HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017/03/13 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - JointAGENDA
MARCH 13, 2017
5:30 p.m. JOINT CITY COUNCIL & SCHOOL BOARD MEETING – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
6:00 p.m. School District & City Facility Discussions
7:10 p.m. Discuss Roles of School Board and City Council in Convening Community
Conversations
Written Reports
1. Vision 3.0 Update
2. 10 West End Update
3. PLACE’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
4. Health in the Park Update
5. PLACE Environmental Assessment Worksheet Update
6. Parkway 25 Redevelopment Updates
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.
Joint Meeting
St. Louis Park City Council and School Board
Monday, March 13, 2017
5:30 to 8:30 pm
City Council Chambers
St. Louis Park City Hall
Agenda
Meeting Objectives/Outcomes:
•To continue to grow and enhance the partnership between the School District and City.
•To increase mutual understanding of current or future activities, issues or opportunities in
each organization or the community.
5:30 pm Dinner and Making Connections (30 min)
6:00 pm School District and City Facility Discussions (60 min)
7:00 pm Break (10 min)
7:10 pm Discuss Roles of School Board and City Council in convening community
conversations. (60 min)
Adjourn
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
School Board –Options Details -3/13/2017
Achieving success,
one student at a time!
Building on previous efforts
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2015-2020 Strategic Plan
Strategy 4:
“We will ensure that our
facilities are consistent with
the needs of our learners
and our community.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conservative Enrollment
Projections
Projected Actual
14/15 4,583 4,594
15/16 4,611 4,613
16/17 4,653 4,613
17/18 4,709
18/19 4,765
19/20 4,815
20/21 4,888
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SLP Deferred Maintenance and Health & Safety Costs by Facility
Name of
School
2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 2021/2022 2022/2023 2023/2024 2024/2025 2025/2026
Aquila
Elementary
$150,550 $235,000 $155,000 $155,000 $255,000 $150,000 $450,000 $550,000 $250,000 $650,000
Cedar
Manor
$75,000 $75,000 $115,000 $115,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 $100,000 $75,000 $75,000
Central
Community
$350,000 $750,000 $450,000 $550,000 $650,000 $350,000 $350,000 $750,000 $850,000 $850,000
Lenox
Community
$125,000 $175,000 $150,000 $110,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Park
Spanish
Immersion
$350,000 $750,000 $250,000 $450,000 $250,000 $150,000 $150,000 $175,000 $150,000 $150,000
Peter Hobart
Elementary
$252,250 $100,550 $255,000 $250,000 $400,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
Susan
Lindgren
Elementary
$175,500 $200,550 $350,000 $250,000 $250,000 $350,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000
St. Louis
Park Middle
School
$375,000 $455,550 $450,000 $550,000 $375,500 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000
St.Lois Park
High School
$1,150,000 $975,00 $975,000 $855,000 $650,000 $750,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000
Facility
Grounds
$155,550 $165,900 $160,000 $150,000 $95,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $50,000 $50,000
Total
Costs
$3,158,850 $3,538,900 $3,310,000 $3,435,000 $3,075,500 $2,425,000 $2,485,000 $2,860,000 $2,585,000 $2,985,000
Central/PSI 10-year Total
$8.6M
NOT THIS…THIS.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
School of ONE
New York City, NY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
School of ONE
New York City, NY
NOT THIS…
THIS.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
NEXT Century Characteristics
•Rapidly (re)configurable
•Mobile furnishings & technology
•Visual transparency
•Relentless variety
•Invites INQUIRY (not passive)
•Shared ownership of space
•Learning happens everywhere
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
COMMON GROUND
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•Learning for all ages
•More Space at MS
•Exit date for Central
•PSI moves to Cedar Manor
•Auditorium at MS
•Weight room at HS
•Central kitchen (explore location)
•Take District Center out of HS
•Committed space for Early Childhood
•Look at possibilities on owned properties
•All-school lists : Security-Technology-HVAC -Accessibility
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sustainability Strategies –Facility
Standards
The Mission of the
SLP Standards is to
create and
maintain a tool
that helps others
build excellent
learning
environments.
IMPROVEMENT PROPOSALS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•From Learning Team Ideas and Common Ground
•Incorporated additional program information
•Administrative lens applied
•Concepts not Designs
Look for how the Common Ground is addressed in
each
Proposal packages build on each other:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$40 M
Package
$75 M Package - B$75 M Package - A
$125 M Package
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$40M Package
$40M Package –SLP High School
•Addition for central Kitchen, Dining Commons
•Offices and Counseling relocate into District
Space
•Additions & remodeling for learning
space
•Addition for secure entry /office
expansion$40M Package –SLP Middle School
•Additions & remodeling for
learning space / Science
•Link to connect wings
$40M Package –SLP Middle School
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$75M Package – A
Orange text is what’s added
or modified in this package
berm &
trees
$75M Package –A –Cedar Manor Site
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pilot Classroom Roll-Out
$75M Package –A –Pilot Classroom Roll-out
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$75M Package – B
$75M Package – B –SLP High
School
$75M Package –B –Middle School
$75M Package – B – Middle
School
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$125M Package
$125M Package –Middle School
Proposal packages build on each other:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$40 M
Package
$75 M Package - B$75 M Package -
A
$125 M Package
Estimated Tax Impact
January 23, 2016
Estimated
Market Value
Existing Debt
ONLY
$40 Million
Option
$75 Million
Option
$125 Million
Option
$250,000 $ 268 / Annual
$ 22.33 / Month
$ 71 / Annual
$ 5.92 / Month
$ 132 / Annual
$ 11.00 / Month
$ 221 / Annual
$ 18.41 / Month
(SLP Median Home Value)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thanks!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rec Center Cost estimate 2017 TB Form Revised 03/01/06
Main project Page 2 of 31 Printed 3/9/2017
St. Louis Park District 283 Estimator / Date:TB January 26, 2017
COST ESTIMATE Reviser / Date:1-Feb-17
NEW CONSTRUCTION / MAJOR REMODELING Reviser / Date:
Reviser / Date:
BUILDING:High School Reviser / Date:
DEPARTMENT:Reviser / Date:
PROJECT TITLE:Proposed Rec Center Addition Reviser / Date:
ASSIGNED PROJECT #:001 Reviser / Date:
Assumptions:
CONSTRUCTION ITEMS QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST COST W/ ESCALATION W/ SOFT COSTS
-$ -$ -$ -$
Demolition:-$ -$ -$ -$
Site demolition to prepare for 43,000 sf facility 43000 sf 22.75$ 978,250$ 1,027,163$ 1,232,595$
Parking Lot Addition 50 ea 350.00$ 17,500$ 18,375$ 22,050$
Site development 5 acre 50,000.00$ 250,000$ 262,500$ 315,000$
General Construction: Walls, flooring, concrete, sheetrock, studs, ceiling, millwork,43000 sf 89.00$ 3,827,000$ 4,018,350$ 4,822,020$
carpentry, labor, glass, specialties.-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
Mechanical: Plumbing, fire protection, supply/exhaust systems, air conditioning, 43000 sf 112.00$ 4,816,000$ 5,056,800$ 6,068,160$
dampers, balancing, stats, toilet, sinks, WC, and misc items -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
Electrical: Lighting, switches, fire alarm, motor control, outlets, emergency power,43000 sf 98.00$ 4,214,000$ 4,424,700$ 5,309,640$
panel boards, security power, telecommunication lines, and misc.-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
Security: card readers, hardware, camera's, and security head end equipment.43000 sf 26.50$ 1,139,500$ 1,196,475$ 1,435,770$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
Abatement 1 allowance 6,500.00$ 6,500$ 6,825$ 8,190$
-$ -$ -$ -$
Unknown Conditions 0.00%Sum of Costs:15,248,750$ -$ -$ -$
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 15,248,750$ 16,011,188$ 19,213,425$
SQUARE FOOTAGE 43,000 SF
1.That the land and site can have the ability to handle a building expansion.
