuck and Mary Daenzer  City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 133 2 /re /Q o -Recv'} lerca Fre i Safari File Edit View History Boo km arks Window Help f J2 49 = oo% (ill Tue 2:54 PM a © • < [] change.org .+ 'CZ U oJ iCloud Google Amazon.com:.DVDs &more YouTube Publishers Marketplace 7-Day Forecast for Latitude 44.91N and Longitude 93.34°W (Elev. 892 ft) Facebook Twitter Linkedin The Weather Cha nnel Weather\ink Home Yelp TripAdvisor Home Weather Wooddale SLP Weather Recipe Index { Olive Tomato Petition St. Louis Park CIty Council: 1. SAVE OUR STREET S! Protect Woo dda... } PROTECT THE WOODDALE/BROWNDALE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD: KEEP OUR STREETS GREEN AND SAFE! A iii e' SE%33 • 1,760 have signed. Let's get to 2,500! ,- j44 sirs» '®¥' ; "; j, ga#. $5 ·? +y F " 835. • » ZEA a sf c 1 " :¢ 'a { a ? :-ii t y 'e ' K r6 7 ® ®%\» 3,58-5 ~ - -~ - "!I!. . . . .. k, ' F i h; 1 rg " u.% tG "" =ti>g;;'#,, 's;_;© @ % kt y s • ,.,. . } .%. 4 {A "iii ,_ A • g fy ' 43< g5± · lg ~~- ~ g A i» is5 TOT awe: ; < aa ,_ ql 'ooddale/Browndale United for Safe Streets started this petition to St. Louis Park City Co un cil @l) Jonny Beamish signed 3 hours ago Diane Ault signed 10 hours ago aR St. Louis Park City Council: 1. SAVE OUR STREETS! Protect. EZ Share on Facebook El Send a Facebook message Z Send an email to friends -os?»:@4 £)" «L? s .Lu20t to.uuL flluns ©v&©3(C> » [ ~,.: ... Pl City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 134 lg Safari File Edit View History Bookmarks Window Help f 4®9 = 100 » Tue255PM •= • • < D change.org ... e c 6l iCloud Google Amazon.com:..DVDs&more YouTube Publishers Marketplace Facebook Twitter Linkedin The Weather Channel Yelp TripAdvisor Home Weather Wooddale SLP Weather Recipe Index { Olive Tomato 7-D ay Forecast for Latitude 44.91N and Longitude 93.34W (E lev. 89 2 ft) Weather\ink Home Petition- St. Louis Park City Council: 1. SAVE OUR STREETS! Protect Woodda... {- 4#fg Wooddale/Browndale United for Safe Streets started this petition to St. Louis Park City #le! council C ONTACT SaveOurNeighborhoodSLP@gmail.com to be included in our e-mails and get all of the research that backs up our conclusions below! The City of St. Louis Park is proposing to reduce on-street parking on Wooddale Avenue. S. from 42%- 44th from 89 spaces to 13; widen the street by eliminating boulevard trees for parking "bump outs" and add segregated bikeway lanes on both sides of the street. The city has also indicated that they plan to reclassify Wooddale Avenue S. from 42%- 44th streets as a "Major Collector Road," thereby increasing traffic significantly. 6 Send an email to friends r Tweet to your followers c Copy link Show this petition to more potential supporters Promote this petition The city intends to remove 13 mature, flourishing trees: The plan will result in consequential damage to the environment when the city removes 13 mature trees on an historic residential street. It also puts 15 more trees at significant risk because of damaqe incurred durin H:on=®a t :»s«:s r. - - ··- . . . ©@vow©'St> » [ City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 135 lg Safari File Edit View History Boo kmarks Window Help ® ;J 49 100%a» Tue2:55PM Q •== • @ < [D change.org A '? e [5l iC lo ud G oog le A m azon .com :..D V D s &m o re Y oufube P ub lishers M arketplace Facebook Twitter Linkedin The Weather Channel Yelp TripAdvisor Home Weather Wooddale SLP Weather Recipe Index { Olive Tomato 7-Day Forecast fo r Latitu de 44.91N and Lo ng itud e 93.34W (Elev. 892 ft) W eath erL ink H o m e Pe tit io n - S t. Lo uis P ark C Ity C o uncil: '1. SAV E O U R S T R EE T S! Protect Woodda... j The city intends to remove 13 mature, flourishing trees: The plan will result in consequential damage to the environment when the city removes 13 mature trees on an historic residential street. It also puts 15 more trees at significant risk because of damage incurred during construction of parking bays. A sizeable amount of boulevard space will be replaced with asphalt, thereby increasing contaminated runoff. This plan will increase traffic speeds, volumes, and truck traffic. This plan will increase traffic speeds, volumes, and truck traffic. It will actually decrease cyclist and pedestrian safety. Even more horrifying, the plan removes four critical crosswalks: one at Morningside Road and Wooddale that connects to Browndale Park and three at the 3-way stop at Wooddale, Princeton, and 421/2 Street that connect to Susan Lindgren Elementary School, putting our schoolchildren at alarming risk and DISCONNECTING the Park. This extreme loss of parking with no nearby options puts seniors and persons with disabilities at grave risk. We require f -o su i«?s7&s =FF] .. -,.•.i.f·· !I City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 136 @g Safari File Edit View History Bookmarks Window Help f 0 4® 100% a» Tue2s5PM Q Q .= • • < IT] change.org A ' CJ [51 iCloud Google Amazon.com:.DVDs &more YouTube Publishers Marketplace Facebook Twitter Linkedin The Weather Channel Yelp TripAdvisor Home Weather Wooddale SLP Weather Recipe Index / Olive Tomato 7-Day Forecast for Latitude 44.91°N and Longitude 93.34W (Elev. 892 ft) WeatherLink Home Petition- St. Louis Park City Council: 1. SAVE OUR STREET S! Protect Woo dda... + This extreme loss of parking with no nearby options puts seniors and persons with disabilities at grave risk. We require on-street parking for guests, home-maintenance and construction trucks, delivery trucks, and for our very livelihood. Without parking, these vehicles will block entire lanes and create hazardous conditions for cyclists and cars; cars and large trucks (and open doors) will prohibit drivers and cyclists from spotting oncoming traffic. Furthermore, adjoining streets where parking is allowed will be overwhelmed with parked cars. This excessive, irresponsible and financially reckless plan will cost the taxpayers of St. Louis Park almost $425,000 dollars, as opposed to our plan that will cost a small fraction of what the city is proposing. Our plan will make Wooddale, and surrounding roads, SAFER for all children, pedestrians, and cyclists. The residents of the Browndale Neighborhood urge City Council members to act now to: an, s a pj Q {[i » ,y gl]' } W jL &&# li ; ' {.'Le S ,.. ·- - ·~ . . . ©©&o©2t> » ] u' City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 137 @g Safari File Edit View History Bookmarks Window Help ® 2 4® = 100» Tue2ssPM Q © :== • • < (I] change.org A '? e 6l i©loud Google Amazon.com:..DVDs&more Youfube Publishers Marketplace Facebook Twitter Linkedin The Weather Channel Yelp TripAdvisor Home Weather Wooddale SLP Weather Recipe Index ; Olive Tomato 7-Day Forecast for Latitude 44.91N and Longitude 93.34W (Elev. 892 ft} Weather±Link Home Petition St. Louis Park CIty Council: 1. SAVE OUR STREETS! Protect Woodda... j The residents of the Browndale Neighborhood urge City Council members to act now to: Reject expensive, extreme bikeway measures that eliminate trees and parking, increase traffic speeds and volume, and decrease livability. Calm Wooddale traffic to increase safety, reduce vehicle speeds, volume, and commercial truck traffic. Keep on-street parking intact with NO reductions. Parked cars are the most effective method to narrow streets, slow traffic and provide a proven safety "buffer" for pedestrians. Add "Share the Road" (sharrow) signage and on-street markings for the safety of cyclists and the consistency of road design with surrounding streets. Reject the functional re-classification of Wooddale from local residential to major collector road. - o <Fi»&u ?-Fs .9,¥an gee 44.% a " ©@v&©3t> » ] . a City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 138 i Safari File Edit View History Bookmarks Window Help ef ? {® = 100% ii» Tue 2:.55 PM a © •• < [D change.org .. '=? ' [5l iCloud Google Amazon.com:..DVDs&more Youfube Publishers Marketplace Facebook Twitter Linkedin The Weather Channel Yelp TripAdvisor Home Weather Wooddale SLP Weather Recipe Index { Olive Tomato 7-Day Forecast for Latitude 44.91N and Longitude 93.34W (Elev. 892 ft) Weather Link Home Pe tition· St. Louis Park City Council: 1. SAVE OUR STREETS! Protect Woo dda... j Reject the functional re-classification of Wooddale from local residential to major collector road. Please contact us at saveourneighborhoodSLP@gmail.com to be included in our e-mails and get all of the research that backs up our conclusions. THANK YOU! Updates Post an update Keep your supporters engaged with a news update. Every update you post will be sent as a separate email to signers of your petition. Letter: St. Louis Park bikeway plan is 'hazardous and reckless' Feb 12, 2020 , 0 MT - ji: Oz?y&gt ©@co ©'2dC; w] City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 139 change.org Recipient: St. Louis Park City Council Letter: Greetings, 1. SAVE OUR STREETS! Protect Wooddale/Browndale and keep us safe! City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 140 S igna tu re s Name Location Date Marianne Herrmann us 2020-01-03 Juliet Beckstrand Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-04 JC Beckstrand Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-04 Bill Jordan Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-04 Lori Larson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-04 Stephanie Schwartz St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-04 Diane Jordan St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-04 Eric Curran-Bakken St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-05 Julie Bakken-johnson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Suman Roy Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Margaret Curran Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Georgie Yiannias 4374 Dart Ave., MN 2020-01-05 Jacly Miller Peoria, US 2020-01-05 Andrea Erickson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Jeffrey Brooks Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-01-05 Mary Simon-Casati Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Roger Fuentes Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Eric Harvey Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Brenda Rosenhamer Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-01-05 Cami Flanagan Edina, MN 2020-01-05 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 141 Name Location Date RUTH USEM Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 keith gons Salisbury, US 2020-01-05 BRO BRO Cheyenne,US 2020-01-05 kathleen Curran St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-05 Carey Chapdelaine Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 James Cassidy Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Lisa Fagan Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Kelsey Bakken Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Lori Vossler-Yang Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 sai sadsa Washington, US 2020-01-05 Anna Dimants Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Rebecca Hoskins Stone Ridge, VA 2020-01-05 Kenosha Sanders New Albany, US 2020-01-05 Caidy Thompson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Kris Knetsch St Paul, MN 2020-01-05 Jill Hartman Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 amy Johnson edina, MN 2020-01-05 Mary Meester Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Debra Fisher Goldstein St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-05 Emma Cooperstein Edina, MN 2020-01-05 tim salyers Minneapolis, US 2020-01-05 Malika Sultanova Chicago, US 2020-01-05 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 142 Name Location Date David Morrow Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Natasha Davis Albuquerque, US 2020-01-05 Jamie Carl Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Shelley Wagener Edina, MN 2020-01-05 Susan Kaufman Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-01-05 Delphine Aubourg Edina, MN 2020-01-05 carter averbeck Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Mickey Curran-Bakken Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-05 Reed Heffelfinger St Louios Park, MN 2020-01-05 kim teeple Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Dave Luger 4474 dart ave, MN 2020-01-05 gerry fuller Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-05 Julianne Simmons Bloomington, MN 2020-01-05 Chris Louk St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-05 David Jones St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-05 Sarah Miller Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Theresa Weber-Sexton Rochester, MN 2020-01-05 Robin Christianson Delano, MN 2020-01-05 Michael Iniguez Cypress, TX 2020-01-05 Lynne Kulander Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-05 