The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017/03/27 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA MARCH 27, 2017 (Mayor Spano, Councilmember Hallfin & City Manager Harmening Out) 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Community Room Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning 2. 6:35 p.m. Living Streets Policy 3. 7:20 p.m. Review of the Inclusionary Housing Policy and Advance Notice of Sale Policy Update 4. 8:05 p.m. Connect the Park! CIP Update 5. 9:20 p.m. 36th Street LLC’s Application for TIF Assistance – The Elmwood Apartments 9:50 p.m. Communications/Updates (Verbal) 9:55 p.m. Adjourn Written Reports 6. February 2017 Monthly Financial Report 7. Proposed Terms of Property Purchase Agreement with Hennepin County HRA 8. Proposed TIF Note Assignment – E2 Purchase and Redevelopment Contract 9. Update on EMS Initiative 10. Water Treatment Plant #4 Project Update 11. 2016 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report 12. Proposed Development – 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd. (Former Santorini’s Site) 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: Study Session Meeting Date: March 27, 2017 Discussion Item: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 3, April 17 and April 24, 2017 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the Special Study Sessions scheduled for April 3 and April 17, and the Boards & Commissions Interviews/Study Session scheduled for April 24. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed? SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for the Special Study Sessions scheduled for April 3 and April 17, and the Boards & Commissions Interviews/Study Session scheduled for April 24. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Tentative Agenda – April 3, April 17 & April 24, 2017 Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 3, April 17 and April 24, 2017 APRIL 3, 2017 6:00 p.m. – Special Study Session – Community Room Tentative Discussion Items 1. Council Chambers Remodel – Inspections (30 minutes) Staff will provide an update and would like to receive confirmation on the remodeling design before completion of plans. 2.Terms of PLACE Redevelopment Contract – Inspections (45 minutes) Discussion regarding the request for tax increment financing related to the PLACE Redevelopment Contract. APRIL 17, 2017 6:00 p.m. – Special Study Session – Council Chambers Tentative Discussion Items 1. Vision – Future Trends Game – Community Development (90 minutes) Vision Consultant Rebecca Ryan will work with City Council and Directors to identify trends in four areas – Resources, Technology, Demographics and Governance - that are likely to impact the future of St. Louis Park. She will facilitate a process to identify high impact, high certainty trends, which will then be used to design future scenarios for the city and to create the city’s overall Vision. APRIL 24, 2017 5:00 p.m. – Boards & Commissions Interviews – Community Room Written Reports 1.PLACE Purchase Agreement and Redevelopment Agreement 2. 2017 Assessment Report Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: March 27, 2017 Discussion Item: 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Living Streets Policy RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. Staff and members of the Environment and Sustainability Commission will be in attendance to discuss with the Council the draft Living Streets policy. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council want to consider taking action to support the principles of Living Streets through the adoption of a Living Streets Policy? SUMMARY: Since April of 2016, several departments, including Administration, Community Development, Engineering, and Operations & Recreation have been working with the Environment and Sustainability Commission’s (ESC) Transportation workgroup on developing a Living Streets Policy. The goals of a Living Streets Policy are: •Invest in neighborhood livability. •Promote travel by walking or bicycling. •Enhance the safety and security of streets. •Improve the quality and reduce the quantity of stormwater runoff. •Support the urban forest. •Improve the aesthetics of streets. •Reduce life cycle costs. The Living Streets Policy will formalize practices used to inform decision-making for transportation projects. The draft policy was presented and discussed with the Environment and Sustainability Commission on March 1, 2017. The ESC Transportation workgroup has provided comments to the draft Living Streets Policy, examples of Minneapolis’s Complete Street Policy and the National Complete Streets Coalition’s Scoring Methodology. Members of the workgroup have been invited to attend this meeting and are expected to give a brief overview of the material they have submitted in response to the draft policy. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: Many of the principles surrounding Living Streets have been incorporated into the staff design process and funding for our transportation projects. It is not expected that this policy will significantly add cost to these projects. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Living Streets Policy Draft ESC Transportation Workgroup Memo & Supporting Docs Prepared by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Reviewed by: Shannon Pinc, Environment and Sustainability Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Page 2 Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: A better understanding of the concept of “Living Streets” starts with the City’s Complete Streets Policy. On June 17, 2013, the City Council approved Resolution 13-087 establishing that it is the City of St. Louis Park’s policy to “utilize complete streets principles and to work with MnDOT, Hennepin County, and appropriate agencies so that Complete Street elements are evaluated where possible for City transportation projects by providing appropriate accommodations for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, transit riders, and disabled persons through the ongoing creation of a multi-model transportation system.” The term Complete Street as defined by Minnesota Statute 174.75 is “the planning, scoping, design, implementation, operation, and maintenance of roads in order to reasonably address the safety and accessibility needs of users of all ages and abilities. Complete streets considers the needs of motorists, pedestrians, transit users and vehicles, bicyclists, and commercial and emergency vehicles moving along and across roads, intersections, and crossings in a manner that is sensitive to the local context and recognizes that the needs vary in urban, suburban, and rural settings.” A few examples of Complete Streets goals and principles: 1)Improve mobility and accessibility of all individuals including those with disabilities in accordance with the legal requirements of the ADA. 2) Encourage mode shift to non-motorized transportation and transit. 3) Reduce air and water pollution and reduce noise impacts. 4) Increase transportation network connectivity. In short, Complete Streets typically refers to street design that provides for multiple modes of transportation. Living Streets can be seen as taking the principles of Complete Streets and adding elements of environmental sustainability, including storm water best management practices to improve water quality. It also places additional focus on quality of life for the property owners on the streets. In short, Living Streets: •Build community: improve public health; increase safety; enhance neighborhood beauty; strengthen sense of community; provide positive impact upon children. •Provide environmental benefits: improve water quality; improve air quality; reduce the urban heat island affect; reduce materials and energy used in street construction; promote the planting of trees. •Provide economic benefits: lower initial costs; lower maintenance costs; increased property values; economic revitalization. What does a Living Street look like? Each segment of street is unique. Ingredients that may be found on a living street include: • sidewalks •safe crossing opportunities • bikeways • storm water best management practices • parking where needed • trees •curb extensions • comfortable and accessible transit stops The above elements are designed to balance safety and convenience for everyone using the street along with water quality protection. Page 3 Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Living streets is an effort to balance the important role of our right- of- way to move traffic and accommodate utilities with the equally important need for a multi-model transportation system and a cleaner environment. (Image courtesy of North St. Paul Living Streets Plan) Staff and the ESC Transportation workgroup agreed early on in the development of this document that the goal was to create a policy that will guide the manner in which different projects will be pursued. The Living Streets policy achieves this for transportation projects within St. Louis Park This policy draws on the City’s current approved vision and is expected to be updated and adapted to meet the characteristics of the City’s 2017 visioning process that is currently underway. The City’s transportation projects will adhere to this policy. This includes all types and phases of transportation projects, including programming, planning, design, and construction. The process by which this policy is applied will be scaled appropriately for each individual project or initiative, including private developments that influence the public right-of-way. Introduction The public right- of- way is not only used for travel from place to place, it is also the front yard for homes and businesses. The elements that we include in our transportation projects within the right- of- way can have an impact on neighborhood livability. The City of St. Louis Park is committed to building a complete and integrated public right-of-way that has a positive impact on the livability of our neighborhoods. To support neighborhood livability, streets must be vital, healthy places. To accomplish this, the City has developed this Living Streets Policy that will inform decision-making throughout all phases of transportation projects. Living Streets: •Build community: improve public health; increase safety; enhance neighborhood beauty; strengthen sense of community; provide positive impact upon children. •Provide environmental benefits: improve water quality; improve air quality; reduce the urban heat island affect; reduce materials and energy used in street construction; promote the planting of trees. •Provide economic benefits: lower initial costs; lower maintenance costs; increased property values; economic revitalization. This Living Streets Policy is consistent with – and builds on – guidance that St. Louis Park has already established in its Comprehensive Plan, Active Living Sidewalk and Trails Plan, Complete Streets Policy and many other adopted policies. Goals The goals of implementing this policy are to: 1. Invest in neighborhood livability. 2.Promote travel by walking or bicycling. 3.Enhance the safety and security of streets. 4. Improve the quality and reduce the quantity of stormwater runoff. 5. Support the urban forest. 6.Improve the aesthetics of streets. 7.Reduce life cycle costs. City Vision (2007) In 2007, the City underwent Vision St. Louis Park, a community-wide strategic plan aimed at creating a community so special that people will make a conscious choice to make St. Louis Park their lifelong home. This policy is consistent with the following strategic directions adopted by Council to implement the vision: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. The community will focus on developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails. St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in Environmental Stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 4 Living Streets Policy- Draft Living Streets Policy- Draft January 2017 Page 2 of 5 St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate. In 2017, the City is updating the vision. Upon completion of that process and the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, we will update this policy to ensure that it is consistent. Living Streets Principles The following six principles will guide implementation of this policy. These principles will be incorporated into the planning and designing transportation projects and referenced when making public and private land use decisions. 1.Enhance Walking/ Biking Conditions and Connections The City has pedestrian and bicycle systems dedicated to the use of non-vehicular transportation. The purpose of this system is to provide safe routes for users of all ages and abilities, this includes exercise, relaxation or commuting. City staff will evaluate existing bikeways, sidewalks and trails adjacent to transportation projects and make recommendations on additional connections or safety improvements based on the context of the specific project under consideration. 2.Traffic Management Traffic is an important element of livability. The methods for traffic management depend largely on the type of roadway, its function, and the modes of traffic expected on the roadway. The concept of traffic management is usually focused on limiting cut-through traffic, decreasing the speed of vehicles, and enhancing safety for pedestrians and bicycles. Traffic management measures for consideration include but are not limited to the following: •Installing trees to narrow the feel of the corridor • Narrowing lanes •Medians •Roundabouts •Right sizing streets •Signage •Barriers/ diverters •Pavement markings •Bump-outs •Dynamic speed display signs Each traffic management measure can have both positive and negative effects in terms of cost, time, feasibility, emergency response, safety, parking, maintenance, and aesthetics. At the beginning of a project, staff will collect data on existing conditions. Staff will develop recommendations on which traffic management measure(s) could be utilized based on the context of the specific project. 3. Stormwater Management As a part of project development, staff will identify opportunities to install storm water best management practices (BMPs) in order to improve storm water quality, reduce volume, and reduce solar generated heat. BMPs for consideration include but are not limited to the following: •Reduce impervious •In line treatment manholes •Pervious pavement •Tree planting Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 5 Living Streets Policy- Draft January 2017 Page 3 of 5 •Underground chamber system •Grass boulevards •Ponds •Rain gardens •Infiltration trenches Each type of BMP can have both positive and negative effects in terms of cost, time, feasibility, maintenance, and aesthetics. At the beginning of a project, staff will collect data on existing conditions. Staff will develop recommendations on which BMP(s) could be utilized based on the context of the specific project. 4.Support the Urban Forest There are numerous environmental, stormwater, and community benefits of trees. Trees are part of the urban forest, and the urban forest can be enhanced and expanded by proper management. Effort will be made to preserve existing trees. If a tree is removed, tree replacement will be accomplished under the existing tree ordinance. 5.Improve the Aesthetics of Streets Aesthetics have an impact on the livability of a street. Creating an atmosphere that is positive, pleasant, and safe helps attract and retain residents in the community. Good aesthetics provide a sense of well-being, belonging, and contentment, and contribute to quality of life. Streets, as well as utilities, within the public right-of-way perform a necessary function in supporting the developed environment. Beyond their base functionality, they also provide opportunities for complimenting and contributing to the aesthetic and identity of the neighborhood. Our streets can create a sense of place. Aesthetics should be considered and included as appropriate in the design and implementation of projects. Some of these aesthetic elements include but are not limited to: Sidewalks installed with grass boulevards to create safer walking environments by providing distinct edges to sidewalks and separation from the street. Installation of boulevard trees and landscaping.to create more pleasant walking environments, bringing about an increase in activity on the street. Narrower streets increase the green space in the right- of- way. Medians/ islands for landscaping Eliminate signals, signs, or utility poles. 6.Ensure Cost-Effective and Practical Solutions It is important that transportation projects minimize construction, replacement, and future maintenance costs. Being cost effective and practical is important for acceptance by the general public and to keep projects within funding limits. The ways in which cost effectiveness and practicality can be accomplished is through the following: Use construction materials with recycled content Select the appropriate street section based on roadway type and function (i. e. context sensitive design, street rightsizing). Locate stormwater BMPs where they will be effective. Select tree and plant species appropriate to the site condition. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 6 Living Streets Policy- Draft January 2017 Page 4 of 5 Street light locations, energy use, and need. Application This policy will apply to: •City transportation projects including those involving new construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or changes in the allocation of pavement space on an existing roadway. •All public and private projects and initiatives that interact with and impact the public right-of-way. This includes privately built roads, sidewalks, and trails. •Local transportation or land use decision is under the jurisdiction of another agency. Consideration will be given to the logical termini by mode, not just by project limits. For example, the logical termini for a bike lane or sidewalk may extend beyond the limits of the transportation project, in order to ensure multimodal connectivity and continuity. Implementation City transportation projects will follow this policy. This includes all types and phases of transportation projects, including programming, planning, design, and construction. Designs will be based upon project-specific objectives and context sensitive design solutions. (i. e street type, opportunities, functionality, environmental or social factors, right-of-way impacts, and feedback from the community) The process by which this policy is applied will be scaled appropriately for each individual project or initiative, including private developments that influence the public right-of-way. The City will engage stakeholders in a cooperative manner throughout implementation of this policy. Stakeholder can include, but are not limited to: residents, partner agencies, schools, businesses, neighborhood associations, and developers. Exceptions This policy will be applied to all transportation projects, except under one or more of the conditions listed below. Exemptions shall be considered on a case by case basis and approved by the City Council. •A project involves only ordinary maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition, such as mowing, cleaning, sweeping, spot repair, concrete joint repair, pothole filling, or when interim measures are implemented on a temporary detour. •Due to cost of implementation. •Project timing allows more efficient construction at a later date. •Physical constraints. •It is determined that the construction is not practically feasible because of adverse impacts. Benchmarks and Performance Measures The ability to measure the performance of a policy, as well as knowing that it is functioning as it is intended, is important to overall success and the ability to sustain it. With this in mind, the City will monitor and measure performance relative to this policy. Benchmarks that will demonstrate success include: Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 7 Living Streets Policy- Draft January 2017 Page 5 of 5 •Sidewalk installed (miles) •Sidewalk users (number) •Bikeways installed (miles) •Bikeway users (number) •Trails installed (miles) •Trail users (number) •Reduction of street impervious (sq ft) •Number of storm water BMPs installed (number) •BMP performance (phosphorus removal, infiltration etc) •Trees installed (number, caliper inches) •Livability Index (score) The City will monitor and measure its performance relative to this policy using metrics outlined in Green Steps Cities Additional performance measures may be identified as this policy is implemented. Supporting documents: •Active Living Sidewalks and Trail plan (2007) •Climate Action Plan •Comprehensive Plan •Complete Streets Policy Resolution •Minnesota Green Step Cities Program •Tree Ordinance •Vision (2007) Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 8 SLP Environment & Sustainability Commission Resource Recommendation Request Project: Living Streets Policy 21st March 2017 OVERVIEW The Environment and Sustainability Commission (ESC) feels strongly that our community will benefit socially, economically and environmentally from the implementation of a robust Living Streets Policy (LSP). We believe that St. Louis Park City Staff did a thorough job in their creation of the LSP draft, and we appreciate the opportunity that the ESC Transportation Workgroup was given to participate in the development process. We would like to extend our gratitude to Deb Heiser and the Engineering Team for their collective efforts in helping to allow St. Louis Park to become a leader in Social, Economic and Environmental Sustainability. We believe that Deb Heiser and the Engineering team took a pragmatic approach in the drafting of this policy. While we agree with the spirit of the policy, there are several areas where the ESC has expressed to staff our desire to strengthen its vision and language. Currently the policy reads comparably softer than the best Living Streets or Complete Streets Policies that we’ve reviewed, and fails to set a compelling vision for the future sustainability of our city’s transportation network. Staff kindly acknowledged that while they’ve heard our position, recent experiences in dealing with opposition to the Connect the Park program have caused them to feel that the community is not “ready” for the type of policy that the ESC would like to see put in place, and they therefore did not incorporate most of the recommendations of the ESC. While the ESC agrees with the direction that the Living Streets Policy draft takes us, we cannot fully endorse this draft without some key changes. The statement below reflects the desire of the ESC to endorse a policy that best fulfills the intent of St. Louis Park residents to make the city a Leader in Environmental Stewardship. City Council has supported this purpose since the beginning, and we therefore believe it should be the Council’s decision to either approve the LSP draft as it stands, or recommend that staff incorporate the feedback of the ESC and bring forth a policy that demonstrates our city’s leadership in sustainability. The content outlined below represents the collective feedback of the ESC Transportation Workgroup and the broader ESC at large. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 9 2 RECOMENDATIONS We believe that in order to demonstrate environmental leadership in our actions, an effort must be taken to address what we have determined are the three most critical reasons for the existence of a Living Streets Policy: 1.Set a vision for a future sustainable transportation network for St. Louis Park, emphasizing our belief that our city’s transportation systems will need to evolve to keep pace with changing demographics and technology as well as the social and environmental demands placed upon them. In addition, this vision should seek to create a sense of place in our public right‐of‐ways which enhances the function and natural beauty of our environmental systems while providing social and economic value for our communities. Finally, the vision should stress the need for being inclusive of all community members, especially those most vulnerable, neglected and/or isolated by the 20th century transportation systems our city was designed around. 2.Provide a policy mechanism to move the city toward lower greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, which currently represents 29% of our total emissions footprint. This was the impetus for the creation of the Transportation Workgroup, and we feel this purpose should be clearly stated within the policy. The city has already adopted a Climate Inheritance Resolution and has funded the creation of a Climate Action Plan, yet the proposed LSP fails to make any mention of emissions, climate change, or a desire to reduce emissions from vehicle miles travelled. 3.Demonstrate the City’s desire for rebalancing our planning and infrastructure investments in order to begin the journey toward transitioning from a historically automobile‐centric model to one where sustainable means of transport are just as safe, viable and well‐used. The Minneapolis Complete Streets Policy (attached), has recently gained national recognition by establishing a modal priority framework that “prioritizes people as they walk, bicycle, and take transit over people when they drive”. The ESC believes that adopting key elements like this from the Minneapolis policy would be an opportunity to further position our city as a leader in sustainable transportation, and directly align with our neighbor to the East. Agreement could not be reached on this point between the ESC and City Staff. In addition to these three main points, the following suggestions from the ESC could enhance the effectiveness of our Living Streets Policy: 4.Consider adding stronger language on the need to embrace native plants and low maintenance (no mow) turf, preserve trees and wildlife in public spaces and draw a connection between street design and surface water management. 5.Whether we like it or not, our policy will be compared against other cities. The National Complete Streets Coalition created a rating scale of 1 to 100 points for streets policies, and publishes an annual rankings list of policies from states, counties and local governments. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 10 3 The rating method incorporates evaluation on 10 elements, with heavier weights on two elements: a) All users/All modes, and b) Implementation 6.Draw a connection to the economic benefits and cost savings that business and residents may realize through right sizing of streets, use of trees and native (no mow and runoff controlling) landscape elements. 7.Consider leveraging this newly created policy as a key element in the future visioning process. This could be a showpiece of what is possible with direct community input. 8.Consider Dark Sky lighting policy element that aims to both save energy and reduce light pollution on streets and public places. 9.Consider discussing traffic timing and optimization technologies at a high level as part of an overall traffic and emissions reduction strategy. 10.Consider an advisory group of outside professional & non‐profit consultants and educators who could advise on standards, ratings, reports and educational programs. Most Policy development efforts involve collaborations of several of these experts. Architects or landscape designers may also help address residents’ concerns about changes to their community aesthetics through the transition to sustainable transportation systems. 11.Consider mentioning the best and latest design standards, such as NACTO Guidelines, Americans with Disabilities Act, Public Right‐of‐Way Accessibility Guidelines, etc. and suggest these be used in flexible, innovative and balanced ways. This may help connect efforts to broader state and national guidelines. 12.Understand and discuss the immense impact that self‐driving vehicles will have on reducing personal vehicle ownership in the very near future, and the opportunities this may bring. How can our LSP support clear thinking in this transition and offer guidance on how these changes will impact the design, planning and use of public and private vehicle storage infrastructure. This final section of recommendation is based on direct feedback offered by the National Complete Streets Coalition after they reviewed our draft policy (these points are taken verbatim from an email from the NCSC to the SLP ESC dated 3/16/2017): Although [the SLP LSP draft] is a living streets policy, it would still be beneficial to mention the importance of a connected transportation system as well as clarify what role transit (and other modes aside from bike ped) play in your considerations. The exceptions section could use some work, as those last bullets create the possibility of a loophole (acceptable exceptions are listed in our scoring guidelines attached below). Although design is mentioned briefly [in the SLP LSP draft], it would be great to see more language on the best and latest design guidelines with specific examples referenced, we also recommend mentioning the importance of a flexible, balanced design approach for all users. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 11 4 Lastly the implementation section could use some stronger language, I would recommend follow up actions such as incorporating this policy into your existing plans/procedures, creating new design guidelines, and/or offering trainings to department staff. Please also see attached the NCSC Policy Scoring Framework, with provides much additional context on the questions that spurred the points of feedback above. Green Step Cities, a program of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, also rates Living Streets policies and practices, with a 1‐to‐3 Star rating system. The current draft Policy might be expected to be rated at 1 star until more stringent implementation language is included. Transportation - Best Practice 11 Living Streets Best Practice Action 1 Adopt a complete streets policy that also addresses street trees and stormwater. Star-level Examples A city council resolution to develop standards; a policy governing city-owned streets; routine consideration of complete streets elements in all streets projects; explicit complete streets comp/strategic plan direction, that expresses the city's intent to facilitate multi-modal transportation (at least one route for each mode). A city-council-adopted complete streets policy and implementation criteria. A Living Streets policy; modify street design standards/practices according to policy, addressing multimodal transportation, trees and stormwater; possible additional elements include align new streets to give buildings energy-efficient passive solar orientations; address public art in the street right-of-way; use a sustainable infrastructure tool. GOALS of this Communication Recommend stronger language in our Living Streets Policy that would allow our city to prioritize access of the most vulnerable users of our transportation system (children, elderly, walking, biking) over the least vulnerable (the automobile). Recommend that City Council provide guidance as to their level of commitment on the adoption of a modal priority framework. Are we willing to match what Minneapolis has done? Recommend we align the City’s LSP to nationally recognized Living Streets / Complete Streets best practices and design guidelines, and enhance the draft accordingly. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 12 10 Appendix A: Scoring methodology To help communities understand what makes strong, effective Complete Streets policies, the Coalition established an objective set of ten ideal policy elements. These elements were developed in consultation with members of the National Complete Streets Coalition’s Steering Committee and its corps of workshop instructors, and through its ongoing research efforts. Based on decades of collective experience in transportation planning and design, the ten elements are a national model of best practice that can be employed in nearly all types of Complete Streets policies at all levels of governance. The following section provides more information about these ideals, and highlights of these ideals in this year’s policies. For communities considering a Complete Streets policy, this section can provide models to follow. For communities with an existing Complete Streets policy, this section may provide ideas for improvements or, perhaps, reasons to boast. More information about writing Complete Streets policies is available in our Complete Streets Local Policy Workbook. Download your copy at http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/guides/complete- streets-local-policy-workbook/. Elements of a Complete Streets policy 1.Vision and intent A strong vision inspires a community to follow through on its Complete Streets policy. Just as no two policies are alike, visions are not one-size-fits-all either. Visions cannot be empirically compared across policies, so this element compares the strength and clarity of each policy’s commitment to Complete Streets. Clarity of intent and writing makes it easy for those tasked with implementation to understand the new goals and determine what changes need to be made to fulfill the policy's intent. ¥5 points: The strongest policies are those that are clear in intent, stating unequivocally facilities that meet the needs of people traveling on foot or bicycle “shall” or “must” be included in transportation projects. Full points also are awarded to policies in which the absolute intent of the policy is obvious and direct, even if they do not use the words “shall” or “must,” because there is a complete lack of other equivocating language. ¥3 points: Many policies are clear in their intent—defining what a community expects from the policy—but use equivocating language that waters down the directive. For example, an average policy says that the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists “will be considered” or “may be included” as part of the process. ¥1 point: Some policies are indirect: they refer to implementation of certain principles, features, or elements defined elsewhere; refer to general “Complete Streets” application with no clear directive; or instruct the development of a more thorough policy document. Examples of indirect language include phrases such as “consider the installation of ‘Complete Streets’ transportation elements,” “Complete Streets principles,” or “supports the adoption and implementation of ‘Complete Streets’ policies and practices to create a transportation network that accommodates all users.” Using this language perpetuates the separation of modes and the perception that a road for cars is fundamentally different from the road for other users, that Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 13 11 only some roads should be “complete streets,” and even that these roads require special, separately funded “amenities.” 2.All users and modes No policy is a Complete Streets policy without a clear statement affirming that people who travel by foot or on bicycle are legitimate users of the transportation system and equally deserving of safe facilities to accommodate their travel. It is therefore a requirement to include both modes—walking and bicycling—in the policy before it can be further analyzed. Beyond the type of user is a more nuanced understanding that not all people who move by a certain mode are the same. ¥3 points: Policy includes two more modes, in addition to walking, bicycling, and public transportation. Such modes include cars, freight traffic, emergency response vehicles, or equestrians. ¥2 points: Policy includes one more mode, in addition to walking, bicycling, and public transportation. ¥1 point: Policy includes public transportation, in addition to walking and bicycling. ¥Required/0 points: Policy includes walking and bicycling. The needs of people—young, old, with disabilities, without disabilities—are integral to great Complete Streets policies. Two additional points are available, awarded independently of each other and above points for modes. ¥1 point: A policy references the needs of people young and old. ¥1 point: A policy includes the needs of people of all abilities. VISION AND INTENT From Park Forest, IL’s policy: “Vision: This Complete Streets Policy shall direct the Village of Park Forest to develop and provide a safe and accessible, well-connected and visually attractive surface transportation network, that balances the needs of all users, including: motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation riders and driver, emergency vehicles, freight carriers, agricultural vehicles and land uses and promote a more livable community for people of all ages and abilities, including children, youth, families, older adults and individuals with disabilities.” http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs/policy/cs-il-parkforest-resolution.pdf Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 14 12 ALL USERS AND MODES From Norwell, MA’s policy: “It is the intent of the Town of Norwell to formalize the plan, design, operation, and maintenance of streets so that they are safe for users of all ages, all abilities and all income levels as a matter of routine. This Policy directs decision-makers to consistently plan, design, construct, and maintain streets to accommodate all anticipated users including but not limited to pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, emergency vehicles, and freight and commercial vehicles.” http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs/policy/cs-ma-norwell-policy.pdf 3.All projects and phases The ideal result of a Complete Streets policy is that all transportation improvements are viewed as opportunities to create safer, more accessible streets for all users. ¥3 points: Policy applies to reconstruction and new construction projects. ¥0 points: Policy does not apply to projects beyond newly constructed roads, or is not clear regarding its application. ¥2 additional points available: Policy clearly includes maintenance, operations, resurfacing, repaving, or other types of changes to the transportation system. ALL PROJECTS AND PHASES From Little Rock, AR’s policy: “…the City will apply this complete streets policy to all street projects for public streets, regardless of funding source, including those involve new construction, reconstruction, retrofit, repaving, rehabilitation, and change in the allocation of pavement space on an existing street.” http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs/policy/cs-ar-littlerock-ordinance.pdf 4.Clear, accountable exceptions Making a policy work in the real world requires a process for exceptions to providing for all modes in each project. The Coalition believes the following exceptions are appropriate with limited potential to weaken the policy. They follow the Federal Highway Administration’s guidance on accommodating bicycle and pedestrian travel and identified best practices frequently used in existing Complete Streets policies. 1.Accommodation is not necessary on corridors where specific users are prohibited, such as interstate freeways or pedestrian malls. 2.Cost of accommodation is excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use. The Coalition does not recommend attaching a percentage to define “excessive,” as the context Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 15 13 for many projects will require different portions of the overall project budget to be spent on the modes and users expected. Additionally, in many instances the costs may be difficult to quantify. A percentage cap may be appropriate in unusual circumstances, such as where natural features (e.g. steep hillsides, shorelines) make it very costly or impossible to accommodate all modes. The Coalition does not believe a cap lower than 20 percent is appropriate, and any cap should always be used in an advisory rather than absolute sense. 3.A documented absence of current and future need. Many communities have included other exceptions that the Coalition, in consultation with transportation planning and engineering experts, also feels are unlikely to create loopholes: 1. Transit accommodations are not required where there is no existing or planned transit service. 2.Routine maintenance of the transportation network that does not change the roadway geometry or operations, such as mowing, sweeping, and spot repair. 