2. That the City will allow variances to the site for the development of a Rec Center.
3. That the estimate is based on 2017 construction costs.
4. That work will commence no later than 2019.
Rec Center Cost estimate 2017 TB Form Revised 03/01/06
Main project Page 3 of 31 Printed 3/9/2017
MISC. CONSTRUCTION ITEMS QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST COST W/ ESCALATION W/ SOFT COSTS
Voice and Data Cabling Installation 15 ea 14,550.00$ 218,250$ 229,163$ 274,995$
Signage 5 ea 1,500.00$ 7,500$ 7,875$ 9,450$
Owner's Temporary Enclosure / Protection 1 ls 2,500.00$ 2,500$ 2,625$ 3,150$
Millwork 750 lf 35.00$ 26,250$ 27,563$ 33,075$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
Asbestos Containing Building Materials 0 -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
TEMPORARY RELOCATION CONSTRUCTION FOR USER GROUP -$ -$
Build out Costs -$ -$ -$ -$
phones / data 1 ls 1,000.00$ 1,000$ 1,050$ 1,260$
Temporary Signage 1 ls 1,500.00$ 1,500$ 1,575$ 1,890$
Security -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
MISC. CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 257,000$ 269,850$ 323,820$
Construction Subtotal 15,505,750$ 16,281,038$ 19,537,245$
Building Commissioning (Does not include consulting)2% if applicable 0.00%15,505,750$ -$ -$ -$
General Requirements 1.00%15,505,750$ 155,058$ 162,810$ 195,372$
Overhead and Profit 1.00%15,660,808$ 156,608$ 164,438$ 197,326$
Sustainable Building Initiatives 10% if applicable 0.00%15,817,416$ -$ -$ -$
CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL 15,817,416$ 16,608,286$ 19,929,944$
OTHER COSTS (not calculated in consulting fee)QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST COST W/ ESCALATION W/ SOFT COSTS
Moving 1 allowance 2,500.00$ 2,500$ 2,625$ 3,019$
Security (additional staffing during construction)-$ -$ -$ -$
Training -$ -$ -$ -$
Extended Warranties -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
RELOCATION COSTS
Leasing -$ -$ -$ -$
Operating Costs -$ -$ -$ -$
Moving -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
OTHER COSTS TOTAL 2,500$ 2,625$ 3,019$
Rec Center Cost estimate 2017 TB Form Revised 03/01/06
Main project Page 4 of 31 Printed 3/9/2017
FURNISHINGS ITEMS QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST COST W/ ESCALATION W/ SOFT COSTS
Contract Furnishings
Allsteel Workstations 10 ea 5,600.00$ 56,000$ 58,800$ 68,796$
Task Chairs 75 ea 488.00$ 36,600$ 38,430$ 44,963$
Tables 15 ea 644.00$ 9,660$ 10,143$ 11,867$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
Furnishings as a % of Construction Cost (if detailed furnishings program unknown)0.0%Const. Sum:15,248,750$ -$ -$ -$
Installation 1 ls 3,000.00$ 3,000$ 3,150$ 3,686$
Delivery -$ -$ -$ -$
Sales tax (no sales tax for libraries)6.5%Furnishing Sum:102,260$ 6,647$ 6,979$ 8,166$
FURNISHINGS COST TOTAL 111,907$ 117,502$ 137,478$
EQUIPMENT ITEMS QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST COST W/ ESCALATION W/ SOFT COSTS
Security Equipment -$ -$ -$ -$
Card Access Systems 10 ea 1,800.00$ 18,000$ 18,900$ 21,735$
Duress Alarms 9 ea 1,500.00$ 13,500$ 14,175$ 16,301$
Camera/Monitoring 15 ea 2,500.00$ 37,500$ 39,375$ 45,281$
Additional Head end Equipment 1 ls 7,500.00$ 7,500$ 7,875$ 9,056$
SUBTOTAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT -$ 76,500$ 80,325$ 92,374$
-$ -$ -$ -$
Data Communications -$ -$ -$ -$
Telephones (non VOIP)12 ls 4,500.00$ 54,000$ 56,700$ 65,205$
Audio / Visual -$ -$ -$ -$
Shelving -$ -$ -$ -$
Parking Control -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$
Installation -$ -$ -$ -$
Delivery -$ -$ -$ -$
Sales tax (no sales tax for libraries)6.5%Equipment Sum 130,500$ 8,483$ 8,907$ 10,243$
EQUIPMENT COST TOTAL 138,983$ 145,932$ 167,821$
CONSULTING SERVICES ITEMS FORMULAS:PERCENTAGE UNIT COST W/ ESCALATION W/ SOFT COSTS
Basic Consulting Services PERCENTAGE X CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL 5.00%15,817,416$ 790,871$ 830,414$ 954,976$
Furnishings Consulting Services PERCENTAGE x FURNISHINGS COST TOTAL 2.00%111,907$ 2,238$ 2,350$ 2,703$
Equipment Consulting Services PERCENTAGE x EQUIPMENT COST TOTAL 0.00%138,983$ -$ -$ -$
Additional Consulting Services (enter as percentage of construction costs OR lump sum)% of Const:Lump Sum:
Programming / Predesign -$ -$ -$
Phasing -$ -$ -$
Security -$ -$ -$
Record Drawings -$ -$ -$
Reimbursables -$ -$ -$
Commissioning 2% if applicable 1.00%158,174$ 166,083$ 190,995$
Moving Coordination -$ -$ -$
Environmental -$ -$ -$
Low Voltage -$ -$ -$
ESTIMATING 1.00%158,174$ 166,083$ 190,995$
CONSULTING SERVICES TOTAL 1,109,457$ 1,164,930$ 1,339,670$
Rec Center Cost estimate 2017 TB Form Revised 03/01/06
Main project Page 5 of 31 Printed 3/9/2017
COST SUMMARY BEFORE ESCALATION:2017 COST SUMMARY AFTER ESCALATION & ROUNDING:2017 Escalation to Mid-Construction
SITE ACQUISITION -$ SITE ACQUISITION -$ 5% annual Escalation
CONSTRUCTION 15,817,416$ Select Construction Year: CONSTRUCTION 16,609,000$ N/A 1.000
CONSULTING 1,109,457$ 2017 CONSULTING 1,165,000$ 2017 1.050
FURNISHINGS 111,907$ Escalation factor equals: FURNISHINGS 118,000$ 2017.5 1.076
EQUIPMENT 138,983$ 1.050 EQUIPMENT 146,000$ 2018 1.103
OTHER 2,500$ Adjustments*:0.000 OTHER 3,000$ 2018.5 1.130
CONTINGENCY** 15.00%2,577,039 Final Factor:1.050 CONTINGENCY**2,706,000$ 2019 1.158
TOTAL PROJECT COST 19,757,302$ 20,747,000$ 2019.5 1.187
*ESCALATION FACTOR ADJUSTMENT NOTE:2020 1.216
Cost total 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 TOTALS 2020.5 1.246
SITE ACQUISITION -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2021 1.276
CONSTRUCTION 15,817,416$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 15,817,416$ 2021.5 1.308
CONSULTING 1,109,457$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,109,457$
FURNISHINGS 111,907$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 111,907$ **Note: Contingency is applied to:
EQUIPMENT 138,983$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 138,983$ Construction
OTHER 2,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,500$ Consulting
CONTINGENCY 2,577,039$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,577,039$ Furnishings
CITY FEES 350$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 350$ Equipment
TOTAL 19,757,652$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 19,757,652$ Other
SITE ACQUISITION Fixed 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
CONSTRUCTION Fixed 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
CONSULTIVE SERVICES Fixed 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Percent of Phase billable per year
FURNISHINGS Fixed 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%(each phase totals 100%)
EQUIPMENT Fixed 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
OTHER Fixed 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
CONTINGENCY Fixed 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
CITY FEES Fixed 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
SF Costs for this tab:$ / SF:Scheduling:2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Start Date:
Based on SF amount of:43,000 Programming
Total Project $459.48 Pre-Planning
Construction $367.85 SD
Furniture $2.60 DD
Security Equipment $2.15 CD
Consulting $25.80 Bidding
Construction
Close-out
Use X's to create bar graph showing
schedule durations for each phase
and enter a phase start date
(e.g. 07/01/08).
INTERPRETIVE CENTER – Existing Building Condition•Poor Material and Systems’ ConditionoWater Infiltration- wall and roofoEnergy Performance and ComfortoSystem deficiencies and concernsoMaterial QualityoNo Fire Suppression•Location- SitingoDistance to ParkingoTrial Access/Vehicle Access•Configuration/Lack of SpaceoEntranceoDisconnected StaffoInadequate Space for ProgramoNo Storm ShelteroMulti-Use is Over UsedExisting Program & Faculty Review‐Pg.9
Vision‐Pg.20
Entrance 600 SFCombined Office/Staff Area 1600 SFSupport/Storage 1400 SFRest/Relax 600 SFDisplay/Animals 800 SFGathering/Exhibit 1200 SFMulti-purpose Rooms 1-2 2000 SFMulti-purpose Room 3 1000 SFServing 700 SFCorridor 700 SFRestrooms 600 SFMechanical 800 SFTotal 12,000 SFProposed 2016 Needs–Future Building DesignVision‐Pg.25‐27
Vision‐Pg.27
Appendix B‐Pg.21
Appendix B‐Pg.22
Appendix B‐Pg.22
Appendix B‐Pg.23
Appendix B‐Pg.23
Westwood Hills Nature Center Schedule
The following is a timeline the City of St. Louis Park desires to meet, however it is subject to change.