Jeff Fagan Bethlehem, US 2020-01-05 Marie Baudek St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-05 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 143 Name Location Date Carrie Gleason Littleton, CO 2020-01-05 kyle willems Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Angela Chaffee Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Laura Schmit Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Susan Pfaff Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 David Melicha Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Leandra Peak Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Cynthia Mashaal Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Christine Kirklin Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-05 Nicole Williams Edina, MN 2020-01-05 Katherine Fullerton Chevy Chase, MD 2020-01-05 Markeya Burkepile Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Judd Kirklin Edina, MN 2020-01-05 Monika Sweet Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Susan Austin Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Anja Henne Hopkins, US 2020-01-05 Ellen Thayer Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Matt Spraguer Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Mark Austin Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Pamela Balabuszko-Reay Edina- Morningside, MN 2020-01-05 Laura Horman New Ulm, MN 2020-01-05 Kris Fielding MINNEAPOLIS, MN 2020-01-05 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 144 Name Location Date Sandy Stone St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-05 Carrie Gleason Sedalia, US 2020-01-05 Michaelanne deGrood Edina, MN 2020-01-05 Johnny Austin Saint Louis park, MN 2020-01-05 Mallory Embretson Minnetonka, MN 2020-01-05 Jennifer Embretson Minnetonka, MN 2020-01-05 Sarah Embretson Minnetonka, MN 2020-01-05 Aidan Pereira Modesto, US 2020-01-05 JeMae Guertin Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Lycy Edmonson Pflugerville, TX 2020-01-05 Dawn Floro Miamisburg, US 2020-01-05 Eveyn Carey Sioux Falls, SD 2020-01-05 Bridgid O'Hara Minneapolis, US 2020-01-05 Julie Steele Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Stephanie Steiner Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Margaret Austin-Stephenson Rochester, MN 2020-01-05 Teresa Whaley Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Madi Habits Alpine, US 2020-01-05 Janet Nevalainen Alexandria, MN 2020-01-05 Stephen Succio Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Jade Crane Phoenix, US 2020-01-05 Timothy Ives Plymouth, MN 2020-01-05 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 145 Name Location Date Paul Horan Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 JAMESJERNEY Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-05 Susan Hughes Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Abby Idelkope Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Michelle Duffy Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Gretchen Sewich Bloomington, MN 2020-01-05 Sydney Y Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Stacy Erickson Charlotte, NC 2020-01-05 Joanne Ott Bloomington, MN 2020-01-05 kessea Moses Edina, MN 2020-01-05 Nancy Jones Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Rachel Knuff Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Kathie Dormanen Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Peggy Johnson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Winnie Martin Edina, MN 2020-01-05 Sarah Traverse Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Christian Kerber Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 John Austin Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-05 megan hower Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Sarah Hromada Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Vicki Martin Bloomington, MN 2020-01-05 Lisa Miller Bloomington, MN 2020-01-05 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 146 Name Location Date Jody Swanson Ross Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Laurie Neff Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Mary Bretzman Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Ali Austin Edina, MN 2020-01-05 carolyn madera elyria, US 2020-01-05 Bradley Caldwell Lincolnton, US 2020-01-05 Rachelle Graham Lund, Sweden 2020-01-05 Paula Fuht Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Maryjane Shaw Edina, MN 2020-01-05 Cindy Murphy Mpls, MN 2020-01-05 Jennifer Sweetser Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Kayt Townsend Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-05 Sydney Eckhart Chaska, MN 2020-01-05 Emily Stephenson Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-05 Tim Dixon Minnesota 2020-01-05 Aditi Steinbruchel Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Pamela Diedrich Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Erin Palestrini Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Carrie McIntyre Edina, MN 2020-01-06 Stacey Hammer Edina, MN 2020-01-06 Naomi Codd Cincinnati, US 2020-01-06 Chana Waldner Passaic, US 2020-01-06 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 147 N a m e Lo catio n D ate Sarah Solsvig Edina, MN 2020-01-06 Julie Graen Eden Prairie, MN 2020-01-06 Crystal Johnson Hopkins, MN 2020-01-06 Yut-ning So North BRUNSWICK, US 2020-01-06 Tara Young Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 LISA PECK Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Tracy Black us 2020-01-06 Lily Ansel Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Annie Fittipaldi Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 amy parish Edina, MN 2020-01-06 Polly Mathison Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Anam Hasan Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Susie Paplow New Providence, NJ 2020-01-06 Matt Gabrielson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Karyn Nina Olson Cleveland, Australia 2020-01-06 Jennifer VandenBurgt Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Jack Graen Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Terri Soutor Minnetonka, MN 2020-01-06 Jennifer Cossack Edina, MN 2020-01-06 Ann blyth Bailey Edina, MN 2020-01-06 Elmer Miller Birmingham, AL 2020-01-06 Wendy Senior Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 148 Name Location Date Heather Fenske Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Kevin Schrock Hartville, US 2020-01-06 Jen Rewey Edina, MN 2020-01-06 Jane Leese Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Jeff Griswold Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Penelope Frohardt Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Bobbie Carter Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Traci Mercado Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Pam Fischer Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Joseph Breen Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Chari Porter Edina, MN 2020-01-06 Helen Hughes St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-06 Molly schmidt Edina, MN 2020-01-06 Dara Deal Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Jennifer Myers Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Raymond O'Bryan Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-01-06 Asher Frank Garrison Apple Valley, US 2020-01-06 Mab Nulty Edina, MN 2020-01-06 Mason Bertsch Sidney, US 2020-01-06 Verity Byhre Edina, MN 2020-01-06 Stephen Smart Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Jilene Framke Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 149 Name Location Date Kelly Bertram Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 hii from snap Winchester, US 2020-01-06 Krystal Roy Portland, US 2020-01-06 Nick Ceccanti Rochester, US 2020-01-06 Ann Kalb Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Joan Mowatt Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Laurie Simmons Chaska, MN 2020-01-06 Jane Barnes Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Nancy Elliott Eden Prairie, MN 2020-01-06 Andreka Britto Springfield, US 2020-01-06 Julia Edwards Austin, US 2020-01-06 Mercio Brownlee Temple, US 2020-01-06 Cassie Williams Jonesboro, US 2020-01-06 Miguel Vidal Valencia, US 2020-01-06 Elizabeth Barnes Chicago, IL 2020-01-06 Bridget Pengelly Tonawanda, US 2020-01-06 Gabriel Cervantes Hobbs, US 2020-01-06 Hadley Beckstrand Nottingham, UK 2020-01-06 Wendy Bruns Ludford Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Gladys Giraldo Pensacola, US 2020-01-06 Caroline Schwert Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Merrie Becker Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 150 Name Location Date Traci Mann Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Kurt Timian Pennsauken, NJ 2020-01-06 Bridget Browe Orange, US 2020-01-06 Wendy Beltrand Wayzata, MN 2020-01-06 James Robb Minnetonka, MN 2020-01-06 Donna Limback Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Kelsie Loveland Janesville, US 2020-01-06 Mary Benesch South Range, WI 2020-01-06 Eduardo Alba Dallas, US 2020-01-06 mykala mckinzie Norman, US 2020-01-06 Stephanie Simmons Chaska, MN 2020-01-06 Diane Strand Burnsville, MN 2020-01-06 Ivanna Ninan Bloomsburg, US 2020-01-06 Katie Wilkinson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Alexandra Jordan Boston, MA 2020-01-06 Jim Hendricks Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Louise Austin Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Sue Spraguer Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Juanita Swartout Chicago, IL 2020-01-06 Liz Sherod Edina, MN 2020-01-06 Jody West Denver, CO 2020-01-06 William Trindl Milwaukee, US 2020-01-06 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 151 Name Location Date Jamie tube Holmen, US 2020-01-06 Amy Anderson Naples, FL 2020-01-06 Paula Skelton Indianapolis, US 2020-01-06 George AI-Tareh us 2020-01-06 Karen Imas Houston, US 2020-01-06 James Johnson San Diego, US 2020-01-06 Stefani Weber Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Jack Nielsen Edina, MN 2020-01-06 Senthil Arunachalam Bellevue, US 2020-01-06 Hossein Roohbakhsh New York, US 2020-01-06 John Schroeder 0 Fallon, US 2020-01-06 Jenny Bjorgaard Edina, MN 2020-01-06 Lana Gilster St Louis Pa, GA 2020-01-06 beck austin minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Maureen Brener Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Suzanne Johnson Lincoln Park, US 2020-01-06 michelle keeley Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Greta Mastro Oceanside, US 2020-01-06 Laura Mark Edina, MN 2020-01-06 Nishka Maheshwari Parsippany, US 2020-01-06 Grant Pheil Milledgeville, US 2020-01-06 ERICH CARSWELL Hickory, US 2020-01-06 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 152 Name Location Date Linda Bonine Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-06 Nicole Akfali Saint Charles, US 2020-01-06 Bhumi Kakadia Dallas, US 2020-01-06 Wooo Wooo New York, US 2020-01-06 Sinai Garcia Arlington, US 2020-01-06 Derek Hazeltine St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-06 Melinda Carter Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-06 Lucas Prager Clifton Park, NY 2020-01-06 Patrick Bakken Denver, CO 2020-01-06 Pilar Oppedisano New York, NY 2020-01-06 Charles Brown Stillwater, MN 2020-01-06 Ramona Johnson St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-06 Lisa Stellmaker Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 David Yesnes Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Betsy Weiner Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Caitlyn Simms Roanoke, US 2020-01-06 Morgan Roy Gillett, US 2020-01-06 John Culler Loveland, CO 2020-01-06 Gene Garvin Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 Martha Carlson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-06 India Robinson Matteson, US 2020-01-07 Jennifer Cowan Edina, MN 2020-01-07 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 153 Name Location Date Christina Pasdo Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-07 Tara Brown Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-07 Amy Blackmore Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-07 Madeline Rohlf Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-07 Ally Leick us 2020-01-07 Alicia Whitley Greenville, US 2020-01-07 Rob Thomas Independence, MN 2020-01-07 John Galambos Aspen, CO 2020-01-07 Erik Ferrer Flavour Town, US 2020-01-07 Issac Cole Farmington, US 2020-01-07 Diego Perez Houston, US 2020-01-07 Valerie Creel Boiling Springs, SC 2020-01-07 gabby bittner miami, US 2020-01-07 Mary Hallman Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-07 Teresa Tyler Welches, US 2020-01-07 Wakiya Nalley Harrison, US 2020-01-07 brianna lawrence Stratford, US 2020-01-07 Ben Ezra Miami, US 