3.Where a reasonable and equivalent project along the same corridor is already programmed to provide facilities exempted from the project at hand. In addition to defining exceptions through good policy language, there must be a clear process for granting them, preferably with approval from senior management. Establishing this within a policy provides clarity to staff charged with implementing the policy and improves transparency and accountability to other agencies and residents. ¥5 points: Policy includes one or more of the above exceptions—and no others—and stating who is responsible for approving exceptions. ¥4 points: Policy includes any other exceptions, including those that weaken the intent of the Complete Streets policy, and stating who is responsible for approval. ¥3 points: Policy includes one or more of the above exceptions—and no others—but does not assign responsibility for approval. ¥1 point: Policy includes any other exceptions, including those that weaken the intent of the policy, but does not assign responsibility for approval. ¥0 points: Policy lists no exceptions. EXCEPTIONS From Vincennes, IN’s policy: “Any exception to this program, including for private projects, must be approved by the Vincennes Board of Works and Public Safety and be documented with supporting data that indicates the basis for the decision. Such documentation shall be publicly available. Exceptions may be considered for approval when: 1.An affected roadway prohibits, by law, use by specific users (such as state highways) in which case a greater effort shall be made to accommodate those specified user Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 16 14 elsewhere, including on roadways that cross or otherwise intersect with the affected roadway; 2. The costs of providing accommodations are excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use; 3. The existing and planned population, employment densities, traffic volumes, or level of transit service around a particular roadway is so low as to demonstrate an absence of current and future need. 4. Transit accommodations are not required where there is no existing or planned service; 5.Routine maintenance of the transportation network does not change the roadway geometry or operations, such as mowing, sweeping, and spot repair; 6. There is a reasonable and equivalent project along the same corridor that is already programmed to provide facilities exempted from the project at hand. http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs/policy/cs-in-vincennes-ordinance.pdf 5.Network An ideal Complete Streets policy recognizes the need for a connected, integrated network that provides transportation options to a resident’s many potential destinations. Approaching transportation projects as part of the overall network—and not as single segments—is vital for ensuring safe access to destinations. Successful Complete Streets processes recognize that all modes do not receive the same type of accommodation and space on every street, but that everyone can safely and conveniently travel across the network. The Coalition encourages additional discussion of connectivity, including block size and intersection density. ¥5 points: Policy simply acknowledges the importance of a network approach. ¥0 points: Policy does not reference networks or connectivity. NETWORK From Natick, MA’s policy: “The Town of Natick Complete Streets policy will focus on developing a connected, integrated network that serves all road users.” http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs/policy/cs-ma-natick-policy.pdf 6.Jurisdiction Creating Complete Streets networks is difficult because many different agencies control our streets. They are built and maintained by state, county, and local agencies, and private developers often build new roads. Individual jurisdictions do have an opportunity to influence the actions of others, through funding or development review, and through an effort to work with their partner agencies on Complete Streets. These two types of activities are awarded points independently. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 17 15 ¥3 points: A state or Metropolitan Planning Organization’s policy clearly notes that projects receiving money passing through the agency are expected to follow a Complete Streets approach. County and municipal policy applies to private development. ¥2 points: Policy, at any level, articulates the need to work with others in achieving the Complete Streets vision. ¥0 points: Policy does not recognize the ways an agency can work with other organizations and developers to achieve Complete Streets. JURISDICTION From Omaha, NE’s policy: “The Complete Streets policy will apply to all public and private street design, construction, and retrofit projects managed and implemented by the City of Omaha initiated after the Policy adoption…” http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs/policy/cs-ne-omaha-resolution.pdf 7.Design Complete Streets implementation relies on using the best and latest design standards to maximize design flexibility. Design solutions are need to balance modal and user needs. Points are awarded independently for these concepts. ¥3 points: Policy clearly names specific recent design guidance or references using the best available. ¥0 points: Policy does not address design guidance, balancing of user needs, or design flexibility. ¥2 additional points available: Policy addresses the need for a balanced or flexible design approach. DESIGN From South Bend, IN’s policy: “Sec. 5 Design Standards (a)The City shall follow accepted or adopted design standards and use the best and latest design standards, policies, principles, and guidelines available. Principles and strategies of good street and bikeway designs offered by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) shall be utilized first and foremost in decision making. Guidelines and standards may include, but not be limited to, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), American Association of State Highway [and Transportation] Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 18 16 Officials (AASHTO), Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG), and the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA). (b)In recognition of various context, public input, and the needs of many users, a flexible, innovative, and balanced approach that follows other appropriate design standards may be considered, provided that a comparable level of safety for all users can be achieved. http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs/policy/cs-in-south-bend-resolution.pdf 8.Context sensitivity An effective Complete Streets policy must be sensitive to the surrounding community, its current and planned buildings, as well as its current and expected transportation needs. Given the range of policy types and their varying ability to address this issue, a policy at minimum should mention context sensitivity in making decisions. The Coalition encourages more detailed discussion of adapting roads to fit the character of the surrounding neighborhood and development. ¥5 points: Policy mentions community context as a factor in decision-making. ¥0 points: Policy does not mention context. CONTEXT SENSITIVITY From Ashland, MA’s policy: “Complete Streets principles include the development and implementation of projects in a context-sensitive manner in which project implementation is sensitive to the community’s physical, economic, and social setting. This context-sensitive approach to process and design includes a range of goals that give significant consideration to stakeholder and community values. It includes goals related to the livability with greater participation of those affected in order to gain project consensus. The overall goal of this approach is to preserve and enhance scenic, aesthetic, historical, and environmental resources while improving or maintaining safety, mobility, and infrastructure conditions.” http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs/policy/cs-ma-ashland-policy.pdf 9.Performance measures Communities with Complete Streets policies can measure success a number of different ways, from miles of bike lanes to percentage of the sidewalk network completed to the number of people who choose to ride public transportation. ¥5 points: Policy includes at least one performance measure. A direction to create measures without naming any is credited in the next element, “Implementation steps.” Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 19 17 ¥0 points: Policy does not include any performance measures. PERFORMANCE MEASURES From Reading, PA’s policy: “B. The City shall measure the success of this policy using, but not being limited to, the following performance measures: " •Number of crashes and severity of injuries " •Injuries and fatalities for all modes " •Number of curb ramps " •Number of countdown signals " •Miles of accessible routes " •On-time arrivals for BARTA " •Sidewalk condition ratings " •Travel time in key corridors (point A to point B)" • Emergency vehicle response times " •Number of audible traffic signals " •Number of students who walk or bike to school " •Access to industrial property (trucks)" •Commercial vacancies in downtown improvement district (DID)" •Number of mode users: walk, bike, transit " •Bike route connections to off-road trails (equity across all districts of the City)" •% of city that is within two miles of a ‘low stress’ bike route " •Number of employees downtown " •Number of bike share users " •Progress towards STAR Community standards: (a) drive alone max 25% and bike/walk min "of 5%; (b) 50% of household spending less than 15% of household income on "transportation; and (c) bike/pedestrian fatalities – progress toward Vision Zero " •Citizen and business surveys of satisfaction with streets and sidewalks " •Number of bicycle friendly businesses recognized by the League of American Bicyclists " • Number of bike parking spaces "The Complete Streets Task Force will present an annual report to the Mayor and City Council showing progress made in implementing this policy. The annual report on the annual increase or "decrease for each performance measure contained in this executive order compared to the previous year(s) shall be posted on-line for each of the above measures.” http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs/policy/cs-pa-reading-order.pdf 10.Implementation steps A formal commitment to the Complete Streets approach is only the beginning. The Coalition has identified four key steps to take for successful implementation of a policy: Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 20 18 1.Restructure or revise related procedures, plans, regulations, and other processes to accommodate all users on every project. 2.Develop new design policies and guides or revise existing to reflect the current state of best practices in transportation design. Communities may also elect to adopt national or state-level recognized design guidance. 3.Offer workshops and other training opportunities to transportation staff, community leaders, and the general public so that everyone understands the importance of the Complete Streets vision. 4.Develop and institute better ways to measure performance and collect data on how well the streets are serving all users. Assigning oversight of implementation or requiring progress reports is a critical accountability measure, ensuring the policy becomes practice. Policies can also influence the funding prioritization system to award those projects improving the multimodal network. Points for either type of activity are awarded independently. ¥3 points: Policy specifies the need to take action on at least two of the four steps identified above. ¥1 point: Policy includes at least one of the above four implementation steps. ¥0 points: Policy does not include any implementation or accountability measures. ¥1 additional point available: Policy identifies a specific person or advisory board to oversee and help drive implementation, or establishes a reporting requirement. ¥1 additional point available: Policy changes the way transportation projects are prioritized. IMPLEMENTATION STEPS From Weymouth, MA’s policy: “Implementation of the Complete Streets Policy will be carried out cooperatively among all departments in the Town of Weymouth with multi-jurisdictional cooperation, and to the greatest extent possible, among private developers and state, regional and federal agencies. The Department of Planning and Community Development will serve as the technical review agency for all Complete Streets projects. The Department of Planning and Community Development will forward the project documentation and plans to all applicable Town departments for comment during the review process. Ultimately, the project will require a vote by the appropriate governing body. The Town shall make the Complete Streets practices a routine part of everyday operations, shall approach every transportation project and program as an opportunity to improve streets and the transportation network for all users, and shall work in coordination with other departments, agencies and jurisdictions. The Town will review and revise or develop proposed revisions to all appropriate planning Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 21 19 documents, zoning codes, subdivision regulations, laws, procedures, rules, regulations, guidelines and programs to integrate the Complete Streets principles in all street projects, as feasible. The Town will maintain a comprehensive priority list of transportation improvement projects including problem intersections and roadways. The Town will maintain a comprehensive inventory of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and will prioritize projects to eliminate gaps in the sidewalk and bikeway network. The Town will coordinate with MassDOT to confirm the accuracy of a baseline pedestrian and bicycle accommodations inventory in order to prioritize projects. The Town will re-evaluate Capital Improvement Projects prioritization to encourage implementation of Complete Streets principles. The Town will incorporate Complete Streets principles into the Town of Weymouth’s Master Plan as well as other plans. The Town will train pertinent Town staff on the content of Complete Streets principles and best practices for implementing this policy. The Town will utilize inter-department coordination to promote the most responsible and efficient use of resources for activities within the public way. The Town will seek out appropriate sources of funding and grants for implementation of Complete Streets policies.” http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs/policy/cs-ma-weymouth-policy.pdf Additional elements While Complete Streets policies are based on the principle of connecting people and place in transportation projects, many communities add language regarding environmental best practices or directives relating to placemaking. While the Coalition does not score these additional elements, we encourage agencies to consider cross-referencing related initiatives. ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS From Reading, PA’s policy: “Section 6: Additional elements A. Green Streets: In addition to providing safe and accessible streets in the City of Reading, care shall be given to incorporate best management practices for addressing storm water runoff. Wherever possible, innovative and educational storm water infrastructure shall be integrated into the construction/reconstruction or retrofit of a street. B. Attention to Aesthetic: Complete Streets are beautiful, interesting and comfortable places Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 22 20 for people. The design of cities begins with the design of streets, as community places where people want to be. As part of Reading’s public realm, streets shall be held to a higher standard for urban design at a human scale. Multi-modal accommodations and all City projects in the right-of-way shall be approached as opportunities to enhance the aesthetic qualities of Reading and its public realm through the thoughtful creation of place. Wherever feasible, streetscapes shall protect and include street trees and native plants, and incorporate landscape architecture, public art, pedestrian amenities and wayfinding signage, sidewalk cafes and street-facing retail, and/or other elements that enhance the attractiveness of Reading and foster healthy economic development.” http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs/policy/cs-pa-reading-order.pdf Weighting the policy elements The authors of this report evaluated policies based on the ten elements as described above. For a summary of the scoring system, see Table A1 on page 21. Awarding each element a total of 5 points establishes benchmarks in each category without drawing unnecessary comparisons between elements. However, the Coalition believes that some elements of a policy are more important to establish than others. To reflect this, the tool uses a weighting system. The chosen weights were established through a collaborative process. An initial draft compiled evidence from research, case studies conducted for the American Planning Association report, Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices23, experience in policy development, and work with communities across the country. The Coalition’s Steering Committee and attendees of the Coalition’s 2011 Strategy Meeting reviewed this draft and provided comments. Staff incorporated these comments and finally simplified the weights so that they would a) add to a total possible score of 100, and b) would not require complex mathematical tricks or rounding. Changes to this weighting are possible in the future, based on continued research into how policy language correlates to implementation. The identified weight for each element is multiplied by points awarded, then divided by 5 (the highest possible number of points). For example, a policy that addresses bicycling, walking, and public transportation for people of all ages and abilities receives a total of 3 points. Those points are multiplied by 20, the weighting assigned to that policy element, and divided by 5, the highest possible number of points. For this policy element, the policy receives a score of 12 out of a possible 20. When the scores for every element are summed, the policy will have a score between 0 and 100, with a higher number indicating it is closer to ideal. 23 http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs/resources/cs-bestpractices-chapter5.pdf Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 23 21 TABLE A1 Policy element scoring system Policy element Points 1. Vision and intent Weight: 6 Indirect: Indirect statement (“shall implement Complete Streets principles,” etc.) 1 Average: Direct statement with equivocating or weaker language (“consider,” “may”) 3 Direct: Direct statement of accommodation (“must,” “shall,” “will”) 5 2. All users and modes Weight: 20 “Bicyclists and pedestrians” (required for consideration) Req. “Bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit” 1 “Bicyclists, pedestrians, transit,” plus one more mode 2 “Bicycles, pedestrians, transit,” plus two more modes 3 Additional point for including reference to “users of all ages” 1 Additional point for including reference to “users of all abilities” 1 3. All projects and phases Weight: 12 Applies to new construction only 0 Applies to new and retrofit/reconstruction projects 3 Additional points if the policy clearly applies to all projects, or specifically includes repair/3R projects, maintenance, and/or operations 2 4.Exceptions Weight: 16 No mention 0 Lists exceptions, but at least one lacks clarity or allows loose interpretation 1 Lists exceptions, none are inappropriate 2 Additional points for specifying an approval process 3 5.Network Weight: 2 No mention 0 Acknowledge 5 6. Jurisdiction Weight: 8 Agency-owned (assumed) -- States and regions: agency-funded, but not agency-owned 3 Counties and cities: privately-built roads 3 Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 24 22 Additional points for recognizing the need to work with other agencies, departments, or jurisdictions 2 7.Design Weight: 4 No mention 0 References specific design criteria or directing use of the best and latest 3 References design flexibility in the balance of user needs 2 8.Context sensitivity Weight: 8 No mention 0 Acknowledge 5 9. Performance standards Weight: 4 Not mentioned and not one of next steps 0 Establishes new measures (does not count in implementation points) 5 10.Implementation steps Weight: 20 No implementation plan specified 0 Addresses implementation in general 1 Addresses two to four implementation steps 3 Additional point for assigning oversight of implementation to a person or advisory board or for establishing a reporting requirement 1 Additional point for directing changes to project selection criteria 1 A note on plans and design guidance The Coalition recognizes that there are inherent differences among policy types. What can be accomplished through a legislative act is different than what might be included in a comprehensive plan, for example. This report’s authors acknowledge that some elements of an ideal policy are unlikely to appear in some policy types and encourage comparison within a policy type, rather than across all types. For this reason, policies are grouped by policy type in Appendix B. While the Coalition recognizes and counts Complete Streets policies included in community transportation master plans, comprehensive plans, general plans, and design guidance, these policies are not subjected to the numerical analysis used in this document. The scoring tool does not work as well for comprehensive plans, where a finer analysis is needed to accurately determine strength and reach of the Complete Streets element within the overall framework of a large and complex plan. The tool is also inappropriate for design standards and guidance. Though some design manuals have a more extensive discussion of policy, their place within the transportation process makes the inclusion of some elements of an ideal Complete Streets policy inappropriate. Design guidance is rarely the first Complete Streets policy adopted in a community; it is more often the realization of some earlier policy effort and part of the overall implementation process. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 25 1 COMPLETE STREETS POLICY The City of Minneapolis is committed to building a complete and integrated public right-of-way to ensure that everyone can travel safely and comfortably along and across a street regardless of whether they are walking, biking, taking transit, or driving. This Complete Streets policy will inform decision-making throughout all phases of transportation projects and initiatives. The overarching policy purpose is the establishment of a modal priority framework that prioritizes public right-of-way use in the following order: walking, biking or taking transit, and driving motor vehicles. 1.Purpose and Vision In the 20th century, transportation planning and infrastructure investments in Minneapolis – as in most US cities –became skewed towards providing more efficient movement for motorized travel. Minneapolis is committed to rebalancing its transportation network by clearly prioritizing walking, taking transit, and biking over driving motorized vehicles, in a manner that provides for acceptable levels of service for all modes. This approach is consistent with – and builds on – guidance that Minneapolis has already established in its transportation policy plan, Access Minneapolis 1, its Comprehensive Plan (the Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth), and many other adopted policies. By implementing this Complete Streets policy: •Transportation in Minneapolis will occur via complete, integrated, efficient, safe, comfortable and well- maintained networks for all modes; and, •Transportation-related decisions will align with the Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan for Sustainable Growth, which states: “Minneapolis will build, maintain, and enhance access to multi-modal transportation options for residents and businesses through a balanced system of transportation modes that supports the City’s land use vision, reduces adverse transportation impacts, decreases the overall dependency on automobiles, and reflects the City’s pivotal role as the center of the regional transportation network”; and, •The health of Minneapolis residents, workers, and visitors will be improved through walking and biking; and, •The environment, both in terms of local air and water quality and in terms of global impacts like climate change, will be positively impacted by the City’s transportation-related decision-making; and, •The local economy will be supported and strengthened through the provision of safe, efficient transportation options and vibrant public spaces; and, •City streets and sidewalks – our largest public space – will foster livable, walkable, bicycle-friendly, green neighborhoods by including healthy trees, plants, permeable surfaces, and design features that help define the character of a street while providing added benefits of shade, summer cooling, reduced energy consumption, and improved water quality; and, •Minneapolis will create an integrated transportation network that provides all residents access to employment, education, and other needs for daily living, regardless of their age, access to, or ability to operate a motorized vehicle. •Ensure private development contributes to the objective of this policy. 2.Policy Framework The City establishes a modal priority framework that prioritizes people as they walk, bicycle, and take transit over people when they drive. The modal priority framework will inform City transportation related decision-making. Minneapolis offers modal options through networks of interconnected routes, but there will be City streets that do not have specific accommodations for all modes, e.g., residential streets without freight vehicles, car-free streets, trails, interstate 1 Access Minneapolis encompasses the City’s Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan, amongst others. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 26 Complete Streets Policy 2 routes that prohibit walking and bicycling, streets without transit routes, or streets without dedicated bicycle facilities. City right-of-way, in addition to serving a transportation role, is the largest and most important public space in the City. To truly serve the highest-priority modes, streets must be vital, healthy places, which include healthy trees, plants, permeable surfaces, public art, and other design features. These elements help define the character of a street, provide shade and cooling, reduce energy consumption, absorb and cleanse stormwater runoff, support car and bicycle sharing, and provide data to facilitate trip planning, parking, and transfers between modes of transportation. The importance of these elements is most important along streets with higher traffic volumes, by helping offset the localized impacts of through traffic on adjacent neighborhoods. Although not identified specifically, emergency service providers are unique users of the transportation system and require special consideration to allow for reasonable and efficient access to destinations in all parts of the City. Similarly, the movement of commercial goods and services will continue to be a high priority for the City, with an understanding that larger vehicles may present challenges within constrained urban environments. This modal priority framework is established for the following reasons: •All trips begin or end with walking (with or without mobility device), regardless of the primary mode(s) of travel. •Transit extends the range of travel for people when they walk or bicycle, provides greater efficiencies and operational benefits than motor vehicles, and is accessible to those unable to walk, bicycle, or drive. •Bicycling extends the range of higher-speed non-motorized travel, while serving commuting, delivery, social, and other purposes. •Safety of the most vulnerable street users must be the highest priority, because they are the most at risk. •The priority modes have an important set of benefits that motor vehicle travel lacks, including health, the environment, land use patterns, economic development, and congestion reduction. •The City’s highest-priority modes have historically encountered underinvestment and rebalancing our transportation networks necessitates addressing the needs of those uses. •Transportation investments influence travel choices, such that greater investment in high-quality pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities facilitate less reliance upon motor vehicles. •Motor-centric priorities and investments incentivize greater motorized vehicle usage, accelerate congestion, elevate parking demand, and increase pollution. •The policy will enhance the safety, convenience, comfort, and efficiency of travel for people of all ages and abilities. 3.Implementation City transportation-related decisions will follow the Complete Streets policy. This includes all types and phases of projects, including programming, planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance. Implementation of Complete Streets will encompass all elements within the public right-of-way, including landscaping, transit shelters, lighting, signs, traffic lights, parking meters, bicycle parking, and furniture. The process by which the Complete Streets policy is applied will be scaled appropriately for each individual project or initiative, including private developments that influence the public right-of-way. This process will coincide with completion of the Complete Streets project delivery checklist, which is intended to document the implementation of the policy. Individual routine maintenance activities (including but not limited to sweeping, mowing, pothole repair, sign replacement, etc.) must reflect the Complete Streets policy’s modal priority framework, but will not be required to go through a Complete Streets policy process. However, the overall planning for such activities will reflect the City’s modal priority framework that prioritizes people as they walk, bicycle, and take transit. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 27 Complete Streets Policy 3 The City will continue to engage partner agencies, schools, businesses, neighborhood associations, and developers in a cooperative manner throughout implementation of the Complete Streets policy process. Application of the policy shall apply to all public and private projects and initiatives that interact with and impact the public right-of-way. Multimodal performance metrics will be established to track the progress towards achieving the City’s vision of Complete Streets. Periodic evaluations will be necessary to assess each metric’s effectiveness, establish benchmarks, and determine if new or refined metrics are needed. Programming The City’s long-range Capital Improvement Program will be informed by the modal priority framework that prioritizes people as they walk, take transit, and bicycle. This includes prioritizing projects that will significantly improve the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit networks. Planning The planning phase consists primarily of coordination amongst City staff and external agencies, as well as the completion of a Complete Streets checklist. The Complete Streets checklist is part of a Project Rationale and Overview, which provides City staff with a tool to document activities and decision-making from planning through final design. The City incorporates a context-based approach that will be informed by the modal priority framework. Designs will be based upon project-specific objectives and context sensitive design solutions supported by the modal priority, street typology and place types 2, documented modal needs, multimodal metrics, issues, opportunities, functionality, environmental or social factors, right-of-way impacts, and input from stakeholders and the community. This approach will include review of relevant adopted City plans (i.e., Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan for Sustainable growth, Access Minneapolis, and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plans, etc.) and seek to provide a transportation system that offers people numerous modal options through networks of interconnected routes within and through the City and continue to seek opportunities to address and/or eliminate gaps, barriers, or connectivity in the non-motorized transportation networks. During the planning phase City staff will work with other City departments, external agencies, City advisory committees, and elected officials as necessary to identify an equitable engagement and outreach approach in a manner that is scaled appropriately and defines specific goals. The City will continue to explore new and innovative public engagement approaches that promote greater engagement from stakeholders, when appropriate and accessible. Design The design of the public right-of-way will follow recognized design standards, best practices and guidelines to achieve the vision of Complete Streets, including Design Guidelines for Streets and Sidewalks (Access Minneapolis), NACTO Urban Street Design Guide, AASHTO, ITE, and, MnDOT Local State-Aid Route Standards. The City will continue to explore flexible and innovative designs, and continue to evaluate the latest design standards and innovative concepts, seeking guidance from established best practices. Where standards established by other units of government, such as MnDOT Local State-Aid Route Standards, conflict with the City’s Complete Streets 2 Access Minneapolis provides context-based geometric designs and treatments that reflect adjoining land uses and functionality to reinforce modal priorities, activation of the public realm, stormwater management, and corridor greening. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 28 Complete Streets Policy 4 vision, the City will seek design exceptions and variances. The City will continue to examine existing standards and work to influence established standards to be more in alignment with the City's Complete Streets vision. Design of the public right-of-way will be informed and guided by the City’s street typologies and place types. The City supports opportunities to incorporate sustainable alternatives and placemaking elements within the public right-of-way, which may include landscaping, green spaces, public art, or stormwater management elements. When designing a street, the City will consider and evaluate metrics for all modes within the right-of-way. The City will work to identify context-based multimodal metrics that prioritize the safety, convenience, and comfort of the prioritized travel modes. Construction Impacts to pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users will be limited to the extent possible during construction. Safe, convenient, and connected detours will be established for people as they walk, take transit, and bicycle when those networks are temporarily interrupted by construction work. Construction will impact trees and green space as little as possible, to preserve and protect this important green infrastructure. The City will continue to explore innovative construction methods to increase the safety, convenience, and utility of pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities. Operation The operation of the public right-of-way is a significant opportunity to implement the City’s modal priority framework that prioritizes people as they walk, bicycle, and take transit. The timing of traffic signals will reflect this modal priority framework, such that signal timing plans will incorporate multimodal metrics. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the operation of the public right-of-way should support safe, comfortable, and convenient travel for people that choose to walk, bicycle, take transit, or drive a vehicle. From time to time a street may be closed temporarily to automotive traffic, to accommodate community events or activities, such as Open Streets, which support the implementation the City’s Complete Streets vision. The City will work with residents to accommodate events that build community and improve the pedestrian and bicycle user-experience (e.g., National Night Out, paint-the-pavement projects, etc.). Maintenance The modal priorities of the Complete Streets policy shall be used when planning, prioritizing, and budgeting maintenance activities. These activities would include, but are not limited to, snow and ice control, street cleaning, pavement repair, pavement marking, etc. 4.Exemptions All transportation projects and initiatives are subject to the Complete Streets policy and related process. When adopted City plans and goals call for facilities following the modal priority framework and a proposed project does not include those facilities in accordance with the modal priority framework, an exemption will be required from the City Council based upon the following list: •Cost of a new facility for a particular mode is excessively disproportionate to need or probable future use. •Documented lack of current or future need (i.e., higher-quality parallel routes in close proximity). •Constraints related to physical space, emergency vehicle clearance, or right-of-way acquisition. •Mode is prohibited by law from using the street. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Living Streets Policy Page 29 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: March 27, 2017 Discussion Item: 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Review of the Inclusionary Housing Policy and Advance Notice of Sale Policy Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: At the request of the Council, staff has provided this report to review the existing Inclusionary Housing Policy and the impact it has had on affordable housing development in St. Louis Park, and to consider options to modify the Policy. Staff will also update the council on the status of work that is in progress related to an Advance Notice of Sale Policy. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the Inclusionary Housing Policy resulting in an increase in the overall supply of affordable housing units in market rate residential developments as intended when the Policy was adopted? Does the council want to amend the policy to increase the affordable unit requirements under the Policy? Does the council want to consider a Policy that would require multi-family residential properties intending to sell to notify the city in advance of entering into a purchase agreement? SUMMARY: In June of 2015, the council adopted an Inclusionary Housing Policy that requires the inclusion of affordable housing units for lower income households in new market rate multi- unit residential developments receiving financial assistance from the city. The primary goal of the Inclusionary Housing Policy is to increase the overall supply of affordable housing and to promote economic and social integration. The number of affordable dwelling units within a residential project subject to the Policy is: I.Rental Projects: 1.At least ten percent (10%) of the units shall be affordable for households at sixty percent (60%) Area Median Income (AMI), or 2.At least eight percent (8%) of the units shall be at affordable for households at fifty percent (50%) AMI. II.Ownership Projects: At least ten percent (10%) of units shall be affordable for households at eighty (80%) AMI. The council has indicated an interest in exploring the possibility of increasing the percentage of affordable housing units required per the policy. Staff will also be providing an update on the status of efforts underway by a work group researching the feasibility of implementing an Advance Notice of Sale Policy. The work group includes representatives from local cities, Hennepin County and state and housing industry advocates and agencies. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Review of Inclusionary Housing Policy and Advance Notice of Sale Policy Update DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: At the November 11, 2016 council study session, the council reviewed a number of strategies and tools to promote the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low and moderate income households in our community. The Council identified a number of strategies and tools to explore further. The strategies and tools identified include the following: Preservation Initiatives •Advance Notice of Sale Period: Require advance notice prior to sale of affordable multi- family properties •Rehab Financing in Exchange for Affordability Commitments •Support NOAH Impact Fund Initiative: Rental building acquisitions •Property Tax Reduction/Financial Incentive: Expand 4d property tax classification/tax rebates •Just Cause Tenant Protection, Exclusionary Admission Standards and Discrimination Protections for Housing Choice (Section 8) Voucher Tenants. Create New Affordable Housing Opportunities •Amend the Inclusionary Housing Policy •Expand Supply of Senior Affordable Housing •Expand Supply of Affordable Single Family Homeownership Options This report focuses on two of the strategies identified above: •Inclusionary Housing Policy •“Advance Notice of Sale Period” of affordable multi-family developments. Inclusionary Affordable Housing Policy: The current Policy was adopted by the council on June 1, 2015. The purpose of the Policy is to require the inclusion of affordable units in new market rate multi-unit residential developments that receive financial assistance from the city. Key components of the Policy include: I.The Policy allows the income and affordability requirements to be fulfilled in the following ways: 1.On-site development of units within the proposed market rate ownership or rental residential development; or 2.Development of income and rent restricted rental units at another site approved by the City. II.Affordability Elements: 1.Affordability Level:Rental: 10% of units at 60% area median income (AMI), or 8% of units at 50% AMI, Ownership: 10% of units at 80% AMI 2.Length of Affordability Requirement: A minimum of 25 years. 3.Bedroom Mix of Affordable Units: The bedroom unit type of the affordable units will be reflective of the development’s market rate units and will be distributed throughout the development. 4.Building Size: The Policy will be applicable to buildings that have 10 or more units. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: Review of Inclusionary Housing Policy and Advance Notice of Sale Policy Update 5. Tenant Eligibility: Rental affordable dwelling units shall be rented only to income eligible families during the period of affordability. An income eligible family may remain in the rental inclusionary dwelling unit for additional rental periods as long as the income of the family does not exceed one-hundred twenty percent (120%) of the applicable AMI. Review of Inclusionary Housing Policy Results to Date Development Total Units Affordable Units Affordability Level Required per Policy Shoreham (leasing) 148 30 50% AMI 4800 Excelsior (under construction) 164 18 60% AMI Elmwood (PUD approved) 85 17 60% AMI Voluntary Central Park West (under construction) 363 11 60% AMI Liv. Comm. Required Arlington Row (PUD approved) 61 6 80% AMI Planning Process Place* 299 200 60% AMI Excelsior & Monterey* 148 12 50% AMI Total Units 1,268 294 *still require council approval Met Council Allocation of Affordable Housing Need for SLP Area Median Income 2011 – 2020 Allocation 2021– 2030 Allocation At or below 30% AMI 229 Between 31% and 50% AMI 132 Between 51 % and 80% AMI 78 At or below 60% 501 Total 501 439 The Inclusionary Housing Policy has been in place for approaching two years (22 months) and applied to five development projects. Two projects are under construction, one has been approved and two more are in the approval process and may not be approved. So far there has been cooperation and acceptance by applicants. Developments with extraordinary development costs seem to view providing affordable housing as an economically viable price to pay in exchange for EDA TIF assistance. Only one project that seemed likely to seek EDA assistance chose to go forward without assistance and a fully market rate development. Important to note that other factors besides city assistance influence whether and how much affordable housing was included in the five projects. Two of the projects involve Low Income Housing Tax Credits, a third contemplated using tax credits, one project (4800 Excelsior) was granted higher density which made it easier to incorporate affordable units and the fifth project has land costs which are much lower than the rest. Our experience to date shows that each project presents its own unique set of opportunities and constraints; however, clearly to date our Policy has been effective and successful. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Title: Review of Inclusionary Housing Policy and Advance Notice of Sale Policy Update Adopted Policy Affordability Requirements: Council has indicated an interest in increasing the percentage of affordable housing required per the Inclusionary Housing Policy. There are many inclusionary housing policies throughout the country that have affordable housing requirements both higher and lower than those adopted by St. Louis Park. Although, development has continued at a robust level in St. Louis Park since the adoption of the Inclusionary Policy, raising the required percentage of affordable housing will result in some real economic impacts for developers. The intent is to establish a policy that will result in the creation of affordable units in market rate developments where it would not otherwise occur. The policy should not create a burden so onerous that it becomes a deterrent or unreasonable constraint on residential development in SLP. The goal is to create program terms that fulfill the City’s affordable housing objectives without eliminating the developer’s economic benefit. In particular, the requirement should not create a deterrent for developers of market rate residential housing with little or no experience in the development of affordable housing. Most communities with Inclusionary Housing policies offer incentives to developers to offset the cost of providing affordable housing units. The most common incentive is to build with increased density, but other common incentives include parking or design waivers, financial assistance, zoning variances, tax abatement and fee waivers. Incentives are seen as a way to reduce but not eliminate the economic impact on development. The incentive inherent in our policy is that we will provide financial assistance to help overcome obstacles to developing your property (poor soils, demolition, etc.) if you will include affordable housing in your project. Although we can’t predict if the financial impacts of increasing the affordability requirements will in anyway prevent new market rate development, adopting a modest incremental increase in the affordability requirement provides a greater possibility that developers can absorb the cost associated with the creation of affordable units through modest declines in land prices or reductions in developer profits or modest additional funding subsidies or some combination of the three. Proposed Increase in Required Percentage of Affordable Housing: Staff proposes that the council consider amending the Inclusionary Housing Policy to include a modest increase in the percentage of affordable housing requirements for multi-family residential market rate developments receiving financial assistance from the city. The proposed new requirements are as follows: Affordability Level: Rental: 10% 15% of units at 60% area median income (AMI), or 8% 10% of units at 50% AMI, Ownership: 10% 15% of units at 80% AMI *60% and 50% affordability for rental units is consistent with affordability level requirements for the federally funded affordable housing Tax Credit Program. Staff also proposes that the policy be amended to add a requirement that these developments must not discriminate against tenants who would pay their rent with government provided Housing Choice Vouchers or other local rent subsidies. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 5 Title: Review of Inclusionary Housing Policy and Advance Notice of Sale Policy Update ADVANCE NOTICE OF SALE OF NOAH: An Advance Notice of Sale would require owners of multi-family residential rental buildings to give advance notice to the city prior to entering into a purchase agreement for the sale of any building. This would provide the city with information about the sale of properties with rents affordable to low-income tenants in order to support strategies to preserve the affordability of these properties. The city would use the notification information to inform the state and preservation buyers of an impending sale of a possible naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) property. The preservation buyers would be responsible for evaluating the property for potential preservation efforts including incentives and acquisition of the property. The intent is not to interrupt a pending sale but to give stakeholders notice and an opportunity to possibly engage a preservation buyer. Staff has been participating on a workgroup with representatives from other interested communities and housing industry agencies and advocates to explore the issues related to implementation of an Advance Notice of Sale policy/ordinance at the local and regional levels. Tim Thompson from the Social Justice Center is a member of the work group and will be in attendance at the council meeting to answer questions related to the work being done on the proposed policy. Some of the key policy issues identified include: Should the Policy apply to all buildings or only NOAH buildings? How do we define NOAH buildings and how do we know what rents are being charged? Having all rental properties give notice might make the most sense and be the most equitable but you run the risk of high end properties objecting to this requirement imposed on them when it is irrelevant to them. Also, should the policy only apply to buildings of 10 or more units? The requirement would not apply to sales between family members or sales between property owners of the development. How long should the notice period be? A 90 day notice period to the city prior to entering a purchase agreement has been suggested. The goal is provide enough time to allow an opportunity for a preservation buyer to insert themselves as a legitimate buyer if appropriate but not so lengthy that the policy significantly encumbers the owner’s right to sell their property. Enforcement? It has been suggested that we could tie the notice obligation to the rental license. This is a possibility but enforcement could be a challenge. If it is discovered that an owner is about to complete a sale and hasn’t given notice, the Tenant’s Remedies Action allows for a summary proceeding that can be brought by the city or tenant; Tim Thompson will speak to this option. But if the sale is completed without giving the notice, the sale obviously can’t be undone. Options then: deny the buyer a rental license, fine the seller, or ??? Notice to Tenants? Once the sale is complete, should the new owner be required to give 90 day notice to the tenants before any lease changes, rent increases or any eviction without cause can be initiated. Relocation benefits have also been suggested as an option for owners that want to avoid the 90 day waiting period. The city’s legal counsel has reviewed this option and advised that it could be challenging if this policy is applied to all rentals. Preventing an owner from increasing rents could be perceived as a form of rent control. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 6 Title: Review of Inclusionary Housing Policy and Advance Notice of Sale Policy Update NEXT STEPS: Inclusionary Housing Policy: Based on council’s direction, staff will amend the Inclusionary Housing Policy and present the amended policy for approval at a future council meeting. Notice of Sale Period Policy: Based on council’s continued interest in exploring the feasibility of implementing an Advance Notice of Sale Policy, staff will continue to collaborate with the workgroup members to address the issues identified above and any additional concerns raised by the council and prepare a draft policy to present for further discussion at a future study session. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: March 27, 2017 Discussion Item: 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Connect the Park! CIP Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires to discuss with Council the proposed Connect the Park Capital Improvement Plan segment amendments and receive direction on how to move forward. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish staff to continue to pursue the installation of the sidewalk, trail, and bikeway segments identified in this report? SUMMARY: Connect the Park is the city's 10-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to add additional sidewalks, trails, and bikeways throughout the community. The primary goal of Connect the Park is to develop a comprehensive, city-wide network of sidewalks, trails, and bikeways that provides local and regional connectivity, improves safety and accessibility, and enhances overall community livability. This is achieved by creating a system plan that provides sidewalks approximately every ¼-mile and bikeways every ½-mile in order to improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity throughout the community. Every year, staff brings proposed amendments to the plan to the City Council based on community feedback, agency coordination, and internal evaluation of all planned projects. This report will discuss updates regarding upcoming projects currently programmed for 2018 implementation, proposed amendments to the Connect the Park plan, and other related initiatives. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The original estimated cost for implementing the entire 10 year plan was $17- 28 million dollars. To date, $7,280,608 has been spent on Connect the Park projects, including the segments approved for construction in 2017. The CIP includes $2,625,300 for 2018 segments. The current estimated project costs for the projects in the 2018 CIP is $2,207,400. The funding source for these improvements is General Obligation bonds. The additional segments outlined in this report for construction in 2018 are estimated to cost approximately $1,810,900. They are currently not accounted for in the CIP. Staff is actively pursuing other funding sources to help reduce this additional expense. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Connect the Park CIP - Sidewalks Map Connect the Park CIP - Trails Map Connect the Park CIP - Bikeways Map Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineering Project Manager Chris Iverson, Transportation Engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: At the conclusion of an extensive public process, the Connect the Park Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) was approved by Council in June of 2013. In 2014, the CIP was modified in order to take advantage of some of the other projects already identified in the City’s CIP and minimize construction scheduling impacts from other transportation projects proposed by Hennepin County, MnDOT and SWLRT. The proposed segments and associated build year for this plan can be found in the attached graphics. To ensure the City is being responsive to the momentum caused by this initiative and keeping the plan updated in light of community feedback, the City Council developed a process to amend the Connect the Park CIP at the September 22, 2014 Study Session. The Connect the Park CIP is now updated annually, usually within the first quarter of the year. Update on Pending Connect the Park Efforts from 2016 Several Connect the Park efforts that were scheduled to be implemented in 2016 have not yet been constructed, but are still moving forward in project development by staff. Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) project: Three locations with heavy pedestrian crossing traffic were slated to be enhanced with the installation of push- activated RRFBs. Staff placed an advertisement for bid to construct RRFBs at 36 1/2th Street over Monterey Drive and at Cedarwood Road over France Avenue in September 2016. Due to high demand for contractors at the time, the city did not receive any bids on implementation. These locations will be integrated in the first bid package with the 2017 sidewalk projects. Staff is setting a goal to implement the RRFB at 36 1/2th Street before the Rec Center initiates summer activities after Memorial Day. These two RRFBs are estimated to cost $90,000. A third RRFB was slated to be installed on 16th Street and West End Drive. Staff is continuing to evaluate the best design for this unique pedestrian crossing location, and is anticipating to have a preferred design solution in 2017. Wooddale Avenue Bridge over Highway 7: Staff is continuing to move forward with a proposal to widen the Wooddale Bridge over Highway 7 to improve off-ramp sight lines, upgrade bicycle facilities, and improve the pedestrian experience to pair with upcoming Southwest LRT improvements. The bridge project is estimated to cost $2,000,000 and will be paid by General Obligation bonds. Construction is anticipated to occur in 2018 and will be carefully coordinated with closures on Wooddale scheduled to occur from the Southwest LRT project. Minnehaha Creek Trail Corridor – Meadowbrook Road to Southwest LRT: This project continues the trail project along Minnehaha Creek near the City’s Municipal Service Center to connect with the Cedar Lake Regional Trail along the Southwest LRT corridor. This effort was brought forward during the March 2016 CTP study session. Staff continues to coordinate this project with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to pair with Southwest LRT construction. This trail connection will be about 1,000 feet, is estimated to be $280,000, and is planned for construction in 2018-2019. Proposed Amendments to the Connect the Park CIP for 2018 and Beyond Staff has identified the following proposed amendments to the plan. Several amendments are recommended to be added in the upcoming 2018 CIP, while others are recommended to be programmed for future years. These amendments are recommended to ensure that we are being Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update responsive to the momentum created by this initiative and to keep the plan updated in light of community feedback and additional study. 1. Proposed amendments to Connect the Park (for 2018 CIP) Staff has worked with other agencies and continued to receive feedback from community members and elected officials regarding the efforts within St. Louis Park. Staff is recommending adding the following projects to the 2018 Capital Improvement Plan. • France Avenue – sidewalk – 39th Street to 40th Street • France Avenue and 38th Street – pedestrian/bicycle crossing enhancement • Monterey Drive – sidewalk reconstruction– Excelsior Boulevard to 36 1/2th Street • Wayzata Boulevard – sidewalk – Louisiana Transit Center to I-394 pedestrian bridge • Minnetonka Boulevard – bikeway – upgraded bike striping west of Highway 100 • Texas Avenue – sidewalk – Highway 7 to Lake Street, coordinate with joint Hopkins project 2. Other proposed amendments to Connect the Park (beyond 2018) In addition to recommended additions to the 2018 CIP, staff has evaluated other projects that are recommended to be added for future years. • CSAH 25 pedestrian improvements – Construction in 2020 (Regional Solicitation Funds) • CSAH 25/ Minnetonka Blvd pedestrian enhancements – sidewalk – Construction in 2020 • Birchwood Park – trail – Construction in 2022 • Meadowbrook Road & Oxford Street – sidewalk – Construction in 2023 • North Cedar Lake Regional Trail access ramp to Minnetonka Blvd – reconstruction- Construction in 2020 3. Other Connect the Park initiatives (on-going) In addition to constructing trail, sidewalk, and bikeway infrastructure, the Connect the Park plan features other initiatives to help increase bicycling and walking in the community. Highway 100/ West End Connection Study: The Connect the Park plan identifies a grade- separated crossing for bicyclists and pedestrians over the BNSF Railway main line that would connect the West End commercial area to the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail and neighborhoods south. Staff intends to conduct a planning study for this connection that will include a robust public engagement process in order to develop a concept design for the railroad crossing. The city submitted an application for funding assistance with Hennepin County as part of their 2017 Pedestrian & Bicycle Solicitation. If funding was approved by the County the study would be scheduled to take place later in 2017, with a recommended concept design complete by early 2018. Highway 100 Pedestrian Bridge Extension Study: The existing pedestrian bridge over Highway 100 near Beth-El Synagogue, the new highway on-ramp at 26th Street is currently structurally sound. However, the design of the Highway 100 project and nearby on-ramp left deficiencies to the circulation of bike & pedestrian movements to the bridge that significantly hinders sight lines and safety at the Utica Avenue crossing. Staff would like to evaluate the possibility of modifying the bridge to allow for a safer landing on the west side of Highway 100. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 4 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update NEXT STEPS: Unless directed otherwise by the Council, the sidewalk, bikeway, and trail segments described on the following pages will be brought to the community for design review and input. Staff typically begins a public process approximately 9 to 12 months prior to proposed construction. Each recommended segment will not be approved for construction until it is brought to the City Council for a Public Hearing. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Unless otherwise noted, all pre-approved projects for 2018 construction and all projects recommended to be added as amendments will be funded using General Obligation Bonds. Costs for each facility have been calculated based on recent estimates in the current bidding environment. A summary of estimated construction cost for each segment and corresponding construction year is shown in the tables below. Previously Programmed Projects for 2018 Project Location Project Extents Project Type Year Estimated Construction Cost Zarthan Avenue Cedar Lake Road to 16th Street Sidewalk 2018 $110,000 Louisiana Avenue Cedar Lake Road to W 14th Street Sidewalk 2018 $605,000 Louisiana Avenue Minnehaha Creek to Excelsior Blvd Sidewalk 2018 $60,000 Jordan Avenue / 28th Street Cedar Lake Road to W 28th Street Sidewalk 2018 $350,000 Minnehaha Creek Trail Oxford Street to Southwest LRT Trail 2018 $280,000 Louisiana Avenue Highway 394 to Excelsior Blvd Bikeway 2018 $65,000 Wayzata Avenue Texas Avenue to Zarthan Avenue Bikeway 2018 $55,000 Zarthan Avenue Wayzata Avenue to Cedar Lake Road Bikeway 2018 $14,000 Franklin Avenue Pennsylvania Avenue to Louisiana Avenue Bikeway 2018 $68,000 38th Street France Avenue to Excelsior Blvd Bikeway 2018 $16,000 Monterey Drive Excelsior Blvd to Beltline Blvd Bikeway 2018 $15,000 Quentin Ave / Wooddale Ave 44th Street to Park Commons Drive Bikeway 2018 $45,000 Park Commons Drive Quentin Avenue to Excelsior Blvd Bikeway 2018 $15,000 Total Construction Costs $1,698,000 Total Project Costs (Preliminary [20%] and Construction [10%] Engineering) $2,207,400 Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 5 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Proposed Connect the Park Amendments for 2018 Construction Project Location Project Extents Project Type Year Estimated Cost France Avenue 40th Street to 39th Street Sidewalk 2018 $170,000 France Avenue 38th Street Crossing Enhancement 2018 $53,000 Monterey Drive Excelsior Blvd to 36 1/2th Street Sidewalk (reconstruction) 2018 $750,000 Wayzata Boulevard Louisiana Transit Center to Interstate 394 Pedestrian Bridge Sidewalk 2018 $135,000 Minnetonka Boulevard Highway 100 to Highway 169 Bikeway 2018 $115,000 Texas Avenue Highway 7 to Lake Street Sidewalk 2018 $170,000 Total $1,393,000 Total Project Costs (Preliminary [20%] and Construction [10%] Engineering) $1,810,900 Proposed Connect the Park Amendments for Future Construction Project Location Project Extents Project Type Year Estimated Cost CSAH 25 CSAH 25 & Minnetonka Blvd Interchange Sidewalk / Crossing 2020 $200,000 CSAH 25 vicinity Lynn Avenue, Beltline Blvd, CSAH 25, Ottawa Avenue Pedestrian Improvements 2020 $200,000 Birchwood Park 28th Street to 27th Street Trail 2022 $95,000 Meadowbrook Road / Oxford Street Creekside Park access to Japs Olson parking lot Sidewalk (gap) 2023 $100,000 Minnetonka Blvd North Cedar Lake Regional Trail to Minnetonka Blvd Trail (ramp reconstruction) 2020 $50,000 Total $645,000 Total Project Costs (Preliminary [20%] and Construction [10%] Engineering) $838,500 2018 CONNECT THE PARK SEGMENTS 2018 Pavement Management (Area 6) Project Overview: During the past two Pavement Management projects, staff has identified existing sidewalk gaps on streets that were impacted by reconstruction efforts. These sidewalk gaps were incorporated into the Connect the Park update discussion. To streamline the project and avoid confusion that has occurred with combining Pavement Management with Connect the Park sidewalk construction efforts for 2017, staff is proposing to integrate sidewalk gap efforts into the Pavement Management planning process and refer to the Living Streets policy instead of the Connect the Park plan. One of the principles of the Living Streets policy is to enhance walking/ biking conditions and connections. Staff recommends this change in approach to remove confusion between Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 6 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update the standalone Connect the Park projects and the Pavement Management efforts. Staff envisions that this integration will assist with public and council communication. Therefore, the sidewalk gaps within the 2018 Pavement Management area are not discussed in this report. We will be bringing the recommended sidewalk gaps in the 2018 Pavement Management project in the Elmwood and Brookside neighborhoods to council at a future study session. Sidewalks Zarthan Avenue – Cedar Lake Road to 16th Street Project Overview: 700 feet of sidewalk is proposed to be constructed on the west side of Zarthan Avenue from Cedar Lake Road to 16th Street in 2018. Community Significance: This sidewalk would complete a gap segment within the neighborhood. Public Process: Unless directed otherwise by the Council, staff plans to discuss this sidewalk segment as part of the public process that will begin in summer 2017 and conclude with council decision in late 2017 or early 2018. Design: At this time a design for the width of the sidewalk and boulevard has not been determined. Tall retaining wall exists on the south end of the corridor which may complicate design. Walk Type: This walk was identified in the Connect the Park plan; therefore it will be designated as a community walk. Cost: A planning level cost estimate for these segments is approximately $110,000. Construction Schedule: This sidewalk segment is proposed to be constructed in 2018. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 7 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Louisiana Avenue – Cedar Lake Road to Wayzata Boulevard Project Overview: 3,250 feet of sidewalk is proposed to be constructed on the east side of Louisiana Avenue from Cedar Lake Road to the existing sidewalk at 14th Street. Community Significance: Louisiana Avenue is a major north-south corridor that carries around 20,000 vehicles per day. This sidewalk would provide a safe pedestrian facility on the east side where none exists today. Public Process: This sidewalk is proposed to be constructed in conjunction with the Louisiana Avenue Municipal State Aid (MSA) reconstruction project, which will upgrade the pavement condition and striping on the corridor within existing curb lines. Staff plans to begin the public process for the MSA project in summer 2017, Design: At this time a design for the width of the sidewalk and boulevard has not been determined. This will be part of the public process discussion during the MSA project. Walk Type: This walk was identified in the Connect the Park plan; therefore, it will be designated as a community walk. Cost: A planning level cost estimate for these segments is approximately $605,000. Construction Schedule: This sidewalk segment is proposed to be built in conjunction with the Louisiana Avenue MSA reconstruction project. In addition to sidewalk there is a bikeway proposed for this segment as well. Building the sidewalk and bikeway at the same time as the road project will provide us additional design flexibility. Staff is evaluating the pavement condition on Louisiana in comparison with other MSA streets as a part of our CIP update process. While, this project is currently in our CIP for construction in 2018, it may shift based on funding availability and pavement condition. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 8 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Louisiana Avenue – Minnehaha Creek to Excelsior Blvd Project Overview: 720 feet of sidewalk is proposed to be constructed on the west side of Louisiana Avenue from the Minnehaha Creek trail to Excelsior Boulevard. Community Significance: This sidewalk would complete a gap segment along Louisiana Avenue and would connect Excelsior Boulevard to the Minnehaha Creek trail. Public Process: This project will occur in conjunction with the Louisiana Ave bridge replacement over Minnehaha Creek in 2018 Design: At this time a design for the width of the sidewalk and boulevard has not been determined. This will be part of the public process discussion. Walk Type: This walk was identified in the Connect the Park plan; therefore, it will be designated as a community walk. Cost: A planning level cost estimate for these segments is approximately $60,000. Construction Schedule: The sidewalk is contingent on the construction schedule of the Louisiana bridge replacement over Minnehaha Creek, which is being coordinated around Southwest LRT construction. Staff seeks to mitigate Southwest LRT impacts around St. Louis Park. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 9 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Jordan Avenue / 28th Street – Cedar Lake Road to W 28th Street Project Overview: 1,400 feet of sidewalk is proposed to be constructed on the east side of Jordan Avenue from Cedar Lake Road to the existing sidewalk on 28th Street. Community Significance: This sidewalk would complete a gap segment along Jordan Avenue and provide a safe pedestrian space for residences along 28th Street on Hannan Lake to walk to Cedar Lake Road. The request was brought forward by a resident on 28th Street, and was added to the CIP in 2018. Jordan Avenue functions as a Highway 169 on/off ramp. Public Process: Unless directed otherwise by the Council, staff plans to discuss this sidewalk segment as part of the public process that will begin in summer 2017 and conclude with council decision in late 2017 or early 2018. Design: Depending on location and constructability, sidewalk will include a boulevard at some locations and will be against the curb at others. Walk Type: This walk was identified in the Connect the Park plan; therefore, it will be designated as a community walk. Cost: This sidewalk will be more expensive than many of our past projects due to its location near Hannan Lake requiring engineered retaining wall, similar to the sidewalk constructed on Morningside Road in 2015. A planning level cost estimate for these segments is approximately $350,000. Construction Schedule: This sidewalk is planned to be constructed in 2018. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 10 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update TRAIL SEGMENTS Minnehaha Creek Trail Corridor – Meadowbrook Road to Southwest LRT Project Overview: This 1000 feet of trail is in the early stages of planning and design as a partnership with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed. It is anticipated planned to be constructed in conjunction with Southwest LRT project. Community Significance: In 2014 and 2015 the City partnered with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed to complete a segment of trail and boardwalk between Meadowbrook Road and Louisiana Avenue to the south of the Municipal Service Center. This trail segment would be an extension of this system and allow direct access to the Cedar Lake Regional Trail. Public Process: Public process for this segment of trail would be held the preceding fall of proposed construction. Design: The construction of an 8 or 10 foot wide asphalt trail. The trail is proposed along the south/west side of Minnehaha Creek and will traverse underneath the Southwest LRT tracks along the creek before approaching the Regional Trail. Trail Type: This is proposed to be a community trail and would be maintained by the City for snow removal. Cost: A planning level cost estimate for these segments is approximately $280,000. Construction Schedule: This trail segment is planned to be built in conjunction with the Southwest LRT construction. At this time construction is estimated to occur sometime between 2017 and 2019. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 11 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update BIKEWAY SEGMENTS Louisiana Avenue – Interstate 394 to Excelsior Boulevard Project Overview: 3.1 miles of bikeway are proposed along the full length of Louisiana Avenue, between Interstate 394 to the north and Excelsior Boulevard to the south. This bikeway is in the early stages of planning and design, and will be coordinated with other ongoing efforts, including the Louisiana MSA reconstruction project, Minnehaha Creek bridge replacement project, and Southwest LRT construction. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 12 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Community Significance: Louisiana Avenue serves as a major north-south corridor throughout the entire length of St. Louis Park. Other than Highway 100, it is the only continuous north-south corridor that traverses over both railroad mainlines and Highway 7. Public Process: Unless directed otherwise by the Council, staff plans to discuss this bikeway segment as part of the public process that will begin in summer 2017 and conclude with council decision in late 2017 or early 2018. Design: At this time a design of the bikeway has not been evaluated. Due to the high vehicular volume on Louisiana Avenue and the importance of the north-south corridor, staff is planning on conducting a preliminary design study for the full length in association with the MSA project north of Cedar Lake Road. Standard and paint-buffered bike lanes are being considered at this time. Cost: Cost estimates for the bikeway itself will be separate from other ongoing efforts on Louisiana Avenue. The bikeway is currently estimated to be $65,000 Other Notes: Staff will evaluate connection to North Cedar Lake Regional Trail to see if improvements to existing connection are feasible with this project. Construction Schedule: This bikeway segment is proposed to be built in coordination with the Louisiana Avenue MSA and the Minnehaha Creek Bridge reconstruction projects. In addition to a bikeway there are sidewalk segments proposed in this corridor. Building the sidewalk and bikeway at the same time as the road projects will provide us additional design flexibility. Staff is evaluating the pavement condition on Louisiana in comparison with other MSA streets as a part of our CIP update process. While, the Louisiana MSA project is currently in our CIP for construction in 2018, it may shift based on funding availability and pavement condition. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 13 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Wayzata Avenue & Zarthan Avenue – Texas Avenue to Cedar Lake Road Project Overview: 1.6 miles of bikeway are proposed near the northern border of St. Louis Park along Wayzata Boulevard between Texas Avenue and Zarthan Avenue, and along Zarthan Avenue between Wayzata Boulevard and Cedar Lake Road. This bikeway is in the early stages of planning and design. Community Significance: Wayzata Boulevard acts as the southern frontage road to Interstate 394 and sees between high volumes at 5,000 and 7,000 vehicles per day. The street serves as an important east-west corridor in the city, and connects into Golden Valley and the West End area. Zarthan Avenue is the continuation of Wayzata Boulevard just east of the at-grade railroad crossing. Zarthan Avenue south of 16th Street connects Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 14 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Public Process: Unless directed otherwise by the Council, staff plans to discuss this sidewalk segment as part of the public process that will begin in summer 2017 and conclude with council decision in late 2017 or early 2018. Design: At this time a design of the bikeway has not been evaluated. Cost: The bikeway is currently estimated to be $69,000 Other Notes: Staff would like the council to consider evaluating a bikeway that would connect into the heart of the West End area east of Park Place Boulevard. Currently, the proposed bikeway terminates at Cedar Lake Road, about 1/3 mile away from the Shops at West End. Continuing the bikeway to Park Place Boulevard along Wayzata Boulevard east of Zarthan Avenue, or along 16th Street east of Zarthan Avenue, would allow a continuous biking experience to the central destination center in the West End. The potential routes for this connection are shown in green on the location maps above. Construction Schedule: This bikeway segment is proposed to for construction in 2018. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 15 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Franklin Avenue – Pennsylvania Avenue to Louisiana Avenue Project Overview: 0.25 miles of bikeway are proposed along Franklin Avenue between Pennsylvania Avenue and Louisiana Avenue, connecting Lamplighter Park to the existing Franklin trail east of Louisiana Ave. Community Significance: The bikeway was identified in Connect the Park. The bikeway gap connects two trail facilities: to the west, the trail through Lamplighter Park approaches Texas Avenue and the Franklin Avenue bikeway; to the east, the trail east of Franklin Avenue runs through the Eliot neighborhood. Public Process: Unless directed otherwise by the Council, staff plans to discuss this sidewalk segment as part of the public process that will begin in summer 2017 and conclude with council decision in late 2017 or early 2018. Design: At this time a design of the bikeway has not been evaluated. Cost: The bikeway is currently estimated to be $68,000 Other Notes: A bikeway is usually on-street. As a part of the design process, staff recommends that in addition to the proposed bikeway we evaluate an alternative design for a trail. This four-block segment connects two trail facilities on either side. Having a consistent facility assists users in way-finding. The trail alternate could replace the existing sidewalk on the south side of the street. For the bikeway, staff could evaluate innovative on-street treatments, such as a two-way cycletrack like that seen near Ainsworth Park in the Two Wheels on 28th demonstration event. Construction Schedule: This bikeway segment is proposed to for construction in 2018. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 16 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update 38th Street – Excelsior Boulevard to France Avenue Project Overview: 0.4 miles of bikeway are proposed along 38th Street between Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue, connecting the Excelsior & Grand activity node and the proposed crossing treatment at the France & 38th Street intersection. Community Significance: The bikeway was identified in Connect the Park. The bikeway serves as a main east-west connector from Minneapolis to Excelsior & Grand. Public Process: Unless directed otherwise by the Council, staff plans to discuss this bikeway segment as part of the public process that will begin in summer 2017 and conclude with council decision in late 2017 or early 2018. Design: At this time a design of the bikeway has not been evaluated. Cost: The bikeway is currently estimated to be $36,000 Other Notes: Coordination will take place with the proposed crossing treatment at France Avenue & 38th Street, and the proposed bikeways along Monterey Drive, Quentin Avenue, and Wooddale Avenue. Construction Schedule: This bikeway segment is proposed to for construction in 2018. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 17 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Monterey Drive – Excelsior Boulevard to Beltline Boulevard Project Overview: 0.3 miles of bikeway are proposed along Monterey Drive to connect to Excelsior & Grand, the proposed bikeway on 38th Street, and proposed bicycle & pedestrian improvements along Beltline Boulevard for the Southwest LRT project. Community Significance: The bikeway was identified in Connect the Park. The bikeway serves as an important corridor to connect Excelsior & Grand to the Cedar Lake Regional Trail and future Southwest LRT. Public Process: Unless directed otherwise by the Council, staff plans to discuss this bikeway segment as part of the public process that will begin in summer 2017 and conclude with council decision in late 2017 or early 2018. Design: At this time a design of the bikeway has not been evaluated. Cost: The bikeway is currently estimated to be $15,000. Costs associated with the amendment project for proposed sidewalk upgrades on the east side of Monterey Drive are not included in this estimate. Other Notes: Coordination will take place with other proposed 2018 bikeways in the area, and with the potential amendment project for a proposed sidewalk upgrade on the east side of Monterey Drive. Construction Schedule: This bikeway segment is proposed to for construction in 2018. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 18 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Wooddale Ave, Princeton Ave, Quentin Ave, Park Commons Dr – 44th Street to Monterey Drive Project Overview: 1.3 miles of bikeway are proposed in the Minikhada Vista neighborhood along Wooddale Avenue, Princeton Avenue, Quentin Avenue, and in the Excelsior & Grand area along Park Commons Drive. Community Significance: The bikeway was identified in Connect the Park. The bikeway serves as an important north-south connection between Edina, Excelsior & Grand, and destinations north. Public Process: Unless directed otherwise by the Council, staff plans to discuss this bikeway segment as part of the public process that will begin in summer 2017 and conclude with council decision in late 2017 or early 2018. Design: At this time a design of the bikeway has not been evaluated. Cost: The bikeway is currently estimated to be $60,000. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 19 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Other Notes: The intersection of Park Commons at Monterey has been studied, and concern has been brought forward regarding taking a left to go northbound onto Monterey. In addition, an on street bikeway could require the removal of on-street parking on Park Commons Drive. In order to provide the most comfortable bikeway, and not impact the available parking, staff recommends that we re-evaluate the routing of the bikeway around the Excelsior & Grand activity node. Staff sees using existing trail facilities in Wolfe Park as a promising alternative to the existing proposal. Construction Schedule: This bikeway segment is proposed to for construction in 2018. The project to create a dedicated right turn lane at the Park Commons/ Monterey Drive intersection will be coordinated with the 2018 CTP projects. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 20 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update AMENDMENTS TO THE CONNECT THE PARK PLAN Based on Council and community feedback, staff has evaluated the following projects for consideration to be added to the Connect the Park CIP. Each project lists a recommended implementation year and planning level cost estimate. Sidewalks & Pedestrian Enhancements France Avenue – 39th Street to 40th Street Project Overview: 630 feet of sidewalk along the west side of France Avenue between 39th Street and the Edina border near 40th Street. This project is in conjunction with a planned City of Edina sidewalk project along France Ave between 40th and 42nd Streets. Community Significance: France Avenue (CSAH 17) is a major north-south corridor that functions as the border between St. Louis Park and Minneapolis. Sidewalk currently exists on the west side of the street from Excelsior Blvd to 39th Street. A sidewalk gap exists between 39th Street and 42nd Street in Edina. City engineering staff, in partnership with the City of Edina, recently submitted a funding request to the Hennepin County Pedestrian & Bicycle Solicitation to fund up to 25% of the construction costs. Public Process: If this project was added as an amendment to the Connect the Park plan, staff would plan to discuss this project in conjunction with Edina in summer 2017, with construction proposed for 2018. Design: A boulevard-style sidewalk is recommended for the St. Louis Park segment. Cost: The sidewalk is estimated to be $170,000. Other Notes: If added to Connect the Park, staff will be asking for a resolution of approval from council in early April to submit to Hennepin County. Construction Schedule: This segment is proposed to for construction in 2018. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 21 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement – 38th Street at France Avenue Project Overview: Construct a pedestrian crossing enhancement on 38th Street at France Avenue to raise driver awareness of crossing pedestrians and to provide a safer crossing condition for non-motorized users. Staff has been coordinating with Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis to establish a preferred design and cost sharing agreement. This suggested amendment is the result of resident feedback. Community Significance: Residents in the Minikhada Vista neighborhood have noted difficulty crossing France Avenue to get to the Chain of Lakes area in Minneapolis. This crossing enhancement would facilitate safer pedestrian and bicycle movement across the busy France Avenue corridor. Public Process: Staff have been in contact with Minikhada Vista residents over the past year regarding this effort. If this project was added as an amendment to the Connect the Park plan, staff would begin the public process in summer 2017, with council approval and coordinated construction activities with Hennepin County planned for 2018. Design: The crossing enhancement will include a raised median, crosswalk paint, ADA ramp improvements, and RRFB implementation. Cost: Preliminary estimates have the project listed at $53,000. Other Notes: City staff are working closely with Hennepin County staff to establish a cost share agreement for the project. Construction Schedule: This segment is proposed to for construction in 2018. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 22 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Monterey Drive – Excelsior Boulevard to 36 1/2th Street Project Overview: 1,000 feet of reconstructed sidewalk along the east side of Monterey Drive between Excelsior Boulevard and 36 1/2th Street. This sidewalk would replace the existing back-of-curb walk with a larger sidewalk and a pedestrian amenity area, including a green boulevard. This suggested amendment is the result of Council and resident feedback. Community Significance: Monterey Drive is a major connection between Excelsior & Grand area and destinations north. During discussions regarding the proposed Bridgewater Development at 4400 Excelsior Boulevard, the council had requested staff to look at enhancing the existing sidewalk on the east side of Monterey Drive due to its narrow condition against the street curb. Public Process: If this project was added as an amendment to the Connect the Park plan, staff would begin the public process in summer 2017, with council approval and construction planned for 2018. Design: The existing sidewalk would be replaced with a boulevard style sidewalk. Cost: The sidewalk is estimated to be $750,000. This elevated cost is due to required retaining wall between the sidewalk and the surface parking lot of Park Trails Apartments. Other Notes: Staff has evaluated this project with the assumption that existing street widths would be maintained. Due to the proposed bikeway on Monterey in 2018, there may be an opportunity to evaluate the feasibility of narrowing the street to accommodate bicycle and improved pedestrian infrastructure in the corridor. Construction Schedule: This segment is proposed to for construction in 2018. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 23 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Wayzata Blvd – Louisiana Transit Center to pedestrian bridge near Pennsylvania Avenue Project Overview: 700 feet of sidewalk along the north side of Wayzata Blvd between the Louisiana Transit Center and the pedestrian bridge over Interstate 394. This suggested amendment was the result of resident feedback. Community Significance: Wayzata Blvd acts as the frontage road for Interstate 394 on the north boundary of St. Louis Park. Sidewalk exists on the south side of Wayzata in this area; however, pedestrians attempting to access the transit center from the west have been known to cross at a curve with poor sight lines. Completing this gap will provide pedestrians with a safer space to walk to and from the transit center. Public Process: If this project was added as an amendment to the Connect the Park plan, staff would begin the public process in summer 2017, with council approval and construction planned for 2018. Design: Design for this sidewalk has not yet been determined. Cost: The sidewalk is estimated to be $135,000. Other Notes: This sidewalk creates safer access for pedestrians utilizing the pedestrian bridge over Interstate 394 that links St. Louis Park to Golden Valley. Construction Schedule: This segment is proposed to for construction in 2018. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 24 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Texas Avenue – Highway 7 to Lake Street Project Overview: The City of Hopkins is planning to reconstruct Texas Avenue between Division Street and Lake Street in 2018. This section of street is on the city boundary. Staff recommends partnering with Hopkins to reconstruct the full corridor between Lake Street and Highway 7, and is recommends that we evaluate adding a sidewalk on the east side of the street in this area. Community Significance: Texas Avenue is a major north-south street and acts as the Hopkins border to St. Louis Park between Division and Lake Street. Currently, no sidewalk exists in this corridor. A 2016 traffic count showed approximately 1,000 vehicles traveling on Texas Avenue south of Highway 7. Public Process: If this project was added as an amendment to the Connect the Park plan, staff would begin the public process in summer 2017, with council approval and construction planned for 2018. Design: A boulevard-style sidewalk is recommended for the St. Louis Park segment. Cost: The sidewalk is estimated to be $170,000 Other Notes: Staff continues to work with MnDOT and Hopkins on establishing the schedule for implementation of the approved bikeway along Texas Avenue and through South Oak Hill along Lake Street and Rhode Island Avenue. Construction Schedule: This segment is proposed to for construction in 2018. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 25 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update CSAH 25 / Beltline Pedestrian Improvements Project Overview: In anticipation of the upcoming Southwest LRT project, various improvements for non-motorized users are proposed within the vicinity of the Beltline Station. The city was awarded federal funds through the 2016 Regional Solicitation to construct new non-motorized infrastructure along CSAH 25, the southern frontage road, and the west side of Beltline Boulevard from the Beltline Station to 36th Street. Funds will also be used to construct upgraded pedestrian facilities along Ottawa Avenue and Lynn Avenue between CSAH 25 and Minnetonka Boulevard. Many of these improvements fulfill recommendations identified in the Transition Station Area Action Plan for the Beltline Station. Community Significance: The future Beltline Station along the Southwest LRT corridor will act as a major activity node when the line opens in 2021. Multimodal access to this station that comfortably accommodates pedestrians and bicycles is paramount to the success of the station. Non-motorized facilities along CSAH 25, Beltline Blvd, Ottawa Avenue and Lynn Avenue will provide walking and biking connections to the light rail station area, Cedar Lake Regional Trail, and destinations beyond. Public Process: If this project was added as an amendment to the Connect the Park plan, staff would begin the public process in summer 2018, with council approval of the final design in 2019 and construction coordinated around Southwest LRT construction in 2020. Design: Design for these facilities has not yet been determined. Cost: The project was estimated to be $200,000 in the regional solicitation application. Updated costs will be presented as staff establishes more detailed design. Other Notes: The Connect the Park plan has a trail and bikeway identified for construction on Beltline Boulevard in 2019. The bikeway would run between Minnetonka Blvd and 36th Street, while the trail would run between the Beltline Station area and 36th Street. Staff may re-evaluate the timing of construction to better match construction activities with Southwest LRT. Construction Schedule: This segment is proposed to for construction in 2020. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 26 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update CSAH 25 / Minnetonka Boulevard Pedestrian Improvements Project Overview: Staff anticipates increased pedestrian activity associated with the upcoming apartment construction projects near the CSAH 25 and Minnetonka Boulevard interchange. Currently, there is not an ADA-accessible route to get from the new developments to destinations on the north side of Minnetonka Blvd. The city, in partnership with Hennepin County, is conducting a CSAH 25 corridor study to help establish a long- term vision for the important east-west corridor. However, since the study envisions few short-term improvements, staff recommends that the City implement an interim measure to ensure safe and legal pedestrian movements across the existing large intersection. Community Significance: The area is located between the future Beltline Station and West Lake Station along the Southwest LRT corridor. The Shoreham and Parkway 25 developments will increase residential density in the area. The CSAH 25 intersection with Minnetonka Boulevard acts as a major barrier for north-south pedestrian and bicycle movement today. Public Process: If this project was added as an amendment to the Connect the Park plan, staff would begin the public process in summer 2019, with council approval of the final design in 2020 and construction coordinated around Southwest LRT construction in 2020. Design: Design for these facilities has not yet been determined, but should include new curb, sidewalk, and traffic signal upgrades with Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) technology. Cost: The project is estimated to be $200,000. Updated costs will be presented as staff establishes more detailed design. Construction Schedule: This segment is proposed to for construction in 2020. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 27 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Meadowbrook Road & Oxford Street Sidewalk Project Overview: This project would fill an existing sidewalk gap in the Meadowbrook area of St. Louis Park along Oxford Street and Meadowbrook Road. Construction would happen in conjunction with planned improvements on the Minnehaha Creek Bridge and street reconstruction in 2023. This suggested amendment is the result of property owner feedback. Community Significance: Meadowbrook Road and Oxford Street function as major routes in the southeast area of St. Louis Park. Recently, the Japs Olson redevelopment constructed a sidewalk along Meadowbrook Road from Excelsior Boulevard to 3965 Meadowbrook Road. There is an existing sidewalk along the south side of Oxford Street from Louisiana Avenue to the parking lot entrance for Creekside Park. This project would fill the sidewalk gap between the two segments. Public Process: If this project was added as an amendment to the Connect the Park plan, staff would begin the public process in summer 2022, with council approval of the final design and construction in 2023. Design: A boulevard-style sidewalk is recommended for this segment. Cost: The project is estimated to be $100,000. Construction Schedule: This segment is proposed to for construction in 2023. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 28 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Bikeway Minnetonka Boulevard – Highway 100 to Highway 169 – Striping Upgrade Project Overview: This effort would restripe Minnetonka Boulevard between Highway 100 and Highway 169 to enhance the shoulder area and better delineate the existing bikeway on the major east-west corridor. Community Significance: Minnetonka Boulevard between Highways 100 and 169 in St. Louis Park has regional significance as an east-west bike corridor. The Metropolitan Council lists the corridor as a Tier 1 bicycle corridor on their Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN), and Hennepin County identifies it as a major bikeway on their maps. Currently, the road features a painted shoulder area for bicyclists, but no bike-specific signage or related striping & symbols. This effort would modernize this corridor to better conform to NACTO and MnDOT bike design recommendations. Public Process: If this project was added as an amendment to the Connect the Park plan, since this is an in place facility, the public process would be to inform the property owners of the efforts to modernize the corridor. Design: Design will be adding signage and new striping where appropriate to enhance the existing bikeway. Cost: The project is estimated to be $150,000 Other Notes: Staff is working closely with Hennepin County staff to establish a cost share agreement for the project. Construction Schedule: This segment is proposed to for construction in 2018. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 29 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Trails Access Trail – North Cedar Lake Regional Trail near Minnetonka Boulevard Project Overview: This effort would reconstruct the existing trail ramp between Minnetonka Boulevard and the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail in order to maximize safety and improve sight lines for bicyclists and pedestrians. This suggested amendment is the result of resident feedback. Community Significance: This access ramp is a major connection from the city’s street network to the Three Rivers regional trail system. Residents have noted the ramp approaches the Regional Trail too closely to the existing bridge, raising safety concerns for trail users. Public Process: If this project was added as an amendment to the Connect the Park plan, staff would begin the public process in late 2019, with council approval of the final design and reconstruction in 2020. Design: Design will include regrading and adjusting the access ramp alignment so that it approaches the Regional Trail further to the south. Cost: The project is estimated to be $50,000 Other Notes: City staff is coordinating with Three Rivers Park District on this effort. Construction Schedule: This segment is proposed to for construction in 2020. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 30 Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Birchwood Park - Trail Project Overview: This trail would run near the existing alley on the west side of Birchwood Park. The trail would run between 28th and 27th Streets. This suggested amendment is the result of resident and Council feedback. Community Significance: During the public process for the 28th Street Bikeway in late 2016, community members and elected officials raised concern about establishing a one- block bikeway along Blackstone Avenue to connect east-west bikeways on 28th and 27th Streets. City Council approved the bikeway on Blackstone Avenue, but requested that staff evaluate a trail connection for bicyclists and pedestrians through Birchwood Park in the future. This trail would provide a continued ADA-accessible surface through Birchwood Park, and could act as the official connection from the 28th Street to 27th Street bikeways. Public Process: Staff is proposing adding the trail to the Connect the Park CIP in conjunction with planned alley improvements in 2022. If this project was added as an amendment to the Connect the Park plan, staff would begin the public process in late 2021, with council approval of the final design and reconstruction in 2022. Design: Design for the trail has not yet been determined. The trail will pair with planned alley improvements in the near vicinity. Cost: The project is estimated to be $95,000 Construction Schedule: This segment is proposed to for construction in 2022. ")20 ")17 ")5 ")25 ")3 §¨¦394 £¤169 ¬«100 ¬«7 LYNNAVESTEXASAVESMORNIN GSID E R D 3 6 TH ST W M O NTE R E Y D R 42ND ST W VERNONAVES25TH STWCEDARLAKERDWAYZATABLVD W O O D D A L E A V E SER V I C E D R H IG H W AY7WAYZATA BLVD 28TH ST W CAMBRIDGE ST MONTEREYAVESZARTHANAVESZARTHANAVESWEBSTERAVESCEDARLAK ER D FORESTRD JOPPAAVESLAKE ST WINGLEWOODAVESWALKER STGEORGIAAVES TOLEDOAVES22N DST W 26TH ST W 43 1/2 ST W CLUB RD GOODRICH AVE 14TH ST W DAKOTAAVESLOUISIANAAVESGLENHURSTAVESVIRGINIA CIR N XENWOODAVESOXFORD STRHODEISLANDAVES36TH ST WFLAGAVES JOPPAAVESBRUNSWICKAVES35TH ST W 27TH ST W UTICAAVESBURDPL 33RD ST W VALLACH E R A V E 32ND ST W 1ST ST NWNATCHEZAVESBARRY STHAMILTON ST DIVISION ST 24TH ST W 34TH ST W 25 1/2 ST W 3 7 T H S T W 361/2 ST WPRIVATERD EDGEBRO OK D R 31ST ST W 2 9T HS T W DAKOTAAVES2 6T H S T W 1 8 THSTWALABAMAAVESUTAHAVESKIPLINGAVESSUMTERAVESAQUILALNS23 R D STW LYNN AVE S WE S T MORE LANDLN 31ST ST W QUEBECAVESZINRANAVESOREGONAVESIDAHOAVESNEVADAAVES394 HOV LN EDGEWOODAVESHAMPSHIREAVESFLORIDAAVESPENNSYLVANIAAVESIDAHOAVESMARYLANDAVESSALEMAVESRALEIGHAVESQUENTINAVESALABAMAAVESNORTH ST W EBSTERAVES3 5 T H STWDUKEDR 40TH LN W K IL MERAVEP A R K G LENR D 28TH ST W LOUI SI ANAAVESPARK PLACE BLVDPARKCENTERBLVD KIPLINGAVESFRANCEAVESTEXASAVESUTICAAVESSHELARD PKW Y 2ND ST NWYOSEMITE AVE SCOLORADOAVESOTTAWAAVESWE STWOODHILLSDR XENWOODAVESHI L L SBOROAVESELIOT VIEW RDF O R D RDBRUNSWICKAVESHUNTINGTON AVE SKENTUCKYAVESALLEYVERNONAVESVIRGINIA CIR S JERSEYAVESBLACKSTONEAVESTOLEDOAVESSALEMAVESMELROSEAV ES Draft Connect the Park AmendmentsSidewalk Projects Legend CTP Sidewalk Amendments 2018 - 0.7 miles 2020 - 1 mile 2023 - 0.2 miles Proposed Sidewalk AmendmentsCTP! Sidewalks 2017 - 1.1 miles 2018 - 1.1 miles 2019 - 1.2 miles 2020 - 0.4 miles 2021 - 1.3 miles 2022 - 0.5 miles 2023 - 0.4 miles Study - 0.4 miles Completed - 4.8 miles Existing Sidewalks Existing Trails Railroad City Limits 0 0.5 1 1.5 2Miles Ë Date: 3/22/2017 Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Page 31 !f !f !f !f ")20 ")17 ")5 ")25 ")3 §¨¦394 £¤169 ¬«100 ¬«7 LYNNAVESTEXASAVESMORNIN GSID E R D 3 6 TH ST W M O NTE R E Y D R 42ND ST W VERNONAVES25TH STWCEDARLAKERDWAYZATABLVD W O O D D A L E A V E SER V I C E D R H IG H W AY7WAYZATA BLVD 28TH ST W CAMBRIDGE ST MONTEREYAVESZARTHANAVESZARTHANAVESWEBSTERAVESCEDARLAK ER D FORESTRD JOPPAAVESLAKE ST WINGLEWOODAVESWALKER STGEORGIAAVES TOLEDOAVES22N DST W 26TH ST W 43 1/2 ST W CLUB RD GOODRICH AVE 14TH ST W DAKOTAAVESLOUISIANAAVESGLENHURSTAVESVIRGINIA CIR N XENWOODAVESOXFORD STRHODEISLANDAVES36TH ST WFLAGAVES JOPPAAVESBRUNSWICKAVES35TH ST W 27TH ST W UTICAAVESBURDPL 33RD ST W VALLACH E R A V E 32ND ST W 1ST ST NWNATCHEZAVESBARRY STHAMILTON ST DIVISION ST 24TH ST W 34TH ST W 25 1/2 ST W 3 7 T H S T W 361/2 ST WPRIVATERD EDGEBRO OK D R 31ST ST W 2 9T HS T W DAKOTAAVES2 6T H S T W 1 8 THSTWALABAMAAVESUTAHAVESKIPLINGAVESSUMTERAVESAQUILALNS23 R D STW LYNN AVE S WE S T MORE LANDLN 31ST ST W QUEBECAVESZINRANAVESOREGONAVESIDAHOAVESNEVADAAVES394 HOV LN EDGEWOODAVESHAMPSHIREAVESFLORIDAAVESPENNSYLVANIAAVESIDAHOAVESMARYLANDAVESSALEMAVESRALEIGHAVESQUENTINAVESALABAMAAVESNORTH ST W EBSTERAVES3 5 T H STWDUKEDR 40TH LN W K IL MERAVEP A R K G LENR D 28TH ST W LOUI SI ANAAVESPARK PLACE BLVDPARKCENTERBLVD KIPLINGAVESFRANCEAVESTEXASAVESUTICAAVESSHELARD PKW Y 2ND ST NWYOSEMITE AVE SCOLORADOAVESOTTAWAAVESWE STWOODHILLSDR XENWOODAVESHI L L SBOROAVESELIOT VIEW RDF O R D RDBRUNSWICKAVESHUNTINGTON AVE SKENTUCKYAVESALLEYVERNONAVESVIRGINIA CIR S JERSEYAVESBLACKSTONEAVESTOLEDOAVESSALEMAVESMELROSEAV ES Draft Connect the Park AmendmentsTrail Projects Legend Proposed Trail Amendments CTP Trail Amendments 2020 Trail (0.1 miles) 2022 Trail (0.1 miles)CTP! Trails 2017 - 0.4 miles 2018 - 0.2 miles 2019 - 0.4 miles 2020 - 0.2 miles Study - 0.1 miles Other - 0.02 miles Completed - 1.6 milesCTP! Trail Bridges!f 2019!f Other!f Completed Existing Sidewalks Existing Trails Railroad City Limits 0 0.5 1 1.5 2Miles Ë Date: 3/22/2017 Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Page 32 ")20 ")17 ")5 ")25 ")3 §¨¦394 £¤169 ¬«100 ¬«7 LYNNAVESTEXASAVESMORNIN GSID E R D 3 6 TH ST W M O NTE R E Y D R 42ND ST W VERNONAVES25TH STWCEDARLAKERDWAYZATABLVD W O O D D A L E A V E SER V I C E D R H IG H W AY7WAYZATA BLVD 28TH ST W CAMBRIDGE ST MONTEREYAVESZARTHANAVESZARTHANAVESWEBSTERAVESCEDARLAK ER D FORESTRD JOPPAAVESLAKE ST WINGLEWOODAVESWALKER STGEORGIAAVES TOLEDOAVES22N DST W 26TH ST W 43 1/2 ST W CLUB RD GOODRICH AVE 14TH ST W DAKOTAAVESLOUISIANAAVESGLENHURSTAVESVIRGINIA CIR N XENWOODAVESOXFORD STRHODEISLANDAVES36TH ST WFLAGAVES JOPPAAVESBRUNSWICKAVES35TH ST W 27TH ST W UTICAAVESBURDPL 33RD ST W VALLACH E R A V E 32ND ST W 1ST ST NWNATCHEZAVESBARRY STHAMILTON ST DIVISION ST 24TH ST W 34TH ST W 25 1/2 ST W 3 7 T H S T W 361/2 ST WPRIVATERD EDGEBRO OK D R 31ST ST W 2 9T HS T W DAKOTAAVES2 6T H S T W 1 8 THSTWALABAMAAVESUTAHAVESKIPLINGAVESSUMTERAVESAQUILALNS23 R D STW LYNN AVE S WE S T MORE LANDLN 31ST ST W QUEBECAVESZINRANAVESOREGONAVESIDAHOAVESNEVADAAVES394 HOV LN EDGEWOODAVESHAMPSHIREAVESFLORIDAAVESPENNSYLVANIAAVESIDAHOAVESMARYLANDAVESSALEMAVESRALEIGHAVESQUENTINAVESALABAMAAVESNORTH ST W EBSTERAVES3 5 T H STWDUKEDR 40TH LN W K IL MERAVEP A R K G LENR D 28TH ST W LOUI SI ANAAVESPARK PLACE BLVDPARKCENTERBLVD KIPLINGAVESFRANCEAVESTEXASAVESUTICAAVESSHELARD PKW Y 2ND ST NWYOSEMITE AVE SCOLORADOAVESOTTAWAAVESWE STWOODHILLSDR XENWOODAVESHI L L SBOROAVESELIOT VIEW RDF O R D RDBRUNSWICKAVESHUNTINGTON AVE SKENTUCKYAVESALLEYVERNONAVESVIRGINIA CIR S JERSEYAVESBLACKSTONEAVESTOLEDOAVESSALEMAVESMELROSEAV ES Draft Connect the Park AmendmentsBikeway Projects Legend Proposed Bikeway Amendments CTP Bikeway Amendments 2018 Bikeway (2.7 miles)CTP! Bikeways 2017 - 3.8 miles 2018 - 7.0 miles 2019 - 4.5 miles 2020 - 3.1 miles 2021 - 4.3 miles 2022 - 1.9 miles Study - 0.3 miles Other - 1.7 miles Completed - 6.0 miles Existing Sidewalks Existing Trails Railroad City Limits 0 0.5 1 1.5 2Miles Ë Date: 3/22/2017 Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 4) Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Page 33 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: March 27, 2017 Discussion Item: 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 36th Street LLC’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance – The Elmwood Apartments RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff wishes to review and receive feedback on 36th Street LLC’s application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance in connection with the redevelopment of The Elmwood Apartments on 36th Street. Specific issues staff wishes to discuss include: •Project economics/amount of TIF assistance •Compliance with the EDA’s TIF Policy •Next steps POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA support 36th Street LLC’s proposed mixed-use redevelopment project for The Elmwood located at 5605 W 36th Street and is it willing to consider entering into a redevelopment contract to reimburse the Developer for qualified costs up to $950,000 in tax increment generated by the project over a maximum term of six years to assist the project’s financial feasibility? SUMMARY: 36th Street LLC (“Developer”) owns the property located at 5605 W 36th Street known as the 36th Street Business Center and partially leased to the American Legion. The Developer proposes to demolish the multi-tenant building and construct a 6-story, mixed-use, senior housing building called The Elmwood. The project will consist of 85 residential units restricted to residents age 55+, of which 17 (or 20%) will be affordable at 60% of the area median income (AMI), approximately 4,920 square feet of commercial space, and 188 parking stalls. On March 20, 2017, the City Council approved a PUD and Plat for The Elmwood redevelopment. In order to enable the project to become financially feasible, the Developer applied for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost to construct the proposed Elmwood project is approximately $19 million. Upon completion, the project’s total taxable market value is estimated at approximately $16.2 million. The proposed mixed-use project is not financially feasible due to extraordinary costs associated with redeveloping the site, the inclusion of affordable housing with corresponding restricted rents, and constructing two (2) levels of underground parking. To offset a portion of the project’s qualified site development costs, it is proposed that the EDA consider reimbursing the Developer up to $950,000 in pay-as-you-go tax increment generated by the project for a maximum term of six years. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Title: 36th Street LLC’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance – The Elmwood Apartments DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: 36th Street LLC acquired the property located at 5605 W 36th Street in 2002. This one acre site is located at the southeast corner of Xenwood Avenue and 36th Street West. The site is occupied by a single, two-story multi-tenant commercial building known as 36th Street Business Center who’s primary tenant is the American Legion. Proposed Redevelopment Site: 5605 W 36th Street CURRENT PROPOSAL: The Developer is proposing to raze the current commercial building and construct a six story, mixed-use development restricted to residents age 55+. The west wing of the building would contain approximately 4,920 SF of commercial space, with space for outdoor seating. Active uses fronting 36th Street include a fitness studio, leasing office, and main entrance. The active uses on 36th Street are approximately 60% of the building’s ground floor frontage. Residential units account for the remaining 40% of frontage on 36th Street and include three residential dwelling units, two of which have entrances directly to the street, to maintain an active “front door” presence. An additional four dwelling units are located on the ground floor and have individual entrances via the designed outdoor recreation area (DORA). The development promotes biking through a large indoor bike storage area and hanging wall units located in the underground ramp. The development also includes a large rooftop patio space. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 5) Page 3 Title: 36th Street LLC’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance – The Elmwood Apartments Rendering of proposed building – The Elmwood The project’s proposed residential unit mix is as follows: UNIT SUMMARY TYPE LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 6 TOTAL 1 BEDROOM 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 1 BEDROOM + DEN 1 3 4 4 4 4 20 2 BEDROOM 2 7 7 7 7 7 37 2 BEDROOM + DEN 1 3 3 3 3 3 16 TOTALS 6 15 16 16 16 16 85 Job Creation The proposed project is expected to create three (3) FTE jobs related to the building and residences and an estimated seven (7) FTE jobs related to the commercial portion of the project for a total of ten (10) FTE new jobs. The number of jobs created by the 4,920 SF of commercial space could be higher depending upon the business that leases the space. Land Use, Zoning, and Other Requirements The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject site for Mixed-Use. On March 20, 2017, the City Council approved the Second Reading of the Ordinance amending the Zoning Map of the subject properties from P-P Industrial Park to PUD 8. The PUD creates a new zoning district and zoning regulations for uses and dimensional standards that are unique to the subject site and building plans. The Elmwood’s proposed uses include multi-family residential, commercial, and civic and institutional, all of which will be allowed through the PUD rezoning. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and allowable under its Zoning Ordinance. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 5) Page 4 Title: 36th Street LLC’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance – The Elmwood Apartments The intent of the Mixed Use land use designation and the City’s Livable Communities design principles is to create compact, pedestrian-scale, mixed-use buildings, typically with retail, service or other commercial uses on the ground floor and residential or office uses on upper floors. Mixed- use is intended to accommodate mixed-income housing, a mix of housing types on the same block, and higher density development. The subject site provides a mixture of market rate and affordable apartments while also providing ground floor commercial space and residential units promoting an active street frontage. Thus the development is suitable for the proposed mixed-use development and multiple-family housing and meets many of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The development will follow the City’s Green Building Policy. It will also comply with requirements incorporated in the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy. To that end, The Elmwood will designate 17 (or 20%) of the residential units as affordable to households earning up to 60% of the area median income (AMI). This translates to incomes of up to $36,060 for a one-person household or $41,220 for a two-person household. The 17 affordable units includes six one bedroom units and eleven two bedroom units. This makes for a mixed-income development and expands housing choices for the community. The development provides ample bike parking and is situated in close proximity to the Cedar Lake Trail, Route 17 and Route 615 bus lines, and is near the future SWLRT Wooddale Station. The proposed development is a mixed-use building that promotes efficient use of the land, existing infrastructure, and existing roadway system. It also incorporates underground parking, additional sidewalks, a trail connection and enhanced bicycle facilities making the project walkable and multi-modal. Overview of the Project’s Sources and Uses There are three primary components within The Elmwood project: market rate housing, affordable housing, and commercial/retail. Each component’s sources and uses statements, cash flow projections, and investor rate of return were analyzed by Ehlers and staff to determine to what extent the proposed project may have a financial gap justifying the use of TIF. Project Financing Sources Anticipated financing sources for The Elmwood project are as follows: SOURCES AMOUNT ($) % of TDC Debt 14,220,000 75 Equity Developer/Other 3,796,747 20 City of St. Louis Park TIF 950,000 5 TOTAL Project Sources $18,966,747 100% Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 5) Page 5 Title: 36th Street LLC’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance – The Elmwood Apartments Project Uses The Total Development Cost (TDC) of The Elmwood project is approximately $19 million which consists of the following: USES AMOUNT ($) % of TDC Per Unit Land Acquisition 1,000,000 5.3% 11,765 Construction Costs 11,767,800 62.0% 138,445 Structured Parking ($19,136/stall) 3,100,000 16.3% 36,471 Environmental Abatement/Soil Correction 535,852 2.8% 6,304 Professional Services 553,140 2.9% 6,508 Financing Costs 963,701 5.1% 11,338 Developer Fee 846,254 4.5% 9,956 Cash Accounts/Escrow 200,000 1.1% 2,353 TOTAL Project Costs $18,966,747 100% $223,138 Property Acquisition Cost: As indicated above, the land contribution for the subject property was $1 million which equals $11,765 per unit. According to Ehlers, this per unit cost is within the typical market range of $10,000 to $15,000 per unit. Construction Costs: The construction costs of approximately $138,000 per unit plus structured parking costs of $19,136 per stall are within industry norms. Developer Fee: 36th Street LLC included a 4.5 percent developer fee, which is within industry standards for the proposed type of development. Total Development Cost (TDC): The TDC is $223,000 per unit. These costs include the residential areas, commercial space, underground parking, common area, amenities, soft and financing costs, etc. This per unit cost is within industry standards for the proposed type of development. Project Cash flow projections 1. Market Rate Apartment Rents: Market Rate rents range between $1,339/month for a 1- bedroom unit and $2,209 for a two-bedroom and are $1.75 sq/ft. on average. This is somewhat conservative for St. Louis Park’s market as typical market rate projects are now approximately $2 plus a sq/ft. However, this project has more modest resident amenities, common areas and grounds than other projects within the City. 2. Affordable Apartment Rents: The affordable unit rents are at the regulatory maximum rents for households at 60% of area median income (AMI), which translates to rents between $966/month for a 1-bedroom unit and $1,159/month for a two- bedroom unit. The inclusion of 20% of the units having rents restricted to 60% of area medium income reduces net operating income by approximately $127,000/year thereby reducing the amount of mortgage or returns the project could generate. Rent Comparison Unit Type # of Units Monthly Affordable Rent Monthly Market Rent Monthly Difference Per Unit Annual Difference Total Annual Revenue Difference 1 Bedroom 6 966 1,339 (373)(4,473)(26,838) 2 Bedroom 11 1,159 1,916 (757)(9,087)(99,957) (13,560)(126,795) Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 5) Page 6 Title: 36th Street LLC’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance – The Elmwood Apartments 3. Commercial Leases Commercial rent on a triple net basis is listed as $14 sq/ft. which is conservative but within the typical range for the market. 4. Operating Expenses: Residential operating expenses of approximately $3,775 per unit per year (before taxes, management fees, and reserves) is within industry standards. Application for Tax Increment Financing Assistance Of the nearly $19 million TDC, the Developer estimates the project will incur nearly $3.6 million in extraordinary costs* in redeveloping the subject site. These include the following. Extraordinary Cost Estimates AMOUNT ($) Soil correction 50,000 Asbestos Abatement and Building Removal 100,000 Earthwork, excavation & shoring 300,000 Utilities 97,000 2-Levels of Underground Parking 3,100,000 TOTAL Extraordinary Costs $3,647,000 *Extraordinary costs are expenses encountered over and above those which a developer would typically expect to incur in a suburban development (e.g. asbestos removal, building demolition, contaminated soil removal and disposal, storage tank removal and disposal, shoring, utility replacement, specialized stormwater management, 2-level underground parking, etc.) These costs inhibit the project’s financial feasibility and are the types of expenditures within a Redevelopment TIF District that are eligible for reimbursement with tax increment. According to the Developer, the $3.6 million in estimated extraordinary site development costs and the inclusion of affordable housing inhibits the project’s financial performance. Consequently, 36th Street LLC submitted an application requesting $1.8 million in tax increment finance assistance to mitigate its perceived financial gap. Tax increment financing uses the increased future property taxes generated by a new development to finance certain qualified development costs incurred by that project (such as those noted above) for a limited period of time. Pro Forma Analysis 36th Street LLC’s preliminary sources and uses statements, cash flow projections, and investor rate of return related to the proposed redevelopment were reviewed by Ehlers and staff. If no tax increment were provided, the project’s average projected annual cash-on-cash (COC) return on equity would be approximately 1.8% to investors at stabilization (Year 2). Given that real estate developments are speculative and involve significant risk for investors, such a rate of return would be insufficient to attract the necessary equity capital needed to start the project thereby making it financially infeasible. According to Ehlers, the industry standard for COC returns for similar projects is eight (8) to ten (10) percent in order to raise equity and secure debt financing. With $950,000 in tax increment assistance, the development is projected to generate approximately 7.6% COC return at stabilization with an average COC return by Year 7 of 8.5%, when the TIF assistance ends. That level of assistance would mitigate enough of the extraordinary site costs described above such that it allows the project to achieve a rate of return sufficient to attract the necessary equity capital to enable the project to proceed. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 5) Page 7 Title: 36th Street LLC’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance – The Elmwood Apartments Based upon its analysis of the financial information provided by the Developer, Ehlers determined that The Elmwood project is not financially feasible but/for the provision of tax increment assistance in the principal amount of $950,000. Ehlers estimates that such an amount could likely be generated upon project completion over a term of 6 years. The TIF assistance would be provided in the form of a pay-as-you -go TIF Note. In accordance with the TIF statutes, the proposed assistance would be made available exclusively to reimburse the developer for any combination of the extraordinary costs cited above once they were incurred and verified. It is important to note that when evaluating these types of developments, it is challenging to accurately estimate a project’s precise rate of return upon project stabilization. The objective is to assemble, within certain parameters, a proforma that provides a comfort level to all those investing in the project. Consistent with other recent redevelopment projects with which the EDA has been involved, a "look back" provision would be incorporated into the redevelopment contract with 36th Street LLC. Per the contract, the Redeveloper would be required to submit a final proforma detailing the actual financial performance of the project. The look back provision establishes a cap on the return that the Developer earns on a cash-on-cash basis, once the project reaches stabilized income. The cap is essentially an industry standard for similar projects. The look back provision ensures that if the project cash flows at a higher rate than currently estimated, the EDA shares economically in the success of the project by reducing the amount of TIF assistance provided. Providing tax increment financing assistance to The Elmwood makes it possible to construct a high quality project consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, bring the subject properties to optimal market value and provide the community with additional market rate and affordable senior housing units as well as create new tax base and employment opportunities. Such assistance would represent 5% of total project costs which is in-line with other developments the EDA has previously assisted. As a reminder, the tax increment would be generated by the project itself and would only be provided once construction had been completed and the Developer supplies statements verifying that it had incurred the specified qualified costs. The assistance would be paid over 6 years provided sufficient tax increment from the project was available. The EDA would be obligated to provide assistance to the project only to the extent that the project generates sufficient tax increment to make the bi-annual payments. TIF Note It will take approximately one year to construct the proposed Elmwood project. The first increment would be paid in 2019. Given current estimates of market value, it is projected that the project’s TIF Note would be paid off in approximately 6 years (on a net present value basis). The Note would terminate with final payment on February 1, 2025. The proposed project would be financed on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, which is the desired financing method under the City's TIF Policy. The Note would bear interest at 5%, which is the Developer’s proposed bank financing rate for the project. The size of the TIF Note is based upon no inflationary value in the project (as with all projects). This is more conservative estimating and thus it is anticipated that the pay-as-you-go note will likely be paid off earlier than the estimated 6 years. As with most of the City’s redevelopment contracts, the Developer will be required to execute a Minimum Assessment Agreement for the value utilized for projecting the amount of TIF assistance available. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 5) Page 8 Title: 36th Street LLC’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance – The Elmwood Apartments TIF District The subject site is within the City’s Redevelopment Project Area which is the portion of the city where the EDA may establish TIF districts. No TIF district currently exists for the subject site thus, if tax increment assistance were provided to the proposed project, a new Redevelopment TIF District would need to be established. The proposed Elmwood Apartment TIF District would include one parcel: 5605 36th St West. In order to determine if the subject site qualified as a Redevelopment District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, consulting firm LHB was retained to conduct a TIF district feasibility analysis. After inspecting and evaluating the subject property and applying current statutory criteria, LHB made the following findings in its report: • The 22,868 SF building was constructed in 1964 and has a roof that is failing. The roof top mechanical system is older than 20 years and one unit has failed completely. The mechanical system does not comply with current mechanical/building code. The first floor does not have an ADA accessible restroom when the elevator is shut off for security reasons afterhours. • The proposed TIF District has a coverage calculation of 100 percent which is above the 70 percent requirement. • 100 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard which is above the 50 percent requirement. • The substandard building is reasonably distributed. Based upon these findings LHB concluded that the proposed Elmwood Apartment TIF District qualifies as a Redevelopment District under the TIF Law. Such a TIF district would allow up to 26 years of tax increment. Property Value and Taxes The total taxable market value of the current property is approximately $1.1 million. The total taxable market value of The Elmwood upon construction completion (for TIF estimation purposes) is estimated at $16.2 million. Most of the new value would be captured as tax increment and used to make payments on the TIF Note until it is paid off and the TIF district is terminated. The City, County and School District would continue to receive the property taxes collected on the subject site’s base value. The project is estimated to generate a total of $298,932 in total annual property taxes of which an estimated $235,597 would be captured as gross tax increment. Once the TIF Note is retired, the additional property taxes generated by the project would accrue to the local taxing jurisdictions. Upon termination of the TIF Note, it is estimated that the City’s portion of the project’s total property taxes will be approximately $97,000. It should be noted that the value of the project could be higher than the estimated $16.2 million once it is assessed for tax purposes. This was a value utilized only for estimating the amount of TIF the project would generate. If the value at the time of completion is higher than the estimated amount, the principal amount of the TIF Note does not increase. The only impact would be that the TIF Note would likely be paid back sooner than the anticipated 6 years and local taxing jurisdictions would receive the benefit of having the full value for tax purposes sooner than anticipated. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 5) Page 9 Title: 36th Street LLC’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance – The Elmwood Apartments Conformance and Analysis under the City’s TIF Policy The Elmwood project meets the following Minimum Qualifications as outlined in the City’s TIF Policy: • Promotes neighborhood stabilization and revitalization by the removal of blight and the upgrading of existing housing stock. • Provides a balanced and sustainable housing stock to meet diverse needs both today and in the future. • The project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances. • The Developer has demonstrated that the proposed project is not financially feasible “but- for” the use of tax increment financing. • The Developer has a proven track record of successful real estate development performance and has demonstrated the capability to fully complete the project as proposed. The proposed project meets the following “Desired Qualifications” as outlined in the TIF Policy: • Creates a substantially higher ratio of property taxes paid before and after redevelopment and provides a significant increase in taxable market value. • Facilitates new construction on a site which would not be redeveloped without such assistance. • Redevelops underutilized property. • Creates a high quality building (e.g. sound architectural design, quality construction and materials). • Creates new employment opportunities. In addition to the above, the proposed project would have the following additional benefits: • Removes a structurally obsolete building that adversely impacts the neighborhood. • Demonstrates consistency with the Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit and Transportation Study of 2003. • Intensifies the subject site and makes optimal use of the property with an attractive mixed- use development that is walkable and human-scale. • Complements, integrates with, and strengthens the surrounding multi-family neighborhoods. • Helps stabilize the retail businesses along 36th Street by increasing the potential customer base. • Further increases and diversifies the housing options available in the St. Louis Park market. • Creates additional market rate and affordable senior housing. • Creates new jobs. • Incorporates Green Building design and features. • Lies within a Priority Redevelopment Study Area as identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. • Incorporates Livable Communities and Transit Oriented Design principles. • Located along an existing transit route and near a future SWLRT station area. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 5) Page 10 Title: 36th Street LLC’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance – The Elmwood Apartments Grading under Project Report Card The TIF application for The Elmwood project was graded according to the Project Report Card provided within the City’s TIF Policy. The application was graded as follows: • Promotes housing for large families. No 3-bedroom or larger units are proposed to be included in the project’s unit mix. Since 0% of the units will accommodate large families a grade of “F” was provided. • Provides economic integration of rental or ownership projects. Of the proposed 85 apartment units, 17 (or 20%) would be designated as affordable; this garnered a grade of “B” on the scale. • Ratio of soft costs to Total Project Costs. Soft costs of the total project were estimated at approximately $2.6 million or 13.5% of the total development costs, which corresponded to a grade of “A” on the scale. • Ratio of private to public (TIF) financing. $19 million in private development costs to $950,000 in TIF equals a $20 private / $1 public ratio which garnered an “A” on the scale. • The value of the site before and after redevelopment The total taxable market value of the subject redevelopment site is $1.1 million. The projected market value upon redevelopment is: $16.2 million. This is a ratio of $1:$14.54 which represented an “A” on the scale. • New Job Creation The total number of new FTE jobs expected to be created in the city as a result of the proposed development is estimated at 10. The level of job creation garnered a “D” on the scale. The proposed project received bonus points for: • assembling all the properties required for the redevelopment • redeveloping blighted/contaminated property • incorporating New Urbanism principles and being a mixed-use development • adding value to the neighborhood • incorporating LEED principles • incorporating livable communities planning principles • likely stimulating further investment in the surrounding neighborhood • being located in one of the city’s Priority Redevelopment Study Areas • having a positive community impact • being consistent with the City’s Vision and Comprehensive Plan Upon calculation of all applicable factors and bonus points, The Elmwood project received a final grade of “C” according to the Project Report Card within the TIF Policy. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 5) Page 11 Title: 36th Street LLC’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance – The Elmwood Apartments Conformance with the City’s Business Subsidy Policy Any TIF assistance provided The Elmwood project would be exempt from state business subsidy requirements as it relates to housing, pollution control/abatement, and redevelopment (Section 116J.993, Subdivision 3). Therefore, no public subsidy hearing would be required; however, the EDA would still be subject to modified reporting requirements. Summary Based upon its analysis of the Developer’s proforma, Ehlers determined that The Elmwood project is not financially feasible but/for the provision of tax increment assistance in the principal amount of $950,000 over a maximum term of six years. 36th Street LLC’s proposed redevelopment meets the City’s objectives for the provision of Tax Increment Financing as specified in the City’s TIF Policy. As noted above, the project meets nearly all the Minimum and Desired Qualifications for providing TIF assistance and received a final grade of “C” according to the Project Report Card within the TIF Policy. Given these findings, staff supports reimbursing 36th Street LLC up to $950,000 in qualified development costs in the form of pay-as-you-go tax increment generated by the project so as to allow the redevelopment to proceed. NEXT STEPS: As with all such TIF applications, it is at the EDA’s discretion as to whether it wishes to reimburse 36 Street LLC with the recommended level tax increment assistance. Provided the EDA supports providing financial assistance to The Elmwood project as proposed, the EDA will be asked to begin the formal process of establishing the proposed Elmwood Apartments TIF District; the vehicle through which the assistance would be provided. The first step of which is to call for a public hearing date. A resolution calling for a public hearing for the establishment of the proposed TIF district is scheduled for April 3rd. Subsequently the next steps in the TIF approval process would be as follows: 1. Negotiation of business terms for the provision of financial assistance 2. Review of proposed business terms of Redevelopment Contract 3. Approval of TIF Plan by Planning Commission 4. Approval of Redevelopment Contract & TIF District Public Hearing & Plan approval - EDA and City Council Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: March 27, 2017 Written Report: 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: February 2017 Monthly Financial Report RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: The Monthly Financial Report provides a summary of General Fund revenues and departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. A budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included in this report. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: At the end of February, General Fund expenditures total approximately 15.2% of the adopted annual budget. The attached analysis explains variances. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Summary of Revenues & Expenditures – General Fund Budget to Actual – Enterprise Funds Prepared by: Darla Monson, Accountant Reviewed by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Title: February 2017 Monthly Financial Report DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: This report is designed to provide summary information of the overall level of revenues and departmental expenditures in the General Fund and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. A budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included in this report. PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: General Fund Actual expenditures should generally run at about 17% of the annual budget at the end of February. General Fund expenditures are at approximately 15.2% of the adopted budget in February. Revenues tend to be harder to measure in this same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes, State aid payments and seasonal revenues for recreation programs. A few comments on variances are noted below. Revenues: License and permit revenues are at 35% of budget in February because much of the 2017 business and liquor license revenue has already been received. Permit revenue is at 19.8% of budget through February. Expenditures: Organized Recreation is at 25.7% of budget because the full annual community education contribution in the amount of $187,400 was paid to the school district in January. Utility Funds Revenues: Revenue typically lags one month behind for commercial accounts and up to a full quarter behind for some residential accounts depending on the billing cycle. The majority of the revenue billed in January and part of February revenue billed applies to 2016. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Actual $2,742 $5,447 Budget $2,984 $5,969 $8,953 $11,937 $14,921 $17,906 $20,890 $23,874 $26,858 $29,843 $32,827 $35,811 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $ THOUSANDS Monthly Expenditures -General Fund Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of February 28, 201720172017201520152016201620172017 Balance YTD Budget Budget Audited Budget Unaudited Budget Feb YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes22,364,509$ 22,653,095$ 23,597,282$ 24,193,360$ 24,748,436$ -$ 24,748,436$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits3,248,158 4,312,700 3,496,177 4,320,293 3,745,736 1,317,790 2,427,946 35.18% Fines & Forfeits320,200 263,951 341,200 299,808 254,200 37,914 216,286 14.92% Intergovernmental1,292,277 1,669,395 1,419,017 1,649,223 1,631,669 353,637 1,278,032 21.67% Charges for Services1,907,292 2,116,313 1,956,593 1,996,135 2,027,637 197,641 1,829,996 9.75% Miscellaneous Revenue1,196,018 1,357,373 977,546 1,125,912 1,274,415 255,800 1,018,615 20.07% Transfers In1,851,759 1,867,398 1,872,581 1,881,274 1,899,927 314,988 1,584,939 16.58% Investment Earnings 140,000 68,908 140,000 122,000 140,000 140,000 0.00% Other Income17,900 61,025 27,450 23,052 30,450 6,444 24,006 21.16% Use of Fund Balance286,325 - 254,891 - 58,541 - 58,541 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues32,624,438$ 34,370,158$ 34,082,737$ 35,611,057$ 35,811,011$ 2,484,214$ 33,326,797$ 6.94%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration979,183$ 1,012,841$ 1,037,235$ 1,116,126$ 1,049,123$ 135,495$ 913,628$ 12.92% Finance912,685 902,901 933,624 870,701 957,275 142,010 815,265 14.83% Assessing602,299 601,687 641,038 607,443 707,139 100,904 606,235 14.27% Human Resources805,929 857,950 748,718 801,958 754,699 105,063 649,636 13.92% Community Development1,245,613 1,253,687 1,385,036 1,281,000 1,366,055 217,500 1,148,555 15.92% Facilities Maintenance1,094,836 1,072,749 1,115,877 1,099,973 1,132,774 145,533 987,241 12.85% Information Resources1,468,552 1,374,074 1,564,128 1,492,734 1,570,712 191,096 1,379,616 12.17% Communications & Marketing635,150 571,815 608,228 659,629 646,841 100,111 546,730 15.48% Community Outreach24,677 22,380 25,587 22,718 26,553 3,368 23,185 12.68% Engineering492,838 381,148 549,251 509,904 376,601 40,552 336,049 10.77%Total General Government8,261,762$ 8,051,233$ 8,608,722$ 8,462,185$ 8,587,772$ 1,181,632$ 7,406,140$ 13.76% Public Safety: Police8,511,557$ 8,248,745$ 8,698,661$ 8,754,092$ 9,217,988$ 1,582,529$ 7,635,459$ 17.17% Fire Protection3,722,396 3,759,386 4,030,153 3,939,435 4,407,656 664,113 3,743,543 15.07% Inspectional Services2,139,325 2,002,445 2,216,075 2,082,694 2,419,073 351,307 2,067,766 14.52%Total Public Safety14,373,278$ 14,010,577$ 14,944,889$ 14,776,220$ 16,044,717$ 2,597,949$ 13,446,768$ 16.19% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration232,437$ 213,383$ 241,304$ 240,497$ 266,249$ 38,186$ 228,063$ 14.34% Public Works Operations2,763,735 2,388,560 2,907,781 2,587,417 3,019,017 492,748 2,526,269 16.32% Organized Recreation1,304,470 1,360,454 1,431,260 1,396,993 1,472,996 378,364 1,094,632 25.69% Recreation Center1,591,115 1,575,042 1,602,935 1,687,724 1,744,651 208,225 1,536,426 11.94% Park Maintenance1,550,033 1,513,700 1,634,249 1,627,700 1,721,732 239,405 1,482,327 13.90% Westwood564,055 560,744 576,173 555,887 602,400 91,554 510,846 15.20% Natural Resources472,049 377,617 479,408 362,094 550,235 17,866 532,369 3.25% Vehicle Maintenance1,333,520 1,118,048 1,358,946 1,141,896 1,384,038 190,679 1,193,359 13.78%Total Operations & Recreation9,811,414$ 9,107,547$ 10,232,056$ 9,600,209$ 10,761,318$ 1,657,028$ 9,104,290$ 15.40% Non-Departmental: General -$ 123,720$ 30,351$ 75,259$ 31,909$ 10,310$ 21,599$ 32.31% Transfers Out- 2,194,245 - - - - - 0.00% Contingency177,984 14,438 266,719 79,224 385,295 - 385,295 0.00%Total Non-Departmental177,984$ 2,332,403$ 297,070$ 154,483$ 417,204$ 10,310$ 406,894$ 2.47%Total General Fund Expenditures32,624,438$ 33,501,760$ 34,082,737$ 32,993,097$ 35,811,011$ 5,446,919$ 30,364,092$ 15.21%Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 6) Title: February 2017 Monthly Financial ReportPage 3 Budget to Actual - Enterprise FundsAs of February 28, 2017Current BudgetFeb Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetFeb Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetFeb Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetFeb Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetOperating revenues: User charges 6,420,438$ 336,264$ 6,084,174$ 5.24% 6,915,804$ 466,335$ 6,449,469$ 6.74% 3,319,001$ 144,673$ 3,174,328$ 4.36% 2,853,520$ 270,834$ 2,582,686$ 9.49% Other 375,000 9,296 365,704 2.48% 30,000 3,336 26,664 11.12% 148,000 - 148,000 0.00%- - - Total operating revenues6,795,438 345,560 6,449,878 5.09% 6,945,804 469,671 6,476,133 6.76% 3,467,001 144,673 3,322,328 4.17% 2,853,520 270,834 2,582,686 9.49%Operating expenses: Personal services1,322,998 187,399 1,135,599 14.16% 613,321 114,414 498,907 18.65% 590,172 78,278 511,894 13.26% 705,221 76,608 628,613 10.86% Supplies & non-capital544,800 12,301 532,499 2.26% 65,050 414 64,636 0.64% 153,350 8,069 145,281 5.26% 30,800 - 30,800 0.00% Services & other charges1,688,398 198,997 1,489,401 11.79%4,764,546 776,713 3,987,833 16.30% 2,692,499 151,790 2,540,709 5.64% 597,828 16,625 581,203 2.78% Depreciation * Total operating expenses3,556,196 398,697 3,157,499 11.21% 5,442,917 891,541 4,551,376 16.38% 3,436,021 238,138 3,197,883 6.93% 1,333,849 93,234 1,240,615 6.99%Operating income (loss)3,239,242 (53,137) 3,292,379 -1.64% 1,502,887 (421,870) 1,924,757 -28.07% 30,980 (93,464) 124,444 -301.69% 1,519,671 177,601 1,342,070 11.69%Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Interest income 3,408 - 3,408 1,953 - 1,953 0.00% 30,849 - 30,849 0.00% 2,875 - 2,875 0.00% Other misc income- - - - - -2,500 - 2,500 0.00%- - - Interest expense/bank charges(182,037) (90,659) (91,378) 49.80% (16,016) (4,509) (11,507) 28.15% (11,000) (2,263) (8,737) 20.57% (30,604) (12,061) (18,543) 39.41% Total nonoperating rev (exp)(178,629) (90,659) (87,970) 50.75% (14,063) (4,509) (9,554) 32.06% 22,349 (2,263) 24,612 -10.13% (27,729) (12,061) (15,668) 43.50%Income (loss) before transfers3,060,613 (143,796) 3,204,409 -4.70% 1,488,824 (426,379) 1,915,203 -28.64% 53,329 (95,727) 149,056 -179.50% 1,491,942 165,540 1,326,402 11.10%Transfers inTransfers out(584,451) (97,409) (487,043) 16.67% (799,648) (133,275) (666,373) 16.67% (227,229) (37,872) (189,358) 16.67% (313,067) (52,178) (260,889) 16.67%NET INCOME (LOSS)2,476,162 (241,205) 2,717,367 -9.74% 689,176 (559,653) 1,248,829 -81.21% (173,900) (133,599) (40,301) 76.83% 1,178,875 113,362 1,065,513 9.62%Items reclassified to bal sht at year end: Capital Outlay(3,163,298) (267) (3,163,031) 0.01%(785,983) (267) (785,716) 0.03%- - - (2,191,667) (267) (2,191,400) 0.01%Revenues over/(under) expenditures(687,136) (241,472) (445,664) (96,807) (559,920) 463,113 (173,900) (133,599) (40,301) (1,012,792) 113,095 (1,125,887) *Depreciation is recorded at end of year (non-cash item).Water SewerSolid WasteStorm WaterStudy Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 6) Title: February 2017 Monthly Financial ReportPage 4 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: March 27, 2017 Written Report: 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Proposed Terms of Property Purchase Agreement with Hennepin County HRA RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff wishes to inform the EDA of the proposed terms for acquiring remnant parcels from Hennepin County HRA adjacent to the future SWLRT Wooddale Station. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA support the proposed terms of the Property Purchase Agreement with the Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority to facilitate redevelopment adjacent to the future SWLRT Wooddale Station? SUMMARY: As discussed at the June 6 and October 10, 2016 Study Sessions, PLACE proposes to redevelop approximately 3.5 acres on the north side and 1.7 acres on the south side of the future SWLRT Wooddale Station with a mixed-use, mixed-income, transit-oriented, and sustainable development. The proposed redevelopment sites require the assemblage of nine properties; three of which are remnant parcels (3520 Yosemite, 3565 Wooddale and the western portion of 3548 Xenwood Ave.) currently owned by the Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HCHRA). HCHRA has agreed to sell the parcels to the EDA so as to facilitate development on the subject sites consistent with that proposed by PLACE. HCHRA would also convey a fourth remnant parcel, 3524 Yosemite, which the city would retain for right-of way purposes. To initiate the formal acquisition process, Hennepin County requested a letter from the EDA indicating its intent to purchase the four remnant parcels. To that end, staff recently sent the attached letter drafted by Kennedy & Graven which outlines general terms for a proposed purchase agreement with Hennepin County. Negotiations relative to the business terms of that property acquisition have been completed and a summary is attached. A formal purchase agreement reflecting these terms is scheduled to be considered by the EDA on April 3rd. Regardless of whether the proposed PLACE project proceeds, the EDA has provided direction to acquire the subject parcels so as to assemble sites large enough to spur redevelopment on either side of the future SWLRT Wooddale Station. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Hennepin County is required to sell the subject parcels at estimated fair market value which it determined to be $1.1 million. The City Assessor examined this value and concurs that the proposed purchase price is easily supported. It is proposed that three of the four parcels acquired by the EDA would subsequently be sold to PLACE as part of the property assemblage for its proposed project. The 3524 Yosemite parcel would be retained for right-of-way purposes and the eastern portion of 3548 Xenwood Ave. would be held by the EDA for future redevelopment purposes. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Proposed Purchase Agreement Restrictive Covenants Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor /Deputy CD Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 2 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA DISCUSSION The proposed PLACE redevelopment requires the assemblage of nine properties; three of which are remnant parcels (3520 Yosemite, 3565 Wooddale and the western portion of 3548 Xenwood Ave.) now owned by the Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HCHRA). HCHRA recently authorized the sale of these parcels to the EDA so as to facilitate transit oriented redevelopment at the SWLRT Wooddale Station. HCHRA also plans to convey a fourth remnant parcel, 3524 Yosemite, which the city would retain for right-of way purposes. Hennepin County is required to sell the subject four parcels at estimated fair market value which it determined to be $1.1 million. The City Assessor examined this value and concurs that the proposed purchase price is easily supported. It is proposed that three of the four parcels acquired by the EDA would subsequently be sold to PLACE as part of the property assemblage for its proposed project. The eastern portion of 3548 Xenwood Ave. would be retained by the EDA for future redevelopment purposes. Below is a summary of the proposed Purchase Agreement (PA) with HCHRA: 1. The conveyance includes the land and any improvements on the land, along with any personal property or fixtures located on the land (collectively, the “Property”). The Property is being sold As Is. 2. The purchase price for the Property is $1,100,000, with $10,000 payable at execution as earnest money, and the remainder at closing. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 3 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA 3. Seller will provide a title commitment and survey, and the EDA will have 10 days after receipt to make any written objections to title. 4. The EDA will have 30 days to perform due diligence related to any Phase I, geotechnical report, or other review or inspection required for the proposed development on the Property. 5. Closing will take place on a mutually acceptable date, but no later than December 31, 2017. 6. The EDA will pay one-half of closing costs, and prorated special assessments and property taxes, if any. 7. The PA includes the following contingencies: a) title must be acceptable to Buyer; b) the EDA must be satisfied with its due diligence or terminate the PA before the end of the due diligence period; c) the Seller’s warranties and representations must be true and correct through Closing. 8. The PA contains standard terms regarding operation/damage to the Property prior to Closing, 9. The Seller will indemnify the EDA for Hazardous Substances. 10. If the EDA defaults under the PA and fails to cure after notice, the Seller may terminate the PA and retain the earnest money. 11. The PA contains standard EDA representations. 12. The Effective Date (which starts the clock running on the title and due diligence provisions) is the date the Title Company notifies the Seller and EDA that it has received a fully- executed copy of the PA, which is a bit unusual but not problematic. 13. The PA contains four exhibits: legal description of the Property, list of required Due Diligence documents, form of Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, and a list of environmental disclosures. 14. The parties agree to execute a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions that will be recorded against the Property. A summary of the document is below. A. Construction of Minimum Requirements. The project will include: 1) A mix of uses appropriate to the area including, but not limited to, residential and commercial uses. 2) Maximum density is desired. There will be at least 50 units/acre. The Seller retains the right to approve lower minimums due to traffic or other concerns expressed by the city. 3) Projects should, at a minimum meet, and preferably exceed, the requirements contained within the City of St. Louis Park’s Inclusionary Housing Policy. Mixed income projects are highly encouraged. 4) The design of the building and the site should be transit oriented and should complement the LRT station. For buildings facing 36th Street, there should be active uses on the ground floor. Active uses are defined as commercial/retail uses, live- Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 4 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA work units, or a combination of common spaces for multi-family housing activities such as community rooms, work-out rooms, common entrances or property management offices. 5) The majority of parking should be located in structure (below or above ground). Some surface and street parking will be allowed. Lower parking ratios are encouraged. Bicycle parking must meet city code requirements, currently one bicycle parking space per dwelling unit, plus one bicycle parking space per ten automobile spaces. 6) The following should be incorporated, when possible, into the project: bike and/or car sharing and pedestrian connections internal to and along the perimeter of the site to the LRT station and the regional trail. B. Changes to Minimum Requirements. If the project is substantially changed and the minimum requirements are not met in the revised project, the EDA must submit in writing to the Seller the changes and why they are necessary. C. Timeline. The EDA or designated developer must commence construction of a project meeting the minimum requirements no later than June 1, 2018 and must complete construction of the minimum improvements by December 31, 2019. 1) If construction of the minimum requirements has not been completed by December 31, 2019, and the failure to commence or complete the minimum requirements is the result of a failure of the intended project and not merely a delay submit to amended terms agreed to by the developer and the EDA, then the EDA agrees to remarket the site for disposition and redevelopment that will conform to the minimum requirements. Failure of the intended project will be evidenced by a cancellation of the private redevelopment contract governing the project, a copy of which will be delivered to the Seller. The Seller will be notified of the remarketing of the site and of any agreed-upon alternative project resulting from such remarketing. 2) In the event the private redevelopment contract is cancelled and the EDA fails to negotiate an alternative project meeting the minimum requirements on the property within five years from the date of cancellation, the Seller will have the option to repurchase the property from the EDA and the agreement will be terminated. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 5 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA PURCHASE AGREEMENT This Agreement is made this ___ day of ________________, 2017 (“Effective Date), between HENNEPIN COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (“Seller”), and ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (“Buyer”). 1. Purchase and Sale. Seller agrees to sell to Buyer and Buyer agrees to purchase from Seller the following property: A. The real property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described on the attached Exhibit A and illustrated on Exhibit A-1, together with all buildings and improvements constructed or located on the real property, and all easements and rights benefiting or appurtenant to the real property including any right, title or interest in any street, road, highway or alley adjoining the real property (collectively the “Real Property”). B. All of the fixtures, furnishings, equipment and other personal property, if any, situated in or about the Real Property owned by Seller and relating to the use and operation of the Real Property (“Personal Property” and, together with the Real Property, the “Property”). C. Seller and Buyer agree that at closing, the Property shall be sold and Buyer shall accept possession of the Property “as is”, “where is”, “with all faults”, with no right of set-off or reduction in the Purchase Price, and that the sale shall be without representation or warranty except as provided in this agreement. Seller has removed all debris and items of the Seller’s personal property from the Property. There are no items on the Property which are illegal under state or federal law. 2. Purchase Price. The total purchase price (“Purchase Price”) to be paid by Buyer to Seller for the Property shall be ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,100,000). A. $10,000 as earnest money (“Earnest Money”) to be deposited by Buyer within three (3) business days of the Effective Date (as determined pursuant to paragraph 25 of this Agreement), and to be held by Old Republic Title (“Title Company”) subject to the terms of this Agreement. 3. Title Examination. Title examination will be conducted as follows: A. Seller’s Title Evidence. Seller shall, within ten (10) days after the Effective Date of this Agreement, furnish to Buyer a (i) commitment (“Title Commitment”) for an ALTA owner’s policy (6-17-06) of title insurance, issued by the Title Company, and any survey in Seller’s possession (the “Survey”). B. Buyer’s Objections. Within fifteen (15) days after receiving the Title Commitment and the Survey (whichever is later), Buyer will make any written objections it may have (“Objections”). Buyer’s evaluation of the status of title Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 6 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA may include matters of record, matters not of record and matters that may be disclosed by the Survey. Buyer shall be under no obligation to accept title insurance coverage in lieu of an Objection being cured. Buyer’s failure to make Objections within such time period will constitute a waiver of Objections with respect to matters disclosed in Schedule B of the Title Commitment. Any specific matter shown in Schedule B of the Title Commitment and not objected to by Buyer shall also be a “Permitted Encumbrance” hereunder. Seller will have thirty (30) days after receipt of the Objections to review and respond. In the event that, on the Closing Date Seller cannot deliver, and Buyer cannot obtain, a final title insurance policy consistent with the foregoing terms and requirements, Buyer may, at its option: (1) Terminate this Agreement and receive a refund of the Earnest Money, or (2) Waive the Objections and proceed to close. 4. Due Diligence Period. Buyer shall have 30 calendar days from the later of 1) the Effective Date of this Agreement, or 2) the last date the Title Commitment, the Survey, and the documentation identified in Exhibit B (the “Due Diligence Documents”) is received by the Buyer (the “Due Diligence Period”) to (i) conduct such reviews, inspections and tests of the Property as Buyer in its sole discretion deems necessary or advisable, and (ii) obtain such federal, state and local governmental approvals and permits as Buyer in its sole discretion deems necessary or advisable for Buyers proposed development and use of the Property. Such due diligence by Buyer shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: A. Review of the Title Commitment and approval of any Permitted Encumbrances. B. Review of any Phase I environmental report obtained by the Buyer, at Buyer’s sole cost and expense, including a determination that no hazardous materials or contamination condition exists which may affect the value or marketability of the Property. C. Review of any geotechnical report obtained by the Buyer, at Buyer’s sole cost and expense. D. Review of the Survey provided by the Seller and deemed acceptable by Buyer, or of any survey obtained by the Buyer at Buyer’s sole cost and expense. E. Receiving authorization from the Buyer’s Board of Commissioners to enter into this Agreement, and to proceed with the acquisition of the Property. Seller shall allow Buyer and its agents the right of any ingress and egress over and through the Property for the purpose of inspecting and testing the same and making other observations as Buyer deems necessary, all however, at Buyer's expense. Any entry by the Buyer shall not interfere with Seller’s activities on the adjoining property. Buyer shall restore the Property to its original condition following the completion of any investigations or tests. Buyer agrees to indemnify and hold Seller harmless from all injury, death, or property damage or claims of any kind whatsoever, including mechanic’s liens, arising out of Buyer's presence on the Property for the purposes aforesaid, which indemnity and hold harmless obligation of Buyer shall survive termination of this Purchase Agreement for a period of 6 (six) months. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 7 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA If prior to the end of the Due Diligence Period, Buyer’s due diligence reveals any information or conditions relating to the Property or Buyer’s proposed development and use thereof that are objectionable to Buyer in Buyer’s sole discretion, or Buyer elects in its sole discretion for any other reason not to proceed with the purchase of the Property, Buyer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice of termination to Seller and the Title Company no later than the end of the Due Diligence Period and in such case, the Earnest Money, and the interest accrued and unpaid on the Earnest Money, if any, shall be promptly refunded to Buyer. If the Buyer does not provide a notice to terminate by the end of the Due Diligence Period, the Earnest Money, and the interest accrued and unpaid on the Earnest Money, if any, shall be become non-refundable except as otherwise provided in this Agreement. 5. Minimum Requirements. The Buyer or developer designated by the Buyer will be responsible for construction of certain minimum improvements on the Property, pursuant to a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions (the “Declaration”) in substantially the form attached as Exhibit C to this Agreement. The Declaration will be recorded against the Property and will run with the land, and will be enforceable against the Buyer and Buyer’s successors and assigns. 6. Closing. The closing of the purchase and sale contemplated by this Agreement (the “Closing”) shall occur on a date mutually acceptable to Seller and Buyer, but no later than June 30, 2017. The Closing shall take place at the Title Company or at such other place as may be agreed to mutually by the parties. Seller agrees to deliver possession of the Property to Buyer at Closing. A. Seller’s Closing Documents. At Closing, Seller shall execute and/or deliver to Buyer the following (collectively, “Seller’s Closing Documents”): (1) Deed. A limited warranty deed (with statement regarding no wells), in form reasonably satisfactory to Buyer, conveying the Real Property to Buyer, free and clear of all encumbrances, except the “Permitted Encumbrances” determined pursuant to Paragraph 3 hereof (the “Deed”). (2) Bill of Sale. A Bill of Sale (if applicable) conveying the Personal Property to Buyer, free and clear of all encumbrances except Permitted Encumbrances. (3) Seller’s Affidavit. An Affidavit of Seller indicating that on the Closing Date there are no outstanding, unsatisfied judgments, tax liens or bankruptcies against or involving Seller or the Real Property; that there has been no labor or material furnished to the Real Property for which payment has not been made or for which mechanics’ liens could be filed; that there are no other unrecorded interests in the Real Property; and that there are no encroachment or survey issues of which Seller is aware; together with whatever standard owner’s affidavit and/or indemnity which may be reasonably required by the Title Company to issue an owner’s policy of title insurance conforming to the requirements of Paragraph 3 of this Agreement. (4) Bring Down Certificate. A certificate certified to by an officer of Seller reaffirming that the Seller’s representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 10 are true and accurate as of Closing. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 8 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA (5) Authorization. All documents required of the Seller’s entity, in a form reasonably acceptable to Buyer, authorizing and directing appropriate officers, managers, or partners to execute and perform this Purchase Agreement and the transactions contemplated herein. (6) FIRPTA Affidavit. A non-foreign person affidavit, properly executed and notarized, containing such information as is required by IRC Section 1445(b)(2) and its regulations. (7) Well Certificate. If there are wells on the Real Property, a Well Certificate in the form required by Minn. Stat. § 103I. (8) Declaration as described in Paragraph 5. (9) Easement Documents. (10) Any other documents reasonably required by the Title Company, the Buyer, or otherwise required by law to consummate the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. B. Buyer’s Closing Documents. At Closing, Buyer will execute and/or deliver to Seller the following (collectively, “Buyer’s Closing Documents”): (1) Purchase Price. The Purchase Price, by wire transfer, or in certified funds. (2) Declaration. (3) Any other documents reasonably required by the Title Company, or otherwise required by law to consummate the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. 