Proposals sent to invited firms ................................................................ March 13, 2017
Optional Pre-proposal Meeting at WWHNC & Site Review ................... April 3, 2017
Last date for questions ................................................................................ April 20, 2017
Proposals Due ............................................................................................... April 24, 2017
Interviews for Selected Consultants ........................................... Week of May 8, 2017
City Council Approval ................................................................................. June 5, 2017
Completed Plan Specifications & Bid Documents ..................... Early October 2018
Construction Starts .......................................................................................... Spring 2019
Construction Completed ................................................................................... Fall 2020
The City has a $12 million budget established which includes the design and construction of a
new Interpretive Center including all listed amenities and demolition and removal of the existing
Interpretive Center building.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 13, 2017
Written Report: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Vision 3.0 Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is an update on Vision 3.0 and
upcoming activities and schedule.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please inform staff of any questions you might
have.
SUMMARY: Vision 3.0 activities are well underway. The following events have occurred (please
see attached table for more details on the events):
Facilitator training was held February 21. Approximately 55 community members and
seven staff attending to learn a protocol for holding community conversations. Those
attending are planning for one or more conversations in their neighborhoods, places of
worship, clubs or other group. These conversations will occur before May 1 and will allow
an estimated 300-500 people to talk about the future of St. Louis Park.
The first Town Hall meeting on February 22 was attended by 35 people who engaged in
small group conversations, then reported out to the large group.
The March 2 Facebook Live Town Hall meeting had up to 37 peak live viewers. Since
March 2, 1,600 people have watched the video, nearly 5,000 people have been reached and
203 comments have been posted. The top audience has been women ages 25-34, with total
viewing audience of 37% men and 62% women.
Additional events are scheduled for March and April, including:
Town Hall meeting at City Hall Thursday, March 16, 7 p.m.
Facebook Live Town Hall meeting Thursday, April 13, 8 p.m.
Chalkboards will be placed at community events and venues in the city from March
through May. This will allow people to write down their one wish for St. Louis Park.
Answers will be recorded and included in the final Vision 3.0 report.
Online outreach and opportunities for input will continue over the next few months.
The city’s website is updated continually with Vision events and activities, including
facilitator-led discussions that are open to the public.
Community Outreach efforts have been extensive, as detailed in the “Discussion” section.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Any expense for the activities being
undertaken are accounted for in the Development Fund budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Photo of Chalkboard
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner
Jacqueline Larson, Communications and Marketing Manager
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Deputy Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Page 2 Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 3.0 Update
DISCUSSION
COMMUNITY OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
City-Wide Mailings
Postcards were mailed to all homes February 13 with information on upcoming events and dates.
These postcards were translated into Russian, Spanish and Somali and are being made available
as requested. Spanish postcards were recently hand delivered in an apartment complex in town
with a number of Spanish-speaking residents
City Website
The City’s website has the Vision 3.0 information translated into Russian, Spanish, and Somali.
Updates are continuous.
Social Media
Starting February 14, weekly questions have been posted on Facebook, Twitter and Nextdoor to
gather input from residents. Information about Vision 3.0 events and opportunities for input have
also been posted to these three social media outlets. Two scheduled Facebook Live Town Hall
meetings are part of community outreach.
Email List
An email contact list of about 350 community members and businesses will be used for email
blasts about upcoming Vision 3.0 events. The list includes city council, boards and commissions,
neighborhood leaders and block captains, community organizations, places of worship, businesses
and more. The email list was used to publicize the first Facebook Live Town Hall meeting.
ParkTV
ParkTV is airing bulletin board announcements between programming and on Ch. 16 during
downtime of live sports broadcasts.
Park Perspective Newsletter
The city-wide publication will include a progress report/project update in each publication during
the course of the project, beginning in February.
Sun Sailor
Working with the Sun Sailor to publish articles and information (article in 2/2/17 edition).
St. Louis Park Magazine
Advertisement for Vision 3.0 in the March 2017 issue.
Additional Outreach
The Steering Committee members, the trained facilitators and staff continue to contact additional
people and organizations. Additional outreach includes information disseminated during the
facilitated community conversations, distributing translated flyers in apartment complexes and
contacting people and organizations throughout the community.
Page 3 Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 3.0 Update
VISION 3.0 EVENT SCHEDULE
Community-wide events are bolded. Events already held are in yellow; upcoming events are in
blue.
Completed Events
January Jan 17th - 1st Steering Committee Meeting 6:30-7:30
February Feb 21 - Train the Facilitator 6 – 8:30 PM
Approximately 56 people were at the Train the Facilitator session. Our
Consultant Rebecca Ryan trained the group with a guidebook and materials for
hosting a community conversation. The group learned the protocol for the
meetings, practiced portions and learned how to report the input received. A
map of where the meetings would be held was created through attendees
adding post-it notes. Those holding meetings open to the public noted so, and
these meetings will be on the city’s website.
The “big questions” that are being asked in the community conversations are:
•When I think about my community or neighborhood, I feel _____ and
I wish _
•One thing I'd really like St. Louis Park to continue doing, because
it's so good for our community, is _______________
•Something that I think we should consider changing is _____________
•Who isn't here that we know? Who (type of neighbor) isn't here that we
don't know?
•Who might benefit from any vision that we create for our community?
•What does it look like to advance racial equity in St. Louis Park?
•What would make you feel more comfortable in our community?
Feb 22 - 1st Town Hall 7 PM – 8:15 PM
•Steering Committee meeting at 6 – 7 PM
Approximately 35 people attended the first Town Hall meeting. They worked
together at small tables on priorities for the future of the city. They
reconvened as a large group and shared their top themes with the large group.
These themes were: (in no order):
•Environmental stewardship and sustainability
•Appropriate housing that meets our population’s needs
•Preparing children for the future in a modern way
•Racial equity
•Connecting communities with many modes
•Education – getting kids to graduation , more after school programs, continuing
adult ed,
•Tie seniors with Council – a Commission?
•High speed, affordable internet
•A center for the arts
•Planning, anticipating high density housing
•Outreach – go to where people are
•Affordable, quality housing and keeping rent affordable for all people
•Nurture and support small businesses (no big box)
Page 4 Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 3.0 Update
March March 2 – 1st Facebook Live Town Hall 8 PM
The Facebook Live Town Hall is a question and answer session with Rebecca
Ryan on Facebook, and the first one was held live from 8-8:30 p.m. Between
30-40 people participated in the event, by responding to the questions posed.
As of Friday, March 3rd, 3,439 people had been reached and there were 1,200
views of the video. Over 1230 comments have been posted. To view the video,
go to the city’s Facebook page.
Upcoming Events
March 16 - 2nd Town Hall 7 PM – 8:15
•Steering Committee meeting at 6 – 7 PM
April April 13 - 2nd Facebook Live Town Hall 8 pm
April 17 Trends game w/ City Council and Directors – 6 – 7:30 pm
April 18 - Steering Committee Meeting 6:30 pm
May May 16 (date tentative) - Steering Committee Meeting 6:30 pm
Additional Events/Input Opportunities
April- June Community conversations will be held in this time period. Materials will be
sent to the Consultant for summary and synthesis. Consultant will work closely
with Steering Committee to prepare draft Vision statements.
Casual engagement will include chalkboards at events and locations in the
community (see attached photo from another community). The question
posed on these boards will be “What’s your one wish for St. Louis Park's
Future?” The staff Communications and Outreach Committee is creating a plan
for placing the chalkboards at community events (such as the Children First Ice
Cream Social and events at Wolfe Park) and potentially businesses such as
grocery stores, where a wide swath of the community can participate.
Special populations conversations
Another form of outreach the Consultant is providing is attention to particular
areas or populations. For example, she has already worked with Meadowbrook
Collaborative and High School students to train them to hold the community
conversations to collect input on the future of the city. Additional populations
and/or areas are being identified and contacted.
June Wrap Up and Complete Synthesis of Input
In this timeframe, the Consultant will work with the Steering Committee to
complete the analysis of the input and prepare draft Vision statements for City
Council review.
Page 5 Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 1)
Title: Vision 3.0 Update
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 13, 2017
Written Report: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 10 West End Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is provided in advance of an item
that will be on the March 20 EDA and Council agendas.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA/City Council support extending the required
commencement and completion dates of the Central Park West Phases IV and V office buildings
by one year so as to allow the developers sufficient time to prelease the buildings in order to attract
equity investors?
SUMMARY: In December 2014 responsibility for the construction of the Phase IV and V office
buildings required under the Contract for Private Redevelopment with Central Park West, LLC,
was assigned to The Excelsior Group. Under the Third Amendment to the Contract, the
construction commencement and completion dates for Phase IV were established at April 1, 2017
and September 30, 2018 respectively. The construction commencement and completion dates for
Phase V were established at April 1, 2020 and September 30, 2021 respectively.