2020-01-07 Judie Anderson Kenosha, US 2020-01-07 Marie Kruegel Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-07 Merrie Marinovich Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-07 Andrew Humphrey Spanaway, US 2020-01-07 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 154 Name Location Date Cal Ysursa Belleville, US 2020-01-07 Laura Weber Minneapolis, US 2020-01-07 Chantz Payne Portland, US 2020-01-07 Arlene Grose Hayden,US 2020-01-07 Kersten Jevne Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-07 Austin Williams Cape Coral, US 2020-01-07 Elias Yanez Los Angeles, US 2020-01-07 Gloria Talford Saint Cloud, US 2020-01-07 NeMecia Braggs Fayetteville, US 2020-01-07 Jacques Nguessu Houston, US 2020-01-07 Sandra Lopez San Rafael, US 2020-01-07 SouberAden Minneapolis, US 2020-01-07 Katie Keeney Nashvill, US 2020-01-07 Melanie Shelburne Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-07 Austin Lavender Carterville, US 2020-01-07 Patricia Crater Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-07 Ellis Windheim New York City, US 2020-01-07 Katherine densmore Turrell, US 2020-01-07 Michael Williams Ridgeland, US 2020-01-07 Emilee Kathcart Merrillville, US 2020-01-07 Marina Luger Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-07 Jordan Carreira Capac, US 2020-01-07 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 155 Name Location Date Clare Burke Ashburn, US 2020-01-07 Olivia Berger Islip, US 2020-01-07 Todd Nelson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-07 Ray Goodwin Waverly, US 2020-01-07 Neda Newani Fort Wayne, US 2020-01-07 Tins Padgett Port Wentworth, US 2020-01-07 Sam Woodbury Prior Lake, US 2020-01-07 Daniel Chwalisz us 2020-01-07 Mark Steiner Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-07 Leilany Rivera Chicago, IL 2020-01-07 Karina Brehm Pinckneyville, US 2020-01-07 Gary Hallman Sahuarita, AZ 2020-01-07 Barbara Lee Chicago, US 2020-01-07 Nikki Burks Excelsior, MN 2020-01-07 anthony mele linden, US 2020-01-07 Emma Lewis Raleigh, US 2020-01-07 Elizabeth Kremer Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-07 Christopher Kuralt Springfield, US 2020-01-07 Lydia Fowler Maryville, US 2020-01-07 Alondra Garcia Norcross, US 2020-01-07 Michael Polach Belleville, US 2020-01-07 Cheri Osteen Asheville, US 2020-01-07 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 156 Name Location Date Martin Boyd Steamboat Springs, US 2020-01-07 Elizabeth Nientimo Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-07 Taylor Mahoney Edina, MN 2020-01-07 Shari Ashley Gastonia, US 2020-01-07 Tucker Pritchett Williamston, US 2020-01-07 Christine Bari-Bachmann Des Moines, IA 2020-01-07 Mia Elsadek Arlington Heights, US 2020-01-08 Leronski Bruh Princeton, US 2020-01-08 Jeff Potter Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-08 Bella Adkins Scott Depot, US 2020-01-08 Heather Whelan Newark, US 2020-01-08 Zulfizar Aliboyyeva us 2020-01-08 Jacqueline Terrero Ridgefield, US 2020-01-08 Roger Denton Knoxville, TN 2020-01-08 ronald woods brownsburg, US 2020-01-08 Ed Ibarra Laredo, US 2020-01-08 Jaclyn Hueston Bensalem, PA 2020-01-08 marie lee Leicester, US 2020-01-08 Deanne Allen Iron River, WI 2020-01-08 Justin Tomlinson us 2020-01-08 Jewel McElroy Modesto, US 2020-01-08 Brooke Spano Pompano Beach, US 2020-01-08 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 157 N am e Locatio n D ate ha y lee b y rn es Minneapolis, US 2020-01-08 K a tly n n Chubbic W estlake, US 2020-01-08 W en d e la V a n N e s Breda, Netherlands 2020-01-08 Lucia Luna Las Vegas, US 2020-01-08 C o n n ie H a rt G le n v ie w , U S 2 020-01-08 A n n Larso n Spicer, M N 2 0 20 -0 1-0 8 G in a N a tio n s D e nv e r, U S 2 0 20 -0 1-0 8 A m iliy o n To p ete Sio u x C ity , U S 2 0 20 -0 1-0 8 D e rek G o n zale z H a rtfo rd , U S 2 0 20-01-08 Sa rah T u rpin A tlanta, US 2020-01-08 Israel Caine Lakeland, US 2020-01-08 Michael Panvica Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-08 Lindsay Asp ST LOUIS park, MN 2020-01-08 oof mcgee Los Angeles, US 2020-01-08 Tina Dobbelaere St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-08 Kathryn Gibson Chicago, IL 2020-01-08 Olivia Anderson Pine River, US 2020-01-08 charlee jones Hopkins, US 2020-01-08 Rebecca Johnston Friday Harbor, US 2020-01-08 Jody Winger Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-08 Shailyn Moore Auro ra, US 2020-01-08 Tyler Simmons Vero Beach, US 2020-01-08 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 158 Name Location Date Ariel McDonald Lincoln, US 2020-01-08 Anthony Morris Minneapolis, US 2020-01-08 Tyler McCarthy San Diego, US 2020-01-08 Taylor Nord Bemidji, US 2020-01-08 Sinclair Christie Hopkins, US 2020-01-08 Nancy Horsch Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-08 Maggie McElroy Rochester Hills, US 2020-01-08 Jonathan Seam Chicago, US 2020-01-08 Cindy Swartout Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-08 Teresa Drake Oakdale, MN 2020-01-08 Landon Felker Milford, US 2020-01-08 Tara Swartout St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-08 Shane Miller Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-08 Talita Robinson Los Angeles, US 2020-01-08 Raymond Smith Houston, US 2020-01-08 Quinn Borchert Sewickley, US 2020-01-08 Emma Hodges Port Charlotte, US 2020-01-08 Alain Mata Fort Lauderdale, US 2020-01-08 Nicole Alexander Las Vegas, NV 2020-01-08 Joopis Poopis Minneapolis, US 2020-01-08 Miciah Waldron Hanover, US 2020-01-08 Charles Daenzer Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 159 Name Location Date Devin H Rome, US 2020-01-09 Henry Leonard VanDeBoom Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Ed Idzorek Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-01-09 Lori Edelstein Englewood, FL 2020-01-09 Isabella Beierschmitt Rockton, US 2020-01-09 Jessica Kassekert St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-09 Inken Abbasi Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Destiny Ruano A,US 2020-01-09 Joan Hughes St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-09 Judy Cannon Woodbury, MN 2020-01-09 Kelsey Baumann St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-09 Eric Baumann Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Susan Nelson St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-09 Emma Drouillard Maple Grove, US 2020-01-09 Katherine Riolo Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Nicholas Riolo Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Terri Copps Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Tammie Nyman Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Angel Cabrera Miami, US 2020-01-09 Jennifer Brandon Lexington, US 2020-01-09 Amelia Zumwalde Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Luke Johnston Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 160 Name Location Date Julie Armbrust Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Sylvia Timian Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 gina lonstein minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Diane W Scheremet Edina, MN 2020-01-09 Nancy Meyer Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Kate Carpenter Edina, MN 2020-01-09 suzy mears mpls, MN 2020-01-09 Brandy Davis Columbus, US 2020-01-09 Nancy Goodrich Chesterfield, US 2020-01-09 Nancy Ritzman Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Martha Carlson Chaska, MN 2020-01-09 Joanna Tacheny Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Hilary smith Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-09 Shannon Farrell Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Anna Carrie Brooks St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-09 Carol Waugh Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Jill Brown Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Robert Cundy Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Stacy Cundy Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Constance Pepin Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Elly Benedict Bakersfield, US 2020-01-09 Stephanie Sislo Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 161 N am e Locatio n D ate Griffin Sage Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-09 Edward Kintop Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 joaseph c cendrowski Egg Harbor Township, US 2020-01-09 alyssa gholson Coram, US 2020-01-09 Cheryl Kintop Bloomington, MN 2020-01-09 Blake Sternard St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-09 Abi Hawkins Ridgefield, US 2020-01-09 Charles Calvin Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Majesty Resendez Tucson, US 2020-01-09 Brett Karg New York, US 2020-01-09 Cameron Morris Abingdon, US 2020-01-09 Julie Wickland Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Susan Gruidl Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Kimberly Cortright Lexington, US 2020-01-09 Mercedes Gutierrez Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Andrea Novak Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Kathleen Carter Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Teresa Kintop Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Kristin Olson Osseo, MN 2020-01-09 taylor brockett Gilbert, US 2020-01-09 Nathan Walker Columbus, OH 2020-01-09 Michael Calamusa PortJefferson Station, US 2020-01-09 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 162 Name Location Date Elizabeth Huizar Taft, US 2020-01-09 Lizzette velazquez Orlando, US 2020-01-09 bruce trapp Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-09 Cassia Johnson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Almertha Horton Mo, US 2020-01-09 Betsy Pfeifer Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Valeria Meza Los Angeles, US 2020-01-09 Quinn Cormier Pleasanton, CA 2020-01-09 justin Grunow Cranston, US 2020-01-09 Ruth Valgemae Edina, MN 2020-01-09 John Goodge Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-09 Nancy Anson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Pedro Oliveira Somerville, MA 2020-01-09 Erin Smith Edina, MN 2020-01-09 Destiny Jasmin Coram, US 2020-01-09 Tony Etienne Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Jessica Carlson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Molly Cox Cox Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Andria Ross Redpath Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 MICHAEL SCHROEDER Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 pat Faulkner Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Mark Epple Edina, MN 2020-01-09 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 163 N a m e Lo ca tio n D a te Lynn Levine Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Trevor Ramsey Gastonia, US 2020-01-09 Fran Stephens St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-09 Lauren Muelken St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-09 Grace Chapdelaine Edina, MN 2020-01-09 Ali Balay Chicago, IL 2020-01-09 Gregory Wysocky St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-09 DAVID AULT Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Alyssa Balwanz Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Caitlin Ellenz Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Dan Lynch Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-01-09 Kimberly Brengman Lakeville, MN 2020-01-09 Sarah O'Hearn St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-09 Emerson Evans Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Alex Seymour Chicago, IL 2020-01-09 Cindy Maier Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Olivia Parish Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Natalie Pfeifer Edina, MN 2020-01-09 Tammy Klockziem Maple Grove, MN 2020-01-09 Nancy Bartsch Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Linda Ingle Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-09 Elizabeth Johnson-Gerrits St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-09 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 164 Name Location Date Lauren Busyn Edina, MN 2020-01-09 Ingrid N Hamel, MN 2020-01-09 Mark Valgemae Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Ella P Edina, MN 2020-01-09 Christina Kretman Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-09 Dyani Elkins Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Carolyn Cleveland Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Ben Wellborn Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Julie Janickey East Yaphank, US 2020-01-09 Lucie Kalgreen Hopkins, MN 2020-01-09 Michael Flynn Hopkins, MN 2020-01-09 Halaina Christensen Farmington, MN 2020-01-09 Maya Hathorn South Windsor, US 2020-01-09 Angie Johnson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Conley Dowda Edina, MN 2020-01-09 Chris Cahill Cahill