7. Prorations. Seller and Buyer agree to the following prorations and allocation of costs regarding this Agreement: A. Title Insurance and Closing Fee. Seller will pay all costs of the Title Commitment. Buyer will pay all premiums required for the issuance of any owner’s policy. Seller and Buyer will each pay one-half of any reasonable and customary closing fee or charge imposed by the Title Company. B. Deed Tax. Seller shall pay the state deed tax on the Deed. C. Real Estate Taxes and Special Assessments. General real estate taxes and installments of special assessments payable in the year prior to the year of Closing and all prior years will be paid by Seller. Seller shall pay at or before Closing all special assessments that were officially levied or pending as of Closing. Special assessments levied or which become pending after Closing shall be paid by Buyer. General real estate taxes payable in the year of Closing shall be prorated such that Seller shall pay such portion of such taxes attributable to the period beginning on January 1 of the year in which Closing takes place, and continuing through and including the date of Closing and Buyer shall pay such portion of Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 9 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA such taxes attributable to the period beginning on the first day after Closing and continuing until December 31 of the year in which Closing takes place. If general real estate taxes due and payable during the year in which Closing takes place have not yet been determined as of Closing, Buyer and Seller shall estimate such taxes to be 105% of real estate taxes due and payable during the previous year and shall prorate taxes based on such amount; provided that, after taxes due and payable during the year in which Closing takes place have been determined by the taxing authority, either party shall have the right to cause a reconciliation by sending written notice to the other party. Within ten (10) business days of receipt of such notice, the party required to pay any additional amount pursuant to such reconciliation shall pay such amount to the other party. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties agree and understand that the Property is exempt from property taxes for taxes payable in 2017. D. Recording Costs. Seller will pay the cost of recording the Deed. Seller shall pay the cost of recording any documents necessary to perfect its own title or which release encumbrances other than Permitted Encumbrances. E. Other Costs. All other operating costs of the Property will be allocated between Seller and Buyer as of Closing, so that Seller pays that part of such other operating costs accruing on or before the date of Closing, and Buyer pays that part of such operating costs accruing after the date of Closing. 8. Contingencies. The obligation of the Buyer to perform under this Purchase Agreement is contingent upon the timely occurrence or satisfaction of each of the following conditions: A. At Closing, title to the Property shall be acceptable to Buyer in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 3. B. The Due Diligence Period described in Paragraph 4 shall have expired without Buyer having terminated the Purchase Agreement. C. The representations and warranties of Seller shall be true and correct in all material respects up through and including the date of Closing. The contingencies in this Paragraph are solely for the benefit of, and may at any time be waived by, the Buyer. 9. Operation Prior to Closing. During the period from the Effective Date of this Agreement to the date of Closing (the “Executory Period”) Seller shall maintain the Property in the ordinary course of business in accordance with prudent, reasonable business standards, including the maintenance of adequate liability insurance and any currently maintained insurance against loss by fire, windstorm and other hazards, casualties and contingencies, including vandalism (including without limitation graffiti) and malicious mischief (Buyer understands that Seller may self-insure fire and other property casualties). Risk of loss to the Property prior to Closing shall remain with the Seller. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 10 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA 10. Damage/Condemnation. A. If, prior to Closing, all or any part of the Property is damaged by fire or other casualty, Seller shall immediately give notice to Buyer of such fact and Buyer shall have the option to terminate this Agreement by providing written notice to Seller. In the event Buyer terminates this Agreement, the parties will have no further obligations under this Agreement and the Earnest Money, together with any accrued interest, shall be returned to Buyer. If Buyer does not elect to terminate this Agreement, Seller shall assign all rights to insurance proceeds applicable to such casualty or damage. B. If, prior to Closing, eminent domain proceedings are commenced against all or any part of the Property, Buyer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by written notice to Seller within thirty (30) calendar days of such eminent domain proceedings. If Buyer elects to terminate this Agreement, all Earnest Money, together with any accrued interest, shall be returned to Buyer, and neither party will have further obligations under this Agreement. If Buyer shall elect not to give such notice then there shall be no reduction in the Purchase Price, and Seller shall assign to Buyer at Closing all of Seller’s right, title and interest in and to any and all awards made or to be made in the condemnation proceedings, and all payments made in lieu of condemnation proceedings until such time as Buyer has elected not to terminate this Agreement by reason of the pending condemnation. 11. Seller’s Warranties. As an inducement to Buyer to enter into this Agreement, Seller hereby represents and warrants to Buyer and agrees as follows: A. Seller is duly organized, qualified and in good standing, and has the requisite power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement and Seller’s Closing Documents. Such Closing Documents have been duly authorized by all necessary action, are valid and binding obligations of Seller, and are enforceable in accordance with their terms. The execution, delivery, or performance of this Purchase Agreement will not result in a breach under any indenture, security instrument, or other agreement or court or administrative order by which the Seller or the Property may be bound or affected. B. The Property and its current use, and the location of the improvements on the Property are in compliance with all federal, state and municipal laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, including zoning, subdivision, environmental protection, building, fire and health laws, ordinances, rules and regulations; and Seller has received no notices from municipal or regulatory bodies that the Property is in violation of the provisions of any such laws, ordinances, rules or regulations. C. No portion of the Property is in a flood plain. D. Seller has disclosed and made available to the Buyer all reports and investigations commissioned by or otherwise readily available to Seller relating to Hazardous Substances and the Property. Except as otherwise indicated in such reports or disclosed in Exhibit D, to the best of Seller’s knowledge (A) no toxic or hazardous substances or wastes, pollutants or contaminants (including, without limitation, asbestos, urea formaldehyde, the group of organic compounds known as polychlorinated biphenyls, Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 11 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA petroleum products including gasoline, fuel oil, crude oil and various constituents of such products, and any hazardous substances as defined in the Comprehensive Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §9601, et seq., as amended) or any similar substances, wastes, pollutants or contaminants ( collectively “Hazardous Substances”) have been generated, treated, stored, released or disposed of or otherwise places, deposited in or located on the Property, and (B) no activity has been undertaken on the Property that would cause or contribute to (i) the Property becoming a treatment, storage or disposal facility within the meaning of, or otherwise bring the Property within the ambit of, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. §6901, et seq., or any similar state law or local ordinance, (ii) a release or threatened release of toxic or hazardous wastes or substances, pollutants or contaminants, from the Property within the meaning of CERCLA, or any similar state law or local ordinance, or (iii) the discharge of pollutants or effluents into any water source or system, the dredging or filling of any waters or the discharge into the air of any emissions, that would require a permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251, et seq., or the Clean Air Act, 42_U.S.C. §7401, et seq., or any similar state law or local ordinance. E. All permits, licenses, approvals and reports necessary or required for a party to store, use, generate or dispose of any Hazardous Substances within or on the Property have been obtained or made, are being complied with, and are in full force and effect. F. Seller is not aware of any environmental condition, situation or incident on, at, or concerning the Property, that could give rise to an action or liability under any law, rule, ordinance, or common law theory. G. To the best of Seller’s knowledge, (i) there are no past or present investigations, administrative proceedings, litigation, regulatory hearings or other actions proposed, threatened or pending, alleging non-compliance with or violation of any federal, or state or local laws, ordinance, rule or regulations dealing with environmental, health or safety matters (“Environmental Laws”) or relating to any required environmental permits, and (ii) neither Seller nor any third party has violated any Environmental Laws with respect to the Property. H. There are not now, nor to the best of Seller’s knowledge have there ever been, any wells, operating or abandoned, located in, on or under the Property. I. There are no underground or above ground storage tanks on the Property, in use or abandoned, and no such tanks have been removed during Seller’s ownership of the Property except in strict compliance with all laws, ordinances and regulations regarding such removal. J. Seller has paid for, or will pay for at or before Closing, all work, supplies and materials, performed upon and supplied to the Property. K. There is no litigation affecting or calling into question the Property or any part or component thereof, or Seller’s interest therein. There is no condemnation proceeding pending with respect to any part of the Property, and Seller has no knowledge of any threat or the imminence of such proceeding. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 12 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA L. Seller is the owner of all, and there exists no lien, encumbrance or adverse claim with respect to, any of the items of Personal Property, and all equipment and capital leases for fixtures or equipment essential to operation of the Real Property have been disclosed in writing to Buyer. M. There are no service, maintenance or other contracts or equipment leases relating to the Property other than those which can and, at Buyer’s option, will be cancelled at or before Date; and Seller has disclosed in writing to Buyer all such contracts and equipment leases, if any. All such representations and warranties shall be true on the date of Closing as if made on and as of such date. In the event that any aforesaid warranty is determined not to be true on and as of the date of Closing Buyer may, in Buyer’s sole discretion, at its option and by notice to Seller, either: (i) terminate this Agreement, and upon said termination, Seller shall promptly refund to Buyer all monies paid to Seller hereunder, or (ii) waive the warranty or representation and proceed to Closing. 12. Hazardous Substances Indemnification. Notwithstanding any provision in this Agreement to the contrary, Seller agrees to, and does hereby, indemnify, defend, and hold the Buyer harmless from any and all costs, expenses, damages or liabilities incurred by or imposed upon the Buyer, directly or indirectly, arising out of or attributable to (a) the use, generation, storage (on or off the Property), release, threatened release, discharge, disposal, or presence of any Hazardous Substances on, under or about the Property, relating to the operations of the Seller or previous business operations on or about the Property prior to or on the date of Closing, (b) any Hazardous Substance Release at or under the Property which has occurred or exists prior to or on the date of Closing, and (c) the continued migration of any Hazardous Substance which occurs because of any existing Hazardous Substance Release. The Seller’s obligation to indemnify, defend and hold the Buyer harmless hereunder shall survive delivery of the Deed. Any limitation on the covenants and warranties contained at Paragraph 10 relating to the matters indemnified against in this Paragraph shall not modify, limit, waive or otherwise diminish the liability of the Seller under this Paragraph. For purposes of this Paragraph, the term “Hazardous Substances Release” shall mean the spilling, leaking, disposing, discharging, emitting, depositing, injection, leaching, escaping, pumping, pouring, emptying, dumping or any other release or threatened release, however defined, and whether intentional or unintentional, of Hazardous Substances, including petroleum. 13. Buyer Default. If Buyer defaults under this Agreement, Seller shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Buyer. If Buyer fails to cure such default within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of service of such notice, this Agreement will terminate, and upon such termination Seller will retain the Earnest Money as liquidated damages, time being of the essence of this Agreement. The termination of this Agreement and retention of the Earnest Money will be the sole remedy available to Seller for such default by Buyer, and Buyer will not be liable for damages or specific performance. 14. Buyer Representations. Buyer represents it has, or will have, the requisite power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to execute required closing documents. This Agreement and such documents have been or will be, as of Closing, duly authorized by all necessary action on the part of Buyer and have been, or will be, as of Closing, duly executed and Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 13 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA delivered, that the execution, delivery and performance of Buyer of such documents do not conflict with, or result in violation of Buyer’s governing documents or any judgment, or decree by any court or arbiter to which Buyer is a party, and that such documents are valid and binding obligation of Buyer. All such representations and warranties shall be true on the date of Closing, as of, made on and of such date. Buyer will indemnify Seller, its successors and assigns, against, and will hold Seller, its successor and assigns, harmless from, any expenses, damages, including reasonable attorney’s fees, that Seller incurs because of the breach of any of the representations and warranties contained in this Paragraph 14, whether such breach is discovered before or after closing. 15. Survival. The respective covenants, agreements, indemnifications, warranties and other terms of this Agreement will survive and be in full force and effect after the Closing, and shall not be deemed to have merged into any of the Closing Documents. 16. Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given by any party upon the other is given in accordance with this Agreement if it is directed to Seller by delivering it personally to Seller; or if it is directed to Buyer, by delivering it personally to Buyer; or if mailed by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid; or if transmitted by facsimile copy followed by mailed notice as above required; or if deposited cost paid with a nationally recognized, reputable overnight courier, properly addressed as follows: If to Buyer: Hennepin County Community Works Department Community and Economic Development Division 701 Fourth Avenue S., Suite 400 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Attn: Patricia Fitzgerald If to Seller: St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55416 Attn: Executive Director cc: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Notices shall be deemed effective on the earlier of the date of receipt or the date of deposit as aforesaid; provided, however, that if notice is given by deposit, that the time for response to any notice by the other party shall commence to run two (2) business days after any such deposit. Any party may change its address for the service of notice by giving written notice of such change to the other party, in any manner above specified. 17. Broker’s Commission. Seller and Buyer represent to each other that they have dealt with no brokers, finders or the like in connection with this transaction other than those set forth in this Paragraph. Seller and Buyer agree to indemnify and hold each other harmless from all claims, damages, costs or expenses of or for any such fees or commissions resulting from their Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 14 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA actions or agreements regarding the execution or performance of this Agreement, and will pay all costs of defending any action or lawsuit brought to recover any such fees or commissions incurred by the other party, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. 18. No Waiver: The failure of a party to enforce, at any time or for any period of time, any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of such provision, or the right of any party to enforce each and every provision of this Agreement. A waiver of a failure to comply hereunder shall be effective only if such waiver is in writing, signed by the waiving party, and shall not constitute a waiver of any other failures to comply hereunder. 19. Captions. The paragraph headings or captions appearing in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of this Agreement and are not to be considered in interpreting this Agreement. 20. Entire Agreement; Modification. This Agreement represents the entire understanding and agreement of the parties hereto, and supersedes all prior communications, agreements, and understandings relating to the subject matter hereof. The provisions of this Agreement may not be modified, amended, or waived except by a written instrument duly executed by both parties. 21. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns, however this Agreement shall not be assigned by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. 22. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Minnesota, without regard to its choice of law rules. Any claim, action or litigation arising out of, or in any way related to, this Agreement shall be venued in Hennepin County District Court. 23. Damages and Injunctive Relief. The parties acknowledge that a breach of this Agreement will give rise to irreparable injury to the non-breaching party, which injury cannot be adequately compensated by money damages. Accordingly, the parties agree that injunctive relief and/or specific performance is an appropriate remedy to prevent violation of the parties’ respective rights and/or obligations under this Agreement. However, nothing in this Paragraph shall limit a party’s right to any other remedies available in equity or at law. In the event a court of competent jurisdiction (including a court of highest appeal sought by either party) finds that a party has breached any of the obligations set forth in this Agreement, then the breaching party shall pay to the non-breaching party an amount equal to the non-breaching party’s attorneys’ fees reasonably paid or incurred in connection with any such action. 24. Counterparts. This Purchase Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and which together shall constitute a single, integrated contract. 25. Effective Date: The Effective Date of this Agreement shall be the date which the Title Company has received a fully executed copy of this Agreement. Upon such receipt, Title Company shall notify Buyer and Seller in writing of such date the Agreement was received, and that date shall become the Effective Date. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 15 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been duly executed by Seller and Buyer, effective as of the date first set forth above. SELLER: HENNEPIN COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Reviewed by the County Attorney's Office By:___________________________ By: Chair of its Board Date:_________________________ And:________________________ Executive Director BUYER: St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority By:____________________________ Date:__________________ President And:___________________________ Executive Director Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 16 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION General Location: East of Wooddale Ave. in St. Louis Park Property Identification No(s).: 16-117-21-31-0002 Division of 16-117-21-31-0005 16-117-21-31-0076 16-117-21-34-0069 Tract Index (Abstract): Lot 6, Part of Lots 7, 8, and 11 thru 21, Block 25, Lot 11, Part of Lots 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22 and 23, Block 29, Lots 2, 3, 9, 10 and 11, Part of Lot 4, Block 30, Part of Lots 9 thru 15 and 29, Block 247, “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park”; Part of Government Lot 5, Section 16, Township 117, Range 21. Tract Index (Torrens): Certificate of Title No. 1124712. HCRRA Property Map No(s).: Part of Map No. 5 and other land Tract 1 (PID No. 16-117-21-34-0069) (Torrens Certificate of Title No. 1124712) Par 1: That part of the following described property: That part of Lots 20, 21, 22 and 23, Block 29, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park" and that part of the adjoining vacated alleys, all described as commencing at a point on the Southwesterly line of Block 30, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park" distant 2.4 feet Southerly, measured along said Southwesterly line, from the Northwesterly corner of said Block 30; thence Northeasterly to a point on the East line of said Block 30 distant 6.67 feet South, measured along said East line from the Northeasterly corner of said Block 30; thence continuing Northeasterly along the last described course a distance of 56.97 feet; thence Southeasterly at a right angle 20.57 feet; thence Northeasterly at a right angle 86.47 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence continuing Northeasterly along the last described course to the center line of the vacated alley adjoining the East line of said Lots 20, 21, 22 and 23; thence South along said center line and its extension to the center line of the vacated alley adjoining the South line of said Lot 20, thence West along the last described center line to its intersection with the extension South of a line drawn from the actual point of beginning to a point on the South line of said Lot 20 distant 79 feet East from the Southwest corner of said Lot 20; thence North to the actual point of beginning; Which lies Westerly of the East line of Lot 7 said Block 29, extended Northerly. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 17 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA Par 2: Lots 3, 4, 9, 10 and part of Lots 2 and 11, Block 30, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park", and part of Lots 20 to 23, both inclusive, Block 29, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park", and that part of vacated Zarthan Avenue, all being described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Southwesterly line of said Block 30 distant 2.4 feet Southerly, measured along said Southwesterly line, from the Northwesterly corner of said Block 30; thence Northeasterly in a straight line to a point on the East line of said Block 30 distant 6.67 feet South, measured along said East line, from the Northeasterly corner of said Block 30; thence continue Northeasterly along said last described course 56.97 feet; thence Southeasterly at right angles 20.57 feet; thence Northeasterly at right angles 86.47 feet; thence Southerly a distance of 89.59 feet, more or less, to the North line of the alley in Block 29, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park", said point being 79 feet East of the Southwest corner of Lot 20 in said Block 29; thence Westerly along the North line of said alley and the same extended to the West line of Zarthan Avenue; thence South along the West line of Zarthan Avenue to the Southerly corner of Lot 4, Block 30, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park"; thence Northwesterly along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 4 to the Southeasterly corner of Lot 9 in said Block 30; thence Southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of said Lot 9 to the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 9; thence Northwesterly along the Southwesterly line of said Block 30 to the place of beginning; Except that part of said Lot 4, Block 30, lying South of a line described as: Commencing at a point in the Southwest line of said Lot 4, distant 26 feet Northwest of the most Southerly corner of said Lot 4, thence Northeast to a point in the East line of said Lot 4, distant 29 feet North of the most Southerly corner. That part of Zarthan Avenue and that part of the alley in Block 29, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park" lying South of the North line of the alley in Block 29, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park" and the same extended West to the West line of said Zarthan Avenue, and Northwesterly of a line drawn from a point on the Easterly line of Lot 4, Block 30, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park" distant 38.72 feet Northerly from the most Southerly corner of said Lot 4 to a point on the South line of Lot 20, Block 29, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park" distant 6.7 feet East of the Southwest corner of said Lot 20. That part of the vacated East-West alley dedicated in Block 29, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park" which lies North of the center line of said alley and between the Southerly extensions of the West line of Lot 20, said Block and Addition, and the following described line: Commencing at a point on the Southwesterly line of said Block 30 distant 2.4 feet Southerly, measured along said Southwesterly line, from the Northwesterly corner of said Block 30; thence Northeasterly in a straight line to a point on the East line of said Block 30 distant 6.67 feet South, measured along said East line, from the Northeasterly corner of said Block 30; thence continue Northeasterly along said last described course 56.97 feet; thence Southeasterly at right angles 20.57 feet; thence Northeasterly at a right angle 86.47 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South to a point on the South line of said Lot 20 distant 79 feet East from Southwest corner of said Lot 20. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 18 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA Tract 2 (PID No. 16-117-21-31-0076) (From Pages 1 and 2 of CR Doc. No. 9081732) Par 1: Lot 11; those parts of Lots 12, 13, 14, 21, 22 and 23, Block 29; those parts of Lots 2 and 11, Block 30; that part of the adjoining vacated north-south alley lying in Block 29, and vacated Zarthan Avenue, “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park” described as follows: Commencing at the west quarter corner of Section 6, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence South 0 degrees 14 minutes 49 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 6 a distance of 492.57 feet to the southerly right of way line of the Canadian Pacific Railroad, shown as the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway on said plat of “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park”; thence continuing South 0 degrees 14 minutes 49 seconds East along said west line 80.00 feet; thence South 65 degrees 52 minutes 15 seconds West 955.17 feet to the east line of said Lot 12 and the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence continuing South 65 degrees 52 minutes 15 seconds West 162.71 feet to the southerly line of said Lot 14; thence North 88 degrees 58 minutes 35 seconds West 18.23 feet along said southerly line and its westerly extension to the centerline of said alley; thence North 0 degrees 57 minutes 33 seconds East 4.17 feet along said centerline; thence South 65 degrees 21 minutes 14 seconds West 183.14 (feet); thence North 24 degrees 38 minutes 46 seconds West 20.57 feet; thence South 65 degrees 21 minutes 14 seconds West 252.73 feet to the southwesterly line of said Lot 11, Block 30; thence North 39 degrees 00 minutes 57 seconds West 2.40 feet along said southwesterly line to the said southerly right of way line; thence North 64 degrees 17 minutes 59 seconds East 451.50 feet along said southerly right of way line; thence North 64 degrees 21 minutes 45 seconds East 185.28 feet along said southerly right of way line to the east line of said Lot 11, Block 29; thence southerly along the east line of said Lots 11 and 12 to the point of beginning. Par 2: Lot 6 and those parts of Lots 7, 8, and 11 thru 21, Block 25, “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park” described as follows: Commencing at the west quarter corner of Section 6, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence South 0 degrees 14 minutes 49 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 6 a distance of 492.57 feet to the southerly right of way line of the Canadian Pacific Railroad, shown as the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway in the plat of “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park”; thence continuing South 0 degrees 14 minutes 49 seconds East along said west line 80.00 feet; thence South 65 degrees 52 minutes 15 seconds West 526.90 feet to the east line of said Lot 7 and the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence continuing South 65 degrees 52 minutes 15 seconds West 361.97 feet to the west line of said Lot 21; thence North 01 degree 03 minutes 00 seconds East 54.70 feet along said west lot line to said southerly railroad right of way line; thence North 64 degrees 21 minutes 45 seconds East 366.58 feet along said southerly right of way line to the east line of said Lot 6; thence southerly along the east line of said Lots 6 and 7 to the point of beginning. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 19 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA EXCEPT (From Page 2 of CR Doc. No. 9081732) The segment of land lying beneath unvacated Yosemite Street (Avenue) is expressly excluded. Soo Line Railroad Company, a corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota doing business as Canadian Pacific Railway, reserves all right, title, and interest to platted and unvacated Yosemite Street (Avenue), subject to its dedication to the City for street purposes. In the event that City vacates Yosemite Street (Avenue) title will vest in Soo Line Railroad Company, a corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota doing business as Canadian Pacific Railway, per CR Doc. No. 9081732. Tract 3 (PID No. 16-117-21-31-0002) (From Page 6 of CR Doc. No. 4928955) That part of Government Lot 5 of Section 16, Township 117 North, Range 21 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Southwesterly line of Auditor’s Subdivision 249, distant 50 feet Northwesterly, measured at right angles, from the center line of the main track of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company (now the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company), as said main track center line was originally located and established over and across said Section 16; thence Southwesterly parallel with said center line a distance of 600 feet; thence Northwesterly at right angles to the last described course a distance of 29 feet; thence Northeasterly parallel with said original main track center line a distance of 600 feet; thence Southeasterly at right angles a distance of 29 feet to the point of beginning. Tract 4 (Part of PID No. 16-117-21-31-0005) (From Pages 6 and 7 of CR Doc. No. 4928955) That part of Government Lot 5 of Section 16, Township 117 North, Range 21 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, bounded and described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the Southeasterly line of Block 247, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, and the Northwesterly extension of the Southwesterly line of Auditor’s Subdivision 249; thence Northeasterly along the Southeasterly line of said Block 247 a distance of 205.9 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot 30 in said Block 247; thence Southeasterly at right angles to the last described course a distance of 10 feet, more or less, to a point distant 175 feet Northwesterly, measured at right angles, from the center line of the main track of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company (now the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company), as said main track center line was originally locatedand established over and across said Section 16; thence Southwesterly parallel with said center line a distance of 205.9 feet to a point on the Southwesterly line of said Auditor’s Subdivision 249; thence Northwesterly along said Southwesterly line, or the Northwesterly extension thereof, a distance of 10 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 20 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA EXHIBIT A-1 Illustration of Properties to be conveyed[EJD1] Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 21 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA EXHIBIT B Due Diligence Materials SURVEYS: • Most recent “as built” survey TITLE POLICY AND LEGAL: • Existing owners title insurance policy • Copies of all title exception documentation • Legal description of the Property SELLER REPORTS: • Environmental • Geotechnical • ADA surveys or letters EASEMENTS: • Temporary construction easement • Permanent construction easement Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 22 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA EXHIBIT C DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 23 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA EXHIBIT D Environmental Disclosures[EJD2] Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 24 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA THIS INSTRUMENT IS EXEMPT FROM REGISTRATION TAX UNDER MINN.STAT. §287.04(f) Box #362/Hennepin County OPD Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS THIS DECLARATION is made on this ______ day of ______, 2017 by the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority ("Declarant") has purchased certain real property from the Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (“Authority”), which property is situated in the City of St. Louis Park, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota and legally described in Exhibit A (the "Premises"); and WHEREAS, Declarant intends to sell the property for transit oriented development; and WHEREAS, Declarant has entered into a Purchase and Redevelopment Agreement (the “Agreement”) with the Authority; and WHEREAS, as part of the Agreement, Declarant has agreed to this Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, THEREFORE, Declarant makes the following Declaration, hereby specifying that this Declaration shall constitute covenants to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties in interest and their successors and assigns: 1. Construction of Minimum Requirements. The project will include: A. A mix of uses appropriate to the area including, but not limited to, residential and commercial uses. B. Maximum density is desired. There will be at least 50 units/acre. The Authority retains the right to approve lower minimums due to traffic or other concerns expressed by the City of St. Louis Park (“City”). C. Any residential component of the project should at a minimum meet, and preferably exceed, the requirements contained within the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy. Mixed income projects are highly encouraged. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 25 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA D. The design of the buildings on the Premises should be transit oriented and should complement any operational transit stations. For buildings facing 36th Street, there should be active uses on the ground floor. Active uses are defined as commercial/retail uses, live-work units, or a combination of common spaces for multi-family housing activities such as community rooms, work-out rooms, common entrances or property management offices. E. The majority of parking should be located in structure (below or above ground). Reasonably necessary surface and street parking will be allowed. Lower parking ratios are encouraged. Bicycle parking must meet City code requirements, currently defined as one bicycle parking space per dwelling unit, plus one bicycle parking space per ten automobile spaces. F. The following should be incorporated, when possible, into the project: bike and/or car sharing and pedestrian connections internal to and along the perimeter of the Premises to any operational transit stations and the Cedar Lake regional trail. 2. Changes to Minimum Requirements. If the project is substantially changed and the minimum requirements outlined in section 1 are not met in the revised project, the Buyer must submit in writing to the Authority a description of the changes and why they are necessary. 3. Timeline. The Buyer or designated developer must commence construction of a project meeting the minimum requirements outlined in section 1 (“Minimum Improvements”), pursuant to a private redevelopment contract, no later than June 1, 2018 and must complete construction of the Minimum Improvements by December 31, 2019. If construction of the Minimum Improvements has not been completed by December 31, 2019, and the failure to commence or complete the Minimum Improvements is the result of a failure of the intended project and not merely a delay subject to amended terms agreed to by the developer and the Buyer, then the Buyer agrees to remarket the Premises for disposition and redevelopment that will conform to the minimum requirements. Failure of the intended project will be evidenced by a cancellation of the private redevelopment contract governing the project, a copy of which will be delivered to the Authority. The Authority will be notified of the remarketing of the Premises and of any agreed-upon alternative project resulting from such remarketing. In the event the private redevelopment contract is cancelled and the Buyer fails to negotiate an alternative project meeting the minimum requirements on the Premises within a period of five years from the date of cancellation, the Authority will have the option to repurchase the Premises from the Buyer and this Declaration will be released. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 26 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has caused this Declaration to be executed and acknowledged this _____ day of _______, 2017. DECLARANT ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By:_____________________________ Its President By:_____________________________ Its Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ________________________________________________ 2017, by Anne Mavity and Thomas Harmening, the President and Executive Director of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the political subdivision. _______________________________________ Notary Public This document was drafted by: Charles Salter Hennepin County Attorney's Office A-2000 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 27 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION General Location: East of Wooddale Ave. in St. Louis Park Property Identification No(s).: 16-117-21-31-0002 Division of 16-117-21-31-0005 16-117-21-31-0076 16-117-21-34-0069 Tract Index (Abstract): Lot 6, Part of Lots 7, 8, and 11 thru 21, Block 25, Lot 11, Part of Lots 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22 and 23, Block 29, Lots 2, 3, 9, 10 and 11, Part of Lot 4, Block 30, Part of Lots 9 thru 15 and 29, Block 247, “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park”; Part of Government Lot 5, Section 16, Township 117, Range 21. Tract Index (Torrens): Certificate of Title No. 1124712. HCRRA Property Map No(s).: Part of Map No. 5 and other land Tract 1 (PID No. 16-117-21-34-0069) (Torrens Certificate of Title No. 1124712) Par 1: That part of the following described property: That part of Lots 20, 21, 22 and 23, Block 29, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park" and that part of the adjoining vacated alleys, all described as commencing at a point on the Southwesterly line of Block 30, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park" distant 2.4 feet Southerly, measured along said Southwesterly line, from the Northwesterly corner of said Block 30; thence Northeasterly to a point on the East line of said Block 30 distant 6.67 feet South, measured along said East line from the Northeasterly corner of said Block 30; thence continuing Northeasterly along the last described course a distance of 56.97 feet; thence Southeasterly at a right angle 20.57 feet; thence Northeasterly at a right angle 86.47 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence continuing Northeasterly along the last described course to the center line of the vacated alley adjoining the East line of said Lots 20, 21, 22 and 23; thence South along said center line and its extension to the center line of the vacated alley adjoining the South line of said Lot 20, thence West along the last described center line to its intersection with the extension South of a line drawn from the actual point of beginning to a point on the South line of said Lot 20 distant 79 feet East from the Southwest corner of said Lot 20; thence North to the actual point of beginning; Which lies Westerly of the East line of Lot 7 said Block 29, extended Northerly. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 28 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA Par 2: Lots 3, 4, 9, 10 and part of Lots 2 and 11, Block 30, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park", and part of Lots 20 to 23, both inclusive, Block 29, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park", and that part of vacated Zarthan Avenue, all being described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Southwesterly line of said Block 30 distant 2.4 feet Southerly, measured along said Southwesterly line, from the Northwesterly corner of said Block 30; thence Northeasterly in a straight line to a point on the East line of said Block 30 distant 6.67 feet South, measured along said East line, from the Northeasterly corner of said Block 30; thence continue Northeasterly along said last described course 56.97 feet; thence Southeasterly at right angles 20.57 feet; thence Northeasterly at right angles 86.47 feet; thence Southerly a distance of 89.59 feet, more or less, to the North line of the alley in Block 29, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park", said point being 79 feet East of the Southwest corner of Lot 20 in said Block 29; thence Westerly along the North line of said alley and the same extended to the West line of Zarthan Avenue; thence South along the West line of Zarthan Avenue to the Southerly corner of Lot 4, Block 30, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park"; thence Northwesterly along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 4 to the Southeasterly corner of Lot 9 in said Block 30; thence Southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of said Lot 9 to the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 9; thence Northwesterly along the Southwesterly line of said Block 30 to the place of beginning; Except that part of said Lot 4, Block 30, lying South of a line described as: Commencing at a point in the Southwest line of said Lot 4, distant 26 feet Northwest of the most Southerly corner of said Lot 4, thence Northeast to a point in the East line of said Lot 4, distant 29 feet North of the most Southerly corner. That part of Zarthan Avenue and that part of the alley in Block 29, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park" lying South of the North line of the alley in Block 29, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park" and the same extended West to the West line of said Zarthan Avenue, and Northwesterly of a line drawn from a point on the Easterly line of Lot 4, Block 30, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park" distant 38.72 feet Northerly from the most Southerly corner of said Lot 4 to a point on the South line of Lot 20, Block 29, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park" distant 6.7 feet East of the Southwest corner of said Lot 20. That part of the vacated East-West alley dedicated in Block 29, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park" which lies North of the center line of said alley and between the Southerly extensions of the West line of Lot 20, said Block and Addition, and the following described line: Commencing at a point on the Southwesterly line of said Block 30 distant 2.4 feet Southerly, measured along said Southwesterly line, from the Northwesterly corner of said Block 30; thence Northeasterly in a straight line to a point on the East line of said Block 30 distant 6.67 feet South, measured along said East line, from the Northeasterly corner of said Block 30; thence continue Northeasterly along said last described course 56.97 feet; thence Southeasterly at right angles 20.57 feet; thence Northeasterly at a right angle 86.47 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South to a point on the South line of said Lot 20 distant 79 feet East from Southwest corner of said Lot 20. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 29 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA Tract 2 (PID No. 16-117-21-31-0076) (From Pages 1 and 2 of CR Doc. No. 9081732) Par 1: Lot 11; those parts of Lots 12, 13, 14, 21, 22 and 23, Block 29; those parts of Lots 2 and 11, Block 30; that part of the adjoining vacated north-south alley lying in Block 29, and vacated Zarthan Avenue, “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park” described as follows: Commencing at the west quarter corner of Section 6, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence South 0 degrees 14 minutes 49 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 6 a distance of 492.57 feet to the southerly right of way line of the Canadian Pacific Railroad, shown as the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway on said plat of “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park”; thence continuing South 0 degrees 14 minutes 49 seconds East along said west line 80.00 feet; thence South 65 degrees 52 minutes 15 seconds West 955.17 feet to the east line of said Lot 12 and the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence continuing South 65 degrees 52 minutes 15 seconds West 162.71 feet to the southerly line of said Lot 14; thence North 88 degrees 58 minutes 35 seconds West 18.23 feet along said southerly line and its westerly extension to the centerline of said alley; thence North 0 degrees 57 minutes 33 seconds East 4.17 feet along said centerline; thence South 65 degrees 21 minutes 14 seconds West 183.14 (feet); thence North 24 degrees 38 minutes 46 seconds West 20.57 feet; thence South 65 degrees 21 minutes 14 seconds West 252.73 feet to the southwesterly line of said Lot 11, Block 30; thence North 39 degrees 00 minutes 57 seconds West 2.40 feet along said southwesterly line to the said southerly right of way line; thence North 64 degrees 17 minutes 59 seconds East 451.50 feet along said southerly right of way line; thence North 64 degrees 21 minutes 45 seconds East 185.28 feet along said southerly right of way line to the east line of said Lot 11, Block 29; thence southerly along the east line of said Lots 11 and 12 to the point of beginning. Par 2: Lot 6 and those parts of Lots 7, 8, and 11 thru 21, Block 25, “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park” described as follows: Commencing at the west quarter corner of Section 6, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence South 0 degrees 14 minutes 49 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 6 a distance of 492.57 feet to the southerly right of way line of the Canadian Pacific Railroad, shown as the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway in the plat of “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park”; thence continuing South 0 degrees 14 minutes 49 seconds East along said west line 80.00 feet; thence South 65 degrees 52 minutes 15 seconds West 526.90 feet to the east line of said Lot 7 and the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence continuing South 65 degrees 52 minutes 15 seconds West 361.97 feet to the west line of said Lot 21; thence North 01 degree 03 minutes 00 seconds East 54.70 feet along said west lot line to said southerly railroad right of way line; thence North 64 degrees 21 minutes 45 seconds East 366.58 feet along said southerly right of way line to the east line of said Lot 6; thence southerly along the east line of said Lots 6 and 7 to the point of beginning. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 30 Title: Proposed Terms of Property Acquisition Agreement with Hennepin County HRA EXCEPT (From Page 2 of CR Doc. No. 9081732) The segment of land lying beneath unvacated Yosemite Street (Avenue) is expressly excluded. Soo Line Railroad Company, a corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota doing business as Canadian Pacific Railway, reserves all right, title, and interest to platted and unvacated Yosemite Street (Avenue), subject to its dedication to the City for street purposes. In the event that City vacates Yosemite Street (Avenue) title will vest in Soo Line Railroad Company, a corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota doing business as Canadian Pacific Railway, per CR Doc. No. 9081732. Tract 3 (PID No. 16-117-21-31-0002) (From Page 6 of CR Doc. No. 4928955) That part of Government Lot 5 of Section 16, Township 117 North, Range 21 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Southwesterly line of Auditor’s Subdivision 249, distant 50 feet Northwesterly, measured at right angles, from the center line of the main track of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company (now the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company), as said main track center line was originally located and established over and across said Section 16; thence Southwesterly parallel with said center line a distance of 600 feet; thence Northwesterly at right angles to the last described course a distance of 29 feet; thence Northeasterly parallel with said original main track center line a distance of 600 feet; thence Southeasterly at right angles a distance of 29 feet to the point of beginning. Tract 4 (Part of PID No. 16-117-21-31-0005) (From Pages 6 and 7 of CR Doc. No. 4928955) That part of Government Lot 5 of Section 16, Township 117 North, Range 21 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, bounded and described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the Southeasterly line of Block 247, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, and the Northwesterly extension of the Southwesterly line of Auditor’s Subdivision 249; thence Northeasterly along the Southeasterly line of said Block 247 a distance of 205.9 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot 30 in said Block 247; thence Southeasterly at right angles to the last described course a distance of 10 feet, more or less, to a point distant 175 feet Northwesterly, measured at right angles, from the center line of the main track of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company (now the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company), as said main track center line was originally locatedand established over and across said Section 16; thence Southwesterly parallel with said center line a distance of 205.9 feet to a point on the Southwesterly line of said Auditor’s Subdivision 249; thence Northwesterly along said Southwesterly line, or the Northwesterly extension thereof, a distance of 10 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: March 27, 2017 Written Report: 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Proposed TIF Note Assignment – E2 Purchase and Redevelopment Contract RECOMMENDED ACTION: None. The purpose of this report is to inform the EDA of the need for a TIF Note Assignment related to the E2 Purchase and Redevelopment Contract. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: On February 6, 2012, the EDA entered into a Purchase and Redevelopment Contract (“Contract”) with Ellipse II LLC (Bader Development and “Redeveloper”) in which the Redeveloper committed to purchase the subject property from the EDA, remediate the existing contamination and prepare the property for redevelopment. Bader was then to construct the second phase of its Ellipse on Excelsior redevelopment project next door - an upscale apartment building called “E2”. The Contract included provisions for the issuance of a TIF Note by the EDA to Ellipse II LLC which subsequently assigned all payments of available increment under the TIF Note to Bader Development LLC (“Bader”). The investor entity for E2 is Mandalay Investment, LLC (“Mandalay”), which is under common ownership with Bader. Mandalay previously received a construction loan for the E2 project (the “Bank Loan”) and is now in the process of refinancing the Bank Loan. Crown Bank, the lender, has requested that Mandalay and Bader agree to a collateral assignment (the “Assignment”) of the TIF Note as security for the refinanced Bank Loan, and that the EDA provide its consent to the Assignment. Under the Assignment, payments of available increment under the TIF Note would continue to be made to Bader, unless there was an event of default under the Bank Loan documents. If Bader/Mandalay defaults under the Bank Loan documents, the lender would notify the EDA that a default had occurred and that all future payments under the TIF Note should be made directly to the lender. This is substantially similar to other collateral assignments of TIF Note that the EDA has seen in connection with other development projects supported through tax increment. The EDA’s rights under the Contract and TIF Note are not affected by the requested consent to the Assignment. The proposed Assignment (attached) is scheduled for formal consideration by the EDA on April 3rd. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Proposed Collateral Assignment Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor/Deputy CD Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 8) Page 2 Title: Proposed TIF Note Assignment – E2 Purchase and Redevelopment Contract COLLATERAL ASSIGNMENT OF INTEREST IN PAYMENTS UNDER TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE THIS COLLATERAL ASSIGNMENT OF INTEREST IN PAYMENTS UNDER TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE (“this Collateral Assignment”) is made as of the ____ day of April, 2017, by and between BADER DEVELOPMENT LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Bader”), MANDALAY INVESTMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Borrower”), and CROWN BANK, a Minnesota banking corporation (“Lender”). RECITALS Ellipse II LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“E2”) is the owner of certain real property located in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, developed as multi-family housing and known as “Ellipse 2” (“Project”). The Project is the subject of that certain Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 2015 that was issued by the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”) to E2 in the original principal amount of Six Hundred Eighty-Six Thousand One Hundred Ninety-Five Dollars ($686,195), bearing an Original Issue date of August 1, 2015 (“TIF Note”), pursuant to the provisions of that certain Purchase and Redevelopment Contract between the Authority and E2 and dated February 6, 2012 (“Contract”). E2 assigned the proceeds of the TIF Note to Bader pursuant to that certain Assignment of Tax Increment Revenue Note dated July 3, 2012 (“Initial Assignment”), as compensation for Bader’s development services in connection with the Project. Borrower has substantially the same ownership as Bader. Borrower is the “borrower” pursuant to that certain Senior Secured Full Recourse Promissory Note dated January 7, 2015 in the original principal amount of Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000) issued by Lender (“2015 Note”), and documents associated therewith (“2015 Loan”). As of the date of this Collateral Assignment, the principal amount owing pursuant to the 2015 Note is Five Hundred Forty-Eight Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars ($548,500). Borrower and Lender are negotiating an amendment to the 2015 Loan and the documents associated therewith (“Loan Documents”), and in connection with such amendment, Lender has requested Borrower to cause the execution and delivery of this Collateral Assignment. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Bader hereby assigns, transfers and sets over unto Lender, for collateral purposes, all of Bader’s current and future right, title and interest in and to the payments under the TIF Note, as security for the full, timely and faithful repayment by Borrower of the 2015 Loan, and performance by Borrower of its obligations under the Loan Documents. The parties agree that this Collateral Assignment is intended for collateral purposes only and until such time as an Event of Default occurs (as further described in Section 4 of this Agreement), Bader shall remain entitled to all payments pursuant to the TIF Note. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 8) Page 3 Title: Proposed TIF Note Assignment – E2 Purchase and Redevelopment Contract 2. Bader hereby agrees to faithfully observe and perform all of the obligations and agreements pursuant to the Contract regarding the terms and conditions of the TIF Note, subject to Bader’s right to reasonably contest observance and performance. 3. Lender will not be deemed in any manner to have assumed any of the obligations related to the Contract or the TIF Note, nor shall Lender be liable to the Authority by reason of any default by any party under the Contract or the TIF Note. Borrower agrees to indemnify and to hold Lender harmless of and from any and all liability, loss or damage which it may or might incur by reason of any claims or demands against it based on its alleged assumption of Bader’s duty and obligation to perform and discharge the terms, covenants and agreements in the Contract or the TIF Note. 4. After the occurrence of an Event of Default (as defined and set forth in the Loan Documents), subject to applicable grace or cure periods, and if Lender elects to exercise its rights pursuant to this Collateral Assignment: a. Lender shall provide written notice to Bader and to the Authority of Lender’s election to exercise Bader’s right to payment under the TIF Note (“Election Notice”), without any interference or objection from Bader or Borrower, and Bader and Borrower shall cooperate in causing the Authority to comply with all the terms and conditions of the Election Notice. b. Following delivery of the Election Notice, Lender shall be entitled to receive payments under the TIF Note. c. Nothing set forth in this Collateral Assignment shall permit or provide Lender with authority to (i) amend the terms of the TIF Note or the Contract; or (ii) make concessions to the Authority in connection with the TIF Note or the Contract, it being agreed that this Collateral Assignment is solely an assignment of the right to payments under the TIF Note. 5. Lender’s exercise of its rights pursuant to this Collateral Agreement shall not limit Lender’s exercise of any other remedies provided to it in the Loan Documents. Any failure on the part of the Lender promptly to exercise any option hereby given or reserved shall not prevent the exercise of any such option at any time thereafter. Lender may pursue and enforce any remedy or remedies accorded it herein independently of, in conjunction or concurrently with, or subsequent to its pursuit and enforcement of any remedy or remedies which it may have under the Loan Documents. 6. Lender is not the agent, partner or joint venturer of Bader, the Borrower or the Authority. 7. Bader warrants and represents that: a. Upon the consent of the Authority, Bader has the right to exercise and deliver this Collateral Assignment under the terms of the Contract and the TIF Note. The execution of this Collateral Assignment and performance and observance of its terms hereof have been duly authorized by necessary company action and do not contravene or violate any provision of Bader’s organizational documents. b. Bader has made no prior assignments of the TIF Note. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 8) Page 4 Title: Proposed TIF Note Assignment – E2 Purchase and Redevelopment Contract c. Bader will not allow or permit any surrender, termination, material amendment or modification of the Contract or the TIF Note without the prior written consent of Lender, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. d. To Bader’s knowledge, as of the date hereof, the Contract and the TIF Note are in full force and effect, subject to no defenses, setoffs or counterclaims whatsoever. e. To Bader’s knowledge, there exists no event, condition or occurrence which constitutes, or which with notice and/or the passage of time would constitute, a breach of or default under any terms or conditions of any of the Contract or the TIF Note. 8. When the context so requires, the singular shall include the plural and conversely, and use of any gender shall include all genders. 9. This Collateral Assignment shall be governed by and be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. Whenever possible, each provision of this Collateral Assignment shall be interpreted in such manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law, but if any provision of this Collateral Assignment shall be prohibited by or be invalid under applicable law, such provision shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or invalidity, without invalidating the remainder of such provisions or the remaining provisions of this Collateral Assignment. 10. This Collateral Assignment may be executed in counterparts for the convenience of the parties, which together shall constitute one Collateral Assignment and the counterpart signature pages may be detached from the various counterparts and attached to make one copy of this Collateral Assignment. 11. Notices required hereunder shall be by registered or certified mail or hand delivered, addressed as follows: If to Bader: Bader Development LLC c/o Mark E. Jensen 5402 Parkdale Drive, Suite 200 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 If to Borrower: Mandalay Investment, LLC c/o Mark E. Jensen 5402 Parkdale Drive, Suite 200 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 If to the Authority: St. Louis Park EDA Attn: Executive Director 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 If to Lender: Crown Bank Attn: _______________________ 601 Marquette Avenue, Suite 125 Minneapolis, MN 55402 or to such other address specified in writing by one party to the other in accordance herewith. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 8) Page 5 Title: Proposed TIF Note Assignment – E2 Purchase and Redevelopment Contract IN AGREEMENT, the parties have has caused this Collateral Assignment to be executed as of the day and year first above written [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.] Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 8) Page 6 Title: Proposed TIF Note Assignment – E2 Purchase and Redevelopment Contract Signature page of Bader Development to Collateral Assignment of Interest in Payments under Tax Increment Revenue Note BADER DEVELOPMENT LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By: Its: Administrative Member STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ of ____________, 2017 by _______________________, the Administrative Member of Bader Development LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the limited liability company. Notary Public Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 8) Page 7 Title: Proposed TIF Note Assignment – E2 Purchase and Redevelopment Contract Signature page of Borrower - Mandalay Investment - to Collateral Assignment of Interest in Payments under Tax Increment Revenue Note MANDALAY INVESTMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: Its: Administrative Member STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ of ____________, 2017 by _______________________, the Administrative Member of Mandalay Investment, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, on behalf of the limited liability company. Notary Public Signature page of Lender - Crown Bank - to Collateral Assignment of Interest in Payments under Tax Increment Revenue Note CROWN BANK, a Minnesota banking corporation By: Its: ____________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ of ____________, 2017 by _______________________, the ______________________ of Crown Bank, a Minnesota banking corporation, on behalf of the banking corporation. Notary Public Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 8) Page 8 Title: Proposed TIF Note Assignment – E2 Purchase and Redevelopment Contract CONSENT TO COLLATERAL ASSIGNMENT OF INTEREST IN PAYMENTS UNDER TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”) has issued its Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 2015 in the principal amount of $686,195 (“the TIF Note”) upon satisfaction of the terms for issuance of the Note required by that certain Purchase and Redevelopment Contract between the Authority and Ellipse II LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“E2”) and dated February 6, 2012 (“Contract”). The Note has been issued to E2 and was assigned by E2, with the Authority’s consent, to Bader Development LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Bader”) and is payable solely from “Available Tax Increment,” as that term is defined in Section 3 of the Note. The Authority has received a Collateral Assignment of Interest in Payments under Tax Increment Revenue Note (the “Collateral Assignment”), executed by Bader which collaterally assigns Bader’s interests in the payment of Available Tax Increment under the Note to Crown Bank, a Minnesota banking corporation. The Authority consents to such Assignment pursuant to Section 7 of the Note. The Authority agrees that upon receipt of an Exercise Notice as defined in the Collateral Assignment, the Authority shall make all payments under the Note to Crown Bank at the following address: Crown Bank 601 Marquette Avenue, Suite 125 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Attn: Until such time as the Authority receives an Exercise Notice, the Authority shall continue to make all payments under the Note to Bader. ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: Its: President And by: Its: Executive Director Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: March 27, 2017 Written Report: 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Update on EMS Initiative RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is being provided to update the Council on efforts staff is undertaking with HCMC and the City of Minneapolis regarding finding better and more efficient ways to respond to 911 Emergency Medical Service calls. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please inform staff of any questions you might have. SUMMARY: As the Council is aware, the St. Louis Park Fire Dept. has been working with Park Nicollet/Methodist Hospital on a Post Discharge Visit pilot project. The cities of Minnetonka, Hopkins, Eden Prairie and Minneapolis are also involved in this initiative (note that a separate report/update will be provided to the Council at a later date on the results of the Post Discharge pilot project) While the information in this report is not directly related to that pilot, some of what was learned has led to the conclusion that we need to create a more efficient system of responding to 911 emergency medical service (EMS) calls than the one we have today. As you will note later in this report, the system employed by most cities and ambulance providers is a one size fits all approach. That means that for a 911 EMS call that we receive, the standard protocol is to send SLP firefighters/EMTs and two paramedics via HCMC in an ambulance. What we have discovered is that 80% of the time the equipment and personnel used to respond to those calls was much greater than necessary. In other words, the size of the response was greater than the call required. This is very inefficient, expensive and ties up resources that could otherwise be used in a more productive way. It should also be noted that unlike HCMC, the St. Louis Park receives no reimbursement responding to EMS calls. For the past two years the fire chiefs from St. Louis Park and Minneapolis have been in conversations with HCMC on looking at ways to change the delivery model from the one size fits all approach to one that delivers the right care, to the right place with the right provider (3R’s) and at the same time include a component that provides a reimbursement to back to St. Louis Park. The conversations have become so productive that each entity desire to take this idea to the next level via the creation of a business plan that could then be executed thru a pilot project. In order to show each agencies commitment to this effort, a joint powers agreement is proposed to delineate responsibilities and deliverables FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Prepared by: Steve Koering, Fire Chief Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 9) Page 2 Title: Update on EMS Initiative DISCUSSION So what’s the problem with the current approach for responding to EMS calls? To put it simply, the current business model used by HCMC and the SLP Fire Dept. (and others) is a one size fits all approach in terms of EMS call response that doesn’t make sense and is highly inefficient and very expensive. •What does “one size fits all” mean? When a 911 call comes in for EMS assistance, the call response protocol is for SLP Fire to be dispatched along with an ambulance from HCMC. 80% of the time the equipment and personnel provided for the call is not necessary or much greater than the nature of the call required. •The City does not receive any reimbursement for its response to EMS calls. •The cost for HCMC to provide this one size fits all approach as compared to the rate to which they are reimbursed is not sustainable model for them. •The increasing number of calls for EMS service and the one size fits all approach is impacting the reliability of the Fire Dept. Why, because 80% of the time the equipment and personnel utilized for the call are not necessary. This means equipment and personnel are unnecessarily tied up on a call and not available to provide service for a call that requires a more robust response. So what do we do about it? To once again put it simply, a system needs to be developed to move away from the one size fits all approach to one where the service provided for EMS calls delivers the right care, to the right place with the right provider (3R’s). Over the course of the last two years, the Fire Chiefs of St. Louis Park and Minneapolis have been working collaboratively with our transport provider (HCMC) to explore a different approach. Both of our communities and our fire departments are being challenged the same way and HCMC is struggling to meet the demands of their service area in a way that ensures their long term viability. Over the course of several meetings it was determined that there are some opportunities to help each other and that we would benefit by exploring those ideas more in depth. The goal will be to create a solution that reduces the total cost of care through a combination of population health management, hospital discharge facilitation and BLS transportation. Following these months of discussion, we have reached a point where the three organizations are considering a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to explore in greater depth the way this might work. This approach is not only innovative, it is unprecedented and groundbreaking within the State of Minnesota. It shows great partnerships not only at the service delivery side but the shared resources of two cities and their service provider. The goal is to begin developing a business plan using shared data and shared resources that addresses the immediate challenges. This would allow for a proof of concept deployment later this year or early 2018 to test the validity. NEXT STEPS: If progress continues to be made staff will be coming forward to the City Council to approve a Joint Powers that allows the three entities to begin the work of developing a successful business plan and the implementation of a test for proof of concept. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: March 27, 2017 Written Report: 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Water Treatment Plant #4 Project Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on the design and next steps for the permanent upgrades to Water Treatment Plant #4 (WTP4). POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please inform staff of any questions you have. SUMMARY: Staff has been working with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the design consultant (AECOM) on the design of permanent upgrades to WTP4. This plant was removed from service in December of 2016. The upgrades are designed such that all identified contaminants, regardless of their source, can be treated down to published advisory levels. The upgrade will include two air stripping units to treat the VOCs found in the water at this plant. Currently, the design for the permanent upgrades to WTP4 is at the 90% stage and is expected to be complete in June 2017. The MPCA has agreed to pay for the design of the treatment plant up to 90% plans. A contract will be needed between the City and AECOM to use the 90% plans and get them to bid documents. Staff is expecting this contract to be presented to Council for approval in April. Anticipated intermediate and long term next steps are outlined below: April 14 – MPCA to provide draft 90% plans for review April 25 – MPCA/MDH/SLP Plan Review/Coordination Meeting May 1 – MPCA to provide amended 90% plans to MDH May 15 – MPCA to submit MDH-approved plans to SLP June 14 – Engineering to complete drawings and prepare for advertising using same consultant July 3 – Request to Advertise (Council meeting) July 27 – Bid-Opening August 7 – Request to Award (Council meeting) August 14 – Construction Start Fall 2018 – Construction Complete FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The planning for the improvements is being paid primarily by the MPCA. The permanent upgrades are currently included in the City’s Capital Improvements Program for 2017 and we plan to issue a General Obligation Utility Revenue bond less any amount the State includes in the bonding bill. Repayment of the bonds will be the water utility enterprise budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship and will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. Prepared by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Joe Shamla, Senior Engineering Project Manager Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: March 27, 2017 Written Report: 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2016 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to update council on housing programs and activity in St. Louis Park. This report is informational and no action is required. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please contact staff with any questions you might have. SUMMARY: The Annual Housing Programs Report, including the Housing Matrix, has been presented to council since 2005. The Executive Summary provides a quick overview of the detailed report and the report provides historical trends, program descriptions, affordable housing data and additional information on housing programs in St. Louis Park. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 2016 Annual Housing Programs Report Prepared by: Marney Olson, Assistant Housing Supervisor Reviewed by: Michele, Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 2016 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to apprise city policy makers of housing program activity during 2016. The report provides historical trends, program descriptions, and additional information. Below are the key points with details following this summary. 1.Remodeling Activity a.Housing rehab projects (general remodeling) were strong in 2016. Most projects were financed without using city loans. b.The city’s Architect Design Services and Remodeling Advisor Services continue to be great tools for residents and usage is in line with previous years. c.170 home energy visits were conducted through the Home Energy Squad (HES) program. This is the 4th highest usage of the participating HES cities behind Minneapolis, Bloomington, and Brooklyn Park. d.Discount Loan use has continued to decline for the past few years. This is consistent with other communities that CEE works with. Many residents are taking advantage of the energy loan for furnaces, windows and insulation that does not have an income limit or the 5.99% no income limit loan for general home improvements or other forms of financing. There were 11 discount loans in 2016. e.Major remodeling projects and home additions continue to be strong. There were 59 additions and 65 major remodels in 2016 with average valuations at $136,725 and $71,325 respectively. f.The Construction Management Plan (CMP) requires neighborhood notifications for second story additions or additions over 500 square feet and demos/new builds. In 2016 the following neighborhood notification letters were required by the CMP: 37 major additions, 10 demo/rebuilds, 6 new construction including the single family sites at the former Eliot School and 1 demo. A map is included in the report showing the location of these projects. 2.Affordable Home Ownership and Public Housing Update a.Effective in 2016 Citizens Independent Bank is offering $500 to qualified borrowers eligible for the Live Where You Work. There have been a total of 22 buyers under this program, one in 2016. b.The SLP Housing Authority affordable rental housing and rental assistance programs continue to have high occupancy and long waiting lists. The three bedroom waiting list opened in June and the four bedroom in August. Approximately 500 households received rental assistance in 2016. c.The SLP Housing Authority has continued administering the new Stable HOME rental assistance program for Suburban Hennepin County which provides housing assistance to homeless or previously homeless individuals and families in Suburban Hennepin County. 26 households were served in 2016. 3.Housing Matrix a.Owner occupied (homestead) properties now comprise 52% of the housing market with rental (non-homestead) at 48%. This is consistent with 2015 and the single family home ownership rate continues to be high at 90%. b.NEW: The Housing Development Project List is included in the report showing residential projects since 2006 including projects under construction. 4.Foreclosures a. The foreclosure rate is extremely low with only 32 residential foreclosures in 2016. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 11) Title: 2016 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 2 1. REMODELING ACTIVITY Residential permitted activity measures remodeling and maintenance activity; this section shows historical trends of remodeling activity. Residential properties include apartments. Permit Trends •“Alteration Residential” or General Remodeling The chart below shows the trend line of general remodeling activity over time. This work includes residential projects with permit valuations less than $37,500 (the average value per job in 2016 is approximately $7,670) and includes such items as: o remodeling of bathrooms and kitchens; o finishing of basement and attic spaces; o conversion of existing spaces; o window and door replacements, insulation; and o drain tile, step, and foundation work. The trend line below reflects residents’ willingness to preserve and update housing, the impact of the city’s proactive housing improvement assistance, and the ongoing needs of older housing stock. Chart 1: Trend of Maintenance & Minor Remodeling Permits Since 2005 •Roofing and Siding Activity Reroofing and residing permits are tracked separately. This chart illustrates the impact of storm damage in 2008-9 and again in 2011. Almost 60% of the homes in the city had roofs replaced between 2008 and 2011. It is likely the number of reroofs will remain relatively low for the next decade or so. 86 houses were resided and 80 roof replacements were permitted in 2016. 517 785 797 971 869 1129 1011 1091 1084 1074 1203 0 500 1000 1500 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Number of Permits IssuedYear Maintenance & Minor Remodeling Permits Alteration Residential (Minor) Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 11) Title: 2016 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 3 Chart 2: Reroofing and Residing Permits Since 2005 *Spike in reroofing due to 2008 storms. •Additions and Major Remodeling The number of major remodeling permits (valued at more than $37,500) and additions continues to be strong in 2016. There weren’t as many additions during 2016; however, the average cost of an addition in 2016 was over $28,000 more than in 2015, so the additions are significant. The average permit valuation for additions during 2016 is $136,725 and the average for major remodels is $71,325. There were 65 major remodels and 59 additions during 2016. Chart 3: Number of Addition and Major Remodeling Permits Since 2005 •Permit Valuation The valuation for single family remodeling activity in 2016 was relatively consistent with previous years. The following chart shows historical remodeling permit valuation for additions, major remodels, remodeling and maintenance, garages/decks, reroofs, and siding. Additional permits with additional valuations were issued for plumbing, heating, and electrical work (not shown here). As the chart illustrates, permit valuation varies significantly from year to year; however, with the exception of the “year of the hail damage repairs” (2008), valuation has ranged between $14 and $27 million. The valuation of permits in 2016 was $25.2 million with 1,674 permits pulled. 