The Excelsior Group has subsequently teamed with Ryan Companies for the development, design,
and construction of the office buildings at Central Park West. Throughout the last year, the team
conducted their property due diligence and prepared complete site and building plans. These plans
were submitted to both St. Louis Park and Golden Valley and approvals for the first office building
(10 West End) were granted by both municipalities in fall 2016. During this time the team was in
active discussions with a prospective anchor tenant for 125,000 SF or 35% of the building.
Unfortunately, that tenant elected to renew its lease in its current location and forego relocating
into the new 10 West End building. Based on discussions with prospective equity partners, who
remain very interested in the development, the team maintains that 40-50% of the proposed office
building needs to be pre-leased (approximately. 125,000 SF – 160,000 SF) to initiate construction
of the project. Constructing a $100 million building on a speculative basis without sufficient
prelease commitments would involve considerable financial risk.
As required under the Redevelopment Contract, the team submitted a report to staff outlining its
project progress to date and its plans to aggressively market 10 West End to prospective tenants.
Given the required commencement and completion dates for Phases IV and V envisioned in the
Contract will not be realized, the developers have requested a one year extension so as to allow
them sufficient time to reach their pre-leasing threshold. Provided the EDA/City Council is
supportive of providing such extensions, a Fourth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract will
be presented for consideration on March 20th.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The construction delay means that the
original Redeveloper’s (Duke Realty) reimbursement of TIF-eligible expenses related to the
Central Park West portion of the overall West End project will likewise be delayed. Once the
subject properties are redeveloped and fully assessed, Duke’s TIF payments will increase.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Finance & Commerce Article of 2-14-17
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 13, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: 10 West End Update
Preleasing critical to new Twin Cities office projects
By: Matt M. Johnson February 14, 2017 5:13 pm 0
The 11-story 10 West End in St. Louis Park will bring 315,000 square feet of new office space to the
Interstate 394 corridor. Development partners Ryan Cos. and The Excelsior Group are seeking
tenants to prelease space before starting construction. (Submitted rendering: Ryan Cos./The
Excelsior Group)
Successful new multitenant office projects in the Twin Cities will make it to the market based on
how much space gets preleased before construction, says a Ryan Cos. development executive
whose company has learned from experience.
And to sign those leases, office developers need to embrace “creative office” design, whether they
are building in Minneapolis’ North Loop or in the suburbs.
Three office market experts who spoke Tuesday at a NAIOP Minnesota event in Golden Valley said
there is no question the Twin Cities can and will absorb more new office space in the next few
years. The trick is giving both tenants and investors what they want, they told 210 attendees during
a discussion called “Office Acquisitions and Development, Twin Cities Style.”
The preleasing lesson hit home for Minneapolis-based Ryan Cos. late last year when executives went
looking for investors to finance the 10 West End office project in St. Louis Park, which it is
developing with The Excelsior Group.
The 11-story, 315,000-square-foot building would be the first in about 17 years to be built in the
Interstate 394 corridor. But the project got only a couple of nibbles from potential investors when
Ryan and The Excelsior Group pushed it as an entirely speculative project, said panel member Tony
Barranco, Ryan’s vice president of office and mixed-use development.
Office vacancy in the I-394 corridor was 12.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2016, according to the
quarterly Marketview report published by the Minneapolis office of CBRE.
The project partners have since changed tack and are trying to sign tenants before the first shovel
goes in the ground. Barranco said Ryan and The Excelsior Group are looking for about $35 million in
equity investment. The overall budget for 10 West End will be close to $100 million.
“We’re going to prelease the asset,” Barranco said. “With a preleasing story on a site that is that
strong, we’re going to be in better shape to pick an equity partner and go.”
Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: 10 West End Update
That “preleasing story” isn’t a difficult one to write in 2017. Most tenants want the same
thing: “creative” spaces that include big windows and wide-open floor plans.
“We’ve been calling it ‘creative office’ for the past few years,” Barranco said. “It really should just be
called ‘office’ now, because that’s what everybody wants.”
The “poster child” for the current trend in office design is the North Loop, said Gordy Stofer, vice
president of office development for Bloomington-based United Properties. United is developing a
192,820-square-foot office building in the 700 block of Washington Avenue North that has attracted
two companies to lease about two-thirds of the space.
He said tenants are searching for office space that references older, remodeled buildings, such as
the North Loop’s Ford Center and Loose-Wiles Building. Leasing space in the Washington Avenue
project relied in part on marketing a design that mirrored some of the qualities in those two
buildings.
“You’ve got to be really focused on your marketing materials and make sure you have a good,
cohesive, well-thought-through story and value proposition for the tenants,” Stofer said.
An ideal level of preleasing in a new building is 30 to 50 percent if investors are to take notice, he
said. Preleasing preferences plus an abundance of caution among lenders will probably limit the
Twin Cities market to no more than two major office projects being built at a time, Stofer said.
The panelists said the current design trend is just that, a trend. Office tenants will likely look for
something different in the future.
One office feature tenants have been asking for that may change is the demand for ever-denser
workspace. Barranco said that density could be as tight as one employee for every 110 square feet
in the Minneapolis Downtown East Wells Fargo towers, which his company completed earlier this
year.
But that density might affect worker health, said panel member Ryan Watts, a senior vice president
with the Minneapolis office of CBRE. That is something at he said one New York CBRE associate told
him recently.
“When people get too dense, there’s an increase in sick time,” Watts said.
Barranco noted that new projects like the Wells Fargo buildings do have large amenity spaces that
could be converted to office use.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 13, 2017
Written Report: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: PLACE’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
RECOMMENDED ACTION: This report presents staffs review of PLACE’s application for
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance in connection with its redevelopment at the SE quadrant
of Highway 7 & Wooddale Ave.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the EDA willing to consider:
•Reimbursing PLACE with up to $5.66 million in tax increment assistance generated by the
redevelopment over 15 years to assist the project’s financial feasibility?
•If so, does the EDA/City Council wish to proceed with a resolution calling for a public
hearing for the establishment of the proposed Wooddale Station TIF District?
SUMMARY: Nonprofit developer, PLACE, submitted plans for a major redevelopment at the
southeast quadrant of Highway 7 and Wooddale Ave, and the northeast corner of W 36th Street
and Wooddale Ave. The proposed plans depict a mixed-use, mixed-income, transit-oriented, and
environmentally sustainable development. Project components include: two apartment buildings
with a total of 299 residential units (200 affordable and 99 market rate), a 110-room hotel, a 10,800
SF E-generation/co-generation/greenhouse facility, approximately 16,200 SF of ground floor
commercial/retail space, and a one acre “urban forest.” There is a financial gap in the project’s
residential financial pro forma. Accordingly, PLACE submitted an application for Tax Increment
Financing (TIF) assistance.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: PLACE would acquire the assembled
redevelopment site from the EDA and City for $6.457 million. Updated cost estimates show Total
Development Costs (TDC) to be approximately $123 million. According to the analysis conducted
by the EDA’s financial consultant, Ehlers, the residential portion of the project is not financially
feasible due the high number of affordable units (200 of the 299 units or 67% of the project),
corresponding restricted rents and related development costs. To offset the gap in financing the
housing portion, the project demonstrates a need for up to $5.66 million in a pay-as-you-go tax
increment generated by the overall development over a 15 year term. The requested $5.66 million
of TIF assistance brings the housing portion of the project closer to financial feasibility; however,
PLACE has significant work remaining relative to cost refinement, financing, fundraising and
securing of equity partners before the project can proceed.
Upon the project’s completion, it is estimated that the total taxable market value of the
redevelopment would be approximately $62 million. Provided the EDA is supportive of providing
TIF assistance, the EDA will be asked to begin the formal process of establishing a redevelopment
TIF district, which has a term of 26 years. The first step is to call for a public hearing date. A
resolution calling for a public hearing for the establishment of the proposed Wooddale Station TIF
District is scheduled for March 20th.
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
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor/Deputy CD Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: PLACE’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: PLACE (Projects Linking Art, Community & Environment), a Minneapolis
501(c)(3) nonprofit developer, is proposing to redevelop a site located at the southeast quadrant of
Highway 7 and Wooddale Ave and the northeast corner of W 36th Street and Wooddale Ave. The
site is divided by the CP RR line and the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail and located in the
Elmwood Neighborhood. The site consists of approximately 6.9 acres (4.9 AC on the north side
and 2 AC on the south side). The site runs parallel to the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail and is
situated on either side of the future SWLRT Wooddale Station.