St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-09 Christopher Johns Edina, MN 2020-01-09 Rachael Brengman Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Paula Spiteri Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Aerin Smith New York, US 2020-01-09 Karen Bertulli Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Vanessa Wood Eagan, MN 2020-01-09 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 165 Name Location Date Jeannette Porter St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-09 Colleen ChildersFogarty Naples, FL 2020-01-09 Meera Sholevar Moorestown, US 2020-01-09 AlysaJ New York, US 2020-01-09 Gregg Kubera Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Sofia Carlson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Margrethe Hawthorne Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 gretchen lobben Edina, MN 2020-01-09 Ashley Denton Homewood, US 2020-01-09 Julian Laporte Pinellas Park, US 2020-01-09 Alex Wasser Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-01-09 Eva Doescher Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Karen Anne Clifford Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Jack Pierre Edina, MN 2020-01-09 SalK New York, US 2020-01-09 Paul Omodt Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Cathy Wood Edina, MN 2020-01-09 Becky Hart St Louis Park, US 2020-01-09 ABDIEL MAZARIEGOS Vallejo, US 2020-01-09 Michael Dunlavey Ankeny,US 2020-01-09 lindsay lundberg Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-09 Mia Golden Boise, US 2020-01-09 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 166 Name Location Date Howard Bard Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Sandy Simmons Scottsdale, AZ 2020-01-09 Gustavo Serrano Riverview, US 2020-01-09 Elizabeth Omodt St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-09 Jacqueline Wallin Stlouis park, MN 2020-01-09 Jen Brillowski Edina, MN 2020-01-09 Robyn Leer Edina, MN 2020-01-09 Lewis Bastian Edina, MN 2020-01-09 Carol Baxter Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Barbara Costello Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Nichol Olson Hopkins, MN 2020-01-09 Felix Atencio Paso Robles, US 2020-01-09 Lind Kies Aitkin, MN 2020-01-09 Aidan Einhorn Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Quinn Cowing Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-09 Tom Barrett Minnetonka, MN 2020-01-09 Muffin Life Prior Lake, US 2020-01-09 Adam Kaluba Cincinnati, US 2020-01-09 Jane Plumhoff St.Louis Park, MN 2020-01-09 Bryn Hager Mesa, AZ 2020-01-09 Tim Kopasz Buffalo, US 2020-01-10 Cheryl Marshall Birmingham, US 2020-01-10 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 167 Name Location Date Leslie Gorham Roscoe, US 2020-01-10 Paul Wallin Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 May Heinecke Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Micah Parra-Orellana New York, US 2020-01-10 Stephan Leach Newark, US 2020-01-10 Brianna Kies Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Laura Garza San Antonio, US 2020-01-10 Tanya Hogan us 2020-01-10 Athena Morales Henderson, US 2020-01-10 ruby weiner Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Maggie Yuhas Edina, MN 2020-01-10 aury Rivera Norfolk, US 2020-01-10 Ginger Rosie Atlanta, US 2020-01-10 Elizabeth Raygor Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Corral Johns Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Maureen McNeary Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Hunter Bechard Cumberland, US 2020-01-10 Kay Cameron Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Adele Hansen St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-10 Elizabeth Wilcox Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Michelle Anderson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Madigan Wilcox Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 168 Name Location Date caitlyn sherman Orlando, US 2020-01-10 Reese Wilcox Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Justino Rodriguez Miami, US 2020-01-10 Mary Hodorff Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Terri Webb Edina, MN 2020-01-10 Kim Rodriguez Bergenfield, US 2020-01-10 Bridget Ginnis Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-01-10 Aymara Soto Aguada, US 2020-01-10 Rock Lee Roscoe, US 2020-01-10 Robert Murphy Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Marion McNurlen Edina, MN 2020-01-10 Miranda Conte Edina, MN 2020-01-10 Jacqueline Cardona Newark, US 2020-01-10 Aaron Slagowski Herriman, US 2020-01-10 Sandra Jezierski Edina, MN 2020-01-10 Lydia Sanchez Tracy, US 2020-01-10 Benjamin Leer Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 K Burnham Detroit, US 2020-01-10 Francesco Cardinale Sacramento, US 2020-01-10 Soren Copeland Bothell, US 2020-01-10 Sue Toth Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Tonja Younger Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 169 N am e Locatio n D ate Joel Berglund Excelsior, US 2020-01-10 Janet Sabraski Dayton, MN 2020-01-10 Shaila Oetiz Hollywood, US 2020-01-10 Carrie Helgerson Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-10 Ryan Murray Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Jennifer Crowe Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Sarfraz Khan Arlington, US 2020-01-10 Tim Campion Edina, MN 2020-01-10 Matt Delisle St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-10 Alan Yang Edina, MN 2020-01-10 Nathan Seymour Edina, MN 2020-01-10 Lizzie Upton St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-10 Abby Meitrodt Edina, MN 2020-01-10 Kelli Barsness Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Mary Kosters Edina, MN 2020-01-10 Robert Thomas Edina, MN 2020-01-10 Elizabeth Cecchi Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Ron Levesque us 2020-01-10 Michele Peacock Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Travis Dhein Edina, MN 2020-01-10 Michael Markfort Minneapolis, US 2020-01-10 Vannasinh Khomphengchanh Burke, US 2020-01-10 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 170 Name Location Date aaron voreis Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Jonathan Fischer Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Aleeia Davis Camas, US 2020-01-10 Ann Hoffman Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Joe Backer Edina, MN 2020-01-10 Liz Heinecke Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Brock Burkett St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-10 Ian Bronk Minneapolis, US 2020-01-10 taylor pickett clinton twp, US 2020-01-10 Paul Fielder St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-10 Whitney Jacobs St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-10 Emaan Ahmed Eden Prairie, US 2020-01-10 Adam Cope Greenville, US 2020-01-10 Mark Bertulli Edina, MN 2020-01-10 Andrew Wirth Edina, MN 2020-01-10 Fabiana Felice Miami, US 2020-01-10 Tvgvwf Dcdccd Fargo, US 2020-01-10 Matt Schneider St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-10 Pedro Soro Winchester, US 2020-01-10 Barbara Kremer Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Heidi Wennen Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-10 Deb Muelken Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-10 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 171 Name Location Date Maria Balicka Kenmore, US 2020-01-10 Collin Brinkman Edina, MN 2020-01-10 Marlene Flanders Hopkins, MN 2020-01-10 Vicki Alpaugh Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-10 Bryan Alpaugh Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Karyn Luger Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 John Muelken Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-11 Deysi Juarez Champaign, US 2020-01-11 faysal abraham Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Kyle Saylor Chicago, IL 2020-01-11 JEFF ZIEGLER Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Greg Daggett Edina, MN 2020-01-11 Joe Bauer Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Nick Velander Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Chelsea Ihnat Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 codie gayle mesquite, US 2020-01-11 jean bush Knoxville, US 2020-01-11 Daniel Ihnat Morningside, MN 2020-01-11 Izamar Pimentel Elizabeth, US 2020-01-11 Betsy johnson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Lester Fahrner Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 172 Name Location Date Jennifer Komatsu Inver Grove Heights, U.S. Outlying 2020-01-11 Islands Laura Schmieg Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Joe Mahase Christmas, US 2020-01-11 tim pearce Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Jennifer Force Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Jennifer Robb Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-11 John Harting Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Erin Harting Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Ella Grace Roswell, US 2020-01-11 Karen Garcia Los Angeles, US 2020-01-11 Donald Pollard St. Louis Park, US 2020-01-11 Rebecca Briggs Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 William Rahr Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 gloria hiner st. louis park, MN 2020-01-11 Betsy Tarnowski Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-11 Chauncey Zuber Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Carolyn Hayes New Brunswick, NJ 2020-01-11 Azzi Smith York, US 2020-01-11 Lizzy Terracio Pittsburgh, US 2020-01-11 Krystal Ramos Henderson, US 2020-01-11 Scott Nelson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 173 Name Location Date Kelly Lindmeyer Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Amy Johnson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Wendy Bingham North Pole, US 2020-01-11 Stacey Wickman Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-11 Melissa Cummings Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Bonny Wald Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Nicole Ruppert Eden Prairie, MN 2020-01-11 Memphis Vojta Raleigh, US 2020-01-11 Nick Meier Hampton, US 2020-01-11 Nikki Novitzki Brandon, SD 2020-01-11 Madison Poe Hebron, US 2020-01-11 Susan Latta Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Lynn Giovannelli Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Scott Busyn Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Jason DeMuth Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Christeen Paulison Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Jodi Swaim Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 strange stranger Ypsilanti, US 2020-01-11 Gordon Smith Edina, MN 2020-01-11 Michelle Eigner Edina, MN 2020-01-11 Chris Wedum Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Marco Giovannelli Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-01-11 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 174 Name Location Date Jodi Chu Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Laura Carlson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Mark Dietzen Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Troy Eigner Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-11 Elizabeth Menapace-Genrich Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Ryan Thaw Freehold, US 2020-01-12 ellen GANOPOULOS New Egypt, NJ 2020-01-12 Lois Taulbee Melbourne, US 2020-01-12 Stacey Cavanaugh Edina, MN 2020-01-12 Roy Rogers Richmond, US 2020-01-12 Bin Huang Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-12 John Larson Bloomington, MN 2020-01-12 Rachel Thompson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Saki Yu Minneapolis, US 2020-01-12 Joanne Patterson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Jacqueline Jones-Ford Knoxville, US 2020-01-12 Amy Ruppert Spencer, IA 2020-01-12 Jodie Rajcich Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-12 Betty Beckstrand Hendersonville, NC 2020-01-12 Sarah Roddis Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Ben Dolan Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Amber Galarowicz Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 175 Name Location Date Mina Krenz Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Naomie Reid Virginia Beach, US 2020-01-12 Nancy Pongratz Maynard, MA 2020-01-12 Jake Fairall Buffalo, US 2020-01-12 Luke Hodgdon Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-01-12 Meghan Phimister Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 H.John Hein St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-12 Brittania Omalley Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Emna Hamdouni Washington, US 2020-01-12 Alison Meinert Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Wendy Olson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Alan