216 355 845 201 761 140 161 131 104 80 66 84 573 332 117 117 73 83 70 47 860 500 1000 1500 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Number of Permits IssuedYear Reroofing and Residing Permits Reroof Reside 86 102 89 55 40 48 71 67 73 70 59 50 50 46 50 53 46 44 53 69 70 65 0 40 80 120 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Number of Permits IssuedYear Addition and Major Remodel Permit Activity Addition Residential Major Remodels *4828 * Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 11) Title: 2016 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 4 Chart 4: Permitted Residential Remodeling Since 2005 City Housing Improvement Services, Loans Trends and Program Descriptions •Home Improvement Services. The city’s architectural design service and remodeling continue to be great programs for residents. The number of visits exceeded last year and the feedback we’ve received from residents indicates it is a valuable service. The 170 home energy visits (Home Energy Squad Enhanced) nearly match the highest annual number since we started the program in 2012. There were 76 remodeling advisor visits and 31 architectural design consultations during 2016. Chart 5: Technical, Design and Home Energy Visits Construction Management Plan Major additions (second story additions or additions of 500 square feet or more), demolitions and new construction need to comply with a Construction Management Plan (CMP). In 2016 the following neighborhood notifications were sent: 37 major additions, 10 demo/rebuilds, 1 demo only and 6 new builds. The new builds included the two SF homes at the former Eliot School site, two lot splits, one home on a previously unbuilt site, and one home on the site of a former tear down. $13.9 $15.2 $22.5 $68.5 $26.6 $17 $26 $16.8 $21 $25$25.2 0 20 40 60 80 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Permit Valuation -Million $Year Residential Remodeling Permit Valuation 102 62 48 32 30 29 29 37 41 22 31 157 179 130 126 89 82 69 69 95 69 76 122 153 173 125 170 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Number of VisitsYear Technical Home Improvement Services Architect Services Remodeling Advisor Home Energy Visits Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 11) Title: 2016 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 5 Map 1: Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 11) Title: 2016 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 6 •Home Remodeling Fair and Tour Trend Both the Home Remodeling Fair and Tour continue to be popular events with residents. 325-460 residents visited each of the six tour homes in May and the attendance at the Annual Remodeling Fair in February 2016 was approximately 800. Beginning in September 2016 the Home Remodeling Fair started planning for the 2017 Fair and with an increase in marketing efforts and strategies saw a huge increase in participation in 2017 with 1300 fair attendees. •City Loan and Rebate Trends The following chart shows the number of Move Up Loans, Discount Loans and Energy Rebates issued in recent years. The number of Discount Loans, 11, is low; however, CEE notes that discount home improvement loan use is slow in their service area and there are other loan options that do not have an income limit. Ten Move Up loans is the highest number of loans since 2011. The energy rebate program peaked in 2014, but residents continue to use the program and say how much they appreciate it. Chart 6: Use of City Financial Incentives Summary of Move-Up Activity Loan and Service Costs The ratio of public to private investment in 2016 was 1:4 – for every dollar the city invested, residents invested roughly four dollars. This estimate is low and does not fully capture how many projects were completed by homeowners after having a remodeling advisor or architectural design consultation or visiting the home remodeling fair or tour. The city invested approximately $327,500 in 2016 which leveraged $1,332,160 worth of private investments. Move-Up in the Park loans are deferred until the sale of the home or forgiven after thirty years. The following loans have been paid off during the last few years: •2012, three loans were paid off in the amount of $59,360 •2013, three loans paid off in the amount of $52,249 •2014, two loans paid off in the amount of $23,957 •2015, four loans paid off in the amount of $78,246 •2016, four loans paid off in the amount of $97,970 and one Live Where You Work Loan paid off at $2,500 28 20 17 17 8 10 6 6 6 7 10 88 50 55 52 64 22 26 22 17 13 11 22 42 83 73 113 166 143 108 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Number Loans -RebatesYear Loans and Rebates Move up loans Discount loans Energy Rebates Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 11) Title: 2016 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 7 Table 1: Move-Up Participation and Costs Since 2005 Move-Up Participation and City Costs YEAR Move-Up Loans Discount Loans Architectural Design Services Remodeling Advisor Services Remodeling Tour & Fair Green Rebates Home Energy Squad Enhanced Visits Total City Cost 2005 7 $182,806 76 $45,636 68 $15,300 221 $28,730 $272,472 2006 27 $591,264 88 $186,205 102 $22,950 157 $20,410 1 $5,000 $825,829 2007 27 $620,000 50 $74,000 62 $12,400 179 $23,270 1 $5,000 $734,670 2008 18 $330,937 55 $114,129 49 $11,025 130 $16,900 1 $5,000 $477,991 2009 17 $329,650 52 $106,000 12 $7,200 126 $16,380 1 $5,000 22 $4,092 $468,322 2010 9 $209,769 64 $86,263 30 $6,750 89 $11,510 1 $5,000 42 $7,820 $327,112 2011 10 $226,877 22 $29,213 29 $6,525 82 $10,250 1 $5,000 83 $15,465 $293,330 2012* 6 $106,232 26 $31,276 29 $6,525 69 $8,970 1 $5,505 73 $13,748 122 $7,320 $179,576 2013 6 $145,071 22 $33,063 37 $8,325 69 $8,970 1 $8,271 113 $26,000 153 $10,650 $240,350 2014 6 $138,740 17 $26,079 41 $9,225 95 $12,350 1 $12,350 166 $37,575 173 $11390 $243,573 2015 7 $173,000 13 $17,577 22 $4,950 69 $15,525 1 $10,084 143 $37,610 125 $6,250 $264,996 2016 10 $231,057 11 $27,001 31 $6,975 76 $17,100 1 $7,585 108 $29,304 170 $8,510 $327,532 *The Remodeling Advisor fee paid by the city increased from $130 to $225 in 2015. This fee had not increased since the program started. The fee is for a two hour in home consultation. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 11) Title: 2016 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 8 2.AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS AND PUBLIC HOUSING UPDATE Live Where You Work The Live Where You Work Homebuyer Assistance Program began in spring 2009. The goal is to promote home ownership within the city among employees of St. Louis Park businesses. The city provides a deferred loan of $2,500 to an eligible employee and an additional $1,000 is provided to employees purchasing vacant lender-owned foreclosed properties. Employers are invited to contribute a matching or lesser amount to the city’s contribution. The deferred loan will be forgiven after 3 years if the employee continues to work for the employer and meets other qualification requirements. The city contracts with CEE for loan administration. The program was used once in 2016. Total participation to date is 22. In 2016 Citizens Independent Bank met with city staff and now offer qualified borrowers $500 off the origination fee. Housing Improvement Area (HIA) The HIA is a finance tool to assist with the preservation of the city’s existing townhome and condominium housing stock. An HIA is a defined area within a city where housing improvements are made and the cost of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed on the properties within the area. The Association borrows low interest money from the city, improvements are completed and unit owners repay the loan through fees imposed on their properties and collected with property tax payments. To date, seven HIA’s have been established and over twelve million dollars of improvements has been made to 1100 units. There are no new HIA’s currently in process. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) The CDBG calendar year runs from July 1 – June 30th. Activity completed in the first half of 2016 was funded with FY2015 CDBG funds. $179,231 funded the following projects: the single family low-income homeowner’s emergency repair and loan programs, Homes Within Reach home acquisition/rehab/sale, bathroom rehabs at Wayside Supportive Housing and Park & Rec Summer Youth Programming at Meadowbrook. The second half of 2016 was funded with FY2016 CDBG funds and the same programs were funded; however, instead of Wayside, Perspective received funding for rehab and improvements. West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust, aka Homes Within Reach (HWR). Homes Within Reach is a program of West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust that purchases properties, rehabilitates and then sells the home to qualified low to moderate income households. Buyers pay for the cost of the home only and lease the land for 99 years. City funds are leveraged with CDBG, Hennepin County Affordable Housing Incentive Fund (AHIF), HOME Partnership, Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Housing and other funds. Homes Within Reach creates and preserves affordable homeownership opportunities for working households in the western suburbs of Hennepin County by using the Community Land Trust practice, which takes the cost of the land out of the real estate transaction, making the home more affordable. This means that families can more easily purchase a home where they work or live, retain it for generations, and not over burden their incomes in becoming homeowners. As a result, both the families and communities can rely on affordable homeownership option, which expands homeownership, sustains community resources, supports residential stability, preserves affordability housing and supports a stronger local workforce. Two homes were purchased in 2016. Since the program began in 2007 fourteen homes have been purchased and sold to low to moderate income families and a fifteenth home has been purchased and is currently being rehabbed. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 11) Title: 2016 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 9 Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity The city has partnered with Habitat over the years to acquire nine blighted properties for rehab or tear-down for new construction. The city last assisted Habitat with the purchase of one property in 2011, construction was completed in the fall 2012 and the home was sold to a low income family. 3.HOUSING MATRIX The housing matrix shows at a glance the numbers and percentages of housing types, tenure (owner or non-homesteaded), affordable units, senior designated units and large single family homes. The matrix is a guide to evaluate future housing development proposals. •The percentage of owner occupied (homesteaded) units is consistent with the last several years. The citywide ratio of homestead to non-homestead property currently stands at 52/48. The overall ratio of homestead to non-homestead property has decreased due to the increase in new multi-family rental properties. •The chart shows percentages of homesteaded residential units over time and the ownership rate is consistent with the last several years. 89% of single family detached homes were owner occupied and 67% of condos/townhomes were owner occupied in 2016. Chart 7: Percentage of Owner Occupied Units since 2006 Large Single Family Homes One of the city’s housing goals is to increase the number of larger homes available in the city. “Large single family homes” are being defined as exceeding 1,500 square feet of living space, having 3 or more bedrooms, 2 or more baths, and at minimum a 2 car garage. According to the Assessing Department, 2,223 – or 19% – of SLP single family homes meet this threshold. This is an increase of 48 homes since 2015 (due to additions and demo/rebuilds). Although this size home is not considered large when compared to newly constructed housing, it is when compared to all SLP homes where 75% of single family homes have a foundation size less than 1,200 square feet. 47% of single family homes have less than 1,200 square feet above ground. 97 97 96 93 93 93 91 89 89 90 8991928989 80 75 70 67 66 67 67 0 50 100 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Percentage YEAR % Owner Occupied (Homesteaded) Units Single Family Detached Homes Condos & Townhomes Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 11) Title: 2016 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 10 Affordable Housing 2016 affordability limits for ownership and rental housing is now set at 80% of the area median income for both rental and ownership housing. In 2016, the metro area median income (AMI) for a household of four is $85,800. Under these limits, a family of four can earn up to $65,700 to qualify for affordable housing. Below is a chart showing the number of market rate affordable rental units in St. Louis Park with affordable levels at 60% and 80% AMI based on the St. Louis Park Housing Authority (SLPHA) Rental Survey. Chart 8: Market Rate Affordable Rental Units in St. Louis Park # of bedrooms Rent at 60% # of units affordable at 60% Rent at 80% # of units affordable at 80% Efficiency $901 76 $1,201 178 1 bedroom $966 2173 $1,288 2538 2 bedroom $1,159 1829 $1,545 2434 3 bedroom $1,338 168 $1,784 148 4 bedroom $1,494 10 $1,992 Total 4,256 at 60% AMI 5,933 at 80% AMI *Rental rates based on Met Council data and units reported in the SLPHA Rental Survey The (SLPHA) Rental Survey had 8,417 units respond. The survey does not represent all rentals in the city. •Total non-homestead units = 11,483 •Rental units responding to the rental survey = 8417 •Rental Survey reported affordable units at 60% AMI = 4256 units o 4256 units is 51% of the reported rental units o 4256 units is 37% of total non-homestead units •Rental Survey reported affordable units at 80% AMI = 5933 units o 5933 units is 70% of the reported rental units o 5933 affordable units is 52% of all non-homestead units. •All of the reported affordable apartment units at 60% were built prior to 1987. Owner Occupied •The 2016 affordable ownership purchase price is $235,500 or less. The housing matrix also shows the data for home ownership at the 60% AMI rate and that purchase price is $180,500. •In 2016, 6671 owner occupied homes are considered affordable based on valuation data from assessing. This is 51% of the owner occupied housing stock and 27% of the total housing units. This is a decrease of nearly 400 units because of the decrease in AMI and the subsequent decrease of $5,000 to the purchase price that is considered affordable. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 11) Title: 2016 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 11 St. Louis Park Housing Matrix December 31, 2016 Housing Units by Type Large Single Family Homes, Affordable, and Senior Housing Housing Type Housing Units Net Units added in 2016 Owner Occupied (Homestead) Non Homesteaded and/or Rental Large Single Family Homes 2016 Affordable Market Rate Owner Occupied Units 60% | 80% 2016 Reported Affordable Market Rate Rental Units* 60% | 80% Public Subsidized Affordable Units, Includes Section 8 Housing Units Senior Designated Single Family Detached 11,613 47% 5 10,377 1,236 2223 885 4766 83 237 37 Duplex 434 2% 0 147 287 99 147 Condos and townhomes 3556 14% 13*** 2396 1160 1602 1905 137 252 60 Apartments 9195 37% 347 9195 3937 5298 879 958 COOPs 106 <1% 0 106 106 Totals 24,904 360 12,920 52% 11,984 48% 2223 19% 2487 19% 6671 52% 4256 36% 5932 49% 916 8% 1124 5% % of SF Homes % of Homestead % of Non- Homestead % of Non- Homestead % of Total Housing Units The percentage of owner occupied (homesteaded) units to rental or non-owner occupied (non-homesteaded) units has shifted from the 60 homesteaded/40 non- homesteaded ratio of the early 2000's to 52% homesteaded/48% non-homesteaded. This is due in part to a change in homestead status of approximately 1,200 condominium and townhouse units since the early 2000s and the addition of new multi-family rental units. Met Council revised the affordable housing income standards and now considers both rental and owner occupied housing units affordable at 80% AMI. This chart shows both owner occupied and rental units affordable at 60% AMI and 80% AMI. More data is on the following page related to affordable rents based on the number of bedrooms in a unit. *Reported Affordable Market Rate Rental Units based on SLPHA Rental Study. 87% of rental units completed the survey. The matrix above shows 37% of rental units are affordable as a percentage of non-homestead properties, 51% of the reported rental units are affordable. Data source: SLP Community Development, Development Activity in St. Louis Park, SLP Inspections and Assessing. **Added two SF homes as part of the Eliot School Development, two lot splits and one SF home on a previously undeveloped lot ***Added condo units are new parcels at Wooddale Flats. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 11) Title: 2016 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 12 Project Developer Planning Approval Type Total Units Affordable Units Status/ Completion McGurgan (owner) 4525 W 4th St Cornerstone Custom Const. (Builder)2006 Single-Family 1 Completed 2007 Hoigaard Village Harmony Vista & Camerata 5650 W 36th St Frank Dunbar 2006 Apartment 78 Unit Apt / 220 Unit Apt Completed 2008 Inglewood Condos 3125 Inglewood Ave Andrew Brenner 2006 Condo 6 Completed 2008 Park Place II Apartments "The Gables" 1361 Hampshire Ave S Bigos 2006 Apartment 49 Constructed 2008 Anna & Joel Thompson(owner) 4515 W 42nd St C.B. Hadley (Builder)2007 Single-Family 1 Completed 2008 Richard & Adrienne Harrison (Owner) 2600 Natchez Creek Hill Custom Homes (Builder)2008 Single-Family 1 Completed 2009 Ellipse 3920 Excelsior Blvd Bader 2008 Condo 132 Complete 2011 TowerLight 3601 Wooddale Ave S Greco 2008 Senior Apartment 115 Completed 2013 The Flats at West End 5310 16th St West The Excelsior Groups 2010 Apartment 119 Completed 2013 Shaun Smith (Owner) 2005 Louisiana Andrew Hewey Const. (Builder) 2010 Single-Family 1 Completed 2011 Hoigaard Village Medley Row & The Adaigo 5650 W 36th St Frank Dunbar 2011 Apartment & Rowhomes 22 Rental Rowhomes / 100 unit Apt Completed 2013 36 Park (Park Summit) 3601 Park Center Blvd EJ Plesko 2011 Apartment 192 Unit Apt Completed 2012 Eldridge 1st Addition Rob Eldridge 2011 Single-Family 4 new SF lot (5 SF lots total) Constructed 2012 Fretham 12th Add Curt Fretham 2011 Single-Family 5 new SF lots (6 SF lots total)Constructed 2013 Gateway Assisted Living 7115 Wayzata Blvd Viren Gori 2012 Assisted Living 22 Complete 2014 Calhoun Apt Homes Cty Rd 25 & Inglewood Ave Andrew Brenner 2012 Apartment 7 Completed 2014 E2 3920 Excelsior Blvd Bader 2012 Apartment 58 Completed 2013 Kaiser Subdivision Rob Eldridge 2012 Single-Family 2 Constructed 2013 Eliot 6800 Cedar Lake Rd Dan Hunt 2013 Apartment & Single- Family 138 Apt units / 2 SF Apartments Completed 2015 SF completed 2016 Wooddale Flats 3998 Wooddale Ave S Gatehouse Prop Ltd 2013 Condos 33 Under Construction Fretham 14th Addition Curt Fretham 2013 Single-Family 1 new lot created (2 SF lots total)Completed 2014 Millenium at West End 1621 West End Blvd DLC Residential 2014 Apartment 158 Completed 2015 Eldridge 5th Addition 7701 Edgebrook Rob Eldridge 2014 Single-Family 1 Constructed 2015 5609 Wood Ln Gavin May 2014 Single-Family 1 Constructed 2015 4101 31st St Apts 4101 31st St Josh Brandsted 2014 Apartment 13 Completed 2015 4106 Forest Lane ALTUS Architect/Sunny & Tiffiny Han 2015 Single-Family 1 Under Construction 4300 Brookside JP Brooks 2015 Single-Family 1 Under Construction Central Park West Phase 1 Apartment Building DLC Residential 2015 Apartment 199 Under Construction The Shoreham mixed-use building Bader Development 2015 Apartment/comm.148 30 units at 50% AMI Under Construction 4800 Excelsior Weidner 2015 Apartment 164 18 units at 60% AMI Under Construction Arlington Row Apartments West Melrose Company 2015 Apartment 34 3 units @ 80% AMI Begin 2017 Arlington Row Apartments East Melrose Company 2016 Apartment 27 3 units @ 80% AMI begin 2017 Parkway 25 Paz Sela 2016 Apartment 111 begin 2017 2915 Maryland Ave Alliance Builders 2016 Single-Family 1 Under Construction 1404 Louisiana Ave Anton Homchik 2016 Single-Family 1 Under Construction 2010 Flag Ave JR Hultman Homes 2016 Single-Family 1 Under Construction Total Units Added since 2006 Single Family 25 Condo 171 Townhome Ownership 0 Townhome Rental 22 Apartments 1815 Senior Apartments 115 Senior Assisted Living 22 Senior Condos 0 Total Units Added since 2006 2170 Housing Development Project List Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 11) Title: 2016 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 13 4.RELATED ISSUES Foreclosures Foreclosures are measured by the number of sheriff sales. The number of residential foreclosures in St. Louis Park and throughout Hennepin County has been declining since 2010. The chart below shows foreclosures since 2006. Foreclosures continue to decline and are at the lowest level since we began tracking the data. Chart 9: St. Louis Park Residential Foreclosures by Year since 2006 The trend chart below shows foreclosure by housing type over time. Chart 10: Residential Foreclosures by Housing Type *Townhome & DB = Townhome and Double Bungalow/Duplex 76 87 133 92 191 163 122 59 54 47 32 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Number of Sherrif Sales Year Residential Foreclosures by Year 56 78 93 63 106 109 82 45 39 28 21209 30 27 54 40 30 9 14 15 6 0 0 10 2 31 8 10 5 1 4 50 40 80 120 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Number Sherrif SalesYear Residential Foreclosures by Housing Type Single Family Detached Condos Townhome & DB Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 11) Title: 2016 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 14 5.ST. LOUIS PARK HUD FEDERALLY FUNDED HOUSING PROGRAMS: UPDATE The St. Louis Park Housing Authority (HA) administers programs that ensure the availability of safe and desirable housing options in the St. Louis Park community. These programs include the Public Housing program, Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance program, Continuum of Care rental assistance program, and TRAILS family self-sufficiency program. The HA currently serves over 500 eligible, low-income households through their housing programs. Public Housing The HA owns a low-rise apartment building (108 one-bedroom units and 2 two-bedroom caretaker units) built in 1975, and 37 scattered site single-family units (3 to 5 bedrooms) acquired and constructed between 1974 and 1996. Although the low-rise building is designated for general occupancy, priority is given to elderly and disabled. The single-family scattered units house families with children. The HA also holds the HUD Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) and maintains a waiting list for 12 two-bedroom Public Housing apartment units located at Louisiana Court. The units and occupancy rates for the Public Housing units are noted in the table. Public Housing Total Units 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR 5-BR December 31, 2016 Hamilton House 108 108 100% Scattered Site Single Family 37 0 0 17 17 3 100% Louisiana Court, Metropolitan Housing Opportunity (MHOP) Units 12 12 100% Total (bedroom size) 108 12 17 17 3 Total 157 100% Continuum of Care (Permanent Rental Assistance) The Continuum of Care Program (CoC) is designed to link rental assistance with supportive services for hard-to-reach homeless persons with disabilities (primarily those who are seriously mentally ill or have chronic problems with alcohol, drugs or both) and their families. Grants are provided to be used for permanent housing which must be matched with supportive services that are equal in value to the amount of rental assistance and appropriate to the needs of population to be served. St. Louis Park is the grant recipient and we partner with two sponsor organizations that administer supportive housing programs. The Housing Authority administered 21 units of Continuum of Care assistance 2016. Continuum of Care Rental Assistance Units Continuum of Care Rental units in SLP Perspectives Inc. 11 **Wayside Supportive Housing 2 Total in St. Louis Park 13 CoC units administered by SLP HA but located outside of St. Louis Park Project for Pride In Living (PPL)/Camden 8 TOTAL CoC Units Administered by HA 21 ** Perspective grant provides funding for two units of Continuum of Care Rental Assistance at Wayside House. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 11) Title: 2016 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 15 Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) The HA is allocated 268 Housing Choice Vouchers. The HA typically administers less than the allocated vouchers based on HUD funding levels; however, the HA was issuing vouchers throughout 2016. This rent assistance program provides rent subsidies for low-income individuals and families in privately owned, existing market rate housing units. The rent subsidy is paid directly to the owner of the rental property by the HA with funds provided by HUD. The HA offers both tenant-based and project-based vouchers. Forty vouchers of the HA’s allocation are designated for use in three privately owned developments (Excelsior & Grand, Vail Place, and Wayside) and are referred to as project-based vouchers. Housing Choice Voucher – Lease Up Report December 31, 2016 Units HUD Allocated Vouchers 268 Vouchers Issued (Executed, Pending, Outstanding and Leased Project Based) 250 Unleased Project-Based (PB) 0 Vouchers Outstanding 24 Executed St. Louis Park Contracts: Housing Choice Vouchers 207 Excelsior & Grand 18 Vail Place 7 Wayside Supportive Housing 15 247 Port-Ins 32 Port-Outs 43 Pending Port-Outs 3 Executed and Pending 250 Total Administered 247 Summary: % of Vouchers Utilized % Utilized, Pending, Outstanding & Unleased PB 92% 102% Waiting Lists Assisted Housing Waiting List as of December 31, 2016 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR 5-BR Total Public Housing 340 116 416 149 32 1053 Section 8 208 Excelsior & Grand 37 3-BR list opened in June, 4-BR applications are being processed and will be reflected in the 2016 Annual Report 1298 Stable HOME Rental Assistance Program The Stable HOME program provides rent assistance throughout suburban Hennepin County to low income singles and families who were homeless or would otherwise be at risk of homelessness. This program is funded with federal HOME funds allocated to the county. Single participants are also participants in the county’s Employment Pays program and families are also in the Stable Families Initiative program. For both groups the rent assistance participation is limited to 3 years, during which time they establish good rental histories and relationships and work with direct assistance from service providers to improve their earnings to the point where they do not need rent assistance. The program is administered by the St. Louis Park Housing Authority, but participants are free to choose a rental unit anywhere in suburban Hennepin County. 26 families throughout suburban Hennepin County were served by this program 2016. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 11) Title: 2016 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 16 6. PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS Technical, Design, and Conservation Services Architectural Design Service This service provides an architectural consultation for residents to assist with brainstorming remodeling possibilities and to raise the awareness of design possibilities for expansions. Residents select an approved architect from a pool developed in conjunction with the MN Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. All homeowners considering renovations are eligible for this service regardless of income; however, to ensure committed participants, residents make a $25 co- pay. Remodeling/Rehab Advisor The intention of this service is to help residents improve their homes (either maintenance or value added improvements) by providing technical help before and during the construction process. All homeowners are eligible for this service regardless of income. Resident surveys indicated that homeowners valued the service and would recommend it to others. The city contracts with the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) for this free service to homeowners. Home Energy Squad Enhanced Visit Home Energy Squad Enhanced program is a comprehensive residential energy program designed to help residents save money and energy and stay comfortable in their homes. The program which began in March, 2012, is administered by the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE). The city pays $50 per resident visit which is leveraged with funds from Xcel Energy, Center Point Energy and CEE. The cost per resident is $50 per enhanced visit. The home energy squad consultant evaluates energy saving opportunities and installs the energy- efficiency materials the homeowner choses including: door weather stripping, water heater blanket, programmable thermostat, compact fluorescent light bulbs, high efficiency shower heads and faucet aerators. They will also perform diagnostic tests including a blower door test to measure the home for air leaks, complete an insulation inspection, safety check the home’s heating system and water heater and help with next steps such as finding insulation contractors. All single family and duplex homeowners are eligible. Renters qualify for the installed visit ($30) without diagnostic tests. The Home Energy Squad Enhanced visits qualified residents for CEE’s low interest financing and utility rebates and they also notify residents of the city loan and rebate opportunities. Annual Home Remodeling Fair The cities and school district community education departments of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Golden Valley co-sponsor the annual home remodeling fair. The fair provides residents an opportunity to attend seminars, talk with vendors and city staff about permits, zoning, home improvement loans, and environmental issues related to remodeling. The fair is a self- sustaining event and vendor registration fees cover the costs. Home Remodeling Tour The annual tour is designed to meet the housing goal to remodel and expand single family owner occupied homes. The self-guided tour of six homes provides a showcase of a variety of home remodeling projects to provide ideas, information, and inspiration to other residents considering remodeling. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 11) Title: 2016 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 17 Construction Management Plan The city recognizes that many households are looking for larger homes. As a result, significant additions and/or tearing down of existing homes and rebuilding larger homes is becoming more common. Because St. Louis Park is a fully built community, these major additions and construction of new homes impacts the surrounding neighbors. Effective November 15, 2014, major additions (second story additions or additions of 500 square feet or more), demolitions and new construction need to comply with a Construction Management Plan (CMP) per City Code 6-71. Major additions, tear downs and new construction are required to send a written neighborhood notification to neighbors within 200 feet of the property. Demolitions and/or new construction will also require a neighborhood meeting and signage. Financial Programs Discount Loan Program This program encourages residents to improve their homes by “discounting” the interest rate on the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MN Housing) home improvement loans. Residents with incomes of $67,200 or less qualify for a greater discount than those with incomes of $99,500 or less. Eligible improvements include most home improvement projects with the exception of luxury items such as pools and spas. The city contracts with CEE for loan administration. Implementation of discounting of MHFA loans began in late 1999 as a pilot project. Move – Up Transformation Loan The purpose of this loan is to encourage residents with incomes at or below 120% of median area income ($102,950 for a family of four) to expand their homes. The program provides deferred loans for 25% of the applicant’s home expansion project cost, with a maximum loan of $25,000. The revolving loan pool will continue to fund future expansions. This loan requires significant upfront work by the residents, from deciding on the scope of the project to selecting contractors. Loan guidelines are: •Only residents making significant expansions are eligible. The minimum project cost must exceed $35,000. •The maximum loan amount is $25,000. •The loan has 0% interest with a carrying cost fee of 3% paid by the borrower which covers the lender’s administrative fee. Green Remodeling Program & Energy Rebates The Green Remodeling Program includes the Home Energy Squad Enhanced home visit program, use of energy rebates, and access to CEE’s Home Energy Loan. The city provides a match of 50% of gas and electric utility rebates for energy efficient furnaces, water heaters, air conditioners and qualifying air sealing and insulation. The average rebate in the first half of 2016 was approximately $270. CEE also provided low interest loans to residents making qualifying energy improvements and St. Louis Park residents can take advantage of this loan. This energy improvement loan has no income restrictions and there is no cost to the city. Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 11) Title: 2016 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report Page 18 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: March 27, 2017 Written Report: 12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Proposed Development – 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd. (Former Santorini’s Site) RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. Councilmembers should contact staff with any comments or concerns. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: Mr. William Stoddard, CEO of Stoddard Companies, has a purchase agreement for the former Santorini’s restaurant property located in the northwest quadrant of the Highway 169 and Interstate 394 interchange. Stoddard Companies is a developer, owner and manager of luxury apartments and senior living. His most recent development is “Hello Apartments” located in Golden Valley on Highway 55 near Highway 169. The redevelopment Mr. Stoddard proposes includes two buildings. The attached concept plan show a six story, 172-unit apartment building with structured parking and indoor/outdoor amenities on the west side of the site. It also shows a five story, 111 roo hotel on the east side of the site with surface parking only. Mr. Stoddard would team with a hotel developer. The hotel brand has not been identified. They are studying the site and market to determine if they will propose a limited service hotel or a high-end extended stay hotel. The proposal would include requests for Planned Unit Development (PUD), tax increment financing (TIF), and land acquisition from the city. The amount of the TIF request is not yet known. The residential portion of the building would be subject to the inclusionary housing policy and both buildings would be subject to the Green Building Policy. The city-owned land the developer would like to acquire is excess MNDOT land the city recently received on the north side of Wayzata Blvd adjacent to this site. The developer indicates the billboard signs will be removed as part of the redevelopment. TIF District: On March 21, 2016, the EDA took the strategic step of creating the establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District in anticipation of development occurring at these properties. At that time, it was anticipated that the site could accommodate 5-6 story buildings with a mix of uses ranging from hotel, medical office, and residential. NEXT STEPS: The developer will prepare plans for formal applications. The city has expected redevelopment of this site for more almost a decade. The proposed development concept program is consistent with previous discussions with the city council when the TIF District was established. For this project to move forward, the city would need to work with the developer on the land acquisition; and approve TIF and PUD requests. Please contact staff with any questions or comments regarding this proposal. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Concept Plans Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager February 2, 2017SANTORINI’SStudy Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 12) Title: Proposed Development – 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd. (Former Santorini’s Site)Page 2 129' - 0"28' - 0"26' - 0"247' - 11" Department Legend ELEVATOR APARTMENT PUBLIC CIRCULATION BACK OF HOUSE AMENITY PUBLIC SPACE GUESTROOM PARKING TRUE NORTH 8' - 6"1 8 8 ' - 6 "6' - 0"58' - 0"15' - 0"15' - 0" SERVICE Scale: 1" = 60'-0" "Santorini"SITE PLAN - 111 KEY HOTEL 2/10/2017 St. Louis Park Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 12) Title: Proposed Development – 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd. (Former Santorini’s Site)Page 3 TRUE NORTH "Santorini"Site Concept 3/8/2017 St. Louis Park Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 12) Title: Proposed Development – 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd. (Former Santorini’s Site)Page 4 17.9 15.0017.1SERVICE CURB CURB CURB EDGE OF BLACKTOP STEPS SITE AREA = 138780 SF BUILDING AREA (BLUE) = 54562 SF (39%) HARDCOVER / IMPERMEABLE AREA (RED) = 50885 SF (37%) PERMEABLE / GARDEN AREA (CYAN) = 10599 SF (8%) LANDSCAPE AREA = SITE AREA -ABOVE = 22734 SF (16%) AMENITY DECK "GREEN AREA" (NOT SHOWN) = 3000SF "Santorini"SITE PLAN - ESTIMATED SITE COVERAGE 3/8/2017 St. Louis Park Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 12) Title: Proposed Development – 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd. (Former Santorini’s Site)Page 5 January 27, 2017SANTORINI’SStudy Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 12) Title: Proposed Development – 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd. (Former Santorini’s Site)Page 6 Project Metrics Dashboard.xlsx Project Name Client Name Project Number Project Address Project Status Version Space Classification #(Multiple Items) Department BACK OF HOUSE ELEVATOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION APARTMENT AMENITY Patio / Pool Terrace PARKING (Structured)Totals Residential Level 000 1096 260 204 0 0 0 12491 14050 Residential - Level 00 1574 260 835 0 0 0 30823 33492 Grade - Level 01 571 225 889 9981 2716 0 28270 42652 Residential - Level 02 926 200 2892 23700 3616 11695 0 43030 Residential - Level 03 926 200 2892 25716 0 0 0 29735 Residential - Level 04 926 200 2892 25716 0 0 0 29735 Residential - Level 05 926 200 2892 25716 0 0 0 29735 Residential - Level 06 926 200 2892 25716 0 0 0 29735 Totals 7872 1745 16388 136547 6332 11695 71584 252163 Space Classification #2 Sum of Area Column Labels Department BACK OF HOUSE ELEVATOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION GUESTROOM PUBLIC SPACE Totals Grade - Level 01 1166 200 1186 2441 6996 11989 Hotel - Level 02 216 200 1885 8932 0 11233 Hotel - Level 03 216 200 1885 8932 0 11233 Hotel - Level 04 216 200 1885 8932 0 11233 Hotel - Level 05 216 200 1885 8932 0 11233 Totals 2030 1000 8726 38169 6996 56921 Department GUESTROOM Space Classification #2 Key Counts Key Types Department KING QUEEN / QUEEN KING - EXECUTIVE Totals Keys Grade - Level 01 4 2 1 7 Hotel - Level 02 16 8 2 26 Hotel - Level 03 16 8 2 26 Hotel - Level 04 16 8 2 26 Hotel - Level 05 16 8 2 26 Totals Keys 68 34 9 111 Apartment Unit Estimate assumes and average sf per unit, excluding parking and outdoor patio areas Residential GSF, includes all areas except: Below Grade, Parking, Roof Top / Patio. Hotel Keys estimate, verify and confirm accesible count requirements Need to verify and locate mechanical / storage functions. Current Zoning is O - Office - to be rezoned R-__ Residential & PUD for development - verify with city Hotel - R-___ Zoning R-4 Zoning for Multifamily Residential requires 15' setback from street front. SeeSite Plan for Parking Counts GSF / Unit Hotel Metrics Residetial Metrics Notes RSF / GSF Gsf / Key 512.8 83.11%309084 Project - SF Total Hotel Key Count 111950 Project Summary Project Information Stoddard 217302 172 RSF Total (Estimate Apartment) 136547 Residential GSF Total 164306 ConceptApartment Unit Estimate 111 Key Hotel - V5 Mike Engel Page 1 1/25/2017 Study Session Meeting of March 27, 2017 (Item No. 12) Title: Proposed Development – 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd. (Former Santorini’s Site)Page 7