Location of PLACE redevelopment at Wooddale Station
CURRENT PROPOSAL: PLACE proposes to acquire nine properties from the EDA and City,
raze the former McGarvey Coffee and Nash Frame buildings, and construct a mixed-use, mixed-
income, transit-oriented, environmentally sustainable development. Current plans depict four
buildings split on the north and south sides of the future SWLRT Wooddale Station. PLACE’s
revised project plans were reviewed and discussed at the February 13, 2017 Study Session where
they were favorably received. As discussed at the Study Session, the proposed PLACE project
consists of the following components:
•2 apartment buildings with a total of 299 residential units between them (of which 200
would be affordable and 99 would be market-rate) including 99 mixed-income live/work
units.
•110-room hotel
•10,800 sq. ft. e-generation /co-generation /greenhouse facility
Approximately 16,200 sq. ft. of ground floor commercial/retail space for a café, coffee
house, bike shop, and five microbusinesses
•445 parking spaces (structured, surface, and street)
•510,778 sq. ft. of total program space
•1 AC “urban forest”
The entire project is being designed to achieve LEED Gold certification.
Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: PLACE’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM: As discussed at previous study sessions, the
proposed PLACE development would be constructed on the north and south sides of the SWLRT
Wooddale Station as shown below.
Proposed PLACE Site Plan
Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: PLACE’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
North Side Components:
• Residential/Commercial building
• 5 stories
• 218 total dwellings
• 152 apartments affordable for families with incomes up to 60% AMI,
including 10 live/work units ($51,480 per year for a family of four)
• 66 market rate apartments (including 8 live/work units)
• Retail bike shop and repair: 2,484 sq. ft.
• Makers Space: 2,724 sq. ft.
• E-Generation/Co-generation/Greenhouse facility
• 1 story building with 10,800 total sq. ft.
• Anaerobic digester and energy balancing equipment: 8,300sq.ft. (scaled to
accommodate organics generated exclusively from the PLACE project yet
expandable to accommodate offsite organics).
• Vertical greenhouse for urban agriculture: 2,500 sq. ft.
• Urban Forest
• 1-acre urban retreat parallel to the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail
• Parking:
• 220 spaces including underground, surface (with solar canopy) and on-street
parking
• 5 car-share spaces
South Side Components:
• Residential/Commercial
• 6 stories
• 81 total dwellings
• 48 live/work apartments affordable for families with incomes up to 60% AMI
($51,480 per year for a family of four)
• 33 live/work market rate apartments (including 5 “Type II” live/work units (a
special prototype that features an apartment connected to a 250 square foot
micro-storefront that allows the household to affordably operate a street-level
commercial business)
• Cafe: 4,644 sq. ft.
• Coffee House: 1,173 sq. ft.
• Maker/Co-working Space (Work Hub): 2,724 sq. ft. (split between 2 stories)
• Hotel:
• 6 stories
• 48,047 sq. ft
• 110 rooms
• Select service (Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott managed by Aimbridge
Hospitality)
• Parking:
• 225 spaces including underground, structured and surface
• 5 car-share spaces
Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: PLACE’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
Affordable Housing & Housing Unit Mix
Both apartment buildings are mixed income with a total of 99 market-rate units and 200 units
affordable to households at 60% of the Area Median Income* (AMI) ($51,480 per year in 2016
for a family of four). Of these 299 units, 99 are designated as live/work spaces for creatives (58
affordable and 41 market rate). The project’s overall dwelling unit mix is as follows:
*Median household income is the level at which half the households have lower incomes and half the households
have higher incomes; it is not an average.) In 2016 the AMI in Hennepin County for a family of four was $86,600.
OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT’S SOURCES AND USES
There are five primary components within the PLACE project: affordable housing, market rate
housing, hotel, commercial/retail/workhub, and e-generation/co-generation. Each component’s
sources and uses statements, cash flow projections, and investor rate of return (ROR) were
analyzed by Ehlers and staff to determine to what extent the project may have a financial gap
justifying the use of TIF.
Units %Units %Units %
Studio 26 26%106 53%132 44%
1 Bedroom 38 38%52 26%90 30%
2 Bedroom 27 27%21 11%48 16%
3 Bedroom 8 8%19 10%27 9%
4 Bedroom 0 0%2 1%2 1%
Total 99 200 299
Market Rate Affordable TotalUnit Type
Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Title: PLACE’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
Project Financing Sources
PLACE’s anticipated financing sources for the project are as follows (as refined by Ehlers):
1. Tax Exempt Bonds. The rental housing anticipates receiving funding through Low-
Income Housing Tax Credits and tax exempt bond financing provided by the State/City.
The City has no liability regarding the repayment of these bonds, and the administrative
fee that it charges goes to the housing rehabilitation fund. At the October 10, 2016 Study
Session, the City Council expressed a willingness to issue such a bond provided the
Developer met all the criteria in the application process. On December 19, 2016, the City
Council adopted a resolution authorizing PLACE to seek $55 million in multifamily
housing bonds from the State. The $27.1 million allocation subsequently awarded was
significantly less than anticipated given the oversubscription of housing bonds, but still
sufficient to secure the project’s low-income housing tax credits by right. The term of
financing is anticipated to be 35 years at 5%. The term is the maximum term for these
types of bonds (and common) and the rate is on the higher end of recent housing projects;
however, the assumed 5% is acceptable at this time due to the current uncertainty within
the market. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America will purchase the project
tax credits. In April, the City Council will be asked to conduct a public hearing to
consider providing final approval for the Bonds and related documents.
2. Private activity bonds and tax credits. PLACE will seek other tax-exempt private activity
(conduit) bonds to fund the market rate housing. 501c(3) bonds, Investment Tax Credits,
New Market Tax Credits, and an Xcel Energy rebate will likely fund the e-generation
and commercial portions of the project. The bonds are likely to achieve the best rates and
carry green credentials that will enhance marketing due to PLACE’s commitment to
Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 7
Title: PLACE’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
sustainable design. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America intends to
purchase any taxable bonds. An Allianz-related company outside the life insurance
marketplace intends to purchase some or all the tax-exempt bonds. Financing firm, Stifel,
will purchase any of the bonds not immediately placed.
3. Conventional financing. PLACE will likely need to seek conventional financing for the
hotel. However, at this time it currently assumes it could do it through 501c3 tax exempt
bonds. The City’s bond counsel does not support this position, so PLACE has asked for
an opinion from the IRS to determine bond financing feasibility. Ehlers analysis
reviewed the hotel financing from a conventional perspective and has opined that this
portion of the project would be financially feasible without any TIF assistance.
4. Private equity raised from PLACE and the other project service providers. PLACE raised
$3,500,000 of private equity that has been expended to date on project feasibility.
Additional equity will be required for the hotel if it is required to be financed
conventionally.
5. Public grants and fundraising. With assistance from the City, PLACE has secured
$2,750,000 million in grants from the Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County to
offset qualified redevelopment costs. PLACE anticipates applying for an additional
$8,137,578 in grants by September 2017. Additionally, PLACE has raised $52,230 in
fundraising efforts and is looking to raise another $400,000 by groundbreaking. The
status of each grant/fundraising effort is itemized below:
6. Deferred Developer Fee. In PLACE’s TIF application, they committed to defer 78% or
$11,853,061 on a total requested developer fee of $15,100,000 to create and permanently
maintain the project. However, as discussed further below, the requested developer fee
exceeded industry norms and was reduced for the TIF review. As revised, the project
would defer approximately 68% or $5,449,050 on a total developer fee of $8,001,622.
Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 8
Title: PLACE’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
Project Uses
The Total Development Cost (TDC) to construct the project is approximately $123 million as
summarized below (numbers refined by Ehlers):
1. Property Acquisition Cost: As indicated above, the proposed purchase price for the nine
subject properties is $6,547,600 ($3,995,480 for the north site and $2,004,520 for the south
site) plus the EDA’s estimated holding costs of $547,600. The combined land acquisition
price equals approximately $26 per SF or $21,900 per apartment unit, not accounting for
the hotel, commercial space, and E-generation facilities.
The purchase price represents the City’s actual cost for acquiring and holding the land. It
is within market range for market rate mixed use developments in first-ring suburbs but
would be considered somewhat above market if this was an entirely affordable
development. Given that the PLACE project is a mixed use project (albeit with a sizable
affordable component) it was deemed appropriate by staff for the project to pay a market
rate for an assembled site adjacent to a highway interchange and future LRT station.
PLACE would secure control of the site through a Purchase Agreement with the EDA as
follows:
a. $5,047,600 at closing; and
b. The balance of $1,500,000 payable over 10 years at 4% interest.
2. Developer Fee: PLACE included an 11.2 percent developer fee across the project, which
exceeds industry standards. By comparison, typical market rate housing, hotel, and
commercial projects receive a 2-5 percent developer fee. Affordable projects typically
receive an 8-11 percent developer fee (higher because affordable projects defer a
majority of the fee up front and receive payment out of cash flow over time, if any).