Weleczki Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Ellen Linker Westport, US 2020-01-12 Kim Anderson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Cindy Katz Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Sheila Flanders Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Alex Pokorny St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-12 Yirong Jiang Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Carrie Sweetser Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Karen Nelson Edina, MN 2020-01-12 Mary Cederberg Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Meg Hartnett St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-12 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 176 Name Location Date kayla valdez Corpus Christi, US 2020-01-12 Patrick Wells Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Tonya ONeal Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Adriane Hawes Edina, MN 2020-01-12 Judy Wells St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-12 Karita Bentley St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-12 Dana Buska Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Laura Buska Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Luran Gibs Minneapolis, US 2020-01-12 Karissa Hogan Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Courtney Richardson St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-12 Keith Richardson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Marni Larsen Kenyon, MN 2020-01-12 Jovita Almanzo Chicago, IL 2020-01-12 Gabriel aguirre Moreno Valley, US 2020-01-12 Jason Runyon St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-12 Julie Vogl Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Tom Zavoral Edina, MN 2020-01-12 golan tsadok saint louis park, MN 2020-01-12 Jeffrey Siewert Apple Valley, MN 2020-01-12 Larry Like Tennyson, US 2020-01-12 Lee Dorholt Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-01-12 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 177 Name Location Date David Seffren Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Toni Mosby Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Jennifer Chenoweth Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Lori Tenenbaum Maple Grove, MN 2020-01-12 Brooke Wozniak Lombard, IL 2020-01-12 Theresa Tongco Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-12 Rachel Magtira Lombard, US 2020-01-12 Martina Cameron St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-13 Barb Almanzo New Hope, MN 2020-01-13 Karyl Ruppert Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Sarah Ashouri Minneapolis, US 2020-01-13 Julie Goldberg Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-13 Sandra Morning Maple Grove, MN 2020-01-13 Robert Otos Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Lesa Tieszen Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Susan Throndrud Phnom Penh, Cambodia 2020-01-13 Jocelyn Medina Carlsbad, US 2020-01-13 Nicole Duppong Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Tricia Luoma Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-01-13 Marla Shaw Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Karen Ruppert Rochester, MN 2020-01-13 Paula Flom Plymouth, MN 2020-01-13 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 178 Name Location Date Steve Wozniak Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Jaime Jirik Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Irish Rowe Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Ryan Mielke Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Grace Hirte Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Kaitlyn Lee South Amboy, US 2020-01-13 kay Goldstein Minnetonka, MN 2020-01-13 Laura Potter St. Louis park, MN 2020-01-13 Anne Haight Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Seth Haight Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Linae Haggerty Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Jaspreet Kaur Rai San Leandro, US 2020-01-13 Bobby Nigerian Cold water, US 2020-01-13 Jennifer Van Oss Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Lisa Palmen Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Jennifer Cook Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Nie Arno Buffalo, US 2020-01-13 Aysem Senyurekli Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Jon Schmoll Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-01-13 Hayley Guevara Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Katie Tobin Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Michael McKenna New Orleans, US 2020-01-13 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 179 Name Location Date Aimee Stevens Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Susie Sauro Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Brandon Hitchens Knox, US 2020-01-13 Kelly Rhodes Edina, MN 2020-01-13 cynthia smith tulsa, OK 2020-01-13 George Buchok Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Julie Yantes Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Sue Ostfield Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Aaron Youtsey us 2020-01-13 John Li Naperville, US 2020-01-13 Julie Mcclendon Mandeville, LA 2020-01-13 Belinda Towe Spartanburg, US 2020-01-13 Madeline Campbell Appling,US 2020-01-13 Kayy Lawton Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Alec Cullins Evansville, US 2020-01-13 Beth Lescenski Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Paul Tisdell Stlouis park, MN 2020-01-13 Melinda Diaz Middletown, US 2020-01-13 Douglas Mell Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Debra Gibson Rochester, MN 2020-01-13 Lauren Percic Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Susanna Brauer St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-13 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 180 Name Location Date Shawn Murnan New York, NY 2020-01-13 Sara Graceffa Cape Coral, FL 2020-01-13 Polly McDaniel Dallas, TX 2020-01-13 Chris Porfidio Brooklyn, US 2020-01-13 Muriel J Ruppert Ruppert Baldwin, WI 2020-01-13 Stephanie Toutant Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Brad Moody Ft. Wayne, US 2020-01-13 Isaiah Kloczkowski Longmont, US 2020-01-13 Shane Hyde Eugene,US 2020-01-13 Kiruthiga Rangaswamy Mountain House, US 2020-01-13 jessie wynes Madison, US 2020-01-13 Paris Wilkinson Tyler, US 2020-01-13 Blanca Civantos Mayo Sevilla, Spain 2020-01-13 debbie bullard dawsonville, US 2020-01-13 Cecilia Montoya Rock Springs, US 2020-01-13 Tauer Viviann Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-13 Lois Zander Baltimore, MD 2020-01-13 Heidi Waller Noblesville, IN 2020-01-13 Connie Helgeson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 ashton spencer Arlington, US 2020-01-13 Owen G Saint Paul, US 2020-01-13 Elizabeth Ponce de Leon Columbia, US 2020-01-13 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 181 Name Location Date Edward Cole Cordova, US 2020-01-13 Camden Campos La Porte, US 2020-01-13 Judith Straub Edina, MN 2020-01-13 Corley Pearson Amarillo, US 2020-01-13 John Herbert Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-13 Akeem Dennis South Ozone Park, US 2020-01-13 Jim Loveland Gulfport, FL 2020-01-13 Robin Elias Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Katie Milton Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Karl Harmston st louis park, MN 2020-01-14 Lisa Faiola St. Louis park, MN 2020-01-14 Karen Dean Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-14 Alexandra Tran Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Amy O'Donnell Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Sebastian DuMouchel New Orleans, US 2020-01-14 Sarah Averbeck Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Kristy Bishop Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Michael Bishop Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Carrie Mielke Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Matt Bentley Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Chris Milton Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Christina Edstrom St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-14 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 182 Name Location Date Sarah Tate St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-14 Renee Joyce Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Karen McCarren Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Christina Finegold Lexington, MA 2020-01-14 Aidreann Ryder Battle Creek, MI 2020-01-14 Mary Will Bemidji, MN 2020-01-14 Kathleen McKeown Milwaukee, WI 2020-01-14 Kristin Harper Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Gretchen Balster-Graff Hastings, MN 2020-01-14 Sarah Sherman Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Brooke McCoy Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Ingrid Culp Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Deborah Hagberg Excelsior, MN 2020-01-14 Katie Stenger Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Patricia Tisdell Hastings, MN 2020-01-14 Annie Herbert Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Holly Daly Presque Isle, US 2020-01-14 Erik Elias Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Greta Hanson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Chris Huch Washington, DC 2020-01-14 Rachel Salzer Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Mary Sperry Madison, WI 2020-01-14 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 183 Name Location Date Laura Lonsdale St. Louis park, MN 2020-01-14 Lindsay Quinn St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-14 kelpy I Chicago, US 2020-01-14 Andrea Kostiuk Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Barb Falzone Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Emi Uelmen Excelsior, MN 2020-01-14 Jennifer Swenson St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-14 Kerry Toutant Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Paula Rezac Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Sonja Anderson St. Louis park, MN 2020-01-14 Ann Oreilly Wayzata, MN 2020-01-14 Sarah Hamric Battle Creek, MI 2020-01-14 Sonia Cruz Bogota, Colombia 2020-01-14 Chris Grossinger Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Mike Percic Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Sue Beaudette Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Tara C Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Mark Gruesner Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Amy Selby Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Ali Lockhart Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Kara Schacherer Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Gigi carlson Hopkins, MN 2020-01-14 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 184 Name Location Date Tim Maurer Anaheim, US 2020-01-14 Thomas Miller Monticello, US 2020-01-14 Abbie Fox St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-14 Vanessa Nordstrom Eden Prairie, MN 2020-01-14 Heather Wells Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Lori Vogel Oconomowoc, WI 2020-01-14 Maria Zavaleta Wichita Falls, US 2020-01-14 Mike Ritter Bogota, Colombia 2020-01-14 Carolyn Gruesner Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Tito Muv Arlington Heights, US 2020-01-14 Erin Susser Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Cita Michel Naples, US 2020-01-14 Patreesha Green Media, US 2020-01-14 Beth Rose Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Andrew Leinfelder Mound, MN 2020-01-14 Austin Budlong Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 shawn batten Los Angeles, US 2020-01-14 Mary Conti Lake City, PA 2020-01-14 Rachael Marggraf Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 John McCoy Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Mary Ceci Bradenton, US 2020-01-14 Dee K. Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-01-14 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 185 Name Location Date Meghan Roberts Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Carla Anderson us 2020-01-14 Mark Boyat Maple Grove, MN 2020-01-14 Brad Kesselring Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 David Bass Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Jennifer Rebecca Elia South Bend, US 2020-01-14 Lillian Torres Bayamon, US 2020-01-14 Geoffrey Selby Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Belle Moran Pleasant Grove, US 2020-01-14 Neal Standish New York, US 2020-01-14 Tricey Baker Chicago, US 2020-01-14 Laci Young Saint Petersburg, US 2020-01-14 Karen Percic Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 angi lee Belcamp, US 2020-01-14 Melika Mirzaei Wilmington, US 2020-01-14 Sogand Baek Wilmington, US 2020-01-14 Yolanda E Roodenburg Miami, US 2020-01-14 Jessica Harrington Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Daina Deniro Atlanta, US 2020-01-14 Jeremy DeVries Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-14 Carlos Hernandez Toa Alta, US 2020-01-14 Joe McGuire Warrenton, US 2020-01-14 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 186 Name Location Date Christel Chong Bogota, Colombia 2020-01-14 Jennifer Larson Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-01-14 Allison williams Baxter, US 2020-01-14 Julia Pieper Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-14 Mike Pieper Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-01-14 Dan Richardson St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-15 Kelsey Rohde Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-15 Chris Houser Morganton, US 2020-01-15 Chris Graft Edina, MN 2020-01-15 Joshua Kell Kalamazoo, MI 2020-01-15 Sulan Nichols Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-15 Jay Dean Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-15 Kelly Newhall Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-15 Perlett Marshburn Hampstead, US 2020-01-15 Kristen Turcotte St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-15 Sara Taylor Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-15 Tammy Trout New London, MN 2020-01-15 Jessica Geisler St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-15 Waylon Buggs Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-15 Esther Wombi South Portland, US 2020-01-15 Scarlet Keane-Lombardo Brooklyn, US 2020-01-15 Bahar Nobaveh Tehran, US 2020-01-15 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 187 Name Location Date Sam Ginnis Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-15 Kunal Mehta Deephaven, MN 2020-01-15 Daydra Lorenson Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-15 Luke Brown Marietta, US 2020-01-15 Andy Tate St. Louis park, MN 2020-01-15 Kiara Powell Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-15 Daniel Zahl Morris, MN 2020-01-15 Nancy Ostrom St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-15 Terry Johnson Saintlouis park, MN 2020-01-15 Jeannette Vickman Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-15 Chad Degen St. Louis park, MN 2020-01-15 Mackenzie Rajalingam Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-15 John Edwards Olathe, KS 2020-01-16 GORDON STOTT Edina, MN 2020-01-16 Susan Tadewald Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-16 Ben Threinen Chicago, US 2020-01-16 Jenna Curtis Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-16 Shelly Houghton Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-16 Annika Meehan Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-16 Jason Nasby Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-16 Finer Ali Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-16 Cathy Wolf Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-16 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 188 Name Location Date Hugh Hefner Beverly Hills, US 2020-01-16 Caroline Houghton Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-16 Dana Giertsen Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-16 J Mahapatra Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-16 Lynne Stobbe St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-16 Nicole Abramson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-16 Garrett Mehle Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-16 Aija Meehan Wayzata, MN 2020-01-16 Elizabeth Jensen Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-16 Tom Meehan Wayzata, MN 2020-01-16 Seth Vigus Sharon, US 2020-01-16 Lena Dipietro Albertville, US 2020-01-16 Felix Resendez Waco, US 2020-01-16 Missy Bass Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-16 Lisa Dypwick Chaska, MN 2020-01-16 Jayne Emory Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-16 Erin Friedman Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-16 Ellen Lipschultz Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-16 Ann Dypwick Cedar Creek, TX 2020-01-16 Hector Perez Austin, US 2020-01-16 Barbara Hosmer Leland, NC 2020-01-16 Melissa Montoya Greensboro, US 2020-01-16 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 189 Name Location Date sara pakzad Wilmington, US 2020-01-16 Andrew Dypwick Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-16 Peter dankwerth Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-16 Lorena Iglesias Orlando, US 2020-01-16 Nouran Desouky San Francisco, US 2020-01-16 Izzy Renfro Basehor, US 2020-01-16 Pp Poopoo Whitestone, US 2020-01-16 Chad Carlson Hudson, WI 2020-01-16 Alyssa Blue Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-16 Jennifer Bartleson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-16 Jonathan Mcintyre Tampa, US 2020-01-16 Ada Buchanan Mount Prospect, US 2020-01-16 Amanda Iler Colorado springs, US 2020-01-16 Fuck You Houston, US 2020-01-16 Carolina Vera Tampa, US 2020-01-16 Taylor Brownrigg Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-16 Chad Becker Burnsville, MN 2020-01-16 Juell Roberts Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-16 Lani Vore San Francisco, US 2020-01-16 Jean Merry Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-16 Betty Guo Flushing, US 2020-01-16 Mary Petrie St Paul, MN 2020-01-17 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 190 Name Location Date Jaxson Novak Yukon,US 2020-01-17 Brandon Marlo Rock Springs, US 2020-01-17 Chase Yochem Hunlock Creek, US 2020-01-17 Neveen Radwan San Jose, CA 2020-01-17 Lou Fondanova Holbrook, US 2020-01-17 Susan Osgood Shingletown, CA 2020-01-17 Gul Ayhan San Antonio, TX 2020-01-17 Brian Rasmussen Greenwood, US 2020-01-17 Charissa Kyer Marysville, US 2020-01-17 Ethan Otterlei Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-17 Thea Van Gordon Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-17 Mike Lundgren Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-17 Aairah Kulthum us 2020-01-17 Peter Anderson Minnetonka, MN 2020-01-17 Kevin Murphy Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-17 Ernijah Slayton Toledo, US 2020-01-17 Josh Schmidt Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-17 Harrison Erway Gloucester City, US 2020-01-17 Wes Holmes Brazil, US 2020-01-17 Jillian Parkkila Berkley, US 2020-01-17 Kyle Linville Minneapolis, US 2020-01-17 Jose Garcia Bakersfield, US 2020-01-17 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 191 Name Location Date Josh Kilpatrick us 2020-01-17 Mike Ostlund Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-01-17 James Yount Helena, US 2020-01-17 Keith Wolf Mc Lean, VA 2020-01-17 daddy lonf ,legs Whitman, US 2020-01-17 Maren Heiberg Edina, MN 2020-01-17 Jonathon Hogan Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-17 Marilyn Ames Leonardtown, MD 2020-01-17 Susan Bailey Norfolk, US 2020-01-17 Clarke Rudrow-Lewis Newark, US 2020-01-17 Laura Brown Raymond, US 2020-01-17 Megan Kelly Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-17 William Bartleson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-17 Scott Groff Stillwater, US 2020-01-17 Brett Fenske Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-17 Derek Swanson Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-01-17 Tim Sipprell Edina, MN 2020-01-17 Charlotte Tuttle Arlington, VA 2020-01-17 Melissa Larson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-17 Jenny J Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-17 Alison Adams Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-17 Aaron Sakaria Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-18 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 192 Name Location Date Liz Snyder Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-18 Kelvin Simmons Lithonia, US 2020-01-18 Carol Bungert St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-18 Mitchell Gates Baltimore, US 2020-01-18 Dark Heart Secaucus, US 2020-01-18 Pamela Juve Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-18 Jovie Acidera Waipahu, US 2020-01-18 Joshua Perkins Akron, US 2020-01-18 Rachael Molldrem Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-18 Brianna Donia Hatboro, US 2020-01-18 Jon Brown Minneapolis, US 2020-01-18 Noelle Anderson Chestertown, US 2020-01-18 Carl Ward Norfolk, US 2020-01-18 Dave Weber Defiance, US 2020-01-18 Nancy Goblisch Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-18 DEVIN MUIR HEAD Valentine, US 2020-01-18 Maria Salaices Olathe, US 2020-01-18 Regina Shields us 2020-01-18 Marti Johnson Hopkins, MN 2020-01-18 Amber Hammerschmidt Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-18 David Elia Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-18 Bethel Chinagozim Houston, US 2020-01-19 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 193 N a m e Lo catio n D ate Tim Herrmann Naples, FL 2020-01-19 Elisha Hicks Dallas, US 2020-01-19 Joel Symons Douglas,, US 2020-01-19 Michael Hagie St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-19 Karen Tully Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-19 Brock Kline St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-20 Jane Lonnquist Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-20 Dayna Lowe Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-20 Amera Abdelrehem Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-20 Rhonda Dungan Eden Prairie, MN 2020-01-21 Sara Schlipp-Riedel Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-21 Aaron Riedel Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-21 Maureen Clark Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-21 Rachel Vatnsdal Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-21 James Herrmann Winnetka, IL 2020-01-21 Jillian Hardesty Hopkins, MN 2020-01-21 Jacqueline Valdespino Miami, FL 2020-01-21 Dina Soliman East Brunswick, US 2020-01-21 Timothy McGill Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-21 Marie Spruew us 2020-01-21 Mike Dungan Eden Prairie, MN 2020-01-21 Iris Savannah Lopez Redwood Valley, US 2020-01-21 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 194 Name Location Date Jami Bly Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-21 Laura Johnson Cologne, MN 2020-01-21 Jeremy Harris Warsaw, US 2020-01-22 joe mom Little Rock, US 2020-01-22 Emanuel Dacunha Waltham, US 2020-01-22 Jesse Simmons Lake waccamaw, US 2020-01-22 Dan N Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-22 brian freitas Lakeville, US 2020-01-22 Dana Wern ke Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-22 Kevin Lawson Port Charlotte, US 2020-01-22 Kathryn Clayton St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-22 Michele Larson Shakopee, MN 2020-01-22 Michael Dungan Saint Louis park, MN 2020-01-22 Rob Zimmer Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-23 Nicholas Driessen St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-23 caroline billam Olathe, US 2020-01-23 Nancy Driessen Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-23 Jennie Massie Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-23 Will Driessen Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-23 Denise Zehr Elgin, US 2020-01-23 Far Sd Melvindale, US 2020-01-23 Roisin Laskin Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-23 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 195 Name Location Date shannon frankum Anderson, US 2020-01-23 Ellory Potter State College, US 2020-01-23 Jean Forster Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-23 Elvin Orozco Lake Worth, US 2020-01-23 Tina Burbach Edina, MN 2020-01-23 Jack Johnston Champaign, US 2020-01-23 Joe Jetland St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-23 Justine Lineburg Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-23 Mardy Goodrich Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-23 Geoff Markham Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-23 Anne McNeill Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-23 Mariah Higby Minot, ND 2020-01-23 Alayna Flor SanJose,CA 2020-01-23 Ann Marie Stauber us 2020-01-23 Matt Beaulieu Hollis, US 2020-01-23 hannah Maren Greensburg, US 2020-01-23 Casey Smith Seattle, US 2020-01-23 Hollie Thomson Maple Grove, MN 2020-01-23 Malayah Maxwell Minneapolis, US 2020-01-23 Aidan Harben Brooklyn, US 2020-01-23 Talla Skogmo Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-23 Antonella Suero Loyola New York, US 2020-01-24 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 196 Name Location Date Rachell Deal Shelbyv ille, US 2020-01-24 Katie Hanks Magalia, US 2020-01-24 Stephen Shivers Kansas City, US 2020-01-24 Morgan Bowles Greensboro, US 2020-01-24 Shirley Teague Coventry, US 2020-01-24 Brent Brent Clarks Summ it, US 2020-01-24 Matt Dohm EIReno,US 2020-01-24 Glory Ramos Dallas, US 2020-01-24 Hannah Eide Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-24 Shannon Okane Prior Lake, MN 2020-01-24 Lois Olson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-24 Daniel Wolf Sturgis, US 2020-01-24 tp madison, US 2020-01-24 Karen Barnes Raleigh, US 2020-01-24 Cynthia Gatliff Middletown, US 2020-01-24 Gianna Cerulli us 2020-01-24 J Morris Tacoma, US 2020-01-24 Jackson B Minneapolis, US 2020-01-24 Elise Johnson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-24 Josh Fortenberry Hot Springs, US 2020-01-24 Davin Acuff Bixby, US 2020-01-24 Lora Burger Atlanta, US 2020-01-24 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 197 Name Location Date Dulce Nevarez Chicago, US 2020-01-25 jose zuniga north dakota, US 2020-01-25 Tara Sheridan Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-25 Joshua Fulton Richmond, US 2020-01-25 Andrew Gerber Oxford, US 2020-01-25 Tyler Hines Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-25 Fran Ford New Cumberland, US 2020-01-25 Twyla Lee Broken Arrow, US 2020-01-25 chanel tibbs Washington, US 2020-01-25 Elizabeth Blair Pittsburgh, US 2020-01-25 Dylan Van Rij Ormond Beach, US 2020-01-25 Bonnie Crane Port Saint Lucie, US 2020-01-25 Tasoulla Hadjiyanni Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-25 Abigail Power Edina, MN 2020-01-25 Melissa Kodaly Salt Spring Island, Canada 2020-01-25 Karen Hinz Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-25 Lisa Irvin Edina, MN 2020-01-25 Arlene Zuckerman Jamaica, US 2020-01-25 Rob Birdsong Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-25 Logan Berger Los Angeles, US 2020-01-25 Morgan Daniel Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-25 Carol Giardina Staten Island, US 2020-01-25 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 198 Name Location Date Harry Elia Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-25 Kate Elliott St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-26 Aiden Scamp Hammond, US 2020-01-26 Todd Hoekstra Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-26 Kitty Kapsner Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-26 Bridget Peterson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-26 Nicole Isom Atlanta, US 2020-01-26 Ashley Barnett Brooklyn, US 2020-01-26 NVX Industries Bloomington, US 2020-01-26 Katina Williams Savannah, US 2020-01-26 Kay Swanson Littleton, CO 2020-01-26 Diane Jarvenpa Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-26 Maura Broucek Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-26 The Kung Flu Jacksonville, US 2020-01-26 Erika Pineda Atwater, US 2020-01-26 Vincent Tran Stockton, US 2020-01-26 Jeff Heelan Edina, WI 2020-01-26 Autumn brown Garden Grove, US 2020-01-26 Sarah Walwark Edina, MN 2020-01-26 Andrey Frey Mazon, US 2020-01-26 Gary Williams Los Angeles, US 2020-01-26 John Song Fort Lee, NJ 2020-01-26 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 199 Name Location Date Nicole Oropez Melbourne, US 2020-01-26 Donald Shead Chicago, US 2020-01-26 Logan Malyk Savannah,US 2020-01-26 Jody Foege Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-26 Isaiah Contreras Round Lake, US 2020-01-26 Ishan Taparia Columbus, US 2020-01-26 Cassandra Morley Rock Springs, US 2020-01-26 Zoe Le Bihan Cumberland Foreside, US 2020-01-26 Paul Guenther Philadelphia, US 2020-01-26 Adele Milligan Leawood, US 2020-01-26 TIMOTHY SIELAFF Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-26 Charbel Massoud Miami, US 2020-01-26 Jeaniffer Hines Dahlonega, US 2020-01-26 Noah Stavley Cypress, US 2020-01-26 Anne and Todd Hinrichs Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-26 Andy Lin Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-26 William Olexy Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-26 Gabriele Kushi Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-26 Lindley Butler Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-26 Janice Johnson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-26 Andy Aoun Staten Island, US 2020-01-26 Kate Jaeger Minneapolis, US 2020-01-26 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 200 Name Location Date Crystal Winters East Stroudsburg, US 2020-01-26 Alex Bean Taylors, US 2020-01-26 Steven Malskis Jay, US 2020-01-26 Aiden Howard Minford, US 2020-01-26 Mehmet Canbaz Rochester, US 2020-01-26 Gabe D us 2020-01-26 Andres Mejia Cranford, US 2020-01-26 Ethan Wickham Philo, US 2020-01-26 Maurice Moore Las Vegas, US 2020-01-26 Sherein Kirolos Palm harbor, US 2020-01-27 matt richards north creek, US 2020-01-27 natalie ramos Kissimmee, US 2020-01-27 Yoseph Cardozo Kissimmee, US 2020-01-27 Brian Harty Staten Island, US 2020-01-27 Reilly Page Saint Paul, US 2020-01-27 Jen Kompelien Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-27 Rafael Elizarraras Westminster, US 2020-01-27 Brian Kompelien Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-27 Chris Wilhoit Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-01-27 Amanda Salsberg Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-27 Franklin Dabas Brooklyn, US 2020-01-27 Gwen Mortenson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-27 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 201 Name Location Date Dylan His dndnd Levittown, US 2020-01-27 Marshall Christus Barboursville, US 2020-01-27 Eric Sullivan Van Nuys, US 2020-01-27 Victoria Kelly Hazleton, US 2020-01-27 Erin Zamoff Edina, MN 2020-01-27 Georgia Bowen Edina, MN 2020-01-27 Julie Romero Denver, US 2020-01-27 jiahao zhang Tucson, US 2020-01-27 Dequavis Jones Elkridge, US 2020-01-27 Angela Velazquez El Centro, CA 2020-01-27 AllyM San Antonio, US 2020-01-27 Jasmin Hunter Gobles, US 2020-01-27 Sara Dilger Dale, US 2020-01-27 Amilleon Jeffrey Pittsburg, US 2020-01-27 Gioacchino Raia Brooklyn, US 2020-01-27 Jasmine Riggins Albany, US 2020-01-27 Alexandra Levesque Fall River, US 2020-01-27 Boone Johnson Minneapolis, US 2020-01-27 Dre Sherill Duluth, US 2020-01-27 Donovan Leftwich Cape Coral, US 2020-01-27 megan zhang Dublin, US 2020-01-27 Matthew Calderon Bell, US 2020-01-27 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 202 Name Location Date alex rosas Silver Spring, US 2020-01-27 Erika Cruz Sylmar, US 2020-01-27 Edwin Sepulveda Houston, US 2020-01-27 Christian Vargas West Palm Beach, US 2020-01-27 Gerardo Pepe Corona, CA 2020-01-27 Ori Reches Redwood City, US 2020-01-27 Gracie Heath Chillicothe, US 2020-01-27 Alexa Gersbacher Vincennes, US 2020-01-27 Micayla Olson Audubon, US 2020-01-27 Noah Castaneda Ridgecrest, US 2020-01-27 Zhaohua Shi Tucson, US 2020-01-27 Kristin Heelan Edina, MN 2020-01-27 Kaylen Jackson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-27 Megan Knudson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-27 Dayna Osgood Savannah, US 2020-01-27 Hayden Duran Granger, US 2020-01-27 Sean McLaughlin Saint Paul, US 2020-01-27 JAHMIEr Lee Philadelphia, US 2020-01-27 Nahzere Oliver East Hartford, US 2020-01-27 AvaJacob Canyon Country, US 2020-01-27 Kevin Rosario Providence, US 2020-01-27 Jerron Lindgren North Pole, US 2020-01-27 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 203 N a m e Lo catio n D a te Joshua Barnes Mcalester, US 2020-01-27 vaishnavi subramani minneapolis, MN 2020-01-27 Leah Hollingsworth Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-27 Jeff Storck Winterhaven, US 2020-01-27 Keith Hubrath Seattle, US 2020-01-27 Michael Knudson Edina, MN 2020-01-27 Patricia Kendrick Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-27 Ryan Hollingsworth Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-27 Joanna Phillips St Louis Park, MN 2020-01-27 Kristy Taylor Edina, MN 2020-01-27 Katie Liestman Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-27 Shanell Robinson Greenville, US 2020-01-27 Shaleigh West New Berlin, US 2020-01-27 Dhbdjdh Ddnsjhdjdndnd San Antonio, US 2020-01-27 Kevin Stojo Macomb, US 2020-01-27 Braydon Kilbreth Vanceburg, US 2020-01-27 Amir Saran Fort Worth, US 2020-01-27 Aditi Bhattacharjee Centreville, US 2020-01-27 Jason Ladig Tampa, US 2020-01-27 Colton Robertson Prior Lake, US 2020-01-27 Griffin Zosel Minneapolis, US 2020-01-27 Ally Stockum Los Angeles, US 2020-01-27 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 204 Name Location Date Matt Sawy er New York, US 2020-01-27 Rebekah Crosby Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-27 Jeremy Taylor Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-27 Ryan Liestman Edina, MN 2020-01-27 Mark Walinske Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-27 Peter Olson Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-01-27 Scott Miller Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-27 Steve Jenn en Edina, MN 2020-01-27 Megan Gaillard Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-27 Kamaya Garlington San Francisco, US 2020-01-27 Kara VanKleek Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-27 larry barry Berkeley, US 2020-01-27 Jada Dysart Lancaster, US 2020-01-27 Barry Jensen Hopkins, MN 2020-01-27 Nathan Lares Fountain Valley, US 2020-01-27 Annika E Gardena, US 2020-01-27 Maid Sulic Saintlouis, US 2020-01-27 Mitchell Hettenhaus Tempe, US 2020-01-27 Marielle Ramirez Litchfield Park, US 2020-01-27 Dylan Williams Dallas, US 2020-01-27 Jalishia Chester Las Vegas, US 2020-01-27 Joshua Herpolsheimer W ichita, US 2020-01-27 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 205 Name Location Date Felix Rodriguez Springfield, MA 2020-01-27 Tyler Linear Hamburg, US 2020-01-27 Karlos Holguin Pampa, US 2020-01-27 josh strohman Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-27 Dominique Anderson Tempe, US 2020-01-27 Tyler Casey Haverhill, US 2020-01-27 Kiara Williams College Park, US 2020-01-27 Donna Wade Columbus, US 2020-01-27 Damon Rodriguez Temple, US 2020-01-27 Cayla Wilson Wilkes-barre, US 2020-01-27 Oliver Chmielewski Waukesha, US 2020-01-27 Curt Sedwick New York, NY 2020-01-27 Bonnie Funk Aurora, CO 2020-01-27 Anna Devine Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-27 Jerri Smith Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-27 Ann Burbidge Edina, MN 2020-01-27 Davon Muldrow Las Vegas, US 2020-01-27 Anthony Machado Miami, US 2020-01-27 Joe Gallo Warrington, US 2020-01-27 Zakiya Zanders Lakeland, US 2020-01-27 Austin Shorts Baltimore, US 2020-01-27 Hayden Pollock Louisville, US 2020-01-27 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 206 Name Location Date Jamel Powers-Giles Philadelphia, US 2020-01-27 Hawa Sillah Bronx, US 2020-01-27 Christian Fievre Miam i, US 2020-01-27 Lauren McCoy Tulsa, US 2020-01-27 Justin Williams Emporia, US 2020-01-27 Benjamin Tweit Mankato, US 2020-01-27 Marisa Abel Knoxville, US 2020-01-27 Isaiah B Virginia Beach, US 2020-01-27 Bryan Thibault Colchester, US 2020-01-28 Dwayne Bro wn Bennettsville, US 2020-01-28 Solomon Smith Cro ssville, US 2020-01-28 Arturo Jara San Diego, US 2020-01-28 Brynj'a Taylor New Orleans, US 2020-01-28 Damani Darling Bro nx, US 2020-01-28 Taurus Brooks Burbank, US 2020-01-28 Raysean Clayton Los Angeles, US 2020-01-28 Adiel Cordova Minneapolis, US 2020-01-28 Tarik Reynolds Colonia, US 2020-01-28 Tyler Pullen Houston, US 2020-01-28 Fabian Quinones Orlando, US 2020-01-28 Thierno Bah Cincinnati, US 2020-01-28 Madeleine Lee W illiamsburg, US 2020-01-28 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 207 N a m e Lo ca tio n D a te Charles Dougherty Washington, US 2020-01-28 Riccardo Stewart Cleveland, US 2020-01-28 Luis Corcino Lawrenceville, US 2020-01-28 Elijah Robinson Chicago, US 2020-01-28 Zach Fessel Cicero, US 2020-01-28 Yash Mathur Brighton, US 2020-01-28 Morgan Pfo rtmiller Zeigler, US 2020-01-28 Mathew Molinaro Racine, US 2020-01-28 Kevin Bilbraut West Hartford, US 2020-01-28 Laneil Brown Ludlow, US 2020-01-28 James Mickens Bowling Green, US 2020-01-28 Robert Makaryan Van nuys, US 2020-01-28 Mac Brown Oxfo rd, US 2020-01-28 Nathaniel Rodriguez Fort Worth, US 2020-01-28 Brooke Blodgett Tiffin, US 2020-01-28 Jordan Earl Las Vegas, US 2020-01-28 raigan miller litchfield, US 2020-01-28 Harper Hartman Salida, US 2020-01-28 Alexis Sagardia Fredericksburg, US 2020-01-28 Vince Jacoby Blue Springs, US 2020-01-28 Bob Pierre Conley, US 2020-01-28 Ari Canahuati New York, US 2020-01-28 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 208 Name Location Date Travis Telesford Staten Island, US 2020-01-28 Julian Pettit Phoenix, US 2020-01-28 Giovanni Heyward Atlanta, US 2020-01-28 Keyon Milam Orangeburg, US 2020-01-28 Omar Garcia Huntington Park, US 2020-01-28 Jonathan Maldonado Hartford, US 2020-01-28 Pablo Granados Lynn, US 2020-01-28 Matthew Rodenas Brooklyn, US 2020-01-28 Briana Guzman Huntington Park, US 2020-01-28 Brianna Thompson Jackson, US 2020-01-28 Diveonn Burt Saginaw, US 2020-01-28 Danny Becerra Winchester, US 2020-01-28 Amauri Perez Madelia, US 2020-01-28 Joshua Summers California, US 2020-01-28 Michael Rodriguez Houston, US 2020-01-28 Irinika ardoin Thibodaux, US 2020-01-28 Grace Schilling Minneapolis, US 2020-01-28 America Banda Killeen, US 2020-01-28 Drew Gassman Livingston, US 2020-01-28 Quentin Embry Pleasanton, US 2020-01-28 Donavin Fonatine Glendale, US 2020-01-28 Christopher Torregrossa Middletown, US 2020-01-28 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 209 Name Location Date Donte Butler Cleveland, US 2020-01-28 Johnathan Flores Pasadena, US 2020-01-28 Drew Ferber Freeport, US 2020-01-28 bella Contreras Los Angeles, US 2020-01-28 Nathan McDaniel Henderson, US 2020-01-28 Qu'Ran Pierce Buffalo, US 2020-01-28 Kea lewis Ewa, US 2020-01-28 Samantha Janz Newark, US 2020-01-28 Aydan Ham Fort Mill, US 2020-01-28 Brianna Vela Houston, US 2020-01-28 Cameron Elliott Montour Falls, US 2020-01-28 Justyn Lane Spokane,US 2020-01-28 Ernesto Ochoa Auro ra, US 2020-01-28 Trevone Wims El Cajon, US 2020-01-28 Ramaun Harris Madison, US 2020-01-28 W ill Spooner Bethesda, US 2020-01-28 Cole Elmore Virginia Beach, US 2020-01-28 Michael Outlaw Kansas City, US 2020-01-28 Taylor Holloman Vero Beach, US 2020-01-28 Amit Dro ry Springfield, US 2020-01-28 Marco Guarneros New York, US 2020-01-28 Brandon Nguyen Tucson, US 2020-01-28 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 210 Name Location Date Joselyn Delgado Afton,US 2020-01-28 Jackelyn Rosas Los Angeles, US 2020-01-28 Alvin Mosby Indianapolis, US 2020-01-28 Phillips Xavier Charlotte, US 2020-01-28 Elijah Macon Carson, US 2020-01-28 valerie davila Springfield, US 2020-01-28 VaunTae Curry W est Palm Beach, US 2020-01-28 Lilitha Khalala Greensboro, US 2020-01-28 Jose De la cruz Bronx, US 2020-01-28 Brendan Beberg Tempe, US 2020-01-28 Oluwole Aina Jamaica, US 2020-01-28 Jose Fernandez Brooklyn, US 2020-01-28 Tiffany Major Columbia, US 2020-01-28 Patience Bowers Lakeland, US 2020-01-28 Jessy Mejia Los Angeles, US 2020-01-28 Heidi Judge Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-28 Claire Wyatt Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-28 Scott Hagen Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-28 Ami Sharp Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-28 Fernando Torres Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-28 INGRID LOPEZ Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-28 Barbara Daenzer Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-28 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 211 Name Location Date Vincent Duray Edina, MN 2020-01-28 J Junker Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-28 Kathleen Begley Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-28 Douglas Junker Edina, MN 2020-01-28 Rick Brimacomb Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-28 Brad Begley edina, MN 2020-01-28 rebecca phelan St Louis Park, TX 2020-01-28 Betsy Dunsworth St. Louis park, MN 2020-01-28 Regina Smith Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-28 Matt Hartmann Roseville, MN 2020-01-28 Andrew Gaillard Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-28 Meher Rahman Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-29 Anne Elliott Hopkins, MN 2020-01-29 Jan Monson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-29 Anne McShane Omaha, NE 2020-01-29 Kate Stites St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-29 morgan lewison Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-29 Eric Stites Edina, MN 2020-01-29 Lisa chmelewski Daly City, CA 2020-01-29 Jennifer Smith Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-29 Christina Rhode Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-30 Dorothy Rand St. Louis Park, MN 2020-01-30 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 212 Name Location Date Jeffrey Fetterman Edina, MN 2020-01-30 Laurie Fetterman Edina, MN 2020-01-30 Stacey Anderson Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-30 Eliza Lombardy Saint Paul, MN 2020-01-30 LWik Minneapolis, MN 2020-01-30 Amy Kline Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-01 Aaron Kline Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-01 Larry Kline Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-01 Matthew Boley Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-01 Roxanne Kline St. Louis Park, MN 2020-02-01 Barbara Campbell Prior Lake, MN 2020-02-02 Maureen Monchamp Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-02 Steven Dupree Philadelphia, US 2020-02-02 Dayna Hitt Odessa, US 2020-02-02 Jade Ng Chino Hills, US 2020-02-02 Marvin Monzon Hyattsville, US 2020-02-02 Will Anderson Minneapolis, US 2020-02-02 Don Parsons us 2020-02-02 Alex Godwin Clifton, US 2020-02-02 Anne Haslerud Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-02 Jon Balch Edina, MN 2020-02-02 dakota wilson Sioux Falls, US 2020-02-02 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 213 Name Location Date Mohamud Kahie Minneapolis, US 2020-02-02 Johnson Apalowo Dallas, US 2020-02-02 Margo Brousseau St Louis Park, MN 2020-02-02 Christine Oliver Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-03 Fauna Gille Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-03 Brayan Mena Bronx, US 2020-02-03 lk minneapolis, US 2020-02-03 Aubrey Thompson Charlotte, US 2020-02-03 Brendan Smith Quincy, US 2020-02-03 Tara Quiring Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-03 Rita Lundberg Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-03 Kay Peltier Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-03 Travis Palmer San Francisco, US 2020-02-03 Andrew Smart Denver, US 2020-02-03 Helen Wood Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-04 Johnnie Guthrie Walton, US 2020-02-04 Daijun Gu Los Angeles, US 2020-02-04 Suzanne Williams Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-04 Gena Bilden Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-02-04 Natalie Ronning Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-04 Michelle Meek Edina, MN 2020-02-04 Brianna Miller Brandon, SD 2020-02-05 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 214 Name Location Date Margaret Carr Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-05 Kylie Conyer Franklin, US 2020-02-05 Riley Carr Miami, US 2020-02-05 Ava Runyon Randall, US 2020-02-05 Fiona McCulloch Rocklin, US 2020-02-05 Adam Lawrence Hopkins, MN 2020-02-05 Brian Felland Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-06 Fiona F Palo Alto, US 2020-02-06 Sara Boss Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-06 chloe robinson Liberty, US 2020-02-06 TRACY TUTHILL-ANAGNOST Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-06 Jackie Rivera Sacramento, US 2020-02-07 wzb us 2020-02-07 Michele Cooper Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-07 Erin Becker Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-07 Amber Searl Venice, US 2020-02-07 Kim Cavalcante Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-07 Jennifer Zupan Maiser St. Louis park, MN 2020-02-07 Andrew Lowden Lutz, US 2020-02-08 Allison johnson Columbia, US 2020-02-08 Jamie Nymark Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-08 Jack Merriam Edina, MN 2020-02-08 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 215 Name Location Date Victoria Braianova Eden Prairie, MN 2020-02-08 LISA FITTIPALDI Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-08 em ily Chicago, US 2020-02-08 Neal Blanchett Edina, MN 2020-02-08 Kira Lillehei Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-08 Kate Hill Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-08 Yuble G Norwalk, US 2020-02-08 chris gallegos Albuquerque, US 2020-02-08 Nalini Ramnarine Fredericksburg, US 2020-02-09 Daniel Romero Edmond, US 2020-02-09 Andrew Guzman Downey, US 2020-02-09 Belinda Merrill Pompano Beach, US 2020-02-09 Brandi Williams Houston, US 2020-02-09 Belkis Wright Easley, US 2020-02-09 Abby Farley us 2020-02-09 David Mitchell Bradenton, FL 2020-02-09 Rajbir Singh us 2020-02-09 Terry DeBruyn Newton, US 2020-02-09 Judy Plant Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-09 Jacob Robles Orlando, US 2020-02-09 chris nichols enid, US 2020-02-09 Andrew Collier Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-09 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 216 Name Location Date Margie Degen St. Louis Park, MN 2020-02-10 Wendy Blackshaw Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-10 John Blackshaw Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-10 Anonymous Anonymous Claremore, US 2020-02-10 Tiana Tucker St. Paul, US 2020-02-10 Madaleine Gates Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-10 Michael Tend Denver, US 2020-02-10 donky chet Highland Park, US 2020-02-10 Maday Acosta Hialeah, US 2020-02-10 Savanna My pleasant Niagara Falls, US 2020-02-10 Holly Herold Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-10 Jane Collier Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-1 1 Kyle Westermann Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-11 Emma Bernhardt South Hamilton, US 2020-02-11 Laura Marquis Indianola, US 2020-02-1 1 josh clark Ripley, US 2020-02-11 Alexander Furyk Doylestown, US 2020-02-11 spencer schwab maumee, US 2020-02-11 Daisheiona Myrick Orange Park, US 2020-02-11 Paige Panetta Islip, US 2020-02-11 James Johnson Portland, US 2020-02-11 Raul Garza San Antonio, TX 2020-02-11 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 217 Name Location Date Alex Hermanowicz Tracy, US 2020-02-1 1 chloe foster aiken, US 2020-02-11 Danielle Herold Lakeville, MN 2020-02-11 Adi Honaker Iowa City, US 2020-02-11 Megan MacFarlane Minneapoils, MN 2020-02-11 Cindy Lee Plainview, US 2020-02-11 Alexandra Lilley Phoenix, US 2020-02-11 ella granados Atlanta, US 2020-02-11 T DEramo Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-11 Nicolle Schneider St. Louis Park, MN 2020-02-11 Beth Miller Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-11 Melissa Sweeney Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-11 Michele Peterson Saint Paul, MN 2020-02-12 Andrew Armstrong Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-12 Michelle Johnson Minnetonka, MN 2020-02-12 Bridget Bredesen St. Louis Park, MN 2020-02-12 C Perkins St Louis Park, MN 2020-02-12 Mary Armstrong Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-12 John Daenzer Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-12 Kevin Colvin Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-12 Ann Chevalier Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-12 Matina Hickethier St. Louis Park, MN 2020-02-12 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 218 Name Location Date Mary Jo Hammes Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-12 Sarah Zubke Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-12 Mike Steblay Saint Paul, MN 2020-02-12 Tom DiTolla Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-12 Dave Krocak Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-02-13 Karen Norberg Brandon, SD 2020-02-13 Carrie Theis Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-13 judd brayer Osseo, MN 2020-02-13 Tim Frederick Edina, MN 2020-02-14 Natalie Burkhart Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-14 Colleen Lessley Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-14 Larry Lessley St Louis Park, MN 2020-02-14 Carmen Amaral Kailua Kana, US 2020-02-14 Kiley Henry Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-14 Robert Lee Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-14 Monika Weeks Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-15 Nick Graziano Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-15 Michelle Weiss Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-15 Tim Holmgren Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-15 S Bergstrom Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-16 Berg Holmgren Bromma, Sweden 2020-02-16 Joan Gram Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-16 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 219 Name Location Date Karen Rex Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-16 Laurie Hansen Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-16 Jaclyn Zimmer Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-17 Marilyn Tursich Saint Louis Park, MN 2020-02-17 Rick Hagberg Excelsior, MN 2020-02-17 Peter Berman Edina, MN 2020-02-17 Marjolaine Majetich Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-17 Patrick Reese Maple Grove, MN 2020-02-17 Haydn Kimani Glenmoore, US 2020-02-17 Lyndsay Obbarius Wichtrach, Switzerland 2020-02-17 Linda Wamsley Minneapolis, MN 2020-02-17 Elizabeth Bloomquist Asheville, NC 2020-02-17 Kerry Orth us 2020-02-17 Stacy Seminara Duluth, MN 2020-02-17 City council meeting of March 2, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Southeast area bikeway Page 220