For the purposes of this review, Ehlers modified the project’s budget to more closely align
with market norms. The developer fee was revised to 4% for the market residential
component, 3% for the commercial component, and 3% for the hotel component. The
affordable component developer fee is at 11%, and the 11.2% E-generation developer fee
is unchanged since it will not receive or contribute to the TIF.
PLACE Project, City of St. Louis Park
Project Uses
#Uses Total %
Acquisition 6,547,600 5%
Construction Costs, SAC, & Permits 82,317,051 67%
Environmental Abatement 2,853,361 2%
Professional Services 9,012,214 7%
Financing Costs 10,642,638 9%
Developer Fee 8,001,622 7%
Cash Accounts/Escrows 3,684,469 3%
Total 123,058,954 100%
Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 9
Title: PLACE’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
3. Residential Total Development Cost (TDC): The TDC is approximately $292,000 per unit
in the South building $273,000 per unit in the North building. These costs include related
costs from the portion of the parking, common areas, amenities, soft and financing costs,
etc. By comparison, most new construction projects that are similar in nature are currently
between $220,000 and $250,000 per unit. This project exceeds the higher end of TDC for
the residential portion and need to be further refined by PLACE.
Project Cash flow projections
1. Apartment Rents/Commercial Leases: The affordable unit rents are at the regulatory
maximum rents for households at 60% of area median income (AMI), which translates to
rents between $919/month for a studio and $1,524/month for a four- bedroom unit. Market
Rate rents range between $1,185/month for a studio and $2,678 for a three-bedroom and
are $1.86 sq/ft on average. This is somewhat conservative for first-ring suburbs as typical
market rate projects are now above $2 sq/ft.
Commercial rents on a triple net basis range from $16 sq/ft for in-line retail, $24 sq/ft for
the café, and $41 sq/ft for the coffee house. PLACE’s proposed commercial rents are
within the typical range for the market.
2. Hotel Room Rates and Occupancy: PLACE projects an average daily room rate of $124
and 68% occupancy. Both of these values are within the Metropolitan Area’s industry
averages.
3. Operating Expenses: Residential operating expenses of approximately $3,000 per unit per
year (before taxes, management fees, and reserves) is within industry standards.
Redeveloper’s Request for Public Financing Assistance
Application for Tax Increment Financing
Of the $123 million TDC, PLACE estimates the project will incur nearly $9.5 million in
extraordinary costs* in redeveloping the subject site. These include the following.
Extraordinary Cost Estimates AMOUNT ($)
Soil tests, environmental consulting, investigation & permits 171,000
Asbestos abatement, building demolition and disposal (net of
grants)
128,700
Soil correction (net of grants) 666,795
Utility design & construction 696,261
Streets and roads 438,297
Structured parking 6,888,860
Woonerf 483,400
TOTAL Extraordinary Costs $9,473,313
*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, structured
parking, etc.)
Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 10
Title: PLACE’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
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.
Recommended Amount of TIF Assistance
Ehlers analyzed the returns for each project component separately. Based on the submitted
information, the hotel and commercial components can meet typical industry return expectations
without the use of tax increment.
As previously noted, 200 of the 299 units will have affordable rents and income restrictions. The
lower cash flow from the affordable rents limit how much debt the residential project can carry.
The affordable housing will also use low income housing tax credit (LIHTC) equity, which means
typical market based cash-on-cash return comparisons do not apply. For primarily affordable
housing projects, Ehlers analyzes such criteria as the project’s ability to meet required debt
coverage ratios and repay deferred developer fee in 10-15 years.
Ehlers recommends providing TIF in a principal amount of $5.66 million, with a maximum term
of 15-years based upon its analysis of the development proformas. The TIF would be in the form
of a pay-as-you-go TIF Note and be made available exclusively to reimburse the developer for a
portion of the extraordinary costs cited above. With this level of assistance, the residential
development can repay the deferred developer fees in approximately 12 years and meet debt
service coverage requirements. PLACE initially requested up to $8,000,000 of TIF assistance,
which represents the maximum TIF generated over a 26-year term.
It is important to note that when evaluating these types of developments, it is challenging to
accurately estimate a project’s precise financial success upon project stabilization. The objective
is to assemble, within certain parameters, a proforma that provides a comfort level to the investors
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
PLACE. 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 ensures that if the project
performs financially better 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 proposed redevelopment makes it possible to:
construct a transit-oriented, highly sustainable project consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
bring the subject properties to optimal market value; provide the community with additional
housing choices (both market rate and affordable); and create new employment opportunities and
significant tax base. Such assistance would represent nearly 5% of total project costs. As a
reminder, the tax increment would be generated by the project itself and would only be provided
to the Developer once construction was satisfactorily completed and the Developer supplies
statements verifying that it has incurred the specified qualified costs. 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 18 months to construct the proposed project. The first increment would
be paid in 2019. The Note would terminate with final payment on February 1, 2034. The proposed
assistance would be financed on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, which is the preferred financing method
under the City's TIF Policy. The Note is currently estimated to bear interest at 5%, which is the
Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 11
Title: PLACE’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
Redeveloper’s proposed bank financing rate for the project and will be further refined as they get
closer to obtaining all financing 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 be paid off earlier than estimated. As with
most of the EDA’s redevelopment contracts, PLACE will be required to execute a Minimum
Assessment Agreement for the value utilized for projecting the amount of TIF assistance available.
TIF District
The subject site is within the City’s Redevelopment Project Area which is the portion of the city
where the EDA may statutorily establish TIF districts. In order to provide the proposed PLACE
project with tax increment a new Redevelopment TIF District would need to be established.
Consulting firm LHB was retained to conduct a TIF district feasibility analysis to determine if the
subject site qualified as a Redevelopment District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174,
Subdivision 10, After inspecting and evaluating the subject properties and applying current
statutory criteria, LHB concluded in its report that the proposed TIF district qualifies as a
Redevelopment District based on the following findings:
• The proposed TIF District has a coverage calculation of 88.7 percent which exceeds the 70
percent requirement.
• 100 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard which exceeds the 50 percent
requirement.
• The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed throughout the geographic area of the
proposed TIF District.
The proposed TIF district would include the following nine parcels:
• 5925 State Hwy No 7
• 5815 State Hwy No 7
• 5725 State Hwy No 7
• 3520 Yosemite Ave S
• 3565 Wooddale Ave
• 3548 Xenwood Ave S
• 3575 Wooddale Ave
• 5816 36th St W
• 5814 36th St W
Such a TIF district could allow up to 26 years of tax increment. The 5925 Highway 7 property
currently lies within the Elmwood TIF District. Therefore, that property would need to be
decertified from the Elmwood TIF District in order to include it in the proposed Wooddale Station
TIF District.
Property Value and Taxes
All the parcels in the proposed TIF district are currently tax exempt. The total market value of
these parcels estimated for establishing the proposed TIF district’s base value is currently pending.
The estimated market value of the property upon the proposed project’s completion (for TIF
estimation purposes) is $61,700,000. 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 decertified.
It is estimated that PLACE would generate over $1,063,000 in total property taxes annually. The
City, County and School District would receive the property taxes collected on the subject site’s
Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 12
Title: PLACE’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
Base Value. The project is estimated to generate a total of $631,976 in gross tax increment
annually. Once the TIF Note is retired, the additional property taxes generated by the project would
be paid to the local taxing jurisdictions.
It should be noted that the value of the project could be much higher than the estimated $61.7
million once it is assessed for tax purposes. This was a conservative value utilized only for
estimating the amount of TIF the project would generate. Should the value of the project at the
time of completion be higher than the estimated amount, the principal amount of the TIF Note
would be paid back sooner than the projected 15 years and local taxing jurisdictions would receive
the benefit of having the full value for tax purposes sooner than anticipated.
Conformance and Analysis under the City’s TIF Policy
PLACE’s proposed mixed-use 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 will be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinances upon approvals.
• The Redeveloper has demonstrated that the proposed project is not financially feasible
“but-for” the use of tax increment financing.
• The Redeveloper has a proven track record of successful real estate development
performance (including affordable housing) 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 likely be redeveloped to its
optimal use 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:
• Intensifies the subject site and makes optimal use of the property with an attractive
mixed-use, mixed income, transit oriented, highly sustainable development that is
walkable and human-scale.
• Results in the sale of City and EDA properties.
• Complements, integrates with, and strengthens the surrounding multi-family
neighborhoods.
• Further increases the housing options available in the St. Louis Park and diversifies the
local housing stock by providing market rate and affordable units as well as live/work
units.
• Provides housing for more than 2-person families by providing units with 3 or more
bedrooms.
• Helps stabilize the commercial businesses along W 36th St by increasing the potential
customer base.
Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 13
Title: PLACE’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
• Incorporates Green Building design and features (portions of the project expect to
achieve LEED Gold certification)
• Lies within a SWLRT Station Planning Area as identified in the City’s Comprehensive
Plan.
• Incorporates Livable Communities and Transit Oriented Design principles.
• Located along an existing transit route, regional trail and approved LRT corridor.
Grading under Project Report Card
PLACE’s TIF application for proposed redevelopment 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.
PLACE will feature a housing mix ranging from studios to four bedroom units. As
proposed, it will have 29 units with three or more bedrooms which represents 10% of
the project’s unit mix. This percentage garnered a grade of “C” on the scale.
• Provides economic integration of rental or ownership projects.
Of the proposed 299 apartment units, 200 (or 67%) would be designated as affordable.
This percentage far exceeds the scale, thus a grade of “A” was provided.
• Ratio of soft costs to Total Project Costs.
Soft costs of the total project were estimated at approximately $30.5 million or 25% of
total project costs. This percentage represented a grade of “C” on the scale.
• Ratio of private to public (TIF) financing.
$123 million in private development costs to $5.66 million in TIF resulted in a $21.74
private / $1 TIF ratio which garnered an “A” on the scale.
• The value of the site before and after redevelopment
All the parcels in the proposed TIF district are currently tax exempt. The total market
value of these parcels estimated for establishing the proposed TIF district’s base value
is currently pending but an earlier estimate had established the district’s base value at
$8.7 million (which is likely high). The projected market value upon redevelopment is
approximately $61.7 million. If (for the lack of a better number) the earlier base value
was used, the ratio value of the site before and after redevelopment would be $1:$7.00
which represented an “A” on the scale.
• New Job Creation in City
The total number of new FTE jobs expected to be created in the city as a result of the
proposed project is estimated at 118.5. This level of job creation garnered an “A” on
the scale.
The proposed project received bonus points for:
• assembling all the properties required for the redevelopment
• redeveloping blighted/contaminated property
• being part of a mixed-use development
• adding value to the neighborhood
• achieving LEED gold medal status
• incorporating livable communities
Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 14
Title: PLACE’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
• likely stimulating further investment in the surrounding neighborhood
• being located in one of the city’s Priority Redevelopment Study Areas
• having a significant community impact
Upon calculation of all applicable factors and bonus points, the PLACE project received a final
grade of “A” according to the Project Report Card within the TIF Policy.
Conformance with the City’s Business Subsidy Policy
Any TIF assistance provided PLACE’s proposed redevelopment 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.
Risk Assessment Summary
1. Financial: the City is serving as the conduit issuer of PLACE’s revenue bonds. These are
limited obligations secured solely by the revenues of the facility, and do not have any
impact on the City’s bond rating, nor are the City or EDA liable for any default by PLACE.
The EDA will provide a PAYGO tax increment revenue note. The EDA is only required
to make payments on the TIF Note to the extent the improvements constructed by PLACE
result in an increase in taxable market value/property taxes. There is no penalty to the EDA
or City if no increment is generated, or if the increment generated is insufficient to fully
pay the principal and accrued interest on the TIF Note.
2. Real estate: the EDA will convey the assembled property to PLACE. The deed from the
EDA to PLACE will contain the usual reverter provisions that allow the EDA to retake
title to the property if PLACE fails to construct the project. However, PLACE will likely
be required to mortgage the property as security for its financing, and once that happens,
the EDA’s right of reverter will be subordinated to the mortgage. From discussions with
the developer, it appears that the EDA does not need to convey the property to PLACE at
the time the temporary bonds are issued to finance a portion of the affordable housing
component (and therefore the EDA will not have to subordinate its right of reverter to a
mortgage at that time). This allows the EDA and City to retain ownership of the property
until permanent financing is obtained for the entire project. If the developer is unable to
secure its permanent financing for the entire project, the EDA and City retain the property.
If PLACE does secure such permanent financing, it shows that the market believes the
PLACE project is feasible and should give more comfort to the City and EDA. If the project
fails and the lender forecloses on the mortgage, the EDA would not be able to exercise its
right of reverter as to any portion of the property subject to the mortgage.
3. Political: there is a potential risk that a failed development would be a political black eye.
However, it is likely that at least the housing portion of the overall development can be
successfully completed. Furthermore, we believe that the City and EDA may be able to
mitigate the risk of losing control of the entire property (as described above) if it considers
requiring a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants to be filed against the entirety of the
property. If a Declaration is filed of record against the property, even if a portion of the
project is unsuccessful and a mortgage lender forecloses on that portion, the EDA would
be able to enforce the restrictions on use provided in the Declaration.
Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 15
Title: PLACE’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance
Summary
Upon review and analysis of the developer’s financial pro forma, Ehlers determined that the
residential portion of the proposed PLACE project is not financially feasible but for the provision
of tax increment financing. However, even with the potential TIF support, questions remain on
the project’s operating costs, capital costs, uncommitted funding sources, and hotel financing.
PLACE has significant remaining financing and fundraising work to complete before the project
could be financed.
PLACE’s proposed redevelopment meets the City’s objectives for the provision of Tax Increment
Financing as specified in the City’s TIF Policy. The project meets all the Minimum and Desired
Qualifications for providing TIF assistance and received a final grade of “A” according to the
Project Report Card within the TIF Policy. Given these findings, staff supports reimbursing
PLACE for up to $5.66 million 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 the PLACE project with the recommended level tax increment assistance.
Provided the EDA supports providing financial assistance to the PLACE project as proposed, the
EDA will be asked to begin the formal process of establishing the proposed Wooddale Station 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 March 20th. Subsequently the next steps in the TIF approval
process would be as follows:
1. Call for Public Hearing related to issuance of private activity bonds
2. Approval of Wooddale properties purchase agreement with HCHRA
3. Negotiation of business terms for the provision of financial assistance with PLACE
4. Review of proposed business terms of Purchase & Redevelopment Contract
5. Approval of TIF Plan by Planning Commission
6. Public Hearing related to issuance of private activity bonds
7. Approval of Purchase & Redevelopment Contract & TIF District Public Hearing & Plan
approval - EDA and City Council
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 13, 2017
Written Report: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Health in the Park Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. The purpose of this report is to provide the
City Council with an update on Health in the Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please inform staff of any questions you might
have.
SUMMARY: Health in the Park (HIP) has been ongoing since 2013 creating connections,
engaging in conversations and taking action to inspire healthier, more active individuals and
families. HIP Champion volunteers continue to partner with the city and school district on
initiatives. The following is an update on Health in the Park:
•A St. Louis Park Healthy Living Grant program will launch this spring. Residents will be able
to apply for this grant to conduct community driven healthy living activities and initiatives,
further supporting the grassroots initiative. The grant guidelines and application are included
with this report.
•The city has received technical assistance from Hennepin County to incorporate health
language into the upcoming Comprehensive Plan.
•Active Connection Champions Anne Casey and Susan Ericksen have partnered with
Engineering and Community Development to advance Safe Routes to School in conjunction
with the Connect the Park! initiative.
•Better Eating Champions Lynda Enright and Sharon Lehrman are representing HIP on the
School Nutrition Advisory Council and are partnering with Community Education, STEP and
SEEDS to provide free cooking classes to residents this spring.
•Mental Health Champion Jeanne Wolfe continues to lead the Mental Health Action Team and
will be attending community events this spring and summer with the goal to break the stigma
surrounding mental illness.
•Health in the Park Champion Eric Niehan is reviewing the Healthy Eating Active Living policy
to provide updates and recommendations.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: 2017 budget includes $15,000 to fund the
Healthy Living Grant program.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Healthy Living Grant Program Guidelines & Application
Prepared by: Laura Smith, Wellness and Volunteer Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Health in the Park Update
Healthy Living Grant Program
Grant Guidelines
Grant Purpose
The Healthy Living Grant supports communities in building social connections through healthy
eating, physical activity, mental health awareness and community building. Research shows we
are more likely to stick with healthy activities if we do them with other people we feel connected
to. Because St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community, the Healthy
Living Grant’s purpose is to increase wellbeing through community driven action. Healthy Living
Grants support neighborhoods, individuals and organizations that collaborate with members of
their communities in the places where they live, learn, work and play. Applications will be
accepted from any individual or group within St. Louis Park. Money is also available for applicants
seeking additional insurance for grant activities. More information is available on page 3 under
“Funding for Insurance.”
Eligible Activities
Examples of eligible uses for grant funds are program promotional materials, healthy foods and
refreshments at wellness related activities, support groups, meditation classes, exercise equipment
for public use or groups, gardening materials, tobacco cessation groups, space rental and event
materials. However, applicants are not limited to these examples. Applicants are encouraged to be
creative in assessing their needs and determining the projects that will contribute to a healthier St.
Louis Park community. Applicants are required to include input from individuals the
program and proposed projects are designed for, and projects must be advertised and
available to all in the intended population. How you choose to receive this input must be
included in the grant application.
Ineligible Activities
Examples of ineligible uses for grant funds are personal membership fees to health clubs or weight-
loss organizations, medical services, treatment for medical conditions, exercise equipment or other
items for personal use, medication, tobacco, drugs, alcohol, funding for activities that do not
include community building, and any activity that is not inclusive or in alignment with the City of
St. Louis Park’s racial equity initiative.
Eligible Applicants
In order to be eligible for the Healthy Living Grant, applications must meet the following criteria:
1.Applicant must be a resident, volunteer, or employee of a St. Louis Park organization. (City of
St. Louis Park employees are ineligible to apply for grant funds.)
2.Activities and programs must be designed for those within St. Louis Park.
3. Activities and programs must reside in St. Louis Park boundaries.
4. Activities and programs must be inclusive and equitable.
Innovative Projects
Innovative and creative applications are encouraged. A proposed Healthy Living activity cannot
duplicate a service already in place.
Improvements to Private Property
Applicants should be aware that legal issues limit the use of city funds to improve private property.
Applicants should be able to clearly demonstrate a strong public purpose for funds proposed to
improve private property in any way.
Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Health in the Park Update
Conflict of Interest
Applicants must remain ethical and transparent in their plans for the Healthy Living grant goals
and use of funds. Applicants cannot apply for activities or programs for personal gain, and are not
eligible to reimburse themselves for services rendered. Healthy Living SLP grant applications that
are determined to have a conflict of interest will not be approved.
Improvements to Public Land or Parks
Physical improvements to any public property must be coordinated with the appropriate city
department. It should not conflict with or duplicate a project in the city’s Capital Improvements
Program. A letter of feasibility must be included with a grant application that requests funding for
park improvements. This letter should confirm that the appropriate city department has reviewed
the proposed improvements, the proposal is feasible, and the project budget is a reasonable
estimate of project costs. City department contact for capital improvements is Rick Beane,
Operations and Recreation Department, 952-928-2854.
Old Grants
Individuals with a previous grant must close out their account before new grant funds are awarded.
The deadline to close out grant reimbursements is the last day of the calendar year the grant was
awarded.
Grant Deadlines
The grant application must be submitted to Volunteer and Wellness Coordinator Laura Smith two
months prior to the program start date.
Funding Priorities
During the grant review process, greater consideration will be given to proposals that enhance
community connections and show a commitment to inclusive programs. Lesser consideration will
be given to proposals for park improvements and proposals that show a large expenditure for a
single activity.
Reimbursement Process and Special Accommodation
Grants funds awarded to individuals, organizations and groups are distributed upon submission of
a reimbursement form and applicable receipts to the Wellness and Volunteer Coordinator. Those
who are unable to fund approved activities prior to grant reimbursement can receive assistance
from the Wellness and Volunteer Coordinator. Please reach out to Laura Smith at
lsmith@stlouispark.org or 952-928-2847 to request this accommodation.
Funding for Insurance
When activities and programs take place in parks or other city or district property, you may be
required to make provisions to use your own insurance. Applicants are responsible for ensuring
insurance is in place when planning activities or programs in parks that perform physical activity
or bring outside equipment into the park such as, but not limited to, trampolines, bicycles or other
exercise equipment. Without clear delineation of who is responsible in case of accidents, applicants
may be held liable if accidents occur.
To assist applicants with purchasing additional insurance, you can apply for a maximum of $200
per program or activity in addition to the standard grant request. This money is strictly for
insurance and cannot be used for any other reimbursement.
Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: Health in the Park Update
Award Limits
• There is a $1,000 grant award limit per applicant and activity or program.
• $200 per application is available for the purchase of insurance.
Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Title: Health in the Park Update
Healthy Living Grant Program
Grant Process Steps
1. Apply
Applications must be received two months prior to the project start date. They may be mailed
or hand-delivered to Laura Smith, Wellness and Volunteer Coordinator, City of St. Louis Park,
5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. Grants may also be submitted by email to
lsmith@stlouispark.org or faxed to 952-924-2645.
2. Review Time
City staff and volunteers will review the grant proposals and make recommendations for
approval to the City Manager.
3. Final Approval
Final authorization of grant awards will be approved by the City Manager or designee.
4. Signed Agreements
Within two weeks of approval, recipient will receive a grant agreement from the City. The
agreement must be signed and returned prior to any funds being released.
Pre-Application Assistance
All applicants are strongly encouraged to talk to city staff as they work to identify projects and put
together their applications. This will help to ensure complete and accurate applications, as well as
streamline application review.
Electronic Application
Contact Laura Smith at lsmith@stlouispark.org or 952-928-2847 if you would like an electronic
application (Microsoft Excel) emailed to you.
Questions?
Contact Laura Smith, Volunteer and Wellness Coordinator
(952) 928-2847 or lsmith@stlouispark.org
Approved by: ___________________________________________ Date_________________
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 6
Title: Health in the Park Update
Healthy Living Grant Program
Grant Application
Summary Information
Neighborhood, Individual or Organization Name: Click here to enter text.
Project Name: Click here to enter text.
Total Requested: Click here to enter text.
I. Applicant Information
Name: Click here to enter text.
Address: Click here to enter text.
Phone Number: Click here to enter text.
Email: Click here to enter text.
Name: Click here to enter text.
Address: Click here to enter text.
Phone Number: Click here to enter text.
Email: Click here to enter text.
II. Project Description
Project Name: Click here to enter text.
Months/Date(s) of project: Click here to enter text.
Estimated number of participants: Click here to enter text.
Give a brief description:
Who will benefit from this activity, and how?
Study Session Meeting of March 13, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 7
Title: Health in the Park Update
How do will this activity increase community wellbeing in St. Louis Park?
How will you communicate this activity to ensure equitable community participation?
Project Budget
Itemized Expenses $ Amount Requested
Total Amount Requested:
III. How to Submit
All items on this application must be complete before submission. Submit your completed
application to the contact information below by email, fax or mail to the contact
information below.
Deadline: At least two months prior to project start date
Contact: Laura Smith, Wellness and Volunteer Coordinator
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
(952) 928-2847 (phone)
(952) 924-2645 (fax)
lsmith@stlouispark.org
Signature_______________________________________________________ (original or electronic)
Date Submitted: _________________________________________________
Administrative Use Only:
Date Received: _____________ Approved by________________________ Date_______
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 13, 2017
Written Report: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: PLACE Environmental Assessment Worksheet Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: A mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared for the
PLACE St. Louis Park redevelopment per Minnesota Rules 4410.4300. The development meets
the thresholds for mixed residential and commercial-industrial projects.
The City of St. Louis Park is the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) for review of the mandatory
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). City Manager Tom Harmening approved the EAW
for distribution on February 27, 2017. The EAW was distributed to the required list and its
availability was announced in the EQB Monitor on March 6, 2017.
The complete PLACE St. Louis Park EAW is available on the city website. Paper copies of the
EAW are available for viewing at the St. Louis Park City Hall (5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis
Park, Minnesota 55416) and the St. Louis Park Library (3240 Library Lane, St. Louis Park,
Minnesota 55426).
Written comments regarding the EAW must be received by 4:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 5,
2017. Written comments must be submitted to:
Name: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Address: City of St. Louis Park, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Fax: 952.924.2662
Email: swalther@stlouispark.org
NEXT STEPS: The city will collect written comments through April 5, 2017, respond in writing
to the comments received, and prepare findings for city council consideration. Council will be
asked to adopt a resolution with its record of decision and a negative declaration as to the need for
further environmental analysis.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable in regards to the EAW.
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: None
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Deputy Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 13, 2017
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Parkway 25 Redevelopment Updates
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. Please inform staff of any questions you might
have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: Staff has three brief updates for the city council regarding the Parkway 25
redevelopment at 4015 County Road 25.
Hennepin County TOD Grant: Last fall the developer applied for a Hennepin County TOD grant
to help defray some of the public improvement costs. They did not receive that grant but are now
applying for another TOD grant this spring. Hennepin County has requested the city provide an
amended resolution of support for the current grant application. The resolution of support is
scheduled for the March 20, 2017, city council meeting as a consent agenda item.
PUD Amendment: The developer intends to apply for a PUD amendment in order to accommodate
a different tenant on the first floor of the building. While changes to commercial tenants occurs
routinely, in this case the footprint of the first floor of the building would change on the west side.
It would take over a row of surface parking and reduce the setback that was previously approved.
The developer has a prospective tenant that would operate a psychology office on the west side of
the building and have administrative offices on the east side of the building. The residential unit
count would remain the same. Previously the developer announced a signed lease for a restaurant,
and was considering a fitness studio use for the remaining space; however, both of those deals fell
through.
Construction Update: Both the former restaurant and motel buildings have been demolished.
Excavation for soil corrections is needed. Building permits for the new construction have not yet
been issued.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Deputy Community Development Directory
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager