HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/11/16 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
NOVEMBER 16, 2015
(Mayor Jacobs & Councilmember Hallfin Out)
7:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes November 2, 2015
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports -- None
6. Old Business – None
7. New Business
7a. Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District
Recommended Action:
• Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the elimination of parcels from the Park
Commons Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District (Hennepin County TIF
District No. 1308), within Redevelopment Project No. 1, in the City of St. Louis Park).
• Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax
Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (a redevelopment
district).
• Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing an Interfund Loan for advance of certain
costs in connection with the administration of 4900 Excelsior TIF District.
7b. Public Hearing Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900
Excelsior Blvd.
Recommended Action: Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony, and close
public hearing. Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the Purchase and
Redevelopment Contract between the EDA and KTJ 247, LLC (Oppidan Investment
Company) related to the proposed 4900 Excelsior project at 4760 and 4900 Excelsior
Blvd.
7c. First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Rd Apartments, LLC
Recommended Action:
• Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the First Amendment to the Contract for
Private Redevelopment with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
• Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution Partial Assignment and Assumption of
Redevelopment Contract between the Redeveloper and Lake West Development.
8. Communications -- None
9. Adjournment
Meeting of November 16, 2015
City Council Agenda
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Recognition of Donations
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes October 26, 2015
3b. Special Study Session Minutes November 2, 2015
3c. City Council Meeting Minutes November 2, 2015
3d. Special Study Session Minutes November 2, 2015
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which
need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a
Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular
agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive
reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda,
or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.)
5. Boards and Commissions – None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License – M.D. Liquors
Recommended Action: Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony, and close
public hearing. Motion to approve Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for M.D.
Liquors2, Inc. dba M.D. Liquors, located at 8942 Highway 7, for the license term
through March 1, 2016.
6b. Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Name Change – Top Ten Liquors
Recommended Action: Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony, and close
public hearing. Motion to approve a name change for the off-sale intoxicating liquor
license held by Yayin Gadol, LLC. from Liquor Barrel to Top Ten Liquors for the
premises located at 5111 Excelsior Boulevard, for the license term through March 1,
2016.
6c. Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District
Recommended Action: Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony, and close
public hearing.
• Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the elimination of parcels from the Park
Commons Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District (Hennepin County TIF
District No. 1308), within Redevelopment Project No. 1, in the City of St. Louis
Park).
• Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax
Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (a redevelopment
district).
Meeting of November 16, 2015
City Council Agenda
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.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. 4900 Excelsior - Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) (First Reading)
Recommended Action:
• Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Final Plat of PARK COMMONS WEST
for properties at 4760 and 4900 Excelsior Boulevard, subject to conditions.
• Motion to approve First Reading of the Ordinance creating Section 36-268-PUD 2
and amending the Zoning Map from MX Mixed Use and R-C High Density Multiple
Family Residence to PUD 2 for property bound by Excelsior Boulevard, Quentin
Avenue South, Park Commons Drive and Princeton Avenue South, and to set the
Second Reading of the Ordinance for December 7, 2015.
8b. Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional
Use Permit
Recommended Action:
• Motion to Adopt Resolution Approving the Preliminary and Final Plat of “Westside
Center Izzie Addition”, subject to conditions.
• Motion to Adopt Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit to import fill
material and for fill within the floodplain, subject to conditions.
8c. CenturyLink Cable Franchise Findings of Fact and Resolution
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Findings of Fact and Resolution
regarding an ordinance granting a competitive cable franchise for Qwest Broadband
Services, Inc. D/B/A CenturyLink.
8d. Bid Tabulation: Reject Bids for the Outdoor Ice Rink Site Work and Grading Project
Recommended Action: Motion to reject bids for the Outdoor Ice Rink Site Work and
Grading Project and authorize re-advertisement for bids.
8e. Traffic Study No. 659: All Way Stop Signs on Ottawa Avenue at 29th Street
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing installation of stop
signs on Ottawa Avenue at 29th Street.
9. Communications – None
Meeting of November 16, 2015
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Approve second reading Adopt Ordinance granting a non-exclusive Cable TV franchise to
CenturyLink.
4b. Adopt Resolution authorizing the award of the 2016 Arts and Culture Grants.
4c. Approve implementing an option to the Water Meter Program.
4d. Adopt Resolution authorizing submittal of state bonding requests.
4e. Adopt Resolution Authorizing Execution of a Renewed Lease with the State of
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) for Webster Park.
4f. Approve a one-year extension for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for NLD 394
LLC (Resolution 14-168) to construct a new Kia Automotive Dealership.
4g. Adopt Resolution amending the Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions
updating Section I: Annual Meeting with Council Program.
4h. • Adopt Resolution approving the First Amendment to the Contract for Private
Redevelopment with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC.
• Adopt Resolution approving Partial Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment
Contract between the Redeveloper and Lake West Development.
4i. Adopt Resolution authorizing installation of permit parking restrictions at 3145 Idaho
Avenue South.
4j. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from the Estate of
Alice Trainer in the amount of $43,920.00 for improvements to Lamplighter Park and
$43,920.00 to the Fire Department for use at their discretion.
4k. Adopt a Resolution supporting and approving a Hennepin County Environmental
Response Fund Grant Application submitted by Perspectives Inc. for activities
pertaining to clean-up of contaminated soil located at 7008 Walker Street.
4l. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from Jane and
Michael Wipf in the amount of $200 for Natural Resources/Forestry supplies.
4m. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from: Leslie Marcus
in the amount of $100 and St. Louis Park Golden Kiwanis in the amount of $50 for
Westwood Hills Nature Center.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable channel
17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at
www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in
the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon
on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 2, 2015
1. Call to Order
President Mavity called the meeting to order at 7:29 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Anne Mavity, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Jeff Jacobs, Gregg
Lindberg, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Commissioners absent: None.
Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Economic
Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms.
Deno), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Wirth).
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes October 19, 2015
The EDA minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda
The EDA agenda was approved as presented.
5. Reports
5a. Approval of EDA Disbursements
It was moved by Commissioner Lindberg, seconded by Commissioner Spano, to approve
the Vendor Claims.
The motion passed 7-0.
6. Old Business - None
7. New Business
7a. First Amendment to the Shoreham Redevelopment Contract. Resolution No.
15-24.
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and terms of the First Amendment to the Contract for
Private Redevelopment between the EDA and Shoreham Apartments LLC. If approved,
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of November 2, 2015
the First Amendment would clarify the County grant provisions and allow the EDA to
pay proceeds of the grant it administers directly to TCF Bank, the redeveloper’s lender.
TCF will ensure that lien waivers are received prior to disbursing any funds for grant-
related activities.
President Mavity noted this amendment involves cleanup of legal requirements.
Commissioner Sanger asked whether there are any financial implications to the EDA
with this transaction. Mr. Hunt indicated there is no fiscal implication on the EDA or
requirement for additional legal work.
It was moved by Commissioner Sanger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to waive the
reading and adopt EDA Resolution No. 15-24 approving the First Amendment to the
Contract for Private Redevelopment between the EDA and Shoreham Apartments LLC.
The motion passed 7-0.
7b. Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Shoreham Apartments LLC
and Assignment of Payments under TIF Note – The Shoreham. Resolution
No. 15-25.
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and terms of the Assignment and Subordination
Agreement with Shoreham Apartments LLC and TCF Investment Management. It was
noted Shoreham Apartments, LLC (Bader Development) is in the process of financing its
Shoreham mixed-use project with TCF Investments Management as senior lender and
Bridgewater Bank as subordinate lender. As a result, TCF Investments Management has
requested that the EDA approve a new Assignment & Subordination Agreement. He
indicated staff has reviewed the terms and recommends approval.
Commissioner Hallfin asked if there are other options relative to how TIF payments are
disbursed. Mr. Hunt explained that TIF payments are typically disbursed to the
developer, but in this case, the developer has an arrangement with the lender to receive
the TIF payments.
It was moved by Commissioner Sanger, seconded by Commissioner Brausen, to waive the
reading and adopt EDA Resolution No. 25, approving the Assignment & Subordination
of Contract between the EDA, Shoreham Apartments, LLC and TCF Investments
Management and the Assignment of Payments Under Tax Increment Note between
Shoreham Apartments LLC and Bridgewater Bank consented to by the EDA relative to
The Shoreham redevelopment project.
The motion passed 7-0.
8. Communications - None
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, Secretary President
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 7a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
• Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the elimination of parcels from the Park Commons
Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District (Hennepin County TIF District No. 1308),
within Redevelopment Project No. 1, in the City of St. Louis Park).
• Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment
Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (a redevelopment district).
• Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing an Interfund Loan for advance of certain costs in
connection with the administration of 4900 Excelsior TIF District.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA support the establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax
Increment Financing District to facilitate the construction of a mixed use redevelopment at 4760
and 4900 Excelsior Blvd? Does the EDA support authorizing an Interfund Loan for advance of
certain costs in connection with the administration of the 4900 Excelsior TIF District?
SUMMARY: Oppidan Investment Company’s application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
assistance in connection with its proposed 4900 Excelsior redevelopment at 4760 and 4900
Excelsior Blvd was reviewed at the June 8th Study Session and the August 17th Special Study
Session where it received consensus support. Constructing the 4900 Excelsior project is not
financially feasible but for the use of the proposed tax increment assistance. At its October 5th
meeting, the City Council set a public hearing date of November 16th for consideration of the
proposed 4900 Excelsior Redevelopment TIF District. It is now time to take the final step in the
TIF process which is to formally authorize the creation of the TIF district. Such authorization
enables the EDA to designate tax increment generated from the completed 4900 Excelsior
development as partial reimbursement to Oppidan for certain qualified costs incurred in
connection with the construction of the project so as to make it financially feasible.
Establishment of TIF districts also requires a public hearing and the approval of the City Council.
Thus, during its meeting Monday evening the City Council will hold a public hearing on this topic,
after which it will be asked to approve the establishment of the 4900 Excelsior TIF District.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Authorizing the establishment of 4900
Excelsior TIF District does not, in itself, commit the City to any specific level of financial
assistance for the proposed project. Procedurally, it simply creates the funding vehicle to
reimburse the Redeveloper for a portion of its qualified project costs. The terms and amount of
TIF assistance are specified within the Purchase & Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC
which is also scheduled for consideration November 16th.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolutions
TIF Overview
4900 Excelsior TIF Plan
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor, Deputy CD Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, EDA Deputy Executive Director and Deputy City Manager
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Oppidan Investment Company (“Redeveloper”) proposes to assemble and
redevelop the former Bally Total Fitness block bound by Excelsior Blvd, Quentin Ave S,
Princeton Ave S, and Park Commons Dr. The 1.6-acre redevelopment site consists of two
parcels: the former Bally Total Fitness property located at 4900 Excelsior Blvd. and the vacant
EDA property located at 4760 Excelsior Blvd (“subject site”).
The Redeveloper plans to raze the vacant Bally building and parking structure and replace them
with a mixed-use (residential and retail) development called 4900 Excelsior. The proposed 5 and
partial 6-story-building would consist of 176 residential units and 28,228 square feet of
commercial space to be leased to Fresh Thyme - a specialty grocer with a small liquor
component. Pursuant to the City’s new inclusionary housing policy, the Redeveloper will reserve
18 (10%) of the residential units for households at or below 60% of the area median income
(AMI). Also included would be 307 structured parking stalls and 33 on-street parking stalls.
Developer’s Request for Public Financing Assistance
There are significant extraordinary costs associated with redeveloping the subject site. These
include: environmental investigation and reporting, asbestos abatement, building demolition,
utility relocations, site preparation, shoring, underground stormwater retention, and structured
underground parking. Altogether, these costs exceed $7.1 million and prevent the proposed
project from achieving financial feasibility. Consequently Oppidan applied to the EDA for Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) assistance to offset a portion of these costs so as to enable the 4900
Excelsior project to proceed. Tax increment financing uses the increased future property taxes
generated by a new development to finance certain qualified costs incurred by that development
for a limited period of time.
Level and Type of Financial Assistance
Oppidan’s sources and uses statements, cash flow projections, and investor rate of return (IRR)
related to 4900 Excelsior were reviewed by staff and Ehlers (the EDA’s financial consultant).
The estimates were found to be reasonable and within industry standards for this type of
redevelopment. It was also determined, given the extraordinary costs outlined above, that but for
$2,800,000 in tax increment assistance from the EDA the proposed project would not attain the
necessary cash-on-cost return sufficient to attract the necessary equity capital to enable the
project to become financially feasible. That level of assistance would overcome enough of the
extraordinary site costs described above that it allows the project to achieve financing.
TIF District Approvals
As noted above, the EDA/City Council reviewed Oppidan’s TIF application for the proposed
4900 Excelsior project at the June 8th Study Session. The project and the Redeveloper’s request
for financial assistance was also discussed at the August 17th Special Study Session where it
received consensus support. As a result, staff was directed to call for a public hearing on the
proposed TIF District and begin drafting a formal purchase & redevelopment contract with
Oppidan. At its October 5th meeting, the City Council set a public hearing date of November
16th for consideration of the proposed 4900 Excelsior Redevelopment TIF District.
The Planning Commission reviewed the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing Plan on October
21st, as required by the TIF Act, and determined it was in conformance with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District
Synopsis of the Proposed 4900 Excelsior TIF District
The subject site is within the City’s Redevelopment Project Area which is the portion of the city
where the EDA may establish TIF districts. Inclusion of the proposed project within a designated
Redevelopment Project Area allows the EDA/City Council to establish a TIF district so as to
enable the EDA to provide the proposed financial assistance to the 4900 Excelsior project.
The Bally block lies within the current Park Commons TIF District. The period for amending the
TIF Plan budget for this district to include the proposed 4900 Excelsior project has expired.
Thus, the City Council will be formally asked to remove the subject properties from the existing
Park Commons TIF district and establish a new 25-year Redevelopment TIF District called 4900
Excelsior. The proposed 4900 Excelsior TIF D istrict consists of two parcels: 4760 and 4900
Excelsior Blvd as shown in the attached TIF District map. Together, these parcels equal
approximately 1.6 acres. The proposed TIF district is further detailed in the attached TIF Plan.
Attached is an Overview which summarizes the basic elements of the proposed 4900 Excelsior
TIF District. Details of the proposed TIF District may be found in the attached 4900 Excelsior
TIF District Plan. Both the Overview and TIF Plan were prepared by the EDA’s TIF consultant,
Ehlers. In a general sense, TIF Plans may be viewed as enabling legislation. They establish the
proposed TIF district’s classification, geographic boundaries, maximum duration, maximum
budget authority for tax increment revenues and expenditures, fiscal disparities election as well
as estimated impact on various taxing jurisdictions along with findings which statutorily qualify
the district. The specific mutual obligations between the EDA and the Redeveloper as well as
the precise terms of the financial assistance are contained in the separate Purchase and
Redevelopment Contract between the parties. Both the TIF Plan and the Redevelopment
Contract need to be approved in order for redevelopment projects involving tax increment to
proceed.
Qualifications of the Proposed TIF District
The land use designation within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the subject site is Mixed-Use
and the current zoning map contemplates mixed-use and high-density residential development on
the subject site. The intent of the “Mixed Use” land use designation and the City’s Livable
Community design principles is to create compact, pedestrian-scale, mixed-use buildings,
typically with retail, service or other commercial uses on the ground floor and residential or
office uses on upper floors. Mixed-use is intended to accommodate mixed-income housing, a
mix of housing types on the same block, and higher density development. The subject site is
suitable for the proposed mixed-use development and multiple-family housing and meets many
of the objectives for the Park Commons redevelopment area. More specifically the proposed
project is consistent with the following goal and policies listed in the Land Use section of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan:
Mixed Use Goal #1
Continue to enhance the Park Commons area as St. Louis Park’s primary “town center.
Policy 1-A: Promote and support the redevelopment of the remaining designated
redevelopment sites in the Park Commons area with mixed-use buildings
to strengthen the area’s function as the “town center”.
Policy 1-B: Ensure that future redevelopment provides similar building forms and
densities that will complement the character of the “town center”.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District
Policy 1-C: Require that future redevelopment is designed with buildings that are
oriented to the public streets and spaces that are the heart of the “town
center”.
The subject site has convenient access to good bus service, Wolfe Park, and other services and
businesses along Excelsior Blvd, and is within biking distance of the SWLRT regional trail and
future LRT Beltline and Wooddale stations. Oppidan’s proposed project is a compact, mixed-
use, mixed-income building that promotes efficient use of the land, existing infrastructure, and
existing roadway system. It also incorporates underground parking, new sidewalks, and bicycle
facilities making the redevelopment walkable, bikable, and transit oriented. Thus, the proposed
4900 Excelsior project as specified in the attached TIF Plan conforms to the Mixed-Use land use
designation within the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the subject site.
Consulting architectural firm LHB, Inc. 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 (Report of Inspection Procedures
and Results for Determining Qualifications Of A Tax Increment Financing District As A
Redevelopment District: [Bally Block] TIF District, St. Louis Park, MN dated August 8, 2014)
that the proposed project site qualifies as a Redevelopment District based on the following
findings:
• The proposed TIF District has a coverage calculation of 74.6 percent which is above the
70 percent requirement.
• 100 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard which is above the 50 percent
requirement.
• The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed.
Thus the proposed 4900 Excelsior TIF District meets both the “Coverage Test” and the
“Condition of Buildings Test” and thereby qualifies under Minnesota Statutes Section 479.174,
Subdivision 10 as a redevelopment TIF district.
Other findings for the qualification of the proposed TIF District are contained in Appendix G of
the attached TIF Plan.
Duration of the Proposed TIF District
Under the TIF Act, the duration of redevelopment districts is up to 25 years after receipt of the
first increment by the City (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The date of receipt by the City
of the first tax increment is expected to be 2017. Thus, the full term of the district is estimated to
terminate in 2043. The EDA and City have the right to decertify the District prior to the legally
required date. The City’s expressed obligations to the Redeveloper will likely be satisfied in
approximately 7 years. Once those obligations are satisfied, the City may terminate the district.
TIF District Budget
The TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment generated by the District to pay for certain
qualifying project expenses and capital improvements associated with the District (such as road
and traffic enhancements to Excelsior Blvd.) should they be necessary. It should be noted that
the financing uses and project costs reflected within Subsection 2-10 (Uses of Funds) of the
attached TIF Plan is a not-to-exceed budget and not the actual expected project budget.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District
Fiscal Disparities Election within the Proposed TIF District
The proposed redevelopment will contain commercial property therefore the proposed TIF
District is subject to the fiscal disparities calculation. Consistent with the city’s TIF Policy and
past practice, the 4900 Excelsior TIF District will contribute to fiscal disparities (as opposed to
the tax base of the City making the contribution).
TIF Interfund Loan
The EDA is also requested to consider the establishment of an Interfund Loan for certain costs
connected with the proposed TIF District. Adoption of the proposed resolution would allow the
EDA to pay costs related to establishing the TIF District including administrative costs, from
non-TIF sources, and to reimburse itself from increment generated by the TIF District when
received.
Summary
Providing tax increment financing assistance to the proposed 4900 Excelsior redevelopment
makes it possible to remove a highly visible, structurally substandard building along the city’s
primary commercial corridor and replace it with a high quality, mixed use development of
complementary design consistent with Livable Communities design principles as well as the
City’s Comprehensive Plan, and Green Building Policy. The proposed project brings the subject
properties to optimal market value thereby enhancing the city’s tax base. The EDA’s financial
participation in the proposed project would leverage approximately $48 million in new
investment. The ratio of private to public investment in the project is $17 to $1. Additionally,
the proposed redevelopment will result in a new retail business and create 85 new FTE
employment positions as well as provide the community with expanded life-cycle housing
opportunities and 18 additional affordable housing units. Finally, 4900 Excelsior will re-
energize the currently vacant site and further enhance the economic vitality of the Excelsior Blvd
commercial area.
NEXT STEPS: The Purchase & Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC which specifies
the terms and amount of TIF assistance related to the 4900 Excelsior project is also scheduled for
EDA consideration November 16th.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 6
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
ELIMINATING PARCELS
FROM PARK COMMONS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park (the “City”) and the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the “Authority”) established the Park Commons Tax Increment
Financing District (the “TIF District”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to
469.1794, as amended (the “TIF Act”) and approved a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the “TIF
Plan”) for the TIF District on January 16, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has now determined that it is in the best interest of the City to
eliminate two parcels identified as 07-028-24-21-0002 and 07-028-24-21-0258 (“Eliminated
Parcels”) from the TIF District, in order to include such parcels in the new 4900 Excelsior Tax
Increment Financing District expected to be approved by the Authority and City on this date; and
WHEREAS, the Authority is authorized to modify the TIF Plan by eliminating one or
more parcels without the notice and hearing required for approval of an initial plan if (a) the
current net tax capacity of the parcels eliminated from the TIF District equals or exceeds their
original net tax capacity, or (b) the Authority agrees that, notwithstanding Section 469.177, subd.
1 of the TIF Act, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax
capacity of the eliminated parcels.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the St.
Louis Park Economic Development Authority as follows:
1. The TIF Plan for the TIF District is hereby modified to remove the Eliminated
Parcels from the TIF District, effective for taxes payable in 2016.
2. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subd. 4(e)(2)(A), the
Authority finds that that the current net capacity of the Eliminated Parcels equals or exceeds their
original net tax capacity, and that no notice or hearing is required for this modification.
3. Authority staff are authorized and directed to attach a copy of this resolution to
the TIF Plan for the TIF District in City files, file a copy of this resolution with the Hennepin
County Director of Real Estate Services along with instructions to adjust the records for the TIF
District accordingly, and file a copy of the resolution with the Minnesota Commissioner of
Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 7
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District
Reviewed for Administration:
Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority November 16, 2015
Tom Harmening, Executive Director Anne Mavity, President
Attest:
Secretary
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 8
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1,
ESTABLISHING 4900 EXCELSIOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR.
WHEREAS, it has been proposed by the Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "EDA") and the City of St. Louis Park
(the "City") that the EDA adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment
Plan Modification") for Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project Area") and establish the
4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District (the "District") and adopt a Tax Increment
Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan
are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans"), all pursuant to and in conformity with
applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, and Sections
469.174 to 469.1794, inclusive, as amended (the "Act"), all as reflected in the Plans and
presented for the Board's consideration; and
WHEREAS, the EDA has investigated the facts relating to the Plans and has caused the
Plans to be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the EDA has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to
the adoption of the Plans. The EDA has also requested the City Planning Commission to provide
for review of and written comment on the Plans and that the Council schedule a public hearing
on the Plans upon published notice as required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board as follows:
1. The EDA hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is a "redevelopment
district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 10, and finds that the adoption
of the proposed Plans conform in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will help
fulfill a need to develop an area of the State of Minnesota which is already built up and
that the adoption of the proposed Plans will help provide employment opportunities in
the State and in the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the City and the
State because it will discourage commerce and industry from moving their operations to
another state or municipality and thereby serves a public purpose.
2. The EDA further finds that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with
the sound needs for the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the
Project Area by private enterprise in that the intent is to provide only that public
assistance necessary to make the private developments financially feasible.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 9
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District
3. The boundaries of the Project Area are not being expanded.
4. The reasons and facts supporting the findings in this resolution are described in the Plans.
5. The EDA elects to calculate fiscal disparities for the District in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, which means the fiscal disparities
contribution would be taken from inside the District.
6. Conditioned upon the approval thereof by the City Council following its public hearing
thereon, the Plans, as presented to the EDA on this date, are hereby approved, established
and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Executive Director of the
EDA.
7. Upon approval of the Plans by the City Council, the staff, the EDA's advisors and legal
counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and
for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Board for its consideration
all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose.
Approval of the Plans does not constitute approval of any project or a Development
Agreement with any developer.
8. Upon approval of the Plans by the City Council, the Executive Director of the EDA is
authorized and directed to forward a copy of the Plans to the Minnesota Department of
Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175,
Subd. 4a.
9. The Executive Director of the EDA is authorized and directed to forward a copy of the
Plans to the Taxpayer Services Division Manager of Hennepin County and request that
the Manager certify the original tax capacity of the District as described in the Plans, all
in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 469.177.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority November 16, 2015
Tom Harmening, Executive Director Anne Mavity, President
Attest
Secretary
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 10
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN FOR ADVANCE
OF CERTAIN COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE 4900 EXCELSIOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the St. Louis Park
Economic Authority (the "EDA") of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows:
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "City"),
intends to establish the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District")
within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project"), and will adopt a Tax Increment Financing
Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project.
WHEREAS, the EDA has determined to use tax increments from the TIF District to pay
for certain costs identified in the TIF Plan, which may include land/building acquisition, site
improvements/preparation, utilities, other qualifying improvements, interest and administrative
costs (collectively, the "Qualified Costs"), which costs may be financed on a temporary basis
from EDA funds available for such purposes.
WHEREAS, under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7, the EDA is authorized
to advance or loan money from the EDA's general fund or any other fund from which such
advances may be legally authorized, in order to finance the Qualified Costs.
WHEREAS, the EDA intends to reimburse itself for the Qualified Costs from tax
increments derived from the TIF District in accordance with the terms of this resolution (which
terms are referred to collectively as the "Interfund Loan").
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board as follows:
1.The EDA hereby authorizes the advance of up to $30,000 from any legally authorized
EDA fund or so much thereof as may be paid as Qualified Costs. The EDA shall
reimburse itself for such advances together with interest at the rate stated below.
Interest accrues on the principal amount from the date of each advance. The
maximum rate of interest permitted to be charged is limited to the greater of the
rates specified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40 or Section 549.09 as of
the date the loan or advance is authorized, unless the written agreement states that
the maximum interest rate will fluctuate as the interest rates specified under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40 or Section 549.09 are from time to time
adjusted. The interest rate shall be 4% and will not fluctuate.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 11
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District
2.Principal and interest ("Payments") on the Interfund Loan shall be paid semi-annually on
each August 1 and February 1 (each a "Payment Date"), commencing on the first
Payment Date on which the EDA has Available Tax Increment (defined below), or
on any other dates determined by the Executive Director of the EDA, through the
date of last receipt of tax increment from the TIF District.
3.Payments on this Interfund Loan are payable solely from "Available Tax Increment,"
which shall mean, on each Payment Date, tax increment available after other
obligations have been paid, or as determined by the Executive Director of the EDA,
generated in the preceding six (6) months with respect to the property within the
TIF District and remitted to the City by Hennepin County, all in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, all inclusive, as amended.
Payments on this Interfund Loan may be subordinated to any outstanding or future
bonds, notes or contracts secured in whole or in part with Available Tax Increment,
and are on parity with any other outstanding or future interfund loans secured in
whole or in part with Available Tax Increment.
4.The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Interfund Loan are pre-
payable in whole or in part at any time by the EDA without premium or penalty.
No partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular
payment otherwise required to be made under this Interfund Loan.
5.This Interfund Loan is evidence of an internal borrowing by the EDA in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7, and is a limited obligation payable
solely from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under this
resolution. This Interfund Loan and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to
constitute a general obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision
thereof, including, without limitation, the EDA. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor
any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest
on this Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto except out of Available Tax
Increment, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of
Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the
principal of or interest on this Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto. The
EDA shall have no obligation to pay any principal amount of the Interfund Loan or
accrued interest thereon, which may remain unpaid after the final Payment Date.
6.The EDA may amend the terms of this Interfund Loan at any time by resolution of the
Board, including a determination to forgive the outstanding principal amount and
accrued interest to the extent permissible under law.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority November 16, 2015
Tom Harmening, Executive Director Anne Mavity, President
Attest
Secretary
Tax Increment Financing District Overview
City of St. Louis Park
4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District
The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District. More detailed information on each of these topics
can be found in the complete Tax Increment Financing Plan.
Proposed action: Ø Establishment of the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District
(District) and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan).
Ø Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1
which includes the establishment of the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment
Financing District, which represents a continuation of the goals and
objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project
No. 1.
Type of TIF District: A redevelopment district
Parcel Numbers: 07-028-24-21-0002* 07-028-24-21-0258*
*These parcels are currently in the Park Commons Tax Increment Financing
District and will be decertified prior to certification of the District.
Proposed
Development:
The District is being created to facilitate the development of a mixed-use
development consisting of 176 apartments (of which 10% will be affordable
to persons at or below 60% of the AMI) and a 28,000 square foot grocer in
the City. Please see Appendix A of the TIF Plan for a more detailed project
description.
Maximum duration: The duration of the District will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the
first increment (26 years of increment). The City elects to receive the first tax
increment in 2018. It is estimated that the District, including any
modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would
terminate after December 31, 2043, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied.
Estimated annual tax
increment:
Up to $1,224,104
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 12
Page 2
Authorized uses:
The TIF Plan contains a budget that authorizes the maximum amount that
may be expended:
Land/Building Acquisition .................................................. $3,000,000
Site Improvements/Preparation ........................................... $2,000,000
Public Utilities .................................................................... $1,000,000
Other Qualifying Improvements ......................................... $6,508,567
Administrative Costs (up to 10%) ....................................... $2,161,096
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL .............................................. $14,669,663
Interest ................................................................................ $9,103,337
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL ........................................... $23,773,000
See Subsection 2-10, on page 2-6 of the TIF Plan for the full budget
authorization.
Form of financing: The project is proposed to be financed by a pay-as-you-go note and interfund
loan.
Administrative fee: Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs are justified.
Interfund Loan
Requirement:
If the City wants to pay for administrative or capital expenditures from a tax
increment fund, it is recommended that a resolution authorizing a loan from
another fund be passed PRIOR to the issuance of the check.
4 Year Activity Rule
(§ 469.176 Subd. 6)
After four years from the date of certification of the District one of the
following activities must have been commenced on each parcel in the District:
• Demolition
• Rehabilitation
• Renovation
• Other site preparation (not including utility services such as sewer and
water)
If the activity has not been started by approximately November 2019, no
additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel until the
commencement of a qualifying activity.
5 Year Rule
(§ 469.1763 Subd. 3)
Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax increments must be
expended or obligated to be expended.
Any obligations in the District made after approximately November 2020,
will not be eligible for repayment from tax increments.
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the TIF Plan for the District, as required
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are included in Exhibit A of the City resolution.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 13
Page 3
MAP OF THE
4900 EXCELSIOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 14
As of November 3, 2015
Draft for Public Hearing
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1
and the
Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the establishment of
the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District
(a redevelopment district)
within
Redevelopment Project No. 1
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
City of St. Louis Park
Hennepin County
State of Minnesota
Public Hearing: November 16, 2015
Adopted:
Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105
651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 15
Table of Contents
(for reference purposes only)
Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1 .......................................... 1-1
Foreword ............................................................. 1-1
Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District ......................... 2-1
Subsection 2-1. Foreword............................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority........................................ 2-1
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives ................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview .............................. 2-1
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 2-2
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District................................. 2-2
Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District ........... 2-4
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ................ 2-4
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued ...................... 2-5
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds ........................................... 2-6
Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election.................................. 2-7
Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies....................................... 2-7
Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs ....................................... 2-8
Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions................. 2-8
Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation ................................ 2-10
Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ....................... 2-10
Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District................................ 2-11
Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses .................................. 2-11
Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment ................................... 2-12
Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment .................................... 2-13
Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments ...................................... 2-13
Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 2-14
Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements ................................. 2-14
Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District ............................... 2-14
Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 2-14
Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations ................................. 2-14
Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment................. 2-15
Subsection 2-28. Summary.............................................. 2-16
Appendix A
Project Description ...................................................... A-1
Appendix B
Map of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District ........................... B-1
Appendix C
Description of Property to be Included in the District ............................ C-1
Appendix D
Estimated Cash Flow for the District ........................................ D-1
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 16
Appendix E
Minnesota Business Assistance Form ....................................... E-1
Appendix F
Redevelopment Qualifications for the District .................................. F-1
Appendix G
Findings Including But/For Qualifications..................................... G-1
Appendix H
Building Permits ........................................................ H-1
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 17
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 1-1
Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1
Foreword
The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of the 4900
Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District.
For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 is
recommended. It is available from the Economic Development Coordinator at the City of St. Louis Park.
Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment
Financing Districts located within Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 18
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-1
Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District
Subsection 2-1. Foreword
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "EDA"), the City of St. Louis Park (the "City"),
staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the 4900
Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District (the "District"), a redevelopment tax increment financing district,
located in Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority
Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or
redevelopment to occur. To this end, the EDA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes ("M.S."), Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to
469.1794, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing
public costs related to this project.
This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other relevant
information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives
The District currently consists of two parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District
is being created to facilitate the development of a mixed-use development consisting of approximately 176
apartments (of which 10% will be affordable to persons at or below 60% of the AMI) and approximately
28,000 square feet of retail (currently anticipated to be a grocery store) in the City. Please see Appendix A
for further District information. The EDA intends to enter into an agreement with KTJ 247, LLC (Oppidan)
as the developer and expects development to commence in late 2015. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve
many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do not preclude
the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated
to occur over the life of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District.
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview
1. Property to be Acquired - The EDA currently owns one parcel of property within the
District. The remaining property located within the District may be acquired by the EDA or
City but it is currently expected to be acquired by the developer.
2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary
legal requirements, the EDA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may
acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer.
4. The EDA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction,
relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 19
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-2
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Please also see the map in Appendix B for further information
on the location of the District.
The EDA or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of
way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the EDA or City only in order to
accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets,
utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to
accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The EDA or City may acquire property by gift,
dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF
Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition
and related costs.
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District
The EDA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with
M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a
redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) as defined below:
(a) "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project,
or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one or more of the
following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists:
(1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent
of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree
requiring substantial renovation or clearance;
(2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently
used rail yards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way;
(3) tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities, as defined
in Section 115C, Subd. 15, if the tank facility:
(i) have or had a capacity of more than one million gallons;
(ii) are located adjacent to rail facilities; or
(iii) have been removed, or are unused, underused, inappropriately used or infrequently
used; or
(4) a qualifying disaster area, as defined in Subd. 10b.
(b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in
structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and
ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions,
or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 20
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-3
(c) A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable
to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15
percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the
site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard
under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size,
type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or
other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without
an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal
prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the
property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable
to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that
owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion
that the building is structurally substandard.
(d) A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard building for purposes of the
finding under paragraph (a) or by the improvement described in paragraph (e) if all of the
following conditions are met:
(1) the parcel was occupied by a substandard building or met the requirements of paragraph
(e), as the case may be, within three years of the filing of the request for certification of the
parcel as part of the district with the county auditor;
(2) the substandard building or the improvements described in paragraph (e) were demolished
or removed by the authority or the demolition or removal was financed by the authority or
was done by a developer under a development agreement with the authority;
(3) the authority found by resolution before the demolition or removal that the parcel was
occupied by a structurally substandard building or met the requirement of paragraph (e) and
that after demolition and clearance the authority intended to include the parcel within a
district; and
(4) upon filing the request for certification of the tax capacity of the parcel as part of a district,
the authority notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be
adjusted as provided by § 469.177, subdivision 1, paragraph (f).
(e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved
or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel
contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures.
(f) For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a
redevelopment district under paragraph (a) to be included in the district, and the entire area of
the district must satisfy paragraph (a).
In meeting the statutory criteria the EDA and City rely on the following facts and findings:
• The District is a redevelopment district consisting of two parcels.
• An inventory shows that parcels consisting of more than 70 percent of the area in the District are
occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures.
• An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 50 percent of the buildings
are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix F).
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 21
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-4
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that
qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111, 273.112, or 273.114 or Chapter 473H for taxes
payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District.
Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration and first year of tax
increment of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b.,
the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the EDA or City (a total of
26 years of tax increment). The EDA or City elects to receive the first tax increment in 2018, which is no
later than four years following the year of approval of the District. Thus, it is estimated that the District,
including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after
2043, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The EDA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to
the legally required date.
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity
(ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor
in 2015 for taxes payable 2016.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning
in the payment year 2018) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of:
1. Change in tax exempt status of property;
2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
4. Change in the use of the property and classification;
5. Change in state law governing class rates; or
6. Change in previously issued building permits.
In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no
value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the EDA or City.
The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2016, assuming the
request for certification is made before June 30, 2016. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the
District appear in the table below.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated
Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within Redevelopment Project No. 1, upon completion of
the projects within the District, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table
below. The EDA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its
obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2018. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC)
listed is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are completed.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 22
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-5
Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC) $1,067,418
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) $37,884
Fiscal Disparities Contribution $88,263
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) $941,271
Original Local Tax Rate 1.30048 Pay 2015
Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $1,224,104
Percent Retained by the EDA 100%
Tax capacity includes a 3% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax capacity included in thischart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 25. The tax capacity of the District in year one isestimated to be $78,765.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the EDA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its
request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S.,
Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which
building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the
TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase
the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building
permit was issued.
The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and found two building permits have been
issued in the past 18 months, but they do not increase the original tax capacity. Please see Appendix
H for the building permits that were issued.
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued
The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax
increments. The EDA or City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF
Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by a pay-as-you-go note and
interfund loan. Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a formal TIF Plan
Modification. This provision does not obligate the EDA or City to incur debt. The EDA or City will issue
bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City.
The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table below:
SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL
Tax Increment $21,611,861
Interest $2,161,139
TOTAL $23,773,000
The EDA or City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments
from the District in a maximum principal amount of $14,669,663. Such bonds may be in the form of pay-as-
you-go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total
bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 23
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-6
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds
Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the development of a mixed-use
development consisting of approximately 176 apartments (of which 10% will be affordable to persons at or
below 60% of the AMI) and approximately 28,000 square feet of retail space (currently anticipated to be a
grocery store). The EDA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the
project for certain District costs, as described. The EDA has studied the feasibility of the development or
redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or
redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost
of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is
outlined in the following table.
USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS TOTAL
Land/Building Acquisition $3,000,000
Site Improvements/Preparation $2,000,000
Utilities $1,000,000
Other Qualifying Improvements $6,508,567
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)$2,161,096
PROJECT COST TOTAL $14,669,663
Interest $9,103,337
PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $23,773,000
The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the total
projected tax increments for the District as shown in Subsection 2-9.
Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification
to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed,
without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant
to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the
District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the District but within
the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1, (including administrative costs, which are considered to be
spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this TIF Plan.
Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the EDA or City may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal
disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, (within the District) are
followed, the following method of computation shall apply:
(1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity
provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal
disparity commercial-industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the
current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section
276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the original net tax
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 24
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-7
capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity
and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax
capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity
is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has
designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the
retained captured net tax capacity of the authority.
(2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the
net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The
local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity
of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by
the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate
to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority.
The EDA will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b.
According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3:
(c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or
(b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may
elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in
paragraph (b).
Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies
Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered
a business subsidy:
(1) A business subsidy of less than $150,000;
(2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses,
such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria;
(3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a
public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at
the time the improvements are made;
(4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3;
(5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing
it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that
the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost;
(6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to
provide those services;
(7) Assistance for housing;
(8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing
hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23;
(9) Assistance for energy conservation;
(10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law;
(11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation;
(12) Benefits derived from regulation;
(13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions;
(14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and
bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 25
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-8
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999;
(15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business;
(16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section
469.174, Subd. 19;
(17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation
is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value;
(18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally
technical nature;
(19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local
government agency;
(20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority;
(21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less;
(22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic
Development Administration; and
(23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section 469.1813 to property that is subject to
valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100.
The EDA expects that the tax increment assistance provided under this TIF Plan will not constitute a business
subsidy, because such assistance will qualify for an exemption under Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.993,
Subdivision 3 (17).
The EDA will comply with M.S., Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance
under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions.
Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1a, the county board may require the EDA or City to pay for all or
part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment
will, in the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of
road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five
years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan.
If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the EDA or City within forty-
five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of the EDA and City and consultants, the proposed
development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF Plan
was not forwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The EDA and City are aware that the
county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing.
Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF
Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the EDA or City has determined that such
development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the
fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as
follows if the "but for" test was not met:
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 26
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-9
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
2014/Pay 2015
Total Net
Tax Capacity
Estimated Captured
Tax Capacity (CTC)
Upon Completion
Percent of CTC
to Entity Total
Hennepin County 1,354,654,515 941,271 0.0695%
City of St. Louis Park 51,886,847 941,271 1.8141%
St. Louis Park ISD No. 283 49,130,597 941,271 1.9159%
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
Pay 2015
Extension Rates
Percent
of Total CTC
Potential
Taxes
Hennepin County 0.463980 35.68% 941,271 436,731
City of St. Louis Park 0.494330 38.01% 941,271 465,298
St. Louis Park ISD No. 283 0.226940 17.45% 941,271 213,612
Other 0.115230 8.86%941,271 108,463
Total 1.300480 100.00%1,224,104
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is the actual Pay 2015 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based
on actual Pay 2015 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2016 rates, which were
unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b):
(1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be
generated over the life of the District is $21,611,861;
(2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. An impact of the
District on police protection is not expected. With any addition of new residents or businesses, police
calls for service will be increased. New developments add an increase in traffic, and additional
overall demands to the call load. The City tracks all calls for service by neighborhood and property
type. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself, will necessitate new
capital investment in vehicles or require that the City expand its staff. Vacant buildings, like the
former Bally Fitness building, often become an attractive nuisance and are conducive to nefarious
activity which can become a blighting influence within the neighborhood. Removal of this building
as a result of the mixed-use project will alleviate these concerns.
The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new
buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction. Continued development may
generate additional calls for service.
The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. The fee for each SAC
is $2,485 and $750 for each WAC.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 27
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-10
The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the ability to issue
debt for general fund purposes is minimal. It is not anticipated that there will be any general
obligation debt issued in relation to this project, therefore there will be no impact on the City's ability
to issue future debt or on the City's debt limit.
(3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. It is estimated that the
amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district
levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions
remained the same, is $3,771,270;
(4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the amount of
tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the
county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $7,711,112;
(5) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any
standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and
impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional
information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax
increment financing plan.
No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed
development for the District have been received.
Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and
description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd.
3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of
reports and studies on file at the City that support the EDA and City's findings:
• A list of applicable studies will be listed here prior to the public hearing.
Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing
district include all of the following potential revenue sources:
1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S.,
Section 469.177;
2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was
purchased by the authority with tax increments;
3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the authority with tax increments;
4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments;
5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for
which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and
6. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 28
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-11
Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any:
1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the District, if the reduction does not meet the
requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e);
2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred;
3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF
Plan;
4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the EDA or City;
5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the District, including administrative expenses, that will be paid
or financed with tax increment from the District; or
6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the EDA or City,
shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval
of the original TIF Plan.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 4(f), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall not
be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county
auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that
the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10, must be documented in
writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is
elimination of parcel(s) from the District and (2)(A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated
from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax
capacity or (B) the EDA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax
capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the
District.
The EDA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification to the District. Modifications to the
District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF
Plan.
Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the
EDA or City, other than:
1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land;
2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and
engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the
District;
3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the
District;
4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or
5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance
costs described in clauses (1) to (3).
For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982,
and before August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 29
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-12
counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section
469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative
expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures
authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause
(1), from the District, whichever is less.
For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, no tax increment may be used to pay
any administrative expenses for District costs which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax increment
expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd.
25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual
administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage limits
of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the
year following the year the expenses were incurred.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36
percent) of any increment distributed to the EDA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount
deducted to the State Commissioner of Management and Budget for deposit in the state general fund to be
appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information
and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be
adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue.
Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment
The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District
may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow
account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or
redemption date.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6:
if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation
or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a
street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water
systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district
by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing
plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel, and the original net tax
capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently
commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel
including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the
tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity
has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most
recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity
of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this
subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required
activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be
submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 30
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-13
as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a
street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street,
and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street.
The EDA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately November
2019 and report such actions to the County Auditor.
Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment
The EDA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable
property located in the District for the following purposes:
1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project;
2. To finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant
to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082;
3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan;
4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4;
5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the
EDA or City or for the benefit of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by a developer;
6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing
the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and
7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on
the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152
through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178.
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other
purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4.
Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Hennepin County to the EDA for the Tax Increment
Fund of said District. The EDA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an
amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public
improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds
will be used for EDA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and for the costs of public improvement
activities outside the District.
Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments
Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the
following:
1. Prepay any outstanding bonds;
2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds;
3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or
4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in
proportion to their local tax rates.
The EDA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after
the end of the year. In addition, the EDA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to
modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in Redevelopment Project No. 1 or the
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 31
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-14
District.
Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer
The EDA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the
Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the
following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and
electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any
other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the EDA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the
development with City plans and ordinances. The EDA or City may also use the Agreements to address other
issues related to the development.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be
acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the EDA or City as a result
of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments
from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, the EDA
or City concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which
provides recourse for the EDA or City should the development or redevelopment not be completed.
Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the EDA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement
in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market
value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement
shall be presented to the City Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements
to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are
to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears,
in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the City Assessor shall also certify the minimum
market value agreement. The EDA expects to enter into an assessment agreement with the developer in
connection with the planned development.
Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District
Administration of the District will be handled by the Economic Development Coordinator.
Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6b the EDA or City must undertake financial reporting
for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor
on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement
shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15.
If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section
469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the Office of the State Auditor will direct the County Auditor to withhold the
distribution of tax increment from the District.
Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations
As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated
development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 32
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-15
reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected
to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value
estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax
increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said determination,
reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects and upon EDA
and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site(s) within the District. A comparative
analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax
increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix
D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated
subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the
use of tax increments. The but-for findings and analysis are found in Appendix G.
Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment
1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF
Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the
Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082. Tax increments may not
be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition,
construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for
conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government
or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax
increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure.
2. Pooling Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on
activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance
activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not
more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise,
on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced
bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they
were solely for activities outside of the District.
3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall
be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule
set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year
following certification of the District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures
permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit
enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5.
4. Redevelopment District. At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a
redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation
of redevelopment and renewal and renovation districts under M.S., Section 469.176 Subd. 4j. These costs
include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or
improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary
to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures,
clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of
the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated
administrative expenses of the EDA or City, including the cost of preparation of the development action
response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 33
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-16
Subsection 2-28. Summary
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the
tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide life-cycle housing opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan
for the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota
55113, telephone (651) 697-8500.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 34
Appendix A-1
Appendix A
Project Description
The EDA will be entering into a redevelopment contract with KTJ 247, LLC (Oppidan) to facilitate the
redevelopment of the former Bally’s Fitness Center and a vacant lot owned by the EDA into a mixed-use
development consisting of approximately 176 apartments and approximately 28,000 square feet of
commercial space, currently expected to be a grocery store. Pursuant to the City’s new inclusionary housing
policy, the developer must provide 18 or 10% of the units (whichever is higher) to be affordable to persons
at or below 60% of the area median income (AMI) or 8% of the units affordable at 50% of the AMI. The city
will be providing assistance in the form of a pay-as-you-go TIF note.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 35
Appendix B-1
Appendix B
Map of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 36
´
4900 Excelsior TIF District
Legend
Parcels
Proposed TIF Distict
Redevelopment Area
October 13, 2015
Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Development Department
3,400 0 3,4001,700 Feet
SubjectArea
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 37
4900 4760
4760 Excelsior Blvd
PID: 0702824210258
4900 Excelsior Blvd
PID: 0702824210002
EXCEL
SI
O
R
WOLFE
VALLAC
H
E
R
PARK C
O
M
M
O
N
S
NATCHEZQUENTINGRANDPRINCETON
OTTAWA39THWOLFEEXCEL
SI
O
R PRINCETON
´
4900 Excelsior TIF District
Legend
Parcels
Proposed TIF Dist
Roads
October 13, 2015
Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Development Department
280 0 280140 Feet
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 38
Appendix C-1
Appendix C
Description of Property to be Included in the District
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed below.
Parcel Numbers Address Owner
07-028-24-21-0002*4900 Excelsior Blvd.Fitness International LLC
07-028-24-21-0258*4760 Excelsior Blvd.EDA
*These parcels are currently in the Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District and will be eliminated
from the Park Commons TIF District prior to certification of the District.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 39
Appendix D-1
Appendix D
Estimated Cash Flow for the District
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 40
11/3/2015Base Value Assumptions - Page 1Bally's Redevelopment - 3% InflationCity of St. Louis Park176 Apartments and 28,000 sq/ft GrocerASSUMPTIONS AND RATESDistrictType:RedevelopmentDistrict Name/Number:County District #:Exempt Class Rate (Exempt)0.00%First Year Construction or Inflation on Value2015Commercial Industrial Preferred Class Rate (C/I Pref.)Existing District - Specify No. Years RemainingFirst $150,0001.50%Inflation Rate - Every Year:3.00%Over $150,0002.00%Interest Rate:4.00%Commercial Industrial Class Rate (C/I)2.00%Present Value Date:1-Aug-16Rental Housing Class Rate (Rental)1.25%First Period Ending1-Feb-17Affordable Rental Housing Class Rate (Aff. Rental)Tax Year District was Certified:Pay 2016First $100,000 0.75%Cashflow Assumes First Tax Increment For Development: 2017 Over $100,000 0.25%Years of Tax Increment 26 Non-Homestead Residential (Non-H Res. 1 Unit)Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment2042First $500,0001.00%Fiscal Disparities Election [Outside (A), Inside (B), or NA]Inside(B)Over $500,0001.25%Incremental or Total Fiscal DisparitiesIncrementalHomestead Residental Class Rate (Hmstd. Res.)Fiscal Disparities Contribution Ratio35.0050% Pay 2015 First $500,0001.00%Fiscal Disparities Metro-Wide Tax Rate161.6250% Pay 2015Over $500,0001.25%Maximum/Frozen Local Tax Rate: 130.048% Pay 2015 Agricultural Non-Homestead1.00%Current Local Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max.) 130.048% Pay 2015 State-wide Tax Rate (Comm./Ind. only used for total taxes) 50.8400% Pay 2015Market Value Tax Rate (Used for total taxes)0.23783% Pay 2015 Building Total PercentageTax Year Property CurrentClassAfterLandMarket Market Of Value Used Original OriginalTaxOriginalAfterConversionMap # PIDOwner Address Market Value ValueValue for District Market Value Market Value Class Tax Capacity Conversion Orig. Tax Cap.10702824210002 Ballys 4900 Ex. Blvd 1,215,000 1,189,000 2,404,00020% 480,800 Pay 2016 C/I Pref.8,866 C/I Pref.8,866 110702824210002 Ballys 4900 Ex. Blvd 1,215,000 1,189,000 2,404,00080% 1,923,200 Pay 2016 C/I Pref.37,714 Rental24,040 120702824210258 EDA4760 Ex. Blvd 355,5800 355,58020%71,116 Pay 2016 Exempt- C/I1,422 120702824210258 EDA4760 Ex. Blvd 355,5800 355,58080% 284,464 Pay 2016 Exempt- Rental3,556 13,141,160 2,378,000 5,519,1602,759,580 46,58037,884Note:1. Base values for parcel #1 are for pay 2016 based upon review of County website on 4-28-15. 2. Base value for parcel #2 is based upon $20 sq/ft per City Assessor.Area/ PhaseTax Rates BASE VALUE INFORMATION (Original Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\4900 Excelsior\TIF Run 9-18-15 - FINAL For TIF Plan.xlsEconomic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing DistrictPage 41
11/3/2015Base Value Assumptions - Page 23. Located in SD #283 and WS #3Bally's Redevelopment - 3% InflationCity of St. Louis Park176 Apartments and 28,000 sq/ft GrocerEstimated Taxable Total Taxable PropertyPercentage Percentage Percentage Percentage First YearMarket Value Market Value TotalMarketTaxProject Project Tax Completed Completed Completed Completed Full TaxesArea/Phase New Use Per Sq. Ft./Unit Per Sq. Ft./Unit Sq. Ft./UnitsValueClass Tax CapacityCapacity/Unit 2015201620172018 PayableApartment 180,000180,000 176 31,680,000 Rental396,0002,250 15%100%100%100%2018Grocery230230 28,228 6,492,440 C/I Pref. 129,0995 15%100%100%100%2018TOTAL38,172,440525,099 Subtotal Residential176 31,680,000396,000 Subtotal Commercial/Ind.28,228 6,492,440129,099 Note:1. Market values are based upon estimates from City Assessor.Total Fiscal Local Local Fiscal State-wide MarketTax Disparities Tax PropertyDisparities PropertyValueTotal Taxes PerNew UseCapacityTax CapacityCapacityTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxes Sq. Ft./UnitApartment 396,0000396,000 514,9900075,345 590,335 3,354.17Grocery129,099 45,191 83,908 109,120 73,040 65,63415,441 263,2359.33TOTAL 525,099 45,191 479,908 624,110 73,040 65,63490,786 853,570Note: 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary signficantly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted.Total Property Taxes853,570Current Market Value - Est.2,759,580less State-wide Taxes(65,634)New Market Value - Est.38,172,440less Fiscal Disp. Adj.(73,040) Difference35,412,860less Market Value Taxes(90,786)Present Value of Tax Increment12,071,960less Base Value Taxes(44,584) Difference23,340,900Annual Gross TIF 579,526Value likely to occur without Tax Increment is less than:23,340,900 WHAT IS EXCLUDED FROM TIF?MARKET VALUE BUT / FOR ANALYSISTAX CALCULATIONSPROJECT INFORMATION (Project Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\4900 Excelsior\TIF Run 9-18-15 - FINAL For TIF Plan.xlsEconomic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing DistrictPage 42
11/3/2015Tax Increment Cashflow - Page 3Bally's Redevelopment - 3% InflationCity of St. Louis Park176 Apartments and 28,000 sq/ft GrocerTAX INCREMENT CASH FLOWProject Original Fiscal CapturedLocal Annual Semi-Annual State Admin. Semi-Annual Semi-Annual PERIOD% of TaxTax Disparities TaxTax Gross Tax Gross Tax AuditoratNet Tax Present ENDING Tax PaymentOTC Capacity Capacity Incremental CapacityRate Increment Increment 0.36%5% Increment Value Yrs. Year Date- - - - 02/01/17100% 78,765 (37,884) (3,177) 37,703 130.048% 49,033 24,516 (88) (1,221) 23,207 22,306 0.5 2017 08/01/17100% 78,765 (37,884) (3,177) 37,703 130.048% 49,033 24,516 (88) (1,221) 23,207 44,174 1 2017 02/01/18100% 525,099 (37,884) (41,590) 445,625 130.048% 579,526 289,763 (1,043) (14,436) 274,284 297,570 1.5 2018 08/01/18100% 525,099 (37,884) (41,590) 445,625 130.048% 579,526 289,763 (1,043) (14,436) 274,284 545,997 2 2018 02/01/19100% 540,852 (37,884) (42,945) 460,022 130.048% 598,250 299,125 (1,077) (14,902) 283,146 797,423 2.5 2019 08/01/19100% 540,852 (37,884) (42,945) 460,022 130.048% 598,250 299,125 (1,077) (14,902) 283,146 1,043,918 3 2019 02/01/20100% 557,077 (37,884) (44,342) 474,851 130.048% 617,535 308,767 (1,112) (15,383) 292,273 1,293,370 3.5 2020 08/01/20100% 557,077 (37,884) (44,342) 474,851 130.048% 617,535 308,767 (1,112) (15,383) 292,273 1,537,931 4 2020 02/01/21100% 573,790 (37,884) (45,780) 490,125 130.048% 637,398 318,699 (1,147) (15,878) 301,674 1,785,409 4.5 2021 08/01/21100% 573,790 (37,884) (45,780) 490,125 130.048% 637,398 318,699 (1,147) (15,878) 301,674 2,028,035 5 2021 02/01/22100% 591,003 (37,884) (47,261) 505,858 130.048% 657,858 328,929 (1,184) (16,387) 311,358 2,273,538 5.5 2022 08/01/22100% 591,003 (37,884) (47,261) 505,858 130.048% 657,858 328,929 (1,184) (16,387) 311,358 2,514,227 6 2022 02/01/23100% 608,733 (37,884) (48,787) 522,062 130.048% 678,931 339,466 (1,222) (16,912) 321,331 2,757,756 6.5 2023 08/01/23100% 608,733 (37,884) (48,787) 522,062 130.048% 678,931 339,466 (1,222) (16,912) 321,331 2,996,510 7 2023 02/01/24100% 626,995 (37,884) (50,359) 538,752 130.048% 700,637 350,318 (1,261) (17,453) 331,604 3,238,066 7.5 2024 08/01/24100% 626,995 (37,884) (50,359) 538,752 130.048% 700,637 350,318 (1,261) (17,453) 331,604 3,474,885 8 2024 02/01/25100% 645,805 (37,884) (51,978) 555,943 130.048% 722,993 361,497 (1,301) (18,010) 342,185 3,714,470 8.5 2025 08/01/25100% 645,805 (37,884) (51,978) 555,943 130.048% 722,993 361,497 (1,301) (18,010) 342,185 3,949,356 9 2025 02/01/26100% 665,179 (37,884) (53,645) 573,650 130.048% 746,020 373,010 (1,343) (18,583) 353,084 4,186,972 9.5 2026 08/01/26100% 665,179 (37,884) (53,645) 573,650 130.048% 746,020 373,010 (1,343) (18,583) 353,084 4,419,928 10 2026 02/01/27100% 685,135 (37,884) (55,363) 591,888 130.048% 769,739 384,869 (1,386) (19,174) 364,310 4,655,578 10.5 2027 08/01/27100% 685,135 (37,884) (55,363) 591,888 130.048% 769,739 384,869 (1,386) (19,174) 364,310 4,886,607 11 2027 02/01/28100% 705,689 (37,884) (57,132) 610,673 130.048% 794,168 397,084 (1,430) (19,783) 375,872 5,120,294 11.5 2028 08/01/28100% 705,689 (37,884) (57,132) 610,673 130.048% 794,168 397,084 (1,430) (19,783) 375,872 5,349,400 12 2028 02/01/29100% 726,860 (37,884) (58,954) 630,022 130.048% 819,331 409,665 (1,475) (20,410) 387,781 5,581,130 12.5 2029 08/01/29100% 726,860 (37,884) (58,954) 630,022 130.048% 819,331 409,665 (1,475) (20,410) 387,781 5,808,316 13 2029 02/01/30100% 748,665 (37,884) (60,830) 649,951 130.048% 845,248 422,624 (1,521) (21,055) 400,048 6,038,093 13.5 2030 08/01/30100% 748,665 (37,884) (60,830) 649,951 130.048% 845,248 422,624 (1,521) (21,055) 400,048 6,263,365 14 2030 02/01/31100% 771,125 (37,884) (62,763) 670,478 130.048% 871,943 435,972 (1,569) (21,720) 412,682 6,491,195 14.5 2031 08/01/31100% 771,125 (37,884) (62,763) 670,478 130.048% 871,943 435,972 (1,569) (21,720) 412,682 6,714,557 15 2031 02/01/32100% 794,259 (37,884) (64,754) 691,621 130.048% 899,439 449,720 (1,619) (22,405) 425,696 6,940,445 15.5 2032 08/01/32100% 794,259 (37,884) (64,754) 691,621 130.048% 899,439 449,720 (1,619) (22,405) 425,696 7,161,905 16 2032 02/01/33100% 818,087 (37,884) (66,805) 713,398 130.048% 927,760 463,880 (1,670) (23,110) 439,099 7,385,858 16.5 2033 08/01/33100% 818,087 (37,884) (66,805) 713,398 130.048% 927,760 463,880 (1,670) (23,110) 439,099 7,605,419 17 2033 02/01/34100% 842,629 (37,884) (68,917) 735,828 130.048% 956,930 478,465 (1,722) (23,837) 452,905 7,827,444 17.5 2034 08/01/34100% 842,629 (37,884) (68,917) 735,828 130.048% 956,930 478,465 (1,722) (23,837) 452,905 8,045,115 18 2034 02/01/35100% 867,908 (37,884) (71,092) 758,932 130.048% 986,976 493,488 (1,777) (24,586) 467,126 8,265,219 18.5 2035 08/01/35100% 867,908 (37,884) (71,092) 758,932 130.048% 986,976 493,488 (1,777) (24,586) 467,126 8,481,007 19 2035 02/01/36100% 893,946 (37,884) (73,333) 782,728 130.048% 1,017,922 508,961 (1,832) (25,356) 481,772 8,699,197 19.5 2036 08/01/36100% 893,946 (37,884) (73,333) 782,728 130.048% 1,017,922 508,961 (1,832) (25,356) 481,772 8,913,109 20 2036 02/01/37100% 920,764 (37,884) (75,641) 807,238 130.048% 1,049,797 524,899 (1,890) (26,150) 496,859 9,129,394 20.5 2037 08/01/37100% 920,764 (37,884) (75,641) 807,238 130.048% 1,049,797 524,899 (1,890) (26,150) 496,859 9,341,437 21 2037 02/01/38100% 948,387 (37,884) (78,019) 832,484 130.048% 1,082,629 541,314 (1,949) (26,968) 512,397 9,555,825 21.5 2038 08/01/38100% 948,387 (37,884) (78,019) 832,484 130.048% 1,082,629 541,314 (1,949) (26,968) 512,397 9,766,009 22 2038 02/01/39100% 976,838 (37,884) (80,467) 858,487 130.048% 1,116,445 558,223 (2,010) (27,811) 528,402 9,978,508 22.5 2039 08/01/39100% 976,838 (37,884) (80,467) 858,487 130.048% 1,116,445 558,223 (2,010) (27,811) 528,402 10,186,840 23 2039 02/01/40100% 1,006,144 (37,884) (82,989) 885,270 130.048% 1,151,276 575,638 (2,072) (28,678) 544,888 10,397,459 23.5 2040 08/01/40100% 1,006,144 (37,884) (82,989) 885,270 130.048% 1,151,276 575,638 (2,072) (28,678) 544,888 10,603,949 24 2040 02/01/41100% 1,036,328 (37,884) (85,587) 912,857 130.048% 1,187,152 593,576 (2,137) (29,572) 561,867 10,812,699 24.5 2041 08/01/41100% 1,036,328 (37,884) (85,587) 912,857 130.048% 1,187,152 593,576 (2,137) (29,572) 561,867 11,017,355 25 2041 02/01/42100% 1,067,418 (37,884) (88,263) 941,271 130.048% 1,224,104 612,052 (2,203) (30,492) 579,356 11,224,243 25.5 2042 08/01/42100% 1,067,418 (37,884) (88,263) 941,271 130.048% 1,224,104 612,052 (2,203) (30,492) 579,356 11,427,075 26 2042 02/01/43 Total21,689,042 (78,081) (1,080,548) 20,530,413 Present Value From 08/01/2016 Present Value Rate 4.00%12,071,960 (43,459) (601,425) 11,427,075 Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\4900 Excelsior\TIF Run 9-18-15 - FINAL For TIF Plan.xlsEconomic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing DistrictPage 43
Appendix E-1
Appendix E
Minnesota Business Assistance Form
(Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development)
A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar year's
activity by April 1 of the following year.
Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at
http://www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm for information and forms.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 44
Appendix F-1
Appendix F
Redevelopment Qualifications for the District
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 45
REPORT OF
INSPECTION PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
FOR
DETERMINING QUALIFICATIONS OF A
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
AS A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Bally Block TIF District
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
August 8, 2014
Prepared For The City of St. Louis Park
Prepared by
LHB, Inc.
701 Washington Avenue North, Suite 200
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
LHB Project No. 140199
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 46
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 2
Purpose of Evaluation.......................................................................................................... 2
Scope of Work....................................................................................................................... 2
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 3
PART 2 – MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDIVISION 10 REQUIREMENTS .................. 3
A. Coverage Test ................................................................................................................. 3
B. Condition of Buildings Test ......................................................................................... 4
PART 3 – PROCEDURES FOLLOWED ................................................................................................. 5
PART 4 – FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................... 5
A. Coverage Test ................................................................................................................. 5
B. Condition of Building Test ........................................................................................... 6
1. Building Inspection ......................................................................................... 6
2. Replacement Cost ............................................................................................ 6
3. Code Deficiencies ............................................................................................ 7
4. System Condition Deficiencies ...................................................................... 7
C. Distribution of substandard structures ....................................................................... 8
PART 5 - TEAM CREDENTIALS ............................................................................................................. 9
APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
APPENDIX B Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports
APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports
Code Deficiency Cost Reports
Photographs
Bally Block TIF District 1
LHB Project No. 140199
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 47
PART 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF EVALUATION
LHB was hired by the City of St. Louis Park to inspect and evaluate the properties within a Tax
Increment Financing Redevelopment District (“TIF District”) proposed to be established by the
City. The proposed TIF District is located on one city block bounded by Excelsior Boulevard,
Quentin Avenue, Park Commons Drive and Princeton Avenue South (Diagram 1). The purpose of
LHB’s work is to determine whether the proposed TIF District meets the statutory requirements
for coverage, and whether 1 building on 2 parcels, located within the proposed TIF District, meet
the qualifications required for a Redevelopment District.
Diagram 1 – Proposed TIF District
SCOPE OF WORK
The proposed TIF District consists of two (2) parcels with one (1) structure. One (1) building was
inspected on April 15, 2014. Building code and Condition Deficiency reports for the buildings that
were inspected are located in Appendix B.
Bally Block TIF District 2
LHB Project No. 140199
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 48
CONCLUSION
After inspecting and evaluating the properties within the proposed TIF District and applying
current statutory criteria for a Redevelopment District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174,
Subdivision 10, it is our professional opinion that the proposed TIF District qualifies as a
Redevelopment District because:
• The proposed TIF District has a coverage calculation of 74.6 percent which is above the 70
percent requirement.
• 100 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard which is above the 50 percent
requirement.
• The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed throughout the geographic area of the
proposed TIF District.
The remainder of this report describes our process and findings in detail.
PART 2 – MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDIVISION 10 REQUIREMENTS
The properties were inspected in accordance with the following requirements under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), which states:
Interior Inspection
“The municipality may not make such determination [that the building is structurally substandard]
without an interior inspection of the property...”
Exterior Inspection and Other Means
“An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that
(1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best
efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and
(2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally
substandard.”
Documentation
“Written documentation of the findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not conducted
must be made and retained under section 469.175, subdivision 3(1).”
Qualification Requirements
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 (a) (1) requires two tests for occupied parcels:
A. Coverage Test
…“parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings,
streets, utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots”
The coverage required by the parcel to be considered occupied is defined under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(e), which states: “For purposes of this subdivision, a
Bally Block TIF District 3
LHB Project No. 140199
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 49
parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots unless 15
percent of the area of the parcel contains building, streets, utilities, or paved or gravel
parking lots.”
B. Condition of Buildings Test
…“and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally
substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance;”
1. Structurally substandard is defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision
10(b), which states: “For purposes of this subdivision, ‘structurally substandard’ shall
mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in
essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate
egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or
deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or
clearance.”
a. We do not count energy code deficiencies toward the thresholds required by
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b)) defined as “structurally
substandard”, due to concerns expressed by the State of Minnesota Court of
Appeals in the Walser Auto Sales, Inc. vs. City of Richfield case filed November 13, 2001.
2. Buildings are not eligible to be considered structurally substandard unless they meet
certain additional criteria, as set forth in Subdivision 10(c) which states:
“A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code
applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of
less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square
footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified
as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably
available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of
plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs, or other similar reliable evidence.”
“Items of evidence that support such a conclusion [that the building is not disqualified]
include recent fire or police inspections, on-site property appraisals or housing
inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar reliable evidence.”
LHB counts energy code deficiencies toward the 15 percent code threshold required by
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c)) for the following reasons:
• The Minnesota energy code is one of ten building code areas highlighted by the
Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry website where minimum
construction standards are required by law.
• The index page of the 2007 Minnesota Building Code lists the Minnesota
Energy Code as a “Required Enforcement” area compared to an additional list
of “Optional Enforcement” chapters.
• The Senior Building Code Representative for the Construction Codes and
Licensing Division of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry
Bally Block TIF District 4
LHB Project No. 140199
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 50
confirmed that the Minnesota Energy Code is being enforced throughout the
State of Minnesota.
• In a January 2002 report to the Minnesota Legislature, the Management Analysis
Division of the Minnesota Department of Administration confirmed that the
construction cost of new buildings complying with the Minnesota Energy Code
is higher than buildings built prior to the enactment of the code.
• Proper TIF analysis requires a comparison between the replacement value of a
new building built under current code standards with the repairs that would be
necessary to bring the existing building up to current code standards. In order
for an equal comparison to be made, all applicable code chapters should be
applied to both scenarios. Since current construction estimating software
automatically applies the construction cost of complying with the Minnesota
Energy Code, energy code deficiencies should also be identified in the existing
structures.
PART 3 – PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
LHB was able to inspect the one existing building during the day of April 15, 2014.
PART 4 – FINDINGS
A. Coverage Test
1. The total square foot area of the parcel in the proposed TIF District was obtained from
City records, GIS mapping and site verification.
2. The total square foot area of buildings and site improvements on the parcels in the
proposed TIF District was obtained from City records, GIS mapping and site
verification.
3. The percentage of coverage for each parcel in the proposed TIF District was computed
to determine if the 15 percent minimum requirement was met. The total square footage
of parcels meeting the 15 percent requirement was divided into the total square footage
of the entire district to determine if the 70 percent requirement was met.
Finding:
The proposed TIF District met the coverage test under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174,
Subdivision 10(e), which resulted in parcels consisting of 74.6 percent of the area of the
proposed TIF District being occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel
parking lots, or other similar structures (Diagram 2). This exceeds the 70 percent area
coverage requirement for the proposed TIF District under Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subdivision (a) (1).
Bally Block TIF District 5
LHB Project No. 140199
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 51
Diagram 2 – Coverage Diagram
Shaded area depicts a parcel more than 15 percent occupied by buildings, streets, utilities,
Paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures
B. Condition of Building Test
1. Building Inspection
The first step in the evaluation process is the building inspection. After an initial walk-
thru, the inspector makes a judgment whether or not a building “appears” to have
enough defects or deficiencies of sufficient total significance to justify substantial
renovation or clearance. If it does, the inspector documents with notes and photographs
code and non-code deficiencies in the building.
2. Replacement Cost
The second step in evaluating a building to determine if it is substandard to a degree
requiring substantial renovation or clearance is to determine its replacement cost. This is
the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on site.
Replacement costs were researched using R.S. Means Cost Works square foot models for
2014.
Bally Block TIF District 6
LHB Project No. 140199
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 52
A replacement cost was calculated by first establishing building use (office, retail,
residential, etc.), building construction type (wood, concrete, masonry, etc.), and building
size to obtain the appropriate median replacement cost, which factors in the costs of
construction in St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
Replacement cost includes labor, materials, and the contractor’s overhead and profit.
Replacement costs do not include architectural fees, legal fees or other “soft” costs not
directly related to construction activities. Replacement cost for each building is tabulated
in Appendix A.
3. Code Deficiencies
The next step in evaluating a building is to determine what code deficiencies exist with
respect to such building. Code deficiencies are those conditions for a building which are
not in compliance with current building codes applicable to new buildings in the State of
Minnesota.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), specifically provides that a building
cannot be considered structurally substandard if its code deficiencies are not at least 15
percent of the replacement cost of the building. As a result, it was necessary to
determine the extent of code deficiencies for each building in the proposed TIF District.
The evaluation was made by reviewing all available information with respect to such
buildings contained in City Building Inspection records and making interior and exterior
inspections of the buildings. LHB utilizes the current Minnesota State Building Code as
the official code for our evaluations. The Minnesota State Building Code is actually a
series of provisional codes written specifically for Minnesota only requirements, adoption
of several international codes, and amendments to the adopted international codes.
After identifying the code deficiencies in each building, we used R.S. Means Cost Works
2014; Unit and Assembly Costs to determine the cost of correcting the identified
deficiencies. We were than able to compare the correction costs with the replacement
cost of each building to determine if the costs for correcting code deficiencies meet the
required 15 percent threshold.
Finding:
One (1) out of one (1) building (100 percent) in the proposed TIF District contained
code deficiencies exceeding the 15 percent threshold required by Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subdivision 10(c). A complete Building Code and Condition Deficiency report
for the building in the proposed TIF District can be found in Appendix B of this report.
4. System Condition Deficiencies
If a building meets the minimum code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), then in order for such building to be “structurally
substandard” under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b), the building’s
defects or deficiencies should be of sufficient total significance to justify “substantial
renovation or clearance.” Based on this definition, LHB re-evaluated each of the
buildings that met the code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174,
Bally Block TIF District 7
LHB Project No. 140199
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 53
Subdivision 10(c), to determine if the total deficiencies warranted “substantial renovation
or clearance” based on the criteria we outlined above.
System condition deficiencies are a measurement of defects or substantial deterioration
in site elements, structure, exterior envelope, mechanical and electrical components, fire
protection and emergency systems, interior partitions, ceilings, floors and doors.
The evaluation of system condition deficiencies was made by reviewing all available
information contained in City records, and making interior and exterior inspections of
the buildings. LHB only identified system condition deficiencies that were visible upon
our inspection of the building or contained in City records. We did not consider the
amount of “service life” used up for a particular component unless it was an obvious
part of that component’s deficiencies.
After identifying the system condition deficiencies in each building, we used our
professional judgment to determine if the list of defects or deficiencies is of sufficient
total significance to justify “substantial renovation or clearance.”
Finding:
In our professional opinion, one (1) out of one (1) buildings (100 percent) in the
proposed TIF District are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial
renovation or clearance, because of defects in structural elements or a combination of
deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection
including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors
which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial
renovation or clearance. This exceeds the 50 percent requirement of Subdivision 10a(1).
C. Distribution of substandard structures
Much of this report has focused on the condition of individual buildings as they relate to
requirements identified by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10. It is also
important to look at the distribution of substandard buildings throughout the geographic
area of the proposed TIF District (Diagram 3).
Bally Block TIF District 8
LHB Project No. 140199
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 54
Finding:
The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed throughout the geographic area of
the proposed TIF District.
Diagram 3 – Substandard Buildings
Shaded area depicts parcels with substandard buildings
PART 5 - TEAM CREDENTIALS
Michael A. Fischer, AIA, LEED AP - Project Principal/TIF Analyst
Michael has twenty-four years of architectural experience as project principal, project manager,
project designer and project architect on municipal planning, educational, commercial and
governmental projects. He is a Senior Vice President at LHB and currently leads the Minneapolis
office. Michael completed a two-year Bush Fellowship at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
in 1999, earning Masters Degrees in City Planning and Real Estate Development. Michael has
served on over 35 committees, boards and community task forces, including a term as a City
Council President, Chair of a Metropolitan Planning organization, and most recently, Chair of the
Bally Block TIF District 9
LHB Project No. 140199
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 55
Bally Block TIF District 10
LHB Project No. 140199
Planning Commission in Edina, Minnesota. He was one of four architects in the country to receive
the National "Young Architects Citation" from the American Institute of Architects in 1997.
Philip Waugh – Project Manager/TIF Analyst
Philip is a project manager with 13 years of experience in historic preservation, building
investigations, material research, and construction methods. He previously worked as a historic
preservationist and also served as the preservation specialist at the St. Paul Heritage Preservation
Commission. Currently, Phil sits on the Board of Directors for the Preservation Alliance of
Minnesota. His current responsibilities include project management of historic preservation
projects, performing building condition surveys and analysis, TIF analysis, writing preservation
specifications, historic design reviews, writing Historic Preservation Tax Credit applications,
preservation planning, and grant writing.
Ben Trousdale, AIA – Inspector
Ben is a project architect in LHB’s Minneapolis office with 20 years of experience working on a
variety of multi-family housing and commercial projects. He has extensive skills in creating quality
construction documents that convey a building’s fundamentals and unique design details. His
responsibilities include project management, code analysis, and overseeing document production.
Ben is a licensed architect in Minnesota and is involved with AIA activities including Search for
Shelter charrettes.
M:\14Proj\140199\400 Design\406 Reports\Final Report\Bally Block TIF Report.doc
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
APPENDIX B Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports
APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports
Code Deficiency Cost Reports
Photograph
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 56
APPENDIX A
Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 57
08/06/2014Bally Block TIF Analysis ‐ St. Louis ParkSUMMARY SPREADSHEETTIF Map No.PID #Owner/BusinessProperty AddressImproved or VacantSurvey Method UsedSite Area(S.F.)Coverage Area of Improvements(S.F.)Coverage Percent of ImprovementsCoverageQuantity(S.F.)No. of BuildingsBuildingReplacementCost15% of Replacement CostBuilding Code DeficienciesNo. of Buildings Exceeding 15% CriteriaNo. of buildings determined substandard107‐028‐24‐21‐0002Fitness International LLC4900 Excelsior BoulevardImproved Interior/Exterior52,09442,06880.8%52,094 1 $4,454,532 $668,180 $808,58311207‐028‐24‐21‐0258St Louis Park Econ Dev Auth4760 Excelsior BoulevardVacantExterior17,7792,08611.7%00$0$0$000TOTALS 69,87352,094 1 11 74.6% 100.0%M:\14Proj\140199\400 Design\406 Reports\Final Report\[St. Louis Park Bally Block TIF Summary Spreadsheet.xls]Property Info100.0%Total Coverage Percent:Percent of buildings exceeding 15 percent code deficiency threshold: Percent of buildings determined substandard: LHB Project No. 140199Page 1 of 1Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing DistrictPage 58
APPENDIX B
Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 59
BALLY BLOCK
REDEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICT
CODE/CONDITION DEFICIENCY/CONTEXT ANALYSIS
August 8, 2014
Map No. & Address: Map No. 1 – 4900 Excelsior Boulevard
Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): 15 April 2014, 10:30am
Inspection Type: Interior and Exterior
Summary of Deficiencies: It is our professional opinion that this building is Substandard
because:
- Substantial renovation is required to correct Conditions found.
- Building Code deficiencies total more than 15% of replacement
cost, NOT including energy code deficiencies.
Estimated Replacement Cost: $4,454,532.00
Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $ 808,583.20
Percentage of Replacement Cost for Building Code Deficiencies: 18.2 %
A. Defects in Structural Elements
- Cracks in exterior walls may indicate settlement in the building structure.
B. Combination of Deficiencies
1. Essential Utilities and Facilities
a. Remove and replace existing toilet rooms.
b. Add elevator with the following:
i Elevator Pit and footings
ii 12” CMU shaft walls
iii Elevator equipment and equipment room
iv 100amp 3 phase power
v safety switch
vi fire alarm connections
vii emergency phone connection
c. Stainless steel removable ramp for pool and spa.
2. Light and Ventilation
a. Reinstall Toilet Room Ventilation System.
b. Provide additional ventilation to comply with current code for fresh air.
c. Ventilation ducts on roof are rusted and need replacement.
3. Fire Protection/Adequate Egress
a. Non-compliant exit stairs to 2nd floor & pool egress.
b. Provide sprinkler system in basement to comply with 903.2.12.1 and 903.2.12.1.3
4. Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials
a. Interior room reconstruction (doors, partitions, finishes).
b. Move conflicting toilet partition and water closet in Men’s locker room.
c. Replace water damaged and cracked acoustical ceiling tile. Install ceiling tile where none
exists.
d. Replace warped fluorescent light covers at ceiling.
e. Replace worn carpeting in corridors.
f. Patch and repaint walls
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 60
g. Replace worn rubber trim at floor level.
h. Replace warped and cracked wood gym flooring.
i. Rubber flooring in fitness area is worn and damaged. Requires replacement.
j. Baseboard missing in fitness area.
k. Patch empty conduit drill holes in drywall in corridor and remove electrical conduit not
in use.
l. Rust forming on metal ceilings.
m. Uneven rubber flooring transition at top of stair.
n. Evidence of water damage on flooring.
o. Shower room tiles exhibit signs of mold and mildew.
p. Cracked tiles at pool surround.
q. Tiles at spa exhibit signs of mildew.
r. Cracked floor tiles at building entry.
5. Exterior Construction
a. Landings not at same level on both sides of egress door.
b. Install new stoop at 10 locations.
c. Remove and reinstall roof providing adequate sloped drainage.
d. Standing water on roof due to insufficient drainage.
e. Install overflow drainage system.
f. Cracks in roof sealant.
g. Aging wood enclosure surrounding HVAC unit on roof.
h. Moss growth on roof.
i. Exterior wall discolored from previous signage.
j. Exterior wall exhibits extensive cracks.
k. Side entry requires landscaping or concrete walkway.
l. Exterior rubber seal at windows peeling away from mullion.
m. Cracked window. Requires replacement.
n. Uneven pavement at rear entry.
o. Exterior wall shows signs of patching and needs repainting.
p. Wood chips covering exterior window sill.
q. Exterior metal stair rusted at parking structure.
Description of Code Deficiencies
- Replace toilets to provide handicap access for each sex.
- Build (2) new accessible toilet rooms with compliant number of accessories and fixtures.
- Interior configuration does not provide for accessible route. Interior handicap access route not
provided throughout building. MN 1341.0405, Item E.
- MN 1341.0488: Provide handicap access to pool and spa.
- MN 1341.0458 Subpart 2: Provide adequate access to shower unit at Men’s and Women’s locker
rooms.
- MN 1341.0442 - Provide adequate maneuvering space at Men's and Women's locker room doors.
- Move conflicting toilet partition and water closet in Men’s locker room.
- Landings not at same level both sides of egress door.
- Install new stoop at 10 locations.
- Non-compliant exit stairs to 2nd floor & pool egress.
- Stair treads exceeds min. run of 11" and stair riser greater than max. 7".
- Provide sprinkler system in basement to comply with 903.2.12.1 and 903.2.12.1.3.
- Remove and reinstall roof providing adequate sloped drainage.
- Install overflow drainage system.
- Provide additional ventilation to comply with current code for fresh air.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 61
Overview of Deficiencies
- This building is a two story, commercial building in generally poor condition. According to property
records, it was built in 1983.
- In total, the defects and deficiencies in this building are of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 62
APPENDIX C
Building Replacement Cost Reports
Code Deficiency Cost Reports
Photographs
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 63
Square Foot Cost Estimate Report
Bally Block
St Louis Park
4900 Excelsior Boulevard , St Louis Park , MN
Building Type:Health Club with Concrete Block / Steel Frame
Location:MINNEAPOLIS, MN
Story Count:2
Story Height (L.F.):12
Floor Area (S.F.):24,685
Labor Type:STD
Basement Included:Yes
Data Release:Year 2014 Quarter 1
Cost Per Square Foot:$180.46
Building Cost:$4,454,532
% of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost
8.81% $15.89 $392,245
A1010 Standard Foundations $3.91 $96,518
A1030 Slab on Grade $3.50 $86,398
A2010 Basement Excavation $2.69 $66,403
A2020 Basement Walls $5.79 $142,926
26.17% $47.22 $1,165,626
B1010 Floor Construction $25.04 $618,112
B1020 Roof Construction $5.49 $135,521
B2010 Exterior Walls $8.95 $220,931
B2020 Exterior Windows $2.69 $66,403
B2030 Exterior Doors $1.17 $28,881
B3010 Roof Coverings $3.80 $93,803
B3020 Roof Openings $0.08 $1,975
19.41% $35.03 $864,716
C1010 Partitions $6.58 $162,427
Spread footings, 3000 PSI concrete, load 200K, soil bearing capacity 6
Estimate Name:
Costs are derived from a building model with basic components.
Scope differences and market conditions can cause costs to vary significantly.
A Substructure
Strip footing, concrete, reinforced, load 11.1 KLF, soil bearing capacity 6
Windows, aluminum, picture unit, insulated glass, 3'‐4" x 5'‐0"
Slab on grade, 4" thick, non industrial, reinforced
Excavate and fill, 10,000 SF, 8' deep, sand, gravel, or common earth, on
Foundation wall, CIP, 12' wall height, pumped, .444 CY/LF, 21.59 PLF,
B Shell
Cast‐in‐place concrete column, 12" square, tied, 200K load, 12' story
Flat slab, concrete, with drop panels, 6" slab/2.5" panel, 12" column,
Floor, concrete, slab form, open web bar joist @ 2' OC, on W beam and
Floor, concrete, slab form, open web bar joist @ 2' OC, on W beam and
Roof, steel joists, joist girder, 1.5" 22 ga metal deck, on columns, 30'x30'
Roof, steel joists, joist girder, 1.5" 22 ga metal deck, on columns, 30'x30'
Concrete block (CMU) wall, regular weight, 75% solid, 8 x 8 x 16, 4500
Windows, aluminum, awning type, standard glass, 3'‐0" x 4'‐0", 3 lite
Door, aluminum & glass, without transom, black finish, double door,
Door, steel 18 gauge, hollow metal, 1 door with frame, no label, 3'‐0" x
Roofing, asphalt flood coat, gravel, base sheet, 3 plies 15# asphalt felt,
Insulation, rigid, roof deck, composite with 2" EPS, 1" perlite
Roof edges, aluminum, duranodic, .050" thick, 6" face
Gravel stop, aluminum, extruded, 4", mill finish, .050" thick
Skylight, plastic domes, insululated curbs, nominal size to 10 SF, single
Roof hatch, with curb, 1" fiberglass insulation, 2'‐6" x 3'‐0", galvanized
C Interiors
Bally Block TIF District
LHB Project No. 140199 1 of 3 Parcel #07‐028‐24‐21‐0002
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 64
C1020 Interior Doors $2.25 $55,541
C1030 Fittings $3.41 $84,176
C2010 Stair Construction $5.29 $130,584
C3010 Wall Finishes $1.40 $34,559
C3020 Floor Finishes $12.22 $301,651
C3030 Ceiling Finishes $3.88 $95,778
36.52% $65.91 $1,626,988
D2010 Plumbing Fixtures $3.98 $98,246
D2010 Plumbing Fixtures $6.42 $158,478
D2020 Domestic Water Distribution $1.42 $35,053
D2040 Rain Water Drainage $0.73 $18,020
D3050 Terminal & Package Units $32.25 $796,091
D4010 Sprinklers $3.80 $93,803
D4020 Standpipes $0.38 $9,380
D5010 Electrical Service/Distribution $2.93 $72,327
D5020 Lighting and Branch Wiring $11.72 $289,308
D5030 Communications and Security $2.22 $54,801
Hydraulic passenger elevator, 3,500 lb, 3 floors, 12 story height
1 car group, 125 FPM
Metal partition, 5/8"fire rated gypsum board face, 1/4" sound deadening
Concrete block (CMU) partition, light weight, hollow, 6" thick, no finish
Urinal, vitreous china, wall hung
1/2" fire rated gypsum board, taped & finished, painted on metal furring
Door, single leaf, kd steel frame, hollow metal, commercial quality, flush,
Toilet partitions, cubicles, ceiling hung, stainless steel
Stairs, steel, cement filled metal pan & picket rail, 16 risers, with landing
Painting, interior on plaster and drywall, walls & ceilings, roller work,
Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, primer & 2 coats
Carpet tile, nylon, fusion bonded, 18" x 18" or 24" x 24", 35 oz
Tile, ceramic natural clay
Acoustic ceilings, 3/4"mineral fiber, 12" x 12" tile, concealed 2" bar &
D Services
Water closet, vitreous china, tank type, floor mount, 1 piece
Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, light hazard, each additional floor,
Lavatory w/trim, vanity top, PE on CI, 19" x 16" oval
Kitchen sink w/trim, countertop, stainless steel, 25" x 22" single bowl
Service sink w/trim, PE on CI,wall hung w/rim guard, 24" x 20"
Bathtub, recessed, PE on CI, mat bottom, corner, 48" x 42"
Shower, stall, baked enamel, terrazzo receptor, 36" square
Water cooler, electric, wall hung, dual height, 14.3 GPH
Gas fired water heater, commercial, 100< F rise, 600 MBH input, 576
Roof drain, DWV PVC, 4" diam, diam, 10' high
Roof drain, DWV PVC, 4" diam, for each additional foot add
Rooftop, multizone, air conditioner, bowling alleys, 20,000 SF, 113.00
Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, light hazard, 1 floor, 10,000 SF
Communication and alarm systems, fire detection, addressable, 25
Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, 1 floor
Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe,
Overhead service installation, includes breakers, metering, 20' conduit &
Feeder installation 600 V, including RGS conduit and XHHW wire, 400 A
Switchgear installation, incl switchboard, panels & circuit breaker,
Receptacles incl plate, box, conduit, wire, 2.5 per 1000 SF, .3 watts per
Wall switches, 1.0 per 1000 SF
Miscellaneous power, to .5 watts
Central air conditioning power, 4 watts
Fluorescent fixtures recess mounted in ceiling, 0.8 watt per SF, 20 FC, 5
HID fixture, 20' above work plane, 3 watt/SF, type G, 151 FC, 3 fixtures
Fire alarm command center, addressable with voice, excl. wire & conduit
Bally Block TIF District
LHB Project No. 140199 2 of 3 Parcel #07‐028‐24‐21‐0002
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 65
D5090 Other Electrical Systems $0.06 $1,481
0.00% $0.00 $0
E1090 Other Equipment $0.00 $0
0.00% $0.00 $0
0.00% $0.00 $0
100% $164.05 $4,049,574
10.00% $16.41 $404,957
0.00% $0.00 $0
0.00% $0.00 $0
$180.46 $4,454,532
Contractor Fees (General Conditions,Overhead,Profit)
Architectural Fees
User Fees
Total Building Cost
Generator sets, w/battery, charger, muffler and transfer switch,
E Equipment & Furnishings
F Special Construction
G Building Sitework
SubTotal
Bally Block TIF District
LHB Project No. 140199 3 of 3 Parcel #07‐028‐24‐21‐0002
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 66
Bally Block TIF District
LHB Project No. 140199
Page 1 of 2 Parcel #07-028-24-21-0002
Bally Block Proposed TIF District
Project No. 140199
4900 Excelsior Blvd
Parcel #07-028-24-21-0002
Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Unit
Quantity Total
Handicap Items
Replace toilets to provide handicap access for each sex
Build (2) new accessible toilet rooms W/ compliant number of accessories and fixtures
Remove existing toilet rooms 2,275.00$ Lump 1 2,275.00$
2 water closets 3,250.00$ each 2 6,500.00$
2 lavs 2,275.00$ each 2 4,550.00$
1 Urinal 2,275.00$ each 1 2,275.00$
2 sets of grab bars 520.00$ each 2 1,040.00$
2 sets toilet room accessories 650.00$ each 2 1,300.00$
Interior room reconstruction (doors, partitions, finishes)80.00$ SF 120 9,600.00$
Reinstall toilet Room Ventilation System 650.00$ each 2 1,300.00$
Interior configuration does not provide for accessible route. Interior handicap access route not
provided throughout building. MN 1341.0405, Item E
Add Elevator
Elevator Pit and footings 8,000.00$ Lump 1 8,000.00$
12" CMU Elevator Shaft walls 13.00$ SF 1,216 15,808.00$
Elevator Equipment (3 stop)44,575.00$ Lump 1 44,575.00$
Elevator Equipment Room (Assume 64 SF)30.00$ SF 64 1,920.00$
Power 100 amp 3 phase
Safety Switch 520.00$ Lump 1 520.00$
Circuit Breaker 795.00$ Lump 1 795.00$
Motor Starter 450.00$ Lump 1 450.00$
Wire and Conduit Feeder (150 feet assumed)31.00$ LF 150 4,650.00$
Fire Alarm Connections 1,000.00$ lump 1 1,000.00$
Emergency Phone Connection 12.00$ LF 150 1,800.00$
MN 1341.0488 Provide handicap access to pool and spa
Stainless steel removable ramp 10,550.00$ Each 2.00 21,100.00$
MN 1341.0458 Subpart 2 - Provide adequate access to shower unit at Men's and Women's locker rooms
Install new shower enclosure in locker area
Sawcut floor for new drain and waste.65.00$ HR 12.00 780.00$
Provide piping for hot and cold water 65.00$ HR 24.00 1,560.00$
Provide 8" CMU for wall enclosure at 2 sides of shower unit 12.00$ SF 96.00 1,152.00$
Furnish install new shower 36" x 36" enclosure with seat and bars 670.00$ Each 2.00 1,340.00$
Shower valve, head 350.00$ Each 2.00 700.00$
Grab Bars 205.00$ Each 2.00 410.00$
Patch flooring 7.00$ SF 12.00 84.00$
MN 1341.0442 - Provide adequate maneuvering space at Men's and Women's locker room doors
Men - move conflicting toilet partition and water closet
Modify conflicting partition 900.00$ Each 2.00 1,800.00$
Patch flooring 14.00$ SF 8.00 112.00$
Landings not at same level both sides of egress door
Install new stoop at 10 locations
Concrete stoop foundations 8' x 4'
Excavation/Backfill 105.00$ LF 16.00 1,680.00$
Strip Footings 12" x 18"520.00$ CY 1.00 520.00$
8" CMU foundation walls grout solid 9.00$ SF 90.00 810.00$
Reinforced Concrete stoop on metal form deck 520.00$ CY 1.00 520.00$
Exiting
Non-compliant exit stairs to 2nd floor & pool egress
Stair treads exceeds min. run of 11" and stair riser greater than max. 7". IBC1009.3.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 67
Bally Block TIF District
LHB Project No. 140199
Page 2 of 2 Parcel #07-028-24-21-0002
Bally Block Proposed TIF District
Project No. 140199
4900 Excelsior Blvd
Parcel #07-028-24-21-0002
Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Unit
Quantity Total
Remove existing steel and concrete stairs.3,000.00$ Each 2 6,000.00$
Provide new stairs at each location (assume 22 risers/stair)420.00$ Riser 44 18,480.00$
Provide new railings at each location 50 feet per stair 60.00$ Foot 200 12,000.00$
Provide new stair tread coverings 67.20$ Riser 44 2,956.80$
Fire Protection
IBC Chapter 9 - Provide Fire Alarm System 0.95$ SF 24,685 23,450.75$
Provide sprinkler system in basement to comply with 903.2.12.1 and 903.2.12.1.3
Sprinkler piping and heads for building 4.05$ SF 24,685 99,974.25$
Provide 6" water line from public right of way, include cut and patch 300.00$ LF 80 24,000.00$
Roof Construction
Remove and reinstall roof providing adequate sloped drainage
MN1305.1507.10.1 to 1305.1507.15.1
Remove existing roof $3.25 SF 13,556 44,057.00$
Install new roofing system with 6" rigid insulation minimum with taper.$10.40 SF 13,556 140,982.40$
Add additional wood blocking $6.50 LF 638 4,147.00$
Install overflow drainage system at buildings 11 and 7 ( 13,700 SF)
4 roof drains 650.00$ Each 6 3,900.00$
3" piping @ 300 feet 21.00$ LF 300 6,300.00$
Mechanical- Electrical
Provide additional ventilation to comply with current code for fresh air
MN 1346.0403 Section 403.3
Assumes 100% of floor area is non-code compliant
Mechanical equipment, ductwork and units 8.80$ SF 24,685 217,228.00$
Additional electrical service and distribution for mechanical equipment 2.60$ SF 24,685 64,181.00$
Total Code Improvements 808,583.20$
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 68
Cover Image-rev 1.jpg IMGP4000.JPG IMGP3960.JPG IMGP3959.JPG
IMGP4018.JPG IMGP4009.JPG IMGP4010.JPG IMGP4011.JPG
IMGP3958.JPG IMGP3937.JPG IMGP3941.JPG IMGP3942.JPG
IMGP3945.JPG IMGP3947.JPG IMGP3951.JPG IMGP3955.JPG
Bally Block TIF Analysis Photos - 4900 Excelsior Boulevard
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 69
IMGP3956.JPG IMGP3969.JPG IMGP3971.JPG IMGP3976.JPG
IMGP3982.JPG IMGP3991.JPG IMGP3993.JPG IMGP4001.JPG
IMGP4014.JPG IMGP4019.JPG IMGP4020.JPG IMGP3815.JPG
IMGP3817.JPG IMGP3818.JPG IMGP3823.JPG IMGP3824.JPG
Bally Block TIF Analysis Photos - 4900 Excelsior Boulevard
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 70
IMGP3825.JPG IMGP3835.JPG IMGP3829.JPG IMGP3828.JPG
IMGP3831.JPG IMGP3933.JPG IMGP3932.JPG IMGP3788.JPG
IMGP3778.JPG IMGP3780.JPG IMGP3784.JPG IMGP3803.JPG
IMGP3795.JPG IMGP3930.JPG IMGP3843.JPG IMGP3807.JPG
Bally Block TIF Analysis Photos - 4900 Excelsior Boulevard
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 71
IMGP3837.JPG IMGP3874.JPG IMGP3875.JPG IMGP3877.JPG
IMGP3882.JPG IMGP3790.JPG IMGP3883.JPG IMGP3884.JPG
IMGP3888.JPG IMGP3891.JPG IMGP3918.JPG IMGP3893.JPG
IMGP3894.JPG IMGP3785.JPG IMGP3786.JPG IMGP3896.JPG
Bally Block TIF Analysis Photos - 4900 Excelsior Boulevard
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 72
IMGP3898.JPG IMGP3907.JPG IMGP3899.JPG IMGP3902.JPG
IMGP3848.JPG IMGP3862.JPG IMGP3799.JPG IMGP3910.JPG
IMGP3917.JPG IMGP3920.JPG
Bally Block TIF Analysis Photos - 4900 Excelsior Boulevard
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 73
Appendix G-1
Appendix G
Findings Including But/For Qualifications
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF
Plan) for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District (District), as required pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows:
1. Finding that the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defined
in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10.
The District consists of two parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for commercial/industrial and
housing purposes. At least 70 percent of the area of the parcels in the District are occupied by buildings,
streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent of the
buildings in the District, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring
substantial renovation or clearance. (See Appendix F of the TIF Plan.)
2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be
expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the
increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the
proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the
maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding is supported by the fact
that the redevelopment proposed in the TIF Plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment, but due
to the inclusion of affordable housing units and the high cost of redevelopment on the parcels currently
occupied by substandard buildings and costs associated with their removal, soil remediation, site
improvements and utility relocation, and the cost of financing the proposed improvements, this project
is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The developer was asked for
and provided a letter and a proforma as justification that the developer would not have gone forward
without tax increment assistance.
The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed
development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration
of the District permitted by the TIF Plan: This finding is justified on the grounds that the cost of
demolition, site and public improvements and utilities add to the total cost of redeveloping previously
built-up parcels. Historically, these types of costs have made redevelopment infeasible without tax
increment assistance. In addition, the privately owned site has been vacant and its owner has marketed
the site for at least 3 years without success. The City reasonably determines that no other redevelopment
of similar scope is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the
development.
Therefore, the City concludes as follows:
a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will
increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0.
b. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be $35,412,860.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 74
Appendix G-2
c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the
district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $12,071,960.
d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Council
finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than
$23,340,900 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment
assistance.
3. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District conforms to the general plan for the development or
redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to the
general development plan of the City.
4. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound
needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project No.
1 by private enterprise.
Through the implementation of the TIF Plan, the EDA or City will increase the availability of safe
and decent life-cycle housing in the City. The project to be assisted through tax increment will result
in the renovation of substandard properties in the City and the corresponding reduction in blight, will
increase the tax base of the City and State, and will add a high quality mixed-use development to the
City.
But-For Analysis
Current Market Value 2,759,580
New Market Value - Estimate 38,172,440
Difference 35,412,860
Present Value of Tax Increment 12,071,960
Difference 23,340,900
Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 23,340,900
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 75
Appendix H-1
Appendix H
Building Permits
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 76
Report Name: Permit Search Printed: 9/30/2015
Page: 1Permit Search Results
City of St. Louis Park
Permit #Permit Type Sub Type Work Type Description Issued Date Final DateHouseUse Dead Date Cancel DateStreetUnit Valuation ePermit User 1 User 2Exp Date
SL224835 Electrical Repair/Re
place
Principal
Building
replace fire
sprinkler
monitoring
panel
01/07/20144900Excelsior
Blvd
1,500 No
SL224831 Fire Alteration;
Fire Alarm
System
Fire Alarm
System
Replace
existing
panel with
DMP
XR100 &
new horn 3
pull st
01/07/20144900Excelsior
Blvd
1,500 No
SL210487 User
Defined
Occupanc
y
Certificati
on
Commercial
Property
Maintenance
sale of
building
08/09/20124900Excelsior
Blvd
old bally's
bldg
39,156 No
SL204094 Plumbing Alteration
Nonreside
ntial
Principal
Building
hook up
water
heaters
supplied by
others
12/05/2011 12/07/20114900Excelsior
Blvd
2,000 No
SL203934 User
Defined
Land Use
Registratio
n
Land Use
Registration
11/23/2011 08/22/20124900Excelsior
Blvd
Bally Total
Fitness
39,000 No
SL195937 Electrical Repair/Re
place
Principal
Building
Install 1
two-hour
timer switch,
aerobics rm
light
02/11/20114900Excelsior
Blvd
1,100 No
SL194849 Public
Works
Utility
work
above
ground
Bituminous R-O-W Lane
Closure
12/14/2010 11/08/20134900Excelsior
Blvd
0 No
SL194325 Mechanical Replaceme
nt
Principal
Building
Remove
existing rtu
and install
new bryant
rtu
11/22/2010 11/28/20114900Excelsior
Blvd
8,800 No
SL192487 Plumbing Alteration
Nonreside
ntial
Principal
Building
Rebuild
RPZ
Assembly
09/23/2010 12/08/20114900Excelsior
Blvd
450 No
SL188332 Building Alteration
Commeric
al
Accessory
Building
Parking
Ramp, new
expansion,
concrete
patching
04/13/20104900Excelsior
Blvd
26,300 No
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 77
Report Name: Permit Search Printed: 9/30/2015
Page: 2Permit Search Results
City of St. Louis Park
Permit #Permit Type Sub Type Work Type Description Issued Date Final DateHouseUse Dead Date Cancel DateStreetUnit Valuation ePermit User 1 User 2Exp Date
SL181570 Electrical Repair/Re
place
Garage Redo
conduit for
ramp,
lighting S &
E walls
06/26/2009 07/15/20094900Excelsior
Blvd
3,600 No
SL176130 Plumbing Alteration
Nonreside
ntial
Principal
Building
Replace 85
gallon water
heater
11/10/2008 11/14/20084900Excelsior
Blvd
11,500 No
SL161676 Electrical Addition/
Alteration
Commeric
al
Principal
Building
wire 3 new
vending
machines
near front
door
10/24/2007 11/28/20114900Excelsior
Blvd
900 No
SL145824 Fire Alteration;
Sprinkler,
Wet
System
Sprinkler
System
NFPA 13
01/18/2006 01/23/20144900Excelsior
Blvd
1,000 No
SL145439 Sign Sign -
Temporary
Wall Bally
Martial Arts
Available
12/28/2005 01/04/20064900Excelsior
Blvd
0 No
SL145195 Electrical Repair/Re
place
Principal
Building
connect pool
railing to
grounding gr
12/15/2005 12/21/20054900Excelsior
Blvd
150 No
SL144982 Sign Sign -
Temporary
Wall Bally
Martial Arts
Available
12/09/2005 12/12/20054900Excelsior
Blvd
0 No
SL135069 Public
Works
Utility
work
below
ground
Sod Dir bore
buried tel
cable
11/05/2004 11/29/20114900Excelsior
Blvd
0 No
SL124197 Electrical Remodel Principal
Building
new ckts of
additional
equipment
09/11/20034900Excelsior
Blvd
18,000 No
SL121603 Sign Sign -
Temporary
Other
(Replaceme
nt only)
2 side with
hinges on
top
06/11/2003 06/12/20034900Excelsior
Blvd
0 No
SL120205 Electrical Repair/Re
place
Principal
Building
wire 2 water
heater
changes
04/24/2003 05/02/20034900Excelsior
Blvd
300 No
SL119989 Plumbing Replaceme
nt
Principal
Building
Replace 2
waterheaters
04/22/2003 12/08/20114900Excelsior
Blvd
12,000 No
SL115360 Fire Tank
abandonm
ent; Below
grade
Flammable /
Comb.
Liquid Stor.
Tank
09/19/20024900Excelsior
Blvd
8,500 No
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 78
Report Name: Permit Search Printed: 9/30/2015
Page: 3Permit Search Results
City of St. Louis Park
Permit #Permit Type Sub Type Work Type Description Issued Date Final DateHouseUse Dead Date Cancel DateStreetUnit Valuation ePermit User 1 User 2Exp Date
SL108809 Electrical Repair/Re
place
Principal
Building
Lighting
upgrades
01/16/2002 02/07/20024900Excelsior
Blvd
17,500 No
SL091123 Plumbing RPZ
Overhaul
or
Replaceme
nt
Principal
Building
Overhaul
RPZ, pool
fill
12/03/1999 12/08/20114900Excelsior
Blvd
210 No
SL084910 Plumbing Alteration
Nonreside
ntial
Principal
Building
Install
valves/heads
04/28/1999 05/13/19994900Excelsior
Blvd
3,300 No
SL083631 Electrical Remodel Principal
Building
Wire circuit 03/04/1999 05/12/19994900Excelsior
Blvd
60 No
SL083396 Electrical Remodel Principal
Building
02/19/1999 05/12/19994900Excelsior
Blvd
500 No
SL062654 Plumbing New
Nonreside
ntial
10/17/1996 11/28/20114900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
100 No
SL056231 Building Alteration
Commeric
al
02/21/1996 07/19/19964900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
200 No
SL055957 Building Alteration
Commeric
al
02/02/1996 11/28/20114900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
7,500 No
SL052218 Plumbing New
Nonreside
ntial
08/21/1995 10/03/19954900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
400 No
SL051784 Sign 08/03/1995 10/06/19954900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
76 No
SL051783 Sign 08/03/1995 10/06/19954900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
76 No
SL047810 Mechanical Addition
Residentia
l
02/16/1995 05/04/19954900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
3,140 No
SL043005 Plumbing Alteration
Nonreside
ntial
07/05/1994 07/05/19944900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
561 No
SL041335 Electrical Remodel SEE
REMARKS
04/25/1994 05/03/19944900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
3,000 No
SL040800 Plumbing Alteration
Nonreside
ntial
03/31/1994 06/30/19944900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
800 No
SL040049 Electrical Remodel SEE
REMARKS
02/22/1994 05/03/19944900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
200 No
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 79
Report Name: Permit Search Printed: 9/30/2015
Page: 4Permit Search Results
City of St. Louis Park
Permit #Permit Type Sub Type Work Type Description Issued Date Final DateHouseUse Dead Date Cancel DateStreetUnit Valuation ePermit User 1 User 2Exp Date
SL038627 Electrical Remodel 11/16/1993 11/28/20114900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
2,000 No
SL036772 Electrical Remodel 08/27/1993 10/12/19934900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
1,600 No
SL017398 Electrical Disconnec
t
SEE
REMARKS
10/25/1990 11/19/19904900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
500 No
SL012838 Building Alteration
Commeric
al
03/16/1990 04/01/19924900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
5,600 No
SL010883 Mechanical Alteration
Nonreside
ntial
$400.00 10/27/1989 11/19/19904900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
400 No
SL010138 Mechanical 09/22/1989 10/12/19894900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
2,132 No
SL010007 Mechanical Alteration
Nonreside
ntial
09/15/1989 10/03/19914900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
8,000 No
SL009961 Plumbing Alteration
Nonreside
ntial
09/14/1989 10/12/19894900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
16,161 No
SL009832 Building Alteration
Commeric
al
09/11/1989 11/28/19894900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
72,500 No
SL005755 Mechanical Alteration
Nonreside
ntial
12/27/1988 09/22/19894900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
100 No
SL144590 Building Alteration
Commeric
al
Swimming
Pool
install
concrete
steps to
swim pool
4900 Excelsior
Blvd
5,000 No
50 Permit record(s) found Total Valuation: 327,372
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District Page 80
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 7b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Public Hearing Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC - 4900
Excelsior Blvd
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony, and close
public hearing. Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the Purchase and Redevelopment
Contract between the EDA and KTJ 247, LLC (Oppidan Investment Company) related to the
proposed 4900 Excelsior project at 4760 and 4900 Excelsior Blvd.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: Does the EDA approve the proposed Purchase and
Redevelopment Contract between the EDA and KTJ 247, LLC to facilitate the construction of its
proposed mixed-use redevelopment at 4760 and 4900 Excelsior Blvd.?
SUMMARY: Oppidan Investment Company has requested Tax Increment Financing assistance
to support its construction of a major mixed-use redevelopment called 4900 Excelsior at 4760
and 4900 Excelsior Blvd. It has been determined that but for the use of tax increment financing
assistance the proposed project would not proceed due to more than $7.1 million of extraordinary
costs associated with redeveloping the site. The Redeveloper’s application for TIF assistance was
reviewed at the June 8th Study Session as well as the August 17th Special Study Session where it
received favorable support. A list of specific business terms for providing the proposed
assistance was presented at the October 26th Study Session and received favorable support.
Those terms served as the basis for the proposed Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with
KTJ 247, LLC (Oppidan Investment Company).
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Under the proposed Contract, Oppidan
agrees to purchase the EDA’s property at 4760 Excelsior Blvd for its appraised value of
$780,000. In order for the 4900 Excelsior project to become financially feasible, the EDA agrees
to reimburse the Redeveloper for certain qualified site redevelopment costs up to $2,800,000 in
pay-as-you -go tax increment generated by the project for a term of approximately 7 years. Once
the TIF Note is fully paid, the additional property taxes generated by the project would accrue to
the applicable taxing jurisdictions. The EDA’s financial participation in the proposed project
would leverage approximately $48 million in new investment, attract a new grocery business as
well as create over 85 new jobs and 18 affordable housing units. Upon completion the project is
conservatively estimated to have a total taxable market value of over $38 million.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
EDA Resolution
Purchase and Redevelopment Contract
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, EDA Deputy Executive Director and Deputy City Manager
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 2
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Oppidan Investment Company (“Redeveloper”) proposes to assemble and
redevelop the Bally Total Fitness block bound by Excelsior Blvd, Quentin Ave., Princeton Lane,
and Park Commons Dr. The 1.6-acre redevelopment site consists of two parcels: the 1.2 acre
former Bally Total Fitness property located at 4900 Excelsior Blvd. and a vacant .4 acre property
located immediately to the east at 4760 Excelsior Blvd (“subject site”). Bally Total Fitness
closed in 2012 after LA Fitness bought its parent company in 2011 and the building has been
unoccupied ever since. The building was professionally inspected in 2014 and was determined to
be structurally substandard. The EDA owns the property located at 4760 Excelsior Blvd. It
acquired the property in 1996 as part of the Park Commons initiative and the subsequent
Excelsior & Grand redevelopment. A portion of the property was used for the Princeton Lane
right of way. It was initially thought the remaining parcel would be part of a larger
redevelopment of the Bally block. The EDA pursued acquisition of the Bally building in the late
1990s/early 2000’s but it proved cost prohibitive. Under the 2001 Excelsior & Grand
redevelopment contract with TOLD, the developer was granted right of first refusal to acquire
the EDA property but TOLD subsequently chose not to exercise it and allowed its purchase
option to lapse. The EDA has retained ownership of the property in hopes that a redevelopment
proposal encompassing the entire block would eventually re-emerge. The EDA maintains the
property and annually incurs expenses related to lawn maintenance, irrigation, stormwater utility,
and Special Service District charges. Both properties are highly visible on the north side of
Excelsior Blvd between the Park Nicollet Clinic Campus on the west and Excelsior & Grand on
the east. The site has been eyed for redevelopment since the mid-1990s.
Proposed 4900 Excelsior redevelopment site – NE corner of Excelsior Blvd and Quentin Ave.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 3
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior
Proposed Redevelopment: Oppidan plans to raze the vacant Bally building and parking
structure and replace them with a mixed use (residential and retail) development called 4900
Excelsior. The proposed 5 and partial 6-story-building would consist of 176 residential units and
28,228 square feet of commercial space to be leased to Fresh Thyme - a specialty grocer with a
small liquor component. Pursuant to the City’s new inclusionary housing policy, the Redeveloper
will reserve 18 (10%) of the residential units at rents affordable to households at or below 60%
of the area median income (AMI). Also included would be 307 structured parking stalls and 33
on-street parking stalls.
Proposed 4900 Excelsior project - perspective from Excelsior & Quentin
Proposed 4900 Excelsior project - perspective from Park Commons Dr. & Princeton Ave
Estimated Increase in Property Value, Taxes and Employment
The total combined taxable market value of the subject redevelopment site is currently $2.4
million. The total taxable market value of 4900 Excelsior upon construction completion is
estimated at $38.2 million; resulting in a market value increase of 1,588%. The subject site
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 4
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior
currently generates $96,563 in total property taxes. Upon completion it is estimated that 4900
Excelsior would generate $853,570 in annual property taxes; an increase of 884%.
There is currently no employment on the Bally block. It is estimated that the proposed grocery
business and apartment management would create more than 85 new FTE employment positions
in the city.
Project Schedule
Oppidan hopes to conduct its asbestos abatement and building/parking ramp demolition over the
winter and begin construction next spring. Under the proposed Purchase and Redevelopment
Contract with the EDA, Oppidan is required to commence construction on 4900 Excelsior by
July 31, 2016 and substantially complete it by January 1, 2018 which provides Oppidan
flexibility in the event of any unforeseen challenges.
Overview of the Project’s Sources and Uses
The total development cost (TDC) to construct 4900 Excelsior is estimated at $47.8 million. The
project’s anticipated sources and uses are listed in the tables below along with their respective
percentage of the total development cost.
SOURCES AMOUNT ($) % of TDC
Construction Loan 33,900,000 70.84
Developer Equity 11,153,848 23.31
Tax Increment Financing 2,800,000 5.85
TOTAL Sources 47,853,848 100%
USES AMOUNT ($) % of TDC
Land Acquisition & broker fees 4,570,316 9.55
Environmental 240,000 .50
Demolition and site work 2,242,135 4.69
Construction Costs 35,308,195 73.78
Prof Services (Architectural/Engineering/Marketing) 2,365,849 4.94
Financing & Management Costs 1,932,882 4.04
Developer Fee 1,194,471 2.50
TOTAL Project Costs 47,853,848 100%
The proposed purchase price for the subject properties is $4,400,000; that is $3,700,000 for the
Bally property and $780,000 for the EDA property respectively. The combined land acquisition
cost equals $25,000 per unit. According to both Ehlers and the City Assessor, this per unit cost is
above average but this is due to the fact that there is an existing building and parking structure on
the site. The EDA’s property was appraised at $600,000 as a Stand-Alone site and $780,000 As
Assembled with the adjoining property for a mixed–use development. It is the EDA’s practice to
sell property at market rate; therefore Oppidan’s proposed purchase price for 4760 Excelsior
Blvd reflects the appraised As Assembled price. The other above project costs were found to be
reasonable and within industry standards for the proposed type of redevelopment.
Redeveloper’s Request for Public Financing Assistance
There are significant extraordinary costs associated with redeveloping the subject site. These
include: environmental investigation and reporting, asbestos abatement, building demolition,
shoring, utility relocations, site preparation, underground stormwater management and structured
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 5
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior
parking. Altogether, these costs exceed $7.1 million and prevent the proposed project from
achieving financial feasibility. Consequently Oppidan applied to the EDA for $4 million in Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) assistance to offset a portion of these costs so as to enable the 4900
Excelsior project to proceed. Tax increment financing uses the increased future property taxes
generated by a new development to finance certain qualified costs incurred by that development
for a limited period of time.
Pro Forma Analysis
Oppidan’s sources and uses statements, cash flow projections, and investor rate of return (IRR)
related to 4900 Excelsior were reviewed by staff and Ehlers (the EDA’s financial consultant).
The estimates were found to be reasonable and within industry standards for this type of
redevelopment. It was also concluded, given the extraordinary costs outlined above, that if no
tax increment were provided, the project’s expected cash-on-cost return would be approximately
5.87% (in the year the project reaches stabilization) which would be insufficient to attract the
necessary equity capital to enable the project to achieve financing. It was further concluded the
proposed project would not occur but for tax increment financing assistance provided by the EDA.
Level and Type of Financial Assistance
It was therefore determined that if $2,800,000 in tax increment were provided, the project’s
expected cash-on-cost return could reach 7.02% (in the year the project reaches stabilization)
which should be sufficient for the project to become financially feasible.
The proposed amount of TIF assistance is consistent with other redevelopments the EDA has
assisted previously. As a reminder, the tax increment would be generated by the project itself and
would only be provided once construction has been completed and the Redeveloper supplies
statements verifying that it had incurred the specified qualified costs. Statutorily, the proposed
tax increment assistance could only be applied toward the project’s extraordinary expenses. 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 semi-annual payments. The City, County and
School District would continue to receive the property taxes collected on the subject site’s base
value. Upon project completion, tax increment generated from the increased value of the
property would be provided to the Redeveloper on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, which is the
preferred financing method under the City's TIF Policy. The project would generate the
proposed $2.8 million in approximately 7 years. Once the TIF Note is fully paid the additional
property taxes generated by the project would accrue to the local taxing jurisdictions.
TIF Lookback
As with other projects the EDA has assisted with TIF, the proposed Purchase & Redevelopment
Contract with Oppidan contains a “lookback” provision. The EDA will perform a “lookback”
calculation on the earliest of (i) the date when 93% of the apartments are leased; (ii) the date of
any transfer in whole or in part of the apartments; or (iii) three years after the date of issuance of
the Certificate of Completion for the project. The Redeveloper must submit evidence of its
actual annualized cumulative internal rate of return (the “IRR”) from the apartments, calculated
as of the applicable lookback date, along with the estimated annualized cumulative IRR from the
apartments assuming a sale in the tenth year after the date of issuance of the Certificate of
Completion for the apartments. The amount by which the IRR exceeds eighteen percent (18%) is
considered Excess Income. If the EDA determines that there is Excess Income, it will apply fifty
percent (100%) of that amount toward prepayment of the outstanding principal amount of the
TIF Note.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 6
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior
Business Subsidy
The financial assistance provided to the Redeveloper under the proposed Contract would not
constitute a “business subsidy” under the Business Subsidy Act (Section 116J.993 to 116J.995) as it
meets the exemption for redevelopment.
TIF Application Review
The EDA reviewed Oppidan’s TIF Application for the proposed 4900 Excelsior project at the
June 8th Study Session as well as the August 17th Special Study Session where it received
favorable support. As a result, staff was directed to call for a public hearing on the proposed
Redevelopment TIF District and to begin drafting a formal redevelopment contract with
Oppidan.
Proposed Purchase and Redevelopment Contract
The EDA has been in discussion with Oppidan Investment Company relative to the subject
redevelopment site for approximately a year and a half. The Redeveloper’s proposed project
plans and request for financial assistance have been presented and discussed at several study
sessions over the past year. The project’s plans received Preliminary Plat and PUD approvals
from the City Council on September 8th and final approvals are scheduled for consideration on
November 16th. A list of specific business terms for providing the proposed financial assistance
was presented at the October 26th Study Session for which there was consensus support. Those
terms served as the basis for the proposed Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247,
LLC (Oppidan Investment Company and “Redeveloper”). The proposed Contract specifies the
property acquisition terms and mutual obligations between the EDA and the Redeveloper as well
as the precise terms of the financial assistance to be provided. The attached resolution of
approval allows for modifications to the Contract that do not alter the substance of the
transaction without bringing the Contract back to the EDA. The following are key terms of the
proposed Contract.
1. For purposes of the proposed Redevelopment Contract, the properties located at 4900 and
4760 Excelsior Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN shall together be considered the
“Redevelopment Property” for the 4900 Excelsior project (“Project”). The property
located at 4900 Excelsior Boulevard (“Third-Party Property”) is privately owned. The
Redeveloper agrees to close on the acquisition of the Third-Party Property within 60 days
of obtaining financing for the Project (“Closing”).
2. The EDA owns the property located at 4760 Excelsior Boulevard (“EDA Property”) and
will convey title to and possession of the EDA Property to the Redeveloper by quit claim
deed, subject to the following:
(a) Prior to Closing, the Redeveloper shall prepare and obtain City approval of a
Final PUD ordinance for the Redevelopment Property and a Final Plat of the
Redevelopment Property at Redeveloper’s cost and subject to all City
ordinances and procedures.
(b) The EDA will use its best efforts to obtain approval by the City Council
before Closing of any amendment to the City zoning ordinance in order to
permit construction and use of the Minimum Improvements on the
Redevelopment Property.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 7
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior
(c) The purchase price for the EDA Property shall be $780,000. Upon execution of
the Contract, the Redeveloper shall place $25,000 in earnest money into an
escrow account to be held and applied to the Purchase Price at Closing.
(d) The EDA's obligation to convey the EDA Property to the Redeveloper is subject
to satisfaction of the following terms and conditions:
(1) The Redeveloper having closed on permanent financing at or before
Closing on transfer of title to the EDA Property from the EDA to the
Redeveloper, or having received a binding commitment from a lender to
provide financing sufficient for construction of the Minimum
Improvements, or having otherwise provided the EDA with proof of
funds available to finance construction of the Minimum Improvements.
(2) The City having approved the Final Redevelopment Plat and PUD and
the Redeveloper having recorded the Redevelopment Plat at or before
Closing.
(3) The City having approved all necessary zoning variances to the
Redevelopment Property.
(4) The EDA having approved Construction Plans for the Minimum
Improvements.
(5) The Redeveloper having reviewed and approved (or waived objections
to) title to the EDA Property and having obtained a commitment from a
title company acceptable to the Redeveloper (the “Title Company”) to
issue a suitable owner’s policy.
(6) The Redeveloper having closed on its purchase of the Third-Party Parcel.
(7) The Redeveloper being satisfied with the results of its due diligence
inspections and testing with regard to the EDA Property.
(8) No events of default under the Contract having occurred.
3. Closing on the EDA Property shall occur within 30 days of satisfaction or waiver of the
above conditions but no later than June 30, 2016.
4. The parties acknowledge that asbestos has been found on the Third-Party Property.
Promptly following the Closing, Redeveloper shall undertake remediation and any other
actions required to remove the asbestos and any other environmental contaminants,
including any emergency procedures. If a VRAP is required, the Redeveloper expressly
agrees to perform any task or obligation imposed under the VRAP, including any
emergency procedures.
5. The Redeveloper acknowledges that the EDA makes no representations or warranties as to
the condition of the soils on the Redevelopment Property or the fitness of the
Redevelopment Property for construction of the Minimum Improvements or any other
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 8
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior
purpose for which the Redeveloper may make use of such property, and that the assistance
provided to the Redeveloper neither implies any responsibility by the EDA or the City for
any contamination of the Redevelopment Property nor imposes any obligation on such
parties to participate in any cleanup of the Redevelopment Property.
6. The Redeveloper further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the EDA,
the City, and their governing body members, officers, and employees (“Indemnitees”), from
any claims or actions arising out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants
existing on the Redevelopment Property on or after closing.
7. The EDA has determined that, in order to make development of the Minimum
Improvements financially feasible, it is necessary to reimburse Redeveloper for a portion of
the cost of: building demolition, environmental contamination cleanup and reporting, utility
relocations, site preparation, stormwater management, and underground structured parking
related to the Minimum Improvements (the “Public Redevelopment Costs”). The tax
increment generated from the 4900 Excelsior TIF District will be payable to Redeveloper
in the form of one tax increment revenue note (the “Note”), which would be structured on
the following basis:
Ø Issue total: $2,800,000
Ø Type: Pay-as-you-go
Ø Term: Until full repayment – approximately 7 years
Ø Interest Rate: 4.5%
Ø Admin Fee: 5%
Ø Fiscal Disparities: Paid from within the district
The EDA shall issue and deliver the Note upon Redeveloper having:
(a) delivered to the EDA one or more certificates containing the following: (i)
a statement that each cost identified in the certificate is a Public
Redevelopment Cost as defined in the Contract and that no part of such
cost has been included in any previous certification; (ii) evidence that each
identified Public Redevelopment Cost has been paid or incurred by or on
behalf of the Redeveloper; (iii) evidence that Redeveloper has paid all its
contractors and subcontractors in full for all work to be reimbursed as a
Public Redevelopment Cost; and (iv) a statement that no uncured Event of
Default by the Redeveloper has occurred and is continuing under the
Agreement.;
(b) submitted and obtained Authority approval of finance; and
(c) delivered to the EDA an investment letter in a form reasonably satisfactory
to the EDA.
8. The EDA will perform a “lookback” calculation on the earliest of (i) the date when 93% of
the apartments are leased; (ii) the date of any transfer in whole or in part of the
apartments; or (iii) three years after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion
for the project. The Redeveloper must submit evidence of its actual annualized
cumulative internal rate of return (the “IRR”) from the apartments, calculated as of the
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 9
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior
applicable lookback date, along with the estimated annualized cumulative IRR from the
apartments assuming a sale in the tenth year after the date of issuance of the Certificate of
Completion for the apartments. The amount by which the IRR exceeds eighteen percent
(18%) is considered Excess Income. If the EDA determines that there is Excess Income,
it will apply one hundred percent (100%) of that amount toward prepayment of the
outstanding principal amount of the Note.
9. Both parties agree that any assistance provided to the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment
Contract is not expected to constitute a “business subsidy” under Minnesota Statutes
because the assistance is for redevelopment.
10. Redeveloper agrees that it will pay the reasonable costs of consultants and attorneys retained
by the EDA in connection with the preparation of the TIF Plan, the establishment of the TIF
District, the negotiation and preparation of the Redevelopment Contract and other incidental
agreements and documents. Upon termination of the Redevelopment Contract the
Redeveloper remains obligated for costs incurred through the effective date of termination.
11. Redeveloper agrees to undertake the Minimum Improvements and Redeveloper Public
Improvements as shown in the Official Exhibits to Ordinance -15 (the “City
Ordinance”). In summary, the Redeveloper agrees to remediate the site in compliance
with MPCA requirements, construct the Redeveloper Public Improvements, and construct
the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the City Ordinance. “Minimum
Improvements” means a multi-story, mixed-use building consisting of approximately 176
units of multi-family housing with approximately 28,500 square feet of ground-floor
retail space along with associated underground structured parking and surface parking.
Redeveloper intends that the retail space shall be initially leased by a grocer.
12. In addition to construction of the Minimum Improvements, the Redeveloper shall construct,
at Redeveloper’s sole cost, public sidewalks adjacent to all streets abutting the
Redevelopment Property, streetlights, landscaping, streetscape improvements, and bicycle
parking (the “Redeveloper Public Improvements”), as provided in the Official Exhibits to
the City’s Ordinance __-15 (the “City Ordinance”). All Redeveloper Public Improvements
shall be constructed in accordance with the City Ordinance, which is incorporated herein by
reference.
13. Before commencing construction of the Minimum Improvements or Redeveloper Public
Improvements, the Redeveloper must submit plans and specifications regarding the
Redeveloper Public Improvements for approval by the City Engineer, and must submit
Construction Plans regarding the Minimum Improvements for approval by the EDA
(together, the “Construction Plans”). Plans related to any environmental remediation,
however, do not require approval by the City or EDA. All work on the Redeveloper
Public Improvements and Minimum Improvements shall be in accordance with the
approved Construction Plans and shall comply with all City requirements regarding such
improvements. The parties agree and understand that the City will accept the
Redeveloper Public Improvements in accordance with City procedures as specified in the
Planning and Development Contract between the City of St. Louis Park and KTJ 247,
LLC .
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 10
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior
14. If the Redeveloper desires to make any material change in the Construction Plans after their
approval by the EDA, the Redeveloper shall submit the proposed change to the EDA for its
approval. The term “material” means changes that increase or decrease construction costs
by $500,000 or more.
15. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, Redeveloper agrees to commence construction of the
Minimum Improvements by July 31, 2016 and substantially complete them by January 1,
2018. If the Redeveloper anticipates that the above timetable will not be met, Redeveloper
shall provide a written and oral presentation to the City Council at a regular City Council
meeting prior to the Required Commencement Date or Completion Date. The report must
describe the reasons for the expected failure to meet the schedule, evidence of
Redeveloper’s due diligence in working toward construction of the relevant Phase, and a
detailed revised schedule. Approval of a modified schedule for construction by the
Authority shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. Failure to timely
provide such written and oral report is an Event of Default.
16. The Redeveloper agrees to comply with the City’s Green Building Policy adopted 2-16-10.
As a condition to issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements,
Redeveloper will submit to the EDA a detailed list of the specific energy-
efficient/sustainable features or components implemented in the construction of the
Minimum Improvements.
17. Promptly after completion of the Minimum Improvements, the EDA Representative will
deliver to the Redeveloper a Certificate of Completion. The construction of the Minimum
Improvements will be deemed to be substantially complete upon issuance of a Final
certificate of occupancy for the Minimum Improvements, and upon determination by the
EDA Representative that all related site improvements on the Redevelopment Property have
been substantially completed in accordance with approved Construction Plans, subject to
landscaping that cannot be completed until seasonal conditions permit.
18. The Redeveloper shall install dedicated wired connections for the Minimum
Improvements in conformity with the terms and specifications provided in the City
Planning Development Contract.
19. Redeveloper is obligated to expend at least $75,000.00 for public artwork to be placed in a
prominent location on the Redevelopment Property, on the exterior of the Minimum
Improvements. Prior to its installation, the public artwork shall be approved by the City,
which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. The artwork
shall be installed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the project unless
otherwise agreed by the EDA.
20. The Redeveloper agrees to comply with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy adopted 6-
1-15 including the following:
A. Redeveloper agrees to reserve at least 10% of the apartment units for households
earning 60% of AMI or at least 8% of the apartment units for households earning
50% of AMI for at least 25 years following building occupancy.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 11
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior
B. The monthly rental price for affordable dwelling units shall include rent and
utility costs and shall be based on fifty percent (50%) and/or sixty percent (60%)
for the metropolitan area that includes St. Louis Park adjusted for bedroom size
and calculated annually by Minnesota Housing for establishing rent limits for the
Housing Tax Credit Program.
C. The size and design of the affordable dwelling units shall be consistent and
comparable with the market rate units in the rest of the project and is subject to
the approval of the City. The Affordable dwelling units shall be distributed
throughout the building.
D. The affordable dwelling units shall have a number of bedrooms in the approximate
proportion as the market rate units.
E. Redeveloper agrees to prepare an Affordable Housing Plan as defined in the City’s
Inclusionary Housing Policy. The Affordable Housing Plan shall describe how the
Redeveloper complies with each of the applicable requirements of Inclusionary
Housing Policy. Such a Plan shall be prepared and must be approved by the City
prior to or in conjunction with the Redeveloper receiving its Certificate of
Occupancy from the City.
21. Redeveloper agrees that the Minimum Improvements will be professionally managed by a
property management company with substantial experience in operating mixed use
developments. The Redeveloper’s selection of the property management company is
subject to EDA approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.
22. Upon the written request of the EDA or City, the Redeveloper agrees to file any petition or
other document required to enter into Special Service District No. 3 for the continued
maintenance of the streetscaping along Excelsior Boulevard right of way.
23. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any part of the project,
Redeveloper will enter into an agreement with the EDA or City relating to the operation
and maintenance of all pedestrian and landscaping improvements located on the Subject
Property other than those within the Excelsior Boulevard right of way and/or included in
Special Service District No. 3 (the “Maintenance Plan”). The Maintenance Plan must
address, at a minimum: snow removal from pedestrian connections and sidewalks;
maintenance and replacement of landscaping, irrigation and other streetscaping; snow
removal and maintenance of any surface parking; and maintenance of the public art
(together, the “Maintenance”); a description of how the costs of such Maintenance will be
assessed to tenants; and enforcement mechanisms.
24. If the Redeveloper fails to perform the Maintenance in accordance with the Maintenance
Plan, the City, at its option and following thirty (30) days written notice from the EDA to
the Redeveloper, may enter the Redevelopment property and perform the Maintenance. The
Redeveloper agrees to permit the City to specially assess any costs of the Maintenance
proportionately against the Minimum Improvements.
25. At closing, the Redeveloper shall, with the EDA, execute an Assessment Agreement
specifying an assessor's minimum Market Value for the Redevelopment Property and
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 12
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior
Minimum Improvements. The amount of the minimum Market Value shall be $31,680,000
as of January 2, 2018 and each January 2 thereafter, notwithstanding the status of
construction by such dates.
26. If Redeveloper requires mortgage financing for the development of the Project, the EDA
agrees to subordinate its rights under the Redevelopment Contract to the Holder of any
Mortgage securing construction or permanent financing, in accordance with the terms of a
mutually-approved subordination agreement.
27. Redeveloper agrees not to transfer the Redevelopment Contract or the Redevelopment
Property (except to an affiliate) prior to receiving a Certificate of Completion without the
prior written consent of the EDA, except for construction mortgage financing and/or
permanent financing. The EDA's consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned
or delayed. The EDA agrees to provide its consent or refusal to consent to Redeveloper
in writing within 10 days after a request for such consent from Redeveloper.
28. Redeveloper agrees that any proposed transferee, shall, for itself and its successors and
assigns, and expressly for the benefit of the EDA, expressly assume all of the obligations
of the Redeveloper under this Agreement as to the portion of the Redevelopment
Property to be transferred and agrees to be subject to all the conditions and restrictions to
which the Redeveloper is subject.
29. Redeveloper shall undertake all work related to the Minimum Improvements and
Redeveloper Public Improvements in compliance with all applicable federal and state laws,
including without limitation all applicable state and federal Occupational Safety and Health
Act regulations. Any subcontractors retained by Redeveloper shall be subject to the same
requirements. All Redeveloper Public Improvements shall be constructed in accordance
with the City Ordinance.
30. Redeveloper agrees that the EDA and the City will not be held liable for any loss or
damage to property or any injury to or death of any person occurring at or about or
resulting from any defect in the Redevelopment Property or the Minimum Improvements.
31. The Redeveloper, for itself and its successors and assigns, agrees that during the
construction of the Minimum Improvements provided for in the Contract it will comply with
all applicable federal, state, and local equal employment and non-discrimination laws and
regulations.
32. Redeveloper agrees that no portion of the Redevelopment Property will be used for a
sexually-oriented business as defined in City Code, Section 14:5-3(28), a pawnshop, a
check-cashing business, payday loan agency, a tattoo business, or a gun business, and
that such restrictions may be placed in the Redevelopment Deed.
The EDA’s legal counsel in consultation with staff has prepared the proposed Purchase and
Redevelopment Contract and recommends its approval.
Summary
Providing tax increment financing assistance to the proposed 4900 Excelsior redevelopment
makes it possible to remove a highly visible, structurally substandard building along the city’s
primary commercial corridor and replace it with a high quality, mixed use development of
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 13
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior
complementary design consistent with Livable Communities design principles as well as the
City’s Comprehensive Plan, and Green Building Policy. The proposed project brings the subject
properties to optimal market value thereby enhancing the city’s tax base. The EDA’s financial
participation in the proposed project would leverage approximately $48 million in new
investment. The ratio of private to public investment in the project is $17 to $1. Additionally,
the proposed redevelopment will result in a new retail business and create 85 new FTE
employment positions as well as provide the community with expanded life-cycle housing
opportunities and 18 additional affordable housing units. Finally, 4900 Excelsior will revitalize
the currently vacant site and further enhance the economic vibrancy of the Excelsior Blvd
commercial area.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 14
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING
A PURCHASE AND REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND
AWARDING THE SALE OF, AND PROVIDING
THE FORM, TERMS, COVENANTS AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
ITS TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE TO KTJ 247, LLC.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority (the "Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals; Approval and Authorization; Award of Sale.
1.01. Recitals. (a) The Authority and the City of St. Louis Park have heretofore approved
the establishment of the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District") within
Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project"), and have adopted a tax increment financing plan for the
purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project.
(b) To facilitate the redevelopment of certain property within the Project and TIF
District, the Authority and KTJ 247, LLC (the “Owner”) have negotiated a Purchase and
Redevelopment Contract (the “Agreement”) which provides for the conveyance of certain
Authority-owned property (the “Property”) to the Owner, the construction by the Owner of a
mixed-use rental housing and retail facility and associated parking on the Property, and the
issuance of the Authority’s Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 20__ (the “Note”) to the Owner.
(c) On October 21, 2015, the Planning Commission of the City reviewed the
proposed conveyance of the Property and found that such conveyance is consistent with the
City’s comprehensive plan.
(d) The Authority has on this date conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the
conveyance of the Property to the Redeveloper, at which all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard.
(e) The Board has reviewed the Agreement and finds that the execution thereof and
performance of the Authority's obligations thereunder, including the conveyance of the Property to
the Redeveloper, are in the best interest of the City and its residents.
1.02. Approval of Agreement. (a) The Agreement as presented to the Board is hereby in
all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and
that are approved by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the
Agreement by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval.
(b) Authority staff and officials are authorized to take all actions necessary to perform
the Authority’s obligations under the Agreement as a whole, including without limitation execution
of any documents to which the Authority is a party referenced in or attached to the Agreement, and
any deed or other documents necessary to convey the Property to Redeveloper, all as described in
the Agreement.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 15
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior
1.03. Authorization of Note. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, the
Authority is authorized to issue and sell its bonds for the purpose of financing a portion of the public
development costs of the Project. Such bonds are payable from all or any portion of revenues
derived from the TIF District and pledged to the payment of the bonds. The Authority hereby finds
and determines that it is in the best interests of the Authority that it issue and sell the Note to the
Owner for the purpose of financing certain Public Redevelopment Costs of the Project.
1.04. Issuance, Sale, and Terms of the Note. (a) The Authority hereby authorizes the
President and Executive Director to issue the Note in accordance with the Agreement. All
capitalized terms in this resolution have the meaning provided in the Agreement unless the context
requires otherwise.
(b) The Note shall be issued in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $2,800,000 to
the Owner in consideration of certain eligible costs incurred by the Owner under the Agreement,
shall be dated the date of delivery thereof, and shall bear interest at the rate of 4.5% per annum from
the date of issue to the earlier of maturity or prepayment. The Note will be issued in the principal
amount of Public Redevelopment Costs submitted and approved in accordance with Section 3.7 of
the Agreement. The Note is secured by Available Tax Increment, as further described in the form
of the Note herein. The Authority hereby delegates to the Executive Director the determination of
the date on which the Note is to be delivered, in accordance with the Agreement.
Section 2. Form of Note. The Note shall be in substantially the following form, with
the blanks to be properly filled in and the principal amount adjusted as of the date of issue:
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 16
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
No. R-1 $_____________
TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE
SERIES 20__
Date
Rate of Original Issue
4.5%
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”) for value received,
certifies that it is indebted and hereby promises to pay to KTJ 247, LLC or registered assigns (the
"Owner"), the principal sum of $__________ and to pay interest thereon at the rate of 4.5% per
annum, solely from the sources and to the extent set forth herein. Capitalized terms shall have the
meanings provided in the Purchase and Redevelopment Contract between the Authority and the
Owner, dated as of __________, 2015 (the "Agreement"), unless the context requires otherwise.
1. Payments. Principal and interest ("Payments") shall be paid on August 1, 20__ and
each February 1 and August 1 thereafter to and including February 1, 20__ ("Payment Dates") in the
amounts and from the sources set forth in Section 3 herein. Payments shall be applied first to
accrued interest, and then to unpaid principal. Interest accruing from the date of issue through and
including February 1, 20__ shall be compounded semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each
year and added to principal.
Payments are payable by mail to the address of the Owner or such other address as the
Owner may designate upon 30 days written notice to the Authority. Payments on this Note are
payable in any coin or currency of the United States of America which, on the Payment Date, is
legal tender for the payment of public and private debts.
2. Interest. Interest at the rate stated herein shall accrue on the unpaid principal,
commencing on the date of original issue. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a year of 360
days and charged for actual days principal is unpaid.
3. Available Tax Increment. (a) Payments on this Note are payable on each Payment
Date solely from and in the amount of Available Tax Increment, which shall mean 95% of the Tax
Increment attributable to the Minimum Improvements and Redevelopment Property that is paid to
the Authority by Hennepin County in the six months preceding each Payment Date on the Note.
(b) The Authority shall have no obligation to pay principal of and interest on this Note on
each Payment Date from any source other than Available Tax Increment and the failure of the
Authority to pay principal or interest on this Note on any Payment Date shall not constitute a default
hereunder as long as the Authority pays principal and interest hereon to the extent of Available Tax
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 17
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior
Increment. The Authority shall have no obligation to pay any unpaid balance of principal or
accrued interest that may remain after the final Payment on February 1, 20__.
4. Default. If on any Payment Date there has occurred and is continuing any Event of
Default under the Agreement, the Authority may withhold from payments hereunder under all
Available Tax Increment. If the Event of Default is thereafter cured in accordance with the
Agreement, the Available Tax Increment withheld under this Section shall be deferred and paid,
without interest thereon, within 30 days after the Event of Default is cured. If the Event of Default
is not cured in a timely manner, the Authority may terminate this Note by written notice to the
Owner in accordance with the Agreement.
5. Prepayment. (a) The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Note
is prepayable in whole or in part at any time by the Authority without premium or penalty. No
partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular Payment otherwise
required to be made under this Note.
(b) Upon receipt by Redeveloper of the Authority’s written statement of the
Participation Amount as described in Section 3.9 of the Agreement, one hundred percent of such
Participation Amount will be deemed to constitute, and will be applied to, prepayment of the
principal amount of this Note. Such deemed prepayment is effective as of the date of delivery of
such statement to the Owner, and will be recorded by the Registrar in its records for the Note. Upon
request of the Owner, the Authority will deliver to the Owner a statement of the outstanding
principal balance of the Note after application of the deemed prepayment under this paragraph.
6. Nature of Obligation. This Note is one of an issue in the total principal amount of
$_________________, issued to aid in financing certain public redevelopment costs and
administrative costs of a Project undertaken by the Authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.001 through 469.047, and is issued pursuant to an authorizing resolution (the
"Resolution") duly adopted by the Authority on ________, 2015, and pursuant to and in full
conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended. This Note is a limited obligation of the Authority which
is payable solely from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under the
Resolution. This Note and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation
of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the
Authority. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to
pay the principal of or interest on this Note or other costs incident hereto except out of Available
Tax Increment, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or
any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on this Note
or other costs incident hereto.
7. Registration and Transfer. This Note is issuable only as a fully registered note
without coupons. As provided in the Resolution, and subject to certain limitations set forth therein,
this Note is transferable upon the books of the Authority kept for that purpose at the principal office
of the City Finance Director, by the Owner hereof in person or by such Owner's attorney duly
authorized in writing, upon surrender of this Note together with a written instrument of transfer
satisfactory to the Authority, duly executed by the Owner. Upon such transfer or exchange and the
payment by the Owner of any tax, fee, or governmental charge required to be paid by the Authority
with respect to such transfer or exchange, there will be issued in the name of the transferee a new
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 18
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior
Note of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the
same dates.
Except as otherwise provided in Section 3.7(d) of the Agreement, this Note shall not be
transferred to any person or entity, unless the Authority has provided written consent to such
transfer and the Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the
transferor, in a form satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt from registration and
prospectus delivery requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions, and things required
by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen, and to be
performed in order to make this Note a valid and binding limited obligation of the Authority
according to its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened, and have been performed in due
form, time and manner as so required.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority have caused this Note to be executed with the manual signatures of its
President and Executive Director, all as of the Date of Original Issue specified above.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Executive Director President
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 19
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior
REGISTRATION PROVISIONS
The ownership of the unpaid balance of the within Note is registered in the bond register of
the City Finance Director, in the name of the person last listed below.
Date of Signature of
Registration Registered Owner____ City Finance Director
KTJ 247, LLC
Federal Tax I.D. No. _____________
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 20
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior
Section 3. Terms, Execution and Delivery.
3.01. Denomination, Payment. The Note shall be issued as a single typewritten note
numbered R-1.
The Note shall be issuable only in fully registered form. Principal of and interest on the
Note shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein.
3.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Principal of and interest on the Note shall be payable
by mail to the owner of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the month
preceding the Payment Date, whether or not such day is a business day.
3.03. Registration. The Authority hereby appoints the City Finance Director to perform
the functions of registrar, transfer agent and paying agent (the "Registrar"). The effect of
registration and the rights and duties of the Authority and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be
as follows:
(a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its office a bond register in which the Registrar
shall provide for the registration of ownership of the Note and the registration of transfers and
exchanges of the Note.
(b) Transfer of Note. Upon surrender for transfer of the Note duly endorsed by the
registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form reasonably
satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly
authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the
name of the designated transferee or transferees, a new Note of a like aggregate principal amount
and maturity, as requested by the transferor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Note shall not be
transferred to any person other than an affiliate, or other related entity, of the Owner unless the
Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the transferor, in a form
satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt from registration and prospectus delivery
requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws. The Registrar may close the books for
registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each Payment Date and
until such Payment Date.
(c) Cancellation. The Note surrendered upon any transfer shall be promptly cancelled
by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the Authority.
(d) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When the Note is presented to the Registrar for
transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on
such Note or separate instrument of transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no
liability for its refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or
unauthorized.
(e) Persons Deemed Owners. The Authority and the Registrar may treat the person in
whose name the Note is at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the
Note, whether the Note shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on
account of, the principal of and interest on such Note and for all other purposes, and all such
payments so made to any such registered owner or upon the owner's order shall be valid and
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 21
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior
effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability of the Authority upon such Note to the extent of the
sum or sums so paid.
(f) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of the Note, the Registrar
may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee,
or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange.
(g) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Note. In case any Note shall become mutilated
or be lost, stolen, or destroyed, the Registrar shall deliver a new Note of like amount, maturity dates
and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of such mutilated Note or in lieu of
and in substitution for such Note lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon the payment of the reasonable
expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case the Note lost, stolen,
or destroyed, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that such Note was lost,
stolen, or destroyed, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an
appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance, and amount satisfactory to it, in which both the
Authority and the Registrar shall be named as obligees. The Note so surrendered to the Registrar
shall be cancelled by it and evidence of such cancellation shall be given to the Authority. If the
mutilated, lost, stolen, or destroyed Note has already matured or been called for redemption in
accordance with its terms, it shall not be necessary to issue a new Note prior to payment.
3.04. Preparation and Delivery. The Note shall be prepared under the direction of the
Executive Director and shall be executed on behalf of the Authority by the signatures of its
President and Executive Director. In case any officer whose signature shall appear on the Note shall
cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Note, such signature shall nevertheless be valid
and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery.
When the Note has been so executed, it shall be delivered by the Executive Director to the Owner
thereof in accordance with the Agreement.
Section 4. Security Provisions.
4.01. Pledge. The Authority hereby pledges to the payment of the principal of and interest
on the Note all Available Tax Increment as defined in the Note.
Available Tax Increment shall be applied to payment of the principal of and interest on the Note in
accordance with the terms of the form of Note set forth in Section 2 of this resolution.
4.02. Bond Fund. Until the date the Note is no longer outstanding and no principal thereof
or interest thereon (to the extent required to be paid pursuant to this resolution) remains unpaid, the
Authority shall maintain a separate and special "Bond Fund" to be used for no purpose other than
the payment of the principal of and interest on the Note. The Authority irrevocably agrees to
appropriate to the Bond Fund on or before each Payment Date the Available Tax Increment in an
amount equal to the Payment then due, or the actual Available Tax Increment, whichever is less.
Any Available Tax Increment remaining in the Bond Fund shall be transferred to the Authority's
account for the TIF District upon the termination of the Note in accordance with its terms.
4.03. Additional Obligations. The Authority will issue no other obligations secured in
whole or in part by Available Tax Increment unless such pledge is on a subordinate basis to the
pledge on the Note.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 22
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior
Section 5. Certification of Proceedings.
5.01. Certification of Proceedings. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and
directed to prepare and furnish to the Owner of the Note certified copies of all proceedings and
records of the Authority, and such other affidavits, certificates, and information as may be required
to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Note as the same appear from the
books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such
certified copies, certificates, and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed
representations of the Authority as to the facts recited therein.
Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon approval.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority November 16, 2015
Tom Harmening, Executive Director Anne Mavity, President
Attest
Secretary
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
Third Draft, November 10, 2015
PURCHASE AND REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
By and Between
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
and
KTJ 247, LLC
Dated as of: __________________
This document was drafted by:
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, Chartered (MNI)
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
(612) 337-9300
http://www.kennedy-graven.com
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 23
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREAMBLE ......................................................................................................................................... 1
ARTICLE I
Definitions
Section 1.1. Definitions .................................................................................................................... 2
ARTICLE II
Representations and Warranties
Section 2.1. Representations by the Authority ................................................................................. 6
Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties by the Redeveloper ................................................... 6
ARTICLE III
Property Acquisition; Public Redevelopment Costs
Section 3.1. Conveyance of the Property ......................................................................................... 8
Section 3.2. Purchase Price; Provisions for Payment ....................................................................... 8
Section 3.3. Conditions of Conveyance ........................................................................................... 8
Section 3.4. Place of Document Execution, Delivery and Recording ............................................. 9
Section 3.5. Title ............................................................................................................................... 9
Section 3.6. Environmental Conditions .......................................................................................... 10
Section 3.7. Issuance of Note ......................................................................................................... 10
Section 3.8. TIF Lookback ............................................................................................................. 11
Section 3.9. Business Subsidy ........................................................................................................ 13
Section 3.10. Payment of Authority Costs ....................................................................................... 13
ARTICLE IV
Construction of Minimum Improvements
Section 4.1. Construction of Improvements ................................................................................... 14
Section 4.2. Construction Plans ...................................................................................................... 14
Section 4.3. Commencement and Completion of Construction ..................................................... 15
Section 4.4. Certificate of Completion ........................................................................................... 16
Section 4.5. Records ....................................................................................................................... 16
Section 4.6. Connectivity ................................................................................................................ 16
Section 4.7. Redeveloper Public Improvements ............................................................................ 17
Section 4.7. Public Art .................................................................................................................... 17
Section 4.7. Inclusionary Housing .................................................................................................. 17
Section 4.7. Property Management ................................................................................................ 18
Section 4.7. Special Service District; Maintenance ....................................................................... 18
ARTICLE V
Insurance
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 24
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 ii
Section 5.1. Insurance ..................................................................................................................... 19
Section 5.2. Subordination .............................................................................................................. 20
ARTICLE VI
Tax Increment; Taxes
Section 6.1. Right to Collect Delinquent Taxes ............................................................................. 21
Section 6.2. Review of Taxes ......................................................................................................... 21
Section 6.3. Assessment Agreement .............................................................................................. 21
ARTICLE VII
Other Financing
Section 7.1. Generally ..................................................................................................................... 22
Section 7.2. Authority’s Option to Cure Default on Mortgage ...................................................... 22
Section 7.3. Modification; Subordination ...................................................................................... 22
ARTICLE VIII
Prohibitions Against Assignment and Transfer; Indemnification
Section 8.1. Representation as to Development ............................................................................. 23
Section 8.2. Prohibition Against Redeveloper’s Transfer of Property and
Assignment of Agreement .......................................................................................... 23
Section 8.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants .................................................................... 24
ARTICLE IX
Events of Default
Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined .......................................................................................... 26
Section 9.2. Remedies on Default .................................................................................................. 26
Section 9.3. Revesting Title in Authority Upon Happening of Event Subsequent to
Conveyance to Redeveloper ....................................................................................... 27
Section 9.4. Resale of Reacquired Property; Disposition of Proceeds .......................................... 28
Section 9.5. No Remedy Exclusive ................................................................................................ 28
Section 9.6. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver ........................................................ 29
Section 9.7. Attorney Fees .............................................................................................................. 29
ARTICLE X
Additional Provisions
Section 10.1. Conflict of Interests; Representatives Not Individually Liable ................................. 30
Section 10.2. Equal Employment Opportunity ................................................................................ 30
Section 10.3. Restrictions on Use ..................................................................................................... 30
Section 10.4. Provisions Not Merged With Deed ............................................................................ 30
Section 10.5. Titles of Articles and Sections .................................................................................... 30
Section 10.6. Notices and Demands ................................................................................................. 30
Section 10.7. Counterparts ................................................................................................................ 31
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 25
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 iii
Section 10.8. Recording .................................................................................................................... 31
Section 10.9. Amendment ................................................................................................................ 31
Section 10.10. Authority Approvals ................................................................................................... 31
TESTIMONIUM ................................................................................................................................ 32
SIGNATURES ................................................................................................................................... 32
SCHEDULE A Redevelopment Property
SCHEDULE B Form of Quitclaim Deed
SCHEDULE C Authorizing Resolution
SCHEDULE D Certificate of Completion
SCHEDULE E Form of Subordination Agreement
SCHEDULE F Site Plan
SCHEDULE G Assessment Agreement
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 26
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 1
PURCHASE AND REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the __ day of ________, 2015, by and between the St.
Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”), a public body corporate and politic
under the laws of Minnesota, and KTJ 247, LLC (the “Redeveloper”), a Minnesota limited liability
company.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Authority was created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to
469.1081 (the "Act") and was authorized to transact business and exercise its powers by a resolution
of the City Council of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has undertaken a program to promote the development and
redevelopment of land which is underutilized within the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the
“City”), and in this connection created the Redevelopment Project No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as
the “Project”) in an area (hereinafter referred to as the “Project Area”) located in the City pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the “HRA Act”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act and the HRA Act, the Authority is authorized to acquire
real property, or interests therein, and to undertake certain activities to facilitate the
redevelopment of real property by private enterprise; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has acquired certain property within the Project as described
in Schedule A hereto (the “Authority Parcel”), and the Redeveloper intends to acquire the
Authority Parcel and the Third-Party Parcel (together, the “Redevelopment Property”) for
development of certain improvements described herein.
WHEREAS, the Authority has established the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing
District (“TIF District”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended,
made up of property in the Project Area including the Redevelopment Property; and
WHEREAS, the Authority believes that the redevelopment of the Redevelopment
Property pursuant to this Agreement, and fulfillment generally of this Agreement, are in the vital
and best interests of the City and the health, safety, morals, and welfare of its residents, and in
accord with the public purposes and provisions of the applicable State and local laws and
requirements under which the Project has been undertaken and is being assisted.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the
parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 27
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 2
ARTICLE I
Definitions
Section 1.1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears
from the context:
“Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1081, as amended.
“Affiliate” means with respect to any entity (a) any corporation, partnership, limited
liability company or other business entity or person controlling, controlled by or under common
control with the entity, and (b) any successor to such party by merger, acquisition, reorganization
or similar transaction involving all or substantially all of the assets of such party (or such
Affiliate). For the purpose hereof the words “controlling”, “controlled by” and “under common
control with” shall mean, with respect to any corporation, partnership, limited liability company
or other business entity, the ownership of fifty percent or more of the voting interests in such
entity or possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of
management policies of such entity, whether through ownership of voting securities or by
contract or otherwise.
“Agreement” means this Agreement, as the same may be from time to time modified,
amended, or supplemented.
“Authority” means the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority.
“Authority Representative” means the Executive Director of the Authority, or any person
designated by the Executive Director to act as the Authority Representative for the purposes of this
Agreement.
"Authorizing Resolution" means the resolution of the Authority, substantially in the form of
attached Schedule C to be adopted by the Authority to authorize the issuance of the Note.
“Available Tax Increment” means 95% of the Tax Increment attributable to the Minimum
Improvements and Redevelopment Property that is paid to the Authority by Hennepin County in the
six months preceding each Payment Date on the Note.
“Business Day” means any day except a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, a day on which
the City is closed for business, or a day on which banking institutions in the City are authorized by
law or executive order to close.
“Business Subsidy Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995, as
amended.
“Certificate of Completion” means the certification provided to the Redeveloper pursuant to
Section 4.4 of this Agreement.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 28
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 3
“City” means the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
“City Ordinance” means Ordinance _________-15, adopted by the City Council of the City
on ___________, 2015.
"Construction Plans" means the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents on
the construction work to be performed by the Redeveloper on the Redevelopment Property which
(a) shall be as detailed as the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents which are
submitted to the appropriate building officials of the City, and (b) shall include at least the following
for each building: (1) site plan; (2) foundation plan; (3) underground parking plans; (4) floor plan
for each floor; (5) cross sections of each (length and width); (6) elevations (all sides); (7) landscape
plan; and (8) such other plans or supplements to the foregoing plans as the Authority and
Redeveloper mutually agree are necessary to allow the issuance of a construction permit.
“County” means the County of Hennepin, Minnesota.
“Deed” means the quitclaim deed from the Authority to the Redeveloper for the Authority
Parcel, in substantially the form attached hereto as Schedule B.
“Development Pro Forma” means the financial pro forma for the Minimum Improvements
on file at the office of the Authority and incorporated herein by reference.
“Environmental Reports” means the following reports relating to the environmental
condition of the Redevelopment Property and all amendments, modifications and supplements
thereto: ______________________________________.
“Event of Default” means an action by the Redeveloper listed in Article IX of this
Agreement.
"Holder" means the owner of a Mortgage.
“HRA Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, as amended.
"Maturity Date" means the date that the Note has been paid in full or terminated in
accordance with its terms, whichever is earlier.
“Minimum Improvements” means construction on the Redevelopment Property of a multi-
story, mixed-use building consisting of approximately 176 units of multifamily rental housing with
approximately 28,500 square feet of ground-floor retail space, and associated surface and structured
underground parking. As of the date of this Agreement, the Redeveloper expects the retail space to
be leased to a third-party tenant for use as a grocery store.
“Mortgage” means any mortgage made by the Redeveloper that is secured, in whole or in
part, with the Redevelopment Property and that is a permitted encumbrance pursuant to the
provisions of Article VIII of this Agreement.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 29
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 4
“MPCA” means the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
"Note” means the Tax Increment Revenue Note, substantially in the form contained in the
Authorizing Resolution, to be delivered by the Authority to the Redeveloper in accordance with
Section 3.8 hereof.
"Project" means the Authority's Redevelopment Project No. 1.
“Public Redevelopment Costs” has the meaning provided in Section 3.4(a) hereof.
“Project Area” means the geographic area within the boundaries of the Project.
“Redeveloper” means KTJ 247, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, or its
permitted successors and assigns.
“Redeveloper Public Improvements” means public sidewalks adjacent to all streets abutting
the Redevelopment Property, streetlights, landscaping, and bicycle parking as provided in the
official exhibits to the City Ordinance.
“Redevelopment Plan” means the Redevelopment Plan for the Project.
“Redevelopment Property” means the real property described in Schedule A of this
Agreement, consisting of the Authority Parcel and the Third-Party Parcel.
“State” means the state of Minnesota.
“Streetscaping” means sidewalk, lighting, and boulevard treatments consistent with those
elements existing on that portion of Excelsior Boulevard abutting the Redevelopment Property in
the City.
"Tax Increment" means that portion of the real property taxes that is paid with respect to the
Redevelopment Property and that is remitted to the Authority as tax increment pursuant to the Tax
Increment Act.
"Tax Increment Act" or "TIF Act" means the Tax Increment Financing Act, Minnesota
Statutes Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended.
"Tax Increment District" or "TIF District" means the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment
Financing District created by the City and the Authority.
"Tax Increment Plan" or "TIF Plan" means the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the TIF
District approved by the City Council on November 16, 2015, and as it may be amended.
.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 30
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 5
“Tax Official” means any County assessor, County auditor, County or State board of
equalization, the commissioner of revenue of the State, or any State or federal district court, the tax
court of the State, or the State Supreme Court.
“Third-Party Parcel” means the real property so described in Schedule A of this Agreement.
“Transfer” has the meaning set forth in Section 8.2(a) hereof.
“Unavoidable Delays” means delays beyond the reasonable control of the party seeking to
be excused as a result thereof which are the direct result of strikes, other labor troubles, prolonged
adverse weather or acts of God, fire or other casualty to the Minimum Improvements, litigation
commenced by third parties which, by injunction or other similar judicial action, directly results in
delays, or acts of any federal, state or local governmental unit (other than the Authority in exercising
its rights under this Agreement), including without limitation condemnation or threat of
condemnation of any portion of the Redevelopment Property, which directly result in delays.
Unavoidable Delays shall not include delays experienced by the Redeveloper in obtaining permits
or governmental approvals necessary to enable construction of the Minimum Improvements by the
dates such construction is required under Section 4.3 of this Agreement, so long as the Construction
Plans have been approved in accordance with Section 4.2 hereof and the Redeveloper has otherwise
timely submitted application for such permits and/or applicable governmental approvals.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 31
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 6
ARTICLE II
Representations and Warranties
Section 2.1. Representations by the Authority. (a) The Authority is an economic
development authority duly organized and existing under the laws of the State. Under the
provisions of the Act and the HRA Act, the Authority has the power to enter into this Agreement
and carry out its obligations hereunder.
(b) The Authority will use its best efforts to facilitate development of the Minimum
Improvements, including but not limited to cooperating with the Redeveloper in obtaining necessary
administrative and land use approvals and construction financing pursuant to Section 7.1 hereof.
(c) The City has approved the establishment of the TIF District pursuant to the Tax
Increment Act.
(d) To the best of Authority’s knowledge, the Authority is the holder of marketable fee
simple and record title to the Authority Parcel, free and clear of all liens, claims, encumbrances and
restrictions except those which are recorded against the Authority Parcel.
(e) The Authority will convey the Authority Parcel to the Redeveloper, subject to all the
terms and conditions of this Agreement.
(f) The Authority will issue the Note, subject to all the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
(g) The activities of the Authority are undertaken for the purpose of fostering the
redevelopment of certain real property that is occupied by substandard and obsolete buildings,
which will revitalize this portion of the Project Area, increase tax base, and increase housing
opportunities.
(h) There are no parties other than the Authority in possession of any portion of the
Authority Parcel, nor are there any leases (oral or written) applicable to or affecting the Authority
Parcel.
(i) No third party has an option to purchase, right of first refusal, right of first offer or
other similar right with respect to all or a portion of the Authority Parcel and the Authority has not
entered into any other contracts for the sale of all or any portion of the Authority Parcel with any
third party.
(j) The Authority is not aware of any methamphetamine production occurring on the
Authority Parcel. This representation is intended to satisfy the requirements of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 152.0275, subd. 2(m).
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 32
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 7
(k) To the best of the Authority’s knowledge, information, and belief:
(i) There is no “Well” as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103I.005, subd. 21,
on the Authority Parcel. This representation is intended to satisfy the requirements of
Minnesota Statutes, Section 155.55, subd. 6.
(ii) There is no individual sewage treatment system, as defined in Minnesota
Statutes, Section 115.55, subd. 1, on the Authority Parcel. This representation is intended to
satisfy the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 155.55, subd. 6.
Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties by the Redeveloper. The Redeveloper
represents and warrants that:
(a) The Redeveloper is a limited liability company, duly organized and in good standing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota, is not in violation of any provisions of its articles of
organization or operating agreement, is duly qualified as a limited liability company and
authorized to transact business within the State, has power to enter into this Agreement and has duly
authorized the execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement by proper action of its
members.
(b) If the Redeveloper acquires the Redevelopment Property in accordance with this
Agreement, the Redeveloper will construct, operate and maintain the Minimum Improvements in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Redevelopment Plan and all applicable local,
state and federal laws and regulations (including, but not limited to, environmental, zoning,
building code, energy-conservation and public health laws and regulations).
(c) The Redeveloper will use reasonable efforts to secure all permits, licenses and
approvals necessary for construction of the Minimum Improvements.
(d) The Redeveloper has delivered the Environmental Reports to the Authority.
(e) The Redeveloper has received no written notice or other written communication
from any local, state or federal official that the activities of the Redeveloper or the Authority in the
Project Area may be or will be in violation of any environmental law or regulation (other than those
notices or communications of which the Authority is aware). Subject to the contents of the
Environmental Reports, the Redeveloper is aware of no facts the existence of which would cause it
to be in violation of or give any person a valid claim under any local, state or federal environmental
law, regulation or review procedure.
(f) Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the
transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement is prevented, limited by or conflicts with or results in a breach of, the
terms, conditions or provisions of any corporate restriction or any evidences of indebtedness,
agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Redeveloper is now a party or by which it
is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 33
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 8
(g) The proposed development by the Redeveloper hereunder would not occur but for
the tax increment financing assistance being provided by the Authority hereunder.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 34
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 9
ARTICLE III
Property Acquisition; Public Redevelopment Costs
Section 3.1. Conveyance of the Property. (a) The Redevelopment Property consists of the
Authority Parcel and the Third-Party Parcel, as described in Schedule A hereof. As of the date of
this Agreement, the Redeveloper has entered into a purchase agreement to acquire the Third-Party
Parcel, and shall close on the acquisition of the Third-Party Parcel within 60 days of receiving
financing for the Minimum Improvements. Neither the Authority nor the Redeveloper has any
obligation to acquire the Third-Party Parcel.
(b) The Authority owns the Authority Parcel and will convey title to and possession of the
Authority Parcel to the Redeveloper, or its successor in interest hereunder, subject to all the terms
and conditions of this Agreement.
(c) On or before Closing (as defined in Section 3.3(b) hereof), the Redeveloper shall
prepare and obtain City approval of a PUD for the Redevelopment Property (the “PUD”), and a
plat of the Redevelopment Property (the “Redevelopment Plat”) at the Redeveloper’s cost and
subject to all City ordinances and procedures and otherwise reasonably acceptable to the
Redeveloper. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to limit the City’s authority in reviewing
the preliminary plat, or to preclude revisions requested or required by the City, provided such
review and requested or required revisions are consistent with preliminary approvals by the City.
(d) The Authority will use its best efforts to obtain approval by the City Council
before Closing of any amendment to the City zoning ordinance in order to permit construction
and use of the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property.
Section 3.2. Purchase Price; Provisions for Payment. The purchase price to be paid to the
Authority by the Redeveloper in exchange for the conveyance of the Authority Parcel shall be
$780,000 (the “Purchase Price”). Upon execution of this Agreement, the Redeveloper will place
$25,000 as earnest money (the “Earnest Money”) into an escrow account administered by a title
company reasonably acceptable to the Authority (the “Title Company”), to be held and applied to
the Purchase Price on the Closing Date. The balance of the Purchase Price shall be paid at Closing.
Section 3.3. Conditions of Conveyance. (a) The Authority shall convey title to and
possession of the Authority Parcel to the Redeveloper by quit claim deed substantially in the form
set forth on Schedule B to this Agreement (the “Deed”), modified as may be necessary to enable
issuance of a suitable owner’s policy in a form acceptable to the Redeveloper and its successors and
assigns (the “Deed”). The Authority's obligation to convey the Authority Parcel to the Redeveloper,
and the Redeveloper’s obligation to acquire the Authority Parcel, are subject to satisfaction of the
following terms and conditions:
(1) The Redeveloper having closed on permanent financing at or before Closing
on transfer of title to the Authority Parcel from the Authority to the Redeveloper, or having
received a binding commitment from a lender to provide financing sufficient for
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 35
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 10
construction of the Minimum Improvements, or having otherwise provided the Authority
with proof of funds available to finance construction of the Minimum Improvements.
(2) The City having approved the Redevelopment Plat and PUD in accordance
with Section 3.1, and the Redeveloper having recorded the Redevelopment Plat at or before
Closing.
(3) The City having approved all necessary zoning variances to the
Redevelopment Property in accordance with Section 3.1.
(4) The Authority having approved Construction Plans for the Minimum
Improvements in accordance with Section 4.2.
(5) The Redeveloper having reviewed and approved (or waived objections to)
title to the Authority Parcel and having obtained a commitment from a title company
acceptable to the Redeveloper (the “Title Company”) to issue a suitable owner’s policy, as
set forth in Section 3.5.
(6) The Redeveloper having closed on its purchase of the Third-Party Parcel.
(7) The Redeveloper being satisfied with the results of its due diligence
inspections and testing with regard to the Authority Parcel as further described in Section
3.3(b) hereof.
(8) There is no uncured Event of Default under this Agreement.
Conditions (1) and (4) are solely for the benefit of the Authority, and may be waived by the
Authority. Conditions (3), (5), and (7) are solely for the benefit of the Redeveloper, and may be
waived by the Redeveloper. Conditions (2), (6), and (8) are for the benefit of both parties and may
be waived by both parties.
In the event that this Agreement is terminated pursuant to failure to meet or waive any of conditions
(1) through (7), the Earnest Money shall be returned to the Redeveloper and neither party shall have
any further rights or obligations under this Agreement, except for the Redeveloper’s continuing
obligation under Section 3.10 hereof. In the event that this Agreement is terminated pursuant to
condition (8), the provisions of Article IX shall apply.
(b) The Redeveloper shall have the right to enter the Authority Parcel at reasonable
times for the purpose of inspection and testing and to determine the feasibility of the Authority
Parcel for the Redeveloper’s intended use. The Redeveloper hereby covenants and agrees that it
shall cause all studies, investigations and inspections performed at the Authority Parcel to be
performed in a manner that does not disturb the Authority Parcel and that that the Authority Parcel
shall be returned to its original condition after the Redeveloper’s entry, provided that the
Redeveloper shall not be responsible for any existing conditions on the Authority Parcel or for any
environmental remediation or response actions required as a result of such investigations and
inspections. Except for soil borings and test pits, the Redeveloper shall not conduct or cause to be
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 36
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 11
conducted any physically intrusive investigation, examination or study of the Authority Parcel (any
such investigation, examination or study hereinafter an “Intrusive Investigation”) as part of its
inspection or otherwise without obtaining the prior written consent of the Authority. “Intrusive
Investigation” shall mean any investigation, examination or study that disturbs or disrupts the
Authority Parcel, including, but not limited to, grading, but not including soil borings or test pits.
The Redeveloper and the Redeveloper’s representatives shall, in performing its inspection, comply
with any and all applicable laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations.
The Redeveloper shall, at the Redeveloper’s sole cost, restore the Authority Parcel to the same
condition as before the Redeveloper’s entry for inspection or any Intrusive Investigation; provided
that the Redeveloper shall not be responsible for any existing conditions or environmental
remediation or response actions required as a result of existing conditions or such entry, inspection
or Intrusive Investigation.
(c) The closing on conveyance of the Authority Parcel from the Authority to the
Redeveloper (“Closing”) shall occur within thirty (30) days of satisfaction or waiver of conditions
(1) through (7) specified in Section 3.3(a), and subject to the continued satisfaction at Closing of
condition (8), but no later than June 30, 2016 (the “End Date”), which End Date shall be subject to
extension upon mutual agreement of the parties.
Section 3.4. Place of Document Execution, Delivery and Recording. (a) Unless otherwise
mutually agreed by the Authority and the Redeveloper, the execution and delivery of all deeds,
documents and the payment of any purchase price shall be made through a closing escrow
established with the Title Company or at such other location to which the parties may agree.
(b) The Deed shall be in recordable form and shall be promptly recorded in the proper
office for the recordation of deeds and other instruments pertaining to the Authority Parcel. At
closing, the Redeveloper shall pay: all recording costs in connection with the conveyance of the
Authority Parcel; title insurance commitment fees and premiums, if any; and Title Company
closing fees, if any. The Authority shall pay costs of recording any instruments used to clear title
encumbrances; State deed tax; and any special assessments outstanding or levied against the
Authority Parcel as of the Closing Date. The parties agree and understand that the Authority
Parcel is exempt from property taxes for taxes payable in 2015, and is expected to be exempt for
taxes payable in 2016.
(c) At Closing, the Authority shall deliver to the Redeveloper:
(1) The executed Deed,
(2) All certificates, instruments and other documents necessary to permit the
recording of the Deed,
(3) A standard Seller’s Affidavit with respect to judgments, bankruptcies, tax
liens, mechanics liens, parties in possession, unrecorded interests, encroachment or
boundary line questions and related matters,
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 37
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 12
(4) If applicable, the owner’s duplicate certificate of title (the Authority need
not provide an abstract of title if the property is classified as abstract property),
(5) An affidavit that the Authority is not a “foreign person” within the
meaning of Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code, and
(6) The Assessment Agreement.
(d) At Closing, the Redeveloper shall deliver to the Authority:
(1) The balance of the Purchase Price, plus or minus pro rata costs between
the Authority and Redeveloper as set forth herein; and
(2) The Assessment Agreement.
Section 3.5. Title. (a) As soon as practicable after the date of this Agreement, the
Redeveloper, at Redeveloper’s sole expense, shall obtain a commitment for the issuance of an
ALTA Owner’s Title Insurance Policy (2006 form) for the Authority Parcel. The Redeveloper may,
at the Redeveloper’s expense, obtain a survey of the Authority Parcel. The Redeveloper shall have
twenty (20) days from the date of its receipt of such commitment and the survey to review the state
of title to the Authority Parcel and to provide the Authority with a list of written objections to such
title. Upon receipt of the Redeveloper's list of written objections, the Authority shall proceed in
good faith and with all due diligence to attempt to cure the objections made by the Redeveloper. In
the event that the Authority has failed to cure objections within sixty (60) days after its receipt of the
Redeveloper's list of such objections, the Redeveloper may by the giving of written notice to the
Authority (i) terminate this Agreement, upon the receipt of which the Earnest Money shall be
refunded to the Redeveloper and this Agreement shall be null and void and neither party shall have
any liability hereunder, other than Redeveloper’s obligations under Section 3.10 hereof; or (ii)
waive the objections and proceed to Closing. The Authority shall have no obligation to take any
action to clear defects in the title to the Authority Parcel, other than the good faith efforts described
above. If this Agreement is not terminated as hereinabove permitted, the Title Company shall be
instructed to provide to Redeveloper an updated Title Commitment appropriately addressing the
matters set forth above for the issuance of a title policy in the amount of the Purchase Price and
otherwise in form and content acceptable to the Redeveloper.
(b) The Authority shall take no actions to encumber title to the Authority Parcel
between the date of this Agreement and the time the Deed is delivered to the Redeveloper.
(c) The Redeveloper shall take no actions to encumber title to the Authority Parcel
between the date of this Agreement and the time the Deed is delivered to the Redeveloper. The
Redeveloper expressly agrees that it will not cause or permit the attachment of any mechanics,
attorneys, or other liens to the Authority Parcel prior to Closing. Notwithstanding termination of
this Agreement prior to Closing, Redeveloper is obligated to pay all costs to discharge any
encumbrances to the Authority Parcel attributable to actions of Redeveloper, its employees, officers,
agents or consultants, including without limitation the Architect, Contractor and Redeveloper’s
Engineer.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 38
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 13
Section 3.6. Environmental Conditions. (a) The parties acknowledge that asbestos has been
found on the Third-Party Parcel. If MPCA approves a voluntary response action plan (“VRAP”)
providing for remediation of hazardous wastes and contaminants on the Third-Party Parcel,
Redeveloper shall promptly after Closing undertake remediation and any other actions required
under the VRAP, subject to the reimbursement as further described in this Agreement. Redeveloper
expressly agrees to perform any task or obligation imposed under the VRAP, including without
limitation any emergency procedures.
(b) The Redeveloper acknowledges that the Authority makes no representations or
warranties as to the condition of the soils on the Redevelopment Property or the fitness of the
Redevelopment Property for construction of the Minimum Improvements or any other purpose for
which the Redeveloper may make use of such property, and that the assistance provided to the
Redeveloper under this Agreement neither implies any responsibility by the Authority or the City
for any contamination of the Redevelopment Property nor imposes any obligation on such parties to
participate in any cleanup of the Redevelopment Property.
(c) Without limiting its obligations under Section 8.3 of this Agreement, the
Redeveloper further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Authority, the City,
and their governing body members, officers, and employees, from any claims or actions arising out
of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants existing on or in the Redevelopment
Property on or after the date of Closing, unless and to the extent that such hazardous wastes or
pollutants are present as a result of the actions or omissions of the indemnitees. Nothing in this
section will be construed to limit or affect any limitations on liability of the City or Authority under
State or federal law, including without limitation Minnesota Statutes Sections 466.04 and 604.02.
Section 3.7. Issuance of Note. (a) Generally. The Authority has determined that, in order
to make development of the Minimum Improvements financially feasible, it is necessary to
reimburse Redeveloper for a portion of the cost of building demolition, environmental
contamination cleanup and reporting, site preparation, stormwater management, and underground
structured parking (the “Public Redevelopment Costs”), subject to the terms of this Section.
(b) Terms. To reimburse the Public Redevelopment Costs incurred by Redeveloper, the
Authority shall issue and the Redeveloper shall purchase the Note in the maximum principal
amount of $2,800,000. The Authority shall issue and deliver the Note upon Redeveloper having:
(i) delivered to the Authority one or more certificates signed by the
Redeveloper’s duly authorized representative, containing the following: (i) a statement
that each cost identified in the certificate is a Public Redevelopment Cost as defined in
this Agreement and that no part of such cost has been included in any previous
certification; (ii) evidence that each identified Public Redevelopment Cost has been paid
or incurred by or on behalf of the Redeveloper; (iii) evidence that Redeveloper has paid
all its contractors and subcontractors in full for all work to be reimbursed as a Public
Redevelopment Cost; and (iv) a statement that no uncured Event of Default by the
Redeveloper has occurred and is continuing under the Agreement. The Authority may, if
not satisfied that the conditions described herein have been met, return any certificate
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 39
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 14
with a statement of the reasons why it is not acceptable and requesting such further
documentation or clarification as the Authority may reasonably require;
(ii) submitted and obtained Authority approval of financing in accordance with
Section 7.1; and
(iii) delivered to the Authority an investment letter in a form reasonably
satisfactory to the Authority.
The terms of the Note will be substantially those set forth in the form of the Note shown in
Schedule C, and the Note will be subject to all terms of the Authorizing Resolution, which are
incorporated herein by reference.
(c) Termination of right to Note. In accordance with Section 469.1763, Subdivision 3
of the TIF Act, conditions for delivery of the Note must be met within five years after the date of
certification of the TIF District by the County. If the conditions are not satisfied by such date,
the City has no further obligations under this Section 3.7.
(d) Assignment of Note. The Authority acknowledges that the Redeveloper may assign
the Note to a third party. The Authority consents to such an assignment, conditioned upon receipt
of an investment letter from such third party in a form reasonably acceptable to the Authority.
(e) Qualifications. The Redeveloper understands and acknowledges that the
Authority makes no representations or warranties regarding the amount of Tax Increment, or that
revenues pledged to the Note will be sufficient to pay the principal and interest on the Note. Any
estimates of Tax Increment prepared by the Authority or its financial advisors in connection with
the TIF District or this Agreement are for the benefit of the Authority, and are not intended as
representations on which the Redeveloper may rely. Public Redevelopment Costs exceeding the
principal amount of the Note are the sole responsibility of Redeveloper.
Section 3.8. TIF Lookback.
(a) Generally. The financial assistance to the Redeveloper under this Agreement is based
on certain assumptions regarding likely costs and expenses associated with constructing the
Minimum Improvements. The Authority and the Redeveloper agree that those assumptions will
be reviewed at the times described in this Section, and that the amount of Tax Increment
assistance provided under Section 3.7 will be adjusted accordingly.
(b) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section, the following terms have the following
definitions:
“Calculation Date” means 60 days after the earliest of (i) the date of Stabilization
for the residential rental units (“Apartments”); (ii) the date of any Transfer in whole or in
part of the Apartments; or (iii) three years after the date of issuance of the Certificate of
Completion for the Apartments.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 40
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 15
“Net Operating Income” means all net rental income from the Apartments
received in the last fiscal year prior to the Calculation Date, subject to the following
adjustments: (i) if the Apartments have not reached Stabilization as of the Calculation
Date, income will be calculated as the sum of actual rent, parking and miscellaneous
income plus assumed rent, parking and miscellaneous income for the space needed to
reach 93% lease-up at rates equal to the average rent and parking income from actual
leases and miscellaneous income as of the Calculation Date; (ii) from that total will be
deducted actual fees, operating and management expenses as outlined on Schedule F
hereto (if Stabilization has occurred) or estimated fees, operating and management
expenses as if the Apartments were 93% leased (if Stabilization has not occurred).
“Stabilization” means 93% of the Apartments are leased.
(c) Lookback Calculation. On the applicable Calculation Date, the Redeveloper shall
deliver to the Authority reasonable evidence of its actual annualized cumulative internal rate of
return (the “IRR”) from the Apartments, calculated as of the applicable Calculation Date, along
with the estimated annualized cumulative IRR from the Apartments assuming a sale in the tenth
year after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the Apartments. The IRR
shall be calculated based on equity, revenues and expenses in substantially in the format of the
lookback pro forma on file in the office of the Authority. The Redeveloper agrees to provide to
the Authority any background documentation reasonably related to the financial data, upon
written request from the Authority or the Authority’s financial consultant. The Authority may,
by written request, require Redeveloper to deliver to the Authority a written certificate of a
certified public accountant regarding total redevelopment costs and revenues, to be provided at
Redeveloper’s expense.
The amount by which the IRR exceeds eighteen percent (18%) shall be referred to as the
“Excess Percentage.” The Excess Percentage, multiplied by Redeveloper’s equity in the
Apartments (as calculated for purposes of determining the IRR), is the “Participation Amount.”
If the Authority determines that there is a Participation Amount, the Authority shall deliver
written notice to the Redeveloper stating the Participation Amount and applying one hundred
percent (100%) of the Participation Amount as prepayment of the outstanding principal amount
of the Note in accordance with Section 5(b) of the Note, effective upon delivery of such notice.
Section 3.9. Business Subsidy. The Redeveloper warrants and represents that the
Redeveloper’s investment in the purchase of the Redevelopment Property and in site preparation
equals at least 70% of the County assessor’s finalized market value of the Redevelopment
Property for the 2015 assessment year, calculated as follows:
Aggregate cost of acquisition of Redevelopment Property……...…..$4,480,000
Plus Estimated cost of site preparation...................……………$2,680,351
Less site preparation costs reimbursed by the Authority….. ……($2,600,000)
Equals net land and site preparation cost...................…………$4,560,351
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 41
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 16
Assessor's finalized market value
of Redevelopment Property (2015)...................……………$2,819,000
$4,560,351 (net acquisition and site preparation cost) is 161% of $2,819,000 (assessor's
finalized fair market value of the Redevelopment Property for 2015).
Accordingly, the parties agree and understand that the financial assistance described in this
Agreement does not constitute a business subsidy within the meaning of the Business Subsidy
Act. The Redeveloper releases and waives any claim against the Authority and its governing
body members, officers, agents, servants and employees thereof arising from application of the
Business Subsidy Act to this Agreement, including without limitation any claim that the
Authority failed to comply with the Business Subsidy Act with respect to this Agreement.
Section 3.10. Payment of Authority Costs. The Redeveloper agrees that it will pay, within
15 days after written notice from the Authority, the reasonable costs of consultants and attorneys
retained by the Authority in connection with any necessary modification of the TIF Plan for the TIF
District, and the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement and other incidental agreements and
documents contemplated hereunder, including without limitation agreements and documents related
to land conveyance, development and financing assistance. The Authority will provide written
reports describing the costs accrued under this Section upon request from the Redeveloper, but not
more often than intervals of 45 days. Any amount deposited by the Redeveloper upon filing its
application for tax increment financing with the Authority will be credited to the Redeveloper’s
obligation under this Section. Upon termination of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, the
Redeveloper remains obligated under this section for costs incurred through the effective date of
termination.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 42
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 17
ARTICLE IV
Construction of Minimum Improvements
Section 4.1. Construction of Improvements. The Redeveloper agrees that it will construct
or cause construction of the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property in accordance
with the approved Construction Plans and that it will, during any period while the Redeveloper
retains ownership of any portion of the Minimum Improvements, operate and maintain, preserve
and keep the Minimum Improvements or cause the Minimum Improvements to be maintained,
preserved and kept with the appurtenances and every part and parcel thereof, in good repair and
condition.
Section 4.2. Construction Plans. (a) Before commencing construction of the Minimum
Improvements, the Redeveloper shall submit to the Authority Construction Plans for the Minimum
Improvements. The Construction Plans shall provide for the construction of the Minimum
Improvements and shall be in conformity with this Agreement, the Redevelopment Plan, the Site
Plan attached hereto as Schedule F, and all applicable State and local laws and regulations. The
Authority will approve the Construction Plans in writing if (i) the Construction Plans conform to all
terms and conditions of this Agreement; (ii) the Construction Plans conform to the goals and
objectives of the Redevelopment Plan; (iii) the Construction Plans conform to all applicable federal,
state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations; (iv) the Construction Plans provide for
construction of the Minimum Improvements; (v) the Construction Plans do not provide for
expenditures in excess of the funds available to the Redeveloper for construction of the Minimum
Improvements; and (vi) no Event of Default has occurred and is continuing. No approval by the
Authority shall relieve the Redeveloper of the obligation to comply with the terms of this
Agreement, applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, or to
construct the Minimum Improvements in accordance therewith. No approval by the Authority shall
constitute a waiver of an Event of Default. If approval of the Construction Plans is requested by the
Redeveloper in writing at the time of submission, such Construction Plans shall be deemed
approved unless rejected in writing by the Authority, in whole or in part. Such rejections shall set
forth in detail the reasons therefor based upon the criteria set forth in (i) through (vi) above, and
shall be made within 20 days after the date of receipt of final plans from the Redeveloper. If the
Authority rejects any Construction Plans in whole or in part, the Redeveloper shall submit new or
corrected Construction Plans within twenty (20) days after written notification to the Redeveloper of
the rejection. The provisions of this Section relating to approval, rejection and resubmission of
corrected Construction Plans shall continue to apply until the Construction Plans have been
approved by the Authority. The Authority's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld,
conditioned or delayed. Said approval shall constitute a conclusive determination that the
Construction Plans (and the Minimum Improvements, constructed in accordance with said plans)
comply to the Authority's satisfaction with the provisions of this Agreement relating thereto.
The Redeveloper hereby waives any and all claims and causes of action whatsoever
resulting from the review of the Construction Plans by the Authority and/or any changes in the
Construction Plans requested by the Authority. Neither the Authority, the City, nor any employee
or official of the Authority or City shall be responsible in any manner whatsoever for any defect in
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 43
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 18
the Construction Plans or in any work done pursuant to the Construction Plans, including changes
requested by the Authority.
(b) If the Redeveloper desires to make any material change in the Construction Plans or
any component thereof after their approval by the Authority, the Redeveloper shall submit the
proposed change to the Authority for its approval. For the purpose of this section, the term
“material” means changes that increase or decrease construction costs by $500,000 or more. If the
Construction Plans, as modified by the proposed change, conform to the requirements of this
Section 4.2 of this Agreement with respect to such previously approved Construction Plans, the
Authority shall approve the proposed change and notify the Redeveloper in writing of its approval.
Such change in the Construction Plans shall, in any event, be deemed approved by the Authority
unless rejected, in whole or in part, by written notice by the Authority to the Redeveloper, setting
forth in detail the reasons therefor. Such rejection shall be made within 10 days after receipt of the
notice of such change. The Authority's approval of any such change in the Construction Plans will
not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed.
Section 4.3. Commencement and Completion of Construction. (a) Subject to Unavoidable
Delays, the Redeveloper shall commence construction of the Minimum Improvements by July 1,
2016. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall complete the construction of the
Minimum Improvements by January 1, 2018. All work with respect to the Minimum Improvements
to be constructed or provided by the Redeveloper on the Redevelopment Property shall be in
conformity with the Construction Plans as submitted by the Redeveloper and approved by the
Authority. If the Redeveloper becomes aware that Redeveloper is not likely to meet the required
deadline for commencement and/or completion of construction of the Minimum Improvements, the
Redeveloper agrees to provide a written and oral report to the City Council of the City at a regular
City Council meeting prior to the applicable deadline. The report must describe the reasons for the
expected failure to meet the applicable deadline, evidence of the Redeveloper’s good faith efforts to
construct the Minimum Improvements, and a detailed revised schedule. Approval of a modified
schedule for construction by the Authority shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or
delayed. Failure to timely provide such written and oral report is an Event of Default.
(b) The Redeveloper agrees for itself, its successors, and assigns, and every successor in
interest to the Redevelopment Property, or any part thereof, that the Redeveloper, and such
successors and assigns, shall promptly begin and diligently prosecute to completion the
development of the Redevelopment Property through the construction of the Minimum
Improvements thereon, and that such construction shall in any event be commenced and completed
within the period specified in this Section 4.3 of this Agreement. After the date of this Agreement
and until the Minimum Improvements have been fully leased, the Redeveloper shall make reports,
in such detail and at such times as may reasonably be requested by the Authority, but no more than
monthly, as to the actual progress of the Redeveloper with respect to such construction and leasing.
(c) The Redeveloper shall comply with the City’s Green Building Policy, adopted by the
City Council on February 16, 2010 and as such policy may be amended as of the date of issuance of
a building permit for the Minimum Improvements, and shall use commercially reasonable efforts to
obtain “green” certification for the Minimum Improvements. As a condition to issuance of a
Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements, Redeveloper shall submit to the
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 44
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 19
Authority either (a) evidence of certification from Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(“LEED”) or similar certification or (b) in absence of actual certification, evidence in a form
satisfactory to the Authority of Redeveloper’s best efforts to obtain such certification and an
explanation of why certification was not feasible. Such evidence shall include a detail of the
specific energy-efficient/sustainable features or components implemented in the construction of the
Minimum Improvements.
Section 4.4. Certificate of Completion. (a) Promptly after completion of the Minimum
Improvements in accordance with those provisions of the Agreement relating solely to the
obligations of the Redeveloper to construct the Minimum Improvements (including the dates for
beginning and completion thereof and the efforts regarding LEED or comparable certification
described in Section 4.3), the Authority Representative shall deliver to the Redeveloper a Certificate
in substantially the form shown as Schedule D, in recordable form and executed by the Authority.
(b) If the Authority Representative shall refuse or fail to provide any certification in
accordance with the provisions of this Section 4.4 of this Agreement, the Authority Representative
shall, within thirty (30) days after written request by the Redeveloper, provide the Redeveloper with
a written statement, indicating in adequate detail in what respects the Redeveloper has failed to
complete the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, or is
otherwise in default, and what measures or acts it will be necessary, in the opinion of the Authority,
for the Redeveloper to take or perform in order for the Authority to issue the Certificate of
Completion.
(c) The construction of the Minimum Improvements shall be deemed to be substantially
complete upon issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the Minimum Improvements, and
upon determination by the Authority Representative that all related site improvements on the
Redevelopment Property have been substantially completed in accordance with approved
Construction Plans, subject to landscaping that cannot be completed until seasonal conditions
permit.
Section 4.5. Records. The Authority and the City through any authorized representatives,
shall have the right at all reasonable times after reasonable notice to inspect, examine and copy all
books and records of Redeveloper relating to the Minimum Improvements. Such records shall be
kept and maintained by Redeveloper through the Maturity Date.
Section 4.6. Connectivity. The Redeveloper shall install dedicated wired connections for
the Minimum Improvements in conformity with the terms and specifications provided in the
Planning Development Contract between the Redeveloper and the City, dated ______________,
2015.
Section 4.7. Redeveloper Public Improvements. In addition to construction of the
Minimum Improvements, the Redeveloper shall construct, at Redeveloper’s sole cost, public
sidewalks adjacent to all streets abutting the Redevelopment Property, streetlights, landscaping,
streetscape improvements, and bicycle parking (the “Redeveloper Public Improvements”), as
provided in the Official Exhibits to the City’s Ordinance __-15 (the “City Ordinance”). All
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 45
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 20
Redeveloper Public Improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City Ordinance,
which is incorporated herein by reference.
Section 4.8. Public Art. The Redeveloper shall allocate $75,000 for the design and
installation of public artwork (the “Public Art”) to be placed in a prominent location on the
Redevelopment Property outside the Minimum Improvements. Prior to installation, the design of
the Public Art shall be approved by the Authority, provided that such approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. Installation of the Public Art shall be completed
prior to issuance of the Certificate of Completion under Section 4.4 hereof, unless otherwise agreed
by the Authority.
Section 4.9. Inclusionary Housing. The Redeveloper agrees to comply with the City’s
Inclusionary Housing Policy, as adopted June 1, 2015, including without limitation the following:
(a) Redeveloper agrees to reserve at least 10% of the apartment units in the Minimum
Improvements (the “Affordable Dwelling Units”) for households earning 60% of Area Median
Income (“AMI”) or at least 8% of the apartment units for households earning 50% of AMI for at
least 25 years following building occupancy.
(b) The monthly rental price for Affordable Dwelling Units shall include rent and
utility costs and shall be based on fifty percent (50%) and/or sixty percent (60%) of AMI for the
metropolitan area that includes St. Louis Park adjusted for bedroom size and calculated annually
by Minnesota Housing in connection with establishing rent limits for the Housing Tax Credit
Program.
(c) The size and design of the Affordable Dwelling Units shall be consistent and
comparable with the market rate units in the Minimum Improvements and is subject to the
approval of the City. The Affordable Dwelling Units shall be distributed throughout the
Minimum Improvements.
(d) The Affordable Dwelling Units shall have a number of bedrooms in the
approximate proportion as the market rate units.
(e) Redeveloper agrees to prepare an affordable housing plan as defined in the City’s
Inclusionary Housing Policy (the “Affordable Housing Plan”). The Affordable Housing Plan shall
describe how the Redeveloper complies with each of the applicable requirements of the
Inclusionary Housing Policy. The Affordable Housing Plan shall be prepared by the Redeveloper
and must be approved by the City prior to or in conjunction with delivery of the Certificate of
Completion for the Minimum Improvements.
Section 4.10. Property Management. The Redeveloper shall cause the Minimum
Improvements to be professionally managed by a property management company with substantial
experience in operating mixed use developments. The Redeveloper’s selection of the property
management company is subject to approval by the Authority, which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 46
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 21
Section 4.11. Special Service District; Maintenance. (a) Upon the written request
of the Authority, the Redeveloper agrees to file any petition or other document required to enter
into the City’s Special Service District No. 3 (the “Special Service District”) and to become
subject to special service charges levied on all commercial properties in the Special Service
District as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 428A. In accordance with Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 428A, special services will not include any service that is ordinarily provided
throughout the City from general fund revenues except to the extent an increased level of service
is provided in the Special Service District. The Redeveloper further waives all rights to veto,
appeal or otherwise object to imposition of a service charge levied in accordance with this
paragraph, provided that the Redeveloper, and its successors and assigns, shall be entitled to
raise any objections, appeals or challenges to special district changes upon the termination of this
Agreement.
(b) Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Completion under Section 4.4 hereof,
the Redeveloper shall submit to the Authority for review and approval a plan for maintenance
and operation of all pedestrian and landscaping improvements located within the Redevelopment
Property, other than those within the Excelsior Boulevard right-of-way and/or included in the
Special Service District (the “Maintenance Plan”). The Maintenance Plan must address, at a
minimum: snow removal from pedestrian connections and sidewalks; maintenance and
replacement of landscaping, irrigation and other streetscaping; snow removal and maintenance of
any su rface parking; and maintenance of the Public Art (the “Maintenance”); a description of
how the Maintenance costs will be assessed to tenants; and enforcement mechanisms. Within
sixty (60) days after receipt of the Maintenance Plan, the Authority will approve or deny the
Maintenance Plan in writing, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed,
conditioned or denied. If the Authority denies approval of the Maintenance Plan, the denial shall
set forth in detail the reasons therefor, and Redeveloper shall submit a new or corrected
Maintenance Plan within thirty (30) days after written notification to the Redeveloper of the
denial.
(b) If the Redeveloper fails to perform the Maintenance in accordance with the
Maintenance Plan, the Authority, at its option and following 30 days written notice to the
Redeveloper, may enter the Redevelopment property and perform the Maintenance. The
Redeveloper agrees to permit the City to specially assess any costs of the Maintenance
proportionately against the Minimum Improvements. The Redeveloper, on behalf of itself and
its successors and assigns, acknowledges the benefit to the lots within the Redevelopment
Property of the Maintenance and consents to such assessment and waives the right to a hearing,
notice of hearing, or any appeal.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 47
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 22
ARTICLE V
Insurance
Section 5.1. Insurance. (a) The Redeveloper will provide and maintain at all times during
the process of constructing the Minimum Improvements an All Risk Broad Form Basis Insurance
Policy and, from time to time during that period, at the request of the Authority, furnish the
Authority with proof of payment of premiums on policies covering the following:
(i) Builder’s risk insurance, written on the so-called “Builder’s Risk --
Completed Value Basis,” in an amount equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Note,
and with coverage available in nonreporting form on the so-called “all risk” form of policy.
The interest of the Authority shall be protected in accordance with a clause in form and
content satisfactory to the Authority;
(ii) Comprehensive general liability insurance (including operations, contingent
liability, operations of subcontractors, completed operations, and contractual liability
insurance) together with an Owner’s Protective Liability Policy with limits against bodily
injury and property damage of not less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence (to accomplish
the above-required limits, an umbrella excess liability policy may be used). The Authority
shall be listed as an additional insured on the policy; and
(iii) Workers’ compensation insurance, with statutory coverage, provided that the
Redeveloper may be self-insured with respect to all or any part of its liability for workers’
compensation.
(b) Upon completion of construction of the Minimum Improvements and prior to the
Maturity Date, the Redeveloper shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, at its cost and expense,
and from time to time at the request of the Authority shall furnish proof of the payment of premiums
on, insurance as follows:
(i) Insurance against loss and/or damage to the Minimum Improvements under
a policy or policies covering such risks as are ordinarily insured against by similar
businesses.
(ii) Comprehensive general public liability insurance, including personal injury
liability (with employee exclusion deleted), against liability for injuries to persons and/or
property, in the minimum amount for each occurrence and for each year of $1,000,000, and
shall be endorsed to show the City and Authority as additional insureds.
(iii) Such other insurance, including workers' compensation insurance respecting
all employees of the Redeveloper, in such amount as is customarily carried by like
organizations engaged in like activities of comparable size and liability exposure; provided
that the Redeveloper may be self-insured with respect to all or any part of its liability for
workers' compensation.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 48
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 23
(c) All insurance required in Article V of this Agreement shall be taken out and
maintained in responsible insurance companies selected by the Redeveloper that are authorized
under the laws of the State to assume the risks covered thereby. Upon request, the Redeveloper will
deposit annually with the Authority policies evidencing all such insurance, or a certificate or
certificates or binders of the respective insurers stating that such insurance is in force and effect. If
permitted by Redeveloper’s insurer at commercially reasonable rates, each policy shall contain a
provision that the insurer shall not cancel nor modify it in such a way as to reduce the coverage
provided below the amounts required herein without giving written notice to the Redeveloper and
the Authority at least 30 days before the cancellation or modification becomes effective. In lieu of
separate policies, the Redeveloper may maintain a single policy, blanket or umbrella policies, or a
combination thereof, having the coverage required herein, in which event the Redeveloper shall
deposit with the Authority a certificate or certificates of the respective insurers as to the amount of
coverage in force upon the Minimum Improvements.
(d) The Redeveloper agrees to notify the Authority immediately in the case of damage
exceeding $100,000 in amount to, or destruction of, the Minimum Improvements or any portion
thereof resulting from fire or other casualty. In such event the Redeveloper will forthwith repair,
reconstruct, and restore the Minimum Improvements to substantially the same or an improved
condition or value as it existed prior to the event causing such damage and, to the extent necessary
to accomplish such repair, reconstruction, and restoration, the Redeveloper will apply the net
proceeds of any insurance relating to such damage received by the Redeveloper to the payment or
reimbursement of the costs thereof.
The Redeveloper shall complete the repair, reconstruction and restoration of the Minimum
Improvements, regardless of whether the net proceeds of insurance received by the Redeveloper for
such purposes are sufficient to pay for the same. Any net proceeds remaining after completion of
such repairs, construction, and restoration shall be the property of the Redeveloper.
(e) In lieu of its obligation to reconstruct the Minimum Improvements as set forth in this
Section, the Redeveloper shall have the option of: (i) if Redeveloper has assigned the Note to a
third party, paying to the Authority an amount that, in the opinion of the Authority and its fiscal
consultant, is sufficient to pay or redeem the outstanding principal and accrued interest on the Note,
or (ii) so long as the Redeveloper is the owner of the Note, waiving its right to receive subsequent
payments under the Note.
(f) The Redeveloper and the Authority agree that all of the insurance provisions set
forth in this Article V shall terminate upon the termination of this Agreement.
Section 5.2. Subordination. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the rights of
the Authority with respect to the receipt and application of any insurance proceeds shall, in all
respects, be subordinate and subject to the rights of any Holder under a Mortgage allowed pursuant
to Article VII of this Agreement.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 49
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 24
ARTICLE VI
Tax Increment; Taxes
Section 6.1. Right to Collect Delinquent Taxes. The Redeveloper acknowledges that the
Authority is providing substantial aid and assistance in furtherance of the development through
reimbursement of Public Redevelopment Costs. The Redeveloper understands that the Tax
Increments pledged to payment on the Note are derived from real estate taxes on the
Redevelopment Property, which taxes must be promptly and timely paid. To that end, the
Redeveloper agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, that in addition to the obligation pursuant
to statute to pay real estate taxes, it is also obligated by reason of this Agreement to pay before
delinquency all real estate taxes assessed against the Redevelopment Property and the Minimum
Improvements. The Redeveloper acknowledges that this obligation creates a contractual right on
behalf of the Authority to sue the Redeveloper or its successors and assigns to collect delinquent
real estate taxes and any penalty or interest thereon and to pay over the same as a tax payment to the
county auditor. In any such suit, the Authority shall also be entitled to recover its costs, expenses
and reasonable attorney fees.
Section 6.2. Review of Taxes. The Redeveloper agrees that prior to the Maturity Date it
will not cause a reduction in the real property taxes paid in respect of the Redevelopment Property
through: (A) willful destruction of the Redevelopment Property or any part thereof; or (B) willful
refusal to reconstruct damaged or destroyed property pursuant to Section 5.1 of this Agreement,
except as provided in Section 5.1(e). The Redeveloper also agrees that it will not, prior to the
Maturity Date, seek exemption from property tax for the Redevelopment Property or any portion
thereof or transfer or permit the transfer of the Redevelopment Property to any entity that is exempt
from real property taxes and state law (other than any portion thereof dedicated or conveyed to the
City in accordance with platting of the Redevelopment Property), or apply for a deferral of property
tax on the Redevelopment Property pursuant to any law.
Section 6.3. Assessment Agreement. (a) At Closing, the Redeveloper shall, with the
Authority, execute an Assessment Agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177,
subd. 8, specifying an assessor's minimum Market Value for the Redevelopment Property and
Minimum Improvements constructed thereon. The amount of the minimum Market Value shall be
$31,680,000 as of January 2, 2018 and each January 2 thereafter, notwithstanding the status of
construction by such dates.
(b) The Assessment Agreement shall be substantially in the form attached hereto as
Schedule G. Nothing in the Assessment Agreement shall limit the discretion of the assessor to
assign a market value to the Redevelopment Property in excess of such assessor's minimum Market
Value; nothing in this Agreement or in the Assessment Agreement shall limit the right of the
Redeveloper, or its successors and assigns, to challenge a Market Value determination that exceeds
the established minimum Market Value for the Redevelopment Property. The Assessment
Agreement shall remain in force for the period specified in the Assessment Agreement.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 50
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 25
ARTICLE VII
Other Financing
Section 7.1. Generally. Before issuance of the Note, the Redeveloper shall submit to the
Authority or provide access thereto for review by Authority staff, consultants and agents, evidence
reasonably satisfactory to the Authority that Redeveloper has available funds, or commitments to
obtain funds, whether in the nature of mortgage financing, equity, grants, loans, or other sources
sufficient for paying the cost of the developing the Minimum Improvements, provided that any
lender or grantor commitments shall be subject only to such conditions as are normal and customary
in the commercial lending industry.
Section 7.2. Authority's Option to Cure Default on Mortgage. In the event that any portion
of the Redeveloper's funds is provided through mortgage financing, and there occurs a default under
any Mortgage authorized pursuant to Article VII of this Agreement, the Redeveloper shall cause the
Authority to receive copies of any notice of default received by the Redeveloper from the holder of
such Mortgage. Thereafter, the Authority shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure any
such default on behalf of the Redeveloper within such cure periods as are available to the
Redeveloper under the Mortgage documents.
Section 7.3. Modification; Subordination. The Authority agrees to subordinate its rights
under this Agreement to the Holder of any Mortgage securing construction or permanent financing,
in accordance with the terms of a subordination agreement substantially in the form attached as
Schedule E, or such other form as the Authority and Holder mutually agree.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 51
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 26
ARTICLE VIII
Prohibitions Against Assignment and Transfer; Indemnification
Section 8.1. Representation as to Development. The Redeveloper represents and agrees
that its purchase of the Redevelopment Property, and its other undertakings pursuant to the
Agreement, are, and will be used, for the purpose of development of the Redevelopment Property
and not for speculation in land holding.
Section 8.2. Prohibition Against Redeveloper’s Transfer of Property and Assignment of
Agreement. The Redeveloper represents and agrees that prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Completion for all of the Minimum Improvements:
(a) Except only by way of security for, and only for, the purpose of obtaining financing
necessary to enable the Redeveloper or any successor in interest to the Redevelopment Property, or
any part thereof, to perform its obligations with respect to undertaking the redevelopment
contemplated under this Agreement, and any other purpose authorized by this Agreement, the
Redeveloper has not made or created and will not make or create or suffer to be made or created any
total or partial sale, assignment, conveyance, or lease, or any trust or power, or transfer in any other
mode or form of or with respect to this Agreement or the Redevelopment Property or any part
thereof or any interest therein, or any contract or agreement to do any of the same, to any person or
entity whether or not related in any way to the Redeveloper (collectively, a “Transfer”), without the
prior written approval of the Authority (whose approval will not be unreasonably withheld, subject
to the standards described in paragraph (b) of this Section) unless the Redeveloper remains liable
and bound by this Redevelopment Agreement in which event the Authority’s approval is not
required. Any such Transfer shall be subject to the provisions of this Agreement. For the purposes
of this Agreement, the term Transfer does not include (i) acquisition of a controlling interest in
Redeveloper by another entity or merger of Redeveloper with another entity; (ii) any sale,
conveyance, or transfer in any form to any Affiliate; (iii) grant or conveyance of any Mortgage or
other financing obtained by the Redeveloper with regard to the completion of the Minimum
Improvements; (iv) any leases of the Redevelopment Property to residential or commercial tenants;
or (v) conveyance of any easements necessary for the Project.
(b) In the event the Redeveloper, upon Transfer of the Redevelopment Property or any
portion thereof either before or after issuance of the Certificate of Completion, seeks to be released
from its obligations under this Redevelopment Agreement as to the portion of the Redevelopment
Property that is transferred, the Authority shall be entitled to require, except as otherwise provided
in the Agreement, as conditions to any such release that:
(i) Any proposed transferee shall have the qualifications and financial
responsibility, in the reasonable judgment of the Authority, necessary and adequate to fulfill
the obligations undertaken in this Agreement by the Redeveloper as to the portion of the
Redevelopment Property to be transferred.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 52
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 27
(ii) Any proposed transferee, by instrument in writing satisfactory to the
Authority and in form recordable in the public land records of Hennepin County, Minnesota,
shall, for itself and its successors and assigns, and expressly for the benefit of the Authority,
have expressly assumed all of the obligations of the Redeveloper under this Agreement as to
the portion of the Redevelopment Property to be transferred and agreed to be subject to all
the conditions and restrictions to which the Redeveloper is subject as to such portion;
provided, however, that the fact that any transferee of, or any other successor in interest
whatsoever to, the Redevelopment Property, or any part thereof, shall not, for whatever
reason, have assumed such obligations or so agreed, and shall not (unless and only to the
extent otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement or agreed to in writing by the
Authority) deprive the Authority of any rights or remedies or controls with respect to the
Redevelopment Property, the Minimum Improvements or any part thereof or the
construction of the Minimum Improvements; it being the intent of the parties as expressed in
this Agreement that (to the fullest extent permitted at law and in equity and excepting only
in the manner and to the extent specifically provided otherwise in this Agreement) no
transfer of, or change with respect to, ownership in the Redevelopment Property or any part
thereof, or any interest therein, however consummated or occurring, and whether voluntary
or involuntary, shall operate, legally, or practically, to deprive or limit the Authority of or
with respect to any rights or remedies on controls provided in or resulting from this
Agreement with respect to the Redevelopment Property that the Authority would have had,
had there been no such transfer or change. In the absence of specific written agreement by
the Authority to the contrary, no such transfer or approval by the Authority thereof shall be
deemed to relieve the Redeveloper, or any other party bound in any way by this Agreement
or otherwise with respect to the Redevelopment Property, from any of its obligations with
respect thereto.
(iii) Any and all legal documents involved in effecting the transfer of any interest
in this Agreement or the Redevelopment Property governed by this Article VIII, shall be in
a form reasonably satisfactory to the Authority.
(iv) At the written request of Redeveloper, the Authority shall execute and
deliver to Redeveloper and the proposed transferee an estoppel certificate containing
commercially customary and reasonable certifications.
In the event the foregoing conditions are satisfied then the Redeveloper shall be released from its
obligation under this Agreement, as to the portion of the Redevelopment Property that is transferred,
assigned, or otherwise conveyed.
Section 8.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants. (a) Except for any willful
misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or negligence of the Indemnified Parties
as hereinafter defined, and except for any breach by any of the Indemnified Parties of their
obligations under this Agreement, the Redeveloper releases from and covenants and agrees that the
Authority, and the governing body members, officers, agents, servants, and employees thereof (the
“Indemnified Parties”) shall not be liable for and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
Indemnified Parties against any loss or damage to property or any injury to or death of any person
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 53
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 28
occurring at or about or resulting from any defect in the Redevelopment Property or the Minimum
Improvements.
(b) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or
negligence of the Indemnified Parties, and except for any breach by any of the Indemnified Parties
of their obligations under this Agreement (including without limitation any failure by the Authority
to perform any procedure required under law in connection with establishment of the TIF District),
the Redeveloper agrees to protect and defend the Indemnified Parties, and further agrees to hold the
aforesaid harmless from any claim, demand, suit, action, or other proceeding whatsoever by any
person or entity whatsoever arising or purportedly arising from this Agreement, or the transactions
contemplated hereby.
(c) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or
negligence of the Indemnified Parties as hereinafter defined, and except for any breach by any of
the Indemnified Parties of their obligations under this Agreement, the Indemnified Parties shall
not be liable for any damage or injury to the persons or property of the Redeveloper or its officers,
agents, servants, or employees or any other person who may be about the Redevelopment Property
or Minimum Improvements.
(d) All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the Authority
contained herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements, and
obligations of such entity and not of any governing body member, officer, agent, servant, or
employee of such entities in the individual capacity thereof.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 54
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 29
ARTICLE IX
Events of Default
Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined. The following shall be “Events of Default” under
this Agreement and the term “Event of Default” shall mean, whenever it is used in this Agreement,
any one or more of the following events, after the non-defaulting party provides thirty (30) days
written notice to the defaulting party of the event, but only if the event has not been cured within
said thirty (30) days or, if the event is by its nature incurable within thirty (30) days, the defaulting
party does not, within such thirty- (30-) day period, provide assurances reasonably satisfactory to
the party providing notice of default that the event will be cured and will be cured as soon as
reasonably possible:
(a) Failure by the Redeveloper or Authority to observe or perform any covenant,
condition, obligation, or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this Agreement in
all material respects.
(b) If, before issuance of the Certificate of Completion for all the Minimum
Improvements, the Redeveloper shall
(i) file any petition in bankruptcy or for any reorganization, arrangement,
composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution, or similar relief under the United States
Bankruptcy Act or under any similar federal or State law, which action is not dismissed
within sixty (60) days after filing; or
(ii) make an assignment for benefit of its creditors; or
(iii) admit in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due; or
(iv) be adjudicated a bankrupt or insolvent.
Section 9.2. Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default referred to in Section
9.1 of this Agreement occurs and is continuing, the non-defaulting party may:
(a) Suspend its performance under this Agreement until it receives assurances that the
defaulting party will cure its default and continue its performance under the Agreement.
(b) Upon a default by the Redeveloper under this Agreement, the Authority may
terminate the Note and this Agreement.
(c) Take whatever action, including legal, equitable, or administrative action, which
may appear necessary or desirable to collect any payments due under this Agreement, or to enforce
performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant under this Agreement,
provided that nothing contained herein shall give the Authority the right to seek specific
performance by Redeveloper of the construction of the Minimum Improvements.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 55
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 30
(d) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, in the event that an
Event of Default by the Authority occurs prior to Closing, the Redeveloper may, in addition to
any other remedies available at law or equity:
(i) Terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to the Authority, in
which event all Earnest Money paid by the Redeveloper shall be returned to the
Redeveloper, and this Agreement shall become null and void and neither party
shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder; or
(ii) Bring an action for specific performance. Any action for specific
performance must be commenced within six (6) months of the Event of Default.
The Redeveloper, if successful in such action, in addition to other relief, shall be
entitled to an award of its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
(e) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, however, in the
event that any Event of Default by the Redeveloper occurs prior to Closing, the Authority’s sole
remedy shall be to terminate this Agreement in the manner provided by Minn. Stat. Sec. 559.21
and receive the Earnest Money from the Title Company, as liquidated damages, in which event
this Agreement shall be deemed null and void and the parties shall be released from all further
obligations and liabilities under this Agreement. Such termination of this Agreement and receipt
of the Earnest Money will be the only remedies available to the Authority for an Event of
Default by Redeveloper occurring prior to Closing, and Redeveloper will not be liable for
damages or specific performance.
Section 9.3. Revesting Title in Authority Upon Happening of Event Subsequent to
Conveyance to Redeveloper. In the event that subsequent to conveyance of the Authority Parcel to
Redeveloper and prior to completion of construction of the Minimum Improvements (evidenced by
a Certificate of Completion described in Section 4.4):
(a) Redeveloper, subject to Unavoidable Delays, shall fail to begin construction of the
Minimum Improvements in conformity with this Agreement and such failure to begin construction
is not cured within 90 days after written notice from the Authority to Redeveloper to do so; or
(b) Redeveloper fails to pay real estate taxes or assessments on the Authority Parcel or
any part thereof when due, or creates, suffers, assumes, or agrees to any encumbrance or lien on the
Authority Parcel (except to the extent permitted by this Agreement), or shall suffer any levy or
attachment to be made, or any materialmen’s or mechanics’ lien, or any other unauthorized
encumbrance or lien to attach, and such taxes or assessments shall not have been paid, or the
encumbrance or lien removed or discharged or provision satisfactory to the Authority made for such
payment, removal, or discharge, within thirty (30) days after written demand by the Authority to do
so; provided, that if Redeveloper first notifies the Authority of its intention to do so, it may in good
faith contest any mechanics’ or other lien filed or established and in such event the Authority shall
permit such mechanics’ or other lien to remain undischarged and unsatisfied during the period of
such contest and any appeal and during the course of such contest Redeveloper shall keep the
Authority informed respecting the status of such defense; or
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 56
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 31
(c) there is, in violation of the Agreement, any Transfer of the Authority Parcel in
violation of the terms of Section 8.2, and such violation is not cured within sixty (60) days after
written demand by the Authority to Redeveloper, or if the event is by its nature incurable within 30
days, Redeveloper does not, within such 30-day period, provide assurances reasonably satisfactory
to the Authority that the event will be cured as soon as reasonably possible; or
(d) Redeveloper fails to comply with any of its other covenants under this Agreement
related to the Minimum Improvements and fails to cure any such noncompliance or breach within
thirty (30) days after written demand from the Authority to Redeveloper to do so, or if the event is
by its nature incurable within 30 days, Redeveloper does not, within such 30-day period, provide
assurances reasonably satisfactory to the Authority that the event will be cured as soon as
reasonably possible; or
(e) the Holder of any Mortgage secured by the subject property exercises any remedy
provided by the Mortgage documents or exercises any remedy provided by law or equity in the
event of a default in any of the terms or conditions of the Mortgage, in either case which would
materially adversely affect the rights and obligations of the Authority hereunder;
Then the Authority shall have the right to re-enter and take possession of the Authority
Parcel and to terminate (and revest in the Authority) the estate conveyed by the deed to Redeveloper
as to the Authority Parcel, subject to all intervening matters, it being the intent of this provision,
together with other provisions of the Agreement, that the conveyance of the Authority Parcel to
Redeveloper shall be made upon, and that the deed shall contain a condition subsequent to the effect
that in the event of any default on the part of Redeveloper and failure on the part of Redeveloper to
remedy, end, or abrogate such default within the period and in the manner stated in such
subdivisions, the Authority at its option may declare a termination in favor of the Authority of the
title, and of all the rights and interests in and to the Authority Parcel conveyed to Redeveloper, and
that such title and all rights and interests of Redeveloper, and any assigns or successors in interest to
and in the Authority Parcel, shall revert to the Authority (subject to the rights of any Holder of a
Mortgage as provided in Section 7.3), but only if the events stated in Section 9.3(a)-(e) have not
been cured within the time periods provided above.
Section 9.4. Resale of Reacquired Property; Disposition of Proceeds. Upon the revesting in
the Authority of title to and/or possession of the Authority Parcel or any part thereof as provided in
Section 9.3, the Authority shall, pursuant to its responsibilities under law, use its best efforts to sell
the parcel or part thereof as soon and in such manner as the Authority shall find feasible and
consistent with the objectives of such law and of the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan to a
qualified and responsible party or parties (as determined by the Authority) who will assume the
obligation of making or completing the Minimum Improvements as shall be satisfactory to the
Authority in accordance with the uses specified for such parcel or part thereof in the Redevelopment
Plan and TIF Plan. During any time while the Authority has title to and/or possession of a parcel
obtained by reverter, the Authority will not disturb the rights of any tenants under any leases
encumbering such parcel. Upon resale of the parcel, the proceeds thereof shall be applied:
(a) First, to reimburse the Authority for all costs and expenses incurred by them,
including but not limited to salaries of personnel, in connection with the recapture, management,
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 57
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 32
and resale of the parcel (but less any income derived by the Authority from the property or part
thereof in connection with such management); all taxes, assessments, and water and sewer charges
with respect to the parcel or part thereof (or, in the event the parcel is exempt from taxation or
assessment or such charge during the period of ownership thereof by the Authority, an amount, if
paid, equal to such taxes, assessments, or charges (as determined by the Authority assessing official)
as would have been payable if the parcel were not so exempt); any payments made or necessary to
be made to discharge any encumbrances, liens, or Mortgages existing on the parcel or part thereof at
the time of revesting of title thereto in the Authority or to discharge or prevent from attaching or
being made any subsequent encumbrances or liens due to obligations, defaults or acts of
Redeveloper, its successors or transferees; any expenditures made or obligations incurred with
respect to the making or completion of the subject improvements or any part thereof on the parcel or
part thereof; and any amounts otherwise owing the Authority by Redeveloper and its successor or
transferee; and
(b) Second, to reimburse Redeveloper, its successor or transferee, up to the amount
equal to (1) the purchase price paid by Redeveloper under Section 3.2 with respect to the parcel
revested; plus (2) the amount actually invested by it in making any of the subject improvements
on the parcel or part thereof.
Any balance remaining after such reimbursements shall be retained by the Authority as its property.
Section 9.5. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to any
party is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every such
remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this
Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or omission to
exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall
be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from time to
time and as often as may be deemed expedient. To entitle the Authority to exercise any remedy
reserved to it, it shall not be necessary to give notice, other than such notice as may be required in
this Article IX.
Section 9.6. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any agreement
contained in this Agreement should be breached by either party and thereafter waived by the other
party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to
waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder.
Section 9.7. Attorney Fees. Whenever any Event of Default occurs and if the non-
defaulting party employs attorneys or incurs other expenses for the collection of payments due or to
become due or for the enforcement of performance or observance of any obligation or agreement on
the part of the defaulting party under this Agreement, the defaulting party shall, within twenty (20)
days of written demand by the non-defaulting party, pay to the non-defaulting party the reasonable
fees of such attorneys actually incurred and such other reasonable third-party expenses actually
incurred by the non-defaulting party.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 58
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 33
ARTICLE X
Additional Provisions
Section 10.1. Conflict of Interests; Representatives Not Individually Liable. The
Authority and the Redeveloper, to the best of their respective knowledge, represent and agree that
no member, official, or employee of the Authority shall have any personal interest, direct or
indirect, in the Agreement, nor shall any such member, official, or employee participate in any
decision relating to the Agreement that affects his personal interests or the interests of any
corporation, partnership, or association in which he, directly or indirectly, is interested. No
member, official, or employee of the City or Authority shall be personally liable to the Redeveloper,
or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the Authority or for any amount
that may become due to the Redeveloper or successor or on any obligations under the terms of the
Agreement.
Section 10.2. Equal Employment Opportunity. The Redeveloper, for itself and its
successors and assigns, agrees that during the construction of the Minimum Improvements provided
for in the Agreement it will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local equal employment
and non-discrimination laws and regulations.
Section 10.3. Restrictions on Use. The Redeveloper agrees that until the Maturity Date,
the Redeveloper, and such successors and assigns, shall devote the Redevelopment Property to the
operation of the Minimum Improvements as described in Section 4.1 hereof, and shall not
discriminate upon the basis of race, color, creed, sex or national origin in the sale, lease, or rental or
in the use or occupancy of the Redevelopment Property or any improvements erected or to be
erected thereon, or any part thereof. Redeveloper agrees that no portion of the Redevelopment
Property will be used for a sexually-oriented business, a pawnshop, a check-cashing business, a
tattoo business, or a gun business, and that such restrictions may be included in the Deed.
Section 10.4. Provisions Not Merged With Deed. None of the provisions of this
Agreement are intended to or shall be merged by reason of any deed transferring any interest in the
Redevelopment Property and any such deed shall not be deemed to affect or impair the provisions
and covenants of this Agreement.
Section 10.5. Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles of the several parts, Articles, and
Sections of the Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in
construing or interpreting any of its provisions.
Section 10.6. Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this
Agreement, a notice, demand, or other communication under the Agreement by either party to the
other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally, to the following addresses (or to
such other addresses as either party may notify the other):
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 59
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 34
To Redeveloper: KTJ 247, LLC
Attn: Joe Ryan
400 Water Street, Suite 200
Excelsior, MN 55331
To Authority: St. Louis Park EDA
Attn: Executive Director
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2518
Section 10.7. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
Section 10.8. Recording. At or after Closing, the Authority may record a memorandum of
this Agreement and any amendments thereto with the Hennepin County recorder. The Redeveloper
shall pay all costs for recording and agrees to execute such memorandum. The Redeveloper’s
obligations under this Agreement are covenants running with the land for the term of this
Agreement, enforceable by the Authority against the Redeveloper, its successor and assigns, and
every successor in interest to the Redevelopment Property, or any part thereof or any interest
therein.
Section 10.9. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement
approved by the Authority and the Redeveloper.
Section 10.10. Authority Approvals. Unless otherwise specified, any approval required by
the Authority under this Agreement may be given by the Authority Representative, except that final
approval of issuance of the Note shall be made by the Authority’s board of commissioners.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 60
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 35
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and Redeveloper have caused this Agreement to be duly
executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first above written.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
By
Its President
By
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________, 2015
by Anne Mavity and Tom Harmening, the President and Executive Director of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the State
of Minnesota, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 61
470046v3 MNI SA285-106 36
KTJ 247, LLC
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF _________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ________, 2015,
by _________________________, the _________________ of KTJ 247, LLC, a Minnesota limited
liability company, on behalf of the company.
___________________________________ Notary Public
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 62
A-1
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
SCHEDULE A
REDEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
Authority Parcel:
Outlot H, Park Commons East, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Third-Party Parcel:
Commencing at a point in the center line of Excelsior Avenue distant 313.25 feet Northeasterly
from its intersection with the Westerly line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 7, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence Northwesterly at right
angles from the center line of said Excelsior Avenue a distance of 310.0 feet; thence Northeasterly
along a line parallel to said center line to the most Westerly corner of Registered Land Survey No.
832; thence Southeasterly along the Westerly line of said of Registered Land Survey and its
extension Southeasterly to the center line of Excelsior Avenue; thence Southwesterly along said
center line to the place of beginning; all in said Section 7, Township 28, Range 24, according to the
Unites States Government Survey thereof and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 63
B-1
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
SCHEDULE B
FORM OF QUIT CLAIM DEED
Deed Tax Due: $__________
ECRV: _________________
THIS INDENTURE, between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a
public body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the “Grantor”), and KTJ
247, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Grantee”).
WITNESSETH, that Grantor, in consideration of the sum of $_______________ and other
good and valuable consideration the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant,
bargain, quitclaim and convey to the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever, all the tract or
parcel of land lying and being in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota described as
follows, to-wit (such tract or parcel of land is hereinafter referred to as the “Property”):
Outlot H, Park Commons East, Hennepin County, Minnesota
To have and to hold the same, together with all the hereditaments and appurtenances
thereunto belonging.
SECTION 1.
It is understood and agreed that this Deed is subject to the covenants, conditions, restrictions
and provisions of an agreement recorded herewith entered into between the Grantor and Grantee on
the ______ day of , 2015, identified as “Purchase and Redevelopment Contract” (hereafter
referred to as the “Agreement”) and that the Grantee shall not convey this Property, or any part
thereof, except as permitted by the Agreement until a certificate of completion releasing the Grantee
from certain obligations of said Agreement as to this Property or such part thereof then to be
conveyed, has been placed of record. This provision, however, shall in no way prevent the Grantee
from mortgaging this Property in order to obtain funds for the purchase of the Property hereby
conveyed or for erecting the Minimum Improvements thereon (as defined in the Agreement) in
conformity with the Agreement, any applicable development program and applicable provisions of
the zoning ordinance of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, or for the refinancing of the same.
It is specifically agreed that the Grantee shall promptly begin and diligently prosecute to
completion the development of the Property through the construction of the Minimum
Improvements thereon, as provided in the Agreement.
Promptly after completion of the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the provisions
of the Agreement, the Grantor will furnish the Grantee with a Certificate of Completion (as defined
in the Agreement) so certifying. Such Certificate of Completion by the Grantor shall be (and it shall
be so provided in the certification itself) a conclusive determination of satisfaction and termination
of the agreements and covenants of the Agreement and of this Deed with respect to the obligation of
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 64
B-2
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
the Grantee, and its successors and assigns, to construct the Minimum Improvements and the dates
for the beginning and completion thereof. Such certifications and such determination shall not
constitute evidence of compliance with or satisfaction of any obligation of the Grantee to any holder
of a mortgage, or any insurer of a mortgage, securing money loaned to finance the purchase of the
Property hereby conveyed or the Minimum Improvements, or any part thereof.
All certifications provided for herein shall be in such form as will enable them to be
recorded with the County Recorder and/or Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. If the
Grantor shall refuse or fail to provide any such certification in accordance with the provisions of the
Agreement and this Deed, the Grantor shall, within thirty (30) days after written request by the
Grantee, provide the Grantee with a written statement indicating in adequate detail in what respects
the Grantee has failed to complete the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the provisions
of the Agreement or is otherwise in default, and what measures or acts it will be necessary, in the
opinion of the Grantor, for the Grantee to take or perform in order to obtain such certification.
SECTION 2.
The Grantee’s rights and interest in the Property are subject to the terms and conditions of
Section 9.3 of the Agreement relating to the Grantor’s right to re-enter and revest in Grantor title to
the Property under conditions specified therein, including but not limited to termination of such
right upon issuance of a Certificate of Completion as defined in the Agreement.
SECTION 3.
The Grantee agrees for itself and its successors and assigns to or of the Property or any part
thereof, hereinbefore described, that the Grantee and such successors and assigns shall comply with
all provisions of the Agreement that relate to the Property or use thereof for the periods specified in
the Agreement, including without limitation the covenant set forth in Section 10.3 thereof.
It is intended and agreed that the above and foregoing agreements and covenants shall be
covenants running with the land for the respective terms herein provided, and that they shall, in any
event, and without regard to technical classification or designation, legal or otherwise, and except
only as otherwise specifically provided in this Deed, be binding, to the fullest extent permitted by
law and equity for the benefit and in favor of, and enforceable by, the Grantor against the Grantee,
its successors and assigns, and every successor in interest to the Property, or any part thereof or any
interest therein, and any party in possession or occupancy of the Property or any part thereof.
In amplification, and not in restriction of, the provisions of the preceding section, it is
intended and agreed that the Grantor shall be deemed a beneficiary of the agreements and covenants
provided herein, both for and in its own right, and also for the purposes of protecting the interest of
the community and the other parties, public or private, in whose favor or for whose benefit these
agreements and covenants have been provided. Such agreements and covenants shall run in favor
of the Grantor without regard to whether the Grantor has at any time been, remains, or is an owner
of any land or interest therein to, or in favor of, which such agreements and covenants relate. The
Grantor shall have the right, in the event of any breach of any such agreement or covenant to
exercise all the rights and remedies, and to maintain any actions or suits at law or in equity or other
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 65
B-3
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
proper proceedings to enforce the curing of such breach of agreement or covenant, to which it or
any other beneficiaries of such agreement or covenant may be entitled; provided that Grantor shall
not have any right to re-enter the Property or revest in the Grantor the estate conveyed by this Deed
on grounds of Grantee’s failure to comply with its obligations under this Section 3.
SECTION 4.
This Deed is also given subject to:
(a) Provision of the ordinances, building and zoning laws of the City of St.
Louis Park, and state and federal laws and regulations in so far as they affect this real estate.
(b) [Others]
Grantor certifies that it does not know of any wells on the Property.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 66
B-4
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused this Deed to be duly executed in its
behalf by its President and Executive Director this ______ day of ____________, 2015.
o The Seller certifies that the Seller does
not know of any wells on the described
real property.
o A well disclosure certificate accompanies
this document or has been electronically
filed. (If electronically filed, insert
WDC number: __________________).
o I am familiar with the property described
in this instrument and I certify that the
status and number of wells on the
described real property have not
changed since the last previously filed
well disclosure certificate.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By __________________________
Anne Mavity
Its President
By
Tom Harmening
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this ____ day of , 2015, before me, a notary public within and for Hennepin
County, personally appeared and to me personally known
who by me duly sworn, did say that they are the President and Executive Director of the St. Louis
Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the
State of Minnesota (the “Authority”) named in the foregoing instrument; that said instrument was
signed on behalf of said Authority pursuant to a resolution of its governing body; and said
and acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said Authority.
Notary Public
This instrument was drafted by:
Kennedy & Graven, Charted (MNI)
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
Tax Statements should be sent to:
KTJ 247, LLC
400 Water Street, Suite 200
Excelsior, MN 55331
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 67
C-1
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
SCHEDULE C
AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. ______
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PURCHASE AND
REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND AWARDING THE
SALE OF, AND PROVIDING THE FORM, TERMS,
COVENANTS AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
ITS TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE TO KTJ 247, LLC.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority (the "Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals; Approval and Authorization; Award of Sale.
1.01. Recitals. (a) The Authority and the City of St. Louis Park have heretofore approved
the establishment of the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District") within
Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project"), and have adopted a tax increment financing plan for the
purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project.
(b) To facilitate the redevelopment of certain property within the Project and TIF
District, the Authority and KTJ 247, LLC (the “Owner”) have negotiated a Purchase and
Redevelopment Contract (the “Agreement”) which provides for the conveyance of certain
Authority-owned property (the “Property”) to the Owner, the construction by the Owner of a
mixed-use rental housing and retail facility and associated parking on the Property, and the
issuance of the Authority’s Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 20__ (the “Note”) to the Owner.
(c) On October 21, 2015, the Planning Commission of the City reviewed the
proposed conveyance of the Property and found that such conveyance is consistent with the
City’s comprehensive plan.
(d) The Authority has on this date conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the
conveyance of the Property to the Redeveloper, at which all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard.
(e) The Board has reviewed the Agreement and finds that the execution thereof and
performance of the Authority's obligations thereunder, including the conveyance of the Property to
the Redeveloper, are in the best interest of the City and its residents.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 68
C-2
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
1.02. Approval of Agreement. (a) The Agreement as presented to the Board is hereby in
all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and
that are approved by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the
Agreement by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval.
(b) Authority staff and officials are authorized to take all actions necessary to perform
the Authority’s obligations under the Agreement as a whole, including without limitation execution
of any documents to which the Authority is a party referenced in or attached to the Agreement, and
any deed or other documents necessary to convey the Property to Redeveloper, all as described in
the Agreement.
1.03. Authorization of Note. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, the
Authority is authorized to issue and sell its bonds for the purpose of financing a portion of the public
development costs of the Project. Such bonds are payable from all or any portion of revenues
derived from the TIF District and pledged to the payment of the bonds. The Authority hereby finds
and determines that it is in the best interests of the Authority that it issue and sell the Note to the
Owner for the purpose of financing certain Public Redevelopment Costs of the Project.
1.04. Issuance, Sale, and Terms of the Note. (a) The Authority hereby authorizes the
President and Executive Director to issue the Note in accordance with the Agreement. All
capitalized terms in this resolution have the meaning provided in the Agreement unless the context
requires otherwise.
(b) The Note shall be issued in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $2,800,000 to
the Owner in consideration of certain eligible costs incurred by the Owner under the Agreement,
shall be dated the date of delivery thereof, and shall bear interest at the rate of 4.5% per annum from
the date of issue to the earlier of maturity or prepayment. The Note will be issued in the principal
amount of Public Redevelopment Costs submitted and approved in accordance with Section 3.7 of
the Agreement. The Note is secured by Available Tax Increment, as further described in the form
of the Note herein. The Authority hereby delegates to the Executive Director the determination of
the date on which the Note is to be delivered, in accordance with the Agreement.
Section 2. Form of Note. The Note shall be in substantially the following form, with
the blanks to be properly filled in and the principal amount adjusted as of the date of issue:
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 69
C-3
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
No. R-1 $_____________
TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE
SERIES 20__
Date
Rate of Original Issue
4.5%
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”) for value received,
certifies that it is indebted and hereby promises to pay to KTJ 247, LLC or registered assigns (the
"Owner"), the principal sum of $__________ and to pay interest thereon at the rate of 4.5% per
annum, solely from the sources and to the extent set forth herein. Capitalized terms shall have the
meanings provided in the Purchase and Redevelopment Contract between the Authority and the
Owner, dated as of __________, 2015 (the "Agreement"), unless the context requires otherwise.
1. Payments. Principal and interest ("Payments") shall be paid on August 1, 20__ and
each February 1 and August 1 thereafter to and including February 1, 20__ ("Payment Dates") in the
amounts and from the sources set forth in Section 3 herein. Payments shall be applied first to
accrued interest, and then to unpaid principal. Interest accruing from the date of issue through and
including February 1, 20__ shall be compounded semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each
year and added to principal.
Payments are payable by mail to the address of the Owner or such other address as the
Owner may designate upon 30 days written notice to the Authority. Payments on this Note are
payable in any coin or currency of the United States of America which, on the Payment Date, is
legal tender for the payment of public and private debts.
2. Interest. Interest at the rate stated herein shall accrue on the unpaid principal,
commencing on the date of original issue. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a year of 360
days and charged for actual days principal is unpaid.
3. Available Tax Increment. (a) Payments on this Note are payable on each Payment
Date solely from and in the amount of Available Tax Increment, which shall mean 95% of the Tax
Increment attributable to the Minimum Improvements and Redevelopment Property that is paid to
the Authority by Hennepin County in the six months preceding each Payment Date on the Note.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 70
C-4
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
(b) The Authority shall have no obligation to pay principal of and interest on this Note on
each Payment Date from any source other than Available Tax Increment and the failure of the
Authority to pay principal or interest on this Note on any Payment Date shall not constitute a default
hereunder as long as the Authority pays principal and interest hereon to the extent of Available Tax
Increment. The Authority shall have no obligation to pay any unpaid balance of principal or
accrued interest that may remain after the final Payment on February 1, 20__.
4. Default. If on any Payment Date there has occurred and is continuing any Event of
Default under the Agreement, the Authority may withhold from payments hereunder under all
Available Tax Increment. If the Event of Default is thereafter cured in accordance with the
Agreement, the Available Tax Increment withheld under this Section shall be deferred and paid,
without interest thereon, within 30 days after the Event of Default is cured. If the Event of Default
is not cured in a timely manner, the Authority may terminate this Note by written notice to the
Owner in accordance with the Agreement.
5. Prepayment. (a) The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Note
is prepayable in whole or in part at any time by the Authority without premium or penalty. No
partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular Payment otherwise
required to be made under this Note.
(b) Upon receipt by Redeveloper of the Authority’s written statement of the
Participation Amount as described in Section 3.8 of the Agreement, one hundred percent of such
Participation Amount will be deemed to constitute, and will be applied to, prepayment of the
principal amount of this Note. Such deemed prepayment is effective as of the date of delivery of
such statement to the Owner, and will be recorded by the Registrar in its records for the Note. Upon
request of the Owner, the Authority will deliver to the Owner a statement of the outstanding
principal balance of the Note after application of the deemed prepayment under this paragraph.
6. Nature of Obligation. This Note is one of an issue in the total principal amount of
$_________________, issued to aid in financing certain public redevelopment costs and
administrative costs of a Project undertaken by the Authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.001 through 469.047, and is issued pursuant to an authorizing resolution (the
"Resolution") duly adopted by the Authority on ________, 2015, and pursuant to and in full
conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended. This Note is a limited obligation of the Authority which
is payable solely from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under the
Resolution. This Note and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation
of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the
Authority. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to
pay the principal of or interest on this Note or other costs incident hereto except out of Available
Tax Increment, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or
any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on this Note
or other costs incident hereto.
7. Registration and Transfer. This Note is issuable only as a fully registered note
without coupons. As provided in the Resolution, and subject to certain limitations set forth therein,
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 71
C-5
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
this Note is transferable upon the books of the Authority kept for that purpose at the principal office
of the City Finance Director, by the Owner hereof in person or by such Owner's attorney duly
authorized in writing, upon surrender of this Note together with a written instrument of transfer
satisfactory to the Authority, duly executed by the Owner. Upon such transfer or exchange and the
payment by the Owner of any tax, fee, or governmental charge required to be paid by the Authority
with respect to such transfer or exchange, there will be issued in the name of the transferee a new
Note of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the
same dates.
Except as otherwise provided in Section 3.7(d) of the Agreement, this Note shall not be
transferred to any person or entity, unless the Authority has provided written consent to such
transfer and the Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the
transferor, in a form satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt from registration and
prospectus delivery requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions, and things required
by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen, and to be
performed in order to make this Note a valid and binding limited obligation of the Authority
according to its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened, and have been performed in due
form, time and manner as so required.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority have caused this Note to be executed with the manual signatures of its
President and Executive Director, all as of the Date of Original Issue specified above.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Executive Director President
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 72
C-6
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
REGISTRATION PROVISIONS
The ownership of the unpaid balance of the within Note is registered in the bond register of
the City Finance Director, in the name of the person last listed below.
Date of Signature of
Registration Registered Owner____ City Finance Director
KTJ 247, LLC
Federal Tax I.D. No. _____________
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 73
C-7
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
Section 3. Terms, Execution and Delivery.
3.01. Denomination, Payment. The Note shall be issued as a single typewritten note
numbered R-1.
The Note shall be issuable only in fully registered form. Principal of and interest on the
Note shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein.
3.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Principal of and interest on the Note shall be payable
by mail to the owner of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the month
preceding the Payment Date, whether or not such day is a business day.
3.03. Registration. The Authority hereby appoints the City Finance Director to perform
the functions of registrar, transfer agent and paying agent (the "Registrar"). The effect of
registration and the rights and duties of the Authority and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be
as follows:
(a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its office a bond register in which the Registrar
shall provide for the registration of ownership of the Note and the registration of transfers and
exchanges of the Note.
(b) Transfer of Note. Upon surrender for transfer of the Note duly endorsed by the
registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form reasonably
satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly
authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the
name of the designated transferee or transferees, a new Note of a like aggregate principal amount
and maturity, as requested by the transferor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Note shall not be
transferred to any person other than an affiliate, or other related entity, of the Owner unless the
Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the transferor, in a form
satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt from registration and prospectus delivery
requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws. The Registrar may close the books for
registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each Payment Date and
until such Payment Date.
(c) Cancellation. The Note surrendered upon any transfer shall be promptly cancelled
by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the Authority.
(d) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When the Note is presented to the Registrar for
transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on
such Note or separate instrument of transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no
liability for its refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or
unauthorized.
(e) Persons Deemed Owners. The Authority and the Registrar may treat the person in
whose name the Note is at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the
Note, whether the Note shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 74
C-8
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
account of, the principal of and interest on such Note and for all other purposes, and all such
payments so made to any such registered owner or upon the owner's order shall be valid and
effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability of the Authority upon such Note to the extent of the
sum or sums so paid.
(f) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of the Note, the Registrar
may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee,
or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange.
(g) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Note. In case any Note shall become mutilated
or be lost, stolen, or destroyed, the Registrar shall deliver a new Note of like amount, maturity dates
and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of such mutilated Note or in lieu of
and in substitution for such Note lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon the payment of the reasonable
expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case the Note lost, stolen,
or destroyed, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that such Note was lost,
stolen, or destroyed, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an
appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance, and amount satisfactory to it, in which both the
Authority and the Registrar shall be named as obligees. The Note so surrendered to the Registrar
shall be cancelled by it and evidence of such cancellation shall be given to the Authority. If the
mutilated, lost, stolen, or destroyed Note has already matured or been called for redemption in
accordance with its terms, it shall not be necessary to issue a new Note prior to payment.
3.04. Preparation and Delivery. The Note shall be prepared under the direction of the
Executive Director and shall be executed on behalf of the Authority by the signatures of its
President and Executive Director. In case any officer whose signature shall appear on the Note shall
cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Note, such signature shall nevertheless be valid
and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery.
When the Note has been so executed, it shall be delivered by the Executive Director to the Owner
thereof in accordance with the Agreement.
Section 4. Security Provisions.
4.01. Pledge. The Authority hereby pledges to the payment of the principal of and interest
on the Note all Available Tax Increment as defined in the Note.
Available Tax Increment shall be applied to payment of the principal of and interest on the Note in
accordance with the terms of the form of Note set forth in Section 2 of this resolution.
4.02. Bond Fund. Until the date the Note is no longer outstanding and no principal thereof
or interest thereon (to the extent required to be paid pursuant to this resolution) remains unpaid, the
Authority shall maintain a separate and special "Bond Fund" to be used for no purpose other than
the payment of the principal of and interest on the Note. The Authority irrevocably agrees to
appropriate to the Bond Fund on or before each Payment Date the Available Tax Increment in an
amount equal to the Payment then due, or the actual Available Tax Increment, whichever is less.
Any Available Tax Increment remaining in the Bond Fund shall be transferred to the Authority's
account for the TIF District upon the termination of the Note in accordance with its terms.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 75
C-9
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
4.03. Additional Obligations. The Authority will issue no other obligations secured in
whole or in part by Available Tax Increment unless such pledge is on a subordinate basis to the
pledge on the Note.
Section 5. Certification of Proceedings.
5.01. Certification of Proceedings. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and
directed to prepare and furnish to the Owner of the Note certified copies of all proceedings and
records of the Authority, and such other affidavits, certificates, and information as may be required
to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Note as the same appear from the
books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such
certified copies, certificates, and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed
representations of the Authority as to the facts recited therein.
Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon approval.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority __________, 20__
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 76
D-1
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
SCHEDULE D
FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 77
D-2
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "Authority") and
KTJ 247, LLC (“Redeveloper”) entered into a certain Purchase and Redevelopment Contract dated
_____________, 2015 (“Contract”), filed of record in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder
[Registrar of Title] as Document No. _____________ on _________________; and
WHEREAS, the Contract contains certain covenants and restrictions set forth in Articles
III and IV and Section 9.3 thereof related to completing certain Minimum Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Redeveloper has performed said covenants and conditions insofar as it is
able in a manner deemed sufficient by the Authority to permit the execution and recording of this
certification;
NOW, THEREFORE, this is to certify that all construction and other physical
improvements related to the Minimum Improvements specified to be done and made by the
Redeveloper have been completed and the agreements and covenants of the Redeveloper in
Articles III and IV of the Contract have been performed by the Redeveloper, and this Certificate
is intended to be a conclusive determination of the satisfactory termination of the Redeveloper’s
covenants and conditions in Articles III and IV of the Contract related to completion of the
Minimum Improvements and the termination of the right of reverter in favor of the Authority as
set forth in Article IX of the Contract, but any other covenants in the Contract shall remain in full
force and effect until terminated as provided thereunder.
(Signature page follows.)
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 78
D-3
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
Dated: _______________, 20__. ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
By
Authority Representative
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________, 20__
by ______________________, the __________________ of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of
Minnesota, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
This document drafted by:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered (MNI)
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 79
E-1
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
SCHEDULE E
Form of Subordination Agreement
THIS SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made as of this _____
day of __________, 20__, between _______________ ("Lender"), whose address is at
_________________________, and the ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Minnesota
("Authority").
RECITALS
A. KTJ 247, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company ("Redeveloper"), is the
owner of certain real property situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota and legally described in
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Property").
B. Lender has made a mortgage loan to Redeveloper in the original principal amount
of $__________ (the "Loan"). The Loan is the evidenced and secured by the following
documents:
(i) a certain promissory note (the "Note") made by Redeveloper dated
__________, 20__, in the amount of $___________; and
(ii) a certain mortgage, security agreement and fixture financing statement
(the "Mortgage") made by Redeveloper dated __________, 20__, filed __________,
20__, as Hennepin County Recorder/Registrar of Titles Doc. No. __________
encumbering the Property; and
(iii) a certain assignment of leases and rents (the "Assignment") made by
Redeveloper dated __________, 20__, filed __________, 20__, as Hennepin County
Recorder/Registrar of Titles Doc. No. __________ encumbering the Property.
The Note, the Mortgage, the Assignment, and all other documents and instruments
evidencing, securing and executed in connection with the Loan, are hereinafter collectively
referred to as the "Loan Documents."
C. Authority is the owner and holder of certain rights under that certain Purchase and
Redevelopment Contract (the "Contract") by and between Redeveloper and Authority dated
_________, 2015, filed ____________, 20__, as Hennepin County Recorder/Registrar of Titles
Doc. No. _______________.
D. Redeveloper is entitled under the Contract to acquire a certain Tax Increment Tax
Revenue Note, Series 20__ in the original principal amount of $______________ (the “TIF Note”).
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 80
E-2
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and as an inducement to Lender to
make the Loan, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto represent, warrant and agree as follows:
1. Consent. The Authority acknowledges that the Lender is making the Loan to the
Redeveloper and consents to the same. The Authority also consents to and approves the collateral
assignment of the Contract and TIF Note (when and if issued) by the Redeveloper to the Lender as
collateral for the Loan; provided, however, that this consent shall not deprive the Authority of or
otherwise limit any of the Authority’s rights or remedies under the Contract and TIF Note and shall
not relieve the Redeveloper of any of its obligations under the Contract and TIF Note; provided
further, however, the limitations to the Authority’s consent contained in this Paragraph 1 are subject
to the provisions of Paragraph 2 below.
2. Subordination. The Authority hereby agrees that the rights of the Authority under
the Contract are and shall remain subordinate and subject to liens, rights and security interests
created by the Loan Documents and to any and all amendments, modifications, extensions,
replacements or renewals of the Loan Documents; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be
construed as subordinating the requirement contained in the Contract the Property be used in
accordance with the provisions of Section 10.3 of the Contract, or as subordinating the Authority’s
rights under the TIF Note to suspend payments in accordance with the TIF Note.
3. Notice to Authority. Lender agrees to use commercially reasonable efforts to notify
Authority of the occurrence of any Event of Default given to Redeveloper under the Loan
Documents, in accordance with Section 7.2 of the Contract. The Lender shall not be bound by the
other requirements in Section 7.2 of the Contract.
4. Statutory Exception. Nothing in this Agreement shall alter, remove or affect
Lender’s obligation under Minnesota Statutes, § 469.029 to use the Property in conformity to
Section 10.3 of the Contract.
5. No Assumption. The Authority acknowledges that the Lender is not a party to the
Contract and by executing this Agreement does not become a party to the Contract, and specifically
does not assume and shall not be bound by any obligations of the Redeveloper to the Authority
under the Contract, and that the Lender shall incur no obligations whatsoever to the Authority
except as expressly provided herein.
6. Notice from Authority; Lender Cure Rights. So long as the Contract remains in
effect, the Authority agrees to give to the Lender copies of notices of any Event of Default given to
Redeveloper under the Contract and to afford Lender an opportunity to cure any such Event of
Default provided the Lender commences the cure within thirty (30) days after the expiration of any
cure period applicable to Redeveloper and thereafter diligently prosecutes such cure to completion.
7. Governing Law. This Agreement is made in and shall be construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 81
E-3
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
8. Successors. This Agreement and each and every covenant, agreement and other
provision hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their
respective successors and assigns, including any person who acquires title to the Property through
the Lender of a foreclosure of the Mortgage.
9. Severability. The unenforceability or invalidity of any provision hereof shall not
render any other provision or provisions herein contained unenforceable or invalid.
10. Notice. Any notices and other communications permitted or required by the
provisions of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been properly given or
served by depositing the same with the United States Postal Service, or any official successor
thereto, designated as registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, bearing adequate
postage, or delivery by reputable private carrier and addresses as set forth above.
11. Transfer of Title to Lender. The Authority agrees that in the event the Lender, a
transferee of Lender, or a purchaser at foreclosure sale, acquires title to the Property pursuant to a
foreclosure, or a deed in lieu thereof, the Lender, transferee, or purchaser shall not be bound by the
terms and conditions of the Contract except as expressly herein provided. Further the Authority
agrees that in the event the Lender, a transferee of Lender, or a purchaser at foreclosure sale
acquires title to the Property pursuant to a foreclosure sale or a deed in lieu thereof, then the Lender,
transferee, or purchaser shall be entitled to all rights conferred upon the Redeveloper under the
Contract, provided that no condition of default exists and remains uncured beyond applicable cure
periods in the obligations of the Redeveloper under the Contract.
12. Estoppel. The Authority hereby represents and warrants to Lender, for the purpose
of inducing Lender to make advances to Redeveloper under the Loan Documents that:
(a) No default or event of default by Redeveloper exists under the terms of the Contract
on the date hereof;
(b) The Contract has not been amended or modified in any respect, nor has any material
provision thereof been waived by either the Authority or the Redeveloper, and the
Contract is in full force and effect;
(c) Such other reasonable certifications as the Lender may request.
13. Amendments. The Authority hereby represents and warrants to Lender for the
purpose of inducing Lender to make advances to Redeveloper under the Loan Documents that
Authority will not agree to any amendment or modification to the or any TIF Note issued under the
Contract that materially affects the collection of Available Tax Increment (as defined in the
Contract) in any way affects the Property without the Lender’s written consent.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 82
E-4
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed and delivered as of the day
and year first written above.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By
Its President
By
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ___________,
by _______________________ and ______________________ the President and Executive
Director, respectively, of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body
corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of such public body.
Notary Public
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 83
E-5
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
[LENDER]
By:
Its
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 84
F-1
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
SCHEDULE F
SITE PLAN
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 85
F-2
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 86
F-3
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 87
F-4
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 88
F-5
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 89
F-6
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 90
F-7
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 91
F-8
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 92
F-9
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 93
G-1
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
SCHEDULE G
ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
_______________________________________________________________________________
ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
and
ASSESSOR'S CERTIFICATION
By and Between
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
and
KTJ 247, LLC
This Document was drafted by:
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, Chartered
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 94
G-2
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made on or as of the ____ day of _________________, 2015, by and
between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic
under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the “Authority”) and KTJ 247, LLC, a Minnesota limited
liability company (the “Redeveloper”).
WITNESSETH, that
WHEREAS, on or before the date hereof the Authority and Redeveloper have entered into a
Purchase and Redevelopment Contract dated ______________, 2015 (the “Redevelopment
Contract”), pursuant to which the Authority is to facilitate development of certain property in the
Authority of St. Louis Park hereinafter referred to as the “Property” and legally described in Exhibit
A hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Redevelopment Contract the Redeveloper is obligated to
construct certain improvements (the “Minimum Improvements”) upon the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and Redeveloper desire to establish a minimum market value for
the Property and the Minimum Improvements to be constructed thereon, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 8; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and the City Assessor (the “Assessor”) have reviewed the
preliminary plans and specifications for the improvements and have inspected such improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement, in consideration of the promises,
covenants and agreements made by each to the other, do hereby agree as follows:
1. The minimum market value which shall be assessed for ad valorem tax purposes for
the Property described in Exhibit A, together with the Minimum Improvements constructed thereon,
shall be $31,680,000.00 as of January 2, 2018 and as of each January 2 thereafter until termination
of this Agreement under Section 2 hereof. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent Redeveloper
from challenging an assessment of the Property in excess of the minimum market value established
herein.
2. The minimum market value herein established shall be of no further force and effect
and this Agreement shall terminate on the earlier of the following: (a) The date of receipt by the
Authority of the final payment from Hennepin County of Tax Increments from the 4900 Excelsior
Tax Increment Financing District, or (b) the date when the Note, as defined in the Redevelopment
Contract, has been fully paid, defeased or terminated in accordance with its terms.
The event referred to in Section 2(b) of this Agreement shall be evidenced by a certificate or
affidavit executed by the Authority.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 95
G-3
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
3. This Agreement shall be promptly recorded by the Authority. The Redeveloper
shall pay all costs of recording.
4. Neither the preambles nor provisions of this Agreement are intended to, nor shall
they be construed as, modifying the terms of the Redevelopment Contract between the Authority
and the Redeveloper.
5. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors and
assigns of the parties.
6. Each of the parties has authority to enter into this Agreement and to take all actions
required of it, and has taken all actions necessary to authorize the execution and delivery of this
Agreement.
7. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid and unenforceable
by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable
any other provision hereof.
8. The parties hereto agree that they will, from time to time, execute, acknowledge and
deliver, or cause to be executed, acknowledged and delivered, such supplements, amendments and
modifications hereto, and such further instruments as may reasonably be required for correcting any
inadequate, or incorrect, or amended description of the Property or the Minimum Improvements or
for carrying out the expressed intention of this Agreement, including, without limitation, any further
instruments required to delete from the description of the Property such part or parts as may be
included within a separate assessment agreement.
9. Except as provided in Section 8 of this Agreement, this Agreement may not be
amended nor any of its terms modified except by a writing authorized and executed by all parties
hereto.
10. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of
which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
11. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 96
G-4
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By
Its President
By
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________, 2015 by
____________________ and ___________________________, the President and Executive
Director of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and
politic under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 97
G-5
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
KTJ 247, LLC
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF__________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _____________,
2015 by ____________________, the ____________________ of KTJ 247, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
______________________________________ Notary Public
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 98
G-6
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
CERTIFICATION BY CITY ASSESSOR
The undersigned, having reviewed the plans and specifications for the improvements to be
constructed and the market value assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be
constructed, hereby certifies as follows: The undersigned Assessor, being legally responsible for
the assessment of the above described property, hereby certifies that the values assigned to the land
and improvements are reasonable.
City Assessor for the City of St. Louis Park
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ____________,
2015 by _____________________, the City Assessor of the City of St. Louis Park.
Notary Public
This instrument was drafted by:
Kennedy & Graven, Charted (MNI)
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 99
G-7
470046v3 MNI SA285-106
EXHIBIT A of ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
Legal Description of Property
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Public Hearing - Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC – 4900 Excelsior Page 100
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 7c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Rd Apartments, LLC
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
• Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the First Amendment to the Contract for
Private Redevelopment with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
• Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution Partial Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment
Contract between the Redeveloper and Lake West Development.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA and City Council support extending the required
completion date of the two single family houses required under the Redevelopment Contract as
specified in the proposed First Amendment and consenting to a Partial Assignment and
Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between the Redeveloper and Lake West Development?
SUMMARY: The EDA and City entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment with Cedar
Lake Road Apartments, LLC on July 1, 2014 related to the redevelopment of 6800 & 6720 Cedar
Lake Road (former Eliot School property) and the construction of the Eliot Park Apartments
Under the Contract, the Developer agreed to construct two apartment buildings with 138 market
rate units between them as well as two single family houses. To date, the apartment buildings
have received their Temporary Certificates of Occupancy and are expected to meet their required
completion date of 12/1/15 stipulated under the Contract. However the two single family houses
will not be completed by the required completion date as the Developer only recently reached an
agreement to sell the parcels to a single family home contractor - Lake West Development -
which has constructed more than 20 houses in St. Louis Park.
The Developer has therefore requested a First Amendment to the Contract extending the required
completion date of the two houses until 12/31/16 so as to allow sufficient time to construct the
houses. It has also requested EDA and City consent to a Partial Assignment and Assumption of
Redevelopment Contract between the Redeveloper and Lake West Development Co., LLC (the
“Assignee”). Under the Assignment, the Assignee will assume the Redeveloper’s obligation to
construct the single-family homes and to ensure a minimum assessed market value of $250,000
per home. The Redeveloper will retain all of the rights and obligations under the Contract
related to ongoing management and maintenance of the apartments, and reimbursements of
Public Redevelopment Costs through the TIF Note. These documents are similar to previous
partial assignments to third parties, i.e. the assignment of a portion of the West End Contract in
2014. The EDA’s legal counsel prepared the First Amendment and Partial Assignment and
Assumption and recommends their approval.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: EDA Resolutions of Approval
First Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment
Partial Assignment and Assumption
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor, Deputy CD Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, EDA Deputy Executive Director, and Deputy City Manager
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 2
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT OF
A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK,
AND CEDAR LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS LLC
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "Authority") as follows:
Recitals.
1.01. Pursuant to its authority under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082
and 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended, the Authority created the Eliot Park Tax Increment
Financing District within its Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”), for the purpose of
facilitating the redevelopment of certain substandard property within the Project.
1.02. The Authority, the City of St. Louis Park (the “City”), and Cedar Lake Road
Apartments LLC (the “Redeveloper”) executed a Contract for Private Redevelopment, dated as of
July 1, 2014 (the “Contract”), providing, among other things, for the construction of certain
improvements (the “Minimum Improvements”) on the property legally described within the
Contract (the “Redevelopment Property”).
1.03. The parties have negotiated and propose to execute a First Amendment to the
Contract (the “First Amendment”) to extend the deadline for the completion of construction of a
portion of the Minimum Improvements.
Section 2. First Amendment Approved.
2.01. The First Amendment as presented to the Board is hereby in all respects
approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are
approved by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the First
Amendment by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval.
2.02. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf
of the Authority the First Amendment and any documents referenced therein requiring execution
by the Authority, and to carry out, on behalf of the Authority, its obligations thereunder.
2.03. Authority staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to
carry out the intent of this resolution.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 3
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority November 16, 2015
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 4
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION
OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN
CEDAR LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS, LLC AND
LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC
BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority ("Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Authority is currently administering its Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project")
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act"), and within the Project
has established the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District (“TIF District”).
1.02. The Authority, the City of St. Louis Park (“City”) and Cedar Lake Road Apartments
LLC (the “Redeveloper”) entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of July 1,
2014, as amended (the “Contract”), regarding the construction on the Redevelopment Property
within the TIF District of certain Minimum Improvements consisting of an Apartments component
and a Single-Family Homes component, as such terms are defined in the Contract.
1.03. The Redeveloper has now determined that it is in the best interest of the Project and
TIF District to assign its obligations under the Contract solely as to the Single-Family Homes
component to Lake West Development Co., LLC (the “Assignee”), and the Assignee intends to
construct the Single-Family Homes on the Redevelopment Property in accordance with the terms of
the Contract, all pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between
the Redeveloper and the Assignee (the “Assignment”).
1.04. The Board has reviewed the Assignment and finds that the approval and execution of
the Authority’s consent thereto are in the best interest of the City and its residents.
Section 2. Authority Approval; Other Proceedings.
2.01. The Assignment, including the Consent of the Authority related thereto, as presented
to the Board is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the
substance of the transaction and that are approved by the President and Executive Director, provided
that execution of the consent to the Assignment by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of
approval.
2.02. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of
the Authority the Consent related to the Assignment and any other documents requiring execution
by the Authority in order to carry out the transaction described in the Assignment.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 5
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
2.03. Authority staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry
out the intent of this resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority November 16, 2015
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 6
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
This agreement is made as of November ____, 2015, by and between the ST. LOUIS PARK
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body politic and corporate (the
“Authority”), the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”),
and CEDAR LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the
“Redeveloper”).
WHEREAS, the Authority, the City, and the Redeveloper entered into that certain Contract
for Private Redevelopment dated as of July 1, 2014 (the “Contract”) providing, among other things,
for the construction of certain improvements (the “Minimum Improvements”) on the property
legally described within the Contract (the “Redevelopment Property”); and
WHEREAS, the parties have determined to extend the dates of commencement and
completion of construction of a portion of the Minimum Improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the
parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
1. Amendment to Section 4.3(a) of the Contract. Section 4.3(a) of the Contract is
amended as follows:
(a) As of the date hereof, the Redeveloper has completed construction of the Apartments
component of the Minimum Improvements. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall
substantially complete construction of the Single-Family Homes component of the Minimum
Improvements by December 31, 2016. All work with respect to the Minimum Improvements to be
constructed on the Redevelopment Property shall be in substantial conformity with the Construction
Plans as submitted by the Redeveloper and approved by the Authority.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 7
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
2. Miscellaneous. Except as amended by this Amendment, the Contract shall remain in
full force and effect. Upon execution, Redeveloper shall reimburse the Authority for all out-of
pocket-costs incurred by the Authority in connection with negotiating, drafting and approval of this
Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority, the City, and the Redeveloper have caused this
Agreement to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first above
written.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
By
Its President
By
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of November, 2015
by Anne Mavity and Tom Harmening, the President and Executive Director of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
Authority signature page to First Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 8
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of November, 2015
by Jeff Jacobs and Tom Harmening, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of St. Louis Park, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
City signature page to First Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 9
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
CEDAR LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS LLC
By
W. Dean Weidner, as Trustee of the W. Dean
Weidner Living Trust under Trust Agreement Dated
10-23-98, as amended
Its Sole Member
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS.
COUNTY OF KING )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of __________,
2015, by W. Dean Weidner, as Trustee of the W. Dean Weidner Living Trust under Trust
Agreement Dated 10-23-98, as amended, as the Sole Member of Cedar Lake Road Apartments
LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
THIS DOCUMENT DRAFTED BY:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered (MNI)
470 US Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
Redeveloper signature page to First Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 10
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT
THIS CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT (“Consent”) is made as of the ___ day of
November, 2015, by and among CEDAR LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company (“Redeveloper”), THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota
municipal corporation (“City”), and THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Minnesota
(“EDA”).
RECITALS:
A. Redeveloper, City and EDA entered into that certain Contract for Private Redevelopment
dated as of July 1, 2014, as amended by a First Amendment thereto dated as of November
16, 2015 (the “Contract”), providing for the phased redevelopment of certain property
defined in the Contract as the Redevelopment Property;
B. The capitalized terms used herein that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the
meanings attributed to them in the Contract;
C. Redeveloper has requested the written consent of the City and EDA to Redeveloper’s
assignment of certain obligations and rights under the Contract as said obligations and
rights pertain to the Single-Family Homes and Single-Family Property (as defined in the
Assignment described below) and the assumption by Lake West Development Co., LLC
(the “Assignee”) of said obligations and rights pursuant to a certain Partial Assignment
and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract dated as of November __, 2015 by and
between the Redeveloper and the Assignee (the “Assignment”), a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and
D. The Contract calls for the consent of the City and EDA as to assignments by the
Redeveloper to third-parties.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 11
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto
agree as follows:
1. Consent to Assignment. The City and EDA acknowledge that all of the
Redeveloper’s rights and obligations under the Contract and any related
instrument pertaining to the Single-Family Homes and Single-Family Property
only (as such terms are defined in the Assignment) are assigned to the Assignee
under and subject to all the terms and conditions of the Assignment, and the City
and EDA hereby consent to the Assignment. The Assignment does not constitute
a default under the Contract or in any way alter or affect Redeveloper’s rights or
obligations as Redeveloper under the Contract to the extent such rights or
obligations are not assigned to the Assignee under the Assignment; specifically,
and without limitation, the Assignment does not affect Redeveloper’s rights to
receive any and all payments due under the Note to be delivered to Redeveloper
in connection with the Public Redevelopment Costs described in Section 7.3 of
the Contract.
2. Effect of Assignment. From and after the date of the Assignment and the transfer
of the Single-Family Property to the Assignee, any default by the Assignee under
the Contract (or other instrument related to the Contract) shall not constitute a
default by the Redeveloper under the Contract (or other instrument), and such
default, and any consequences thereof, shall have no effect on Redeveloper, the
Apartments or the Apartment Property (as such terms are defined in the
Assignment) or on the Tax Increment or Note (as such terms are defined in the
Contract). The City and EDA shall look solely to Assignee and the Single-Family
Property to cure any such default. The City and EDA acknowledge that
Redeveloper would not enter into the Assignment without reliance on this
provision.
3. Limitation of Consent. Redeveloper acknowledges that the City and EDA are
consenting to a limited assignment of the obligations and rights of the
Redeveloper under the Contract as described in the Assignment, and that
Redeveloper shall retain all other obligations and rights under the Contract.
4. Parties Bound. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the
successors and assigns of the parties hereto; provided that neither the Redeveloper
nor the Assignee shall assign their respective rights and obligations under the
Contract without the further consent of the City and EDA.
5. Only Written Amendments. This Agreement may not be modified in any manner
or terminated except by an instrument in writing by the parties hereto.
6. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 12
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
date first written above.
CEDAR LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company
By
W. Dean Weidner, as Trustee of the W. Dean
Weidner Living Trust under Trust Agreement Dated
10-23-98, as amended
Its Sole Member
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS.
COUNTY OF KING )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
__________, 2015, by W. Dean Weidner, as Trustee of the W. Dean Weidner Living Trust under
Trust Agreement Dated 10-23-98, as amended, as the Sole Member of Cedar Lake Road
Apartments LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 13
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate
and politic under the laws of Minnesota
By: __________________________________________
Its: President
By:__________________________________________
Its: Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _______, 2015
by Anne Mavity and Thomas Harmening, the President and Executive Director of the St. Louis
Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of
the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 14
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation
By: ___________________________________________
Its: Mayor
By: __________________________________________
Its: City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of
________________, 2015 by Jeff Jacobs and Thomas Harmening, the Mayor and City Manager
of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of
Minnesota on behalf of the municipal corporation.
Notary Public
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 15
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
EXHIBIT A
Partial Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Redeveloper and
Assignee
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 16
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
THIS ASSIGNMENT, made as of this ____ day of November, 2015, by and between
CEDARL LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company
(“Assignor”) and LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company (“Assignee”).
RECITALS:
A. Assignor entered into that certain “Contract for Private Redevelopment” by and
between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”), the City of St.
Louis Park (the “City”) and Assignor, dated as of July 1, 2014, and recorded in the office of the
Hennepin County Recorder on October 6, 2014, as Document No. A10123833, and filed in the
office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles on October 6, 2014, as Document No.
T05204697 (the “Redevelopment Agreement”);
B. Pursuant to the Redevelopment Agreement, Assignor is obligated to construct two
components of Minimum Improvements, consisting of the Apartments and the Single-Family
Homes, as these terms are defined in the Redevelopment Agreement, on certain property located
in the City and described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Single-Family Property” and the
“Apartments Property”, and together the “Redevelopment Property”);
C. Assignor, the Authority, and the City have agreed to enter into a First Amendment
to the Redevelopment Agreement, extending the deadline for completion of construction of the
Single-Family Homes component of the Minimum Improvements to December 31, 2016;
D. Assignor desires to assign certain of its rights and interests in the Redevelopment
Agreement, solely with respect to construction of the Single-Family Homes component of the
Minimum Improvements, to Assignee.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 17
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
E. Assignee acknowledges it is the intent of Assignor to retain any and all rights and
interests in the Redevelopment Agreement that pertain to the Apartments component of the
Minimum Improvements and the Apartments Property, and further acknowledges that certain
rights, interests and obligations of Redeveloper shall be held jointly by Assignor and Assignee,
as specifically set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereto agree as follows:
1. Assignor does hereby grant, transfer and assign to Assignee, certain of its rights,
obligations and interests in the Redevelopment Agreement with respect to the
Single-Family Homes and Single-Family Property only, and subject to the
following exceptions and limitations:
a. Any action, consent, or warranty or approval granted or made by
Assignor pursuant to the Redevelopment Agreement whether or prior to
or subsequent to the date hereof shall be binding upon Assignee.
b. Assignor and Assignee shall each maintain responsibility pursuant to
Section 3.5 for payment of Authority Costs related to any obligations
under the Redevelopment Agreement pertaining to the Apartments and
the Single-Family Homes respectively, and any further amendments
thereto.
c. Assignor and Assignee each shall maintain responsibility pursuant to
Section 4.3(b) for all communications with the Authority as to
scheduling, completion and commencement issues under the
Redevelopment Agreement.
d. Assignee expressly assumes the obligation to construct the Single-
Family Homes component of the Minimum Improvements in the
timeframe provided in Section 4.3, as amended pursuant to the First
Amendment, and to ensure a completed minimum market value of
$250,000 per Single-Family Home as provided in Section 6.3.
e. Assignor retains and shall have full right, title and interest in receiving
any and all Available Tax Increment described in Section 7.3 of the
Redevelopment Agreement.
f. Assignee may not amend the Redevelopment Agreement without the
prior written consent of Assignor.
2. Assignee hereby accepts this Assignment and assumes and agrees to faithfully
abide by, perform and discharge each and every term, covenant and condition for
the Redevelopment Agreement which are to be performed by the Assignor
thereunder as to the Single-Family Homes and the Single-Family Property or
otherwise set forth in Paragraph 1 above from and after the date hereof and to
defend and hold Assignor harmless from any lawsuits, claims, damages, costs and
expenses, including actual attorney fees and disbursements arising in connection
with the Redevelopment Agreement, except those arising from events occurring
or arising prior to the date hereof, pertaining to the Apartments or Apartments
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 18
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
Property, or any other obligations specifically retained by Assignor and set forth
in Paragraph 1 above.
3. This Assignment and Assumption shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit
of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Assignment and Assumption
Agreement as of the date first indicated above.
CEDAR LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS LLC, as Assignor
By
W. Dean Weidner, as Trustee of the W. Dean
Weidner Living Trust under Trust Agreement Dated
10-23-98, as amended
Its Sole Member
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS.
COUNTY OF KING )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
__________, 2015, by W. Dean Weidner, as Trustee of the W. Dean Weidner Living Trust under
Trust Agreement Dated 10-23-98, as amended, as the Sole Member of Cedar Lake Road
Apartments LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 19
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC, as assignee
By: ________________________________________________
__________________, its ____________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
This instrument was acknowledged before me, a notary public, on this ______ day of
_______________, 2015, by _____________________, the ___________________ of Lake
West Development Co., LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
470 U.S. Bank Plazas
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
470879v1 MNI SA285-101
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 20
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
EXHIBIT A
Redevelopment Property
Apartments Property:
Lot 1, Block 1, Eliot Park Apartments, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Single-Family Property:
Lot 2, Block 1, Eliot Park Apartments, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Lot 3, Block 1, Eliot Park Apartments, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Presentation: 2a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Recognition of Donations
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to announce and give thanks and appreciation for the
following donations being accepted at the meeting and listed on the Consent Agenda:
From Amount For
Estate of Alice Trainer $43,920 Improvements to Lamplighter Park
Estate of Alice Trainer $43,920 The Fire Department for use at their discretion
Jane and Michael Wipf $200 Natural Resources/Forestry supplies
Leslie Marcus $100 Westwood Hills Nature Center programing and
maintenance needs
St. Louis Park Golden
Kiwanis $50 Westwood Hills Nature Center Halloween Party
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 26, 2015
The meeting convened at 6:32 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Tim Brausen (arrived at 6:58 p.m.), Steve Hallfin, Acting Mayor
Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano (arrived at 6:34 p.m.).
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), Community
Development Director (Mr. Locke), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Human
Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Director of Inspections (Mr.
Hoffman), Inspection Services Manager (Ms. Boettcher), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Wirth).
Guest: Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers & Associates.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 2 and 9, 2015
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed Special Study Session agenda for November 2nd and the
regularly scheduled Study Session agenda for November 9th.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he will be absent from the November 16th meeting.
Councilmember Spano arrived at 6:34 p.m.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg asked if there is interest in discussing the BSNF oil train traffic that is
now coming through St. Louis Park. Mr. Harmening explained the primary reason for that extra
traffic is work on other rail lines. Councilmember Hallfin stated since the Fire Chief and staff
are aware of this item and conducted due diligence, he does not think a Session is needed on that
topic. Councilmember Mavity concurred, noting there is nothing the City Council can do
anyway but she would ask for a summarized written report on what is happening.
Councilmember Sanger asked staff to find out how long the additional rail traffic will be going
on. Councilmember Mavity suggested that information be posted to the website.
The Council discussed the impact of late hour construction on Highway 100, newly opened
highway ramps, difficulty in merging from the southbound Minnetonka Boulevard ramp due to
placement of construction barrels, and traffic back-ups on Wooddale from Highway 7.
2. Annual TIF Management Report
Mr. Hunt explained that staff and Ehlers & Associates representatives have prepared the 2015
TIF Management Review & Analysis, a status report of the City’s TIF districts, which staff
regards as a highly useful guide for managing the City’s TIF districts.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Study Session Minutes of October 26, 2015
Councilmember Spano stated the term PAYGO was not included in the Definitions section.
Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers & Associates, provided an explanation of ‘pay-as-you-go’ TIF and stated
it will be added to the report’s “Definitions” section.
Ms. Kvilvang provided a description of the City’s 16 TIF districts: 10 redevelopment districts
with terms of 26 years; 2 housing districts with terms of 26 years, 1 soil district with a term of 20
years, 1 renewal and renovation district with a term of 16 years, 1 economic development district
with a term of 9 years, and 1 hazardous substance sub-district with a term of a 26 year term. She
explained the hazardous substance sub-district allowed the City to take the base value of a
property to zero to capture 100% of the increment so the contamination issues could be
addressed.
Ms. Kvilvang presented the October 2015 Management Review & Analysis for the City’s TIF
districts including a ten-year history of tax capacity captured by TIF, noting the progression
grows based on the size of the development projects, and future captured tax capacity in TIF.
She stated if no new TIF districts are established by the end of 2023, the percentage captured will
be reduced significantly. She noted St. Louis Park ranks in the mid-range of comparable cities
for its use of TIF.
Ms. Kvilvang commended the City’s use of TIF for key redevelopment and housing projects so
as to accomplish its goals and strengthen the overall diversity of housing options, land uses, and
tax base while increasing employment opportunities and cleaning contaminated sites. As a
result, the City’s overall market value in various TIF districts has increased by more than 750%.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he likes the description presented of the individual districts and
asked that the property address be included in future reports so the location is known. Ms.
Kvilvang agreed and noted that over time, the name of the district may change so it would help
to also include that name.
Ms. Kvilvang described the existing PAYGO obligations, noting that nearly 70% lies within two
districts: Park Commons and West End. She stated the City does not issue a lot of bonds for its
TIF districts but if it should issue GO bonds, the senior priority is always the City. Currently,
there are $7 million in outstanding bonds that will be retired in 2023.
Ms. Kvilvang presented the eight recommendations for the Council’s consideration. Ehlers
recommended the City complete a pooling analysis for the Zarthan and Park Commons Districts
to determine how much will be available for use and what strategies can be implemented to
secure the use of the funds. She explained that when the district is established, they estimate the
valuation and TIF to be generated. However, the property value changes during the term.
Mr. Harmening asked for an example. Ms. Kvilvang stated the Park Center TIF District is a
housing district so those dollars, $120,000 annually, go into the housing fund and can be used for
affordable housing-related projects like rehabilitation or rental assistance.
Councilmember Sanger asked why the Zarthan District has excess money but also challenges
with making payments. Ms. Kvilvang explained that only a certain percentage of the increment
can be used to pay the obligation. The developer has no rights to the cash balance. She stated
Ehlers will conduct a pooling analysis to determine how much will be available.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Title: Study Session Minutes of October 26, 2015
Mr. Harmening asked whether those funds could be used for Southwest LRT infrastructure. Ms.
Kvilvang stated typically public infrastructure improvements are eligible.
Councilmember Brausen arrived at 6:58 p.m.
Ms. Kvilvang presented Recommendation #2 relating to use of TIF in districts with on-going
cash balances; and, #3 relating to return of fund balance ($619,085) in Victoria Ponds. She
explained that of the Victoria Ponds’ balance, the City can retain $259,779 for legal pooling
purposes and Ehlers recommends the City return the non-legal pooling dollars of $359,306 to the
County for redistribution to the City, County, and School District. With regard to
Recommendation #4, Ms. Kvilvang explained Ehlers conducts a lookback on all districts. Since
all units have sold within the Aquila Commons project, Ehlers recommended completing the
required lookback analysis as soon as possible to determine if any reduction in assistance is
required. She doubted there will be a reduction as the profit has been eaten up by the non-sale of
the last several units.
Ms. Kvilvang explained Recommendation #5 relates to the 5-year deadline from certification
that requires funds to be expended or obligated for projects within the TIF district. That term
was extended to 10-years for certain TIF districts so there is still time to either modify the
boundaries or secure additional obligations for Elmwood Village, Highway 7 Corporate Center,
West End, Hardcoat, and Eliot Park. However, for most of these districts, the City would
probably not do a boundary revision.
Mr. Hunt stated that PLACE planned to redevelop a parcel within the Elmwood Village TIF and
three others just outside that district and staff may recommend a modification to Elmwood
Village to include those additional parcels.
Ms. Kvilvang explained Recommendation #6 relates to the 6-year rule requiring the City to
utilize 75% of the tax increment generated to pay obligations. Ehlers recommends completing a
6-year rule analysis for the Ellipse TIF District to determine whether it can be decertified sooner
than 2022 when it is anticipated the E2 Note will be paid in full.
With regard to Recommendation #7, Ms. Kvilvang explained why a $5 million interfund loan
was approved for Elmwood Village to pay for public improvements. Ehlers recommended
increasing it to $5.5 million to cover additional funds anticipated within that district for use on
identified public improvements.
Mr. Harmening stated the public improvements would be to reconstruct 36th Street or Wooddale
Ave. Councilmember Mavity asked if it can be used for an underpass on Xenwood Ave. Ms.
Kvilvang answered in the affirmative.
Ms. Kvilvang stated the City is on the forefront of redevelopment in the Metro area, noting it has
a record of innovative projects and as a result of aggressively pursuing redevelopment, those
efforts have increased the property valuations within the TIF districts by over 750%, which she
believes justifies the short-term investment.
Councilmember Mavity asked how to explain to residents the rationale for considering TIF
projects. Ms. Kvilvang stated redevelopment is an operational cost or opportunity. As
properties redevelop, they intensify their uses which create higher property valuations which
help reduce property tax burdens.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Title: Study Session Minutes of October 26, 2015
Councilmember Hallfin referenced the Note balance chart that identifies interest rates from 1%
to 9% and asked how they are set. Ms. Kvilvang explained that interest is set by the bank
financing in place at the time. She advised that the 1% rate for the Highway 7 Corporate Center
was an anomaly as it received EPA financing.
Ms. Kvilvang reported the City’s TIF districts are in good financial health with the exception of
Zarthan, as there will be a principle balance at the end. In addition, the City has opportunities to
utilize funds from several districts to augment its housing and redevelopment efforts.
Councilmember Brausen pointed out that redevelopment results in renewal of the City, which is
another benefit.
The Council indicated it found this TIF Management Review & Analysis to be helpful.
Councilmember Mavity stated she appreciated the City’s reputation for its aggressive
redevelopment efforts, and paying off notes quickly has become its brand so she was surprised
that 9% of the City’s tax base was included in TIF districts. Ms. Kvilvang stated it is up to the
policy makers to determine if there should be a cap on the percentage and while there is cost to
develop, there is also a cost to not develop. She noted these rates are on par with other cities.
Mr. Harmening stated it would be a shame to turn down an exciting project due to an artificial
cap.
Councilmember Sanger stated TIF is a tool that has served the City well and asked how other
cities fund redevelopment without using TIF. Ms. Kvilvang explained they may be using tax
abatement or not providing any assistance.
Councilmember Spano stated Golden Valley’s property mix would foreshadow some of the
numbers as they do not have commercial, industrial, or multi-family opportunities.
Councilmember Mavity stated St. Louis Park also gets diversity of housing stock.
Mr. Locke stated another consideration is that each city has a different age and character so when
comparing with newer communities, their development is more recent and without old railroad
industrial parks so you are not seeing redevelopment in those locations. Ms. Kvilvang stated
developers like working with St. Louis Park because the Council has a pro-development vision
and is able to articulate it well. She noted a ‘but for’ analysis is conducted when TIF is requested
to determine if it is really needed.
3. Business Terms for Purchase & Redevelopment Contract with 4900 Excelsior, LLC
Mr. Hunt described the project proposed by Oppidan Investment Company to tear down the
former Bally Fitness Center and construct a 5-6 story, mixed-use building consisting of 176
residential units (of which 10% will be affordable), and 28,228 square feet of commercial space
to be leased to a grocer. Structured and street parking will also be constructed as part of the
project.
It was noted the estimated cost to construct the proposed 4900 Excelsior project is $47.7 million,
which is not financially feasible because of more than $7.1 million of extraordinary site
preparation costs. Due to those extraordinary costs, Oppidan applied to the EDA for Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) assistance to offset a portion of those costs.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Title: Study Session Minutes of October 26, 2015
Councilmember Hallfin noted the Bally building was constructed in the late 1970s, early 1980s,
so he was surprised it contained asbestos. Mr. Hunt concurred.
Councilmember Sanger asked whether it is the responsibility of the developer to abate that
asbestos and any other hazardous materials that may be found on the site purchased from the
City or the Bally site. Mr. Hunt answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Hunt presented the terms of the redevelopment contract with Oppidan. He explained the
redeveloper would be reimbursed for qualified site preparation costs up to $2.8 million in pay-as-
you-go tax increment generated by the project. That level of assistance would overcome enough
of the extraordinary site costs to allow the project to achieve a rate of return sufficient to attract
the necessary equity capital and enable the project to receive financing. A TIF Note in this
amount would likely be retired within approximately seven years and would be subject to a look-
back. Mr. Hunt explained the proposed assistance is not expected to constitute a business
subsidy under Minnesota Statutes, the project is expected to commence July of 2016 or sooner,
and be completed June 30, 2018.
Mr. Hunt completed presentation of the contract terms and described what the developer will be
responsible for upon completion, including participating in Special Service District #3. He
stated in the event the grocer leaves, a restriction is in place relating to what that space could be
used for.
Councilmember Sanger noted in theory, that space could become a liquor store. Mr. Hunt stated
it could; however, a long-term lease is being signed with the grocer. Councilmember Sanger
stated since the contract contains a list of restricted uses, she would ask if it could also include a
maximum footprint for a liquor store. Mr. Harmening noted that restriction would only be in
place for as long as the contract lasts, seven years.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg stated this is a larger discussion and if such a restriction is set for one
use, it should be considered for all.
Councilmember Mavity stated that while she agrees with the intent of restricting square footage
for liquor stores, she does not support doing so in this case as it is only a seven-year contract.
Mr. Hunt stated the final plat and PUD will be presented to the Council next week and on November
16th the TIF District and Development Contract will be considered for formal approval.
4. Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 6 Article V – Property Maintenance Code
Mr. Hoffman presented an overview of proposed changes to the City’s Property Maintenance
Code that would adopt the 2012 edition of the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC),
with revised amendments. It was noted the 2003 edition of the IPMC has been in use as a basis
for the City’s maintenance programs for the past decade. Mr. Hoffman described the positive
impact that has resulted since the City’s Property Maintenance Code was adopted.
Councilmember Sanger agreed there has been a huge improvement as a result of enforcing this
code. She supported the proposed amendments and asked if fence maintenance can be included
as well as removal of diseased trees and noxious weeds. Councilmember Sanger stated she’s
noticed more teardowns that leave a portion of the preceding home and asked if that means they
will not need to comply with current standards. Mr. Hoffman explained State code is clear that it
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Title: Study Session Minutes of October 26, 2015
is technically a remodel if a wall or portion of the foundation is left. In that way certain
regulations, like current energy codes, and setbacks do not apply. With regard to maintenance of
fences, he stated it is required by the City code and would be addressed through the City-wide
evaluation and other inspection programs.
Mr. Hoffman stated when the first City-wide survey was conducted, the biggest concern was
blighted housing so when properties were evaluated the first time, staff stopped at 200 because of
the large number of issues discovered. But, over time those larger violations have been resolved
so staff is now finding it has the resources to identify more minor issues that still need to be
resolved.
Mr. Hoffman explained that every four years, staff notifies property owners through media of an
upcoming city-wide property evaluation, conducted from the right-of-way, to identify Code
violations. Owners of properties identified with deficiencies are then contacted and reminded of
the need to fix those violations and notified of city incentives, like low-interest loans. Staff then
returns for re-inspection with the goal to get all issues resolved. Mr. Hoffman explained this can
take up to one year. Commercial properties are evaluated alternating two years apart from the
residential evaluation cycle.
Mr. Harmening stated the evaluation is typically done from the car and a rating scale is used. In
the past, the community has been informed in advance and the next evaluation will start in the
spring of 2016.
Councilmember Brausen referenced Section 310 relating to outdoor storage and asked if hot tubs
are addressed in the code. Mr. Hoffman answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Brausen
asked about holiday displays. Mr. Hoffman indicated they are not. Councilmember Brausen
asked if more restrictive code language is needed to require businesses to shut off their lights
after hours. Mr. Hoffman stated that would be an operational issue, not addressed by code.
Councilmember Brausen stated he would like that considered in the future and stated he supports
the amendments.
Councilmember Mavity asked about ornamental grass in the boulevard that can become too tall.
Mr. Harmening explained that is allowed under certain circumstances. Ms. Boettcher indicated
that is regulated by the Operations and Recreation Department, and a permit is required.
Councilmember Sanger described a successful pilot project in the Blackstone neighborhood that
offered small loans/grants and resulted in about one-half of that neighborhood improving their
single-family houses. She asked whether that is an option for another neighborhood. Mr.
Hoffman explained that was a neighborhood-focused program and not done as part of the
evaluation program. Mr. Harmening stated CDBG funds were used, in part.
The Council agreed with the suggestion of Mr. Harmening to ask the Housing Supervisor,
Michele Schnitker, about this opportunity. Mr. Hoffman stated staff could identify a potential
neighborhood through the City-wide evaluation.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to work with the City Attorney to prepare
an ordinance for first reading to adopt the 2012 IPMC with City amendments.
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 7
Title: Study Session Minutes of October 26, 2015
Mr. Harmening asked if the Council would like another budget discussion prior to the Truth in
Taxation Hearing to discuss whether the Council desired to approve a levy adjustment of 5.5% or
6%. Councilmember Sanger suggested staff provide an itemization of services that would be cut
with a 5.5% levy. Mr. Harmening explained that reducing the levy from 6.5% to 5.5% will not
impact current service levels. He stated the Council discussed whether a little extra should be
levied so those funds could be set aside and targeted for an identified project or program
The Council discussed how those funds could be used and asked staff to schedule that discussion
for a future Study Session.
Mr. Harmening stated he had provided the Council with information about a potential smart
meter replacement opt-out for health considerations and indicated at least one shutoff would
need to occur without a policy change. He asked whether the Council wanted to adopt a policy
allowing a resident to opt out due to health reasons.
Councilmember Sanger stated the City needs to consider reasonable accommodation and follow
standard protocols in how those requests are determined. She was concerned the City would lose
control if exceptions are made without following standard protocols.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg asked if one opt-out changes the Council’s adopted policy. Mr.
Harmening stated it would.
Councilmember Mavity stated her support to consider an opt-out request based on health
considerations as long as it is not a financial burden. Councilmember Brausen noted the City
charges an additional fee to manually read the meter, which may be a financial burden.
Councilmember Mavity stated she wants to be careful and asked if it is worth requiring a
doctor’s note as suggested by Councilmember Sanger
Councilmember Sanger stated her concern that as soon as it is thought a special consideration
will be given, residents will take advantage of it. Mr. Harmening noted, per a draft policy
developed by staff, the resident will then be charged a fee to manually read the meter.
Councilmember Mavity stated she does not share the concern that control will be lost by granting
exceptions because staff would establish a structure that provides a disincentive for residents
who are casual when objecting and create a process for someone who is truly concerned with this
type of technology. She suggested creating a term other than ‘opt-out.’
Councilmember Hallfin asked if the opt-out is allowed, would the City replace that meter with an
analog meter. Mr. Harmening stated the meter would still be replaced and explained that based
on the experience of other cities that have allowed an opt-out, St. Louis Park may expect 16-32
to opt-out, but this may be a high estimate.
Councilmember Brausen supported a point of sale requirement that a smart meter be installed
when a property is sold that has had an exception. The Council agreed with that suggestion.
Mr. Harmening stated the $50 fee is charged per read, which is currently quarterly but in several
years it could be a monthly fee. He noted that the form signed by the resident includes notice of
the manual meter reading fee.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 8
Title: Study Session Minutes of October 26, 2015
Councilmember Spano stated if billed $50 per occurrence to manually read the meter, he thinks
residents will soon change their mind. In addition, they need to open their house so the meter
can be read.
The Council asked staff to include this item on a future consent agenda.
Councilmember Spano explained that this Friday, HUD Secretary Julian Castro will tour
affordable housing projects and wants to talk with west metro mayors and community leaders
about expanding affordable housing, especially in communities that do not currently have a lot of
affordable housing. He stated he will try to add Councilmember Sanger to the invitation.
Councilmember Brausen stated his support for the Kerasotes Showplace license request and the
small business proclamation.
Councilmember Mavity announced the Metro Cities annual meeting on November 18.
Councilmember Spano reported that someone from AFSCME contacted him about legislation in
the federal court system that would limit the rights of cities to collectively bargain with their
unions and limit the ability of unions to organize in municipalities. He asked the Council if there
is interest to review this information. Councilmember Mavity stated she supports collective
bargaining. Councilmember Sanger stated it makes no sense for individual cities to sign onto
this as it should be a League consideration. Mr. Harmening stated he needs to hear more about it
from an employer’s perspective, as the City has five bargaining units. Councilmember Spano
stated he will provide the information to the Council and staff for review.
The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
5. September 2015 Monthly Financial Report
6. Third Quarter Investment Report (July – September 2015)
7. EDA Redevelopment Contract Status Report
8. Update on Shoreham Redevelopment Contract
9. 2016 Budget Update
10. Kerasotes Showplace ICON Theatre Liquor License Premises Amendment
11. Proposed Small Business Saturday Proclamation
12. Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. Site Update
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Gregg Lindberg, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Minutes: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 2, 2015
The meeting convened at 6:15 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Gregg Lindberg, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Anne
Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Economic
Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Director of Operations & Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Public
Works Services Manager (Mr. Merkley), Solid Waste Program Coordinator (Ms. Fisher),
Communications Specialist (Ms. Pribbenow), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Wirth).
Guest: None
1. Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance
Ms. Walsh stated the Council has discussed this ordinance a number of times and asked if the
Council would like to move it forward to consider approval or make additional changes. It was
noted the Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance had been updated to reflect the pertinent changes
identified by stakeholders.
Ms. Fisher stated the last time this was discussed, it was considered that some materials could be
exempted if there was not a viable alternative or exorbitantly expensive to recycle. If approved,
staff would review exemptions on an annual basis and make a determination on what products
are actually recyclable. There would need to be a viable recycling option. That information
would then be presented annually for the Council’s consideration and approval. Ms. Fisher
reviewed the estimated dates for consideration of first and second reading.
Councilmember Brausen supported the ordinance draft and giving staff the ability to make
decisions on exemptions. He asked why food being sold off site (food trucks) would be
exempted from the recycling requirement. He felt those facilities had the ability to offer
recycling containers. Ms. Fisher explained food establishments have to provide an opportunity
to recycle if eating on site. The intent is that people would not drive back from home with to-go
food packaging to recycle those items but would instead use their at-home recycling containers.
Councilmember Sanger asked why they would not need a recycling bin because even if eating
off site, the customer may bring the containers back. Ms. Fisher stated the intent is that a person
who dines on-site has the correct place to put it. The exemption is for a restaurant only
providing food to go because when no one is eating on site, the food containers are not being
discarded on site.
Councilmember Mavity asked about locations that may host a food truck. Ms. Fisher stated if
they are a licensed food establishment, they would already be required to provide on-site
recycling.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of November 2, 2015
Councilmember Brausen stated he still does not support allowing use of polystyrene if
prepackaged, as it will create incentive to package off site. He also does not support exempting
plastic utensils when compostable utensils are available at about the same cost.
Councilmember Spano stated when the issue of restricting off site packaging was discussed, it
was mentioned to do so would violate interstate commerce laws.
Councilmember Sanger stated that while she supports the sentiment, she thinks it is unrealistic to
tell grocers what type of packaging can come in. She stated the Environmental Commission
mentioned, on the legislative procedure, the ordinance should add maximizing recycling, not just
minimizing recyclables. Councilmember Sanger stated the following concerns: Definitions,
Section 12.202(a) and other locations, that talk about exclusions as they are not all defined terms
or refining language should be inserted; Section 12.202(b)(2) and 12.202(b)(3), the term
‘generator’ is used and not defined; Section 12.203(a), six lines down, after ‘point of sale’ it
should be addressed if it is not zero waste packaging; Section 12.203(b), need to add that it is
considered zero waste packaging only when the retailer provides documentation of valid
recycling pickup; Section 12.203(3), she does not agree with exempting if they do not offer on-
site seating because some customers may not have organic recycling at home and should have
the opportunity to return and recycle the containers; and, Section 12.204, Violation, language
needs to define what constitutes a violation in terms of being per person or unit of time.
Councilmember Mavity stated on the fines, she thinks the most successful approach is ‘heavy on
the carrot and light on the stick’ when looking at noncompliance. She stated the $2,000 fine
could be in the City’s ‘back pocket’ but it does not sit right with her so she prefers an incentive
and reward for doing the right thing. Councilmember Sanger stated if there is no tool for
enforcement, there is no need for an ordinance.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg asked how it will be enforced practically and if it would be complaint
based. Mr. Harmening stated Hennepin County conducts restaurant inspections and would be
asked to inform the City if anyone is using non-compliant packaging. Then the City would
enforce the ordinance by contacting the business, encouraging the use of zero waste products,
educating where to find those products, and then follow up. At some point, if necessary, the
penalty section of the ordinance could be invoked. Mr. Merkley stated he expects that residents
will notify the City if they find a restaurant that is in violation.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg asked about the burden on staff to enforce this ordinance. Mr.
Harmening stated a staff person is being added in 2016, which he expects will be a busy year
with education and give an indication of what 2017 will look like.
Councilmember Mavity stated she understands the need for enforcement and supports the
direction of the ordinance. However, she felt the legislative purposes miss tying it back to the
City’s long-standing established priorities. Councilmember Mavity suggested inclusion of the
priority statement on the City’s website. She noted the Environmental Commission mentioned
State law, in 2016, will require all businesses to recycle at least three types of things, which
aligns with this consideration.
Councilmember Spano stated he is generally supportive of the principles and less concerned with
take away restaurants or if not eating on site, finding the idea that someone will drive back to
drop off containers as fanciful. He supports additional education on the first offense and
becoming more punitive with future offenses.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of November 2, 2015
Councilmember Hallfin referenced the exception based on the economics and asked how it
would be defined. Ms. Fisher referenced Section 12.206. Councilmembers Mavity and Sanger
felt it could be used as a loophole. Mr. Merkley stated staff can further research that language
and work with the business to explain what is and is not exempted.
Councilmember Sanger suggested deleting Clause 2. Councilmembers Hallfin and Mavity
concurred. Councilmember Mavity asked what the burden is for enforcing Clause 3. Mr.
Mattick agreed it is difficult to come up with a mathematical formula to consider when an
exception should be granted.
Councilmember Spano noted it also depends on the size of the business. He supported deleting
Clauses 2 and 3 and then if a business brings forward a concern, it can be discussed whether to
reconsider. Councilmember Hallfin noted the businesses have one year to address their
packaging.
Councilmember Spano asked if staff’s ability to act will be restricted if Clauses 2 and 3 are
deleted and require an ordinance change. Mr. Harmening stated it would not be brought before
the Council as it is not actionable.
Councilmember Spano stated if a business has a supply of packaging and it could be cited as a
hardship to not use it. He asked if that is a consideration for an exemption. Mr. Harmening
stated there would be time for the Council to consider whether to revise the ordinance before it is
enacted.
The Council discussed whether businesses are aware that zero waste packaging is being
considered by the Council.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he would support leaving something in the ordinance relating to
exemptions if he found it attainable and measurable. If not, he thinks it should be removed.
Councilmember Sanger cautioned that what is expensive to one retailer is not to another and it
puts the City is the middle of evaluating their finances. In addition, it is not measurable. She
stated since this would not go into effect for one year, staff will be aware if there are concerns
and if valid, can bring it before the Council.
Ms. Fisher stated this information is patterned after the Minneapolis ordinance and that
ordinance exempts hot and cold cup lids and plastic lined cups and bowls.
Councilmember Hallfin stated on enforcement, people generally follow the ordinance upon
adoption. However, on occasion, he thinks the City will use the enforcement measures, which he
finds to be reasonable.
Ms. Walsh asked whether staff should make these changes and submit in report format or to
schedule another discussion. Mr. Harmening asked about the Council’s position to exempt or to
require recycling containers at restaurants that do not have dine in seating.
It was the consensus of the City Council to leave it in, but not allow food trucks to be exempt
from the requirement, and ask staff to make the requested revisions with a report back for
Council review, and to move forward with adoption by the end of 2015.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of November 2, 2015
2. Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance
Ms. Fisher presented the staff report relating to the draft Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance that
would encourage use of reusable bags by placing a charge on both plastic and single-use carryout
bags and provide criteria for requiring at-store recycling of plastic and single-use bags.
Councilmember Mavity stated the City has used a good process, which has gone on for about a
year, and the issues raised have been incorporated so there are not unintended negative
consequences that are worse for the environment (outright ban) but to change the behavior of
residents to be more environmentally conscious and better environmental stewards by incenting
that behavior. She noted the City has a broad Environmental Policy and this is just one smaller
component to get people to change their behavior and bring attention to the broader Policy.
Councilmember Mavity stated she supports the direction of the ordinance and being clear on the
purpose to tie it back into the City’s vision that established four priorities for environmental
sustainability.
Councilmember Sanger suggested the following change: Page 1, Findings, add that plastic bags
are not acceptable to any of the local haulers that provide curbside pickup. She referenced
Definitions, Section 12-252(b), and asked why restaurants are being excluded or exemptions
allowed for an entity not 7,000 sq ft. in size or having three or more stores or retail locations,
each having at least 3,000 sq. ft. of retail sales space. Ms. Fisher stated staff will look into that
language if the Council wants to move forward. She explained retail recycling is just those
stores required to set up an at-store recycling for plastic bags. Councilmember Sanger stated she
does not want to exclude restaurants based on size or number of restaurants. Mr. Harmening
noted one reason to consider exemption based on the small size of the business, is the low
volume of bags used. It would be sensitive to smaller businesses.
Councilmember Sanger asked about single-use carry out bags made of compostable plastic,
noting a lot of people do not do composting and can that bag be recycled. Ms. Fisher stated
compostable plastic is not recyclable with other plastic bags. Councilmember Sanger stated they
will then be littered or placed in the trash as many residents don’t do composting. Ms. Fisher
reviewed other uses for compostable bags.
Councilmember Sanger stated with Section 12.255(b), Single Use Bag Charge by retail store, she
would ask why the City cares what they use the money for. She supported removing that
reference. Mr. Mattick explained if a fee is charged, they need to indicate why the fee is being
charged, if it is solely for the purpose of dissuading or also to support a program being
addressed. Councilmember Sanger supported using the fees to help accomplish the goals of the
ordinance but did not support including reference to donating to non-profits because then the
City would have to monitor that activity.
Councilmember Hallfin asked whether a majority of the Council is interested in an ordinance
charging a fee or a total ban. He stated he is not ready to consider an ordinance at this point and
does not want to continue studying this issue if it is not supported by a majority.
Councilmember Brausen clarified the Environment Sustainability Commission indicated they
could support it as a compromise if it is not an outright ban. He believed it was a question of
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of November 2, 2015
whether the City wants to lead on these environmental issues, noting a lot of people are
interested in it.
Councilmember Spano stated the Council has done a lot of work on environmental issues for the
last four years. He felt the City has already taken a leadership role and what the press or
Minneapolis is saying does not change his opinion. Councilmember Spano stated the science
and facts do not back up what is being discussed so he would rather work on projects that effect
results rather than have symbolic results. He stated the time and money spent on considering this
ordinance does not mean it has to be moved forward as the fact finding has indicated recycling
and organics are more of a footprint that this would be.
Councilmember Mavity stated the idea we cannot do more organics if we do this is a false
construct. She believed the City needed a full and robust Environmental Policy and this
ordinance could be one ‘clear plank’ of that Policy, the City should have it, and residents have
been asking for. Councilmember Mavity stated while she agrees the science does not approach
the ban, the metrics of changing the resident’s behavior by instituting a fee is backed up by
science and metrics and the City has the ability to do that.
Councilmember Spano stated this is 1% of the waste stream and recyclables and organics are
57% of the waste stream.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg stated he supports Councilmember Spano’s position, noting a lot of
time has been spent on this and resident feedback on this issue has been split. He does not see
this as a win-win at this time and finds the facts speak for themselves.
Councilmember Brausen supported calling the question at a public meeting.
Councilmember Sanger stated resident feedback was on a proposed ban but the fee proposal has
not gone to the public for feedback. She does not see an urgency to pass this ordinance quickly.
Councilmember Hallfin agreed there is no urgency to this consideration. Councilmember
Mavity stated she does want to raise the level of awareness as she believes the fee will change
behaviors. Councilmember Hallfin stated there are not four in support so he thinks it should
continue to be studied. Councilmember Sanger supported additional study and public outreach
on a fee-based bag program.
Mr. Harmening stated at a future meeting the Council can discuss their expectations for
additional public input and study.
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
None.
The meeting adjourned at 7:23 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Gregg Lindberg, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Minutes: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 2, 2015
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg,
Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Deputy City
Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Moss & Barnett Attorney (Mr. Grogan), Civic
TV Coordinator (Mr. Dunlap), Fire Chief (Mr. Koering), Communications Coordinator (Mr.
Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Wirth).
Guests: None.
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations - None
2a. Small Business Saturday Proclamation
Mayor Jacobs read in full a proclamation declaring Saturday, November 28, 2105, as
Small Business Saturday in the City of St. Louis Park.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes September 28, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. Listening Session Minutes October 12, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
3c. Study Session Minutes October 12, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
3d. Special Study Session Minutes October 19, 2015
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 2, 2015
Councilmember Sanger requested the following addition to Page 3, Paragraph 8, ‘She
stated that if left turns from Park Commons Drive to Monterey were banned the many
residents who lived north of Excelsior and Grand would not have any good way to get
home. They would either have to turn right onto Monterey, shoot into the left lane, and
turn left on Excelsior Boulevard and cut through the neighborhood to get back to
Monterey, or they would have to go Grand Way, wait at the light at Excelsior Boulevard,
turn left, and wait again at the light at Monterey, which is already crowded. These bad
alternatives would just transfer the problems somewhere else and thus are not a good
solution.’
The minutes were approved as revised.
3e. City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Accept for filing City Disbursement Claims for the period of September 26, 2015,
through October 23, 2015.
4b. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 15-2481 creating Section 36-268-
PUD 3 of the Zoning Code and amending the Zoning Map from R-1 Single Family
Residence to PUD 3 for property at the southwest corner of Wayzata Boulevard and
Texas Avenue, and approve the Summary Ordinance for publication.
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 15-167 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the
sewer service line at 3325 Gettysburg Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN P.I.D. 18-
117-21-23-0044.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 15-168 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the
sewer service line at 8206 35th Street West, St. Louis Park, MN P.I.D. 18-117-21-41-
0018.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 15-169 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the
water service line at 2850 Texas Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN P.I.D. 07-117-21-
44-0012.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 15-170 authorizing the submission of the Hennepin County
Environmental Response Fund (ERF) Soils Grant Application to the City of St. Louis
Park in the amount of $357,200 for soil excavation adjacent to The Rec Center (3700
Monterey Drive) for the outdoor ice rink project.
4g. Adopt Resolution No. 15-171 authorizing fiscal agent, opening a bank account, and
authorizing bank signatories for the Home Remodeling Fair.
4h. Approve for filing Fire Civil Service Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2015.
4i. Approve for filing Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 16, 2015.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 2, 2015
It was moved by Councilmember Lindberg, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to
approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive
reading of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing and First Reading of CenturyLink Cable TV Franchise
Ordinance
Mr. Dunlap introduced those in attendance for this agenda item as well as Brian Grogan,
attorney with Moss & Barnett representing the City in this matter.
Mr. Grogan described the City’s past consideration, noting CenturyLink’s technical
qualifications have already been reviewed and the Council adopted a resolution finding
CenturyLink was qualified. The goal was to establish the same franchise terms for
Comcast and CenturyLink and the decision before the Council tonight relates to the
appropriateness of those terms. Mr. Grogan described the negotiation process that had
taken place and stated he thinks a similar franchise was developed, noting CenturyLink’s
two affiliates will provide the service. He stated the issue of compliance and
enforcement is addressed in a carefully worded paragraph that has been approved by the
City Attorney. Comcast had a 15-year franchise and CenturyLink will have a 5-year
franchise with a 5-year renewal, tying the expiration with the pending expiration of the
Comcast franchise in 2020. It also ties the term to substantial completion of the build out
within the required five-years. Mr. Grogan completed presentation of the franchise
ordinance and stated staff and the Cable Commission believe this model will work and
promote success.
Councilmember Sanger asked about the roll out requirement and what it is based upon.
Mr. Grogan used the example that if the City had 100 homes, it requires within two years
that they provide cable service to 15, or 15%. However, it is known the roll out will be
much higher in St. Louis Park.
Councilmember Sanger supported the indemnification agreement and asked what
happens should Comcast decide to stop providing certain services, as they are not
identical to the CenturyLink service. Mr. Grogan noted Comcast is free to change its
channel lineup. He explained the channels contractually required are PEG channels and
they are required to match those identically. If not, there would be a clear enforcement
path. He stated Comcast has welcomed competition, fairness, and equity.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Tyler Middleton, CenturyLink Vice President of Operations, thanked the City, Mr.
Grogan, staff, and the Telecommunications Committee for using a constructive approach.
He described their company and stated they have worked hard to bring choice and
competition to St. Louis Park.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 4
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 2, 2015
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Lindberg, to
approve first reading of an Ordinance granting a non-exclusive cable franchise to
CenturyLink and set second reading of the ordinance for November 16, 2015.
The Council discussed use of cable franchise fees to fund Park TV and noted there had
been concern that franchise fee receipts would go down, but the report indicated when
introducing competition receipts actually tend to go up. Mr. Dunlap stated there are
many examples in which franchise fees go up for several years after there is a new
entrant.
The Council thanked all involved for their work on this technically and legally difficult
issue.
The motion passed 7-0.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Kerasotes Showplace ICON Theater Liquor License Premises Amendment
Ms. Deno presented the staff report and request of Kerasotes Showplace to extend its
premises liquor license to the full theater area. She indicated there have been no liquor
violations and the Police Department voiced no objection or concern.
Bob Gallivan, Director of Real Estate for Kerasotes Showplace, explained they want to
expand the license to ‘level the playing field’ for the competition. When first introduced,
it was a unique idea but has now become the trend. He stated service would be limited to
three drinks and dispensed only from a designated area on the first floor.
Councilmember Brausen asked whether drinks can be taken into the theater. Mr.
Gallivan answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Brausen stated his support to offer
an alcohol free zone of several aisles, though noted those who desire that type of seating
do have the choice of another theater. Mr. Gallivan described the difficulty with
enforcing that type of offering and inability to offer those seats, if open, to others who
have purchased a drink.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to
approve the request of Kerasotes Showplace ICON Theatre to amend the existing
licensed premises by expanding the liquor service area to include all auditoriums on the
premises and permitting the sale of alcohol from multiple service points on the premises.
The motion passed 7-0.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs announced tomorrow is Election Day, noting the important elections for
the City Council, School Board, and Legislature. He explained whom residents can
contact to find their polling place and register to vote.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 5
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 2, 2015
Councilmember Spano stated the Secretary of State’s website contains the most up-to-
date election results and noted there is same day registration in the State of Minnesota.
Councilmember Brausen reported on his attendance at the Equity Summit Conference in
Las Vegas and commitment to address environment accountability, equity for all, and
that these changes need to occur organically, from the bottom up.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:13 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Minutes: 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 2, 2015
The meeting convened at 8:21 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg,
Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger (arrived at 8:26 p.m.), and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Fire Chief (Mr. Koering), and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Wirth).
Guest: None
1. The Future of Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
Mr. Harmening introduced the topic and stated the purpose of this discussion is to bring the
Council up-to-date with Emergency Medical Services (EMS).
Mr. Koering presented the staff report, noting the Fire Department currently responds to
approximately 4,000 medical calls a year without reimbursement and it is expected that demand
will continue to grow. He reviewed that in 1969, the effectiveness of the EMS system was under
attack because of its lack of effectiveness, and out of that process came a white paper detailing
the changes needed. For many it was considered the birth of EMS. Then, in 1971, a popular
television program raised EMS awareness and the idea of paramedics responding to homes and
taking you to the hospital. Today, just as we did in 1971, when a 911 call is received, two
paramedics respond, but an average of 75-80% of all Advanced Life Support (ALS) transports
are not actually required. The law only allows reimbursement if the transport occurs to a
hospital emergency room and because of the required response time, more paramedics are hired
and ambulances purchased to meet the growing demand.
Councilmember Sanger arrived at 8:26 p.m.
Councilmember Hallfin asked if the ambulance does not get paid if the person is not transported.
Mr. Koering answered in the affirmative and explained if services are rendered, then the person
is transported. In Hennepin County, every 911 EMS call received has to start an ambulance.
Mr. Koering presented statistics on the City’s customer base, with 25% being 65 years of age or
older with a strong base of private insurance, resulting in a high demand. In addition, as more
senior and assisted living units are created, more EMS calls will be received. He noted since
1996, medical calls have doubled and according to State statistics, by 2030 the number of St.
Louis Park senior residents will double. Mr. Koering described the increasing frequency of
overlapping calls that places additional demand on the system.
Mr. Koering stated future changes will include a focus on treatment in the home, a move away
from transporting every patient to an emergency room, moving patients to appropriate care and
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 3d) Page 2
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of November 2, 2015
transport back, connecting patients with resources (transportation options), giving more attention
to preventative care, and reducing dependency on the system.
Councilmember Sanger asked if it is being suggested the EMS will transport the patient back to
their residence. Mr. Koering answered in the affirmative, noting 80% of all patients seen by a
paramedic ambulance crew can be treated and stay at home. That would greatly lower the level
of workload.
Mr. Koering explained the Center for Medicaid Services (CMS) and Accountable Care
Organization (ACO) would manage care, assign payment/cost, and act as the insurance company
(third party administrator that assures value-based purchasing). If the ACO indicates that the
provider is not instituting value-based purchasing and meeting certain criteria, there may not be
full reimbursement. In addition, there would be penalties for no insurance, a tiered response,
triaged at the 911 Center, and fewer ALS transports. This will result in a controlled intake.
Mr. Koering explained that throughout the entire process, it is about the patient’s satisfaction
scores on the service received. This may mean that for the City to be a player in the EMS world,
it will have to also think about the patient’s experience and be able to show metrics that they are
impacting the customer in a positive way. This is important because Hennepin County (the
current ALS) will only select providers that drive their scores as well. Mr. Koering noted what
drives response time is the idea you have to be there in 4.5 minutes but the reality is that you do
not if the call is for minor issues (i.e., ankle pain, transport to a doctor’s appointment).
Councilmember Sanger asked how this addresses people who use the system for secondary gain
and nursing homes that no longer have on-site nurses because it was more profitable to off load
work to the EMS. She also asked how they can be incented to hire trained on-site staff to reduce
the load on the EMS. Mr. Koering stated those who over use services will often times be
directed towards more appropriate housing and to call for help in a less urgent way. He
explained how firefighters work with the patient to find a better way to deliver services and teach
them how to stay in their home.
Mr. Koering stated the Fire Department has to ask if their care makes a difference, is changing
patient outcome, and sending the right resources to the call. They will begin to chart those
patient outcomes to show Hennepin County that the Fire Department is an effective partner. He
stated firefighters are the most trusted deliverer of EMS and there is the advantage of mutual aid.
Councilmember Hallfin asked about ambulance service that can respond in St. Louis Park. Mr.
Koering explained that the City of Edina had a primary service area and they decided to maintain
it. However, St. Louis Park decided not to maintain their primary service area so it was taken up
by Hennepin County.
Mr. Koering summarized his presentation and stated other providers and surrounding
communities are discussing collaboration and how this can work. He noted the good news is that
our firefighters can be trained to a higher level, if needed, and he continues to talk with our EMS
provider about partnering concepts. Mr. Koering stated the purpose tonight is to provide this
information and ask the Council to keep an open mind. He stated he will stay engaged in this
conversation.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 3d) Page 3
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of November 2, 2015
Mayor Jacobs stated he did not realize the high number of calls received when emergency
response is not actually required.
Councilmember Mavity stated it reminds her of a Minnesota League of Cities speaker who
described the challenge to our civic life when considering ourselves to be consumers instead of
residents and neighbors. She stated it is a challenge when discussing these issues about customer
satisfaction metrics and the City needs to be careful in that shift of thinking. Mr. Koering agreed
and stated that is a good point.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the Fire Department will have to hire more medically trained
staff and how high volume users who call for non-emergency reasons will be addressed. Mr.
Koering stated today the EMS responds, works with the family, and at some point helps guide
them towards social services to get family support for a different type of living situation. If they
do not change, the Fire Department is still an obligated responder. He explained that given the
current demand and forecasted growth, additional staffing will need to happen. The type of staff
going forward might look different and not necessarily be firefighters. He noted the good news is
that new revenue streams will offset some of those costs and create sustainability.
Mr. Koering thanked the Council for its support of the Park Nicollet Post Discharge Program and
stated the City has well positioned itself to take the next step because of that program.
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
None.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve second reading Adopt Ordinance granting a
non-exclusive Cable TV franchise to CenturyLink.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is Council supportive of granting a second Cable TV franchise,
which would allow many St. Louis Park residents to have a choice of two Cable TV providers?
Does a second Cable TV franchise assist in meeting certain goals established by the City
Council?
SUMMARY: The City franchise negotiation team and Telecommunications Advisory
Commission support the proposed franchise, which is as similar as possible to the existing
Comcast Cable TV franchise
The proposed franchise supports the following recently approved City Council Goal and Priority:
“St. Louis Park is a technology connected community.” Indeed, the City of Minneapolis is
currently the only other Minnesota Local Franchising Authority to have approved a Cable TV
franchise with CenturyLink.
The City Council approved the franchise ordinance on first reading on November 2, 2015.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Cable TV franchise fees are included in
the proposed franchise ordinance. They are similar to those paid by Comcast, largely based on
gross Cable TV revenues generated in St. Louis Park.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Ordinance
Ordinance Summary
Prepared by: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator
Reviewed by: Jacqueline Larson, Communications & Marketing Manager
Through: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: CenturyLink submitted an application for a cable television (TV) franchise in
St. Louis Park on June 8, 2015, and submitted a $10,000 franchise application fee.
As required by Minnesota statute, the St. Louis Park City Council held a public hearing July 6,
2015. CenturyLink attended and answered questions from the Council.
Over the summer, CenturyLink met multiple times with the city’s franchise negotiating team
including Telecommunications Advisory Commissioners Bruce Browning, Toby Keeler and
Maren Anderson; City staff members Jacqueline Larson, Reg Dunlap and John McHugh; and
Moss & Barnett Attorney Brian Grogan, who has been in regular contact with City Attorney Joel
Jamnik.
Wherever possible, the city’s negotiating team insisted on parity with the existing Comcast
franchise to avoid a legal challenge. Sections of the franchise that address enforcement, the letter
of credit or bond requirements are all the same as what is required of Comcast.
CenturyLink can’t agree to meet some of the Comcast commitments, so they have made other
commitments that are not required of Comcast. Two key topic areas are different in the two
franchises: build out requirements (area served) and Public, Education and Government (PEG)
access requirements. The goal in each area is to comply with state law and have CenturyLink’s
commitment as similar to Comcast’s as possible.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The City Council approved first reading of the ordinance on
November 2, 2015.
NEXT STEPS: After approving the ordinance, staff requests that the Council pass a resolution
of findings which is a separate action on the agenda Monday night.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
ORDINANCE NO. ____-15.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 28 OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, ENACTING A COMPETITIVE CABLE TELEVISION
FRANCHISE ORDINANCE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS:
Section 1. Chapter 28 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances is amended by
adding ARTICLE I., Sections 28-1-1 to 28-1-30 to read as follows:
ARTICLE I. QWEST BROADBAND SERVICES, INC., D/B/A CENTURYLINK CABLE
FRANCHISE
Sec. 28-1-1. Granting Ordinance; Purposes.
The City has determined that it is desirable and advantageous to the citizens of St. Louis
Park to grant a competitive cable television franchise to Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. d/b/a
CenturyLink (“Company” as defined herein). In accordance with state and federal law
requirements, the City has reviewed and found sufficient Company technical ability, financial
condition, and legal qualifications to operate in St. Louis Park and hereby determines that it is in
the public interest to grant to Company a full and complete, nonexclusive franchise for a period
of five (5) years for the operation and maintenance of a cable television in St. Louis Park;
provided, however, the franchise is subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Franchise
Ordinance.
Sec. 28-1-2. Short Title.
This Competitive Franchise Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the
"CenturyLink Competitive Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance," hereinafter "Franchise
Ordinance", and it shall become a part of the ordinances and Legislative Code of the City of St.
Louis Park.
Sec. 28-1-3. Definitions.
In this Franchise Ordinance the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations
have the meanings given. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present
tense include the future, words in the plural number include the singular number, and words in
the singular number include the plural number. The words "shall" and "will" are always
mandatory and "may" is permissive. Words not defined shall be given their common and
ordinary meaning.
Basic Service means the lowest priced tier of Cable Service that includes the retransmission of
local broadcast television signals; any public, educational, and governmental access
programming required by this Franchise Ordinance to be provided to Subscribers; any regional
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 4
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
channel required by state law; and additional video programming signals or services added by
cable operator.
CATV System is synonymous with "Cable System" or “System” and means the Company’s
facility, consisting of a set of closed transmission paths and associated signal generation,
reception, and control equipment that is designed to provide Cable Service which includes video
programming and which is provided to multiple Subscribers within the Franchise Area. Unless
otherwise specified, CATV System in this document means the Cable System or System utilized
by the Company in the City.
Cable Service means (1) the one-way transmission to Subscribers of (a) video programming, or
(b) other programming service, and (2) Subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the
selection or use of such video programming or other programming service.
City means the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota as it exists now and as its borders may from
time to time be changed; including, without limitation, its officers, boards, commissions, elected
officials, agents, attorneys, representatives, servants and employees.
Company means Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink, the grantee of rights and
obligations under this Franchise Ordinance, and all successors, transferees, assignees,
subcontractors, agents, employees and representatives of Company.
Company’s place of business means Company offices with financial records and maps, which
shall be located in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area.
Effective Date means , 2015.
FCC means the Federal Communications Commission and any legally appointed, designated or
elected agent or successor.
Franchise Area means the present boundaries of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, and shall
include any additions thereto by annexation or other legal means.
Franchise Ordinance means the incorporated terms of this Competitive Cable Television
Franchise Ordinance, governing the operation of a CATV System within and throughout the City
of St. Louis Park.
Gross revenues means all revenues earned directly or indirectly by the Company, arising from or
in connection with the provision of Cable Service in the City and consistent with local, state and
federal law, including Subscriber revenues (including pay TV), amounts collected as franchise
fees, advertising income, home shopping programs and rentals of Subscriber equipment,
recorded as earned, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, in the area
under jurisdiction of the City. The Company is not required to include revenues recorded as
earned but which are deemed uncollectable, but it must include recoveries previously deemed
uncollectable. This definition of Gross revenues also does not include sales, excise or other
taxes (other than franchise fees) collected by the Company on behalf of federal, state, county,
City or other governmental unit, including FCC user fees. Funds collected by the Company to
recover amounts paid to support public, educational and governmental access programming are
also excluded from the definition of Gross revenues.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 5
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
ISD 283 means Independent School District 283, located within the City of St. Louis Park.
Living Unit means a distinct address as tracked in the QC network inventory, used by
CenturyLink to identify existing or potential Subscribers. This includes, but is not limited to,
single family homes, multi-dwelling units (e.g., apartment buildings and condominiums) and
business locations.
Mosaic Channel means a channel which displays miniaturized media screens and related
information for a particular group of channels with common themes. The Mosaic Channel serves
as a navigation tool for Subscribers, which displays the group of access channels on a single
channel screen and also provides for easy navigation to a chosen access channel in the group.”
Multichannel Video Programming Distributor means a Person such as, but not limited to, a cable
operator, a multichannel multipoint distribution service, a direct broadcast satellite service, open
video system operators, telephone companies, utility companies or a television receive-only
satellite program distributor, who makes available for purchase, by Subscribers or customers,
multiple channels Cable Service or substantially equivalent video programming.
PEG means the public, educational and governmental access channels, equipment, programs or
facilities, as the context dictates.
Person means any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company, organization or
entity.
Public Property means any real property owned by the City other than a highway, sidewalk,
easement or dedication.
Public Way, Right of Way or ROW means the space on, over, above and below any public street,
highway, freeway, bridge, land path, alley, court, boulevard, sidewalk, parkway, way, lane,
public way, drive, circle, or other public Right of Way, including, but not limited to, public
utility easements, dedicated utility strips, or Rights of Way dedicated for compatible uses now or
hereafter held by the City in the Franchise Area which shall entitle the Company to the use
thereof for the purpose of installing, operating, repairing, and maintaining the CATV System.
QC means Qwest Corporation d/b/a CenturyLink (“QC”), an affiliate of Company.
Qualified Living Unit means a Living Unit which meets the minimum technical qualifications
defined by Company for the provision of Cable Service. A Living Unit receiving a minimum of
25Mbps downstream generally will be capable of receiving Cable Service subject to Company
performing certain network grooming and conditioning. For purposes of this definition of
Qualified Living Unit, “network grooming and conditioning” means evaluating existing QC
infrastructure and making improvements to allow greater data throughput.
State-of-the-Art means equipment or facilities that:
(1) Are readily available with reasonable delivery schedules from two or more
sources of supply;
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 6
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
(2) Have the capability to perform the intended functions demonstrated within
communities with similar characteristic (including, but not necessarily limited to,
population, density, Subscriber penetration, etc.) under actual operating conditions for
purposes other than tests or experimentation; and
(3) Are technically and economically feasible to implement. The term “State of the
Art” shall not include equipment or facilities associated with or dedicated to the general
public, educational or governmental access or telecommunication services.
Subscriber means any Person who lawfully receives Cable Service from the Company and does
not further distribute it.
Sec. 28-1-4. Application for a franchise.
Applications for a franchise, other than a franchise renewal pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §546,
shall be filed with the City Clerk in accordance with instructions promulgated by the City and
shall contain the following information and provisions:
(1) The name and business address of the applicant(s), date of application and signature of
applicant(s) or appropriate corporate officer(s).
(2) A description of the legal, technical and financial qualifications of the applicant(s).
(3) Payment of the required filing fee.
(4) Any applicant (including, specifically, the Company) shall reimburse City at the time the
applicant accepts a franchise for all reasonable costs of the City in connection with the granting
or renewal of a franchise, including costs for legal services and publication.
(5) A general description of the applicant's proposed operation.
(6) A statement of the applicant's proposed schedule of charges.
(7) A statement detailing the corporate organization of the applicant, if any, including the
names and addresses of its officers and directors and the division of shares between shareholders.
(8) A statement describing all intra-company relationships of the applicant including parent,
subsidiary or affiliated companies.
Sec. 28-1-5. Grant of franchise.
(1) Grant. The Company shall have the nonexclusive right and privilege, subject to the
provisions of this Franchise Ordinance to construct, erect, and maintain, in, upon, along, across,
above, over and under the Rights of Way in the Franchise Area a CATV System and shall have
the right and privilege to provide Cable Service. The System constructed and maintained by
Company or its agents shall not interfere with other uses of the Rights of Way. Company shall
make use of existing poles and other above and below facilities available to Company to the
extent it is technically and economically feasible to do so. Nothing contained in this Franchise,
shall be construed to give Company the authority to enter upon or work on private property in
areas not encumbered with public easements without the permission of the property owner.
Company promises and guarantees, as a condition of exercising the privileges granted by this
Franchise, that any affiliated entity of the Company involved in the offering of Cable Service in
the City, or directly involved in the ownership, management or operation of the CATV System in
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 7
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
the City, shall also comply with all obligations of this Franchise. However, the City and
Company acknowledge that QC will be primarily responsible for the construction and
installation of the facilities in the Rights-of-Way which will be utilized by Company to provide
Cable Services. So long as QC does not provide Cable Service to Subscribers in the City, QC
will not be subject to the terms and conditions contained in this Franchise. QC’s installation and
maintenance of facilities in the Rights-of-Way is governed by applicable local, state and federal
law. To the extent Company constructs and installs facilities in the Rights-of-Way, such
installation will be subject to the terms and conditions contained in this Franchise Ordinance.
Company is responsible for all provisions in this Franchise Ordinance related to: 1) its offering
of Cable Services in the City; and 2) the operation of the CATV System regardless of what entity
owns or constructs the facilities used to provide the Cable Service. The City and Company agree
that to the extent QC violates any applicable federal, state, or local laws, rules, and regulations,
the City shall first seek compliance directly from QC. In the event, the City cannot resolve these
violations or disputes with QC, then the City may look to Company to ensure such compliance.
Failure by Company to ensure QC’s or any other Affiliate’s compliance with applicable local,
state and federal laws, rules, and regulations shall be deemed a material breach of this Franchise
Ordinance by Company.
(2) Other Ordinances. The Company agrees to comply with the terms of any generally
applicable local ordinance. In the event of a conflict between any generally applicable ordinance
and this Franchise Ordinance, the terms of this Franchise Ordinance shall control.
(3) State and Federal Law. Notwithstanding anything in this Franchise Ordinance to the
contrary, the City and Company shall conform to state laws and rules regarding cable
communications and shall conform to federal laws and regulations regarding cable as they
become effective.
(4) Franchise Area. The Company is hereby authorized to provide Cable Services over a
CATV System within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City, including any areas annexed by
the City during the term of this Franchise. The parties acknowledge that Company is the not the
first entrant into the wireline video market in the City. The Company acknowledges that the City
desires wireline competition throughout the entire City so all residents may receive the benefits
of competitive Cable Services. Company aspires to provide Cable Service to all households
within the City by the end of the five (5) year term of this Franchise Ordinance. Company
agrees that its deployment of Cable Service in the City will be geographically dispersed
throughout the City, and shall be made available to diverse residential neighborhoods of the City
without discrimination. This Franchise Ordinance governs any Cable Services provided by
Company to residential and commercial Subscribers.
(5) Initial Build out. No later than the second anniversary of the Effective Date of this
Franchise Ordinance, Company shall be capable of serving a minimum of fifteen percent (15%)
of the City’s households with Cable Service, provided, however, Company will make its best
efforts to complete such deployment within a shorter period of time. Company agrees that a
significant portion of its investment will be targeted to areas below the median income in the
City. This initial minimum build-out commitment shall include a significant number of
households below the median income in the City. City shall provide detailed maps of such areas.
Nothing in this Franchise Ordinance shall restrict Company from serving additional households
in the City with Cable Service.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 8
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
(6) Quarterly Meetings. In order to permit the City to monitor and enforce the provisions of
this section and other provisions of this Franchise Ordinance, the Company shall, upon demand,
promptly make available to the City maps and other documentation showing exactly where
within the City the Company is currently providing Cable Service either through FTTN or
FTTH. Company shall meet with the City, not less than once quarterly, to demonstrate
Company’s compliance with the provisions of this section concerning the deployment of Cable
Services in the City including, by way of example, the provision of this section in which
Company commits that a significant portion of its initial investment will be targeted to areas
below the median income within the City, and the provisions of this section that prohibit
discrimination in the deployment of Cable Services. In order to permit the City to monitor and
enforce the provisions of this section and other provisions of this Franchise Ordinance, the
Company shall, commencing January 1, 2016, and continuing throughout the term of this
Franchise Ordinance, meet quarterly with the City and make available the City the following
information:
(a) The total number of Living Units throughout the City;
(b) The geographic area within the City where the Company is capable of delivering
Cable Service through either a FTTH or FTTN method of service delivery which shall include
sufficient detail to allow the City to determine the availability of Cable Service at Commercially-
Zoned Parcels;
(c) The actual number of Living Units capable of receiving Cable Service from
Company through FTTH; and
(d) A list of the public buildings and educational institutions capable of receiving
Cable Service from Company (see list attached hereto as Exhibit A).
(7) Additional Build-Out Based on Market Success. If, at any quarterly meeting, including
any quarterly meeting prior to the second anniversary of the Effective Date of this Franchise as
referenced in Section 28-5-1 (5) herein, Company is actually serving twenty seven and one-half
percent (27.5%) of the households capable of receiving Cable Service, then Company agrees the
minimum build-out commitment shall increase to include all of the households then capable of
receiving Cable Service plus an additional fifteen (15%) of the total households in the City,
which Company agrees to serve within two (2) years from the quarterly meeting; provided,
however, the Company shall make its best efforts to complete such deployment within a shorter
period of time. For example, if, at a quarterly meeting with the City, Company shows that it is
capable of serving sixty percent (60%) of the households in the City with Cable Service and is
actually serving thirty percent (30%) of those households with Cable Service, then Company will
agree to serve an additional fifteen percent (15%) of the total households in the City no later than
two (2) years after that quarterly meeting (a total of 75% of the total households). This
additional build-out based on market success shall continue until every household in the City is
served.
(8) Nondiscrimination. Company shall provide Cable Service under non-discriminatory rates
and reasonable terms and conditions to all Subscribers who reside in Living Units in any location
where the Company is capable of providing Cable Service. Company shall not arbitrarily refuse
to provide Cable Services to any Person or in any location where the Company is capable of
proving Cable Service. Any Qualified Living Unit should also include Commercially-Zoned
Parcels. “Commercially-Zoned Parcels” mean any street address or municipally identified lot or
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 9
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
parcel of real estate with a building. Company shall not deny Cable Services to any group of
Subscribers or potential Residential Subscribers based upon the income level of residents of the
local area in which such group resides, nor shall Company base decisions about construction or
maintenance of its CATV System or facilities based upon the income level of residents of the
local area in which such group resides. Company shall provide such service at non-
discriminatory monthly rates for residential Subscribers, consistent with applicable law.
Company shall not discriminate between or among any individuals in the availability of Cable
Service based upon income in accordance and consistent with 47 U.S.C. Section 541(a)(3), or
based upon race or ethnicity.
(9) Standard Installation. Company shall provide standard installation of Cable Service
within seven (7) days of a request by any Person in a Qualified Living Unit. A request shall be
deemed made on the date of signing a service agreement, receipt of funds by Company or receipt
by Company of a verified verbal or written request. Company shall promptly respond to all
requests for service, repair, installation and information from Subscribers. Company
acknowledges the City’s interest in the prompt resolution of all cable complaints and shall work
in close cooperation with the City to resolve complaints.
(10) Multiple Dwelling Units. The Company shall offer the individual units of a multiple
dwelling unit all Cable Services offered to other Dwelling Units in the City. Company shall,
upon request, individually wire units of the property owner or renter who has been given written
authorization by the owner. Such offering is conditioned upon the Company having legal access
to said unit and any payment (for Company’s reasonable costs of internal wiring) as applicable.
The City acknowledges that the Company cannot control the dissemination of particular Cable
Services beyond the point of demarcation at a multiple dwelling unit.
Sec. 28-1-6. Franchise required.
After the Effective Date of this Franchise Ordinance, to the extent required by Applicable
Law, no Person shall establish, operate or carry on the business of distributing to any Person in
the City any television signals, or radio signals or other intelligences, either analog or digital, by
means of the Public Ways unless a franchise has first been obtained pursuant to the provisions of
applicable City codes, this Franchise Ordinance, and unless such franchise is in full force and
effect. No Person shall construct, install or maintain within any public street in the City, or
within any other Public Property of the City, or within any privately owned area within the City
which has not yet become a public street on any tentative subdivision map approved by the City;
any equipment or facilities for distributing any television signals or radio signals or other
intelligences either analog or digital unless a franchise authorizing the use of the streets or
properties or areas has first been obtained pursuant to the provisions of any applicable City codes
and this Franchise Ordinance, and unless such franchise is in full force and effect.
Sec. 28-1-7. Privileges and obligations under the franchise.
(1) Privileges Subordinate. Any privilege claimed under a franchise in any street or other
Public Property shall be subordinate to any lawful occupancy of the street or other Public
Property by the City for City purposes or to any present or future improvements to the streets by
the City, including without limitation sidewalks and roadway widening.
(2) Consent to Transfer.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 10
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
(a) The sale or transfer of the CATV System franchised under this Franchise
Ordinance requires the prior written approval of the City. The parties to the sale or transfer shall
make a written request to the City for its approval of the sale or transfer, and the request shall be
processed by the City as required by federal and state law.
(b) A transfer of the Franchise Ordinance shall not include a transfer of ownership or
other interest in Company to the parent of Company or to another Affiliate of Company; transfer
of an interest in the Franchise Ordinance or the rights held by Company under the Franchise
Ordinance to the parent of Company or to another affiliate of Company; or any action which is
the result of a merger of another affiliate of Company. Nothing in this Section 28-1-7(2) (b)
shall be read to serve as a waiver of Company’s obligation to obtain the City’s advance written
consent to any proposed transfer that constitutes a change in the “controlling interest” of the
Company as set forth in Minn. Stat. Section 238.083.
(3) Additional Franchises.
(a) The Company acknowledges and agrees that the City reserves the right to grant
one (1) or more additional franchises or other similar lawful authorization to provide Cable
Services or video programming services within the City; provided, however, that no such
franchise or similar authorization shall contain material terms or conditions which are
substantially more favorable or less burdensome to the competitive entity than the material terms
and conditions herein.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, if a non-wireless Multichannel
Video Programming Distributor legally authorized by state or federal law, makes available for
purchase by Subscribers or customers, Cable Services or other video programming services
within the Franchise Area without a franchise or other similar lawful authorization granted by the
City, then Company or City shall have the right, upon one hundred eighty (180) days advance
written notice to the other party, to terminate this Franchise Ordinance. Nothing herein shall in
any way limit or reduce Company’s right to provide Cable Service in the City under applicable
state or federal law or the City’s right to regulate Company’s provision of Cable Services in the
City.
(4) Notices. All notices from Company to the City pursuant to this Franchise Ordinance
shall be filed with the City Clerk and with the City Manager. Company shall maintain with the
City, throughout the term of this Franchise Ordinance, an address for service of notices by mail.
Company shall also maintain with the City, a local office and telephone number for the conduct
of matters related to this Franchise Ordinance during normal business hours.
Sec. 28-1-8. Duration of franchise.
This Franchise Ordinance shall be in effect for a term of five (5) years from the date of
acceptance by Company, unless terminated sooner as hereinafter provided. Six (6) months prior
to the expiration of the initial five (5) year term, if City determines that Company is in
compliance with all other material terms of this Franchise Ordinance including the build out
obligations set forth in this Franchise Ordinance as required by applicable law, the City shall
have the unilateral right to extend the Franchise Ordinance for an additional term of no less than
five (5) years and no more than ten (10) years.
Sec. 28-1-9. Franchise payment.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 11
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
(1) Payment to the City. The Company shall pay to the City an annual franchise fee in an
amount equal to five percent (5%) of the annual Gross revenues received by the Company for
Cable Services within the City. Payment will be made to the City with an itemization of the
Gross revenues. In no event shall Company be required to pay a higher franchise fee percentage
than any other franchised cable provider in the City.
(2) Method of Computation; Interest. Local sales taxes or other local taxes levied directly on
a per-Subscriber basis and collected by the Company shall be deducted from the local Gross
revenues before computation of sums due the City is made. Payments due the City under the
terms of this Franchise Ordinance shall be computed and paid within forty-five (45) days of the
end of each calendar quarter. The City shall be furnished a statement with each payment,
certified as correct by the Company, reflecting the total amounts of Gross revenues, and the
above charges, deductions and computations, for the three (3) months' payment period covered
by the payment.
(3) In the event that any franchise fee payment is not made on or before the applicable
date(s) specified, interest on the amount due (as determined from the gross operating receipts
computed by an independent certified public accountant), shall accrue from the required payment
date at the annual rate of twelve percent (12%).
(4) Rights of Recomputation. No acceptance of any payment shall be construed as a release
or as an accord and satisfaction of any claim the City may have for further or additional sums
payable as a franchise fee under this Franchise Ordinance or for the performance of any other
obligation. The period of limitation for recovery by the City of any franchise fee payable
hereunder shall be three (3) years from the date on which payment by the Company is due to the
City or for any period covered by an audit conducted pursuant to and in accordance with Section
28-1-19(4).
(5) Late Payments. The City's acceptance of a late payment by the Company shall not be
deemed a waiver of their right to enforce timely payments in the future.
(6) In addition to Cable Service, the Company (either by itself or through one (1) or more
affiliates) may provide information and telecommunications services. For purposes of
calculating the franchise fee when the Company packages or “bundles” Cable Services with
other services not subject to franchise fees, the Company shall allocate revenues and compute the
franchise fee due pursuant to this Franchise Ordinance in accordance with EITF 00-21 or such
subsequently issued generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) which amend or
supersede EITF 00-21, or as otherwise required by applicable law. In the event EITF is amended
or superseded, the Company will notify the City of such change in its required franchise fee
report.
Sec. 28-1-10. Security for performance.
(1) Performance Bond.
(a) Terms of Bond. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Franchise
Ordinance, the Company shall file with the City Clerk at its own expense, and at all times
thereafter maintain in full force and effect for the term of this Franchise Ordinance or any
renewal, running to the City, a faithful performance bond in the amount of Fifty Thousand
Dollars $50,000.00. The bond shall be retroactive to the Effective Date of this Franchise
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 12
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
Ordinance. The bond shall be issued by a responsible company licensed to do business in the
State of Minnesota, renewable annually and conditioned upon the faithful performance by the
Company of all the terms and conditions of this Franchise Ordinance. This performance bond
shall contain the further condition that in the event Company shall fail to comply with any law,
ordinance or regulation governing the Franchise Ordinance, any such failure be deemed material,
and the principal and surety of the bond shall be jointly and severally liable for any damages or
loss suffered by the City as a result, including the full amount of any compensation,
indemnification, or cost of removal or abandonment of any property of the Company up to the
full amount of the bond.
This condition shall be a continuing obligation for the duration of the Franchise
Ordinance and any renewal or extension and until the Company has liquidated all of its
obligations with the City that may arise from the Company's acceptance of this Franchise
Ordinance or from Company's exercise of any privilege or right granted by this Franchise
Ordinance.
Notwithstanding the above provisions of this subsection, the Council may in its sole
discretion waive the bond or reduce the required amount after five (5) years of operation of a
CATV System under the Franchise Ordinance by the Company if the operation, in the sole
opinion of the City, has been satisfactory.
The bond(s) should be subject to the approval of the City and shall contain the following
endorsement:
It is hereby understood and agreed that this bond may not be cancelled until sixty (60)
days after receipt by the City (by filing with the City Clerk), by registered mail return receipt
requested, of a written notice of intent to cancel, intent not to renew, or material change in the
bond.
(b) Delays in Performance. The bond(s) required in this subsection shall provide that
with fifteen (15) days' prior written notice to the Company, the City may recover against the
surety the sums provided for failure to complete construction in accordance with Section 28-1-5
of this Franchise Ordinance.
(2) Letter of Credit.
(a) Within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date of this Franchise Ordinance,
Company shall deposit with the City an effective irrevocable letter of credit from a financial
institution acceptable to the City Attorney (and maintain at all times through the term of this
Franchise Ordinance), in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00). The form,
manner and content of the letter of credit shall be subject to the approval by the City Manager,
which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The letter of credit shall be used to insure
the faithful performance by Company of all the provisions of this Franchise Ordinance and
compliance with all orders, permits and directions of City lawfully imposed on Company and the
payment by Company of any claims, liens and taxes due City which arise by reason of the
construction, rebuild, upgrade, operation or maintenance of the CATV System. City reserves the
right, in its sole discretion, to reduce the required amount of the letter of credit.
(b) If Company fails to pay to City any taxes due and unpaid or fails to repay to City,
any penalties, damages, costs or expenses for which the Company is required to indemnify the
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 13
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
City under this Franchise Ordinance or is deemed, pursuant to the procedures required under
Section 28-1-21 hereof, to comply with any provision of the Franchise Ordinance which City
reasonably determines can be remedied by an expenditure of the security, City may immediately
request and receive payment of the amount due and owing (with interest and any penalties) from
the financial institution holding the letter of credit. Upon request for such payment, City shall
notify the Company of the amount and date of the payment.
(c) Whenever the City shall receive payment of any amount against the letter of
credit, the Company shall pay to or deposit with the financial institution holding the letter of
credit an amount sufficient to replenish the letter of credit to its full value of Twenty Thousand
Dollars ($20,000.00) within ten (10) days after the Company has been notified of the City's
request for payment. The City Manager shall be furnished with written proof of replenishment
not later than twenty-four (24) hours after it is accomplished.
(d) The Letter of Credit shall contain the following endorsement:
(e) It is hereby understood and agreed that this Letter of Credit may not be cancelled
by the financial institution nor the intention not to renew be stated until thirty (30) days after
receipt by the City, by registered mail, of a written notice of such intention to cancel or not to
renew.
(3) Rights Reserved to City. The rights reserved by the City with respect to the bond(s) and
letter of credit are in addition to all other rights and remedies the City may have under this
Franchise Ordinance or any other law.
Sec. 28-1-11. Liability insurance and indemnification.
(1) Liability Insurance.
(a) At all times during the term of the Franchise Ordinance, Company shall maintain
and (by its acceptance of a franchise under this Franchise Ordinance) specifically agrees that it
will maintain in full force and effect, and at its own cost and expense comprehensive general
liability insurance insuring the City and the Company from claims which may arise from
Company’s operations under this Franchise. The insurance must provide for at least Four
Million Dollars ($4,000,000) in coverage for personal injury or death from any occurrence. The
policy or policies shall afford the same limits of liability as set out above for liability assumed
under contract. The policy or policies shall name the City as an additional insured and provide
that no other insurance maintained by the City will be called upon to contribute to a loss covered
under that policy.
All insurance policies maintained pursuant to this Franchise Ordinance shall contain the
following endorsement:
It is understood and agreed that this insurance policy may not be cancelled nor the
intention not to renew be stated until sixty (60) days after receipt by the City, by registered mail,
of written notice of such intention to cancel or not to renew.
(2) Indemnification.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 14
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
(a) The Company shall indemnify and hold harmless the City from any suit, claim or
demand whatsoever which may be asserted or recovered against it based upon or arising out of
Company's construction, maintenance, or operation of the System or any part thereof; provided,
that such suit, claim, or demand is not based upon the City's own intentional or negligent
conduct. The City agrees to immediately notify Company, in writing and within forty-eight (48)
hours (unless notification within forty-eight (48) hours would be unreasonable due to
extraordinary circumstances) of any claim or suit against the City for which Company may be
required to indemnify the City. In the event Company is required to defend the City in
connection with this section, the City agrees to tender control of its defense to Company and
Company shall have the right to select defense counsel. The City agrees to cooperate in its own
defense. This section does not apply to claims brought against the City pertaining to the granting
of this Franchise Ordinance.
(b) Reserved.
(c) City reserves the right, at its own expense, to participate in the defense of any
claim identified above either through intervention or otherwise.
(d) The City is in no manner or means waiving any governmental immunity or
limitation of liability it may enjoy or any immunity or limitation of liability for its agents,
officials, servants, attorneys, representatives and/or employees.
(e) The Company shall make no settlement in any matter identified above without the
City's written consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Failure to inform the City of
settlement shall constitute a breach of this Franchise Ordinance and the City may seek any
redress available to it against the Company whether set forth in this Franchise Ordinance or
under any other municipal, state or federal laws.
(f) Company shall contemporaneously with this Franchise execute an Indemnity
Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney attached as Exhibit B, which shall
indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless for any claim for injury, damage, loss, liability,
cost or expense, including court and appeal costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees or reasonable
expenses arising out of the actions of the City in granting this Franchise Ordinance. This
obligation includes any claims by another franchised cable operator against the City that the
terms and conditions of this Franchise Ordinance are less burdensome than another franchise
granted by the City or that this Franchise Ordinance does not satisfy the requirements of
applicable federal, state, or local law(s).
(g) The City's exercise of or failure to exercise any rights pursuant to any section of
this Franchise Ordinance shall not affect in any way the right of City subsequently to exercise
any such rights or any other right of City under this Franchise Ordinance or any other ordinance,
rule, regulation or law.
Sec. 28-1-12. System facilities; capabilities.
(1) Business Office. During the term of the Franchise the Company shall comply with one
(1) of the following requirements:
(a) The Company shall maintain a full service office at a location convenient to the
public, it being understood and agreed that any location within ten (10) miles of the City shall be
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 15
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
deemed convenient to the public. At such time as Company ceases to maintain such an office in
the City, the Company shall provide for the convenience of its customers drop boxes for
payments and equipment at up to two (2) locations to be determined by mutual agreement of the
parties; provided, however, that the City agrees to provide locations on City-owned property at
which such drop boxes may be located. Equipment exchanges and other customer service needs
may also be addressed through Company’s direct service offerings.
(b) Company shall maintain convenient local Subscriber service and bill payment
locations for the purpose of receiving Subscriber payments or equipment returns. Unless
otherwise requested by the Subscriber, Company shall deliver replacement equipment directly to
the Subscriber at no cost to the Subscriber. The Company shall maintain a business office or
offices for the purpose of receiving and resolving all complaints regarding the quality of service,
equipment malfunctions, billings disputes and similar matters. The office must be reachable by a
local, toll-free telephone call, and Company shall provide the City with the name, address and
telephone number of an office that will act as the Company’s agent to receive complaints,
regarding quality of service, equipment malfunctions, billings, and similar matters. At a
minimum Company shall also provide the following:
(1) Subscribers can remit payments at multiple third party commercial
locations within the City (such as grocery stores or the Western Union).
(2) Company will provide a service technician to any Qualified Living Unit in
the City, free of charge to the Subscriber, where necessary to install, replace or
troubleshoot equipment issues.
(3) Subscribers shall be able to return and receive equipment, free of charge,
via national overnight courier service (such as Fed Ex or UPS) if a service technician is
not required to visit the Subscriber’s Qualified Living Unit.
(4) In the event Company provides Cable Service to a minimum of thirty
percent (30%) of the total number of Cable Service Subscribers in the City served by
cable operators franchised by the City, the Company shall then be required to also
comply with the requirements of 28-1-13(1) (a) above.
(2) Emergency Capability and Use. The City and the Company shall conform to federal laws
and regulations as they become effective, including 47 CFR Parts 11, 21, 63 and 76 regarding
emergency alert system requirements.
Sec. 28-1-13. Construction and technical standards.
(1) Compliance with Construction and Technical Standards. Company shall construct,
install, operate and maintain its System in a manner consistent with all applicable laws,
ordinances, construction standards, governmental requirements and FCC technical standards.
(2) Performance Tests and Certification.
(a) The Company shall be responsible for insuring that the CATV System is
designed, installed and operated in a manner which fully complies with the technical standards of
this Franchise Ordinance.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 16
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
(b) The Company shall conduct complete performance tests of the CATV System as
required by FCC regulations. The Company shall provide the City thirty (30) days advance
notice of any test and, upon request, with a written report of the results of such FCC technical
tests.
(c) Company shall bear all of the costs of technical standards testing required under
FCC rules.
Sec. 28-1-14. PEG programming and Leased Access channels.
(1) Specially Designated Public, Educational, Governmental (“PEG”) and leased access
channels.
(a) Within one hundred eighty (180) days after the Effective Date of this Franchise,
Company shall make available for access programming at least five (5) downstream video
channels on the Subscriber network for public, educational and governmental access. Two (2) of
the channels shall be specially designated for noncommercial public access; one (1) channel shall
be dedicated to local non-commercial municipally-produced community programming; one (1)
channel shall be specially designated for noncommercial access by local educational authorities;
and one (1) channel shall be specially designated for noncommercial access for local government
use. For the first one hundred eighty (180) days after the Effective Date of this Franchise, the
City may draft and provide to Company a written explanation regarding the PEG channels that
will soon be offered by the Company on the Company’s Cable Service offering. The City shall
email the content of this explanation, which shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) words, to
Company and Company shall, at its sole cost and free of charge to the City, print flyers
containing this explanation (“PEG Flyer”) that shall be distributed to Company’s field
technicians serving the City. The field technicians shall be instructed to include the PEG Flyer
in all Subscriber installation packets for the City of St. Louis Park until such time as the PEG
channels are available in the City.
(1) Company shall use Channel 22 in its channel lineup as a means to provide
ease of access by Subscribers to the access channels placed on channel numbers
significantly higher than the access channels have historically been placed under other
Cable Services franchises in the City. This type of channel shall be referred to as a
“Mosaic Channel.” The Mosaic Channel shall serve as a navigation tool for Subscribers,
which shall display the group of access channels on a single channel screen and also
provide for easy navigation to a chosen access channel in the group.
(2) Company shall use Channel 22 as a Mosaic Channel to display the access
channels required under this Franchise Ordinance. Company shall not include any other
programming or channels on the Mosaic Channel unless the City provides advance
written consent. City shall provide audio content for Mosaic Channel from their point of
origin (City Hall control room).
(3) The Mosaic Channel mechanism shall allow Subscribers to navigate
directly from Channel 22 to the requested access channel in a single operation without
any intermediate steps. When using the Mosaic Channel, Subscribers shall be directed to
the requested access channel in a high definition (HD) format if appropriate to the
Subscriber’s level of service; otherwise, the Subscriber shall be directed to the standard
definition (SD) access channel. The Mosaic Channel mechanism shall allow Subscribers
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 17
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
to navigate directly from Channel 22 to the requested Access Channels which shall be
located on Channel numbers 8114, 8115, 8116, 8117, and 8118 for the five (5) assigned
PEG Channels.
(4) Company shall consult with the City to determine the access channels
information displayed on the Mosaic Channel. However, the information shall have
video and audio strength, signal quality, and functionality equivalent to the highest
quality broadcast and commercial cable/satellite channels carried by the Company on its
Cable System in Mosaic format.
(b) At no time during the term of this Franchise Ordinance, shall the Company be
required to provide a greater number of PEG channels than the incumbent provider. The parties
recognize that under Minnesota State Law, Company is also required to provide one (1) channel
for regional PEG access, but Company is only required to provide this channel for so long as it is
required under State law, and the regional channel does not count against the channels described
above.
(c) To the extent required by state law, the VHF spectrum shall be used for a least
one (1) of the specially designated noncommercial public access channels required in this
section. Company shall provide reception on these channels to each of the Subscribers who
receive Basic Service. Company shall ensure that its delivery and transmission of PEG channels
and programming shall be without material alteration or degradation of picture or sound content
and will be of a quality consistent with FCC technical standards. In the event the Company
changes the access channel designations (numbers), the Company shall, to the extent possible,
provide sixty (60) days prior written notice of such change(s) to the City. In addition, the
Company shall provide reasonable notice of such change(s) to Subscribers via, for example, bill
stuffers or a channel crawl.
(2) PEG Carriage Requirements.
(a) While the parties recognize that while the primary signals of local broadcast
stations are simulcast in standard definition (SD) and high definition (HD) formats, the
Company’s obligation with respect to carriage of PEG in HD and SD formats shall be as follows:
(1) Company agrees to carry all access channels in HD provided the entity
originating the signal provides the Company an HD signal. Further, Company will
downconvert any such signal to an SD format so that Subscribers who choose not to
subscribe to an HD package may receive said signal in an undegraded SD format.
(2) Company is not required to convert a signal delivered in a lower quality
format to a higher quality format. The City shall have no obligation to provide a signal to
the Company in a HD format. Company shall obtain City PEG access channels at point
of origin (City Hall control room). Company shall include pass-through, any captioning
or text signals which are inserted by City or passed-through by City on its PEG access
channels.
(3) All PEG access channels must be receivable by Subscribers without
special expense in addition to the expense paid to receive commercial services the
Subscriber receives. City acknowledges that HD programming may require the viewer to
have special viewer equipment (such as an HDTV and an HD-capable digital
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 18
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
device/receiver), but any Subscriber who can view an HD signal delivered via the CATV
System at a receiver shall also be able to view the HD PEG channels at that receiver,
without additional charges or equipment. By agreeing to make PEG available in HD
format, Company is not agreeing to provide free HD equipment to customers including
complimentary municipal and educational accounts, or to modify its equipment or pricing
policies in any manner. City acknowledges that not every customer may be able to view
HD PEG programming (for example, because they do not have an HDTV in their home
or have chosen not to take an HD-capable receiving device from Company or other
equipment provider) or on every television in the home.
(b) The Company, upon request of the City, will promptly provide technical
assistance or diagnostic services to determine whether or not any audio, video or channel
information problem with the PEG signals is the result of matters for which the Company is
responsible, and if so the Company will take prompt corrective actions.
(c) The Company will provide any PEG access channels on the Basic Service tier
throughout the life of the Franchise, or if there is no basic tier, shall provide the PEG access
channels to any Person who subscribes to any level of Cable Service, and otherwise in
accordance with federal and state law. To the extent technically feasible, Company shall, upon
request from the City, provide City with quarterly viewership numbers for each of the PEG
access channels carried on Company’s CATV System.
(d) Company shall facilitate carriage of PEG access channels program listings on its
interactive programming guide, at no cost to the City, provided that the City shall hold Company
harmless should the City or PEG providers fail to provide correct or timely information to the
interactive guide programmers.
(e) If channels are selected through menu systems, the PEG access channels shall be
displayed in the same manner as other channels, and with equivalent information regarding the
programming on the channel. To the extent that any menu system is controlled by a third party,
Company shall ensure that the Company will provide PEG listings on that menu system, if it is
provided with the programming information by the City.
(3) Charges for Use of Public Access Channels. No charges shall be made for channel time
or playback of prerecorded programming on at least one (1) of the specially designated
noncommercial public access channels required by this section, provided, however, that
personnel, equipment, and production costs may be assessed for live studio presentations
exceeding five (5) minutes in length. Charges for such production costs and any fees or use of
other public access channels shall be consistent with the goal of affording the public a low cost
means of television access.
(4) Access Channel Rules. The governmental access channel, municipally operated channel,
and public access channels, shall be administered solely by the City. The local educational
channels shall be administered solely by ISD 283. The leased access channel(s) shall be
administered solely by the Company.
(5) Reduction of Channel Capacity. If available channel capacity is reduced in the future or
where demand for use does not warrant activation of all of the specially designated access
channels required in this section; public, educational, governmental and leased access channel
programming may be combined on one or more cable channels. To the extent consistent with
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 19
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
the City's rules and where time is available, access channels may also be used for other broadcast
and non-broadcast services, provided that such services are subject to immediate displacement
and may be replaced by access channels if City determines, in its sole discretion, that there is
demand to use the channel for its specially designated access purpose. To the extent required by
State law, Company shall, in any case, provide at least one (1) full channel on the VHF spectrum
for shared access programming. Available channel capacity shall be reduced or a determination
that demand for use does not warrant activation of all the specially designated access channels
required by this section shall be made only pursuant to the following procedure:
(a) Company will notify City of the proposed change;
(b) City shall make a determination following a process of review which takes into
account such rules as may be established by City for this purpose and which affords notice and
opportunity to be heard to all interested parties.
(6) Video on Demand. The Company shall provide HD/SD Video on Demand service
(VOD) for government and community programming. The VOD service to be provided herein
shall be limited to up to twenty (20) hours of HD or SD, as determined by the City, programming
per month and, in addition to City-provided content, may include ISD 283 programming. The
City will be solely responsible for determining programming priority and will be responsible for
providing Company with good quality masters in a format determined through mutual
agreement. A presentation form (stating program information, the City’s acceptance of
responsibility for content, “kill” dates, if applicable, and other matters) and content delivery
method will be determined through mutual agreement of the parties.
(7) PEG Fee.
(a) The PEG fee, payable quarterly to the City, shall be One and 12/100 Dollars
($1.12) per Subscriber, per month commencing on the Effective Date and continuing for the
duration of this Franchise Ordinance (“PEG Fee”). Upon sixty (60) days’ notice to Company,
City may elect to unilaterally increase the monthly per Subscriber PEG Fee. In no event shall the
PEG Fee be assessed in an amount or manner different from that imposed upon the incumbent
cable provider. In the event the incumbent cable provider agrees to or imposes a higher, or
lower, PEG Fee, Company will increase or decrease its PEG Fee upon sixty (60) days written
notice from the City. The PEG Fee may be used for operational or capital support of PEG
programming as determined in the City’s discretion.
(b) If any laws, rules, regulations or government authorizations would allow a
provider of multi-channel video programming or equivalent in the City’s Rights of Way to
provide multi-channel video programming or equivalent under less burdensome regulations or
regulatory structure than Company is operating under, the obligations of this section shall be
modified to reflect such changes.
(c) Company agrees that financial support for PEG arising from or relating to the
obligations set forth in this section shall in no way modify or otherwise affect Company’s
obligations to pay franchise fees to the City. Company agrees that although the sum of franchise
fees plus the payments set forth in this section may total more than five percent (5%) of
Company’s Gross revenues in any twelve (12) month period, the additional commitments shall
not be offset or otherwise credited in any way against any franchise fee payments under this
Franchise Ordinance.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 20
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
Sec. 28-1-15. Interconnection/service to government and school buildings.
(1) Programming Origination Sites. Company agrees to operate and maintain existing direct
connections and necessary equipment for the purposes of cablecasting programming on the
Subscriber network, as follows:
(a) from ISD 283 High School headend to City Hall control room racks.
(b) from ISD 283 football field grandstand to High School headend.
(c) from City Hall control room racks to Company headend.
(d) from Wolfe Park Veteran’s Memorial Amphitheatre to City Hall control room
racks.
(e) from designated equipment area in nearby Rec Center to City Hall control room
racks.
Company shall not be liable or responsible for any costs or expenses resulting from any City or
High School loss of or damage to connections or equipment or any changes to the City or High
School’s wiring implemented by a party other than Company.
(2) PEG Origination Connection. City agrees that Company shall be allowed to meet the
obligations of Section 28-1-15 (1) (a)–(d) by providing, free of charge and at no cost to the City,
a direct fiber connection and necessary equipment to transmit PEG programming from the City
Hall control room racks to the Company headend (“PEG Origination Connection”). In the event
Company is not able to obtain all of the PEG programming at the PEG Origination Connection,
the Company agrees to undertake construction of direct connections and necessary equipment to
each of the programming origination sites set forth in Section 28-1-15 (1) (a)–(e).
(3) Future Programming Origination Sites. At such time that the City determines the need
for additional programming origination sites (such as a school, City facility, other government
facilities or other designated facilities), the City will give Grantee written notice detailing the
point of origination and the capability sought by the City (i.e. the need to have the PEG
programming feed back to the City Hall control room). Grantee agrees to install and maintain
such fiber connection to the designation origination site within a reasonable period of time taking
into consideration weather and related technical issues.
(4) Free Service to City Buildings and Public Schools
(a) As part of its support for PEG use of the System, the Company shall provide, at
no cost to the City and to the affected institution, a free drop to the Subscriber network and free
Basic Service and Expanded Basic Service to each public and private school, public library
branch, police and fire station, community center and public building that requests a drop in
writing, and to such other public institutions as the City may reasonably request from time to
time provided such location is a Qualified Living Unit and not currently receiving service from
another provider. The initial list of such public buildings is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
However, City may determine to disconnect the other cable provider and require Company to
meet the free service obligation, as determined in City’s sole discretion. “Free” means no initial
charges, recurring charges or service charges.
(b) The Company is only required to provide a single free drop to the Subscriber
network, to a single outlet at a point within the location selected by that location. However, the
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 21
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
location may extend the drop to multiple outlets and receive free Basic Service and Expanded
Basic Service at each outlet so long as such extension does not result in any violations of leakage
standards which the Company is obligated to meet by the FCC. A location that wishes to install
multiple outlets may do so itself, or may contract with the Company to do so. Company shall
provide up to three (3) devices to each location free of charge so that the Services can be
received and individually tuned by each receiver connected to the drop at a location. If an
institution physically moves locations, such institution may move existing devices to the new
locations with a free drop, and the moved device will not count against the three additional
devices. Company will replace and maintain devices it provides or that it had provided as
necessary so that locations may continue to view the free services Company is required to
provide. Provided such location is a Qualified Living Unit and not currently receiving service
from another provider. However, City may determine to disconnect the other cable provider and
require Company to meet the free service obligation, as determined in City’s sole discretion.
(c) City may arrange a standard monthly fee for a DVR device, provided by
Company, to enable recording of PEG access channels to monitor signal quality.
(d) Company shall maintain the City Hall and the City Emergency Operations Center
located at the Police Station, 3015 Raleigh Avenue (“EOC”) and Fire Station 1 Emergency
Operations Center, 3750 Wooddale Avenue South as Qualified Living Units for the duration of
the Franchise. Company shall at all times provide and maintain, free of charge, a drop to the
Subscriber network, required set-top box and free Basic Cable and Expanded Basic Cable to the
City Hall and both EOC’s to allow the PEG access master control room at City Hall and the
EOC’s the ability to view (live) the Company’s downstream PEG programming channels on
Company’s Cable System so the City can monitor the PEG signals and make certain that PEG
programming is being properly received (picture and sound) by Subscribers.
(e) Company agrees that if any broadband service is required in order to receive the
free service obligation set forth in this section, Company will provide such broadband service
free of charge for the sole purpose of facilitating the provision free Cable Service required by
this section. Company agrees that it will not offset, deduct or reduce its payment of past, present
or future franchise fees required as a result of its obligation to providing devices or connections
or services to public facilities.
Sec. 28-1-16. System construction requirements.
(1) Permit Application. Company shall be responsible for application costs and approval of
all necessary permits required under the City’s generally applicable ordinances pertaining to its
work in Public Ways.
(2) Line Extension Policy. Company shall not have a line extension obligation until the first
date by which Company is providing Cable Service to more than fifty percent (50%) of all
Subscribers receiving facilities based Cable Service from both the Company and any other
provider(s) of Cable Service within the City. At that time, the City, in its reasonable discretion
and after meeting with Company, shall determine the timeframe to complete deployment to the
remaining households in the City, including a density requirement that is the same or similar to
the requirement of the incumbent franchised cable operator.
(3) City's Reservation of Rights. Neither the review of plans by the City nor the granting by
City of any licenses, permits, certificates, authorizations, approvals, etc., shall be construed as a
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 22
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
guarantee or warranty by the City of Company's CATV System. The Company shall not assert
the fact that the City has performed any prior review of its plans or exercised any ministerial
function in granting licenses, permits, certificates, authorizations, approvals, etc., as a defense
against its obligations to indemnify and hold the City harmless pursuant to Section 9-711(3).
Sec. 28-1-17. Fees, rates and charges.
(1) To the extent authorized by law, the City reserves its rights to regulate rates and charges
imposed by the Company (City received FCC Certification of Franchising Authority to Regulate
Basic Cable rates on 10-26-93).
(2) Notice of Rate Change. Company shall notify the City and Subscribers of changes in
rates as and to the extent required by 47 C.F.R. §76.1603.
Sec. 28-1-18. Conditions of public property occupancy.
(1) Approval of Proposed Construction. The Company shall first obtain the approval of the
Director of Engineering before any construction is commenced on streets, alleys, sidewalks,
driveways, Public Property or places of the City. Application for approval of construction shall
be in a form specified by the Director of Engineering. The Company shall give the City
reasonable written notice of proposed construction to allow coordination of all work between the
City and the Company.
(2) Excavation Permits. Company shall not open or disturb the surface of a Public Way for
any purpose without first having obtained a permit to do so in the manner provided by ordinance.
Company may apply for a single permit for all excavation. The amount charged by City to
Company for such permit shall be fair and reasonable.
(3) Changes Required by Public Improvements. Whenever the City undertakes any public
improvement which affects CATV System facilities, it shall direct the Company to remove or
relocate such equipment from the area of public improvement, at Company's expense.
Specifically, Company shall, at its expense, protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate in
or remove from a street, alley, sidewalk, driveway, or Public Property or place any property of
the Company when required by the Director of Engineering by reason of traffic conditions,
public safety, street vacation, street construction, change or establishment of street grade,
installation or improvement of sewers, drains, water pipes, power lines, signal lines, tracks or
any other type of structure, improvement or alteration of Public Property. If this public
improvement also requires public utilities to remove or relocate their equipment and the City
reimburses the utilities for their expenses incurred in the removal or relocation, the City shall
reimburse the Company on the same terms and conditions it reimburses the utilities. If the
utilities are reimbursed by some source other than the City, then City shall not be required to
reimburse the Company for its expenses but will provide the Company with reasonable
assistance in obtaining such reimbursement.
(4) Interference With or Hazard to Persons and Improvements. The Company's CATV
System, including all wires, conduits, cables and other property and facilities, shall be located,
constructed, installed and maintained so as not to endanger or unnecessarily interfere with the
lives of Persons or with the usual and customary trade, traffic and travel upon the streets, alleys,
sidewalks, driveways or Public Property and places of the City. The Company shall keep and
maintain all of its property in good condition, order and repair and make it available for
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 23
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
inspection at any reasonable time and upon reasonable notice. The City shall have the right to
inspect and examine property located in the Public Way that is owned or used, in part or in
whole, by the Company. Company shall not place poles or other equipment where they will
interfere with the rights or reasonable convenience of adjoining property owners, or with any
gas, electric, or telephone fixtures or with any water hydrants or mains. All poles or other
fixtures placed in a street shall be placed in the Right of- Way between the roadway and private
property as specified by the Director of Engineering.
(5) Method of Installation. All wires, cables, amplifiers and other property shall be
constructed and installed in an orderly and workmanlike manner. All cables and wires shall be
installed parallel with existing telephone and electric wires whenever possible. Multiple cable
configurations shall be arranged in parallel and bundled, in compliance with engineering and
safety considerations and standards. Any portion of a CATV System that is installed by
Company in a park or publicly owned open space area shall be installed underground in a
manner approved by the City. All installations shall be underground in those areas of the City
where public utilities providing telephone, cable, or electric utility facilities are underground at
the time of installation. In areas where either telephone and electric utility facilities are above
ground at the time of installation, the Company may install its facilities above ground provided
that at such time as all those facilities are required to be placed underground, the Company shall
likewise place its facilities underground without additional cost to the residents of the City
except as provided under City ordinance.
(6) Protection of Facilities. Nothing contained in this Franchise Ordinance shall relieve any
Person, company or corporation from liability arising out of the failure to exercise reasonable
care to avoid injuring Company's facilities while performing any work connected with grading,
regrading, or changing the line of any street or public place or with the construction or
reconstruction of any utility facility, sewer or water system.
(7) Notice of City Improvements. The City shall give the Company reasonable notice of
plans for street improvements where paving or resurfacing of a permanent nature is involved.
The notice shall contain the nature and character of the improvements, the streets upon which the
improvements are to be made, the extent of the improvements and the date of commencement of
work. Notice shall be given a sufficient length of time in advance to permit Company to make
any additions, alterations, or repairs to its facilities deemed necessary, considering seasonal
working conditions in advance of the actual commencement of work.
(8) Compliance with Codes. All construction, installation, maintenance and operation of
CATV Systems or facilities shall comply with the provisions of the National Electrical Safety
Code as prepared by the National Bureau of Standards, the National Electrical Code of the
National Board of Fire Underwriters, the Bell Telephone System Code of Pole Line construction,
standards issued by the FCC or other federal or state regulatory agencies, and local zoning
regulations. Every CATV System installed, constructed, maintained or operated in the City shall
be designed, constructed, installed, maintained and operated as not to endanger or interfere with
the safety of Persons or property in the City.
(9) Moving Wires. Upon request made at least five (5) days in advance by a holder of a
building moving permit for the purpose of moving buildings, the Company shall temporarily
raise, lower, or remove its wires. The holder of the building moving permit shall pay the
reasonable cost of the requested service and may be required to pay that amount in advance.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 24
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
(10) Trimming Trees. All trimming shall be done under the supervision and direction of the
City and at the expense of the Company. The Company shall not remove any tree within any
public place without the prior consent of the City. The Company shall be allowed to trim trees
upon and overhanging streets, alleys, sidewalks, driveways and public grounds and places of the
City to prevent the branches of the trees from coming in contact with the wires and cables of
Company. Regardless of who performs the work, the Company shall be responsible and shall
defend and hold City harmless for any and all damages to any tree or surrounding land as a result
of the trimming or removal.
(11) Restoration to Prior Condition. In case of any disturbance of a Public Way, the Company
shall, at its own cost and expense and in a manner approved by the City, replace and restore all
paving, sidewalk, driveway, foundation or surface of any street or alley disturbed, in as good
condition as before the work was commenced and in accordance with standards for such work
set by the City. If, upon reasonable written notice, the Company fails promptly to restore any
street or public place in accordance with this provision, the City shall have the right to put such
street or public place back into good condition at the expense of the Company and the Company
shall, upon demand, pay to the City and the cost of such work done or performed by the City.
(12) Interference With Reception. Company shall not allow its cable or other operations to
interfere with the broadcast reception of Persons not served by Company.
(13) Record of Equipment and Facilities to be Maintained. The Company shall at all times
make and keep at its business office complete and accurate plans and records showing the exact
location of all CATV System equipment and facilities installed or in use in the City and make
available such maps and records for the City's inspection promptly upon the City’s reasonable
request.
Sec. 28-1-19. Operation of the franchise/consumer service.
(1) Consumer Service Policies. The Company shall comply with applicable customer service
standards set forth at 47 C.F.R. 76.309, or other applicable state or federal requirements.
Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as a waiver by the City of any rights it may have to
adopt additional or modified consumer protection requirements to the extent authorized by
federal or state law.
(2) Consumer Complaints. The Company shall designate a local contact Person for City
representatives to contact in case complaints about the Company, its practices or services are
received by City staff. The Company is expected to normally resolve customer’s complaints
without City involvement, but when customer complaints are received by City staff and
forwarded to the Company contact, the Company shall resolve the customer complaint and notify
City staff of the outcome.
The Company shall provide a copy of pertinent Company customer service policies to the
City upon request, for verification that Company policies have been followed in complaints
received by the City.
(3) Repairs and Maintenance.
(a) Maintenance of the Cable System. The Company shall install and maintain the
CATV System so as to avoid unreasonable or repetitive interruptions in service to Subscribers.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 25
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
(b) Interruption of Service. Whenever it is necessary to interrupt service to make
tests, repairs, adjustments or installations, the Company shall do so during a period of minimum
Subscriber use. Unless an interruption is unforeseen and immediately necessary, the Company
shall give reasonable notice to the Subscribers affected. All costs incurred in effecting such
tests, repairs, adjustments or installations shall be borne by the Company unless otherwise
provided by law, ordinance or regulation, or it is the result of Subscriber negligence.
(4) Reports, Books and Records of Company.
(a) City's Right to Audit. Upon request, not more than once every three (3) years, the
City shall have reasonable access at mutually agreed-upon times to audit Company's accounting
and financial records at Company’s place of business upon reasonable notice as reasonably
necessary to verify Company’s compliance with its monetary obligations to the City under this
Franchise Ordinance. Company shall have the right to observe any such audit proceedings.
Such audit may not review records extending back further than three (3) years from the
commencement of such audit.
(b) Report on Operations. Upon request, the Company shall prepare and furnish to
the City at the time and in the form prescribed by the City Manager, such reports with respect to
its CATV System operations, affairs, transactions or property in the City, as may be determined
reasonably necessary to the City’s regulation of the CATV System pursuant to this Franchise
Ordinance.
(5) Filing Communications with Regulatory Agencies. As required by applicable law and
otherwise upon request, Company shall provide to City a copy of any petition, application or
similar communication that is submitted by the Company to the FCC, or other federal or state
regulatory commission or agency having jurisdiction in respect to any matter affecting CATV
System operations within the City.
(6) Reserved.
(7) Rules of the Company. The Company may promulgate such rules, regulations, terms and
conditions governing the conduct of its business as may be reasonably necessary to enable it to
exercise its rights and perform its obligations under the Franchise Ordinance and to assure an
uninterrupted service to any and all of its customers; except that such rules, regulations, terms
and conditions shall not be in conflict with the provisions of this Franchise Ordinance, other
ordinances of the City, or the laws of the State of Minnesota or the United States. Upon request,
a current copy of any such rules, regulations or terms and conditions shall be provided to the
City.
(8) Service Contract. If a written service contract is used by a Company in its dealings with
Subscribers, the Company shall provide a copy of such form contract to the City upon request.
(9) Reserved.
(10) Reserved.
(11) Preferential or Discriminatory Practices Prohibited.
(a) The Company shall establish and maintain an Equal Employment and Affirmative
Action Program providing that no individual shall be discriminated against with respect to
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 26
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
compensation, terms, conditions or other privileges or employment because of race, color, creed,
religion, sex, national or ethnic origin, physical condition, age, affectional preference or marital
status. The Company's Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Program shall, upon request,
be provided to the City Manager and shall be in compliance with current and future policies
established in the City's Affirmative Action Program, as well as with Section 635 of the Cable
Act of 1984. The Company shall strictly adhere to the Equal Employment and Affirmative
Action Program it files.
(b) The Company shall comply with or exceed all federal, state and local laws and
regulations relating to equal employment opportunity and non-discrimination.
(12) Subscriber Privacy. At all times, Company shall abide by the Subscriber privacy
provisions in applicable federal and state laws including 47 U.S.C. §551.
(13) Surveys. Company shall provide the City with the results of any non-confidential, non-
privileged survey of Subscribers in the City regarding Cable Service or the operation of the
CATV System.
(14) Periodic Review. The City may request a State-of-the-Art review of not more than once
during the initial five (5) year term of this Franchise Ordinance. In conducting a State-of-the-Art
review, the City shall undertake the following process:
(a) The City and the Company shall undertake a review of the then existing CATV
System. This review shall, at a minimum, take into account the following:
(1) Characteristics of the existing System;
(2) The State-of-the-Art;
(3) Additional benefits provided to customers by the State-of-the-Art;
(4) The market place demand for the State-of-the-Art;
(5) The use of a need for additional PEG access channels; and
(6) The financial feasibility of the State-of-the-Art taking into account
associated rate increases, and the premature retirement of assets.
(7) Other technologies present in the market place.
(b) The City shall hold a public hearing to enable the general public and Company to
comment and to present evidence.
(c) As a result of any review based on this section, the City and Company may enter
into good faith negotiations to amend this Franchise as necessary to provide system
improvements on a schedule that takes into account the impact on rates, recovery of costs,
benefit to Subscribers, and other factors agreed upon.
(d) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, City may not undertake a State of the
Art review at any time the Company is deemed subject to effective competition pursuant to then
applicable state or federal law.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 27
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
Sec. 28-1-20. Rights reserved; resolution of disputes.
(1) No Impairment of Eminent Domain. Nothing herein shall be construed to contract away,
modify or abridge, either for a term or in perpetuity, the City’s rights to eminent domain,
including any right of the City to acquire the property of the Company through the exercise of
the right of eminent domain.
(2) Administration of Franchise Ordinance. Subject to the control and direction of the
Council, the City Manager of City, or City Manager’s designee, shall be the designated
administrator responsible for the continuing administration of the Franchise Ordinance.
(3) Resolution of Disputes and Appeal Procedures. Prior to taking any enforcement action
authorized by Section 28-1-21, the City shall contact the Company’s designated representative
and attempt to resolve the dispute.
(4) City’s Transfer of Functions. Any right or power conferred, or duly imposed upon any
elected official, officer, employee, department, or board of the City shall be subject to transfer by
the City to any other elected official, officer, employee, department or board to the extent
permitted by applicable law.
Sec. 28-1-21. Enforcement.
(1) Failure to Enforce Provisions. The Company shall not be excused from complying with
any of the terms and conditions of the Franchise Ordinance by any failure of the City upon one
or more occasions to insist upon or to seek compliance with any such terms or conditions.
(2) Penalties. In addition to any other remedies provided in this Franchise Ordinance,
penalties for violations of this Franchise Ordinance are set forth below. As a result of any acts or
omissions by Company pursuant to the Franchise Ordinance, City may charge to and collect
from the Company, by drawing on the Letter of Credit set forth in Section 28-1-10, or otherwise
the following penalties:
(a) For failure to provide, after ten (10) days’ notice, data, documents, reports or
information or to cooperate with the City during a renewal process or CATV System evaluation
or in the conduct of City’s Franchise Ordinance enforcement and administration functions, the
penalty shall be Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per day.
(b) For failure to comply with any of the provisions of this Franchise Ordinance after
ten (10) days’ notice, for which a penalty is not otherwise specifically provided, the penalty shall
be Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per day.
(c) For failure to test, analyze and report on the performance of the CATV System
following a request by the City as set forth in this Franchise Ordinance and after ten (10) days’
notice, the penalty shall be Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per day.
(d) For failure of Company to comply with the construction, operation or
maintenance standards thirty (30) days following notice from the City, the penalty shall be Two
Hundred Dollars ($200.00) per day.
(e) For failure to comply with all conditions of City permits to disturb streets, fix
streets, or other terms or conditions of City, the penalty shall be Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per day.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 28
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
Nothing herein shall prevent the parties from mutually agreeing to extend the ten (10) day
periods referenced above.
(3) Notice of Violation. In the event that the City believes that the Company has not
complied with any material term of the Franchise Ordinance, the City shall informally discuss
the matter with Company. If these discussions do not lead to resolution of the problem, the City
shall notify the Company in writing of the exact nature of such alleged noncompliance.
(4) The Company’s Right to Cure or Respond. The Company shall have thirty (30) days
from receipt of the notice described in subsection (2) to: (a) respond to the City, contesting the
assertion of such noncompliance, or (b) cure such default, or (c) in the event that, by the nature
of such default, it cannot be cured within the thirty (30) day period, initiate reasonable steps to
remedy such default and notify the City of the steps being taken and the projected date that they
will be completed.
(5) Public Hearing. In the event that the Company fails to respond to the notice described in
subsection (3) pursuant to the procedures set forth in subsection (4), or in the event that the
alleged default is not remedied within thirty (30) days or the date projected pursuant to (3)(c)
above, if it intends to continue its investigation into the default, then the City shall schedule a
public hearing. The City shall provide the Company at least ten (10) days prior written notice of
such hearing, which specifies the time, place and purpose of such hearing, and provide the
Company the opportunity to be heard. Within thirty (30) days of the end of such hearing, the
City shall issue a written decision regarding whether a material default of the Franchise
Ordinance has been established by clear and convincing evidence in the record.
(6) Enforcement. Subject to applicable federal and state law, in the event the City, after the
hearing set forth in subsection (5), determines that the Company is in material default of any
provision of the Franchise Ordinance, the City may:
(a) Impose the penalties specified above and if prompt payment of the penalties is not
made by the Company, the City may draw on the letter of credit.
(b) Commence an action at law for monetary damages or seek other equitable relief;
or
(c) In the case of repeated or ongoing substantial non-compliance with a material
term or terms of the Franchise Ordinance, seek to revoke the grant of the Franchise Ordinance
pursuant to this Franchise Ordinance in accordance with subsection (7).
(7) Revocation. Should the City seek to revoke the grant of the Franchise Ordinance after
following the procedures set forth in subsections (3) through (6) above, the City shall give
written notice to the Company of its intent. The notice shall set forth the exact nature of the
repeated or ongoing substantial noncompliance with a material term or terms of the Franchise
Ordinance. The Company shall have ninety (90) days from such notice to object in writing and
to state its reasons for such objection. In the event the City has not received a satisfactory
response from the Company, it may then seek termination of the franchise Ordinance at a public
hearing before the City Council. The City shall cause to be served upon the Company, at least
thirty (30) days prior to such public hearing, a written notice specifying the time and place of
such hearing and stating its intent to revoke the Franchise Ordinance.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 29
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
At the designated hearing, Company shall be provided a fair opportunity for full
participation, including the right to be represented by legal counsel, to introduce relevant
evidence, to require the production of evidence, to compel the relevant testimony of the officials,
agents, employees or consultants of the City, to compel the testimony of other Persons as
permitted by law, and to question witnesses. A complete verbatim record and transcript shall be
made of such hearing.
Following the hearing, the City Council shall determine whether or not the Franchise
Ordinance shall be revoked. If the City Council determines that the Franchise Ordinance shall be
revoked, the City Council shall promptly provide Company with its decision in writing. The
Company may appeal such determination of the City Council to an appropriate court which shall
have the power to review the decision of the City Council de novo. Company shall be entitled to
such relief as the court finds appropriate.
(8) Force Majeure. The Company shall not be held in default under, or in noncompliance
with, the provisions of the Franchise Ordinance, nor suffer any enforcement or penalty relating to
noncompliance or default, where such noncompliance or alleged defaults occurred or were
caused by circumstances reasonably beyond the ability of the Company to anticipate and control
including, acts of God, insurrection, war, riot, vandalism, strikes, sabotage, or any other event
beyond the reasonable control of Company. This provision includes work delays caused by
waiting for utility providers to service or monitor their utility poles to which the Company’s
CATV System is attached, as well as unavailability of materials and/or qualified labor to perform
the work necessary.
Furthermore, the parties hereby agree that it is not the City’s intention to subject the
Company to penalties, fines, forfeitures or revocation of the Franchise Ordinance for violations
of the Franchise Ordinance where the violation was a good faith error that resulted in no or
minimal negative impact on the Subscribers within the Franchise Area.
Sec. 28-1-22. Renewal.
The process for renewing this Franchise Ordinance shall be as provided under 47 U.S.C.§
546 and other applicable federal and state law.
Sec. 28-1-23. Removal after termination or revocation.
(1) At the expiration of the term for which this Franchise Ordinance is granted, or upon its
revocation or termination, as provided for herein, and final determination of non-renewal, City
shall have the right to require Company to remove, at Company’s expense, all or any portion of
the CATV System used exclusively for the provision of Cable Service from all streets and Public
Property within City. In so removing the CATV System, Company shall refill and compact at its
own expense any excavation that shall be made by it and shall leave all streets and Public
Property in as good a condition as that prevailing prior to Company’s removal of the CATV
System, and without affecting, altering or disturbing in any way electric telephone or other utility
cable, wires or attachments. City shall have the right to inspect and approve the condition of
such streets and Public Property after removal. The letter of credit, bonds, insurance, indemnity
and penalty provisions of the Franchise Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect during the
entire term of removal.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 30
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
(2) If Company has failed to commence removal of System as set forth in Section 28-1-
23(1), or such part thereof as was designated by City, within thirty (30) days after written notice
of City’s demand for removal is given, or if Company has failed to complete such removal
within one year after written notice of City’s demand for removal is given, City shall have the
right to exercise any of the following options:
(a) Declare all right, title and interest to the CATV System to be in City with all
rights of ownership including, but not limited to, the right to operate the CATV System or to
transfer the CATV System to another for operation.
(b) Declare the CATV System abandoned and cause the CATV System or such part
thereof, as City shall designate, to be removed at the expense of the Company. The cost of said
removal shall be recoverable from the letter of credit, bonds, insurance, indemnification and
penalties provided for in this Franchise Ordinance or from Company directly as liquidated
damages.
Sec. 28-1-24. Expiration or revocation of franchise.
(1) Expiration; Extended Operation. Upon the expiration of a Franchise Ordinance, the City
may by resolution direct the Company to operate the Franchise Ordinance for an extended period
of not to exceed six (6) months after the date of expiration. The Company agrees to comply with
such a direction. All provisions of the Franchise Ordinance shall continue to apply to operations
during an extension period. The City shall serve written notice at the Company’s business office
of intent to extend under this section at least thirty (30) days prior to expiration. Nothing in the
foregoing affects Company’s rights to a franchise renewal under 47 U.SC. §546.
(2) Injunctive Relief. Pending final disposition of proceedings to revoke a Franchise
Ordinance or during a period of extension of a Franchise Ordinance after expiration, the City
may obtain injunctive relief to obtain compliance with the provisions of the Franchise Ordinance
and maintain the continuity of service to Subscribers. Such relief shall be in addition to and not
in lieu of other remedies available to the City. If the City prevails, the costs shall be borne by
Company including reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements.
(3) Right of City to Purchase; Disposition of Facilities. Upon expiration of the terms of the
Franchise Ordinance, or upon a revocation or termination of this Franchise Ordinance, or if
renewal of this Franchise Ordinance is denied, the City shall have the right to acquire the
facilities used exclusively for CATV System. Any such acquisition shall be at fair market value,
determined on the basis of the CATV System as a going concern but with no value allocated to
the Franchise Ordinance itself. If the Franchise Ordinance held by Company is revoked or
terminated for cause and the City determines to acquire ownership of the CATV System or
effects a transfer of ownership of the CATV System to another Person, any such acquisition or
transfer shall be at an equitable price.
(4) Restoration of Property Upon Removal. In removing its plants, structures and
equipment, the Company shall refill at its own expense, any excavation that shall be made by it
and shall leave all public ways and places in as good condition as that prevailing prior to the
Company’s removal of its equipment and appliances, without affecting the electric or telephone
cables, wires or attachments. The Director of Engineering shall inspect and approve the
condition of the public ways and public places and cables, wires, attachments and poles after
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 31
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
removal. Liability insurance, indemnification and the security for performance required by this
Franchise Ordinance shall continue in full force and effect during the period of removal.
The City shall have a right to all available remedies, including drawing on Company’s
letter of credit required by Section 28-1-10 of this Franchise Ordinance, in order to enforce the
requirements of this section.
Sec. 28-1-25. Abandonment.
Company shall not abandon the CATV System or any portion thereof without having first
given three (3) months’ written notice to City. Abandonment shall not occur unless first
approved by the City after reasonable opportunity to review. Upon showing by Company of
need for abandonment and an opportunity for the City to determine other areas for the continuity
of service, the City shall evaluate any damage, claim or loss that may be applicable as a
consequence of such abandonment. In order to accomplish this, the City shall conduct a public
hearing after providing reasonable notice to all affected Persons as to the date, time and place of
the hearing. Thereafter, before abandonment occurs, the City shall notify the Company of its
determination and any Person, including City, entitled to damages and the amount and basis
therefore. Company shall not abandon the CATV System or any portion thereof without
compensating City for damages resulting to it from the abandonment.
Sec. 28-1-26. Unauthorized connections.
It shall be unlawful for any Person to make an unauthorized connection, whether
physically, electrically, acoustically, inductively or otherwise, with any part of the franchised
CATV System within the City for the purpose of taking or receiving television signals, radio
signals, pictures, programs, sound, or any other service provided by the Company.
Sec. 28-1-27. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, paragraph, term, or provision of this Franchise
Ordinance is determined to be illegal, invalid, or unconstitutional, by any court of competent
jurisdiction or by any state or federal regulatory authority having jurisdiction thereof, such
determination shall have no effect on the validity of any other section, subsection, sentence,
paragraph, term or provision hereof, all of which will remain in full force and effect for the term
of this Franchise Ordinance.
Sec. 28-1-28. Work performed by others.
(1) Upon request, Company shall promptly give notice to City specifying the names and
addresses of any other entity, other than Company, which performs services pursuant to this
Franchise Ordinance, provided, however, that all provisions of this Franchise Ordinance remain
the responsibility of Company.
(2) All provisions of this Franchise Ordinance shall apply to any subcontractor or others
performing any work or services pursuant to the provisions of this Franchise Ordinance.
Sec. 28-1-29. Administration and advisory body.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 32
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
(1) Administrator. The City Manager or the City Manager’s designee shall be responsible
for the continuing administration of this Franchise Ordinance. The administrator may be
changed by City from time to time by written notice given to Company.
(2) Advisory Body. City may appoint an advisory body to monitor the performance of
Company in executing the provisions of this Franchise Ordinance. The advisory body shall
perform all functions required of it by the Council and applicable laws, ordinances, rules and
regulations.
(3) Delegation of Authority by City.
(a) City reserves the right to delegate and re-delegate from time to time any of its
rights or obligations under this Franchise Ordinance to anybody or organization.
(b) Any delegation by City shall be effective upon written notice by City or Company
of such delegation.
(c) Upon receipt of notice by Company of City’s delegation, Company shall be
bound by all terms and conditions of the delegation not in conflict with this Franchise Ordinance.
(d) Any such delegation, revocation or re-delegation, no matter how often made, shall
not be deemed an amendment to this Franchise Ordinance or require any consent of Company.
Sec. 28-1-30. Time of acceptance; exhibits.
(1) Company shall have thirty (30) days from the last date of adoption of this Franchise
Ordinance to accept this Franchise Ordinance in form and substance acceptable to City, unless
the time for acceptance is extended by City. If this Franchise Ordinance is not accepted by
Company in accordance with the terms of this section, this Franchise Ordinance shall be null and
void and without effect. The City’s “Notice of Intent to Consider an Application for a
Franchise” (“Notice”) provided, consistent with Minn. Stat. 238.081 subd. 8, that applicants
would be required to reimburse the City for all necessary costs of processing a cable
communications franchise. Company submitted an application fee with its application to the
City. The Notice further provided that any unused portion of the application fee would be
returned and any additional fees required to process the application and franchise, beyond the
application fee, would be assessed to the successful applicant. The Company shall therefore
submit to the City at the time of acceptance of this Franchise, a check made payable to the City
of St. Louis Park, Minnesota for all additional fees and costs incurred by the City. Within thirty
(30) days of City Council approval, the City shall provide Company with a letter specifying such
additional costs. The City shall provide Company with a letter specifying such additional costs
following approval of this Franchise by the City Council.
(2) Upon acceptance of this Franchise Ordinance, Company and City shall be bound by all
the terms and conditions contained herein. This Franchise Ordinance constitutes the entire
agreement between the Company and the City and supersedes all other prior understandings and
agreements oral or written. Any amendments to this Franchise Ordinance shall be mutually
agreed to in writing by the parties.
(3) All of the attached exhibits are a part of this Franchise Ordinance and each is specifically
incorporated herein by reference. The exhibits are as follows:
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 33
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
Exhibit A: List of City and school district buildings at which Company is capable of
providing free service as set forth in Section 28-1-15(2)(a).
Exhibit B: Indemnity Agreement.
Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective fifteen (15) days after its
passage and publication and after acceptance by the Company pursuant to Section 28-1-30.
ADOPTED this day of , 2015, by the City
Council of the City of St. Louis Park.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
ACCEPTED: This Franchise Ordinance is accepted, and we agree to be bound by its terms and
conditions.
QWEST BROADBAND SERVICES,
INC. D/B/A CENTURYLINK
Date: , 2015 By:
Its:
SWORN TO BEFORE ME this
day of , 2015.
NOTARY PUBLIC
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 34
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
Exhibit A
Free Cable Service to Schools and Public Buildings
City of St. Louis Park:
City Hall
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
St. Louis Park Recreation Center and Wolfe Park Pavilion
3700 Monterey Drive
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Municipal Service Center
7305 Oxford Street
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
Fire Station One
3750 Wooddale Avenue
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Fire Station Two
2262 Louisiana Avenue
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
West End Community Police Station
1623 West End Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Westwood Hills Nature Center
8300 West Franklin Avenue
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
Police Station
3015 Raleigh Avenue
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Meadowbrook Community Police Station
4072 Meadowbrook Lane
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
Excelsior/Grand Community Police Station
4717 Park Commons Drive
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Texatonka Community
Police Station
8038 Minnetonka Blvd
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 35
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
ISD 283:
Lenox Community Center
6715 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
Central Community Center
6300 Walker Street
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Park Spanish Immersion School
6300 Walker Street
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Aquila Elementary School
8500 West 31st Street
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
Peter Hobart Elementary School
6500 West 26th Street
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Susan Lindgren Elementary School
4801 West 41st Street
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Cedar Manor Intermediate Center
9400 Cedar Lake Road
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
St. Louis Park Middle School
2025 Texas Avenue South
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
St. Louis Park High School
6425 West 33rd Street
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
District Maintenance Shop
6400 Walker Street
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Cable TV connection to Non-Public Schools is by arrangement between the system operator and
each school.
Certain school buildings are currently being provided service through school-owned transmission
facilities. The City agrees that free service to such schools shall be contingent upon continued
availability of such school-owned transmission facilities, technical feasibility or some other
mutually acceptable arrangement.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 36
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
EXHIBIT B
Indemnity Agreement
INDEMNITY AGREEMENT made this ____ day of _____________________, 2015,
by and between Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, party of the first part,
hereinafter called “CenturyLink,” and the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota Municipal
Corporation, party of the second part, hereinafter called “City.”
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has awarded to Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. a
franchise for the operation of a cable communications system in the City of St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, the City has required, as a condition of its award of a cable communications
franchise, that it be indemnified with respect to all claims and actions arising from the award of
said franchise,
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing promises and the mutual
promises contained in this agreement and in consideration of entering into a cable television
franchise agreement and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, CenturyLink hereby agrees, at its sole cost and expense, to fully indemnify,
defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, boards, commissions, employees and agents
against any and all claims, suits, actions, liabilities and judgments for damages, cost or expense
(including, but not limited to, court and appeal costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees and
disbursements assumed or incurred by the City in connection therewith) arising out of the actions
of the City in granting a franchise to CenturyLink. This includes any claims by another
franchised cable operator against the City that the terms and conditions of the CenturyLink
franchise are less burdensome than another franchise granted by the City or that the CenturyLink
Franchise does not satisfy the requirements of applicable federal, state, or local law(s). The
indemnification provided for herein shall not extend or apply to any acts of the City constituting
a violation or breach by the City of the contractual provisions of the franchise ordinance, unless
such acts are the result of a change in applicable law, the order of a court or administrative
agency, or are caused by the acts of CenturyLink.
The City shall give CenturyLink reasonable notice of the making of any claim or the
commencement of any action, suit or other proceeding covered by this agreement. The City shall
cooperate with CenturyLink in the defense of any such action, suit or other proceeding at the
request of CenturyLink. The City may participate in the defense of a claim, but if CenturyLink
provides a defense at CenturyLink’s expense then CenturyLink shall not be liable for any
attorneys’ fees, expenses or other costs that City may incur if it chooses to participate in the
defense of a claim, unless and until separate representation is required. If separate representation
to fully protect the interests of both parties is or becomes necessary, such as a conflict of interest,
in accordance with the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, between the City and the
counsel selected by CenturyLink to represent the City, CenturyLink shall pay, from the date such
separate representation is required forward, all reasonable expenses incurred by the City in
defending itself with regard to any action, suit or proceeding indemnified by CenturyLink.
Provided, however, that in the event that such separate representation is or becomes necessary,
and City desires to hire counsel or any other outside experts or consultants and desires
CenturyLink to pay those expenses, then City shall be required to obtain CenturyLink’s consent
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 37
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
to the engagement of such counsel, experts or consultants, such consent not to be unreasonably
withheld. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties agree that the City may utilize at any time,
at its own cost and expense, its own City Attorney or outside counsel with respect to any claim
brought by another franchised cable operator as described in this agreement.
The provisions of this agreement shall not be construed to constitute an amendment of the
cable communications franchise ordinance or any portion thereof, but shall be in addition to and
independent of any other similar provisions contained in the cable communications franchise
ordinance or any other agreement of the parties hereto. The provisions of this agreement shall not
be dependent or conditioned upon the validity of the cable communications franchise ordinance
or the validity of any of the procedures or agreements involved in the award or acceptance of the
franchise, but shall be and remain a binding obligation of the parties hereto even if the cable
communications franchise ordinance or the grant of the franchise is declared null and void in a
legal or administrative proceeding.
It is the purpose of this agreement to provide maximum indemnification to City under the
terms set out herein and, in the event of a dispute as to the meaning of this Indemnity Agreement,
it shall be construed, to the greatest extent permitted by law, to provide for the indemnification of
the City by CenturyLink. This agreement shall be a binding obligation of and shall inure to the
benefit of, the parties hereto and their successor's and assigns, if any.
QWEST BROADBAND SERVICES, INC.
Dated: _______________, 2015 By: __________________________________
Its: __________________________________
STATE OF LOUISIANA )
) SS
)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of 2015, by
________________________, the _____________________ of Qwest Broadband Services, Inc.,
a Delaware Corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
___________________________________
Notary Public
Commission Expires__________________
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 38
Title: CenturyLink Franchise Ordinance Second Reading
SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION
ORDINANCE NO. ___-15
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 28
OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES
RELATING TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
ENACTING A COMPETITIVE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE ORDINANCE
This ordinance states that Chapter 28 of the Ordinance Code relating to Telecommunications
shall be amended relative to enacting a Competitive Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance
by adding Article I. Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink Franchise, Sections 28-
1-1 to 28-1-30.
The ordinance grants a franchise to CenturyLink for five (5) years. The terms and conditions of
the Franchise Ordinance include financial payments by CenturyLink to the City to help provide
public, educational and government programming. Other provisions include an office in the
area, equipment drop-off and payment boxes within the City, and insurance and security
requirements. A staff report providing a more detailed description of the business terms of the
Franchise Ordinance is available at City Hall or upon request to City staff (952-924-2517).
The ordinance shall take effect fifteen (15) days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council ______ , 2015
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor: November 26, 2015
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Award of the 2016 Arts and Culture Grants
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the award of the 2016
Arts and Culture Grants.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council approve of the suggested grants?
SUMMARY: The Council has supported the Arts and Culture Grant program since its inception
in 2006. Each year the Arts & Culture Grant Committee offers a grant to fund art projects and
cultural activities that build bridges between artists and communities, engages people in creative
learning, and promotes artistic production and cultural experiences in St. Louis Park. This
program is funded through the city’s budget process ($16,000). St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts
provides technical assistance.
The review committee is comprised of the St. Louis Park Community Foundation, Friends of the
Arts, city staff, Discover St. Louis Park and community members. They reviewed the
applications and identified applicants whose proposals best met the objectives and are
compatible with the Council’s strategic direction for arts and culture. For the 2016 grant process,
fifteen applications were received and the following three were recommended for approval:
Sabes Jewish Community Center Performing Arts: $2,000 to be used for the production of
three performances of “They Called Her Captain”, performed by Maggie Bearmon Pistner, about
her mother, Jeanne Goldoff. Performances will take place in March of 2016 at the Sabes Jewish
Community Center.
United Artist Collaborative: $7,500 for the production of eight performances of “The
Illusionist: Shakespeare Reveals All-The Operetta” by Jerry Wilson, St. Louis Park playwright
and author. Performances will take place in the spring of 2016 at Sabes Jewish Community
Center Performing Arts and at the Veterans Memorial Amphitheater in Wolfe Park.
Stacia Goodman: $6,500 for the creation of a themed mosaic piece to be displayed in the St.
Louis Park Rec Center involving the community and mosaic demonstrations at the unveiling.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This program is funded from the Housing
Rehab Fund. The total amount granted for art projects in 2016 will be $16,000.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to promoting an integrating arts,
culture and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where
appropriate.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Senior Office Assistant
Lisa Abernathy, Recreation Supervisor
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Award of the 2016 Arts and Culture Grants
RESOLUTION NO. 15-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AWARD OF ST. LOUIS PARK
ARTS & CULTURE GRANTS TO SABES JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER
PERFORMING ARTS, UNITED ARTIST COLLABORATIVE,
AND STACIA GOODMAN
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park created this program in 2006 with the assistance
of Friends of the Arts and the St. Louis Park Community Foundation to create and support a
grant program to fund art projects and cultural activities that build bridges between artists and
communities, engage people in creative learning, and promote artistic production and cultural
experiences in St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, fifteen applicants responded to the call for proposals and were evaluated by
a committee comprised of representatives of the St. Louis Park Community Foundation, Friends
of the Arts, city staff, and community members; and
WHEREAS, the committee recommends the City Council fund three (3) grant proposals
for a total of $16,000.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, authorizes execution of grant agreements with the following organizations
based on the review committee’s recommendations and the applicants’ proposals.
1. Sabes Jewish Community Center Performing Arts is awarded a maximum of $2,000.
2. United Artist Collaborative is awarded a maximum of $7,500.
3. Stacia Goodman is awarded a maximum of $6,500.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Meter Program Amendment
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve implementing an option to the Water Meter
Program.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to amend the water meter program
to allow an alternative water meter option?
SUMMARY: Staff has received feedback from a few property owners concerned about possible
health risks associated with the radio frequency signal transmitted by the R900 Meter Interface
Unit (MIU). Both the World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society have studied
this issue and concluded that despite a significant amount of research on electromagnetic
frequencies (EMF), there is still no recognized, reproducible link to cancer or other diseases.
Nevertheless, to remain responsive to our residents, staff has worked with our consultant,
contractor and residents to identify a viable alternative to the R900. This option will only be
made available to residents expressing significant health related concerns over the R900’s use of
EMF radio technology. The option consists of installing an MIU that does not use EMF
technology to transmit a recurring signal to the data collectors. Rather, the optional MIU will
only transmit to a handheld data collection unit if activated by the collector and held within six
feet of the device.
There will be a $50 fee per meter read charged to the property owner to recover the costs
associated with having to read these MIUs manually. Property owners will be required to
complete the attached application to be considered for the alternate water meter device (MIU).
This has been by City Attorney, Soren Mattick.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost of this option will be passed on to
the resident.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Application for Alternate Water Meter
Prepared by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: Meter Program Amendment
APPLICATION FOR
ALTERNATE WATER METER
Applicant Information
Last Name: First Name: M.I.
Street Address:
City: State: ZIP:
Phone: Email:
Account Number:
I am requesting an exterior-mounted, alternate meter reading system (Touchpad)
due to health reasons.
Reason:
Signature and Certification of Acceptance of Responsibilities
1. I certify, as property owner, that I am requesting an exterior-mounted, alternate meter
reading system.
2. I authorize a city designee to access the owner’s private property and physically connect
to the remote meter-reading receptacle (Touchpad) to obtain the water usage
information required for billing.
3. I agree to pay the $50 charge quarterly for the added cost the city will incur for every
actual or estimated meter reading, which will be applied to the owner’s utility bill.
4. I agree the cost for reading my meter will be $200 annually ($50 per quarter).
5. I understand the city may change to monthly utility billing. If that happens, my cost for
reading my meter will increase to $600 annually ($50 per month).
6. I understand that the non-radio read metering device does not have leak detection
capabilities; therefore I will be responsible for any high water and sewer bills that occur
due to a leak.
Signature: Date:
Please include date: _________________ and time: _____________ to schedule a
meter change.
If you have any questions regarding this application form or the process, please call Jay
Hall, Utilities Superintendent at 952-924-2557 or email jhall@stlouispark.org
Please fill out the application form, sign and date, then mail to:
St. Louis Park Utilities
7305 Oxford Street
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Resolution Authorizing State Bonding Requests
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing submittal of state
bonding requests.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council support submitting bonding requests to
the State for funding in 2016?
SUMMARY: Earlier this summer city staff submitted a preliminary bonding request to the
State for several capital improvement items for the 2016 bonding bill. Most of the items are
related to SWLRT, plus one item is for the implementation of a whistle quiet zone along the
MNS (north/south) rail line (please see attached list). A final list was submitted on October 16,
2015.
The bonding grant request goes to the Governor for creating his capital budget in January.
Capital bonding projects are those that are publicly owned and serve a public purpose. They are
for capital only, not operating, maintenance or repair. Bond funding through the state is limited
to 50% of the cost and therefore requires a 50% match.
The request covers many of the capital items that have been included in city plans and/or
committed to through the city’s action on SWLRT Locally Requested Capital Improvements
(LRCIs), the city’s request to have them included into the base LRT project, and those
improvements identified in the TSAAP/Investment Framework Plan as necessary for the opening
day of the transit line.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The current bonding request totals
$18,614,000, which is fifty percent of the identified costs; the remaining funding must be
provided through other sources.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMNETS: List of State Funding Requests
Resolution
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, CD Deputy Director/Housing Supervisor
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Title: Resolution Authorizing State Bonding Requests
List of State Funding Requests
City of St. Louis Park
Total
Bonding Request
(50%)
Priority
WHISTLE QUIET ZONE 4
Whistle Quiet Zone - MN&S $ 2,100,000 $1,050,000
LOUISIANA AVENUE STATION AREA 3
South Wye Removal $1,500,000
TSAAP Improvements - Opening Day $ 3,120,000
Pedestrian Walk to Hospital $2,000,000
Regional Trail Underpass $300,000
Subtotal $ 6,920,000 $3,460,000
WOODDALE AVENUE STATION AREA 2
Pedestrian Trail Underpass Stairway $ 45,000
Xenwood Roadway Extension $ 18,000,000
TSAAP Improvements - Opening Day $ 1,438,000
Subtotal $19,483,000 $9,741,500
BELTLINE BOULEVARD STATION AREA 1
Regional Trail Overpass Stairways $ 126,000
Lynn Avenue Extension $ 1,600,000
TSAAP Improvements - Opening Day $ 6,074,000
Beltline Blvd/CSAH 25 Intersection Improvements $ 925,000
Subtotal $ 8,725,000 $4,362,500
OVERALL TOTAL $37,228,000
STATE BONDING REQUEST $18,614,000
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Title: Resolution Authorizing State Bonding Requests
RESOLUTION NO. 15-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF
STATE BONDING REQUEST FOR IMPROVEMENTS RELATED
TO SWLRT STATION AREAS AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF WHISTLE QUIET ZONE IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Management and Budget Office conducts a process for
submitting bonding requests to the State; and
WHEREAS, a Strategic Priority for the City of St. Louis Park is “to be a connected and
engaged community” and the city is a supporter and active partner in the Southwest Light Rail
Transit Project (“SWLRT Project”); and
WHEREAS, St. Louis Park and its citizens have dedicated enormous effort, time and
resources into visioning the city’s LRT station areas, including planning, engineering, analyzing,
discussing, and gaining community input in anticipation of the line; and
WHEREAS, there is an identified need for a number of improvements relating to
preparation for SWLRT in the community that protect neighborhoods and support transit usage
by addressing auto, bus, bike and pedestrian access and connections and implementing whistle
quiet zones; and
WHEREAS, the identified needs are in excess of $37 million for opening day in 2020; and
WHEREAS, the priorities for funding are (highest to lowest): Beltline Boulevard Station
Area, Wooddale Avenue Station Area, Louisiana Station Area, and Whistle Quiet Zones.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of St. Louis Park hereby submits
bonding requests for $18,614,000 as shown on the attached table.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Amended Lease Agreement with Mn/DOT for Webster Park
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Execution of a
Renewed Lease with the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) for
Webster Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue this lease with
Mn/DOT?
SUMMARY: For the last 44 years the City of St. Louis Park has operated and maintained a
public park facility, Webster Park, located on Webster Avenue and West 33rd Street. A portion of
this park area is property owned by the Mn/DOT.
The State continues to offer a no cost lease to the City in return for maintenance and upkeep of
the property. Mn/DOT drafted Amendment No. 8, a two-year lease that will expire on November
30, 2017. The City will be able to renew the lease at that time. This amendment is consistent
with the terms and conditions of previous lease agreements. The prior lease was for two years.
When the Highway 100 project is complete, staff intends to work with Mn/DOT to acquire this
property.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funds for maintenance of this park are
already included in the Park and Recreation Department budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Senior Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Title: Amended Lease Agreement with Mn/DOT for Webster Park
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A RENEWED
LEASE WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, is the fee owner of a
vacant land parcel on the northwest quadrant of the junction of T.H. 7 and T. H. 100 within the
City of St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, under the terms and conditions of lease
agreements with the State of Minnesota, has operated and maintained a public park facility on
this site for several years; and
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota is offering to renew a lease with the City of St.
Louis Park which would allow the City to continue operation and maintenance of a public park
on this site through November 30, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has, in past years, allowed the City to maintain the
property in lieu of rent.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park City Council that the
continued lease of this property for public park use is in the best interest of the citizens of St.
Louis Park, and that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute said lease.
Reviewed for St. Louis Park: Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4f
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Extension of Deadline for CUP for a Kia Automotive Dealership at 6475/6501
Wayzata Boulevard
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve a one-year extension for the Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) for NLD 394 LLC (Resolution 14-168) to construct a new Kia Automotive
Dealership.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to extend the deadline for the CUP to
construct a new Kia Dealership?
SUMMARY: NLD 394 LLC is requesting a one-year extension to the time limit provided in
City Code for construction to begin under a CUP. A CUP was approved by the Council on
November 17, 2014 permitting an automotive dealership with service and repair located at 6475
& 6501 Wayzata Boulevard.
The reason for the request is due to corporate restructuring at the national level for Kia and
environmental contamination on the site. The corporate restructuring affected the development of
new dealerships throughout the country and the underwriting and approval process for new
locations. The applicant is working with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, which has
approved their Voluntary Response Action Plan to address soil contamination which includes
petroleum products and other hazardous substances. The applicant’s request is attached.
The conditions of the approved CUP have not changed and will not change if the extension is
approved. Staff is recommending approval of the one-year extension, set to expire November 17,
2016.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: No financial assistance has been requested.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Site Plan
Letter from Applicant Requesting CUP Extension
Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Planner
Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Title: Extension of Deadline for CUP for a Kia Automotive Dealership at 6475/6501 Wayzata Boulevard
Attachment: Site Plan
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4f) Page 3
Title: Extension of Deadline for CUP for a Kia Automotive Dealership at 6475/6501 Wayzata Boulevard
Attachment: Letter from Applicant Requesting CUP Extension
October 28, 2015
Applicant: NLD 394 LLC, Allison Kern
Resolution No. 14-168
Pursuant to Resolution No. 14-168, NLD 394 LLC has been granted Conditional Use
Permits relating to Zoning to Permit Grading, Motor Vehicle Sales, Service and Repair for
Property Zoned C-2 General Commercial District Located at 6475 and 6501 Wayzata Boulevard.
Applicant is requesting a one (1) year extension to the one (1) year period under which Applicant
is to make use of the premises according to the provisions contained in the Permit.
Our proposed project for the complete redevelopment of the subject site into a new KIA
Automobile Dealership is still moving forward. However, due to a slow corporate approval
process on the side of the end user as well as challenges and required investigation and
documentation related to the current environmental condition of the Property, progress toward
starting construction has been delayed. All new dealership locations must be approved at the
national level by the manufacturer (Kia Motors Corporation) as a suitable market location.
Additionally, the intended operator of the location must be approved and qualified to enter into a
location specific dealer contract, which involves significant financial and operational
underwriting of the individuals with ownership in the dealership operations. Earlier this year,
there was corporate restructuring at the national level for Kia that reorganized the market
managers and significantly set back the process of shepherding new locations through the
approval pipeline, which contributed to our delay. In recent months, the appropriate
representatives have made multiple site visits to this market and have given their verbal approval
of the location. The dealer that we are working with is already an approved and experienced
operator for multiple Kia locations in the state of Minnesota. However, there is no way to
shortcut the dealer underwriting process, as each new location must start over with a new
submission of a complete and detailed underwriting package. We have been advised that
resolution of both formal location and approval and dealer approval is imminent.
We have simultaneously been advancing our investigation and quantification of the
extent and location of environmental contamination on the property. The subject property was
historically undeveloped land and marshland that was filled with various fill and debris prior to
development of the current improvements. The indiscriminate fill and debris placed on the site
(presumably dump operations) resulted in high levels of petroleum product and hazardous
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4f) Page 4
Title: Extension of Deadline for CUP for a Kia Automotive Dealership at 6475/6501 Wayzata Boulevard
substance impacts to soils and groundwater. We have obtained Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) approval of our Voluntary Response Action Plan to address and mitigate
environmental impacted soil as we encounter it during the course of our proposed construction.
We recently conducted additional geotechnical borings and sampling data to help in finalizing
construction costs associated with stabilizing the property and disposal costs of impacted soil. At
this time, we are not seeking grant funds to assist with the impacts of the contamination, due to
the long lead time required for the approval process. However, should we continue to see delays
in the start of our project, we may wish to revisit available grant sources.
Our updated proposed timeline for improvements is anticipated to include building
permit submittal and construction bidding to occur over the winter, and break ground on the site
and building improvements in Spring 2016, with occupancy and opening for business to occur by
Summer 2016.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Consent Agenda Item 4g
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Board and Commission Annual Meeting with Council Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution amending the Rules and
Procedures for Boards and Commissions updating Section I: Annual Meeting with Council
Program.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does City Council agree with the changes to Rules and
Procedures for Boards and Commissions regarding the Annual Meeting with Council Program?
SUMMARY: Earlier this year, Council directed staff to develop a process whereby all
Commissions would meet collectively to present their annual report to Council. The purpose of
this report is to outline a revised process for the proposed “Annual Meeting with Council
Program.”
On September 28th, 2015 Administrative staff presented a proposed Board and Commissions
Annual Meeting with Council process. At that meeting Council proposed several changes to the
process that have been incorporated and include: expanding the timing of presentations, and
obtaining feedback from current Boards and Commissions on the proposed process. Boards and
Commissions were informed and the changes have been incorporated in this document
The proposed “Annual Meeting with Council Program” would take place at the beginning of
each calendar year and would be conducted as follows:
• Participating board or commissions would prepare a written report for Council review
and submit it prior to the annual meeting. This report would include activities undertaken
in the past year and goals or activities for the upcoming year.
• Council would meet with Board or Commission Members at an annual meeting. If
approved the first annual meeting will be held February 22, 2016. At this meeting,
participating Boards and Commissions would have a spokesperson present their activities
and upcoming initiatives. Due to the number of presentations, each will be afforded a
total time of 20 minutes with 10 minutes dedicated to their presentation on activities and
future goals, and the remaining 10 minutes reserved for discussion with the City Council.
Formal approval is requested to amend the Rules and Procedure for Boards and Commissions to
add this program.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Anisha Murphy, Administrative Intern
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Title: Board and Commission Annual Meeting with Council Program
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Currently in the Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions, each
board or commission prepares a draft written report for the Council which includes activities
undertaken in the past year, a progress report on the previous year’s goals, and goals for the
coming year. After reviewing the report, the Council may meet with the group in a study session
to discuss the report and other issues of concern to the commission prior to approving the report
and, as needed, may request the Commission to also provide a mid-year progress report.
On Jan 26th, 2015 Council directed staff to modify the annual reporting for Commissions and
develop a process where all come together on an annual basis to present their annual reports at a
study session.
• Currently, there are twelve (12) Boards or Commissions represented throughout the City
of St. Louis Park.
• Eight (8) Boards or Commissions follow the procedures to complete the annual reports to
City Council at the Annual Meeting with Council Program.
• Based on the nature of the work of these commissions and past practice these four (4)
Boards and Commissions do not have annual reporting or presentations: Charter
Commission, Fire Civil Service Commission, Bassett Creek Water Management
Commission (BCWMC), and Community Education Advisory Commission.
On September 28th, 2015, Administrative staff presented a proposed Board and Commissions
Annual Meeting with Council process. At this meeting Council proposed several changes to the
process that have been incorporated and include: expanding the timing of presentations, and
obtaining feedback from current Boards and Commissions on the proposed process. Boards and
Commissions were informed of the proposed process, and the changes have been incorporated in
this document. Below is the summary of the new program:
New Annual Board and Commission Meeting Program Process
Written Reports:
• For each calendar year, each board or commission shall prepare a draft written report for
the Council which includes activities undertaken in the past year, a progress report on the
previous year’s goals, and goals for the coming year.
• Each board or commission must submit an electronic copy of their annual reports to the
staff liaison for each Board or Commission no later than January 31 each year.
• Reports are submitted to the Council prior to the annual board and commission meeting.
Presentation Instructions
• All participating board and commission members will be invited to the annual meeting.
• Each board or commission will select 1 representative from their respective organizations
to present the annual report including goals and initiatives for the upcoming year.
• Each Commission is allowed 20 minutes total for presentation and discussion
o 10 minutes for presentation of their annual report
o 10 minutes allotted to City Council for any questions, comments, and follow-up
requests.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4g) Page 3
Title: Board and Commission Annual Meeting with Council Program
The following Boards and Commissions will participate:
1. Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA)- 5 members (6:00-6:20PM)
2. Planning Commission-8 Members (6:20-6:40PM)
3. Telecommunications Advisory Commission- 8 members (6:40-7:00PM)
4. Housing Authority- 5 members (7:00-7:20PM)
5. Human Rights Commission- 8 Members (7:20-7:40PM)
6. Parks and Recreations -8 Members (7:40-8:00PM)
7. Police Advisory Commission- 12 members (8:00-8:20PM)
8. Environment and Sustainability Commission-13 members (8:20-8:40PM)
The tentative schedule for Boards and Commissions Night is as follows:
• 5:30PM
o Check-in & welcome
o Food/ refreshments provided
• 6PM- 8:40PM (1:15 minutes in total for presentations)
o Ten (10) minutes per annual report
o Ten(10) minutes for questions, comments, and follow-up requests from City
Council
• 8:40-9 PM- Wrap-up/Adjourn
Next Steps
• Adopt Resolution amending the Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions
updating Section I: Annual Report and replace it with: Annual Meeting with Council
Program.
• Begin planning and setting up the “Annual Board and Commission Meeting” night.
(Tentatively scheduled for February 22, 2016. From 5:30-9pm at Rec Center.)
• Inform Boards and Commissions of new program.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4g) Page 4
Title: Board and Commission Annual Meeting with Council Program
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION AMENDING
RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS,
REVISING AND RESTATING SECTION I - ANNUAL REPORT,
ADDING ANNUAL MEETING WITH COUNCIL
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Council has established certain boards and
commissions to serve as advisory to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes its various boards and commissions to comply with
all regulations to which they are subject concerning conduct of meetings including those
provisions contained in the Minnesota State Statutes, the City Charter and the Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has revised the Section I Annual Report deleting the
current language and replacing it as follows:
I. Annual Meeting with Council Program
Council has a process whereby all participating Boards and Commissions would meet
collectively to present their annual report to Council at the “Annual Meeting with
Council Program.” Program details are outlined below:
Annual Written Report
Each participating board or commission listed below shall prepare a written report for the
Council which includes activities undertaken in the past year, a progress report on the
previous year’s goals, and goals for the coming year. Every effort should be made to
submit the report to the Council by January 31st.
The following boards or commissions will participate:
• Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA)
• Planning Commission
• Telecommunications Advisory Commissions
• Housing Authority
• Human Rights Commission
• Parks and Recreations
• Police Advisory Commission
• Environment and Sustainability Commission
Annual Meeting and Presentation Instructions
• Annual Meeting with Council will take place each calendar year as outlined in
procedures on file with the City Manager
• All participating board and commission members listed above will be invited to the
annual meeting.
• Each board or commission will select one (1) representative from their respective
organizations to present their annual report and future goals or initiatives.
• Each board or commission is allowed a limited timeframe, (for example, 20 minutes
total) for presentation and discussion with Council.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4g) Page 5
Title: Board and Commission Annual Meeting with Council Program
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of St. Louis Park hereby
amends the “Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions” section I as stated above and
shall adhere to the rules as stated therein unless revised by a majority vote of the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4h
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Rd Apartments, LLC
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
• Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the First Amendment to the Contract for Private
Redevelopment with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC.
• Motion to Adopt Resolution approving Partial Assignment and Assumption of
Redevelopment Contract between the Redeveloper and Lake West Development.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA and City Council support extending the required
completion date of the two single family houses required under the Redevelopment Contract as
specified in the proposed First Amendment and consenting to a Partial Assignment and
Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between the Redeveloper and Lake West Development?
SUMMARY: The EDA and City entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment with Cedar
Lake Road Apartments, LLC on July 1, 2014 related to the redevelopment of 6800 & 6720 Cedar
Lake Road (former Eliot School property) and the construction of the Eliot Park Apartments
Under the Contract, the Developer agreed to construct two apartment buildings with 138 market
rate units between them as well as two single family houses. To date, the apartment buildings
have received their Temporary Certificates of Occupancy and are expected to meet their required
completion date of 12/1/15 stipulated under the Contract. However the two single family houses
will not be completed by the required completion date as the Developer only recently reached an
agreement to sell the parcels to a single family home contractor - Lake West Development -
which has constructed more than 20 houses in St. Louis Park.
The Developer has therefore requested a First Amendment to the Contract extending the required
completion date of the two houses until 12/31/16 so as to allow sufficient time to construct the
houses. It has also requested EDA and City consent to a Partial Assignment and Assumption of
Redevelopment Contract between the Redeveloper and Lake West Development Co., LLC (the
“Assignee”). Under the Assignment, the Assignee will assume the Redeveloper’s obligation to
construct the single-family homes and to ensure a minimum assessed market value of $250,000
per home. The Redeveloper will retain all of the rights and obligations under the Contract
related to ongoing management and maintenance of the apartments, and reimbursements of
Public Redevelopment Costs through the TIF Note. These documents are similar to previous
partial assignments to third parties, i.e. the assignment of a portion of the West End Contract in
2014. The EDA’s legal counsel prepared the First Amendment and Partial Assignment and
Assumption and recommends their approval.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolutions of Approval
First Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment
Partial Assignment and Assumption
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor, Deputy CD Director
Approved by Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT OF
A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
BETWEEN THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS
PARK, AND CEDAR LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS LLC
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council (the “Council”) of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the “City”) as follows:
Recitals.
1.01. Pursuant to its authority under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082
and 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the
“Authority”), with the approval of the City, created the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing
District within its Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”), for the purpose of facilitating the
redevelopment of certain substandard property within the Project.
1.02. The Authority, the City, and Cedar Lake Road Apartments LLC (the “Redeveloper”)
executed a Contract for Private Redevelopment, dated as of July 1, 2014 (the “Contract”),
providing, among other things, for the construction of certain improvements (the “Minimum
Improvements”) on the property legally described within the Contract (the “Redevelopment
Property”).
1.03. The parties have negotiated and propose to execute a First Amendment to the
Contract (the “First Amendment”) to extend the deadline for the completion of construction of a
portion of the Minimum Improvements.
Section 2. First Amendment Approved.
2.01. The First Amendment as presented to the Council is hereby in all respects
approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are
approved by the Mayor and City Manager, provided that execution of the First Amendment by
such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval.
2.02. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the
City the First Amendment and any documents referenced therein requiring execution by the City,
and to carry out, on behalf of the City, its obligations thereunder.
2.03. City staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out
the intent of this resolution.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 3
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 4
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. _________
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PARTIAL
ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
BETWEEN CEDAR LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS, LLC AND
LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council (the “Council”) of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the “City”) as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) is currently
administering its Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act"), and within the Project has established the Eliot Park Tax
Increment Financing District (“TIF District”), with the approval of the City.
1.02. The Authority, the City, and Cedar Lake Road Apartments LLC (the “Redeveloper”)
entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of July 1, 2014, as amended (the
“Contract”), regarding the construction on the Redevelopment Property within the TIF District of
certain Minimum Improvements consisting of an Apartments component and a Single-Family
Homes component, as such terms are defined in the Contract.
1.03. The Redeveloper has now determined that it is in the best interest of the Project and
TIF District to assign its obligations under the Contract solely as to the Single-Family Homes
component to Lake West Development Co., LLC (the “Assignee”), and the Assignee intends to
construct the Single-Family Homes on the Redevelopment Property in accordance with the terms of
the Contract, all pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between
the Redeveloper and the Assignee (the “Assignment”).
1.04. The Council has reviewed the Assignment and finds that the approval and execution
of the City’s consent thereto are in the best interest of the City and its residents.
Section 2. City Approval; Other Proceedings.
2.01. The Assignment, including the Consent of the City related thereto, as presented to
the Council is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the
substance of the transaction and that are approved by the Mayor and City Manager, provided that
execution of the consent to the Assignment by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of
approval.
2.02. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City
the Consent related to the Assignment and any other documents requiring execution by the City in
order to carry out the transaction described in the Assignment.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 5
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
2.03. City staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out
the intent of this resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 6
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
This agreement is made as of November ____, 2015, by and between the ST. LOUIS PARK
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body politic and corporate (the
“Authority”), the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”),
and CEDAR LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the
“Redeveloper”).
WHEREAS, the Authority, the City, and the Redeveloper entered into that certain Contract
for Private Redevelopment dated as of July 1, 2014 (the “Contract”) providing, among other things,
for the construction of certain improvements (the “Minimum Improvements”) on the property
legally described within the Contract (the “Redevelopment Property”); and
WHEREAS, the parties have determined to extend the dates of commencement and
completion of construction of a portion of the Minimum Improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the
parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
1. Amendment to Section 4.3(a) of the Contract. Section 4.3(a) of the Contract is
amended as follows:
(a) As of the date hereof, the Redeveloper has completed construction of the Apartments
component of the Minimum Improvements. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall
substantially complete construction of the Single-Family Homes component of the Minimum
Improvements by December 31, 2016. All work with respect to the Minimum Improvements to be
constructed on the Redevelopment Property shall be in substantial conformity with the Construction
Plans as submitted by the Redeveloper and approved by the Authority.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 7
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
2. Miscellaneous. Except as amended by this Amendment, the Contract shall remain in
full force and effect. Upon execution, Redeveloper shall reimburse the Authority for all out-of
pocket-costs incurred by the Authority in connection with negotiating, drafting and approval of this
Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority, the City, and the Redeveloper have caused this
Agreement to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first above
written.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
By
Its President
By
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of November, 2015
by Anne Mavity and Tom Harmening, the President and Executive Director of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
Authority signature page to First Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 8
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of November, 2015
by Jeff Jacobs and Tom Harmening, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of St. Louis Park, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
City signature page to First Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 9
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
CEDAR LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS LLC
By
W. Dean Weidner, as Trustee of the W. Dean
Weidner Living Trust under Trust Agreement Dated
10-23-98, as amended
Its Sole Member
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS.
COUNTY OF KING )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of __________,
2015, by W. Dean Weidner, as Trustee of the W. Dean Weidner Living Trust under Trust
Agreement Dated 10-23-98, as amended, as the Sole Member of Cedar Lake Road Apartments
LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
THIS DOCUMENT DRAFTED BY:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered (MNI)
470 US Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
Redeveloper signature page to First Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 10
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT
THIS CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT (“Consent”) is made as of the ___ day of
November, 2015, by and among CEDAR LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company (“Redeveloper”), THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota
municipal corporation (“City”), and THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Minnesota
(“EDA”).
RECITALS:
A. Redeveloper, City and EDA entered into that certain Contract for Private Redevelopment
dated as of July 1, 2014, as amended by a First Amendment thereto dated as of November
16, 2015 (the “Contract”), providing for the phased redevelopment of certain property
defined in the Contract as the Redevelopment Property;
B. The capitalized terms used herein that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the
meanings attributed to them in the Contract;
C. Redeveloper has requested the written consent of the City and EDA to Redeveloper’s
assignment of certain obligations and rights under the Contract as said obligations and
rights pertain to the Single-Family Homes and Single-Family Property (as defined in the
Assignment described below) and the assumption by Lake West Development Co., LLC
(the “Assignee”) of said obligations and rights pursuant to a certain Partial Assignment
and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract dated as of November __, 2015 by and
between the Redeveloper and the Assignee (the “Assignment”), a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and
D. The Contract calls for the consent of the City and EDA as to assignments by the
Redeveloper to third-parties.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 11
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto
agree as follows:
1. Consent to Assignment. The City and EDA acknowledge that all of the
Redeveloper’s rights and obligations under the Contract and any related
instrument pertaining to the Single-Family Homes and Single-Family Property
only (as such terms are defined in the Assignment) are assigned to the Assignee
under and subject to all the terms and conditions of the Assignment, and the City
and EDA hereby consent to the Assignment. The Assignment does not constitute
a default under the Contract or in any way alter or affect Redeveloper’s rights or
obligations as Redeveloper under the Contract to the extent such rights or
obligations are not assigned to the Assignee under the Assignment; specifically,
and without limitation, the Assignment does not affect Redeveloper’s rights to
receive any and all payments due under the Note to be delivered to Redeveloper
in connection with the Public Redevelopment Costs described in Section 7.3 of
the Contract.
2. Effect of Assignment. From and after the date of the Assignment and the transfer
of the Single-Family Property to the Assignee, any default by the Assignee under
the Contract (or other instrument related to the Contract) shall not constitute a
default by the Redeveloper under the Contract (or other instrument), and such
default, and any consequences thereof, shall have no effect on Redeveloper, the
Apartments or the Apartment Property (as such terms are defined in the
Assignment) or on the Tax Increment or Note (as such terms are defined in the
Contract). The City and EDA shall look solely to Assignee and the Single-Family
Property to cure any such default. The City and EDA acknowledge that
Redeveloper would not enter into the Assignment without reliance on this
provision.
3. Limitation of Consent. Redeveloper acknowledges that the City and EDA are
consenting to a limited assignment of the obligations and rights of the
Redeveloper under the Contract as described in the Assignment, and that
Redeveloper shall retain all other obligations and rights under the Contract.
4. Parties Bound. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the
successors and assigns of the parties hereto; provided that neither the Redeveloper
nor the Assignee shall assign their respective rights and obligations under the
Contract without the further consent of the City and EDA.
5. Only Written Amendments. This Agreement may not be modified in any manner
or terminated except by an instrument in writing by the parties hereto.
6. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 12
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
date first written above.
CEDAR LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company
By
W. Dean Weidner, as Trustee of the W. Dean
Weidner Living Trust under Trust Agreement Dated
10-23-98, as amended
Its Sole Member
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS.
COUNTY OF KING )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
__________, 2015, by W. Dean Weidner, as Trustee of the W. Dean Weidner Living Trust under
Trust Agreement Dated 10-23-98, as amended, as the Sole Member of Cedar Lake Road
Apartments LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 13
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate
and politic under the laws of Minnesota
By: __________________________________________
Its: President
By:__________________________________________
Its: Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _______, 2015
by Anne Mavity and Thomas Harmening, the President and Executive Director of the St. Louis
Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of
the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 14
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation
By: ___________________________________________
Its: Mayor
By: __________________________________________
Its: City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of
________________, 2015 by Jeff Jacobs and Thomas Harmening, the Mayor and City Manager
of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of
Minnesota on behalf of the municipal corporation.
Notary Public
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 15
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
EXHIBIT A
Partial Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Redeveloper and
Assignee
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 16
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
THIS ASSIGNMENT, made as of this ____ day of November, 2015, by and between
CEDARL LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company
(“Assignor”) and LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company (“Assignee”).
RECITALS:
A. Assignor entered into that certain “Contract for Private Redevelopment” by and
between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”), the City of St.
Louis Park (the “City”) and Assignor, dated as of July 1, 2014, and recorded in the office of the
Hennepin County Recorder on October 6, 2014, as Document No. A10123833, and filed in the
office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles on October 6, 2014, as Document No.
T05204697 (the “Redevelopment Agreement”);
B. Pursuant to the Redevelopment Agreement, Assignor is obligated to construct two
components of Minimum Improvements, consisting of the Apartments and the Single-Family
Homes, as these terms are defined in the Redevelopment Agreement, on certain property located
in the City and described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Single-Family Property” and the
“Apartments Property”, and together the “Redevelopment Property”);
C. Assignor, the Authority, and the City have agreed to enter into a First Amendment
to the Redevelopment Agreement, extending the deadline for completion of construction of the
Single-Family Homes component of the Minimum Improvements to December 31, 2016;
D. Assignor desires to assign certain of its rights and interests in the Redevelopment
Agreement, solely with respect to construction of the Single-Family Homes component of the
Minimum Improvements, to Assignee.
E. Assignee acknowledges it is the intent of Assignor to retain any and all rights and
interests in the Redevelopment Agreement that pertain to the Apartments component of the
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 17
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
Minimum Improvements and the Apartments Property, and further acknowledges that certain
rights, interests and obligations of Redeveloper shall be held jointly by Assignor and Assignee,
as specifically set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereto agree as follows:
1. Assignor does hereby grant, transfer and assign to Assignee, certain of its rights,
obligations and interests in the Redevelopment Agreement with respect to the
Single-Family Homes and Single-Family Property only, and subject to the
following exceptions and limitations:
a. Any action, consent, or warranty or approval granted or made by
Assignor pursuant to the Redevelopment Agreement whether or prior to
or subsequent to the date hereof shall be binding upon Assignee.
b. Assignor and Assignee shall each maintain responsibility pursuant to
Section 3.5 for payment of Authority Costs related to any obligations
under the Redevelopment Agreement pertaining to the Apartments and
the Single-Family Homes respectively, and any further amendments
thereto.
c. Assignor and Assignee each shall maintain responsibility pursuant to
Section 4.3(b) for all communications with the Authority as to
scheduling, completion and commencement issues under the
Redevelopment Agreement.
d. Assignee expressly assumes the obligation to construct the Single-
Family Homes component of the Minimum Improvements in the
timeframe provided in Section 4.3, as amended pursuant to the First
Amendment, and to ensure a completed minimum market value of
$250,000 per Single-Family Home as provided in Section 6.3.
e. Assignor retains and shall have full right, title and interest in receiving
any and all Available Tax Increment described in Section 7.3 of the
Redevelopment Agreement.
f. Assignee may not amend the Redevelopment Agreement without the
prior written consent of Assignor.
2. Assignee hereby accepts this Assignment and assumes and agrees to faithfully
abide by, perform and discharge each and every term, covenant and condition for
the Redevelopment Agreement which are to be performed by the Assignor
thereunder as to the Single-Family Homes and the Single-Family Property or
otherwise set forth in Paragraph 1 above from and after the date hereof and to
defend and hold Assignor harmless from any lawsuits, claims, damages, costs and
expenses, including actual attorney fees and disbursements arising in connection
with the Redevelopment Agreement, except those arising from events occurring
or arising prior to the date hereof, pertaining to the Apartments or Apartments
Property, or any other obligations specifically retained by Assignor and set forth
in Paragraph 1 above.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 18
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
3. This Assignment and Assumption shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit
of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Assignment and Assumption
Agreement as of the date first indicated above.
CEDAR LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS LLC, as Assignor
By
W. Dean Weidner, as Trustee of the W. Dean
Weidner Living Trust under Trust Agreement Dated
10-23-98, as amended
Its Sole Member
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS.
COUNTY OF KING )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
__________, 2015, by W. Dean Weidner, as Trustee of the W. Dean Weidner Living Trust under
Trust Agreement Dated 10-23-98, as amended, as the Sole Member of Cedar Lake Road
Apartments LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 19
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC, as assignee
By: ________________________________________________
__________________, its ____________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
This instrument was acknowledged before me, a notary public, on this ______ day of
_______________, 2015, by _____________________, the ___________________ of Lake
West Development Co., LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
470879v1 MNI SA285-101
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 20
Title: First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC
EXHIBIT A
Redevelopment Property
Apartments Property:
Lot 1, Block 1, Eliot Park Apartments, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Single-Family Property:
Lot 2, Block 1, Eliot Park Apartments, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Lot 3, Block 1, Eliot Park Apartments, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Traffic Study No. 660: Authorize Permit Parking Restrictions at 3145 Idaho Avenue
South
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing installation of permit
parking restrictions at 3145 Idaho Avenue South.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The restriction is allowed per the City’s established regulatory
authority.
SUMMARY: In October, staff received a request by Mr. Roderick Nieminski to restrict on-
street parking in front of his house at 3145 Idaho Avenue South. Mr. Nieminski needs accessible
parking for transportation pickup and drop off for his medical needs. Due to other on-street
parking which occurs on this street, Mr. Nieminski has requested the City install permit parking
in front of his home.
Staff has discussed this request with Mr. Nieminski. Installation of handicapped parking signs is
not feasible since the parking stall design requirements cannot be met on this local street.
However, the City’s Traffic Policy and past practice do allow for permit parking in this situation.
It has been the City’s practice to use permit parking, which can then be removed when the
individual needing the access no longer resides there or no longer needs the access.
Staff has verified the need for the request and supports the installation of permit parking for
handicap access at 3145 Idaho Avenue South. This recommendation is based on the following:
1. The resident of the household has limited mobility and is eligible for a disabled
person’s parking permit.
2. Parking conflicts with neighbors will be eliminated.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost of enacting these controls is
minimal and will come out of the general operating budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Map
Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Title: Traffic Study No. 660: Authorize Permit Parking Restrictions at 3145 Idaho Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PERMIT PARKING RESTRICTIONS
AT 3145 IDAHO AVENUE SOUTH
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 660
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to establish a parking restriction based
upon permit issuance in front of 3145 Idaho Avenue South.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The Engineering Director is hereby authorized to install permit parking at 3145 Idaho
Avenue South.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2015
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4i) Page 3
Title: Traffic Study No. 660: Authorize Permit Parking Restrictions at 3145 Idaho Avenue South
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 660
3145 Idaho Avenue South
(Permit Parking)
PERMIT PARKING
3145 Idaho Avenue South
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4j
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Accept Monetary Donation from Estate of Alice Trainer to the Operations &
Recreation and Fire Departments
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a
monetary donation from the Estate of Alice Trainer in the amount of $43,920.00 for
improvements to Lamplighter Park and $43,920.00 to the Fire Department for use at their
discretion.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions
on its use?
SUMMARY: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is
necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the
use of each donation prior to it being expended.
St. Louis Park resident Alice Trainer passed away and designated $43,920.00 for improvements
to Lamplighter Park along with $43,920.00 to be used at the discretion of the Fire Department.
These donations were given with the restriction that they be used for park improvements at
Lamplighter Park ($43,920.00) and at the discretion of the Fire Department ($43,920.00).
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: These donations will be used for
improvements at Lamplighter Park and at the discretion of the Fire Department.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Senior Office Assistant
Sue Rasmussen, Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation
Steve Koering, Fire Chief
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4j) Page 2
Title: Accept Monetary Donation from Estate of Alice Trainer to the Operations & Recreation and Fire Departments
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
IN THE AMOUNT OF $87,840.00
FOR THE OPERATIONS & RECREATION DEPARMENT
AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize
acceptance of any donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by
the donor; and
WHEREAS, the estate of Alice Trainer donated $43,920.00 for improvements to
Lamplighter Park along with $43,920.00 to be used at the discretion of the Fire Department; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to Alice Trainer with the understanding that
$43,920.00 must be used for park improvements at Lamplighter Park and $43,920.00 to be used
at the discretion of the Fire Department.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4k
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Resolution Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt a Resolution supporting and approving a
Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application submitted by Perspectives
Inc. for activities pertaining to clean-up of contaminated soil located at 7008 Walker Street.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council support Perspective Inc.’s submission of a
grant application to Hennepin County to fund clean-up of contaminated soils at 7008 Walker
Street?
SUMMARY: The building located at 7008 Walker St was purchased by Perspectives Inc., and
removed in October of 2015. The building was in severe disrepair, and could not be saved. It is
Perspectives’ intent to construct a parking lot at 7008 Walker St to facilitate an expansion of
their facility located across the street at 3381 Gorham Ave. The parking lot will require a
Conditional Use Permit for off-site parking. Perspectives is preparing its application, and the
request will be submitted later in November.
Hennepin County has made funding available for development projects that require clean-up of
contaminated soils, of which Perspectives Inc. is requesting $127,584. Phase I and Phase II
environmental studies were conducted. Contamination was found on a portion of the building’s
concrete floor where chemicals used by the printing business that occupied the building from
1940 to 2015 were stored, as well as other soil contamination. The extent of the contamination is
further explained in the attached application.
A resolution from the city supporting and approving the grant application is required by
Hennepin County to be submitted with the grant application. A resolution is attached for your
consideration. The resolution has been written to reflect the specific language required by
Hennepin County. It authorizes and approves the submittal of the application only; it does not
indicate approval of the pending CUP application.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The grant request is for $127,584. There is
no match requested of the city.
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: Resolution
Environmental Response Fund Grant Application
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4k) Page 2
Title: Resolution Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AND APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE
FUND GRANT APPLICATION TO HENNEPIN COUNTY SUBMITTED BY
PERSPECTIVES INC, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7008 WALKER STREET
WHEREAS, Perspectives Inc. owns property located at 7008 Walker Street, and intends
to remove the building and construct a parking lot to provide required parking for their facility
located at 3381 Gorham Ave; and
WHEREAS, 7008 Walker is located in an area of St. Louis Park where chlorinated
solvent groundwater impacts and associated soil vapor impacts are being evaluated by the
Minnesota Department of Health, the Minnesota pollution Control Agency, and the
Environmental Protections Agency; and
WHEREAS, Perspectives applied to Hennepin County for an Environmental Response
Fund Grand in the amount of $127,584; and
WHEREAS, the funds, if approved, will be used to remove contaminated materials from
the site; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, after appropriate examination and due
consideration, the City Council supports and approves Perspectives’ application for an
Environmental Response Fund Grant for the project component(s) identified in the application
dated November 1, 2015.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
1
Environmental Response Fund
Grant Application
Project Name:Perspectives Parking Lot (Capital Campaign Phase II)
Total Amount Requested from ERF: __$127,584_____
Applicant:Perspectives, Inc.
Address: 3381 Gorham Avenue, St. Louis Park, MN 55426
Phone: (952) 926-2600 Fax: (952) 926-9395
E-mail: ccochrane@perspectives-family.org
Municipality:St. Louis Park, MN
Project Contact Person:Cheryl Cochrane, CFO, Perspectives, Inc.
Phone: (952) 405-2525 Fax: (952) 926-9395
E-mail: ccochrane@perspectives-family.org
Application Preparer:Cheryl Cochrane, Perspectives, Inc./Jennifer Force, Terracon
Phone: (952) 405-2525/(763) 489-3166Fax: (952) 926-9395/(763)489-3101
E-mail: ccochrane@perspectives-family.org/jennifer.force@terracon.com
Revised March 2015
Hennepin
CountyEnvironment and
Energy Contaminated
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4k)
Title: Resolution Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application Page 3
I. SITE INFORMATION
Name of Site Perspectives Capital Campaign Phase II
(Building name, location, reference, etc.)
Site Address 7008 Walker Avenue
City (or Township) St. Louis Park
Hennepin County District No. _3____
Property Identification No. _17-117-21-42-0005___
If enrolled in an MPCA program, list the following:
VIC/Petroleum Brownfield’s Program I.D. # VP32610
LUST Program I.D. # NA
Other NA
1. Is this site the previous recipient of an ERF grant for assessment? NO
2. Is this application for an assessment, RAP development, or cleanup?
Cleanup
3. Does this application request funds for property acquisition? NO
4. Current property owner
Perspectives, Inc.
5. Property owner after cleanup
Perspectives, Inc.
6. Is the property under the applicant’s control? YES
If YES, please describe ownership status, including date of purchase.
Purchased property on 7/30/15
If NO, describe what steps are planned to gain site control/ownership. Please
describe any and all planned agreements and their expected dates of execution.
7. If the applicant is not a municipality or if the ERF grant, if awarded, will be
subgranted by the municipality to a third-party, please list the names of the
grantee/subgrantee’s owner(s), officers, board of directors or LLC members.
Not applicable
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4k)
Title: Resolution Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application Page 4
3
8. Have the grantee/subgrantee owner(s), its officers, board of directors, and LLC
members paid all Hennepin County property taxes and personal property taxesdue
as of December 31st of the preceding year? YES NO
If NO, please describe_____________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9. Current environmental consultant and legal counsel, if applicable:
Consultant Jennifer Force, Terracon Phone (763) 489-3166
Attorney Kieran Dwyer, Dorsey & Whitney Phone (612) 492-6536
10. Legal description of the site:
Lots 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and part of Lot 22, Block 36, Rearrangement of
St Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota
11. Acreage of site __.41 acres___________ Square footage of site ____________
12. Attach an accurate and legible location map and site diagram showing locations of
relevant site features such as buildings, retaining walls, suspected/known areas of
contamination, etc. (photographs are helpful). The map should include the
property boundaries, a scale bar and a north arrow.
13. What is the current Zoning/Land use of the site?_Commercial______________
14. Will the proposed final use of the site require a zoning change? NO
If yes, describe the expected zoning and the necessary procedure for obtaining the
change. __________________________________________________________
15. Current economic condition:Vacant lot ______
16. If the site is currently developed with building(s) but is not occupied, how long
have the building(s) been vacant? _____________________
17. Does this project have municipal land use approval? NO - but in process
If YES, please provide the date and a copy of this approval. If not, please
describe the steps being planned to obtain this approval.
In process of securing Conditional Use Permit from City of St Louis Park.
Have secured Watershed District approval. The application will be
presented to Planning Commission on December 2, 2015 for consideration of
approval at the January 4, 2016 City Council meeting.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4k)
Title: Resolution Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application Page 5
4
18. Does this project have neighborhood support? YES
If YES, please provide a copy of this statement of support. If not, describe what
steps have been taken to date and/or plans in place to obtain this support.
As a component of the Watershed District approval, a 10 day notice period
was completed. A second notice to neighbors is being delivered as a
component of the Conditional Use Permit application process.
19. If this application is for a RAP implementation, is demolition required to
implement the RAP?YES
A. If yes, describe the structure(s) to be demolished (include age and
condition).
The former Family Digest building was demolished in August 2015;
however, the stained floor slab was left in place and will need to be
removed prior to construction of the surface parking lot at the Site.
Removal of the floor slab is required under City of St. Louis Park
code and the MPCA has indicated they are also requiring removal of
the floor slab in order to allow for better characterization of the Site,
which has been identified as a potential contributing source to the
contaminated soil vapor plume in St. Louis Park.
B. If yes, does demolition require asbestos and/or lead paint abatement?
NO
If yes, describe: NA
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4k)
Title: Resolution Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application Page 6
5
II. SITE HISTORY
Please attach a brief synopsis of the site’s history. Explain why the site is believed to be
contaminated (if the application is for an assessment grant) or how the site came to be
contaminated. Also list the titles and dates of any supporting environmental reports,
historical information, etc.
The Site, which is located at 7008 Walker Street in St. Louis Park, was initially
developed in 1949 as a commercial printing facility. Printing operations continued
at the Site until summer 2015 when Perspectives purchased the Site for
redevelopment as part of its facility expansion project. The Site is also located in an
area of St. Louis Park where documented chlorinated solvent groundwater impacts
and associated soil vapor impacts are being evaluated by the Minnesota Department
of Health, the Minnesota pollution Control Agency, and the Environmental
Protections Agency. Based on the studies conducted to date, twelve facilities,
including the Site have been identified as potential sources of the chlorinated solvent
contamination.
As part of Perspectives’ due diligence activities, Terracon conducted Phase I and
Phase II Environmental Site Assessments in 2014/2015. During the Phase I ESA,
poor housekeeping was observed throughout the printing and chemical storage
areas of the Site, which were located in the western half of the Site building. The
Phase I ESA also concluded the Site’s current and past use as a commercial printing
facility and potential source area for the area-wide chlorinated solvent impacts were
considered Recognized Environmental Conditions.
Following the Phase I ESA, a subsurface environmental investigation was conducted
that identified DRO and PCB-contaminated concrete where staining was present.
Elevated concentrations of chlorinated solvents in soil vapor and groundwater
relative to regulatory criteria also were identified at the Site.
Additional details regarding the Site history and contaminants are provided in the
following reports:
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 7008 Walker Street, St. Louis Park,
Minnesota 55426. Prepared by Terracon for Perspectives, Inc. and dated
October 29, 2014.
• Subsurface Environmental Investigation, Family Digest, 7008 Walker
Street, St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55426. Prepared by Terracon for
Perspectives, Inc. and dated April 10, 2015.
III. CONTAMINATION INVESTIGATION INFORMATION
Section Not Completed – application is for cleanup
(Complete this section if your application is for an assessment and/or RAP development.)
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4k)
Title: Resolution Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application Page 7
6
1. Current status of the investigation:
A. Is the site enrolled in the MPCA VIC or Petroleum Brownfield program?
YES NO
B. Has a Phase I Environmental Assessment been completed?
YES NO
If yes, please send an electronic copy to john.evans@co.hennepin.mn.us.
C. Do you have an approved work plan for a Phase II investigation?
YES NO
If yes, please send an electronic copy.
D. Has any portion of the work plan been implemented?
YES NO
E. Please provide electronic copies of any approval and/or comment letters
that you have received from the MPCA and copies of any reports
documenting investigation activities that have been conducted to date.
2. Briefly summarize the identified contamination at the site to date (contaminants,
concentrations, etc.) and the objective of the future planned investigation. If no
soil or groundwater samples have yet been collected at the site, please say so.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
IV. CONTAMINATION INFORMATION
(Complete this section if your application is for a cleanup.)
1. What type of contaminants are present at the site?
Elevated concentrations of chlorinated solvents, relative to regulatory
criteria, have been detected in soil vapor and groundwater at the Site. Based
on the groundwater flow direction and contaminant concentration
distribution, which indicate that higher concentrations of contaminants are
present in groundwater down-gradient from the printing operations, soil
impacts are believed to be present below the building floor slab. However,
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4k)
Title: Resolution Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application Page 8
7
the source area has not been identified. DRO and PCB impacts have been
identified in stained areas of the building’s floor slab and underlying soil has
low-level DRO impacts. Elevated concentrations of silver relative to the
Screening Soil Leaching Value has also been identified in soil.
2. Provide an electronic copy to john.evans@co.hennepin.mn.us of the approved
RAP and final approval letter for your Response Action Plan from the MPCA.
Also include your cost estimate for the RAP.
SUMMARY OF CONTAMINATION INFORMATION
3. Provide a concise description of the identified contamination and proposed RAP.
The description should include the occurrence of the contamination (i.e., are there
distinct areas of contamination or is contamination widely disseminated across the
site? Is the contamination at the surface or at depth?).
Based on previous investigation data, chlorinated solvent impacted
groundwater and soil vapor are present at the Site. Based on the
contaminant concentrations distributions and local groundwater flow
direction, it appears that a source area is present beneath the western
portion of the building floor slab where printing and chemical storage
operations formerly took place. The floor slab is also stained and impacted
with DRO and PCBs in this area. Additional investigation was conducted to
better characterize the sub-slab in October 2015. The investigation focused
on screening soil samples collected beneath the floor slab in the western
portion of the building where printing operations and chemical storage
historically occurred and in the parking lot located on the western side of the
site. Based on the results of the investigation, low-level DRO and metal
impacts were identified, which will be managed on-site; however, no elevated
VOC impacts were identified.
Redevelopment plans include construction of a surface parking lot at the Site
as part of Perspectives facility expansion project. The new surface parking
lot will replace the existing surface parking lot, which is located north of the
Perspectives’ building and which will be removed to make room for the
planned building expansion.
As part of the proposed response actions, the stained concrete on the western
side of the floor slab will be removed and properly disposed of at a landfill.
During removal of the floor slab and footings and during Site grading,
environmental screening will be conducted to evaluate soil conditions below
the floor slab and determine if a soil source area exists. Particular attention
will be paid during excavation activities on the western side of the Site. In the
event impacted soil is encountered, the upper two feet of the impacts will be
excavated and transported offsite for disposal, confirmation samples will be
collected from the excavation sides and base for chemical analyses, and two
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4k)
Title: Resolution Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application Page 9
8
feet of clean soil will be backfilled into the excavation to establish a clean
buffer zone. Per the MPCA’s request, three additional soil samples will be
collected from below the floor slab for chemical analyses to further evaluate
Site conditions. Construction of the surface parking lot will also establish an
impermeable barrier over the soil vapor and groundwater plumes, which will
limitmigration of the contaminant plumes.
4. Complete the following table for soil contamination (be sure to include areas of
contamination that have been identified at the site but will not be treated or
removed as part of the approved RAP):
General
Contaminant types
(e.g., VOCs, metals)
Proposed Remedial Activities RAP Cleanup Goal
(e.g., residential SRVs,
industrial SRVs)
DRO On-site re-use PID readings < 10 ppm
Metals On-site re-use Industrial SRVs
VOCs (if
encountered)
On-site re-use or offsite disposal Industrial SRVs (SLVs in
green space areas)
Total volume of contaminated soil (cubic yards) identified:Low level DRO impacts
(meeting unregulated fill criteria) have been identified below western portion of the
floor slab in upper 5 feet with an estimated volume of 200 cubic yards. This soil is
proposed for onsite re-use.
Total volume of contaminated soil (cubic yards) to be remediated (all contaminant types):
0
5. Complete the following table for groundwater contamination. If no
contamination or limited groundwater investigation has been conducted, please
indicate below. Also, please indicate if a groundwater investigation was
conducted but no contamination was detected.
General
Contaminant types
(e.g., VOCs, metals)
Affected Aquifer
(i.e., water table, deeper
aquifers)
Proposed Remedial Activities
VOCs Water table Natural attenuation
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4k)
Title: Resolution Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application Page 10
9
Provide the approximate dimensions of contaminant plume on site and specify if the
plume extends off-site.Onsite dimensions of groundwater plume measure about 120
feet long by 100 feet wide. It is not known if the plume extends offsite, but it is
likely.
6. List all compounds comprising the identified release in soil and thecorresponding
coverage and maximum concentration for each compound. Also include
petroleum in the table. If distinct areas of contamination are present at the site,
please describe separately. (NOTE: It is acceptable to provide an overview with
estimated average and maximum concentrations. For the carcinogenic PAH
compounds, provide BaP equivalent concentrations.)
Compound Tier I
SRV (residential)
Average
Concentration
Maximum
Concentration
DRO 100 mg/kg 40.2 mg/kg 71.3 mg/kg
Silver 160 mg/kg (SLV of
7.9 mg/kg)
6.85 mg/kg 13.0 mg/kg
7. Please do the same as in #6 for groundwater.
Compound HRL Average
Concentration
Maximum
Concentration
Tetrachloroethene 5 12.1 23.2
Trichloroethene 0.4 3.2 8.4
Cis-1,2-dichloroethene 50 1.4 1.4
Trans-1,2-
dichloroethene
100 2.5 2.5
8. If groundwater at the site is contaminated, note the geologic makeup of the
affected aquifer (sand/gravel, till, lacustrine clay, etc.) and the flow direction.
Indicate how the flow direction was determined.
Based on soil borings, groundwater occurs within a well sorted sand. Based
on monitoring wells installed in the area as part of the soil vapor
investigation, groundwater flow direction is to the southeast.
9. Briefly describe the possible exposure scenarios posed by identified
contamination at the site (i.e., ingestion or human contact with contaminated soil,
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4k)
Title: Resolution Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application Page 11
10
consumption of contaminated groundwater, ecological impacts, etc.), and nearby
receptors that could be affected by contaminants migrating from the site (high
resource value wetland/creeks/rivers, etc.).
Possible exposure scenarios include inhalation exposure to impacted vapors
by human receptors. There is also an inhalation, dermal, and possible
ingestion exposure risk to onsite workers who are removing and disposing of
the impacted concrete and impacted soil, if encountered. Offsite tracking
and runoff to storm sewers is also a potential.
10. Provide a concise description of the proposed RAP activities. Also describe
demolition activities necessary to perform the cleanup.
As part of the proposed response actions, the stained concrete on the western
side of the floor slab will be removed and properly disposed of at a landfill.
During removal of the floor slab and footings and during Site grading,
environmental screening will be conducted to evaluate soil conditions below
the floor slab and determine if a soil source area exists. Particular attention
will be paid during excavation activities on the western side of the Site. In the
event impacted soil is encountered, the upper two feet of the impacts will be
excavated and transported offsite for disposal, confirmation samples will be
collected from the excavation sides and base for chemical analyses, and two
feet of clean soil will be backfilled into the excavation to establish a clean
buffer zone. Per the MPCA’s request, three additional soil samples will be
collected from below the floor slab for chemical analyses to further evaluate
Site conditions. Construction of the surface parking lot will also establish an
impermeable barrier over the soil vapor and groundwater plumes, which will
limit migration of the contaminant plumes.
11. Does the proposed corrective action include soil disposal that does not exceed
residential soil reference values (i.e., low or marginally impacted soils)? If so,
provide a volume estimate of this marginally impacted soil and provide a figure
delineating the area of that soil.No
12. Describe efforts to reuse contaminated soils on site. If soil is not being reused,
why is this not feasible?
Based on the current grading plan, the Site generally balances; therefore, soil
meeting the screening criteria will be re-used onsite.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4k)
Title: Resolution Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application Page 12
11
V. COST RECOVERY
1. Has the site been identified as a state or federal Superfund site? NO
2. Has the party responsible for the contamination been identified? NO
If yes, who is the responsible party (RP) and will they be involved with the
cleanup and/or development? While it appears the former printing operations
contributed to soil vapor and groundwater impacts and have impacted soil at
the Site, the former owner has not been asked to pay for cleanup; however,
the property was purchased at discounted price because of the building’s
distressed state.
3. Is there any financial commitment by the RP for the cleanup? NO
4. Are there available resources for the RP to pay for the cleanup? NO
Please explain: Family Digest is no longer operating. In addition, the
property was sold at a discounted price because of the building’s distressed
state.
5. Is a cost recovery plan to recover costs from responsible parties in place?
NO
If yes, please attach the plan and amount of costs to be recovered.
Has consent of the Attorney General been obtained? NA
NOTE: It is not required that you have a plan to recover costs from the party
responsible for the contamination. However, if you are planning on recovering
your costs from the responsible party, attach information on the process.
VI. FUNDING SOURCES
1. Is there a possibility that the site will be investigated and/or cleaned up without
ERF money? YES
Please explain: However, if we do not secure this grant request, the project
will be delayed to provide time for additional fundraising efforts from
individuals and foundations_______________________________________
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4k)
Title: Resolution Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application Page 13
12
2. Have other sources of public or private funding for this project been identified?
YES NO
If yes, complete the following table:
Funding Source Amount Status (committed, pending
decision date, etc.)
Individual pledges $18,102 Secured
Request for funding $127,484 Pending
3. Is this project still waiting to secure any additional funding that is necessary to
commence construction? YES NO
If yes, please clearly describe what is still needed, the timeline and steps are
planned to secure this funding.
However if this request for funding is not received, we will need to delay the
project start date to allow time for additional fundraising___________
VII. COST ANALYSIS: INVESTIGATION, CLEANUP AND PROJECT COST
BUDGETS
1. What is the grand total of eligible investigation, cleanup and other environmental
project costs for the site? $79,248
2. How much funding are you requesting from ERF? $127,484
3. Fill out the three following budget tables to identify the assessment, cleanup, and
project costs for the site. Be clear and explicit, and include as much detail as
possible. Provide attachments if necessary. A detailed budget is attached.
BUDGET INFORMATION
Assessment and/or Investigation and RAP Implementation
Provide the following information for each activity. Include attachments if necessary.
Activity: Conduct Phase I ESA and subsurface investigations, prepare CCP
and obtain MPCA approval
Amount: $28,307
Start and End Dates of Activity: October 2014 to October 2015
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4k)
Title: Resolution Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application Page 14
13
Details about how costs were determined: Based on costs already incurred.
SUBTOTAL (I) $ 28,307
Soil and Groundwater Cleanup
Provide the following information for each activity. Include attachments if necessary.
Activity: Removal and disposal of impacted concrete and conduct
environmental monitoring, sampling and reporting. As a contingency
removal and disposal of unexpected impacted soil from below floor slab and
related analytical testing and backfilling costs are included in estimate.
Amount: $48,441
Start and End Dates of Activity: Spring 2016
Details about how costs were determined: Based on contractor pricing and
schedule.
Note: if soil would have to be removed regardless of whether it is clean or
contaminated, then not all soil removal costs are eligible. The applicant must
cover the cost equal to the amount of clean soil removal. The additional
incremental costs that arise from the disposal of contaminated soil are ERF
eligible. Site currently balances, so soil would only be removed if it were
impacted.
Cleanup Activities – Clean Soil Handling Costs = SUBTOTAL (II) $48,441
TOTAL Investigation and Cleanup:
SUBTOTAL (I) + SUBTOTAL (II) $ 76,748
Other Project Activities Necessary to Implement RAP
(e.g., acquisition costs, MPCA VIC fees, demolition and all related pre-demo asbestos
and lead paint abatement)
Provide the following information for each activity. Include attachments if necessary.
Activity: Landscaping & Irrigation
Amount: $41,500
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4k)
Title: Resolution Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application Page 15
14
Activity: Lighting
Amount: $24,838
Activity: MPCA VIC fees
Amount: $2,500
Start and End Dates of Activity: August 2015 thru August 2016
Details about how costs were determined: Based on previous project
experience.
SUBTOTAL (III) $ 68,838
TOTAL Investigation, Cleanup and Other Project Activities:
SUBTOTALS (I) +(II) + (III) $145,586
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4k)
Title: Resolution Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application Page 16
15
VIII. REDEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT VALUE
1. What is the total cost of the redevelopment project (including environmental
costs)?$607,500
2. What is the proposed construction schedule?
Construction is anticipated to be completed in a 6 week period. The slab will
be removed in the May 2016, with the parking lot to be installed by August,
2016.
Discuss the potential for delays and other issues that may arise. What must occur
before investigation and/or development and cleanup activities can proceed?
We are subject to release of the road restriction, which we anticipate will be
May 1st. Weather is the only issue that could impact the timing of the slab
removal.
3. What is the current property valuation of the site?
$300,000
4. What is the proposed property valuation upon completion of redevelopment
project?
$420,000
5. What are the current property taxes (prior to cleanup)?
$5,776.22
6. What are the anticipated property taxes upon completion of redevelopment
project?
Perspectives will be applying for tax exempt status effective January 1,2017
7. Is/Will the project be in a TIF district?No
8. What are the annual TIF proceeds expected to be and for how long?
Not Applicable
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4k)
Title: Resolution Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application Page 17
16
9. How many new jobs (FTEs) will be created during construction and
redevelopment?Unknown retained jobs- construction will be 6 weeks in
duration
10. How many new jobs (FTEs) will be created at the finished site? Please specify if
these are new or retained jobs.
Perspectives will utilize the site for staff working at our Family Center. The
development of the parking lot will allow us to expand our Family Center by
9,000 square feet, which will increase programming space and develop new
programs. We anticipate that this expansion will create at least 8 new FTEs.
DEVELOPMENT FEATURES
Explain the planned use of the site after investigation and cleanup and how this was
determined (give examples of prospective developers, interested parties, zoning
requirements, etc.).
At the end of July, 2015, Perspectives acquired land directly across from our Family Center to be used
for a parking lot. The lot will have 49 parking spots. Perspectives is conscious of creating an attractive
lot that will include landscaping (200 native plus perennials, shrubs), lights and the reworking of
storm water management. St. Louis Park has been an active partner in working with Perspectives in
this land purchase. The former owner was faced with 25 code violations. The building was
demolished in September and we are now waiting in order to complete the project a conditional use
permit and the funds for the remediation of testing the soil as the slab is removed and, finally, funding
in
Describe how this project will incorporate sustainable activities and features in the
project design, construction and operation, and/or in the cleanup remedy.
Sustainable activities or project design may include but are not limited to:
deconstruction and salvaging for building and/or material reuse, development
planning that incorporates the cleanup remedy (i.e., building footprint/parking lot
and site grading as capping feature), and environmentally friendly building and site
design (i.e., sustainable building design and natural landscaping, green renovations
and preservation, low/no stormwater discharge management, and greenspace
enhancement/development).
As stated above the project will include new green area, boulders, plants and a sprinkling
system, building footprint/parking lot and site grading as capping feature.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4k)
Title: Resolution Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application Page 18
17
Describe how the community will derive benefit from the project. Provide a
description of to what extent the project will remove blight; also indicate other
benefits such as green space creation, affordable housing creation, tax base increase
or other economic benefits, etc. to help quantify the community benefit of your
project.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (if applicable)
NOT APPLICABLE
Does this project contribute to the local municipality’s approved livable communities
housing mix goals? If so, in what way? If not, in what other way does this project create
benefit for the local community? Please explain.
Rental
Total # of rental units to be developed:________________________________
Breakdown by number of bedrooms
_______________________________________________________________
Monthly rental rate(s) per unit by type
_______________________________________________________________
Number of affordable units _________@ _________% of the area median income
Construction cost per unit $_________________________________________
Owner-Occupied
Total # of owner-occupied units to be developed: _______________________
Purchase price(s) per unit/home $____________________________________
Number of affordable units/homes ______@________% of the area median
income (Breakdown by number of bedrooms)
Construction cost per unit _________________________________________
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4k)
Title: Resolution Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application Page 19
18
What is the median home price for the municipality/neighborhood where the project is
located? $___________________________________
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4k)
Title: Resolution Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application Page 20
19
IX. RESOLUTIONS
A city council resolution must be adopted prior to submission of the application package.
The required element is a council resolution which approves the projectfrom the
governing body of the municipality where the project site is located. The following blank
resolution is included as an example for your convenience. You may choose to reformat
it, but make sure to include all of the statements that appear in our example.
RESOLUTION #1 – City Approving the Project
BE IT RESOLVED that the City of _________________ approves the
(City where site is located)
____________________________ project, for which an Environmental Response
Project name
Fund grant application is being submitted to the Hennepin County Department of
Environmental Services on _____________, by ________________________.
Date Applicant
I certify that the above resolution was adopted by the City Council on
________________.
Date
Signed: ______________________________
Authorized Official
Title: ________________________________
Date: ________________________________
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4k)
Title: Resolution Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant Application Page 21
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4l
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Accept Monetary Donation to the Operations & Recreation Department from Jane and
Michael Wipf ($200)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a
monetary donation from Jane and Michael Wipf in the amount of $200 for Natural
Resources/Forestry supplies.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept this gift with restrictions
on their use?
SUMMARY: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is
necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the
use of each donation prior to it being expended.
Jane and Michael Wipf graciously donated $200 to the Natural Resources Division of Operations
and Recreation Department. They were impressed with expedient and quality of service by
forestry staff. The donation is given with the restriction that it be used for purchase of forestry
supplies, at the discretion of the Natural Resources Division Coordinator.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This donation will be used for purchase of
landscaping supplies for Natural Resources Division.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Senior Office Assistant
Jim Vaughan, Natural Resource Coordinator
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4l) Page 2
Title: Accept Monetary Donation to the Operations & Recreation Department from Jane and Michael Wipf ($200)
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
IN THE AMOUNT OF $200 FROM JANE AND MICHAEL WIPF
TO BE USED FOR FORESTRY SUPPLIES
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize
acceptance of any donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by
the donor; and
WHEREAS, Jane and Michael Wipf donated $200; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the gifts are hereby accepted with thanks to Jane and Michael Wipf with the
understanding that it must be used for forestry supplies in the Natural Resources Division.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4m
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Accept Monetary Donation to Westwood Hills Nature Center from Leslie Marcus &
SLP Golden Kiwanis
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a
monetary donation from: Leslie Marcus in the amount of $100 and St. Louis Park Golden
Kiwanis in the amount of $50 for Westwood Hills Nature Center.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept these gifts with
restrictions on their use?
SUMMARY: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is
necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the
use of each donation prior to it being expended.
Leslie Marcus graciously donated $100 to Westwood Hills Nature Center. The donation is given
with the restriction that it be used for Westwood Hills Nature Center programing and
maintenance needs.
St. Louis Park Golden Kiwanis graciously donated $50 to Westwood Hills Nature Center. The
donation is given with the restriction that it be used for the Westwood Hills Nature Center
Halloween Party.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: These donations will be used at Westwood
Hills Nature Center for programing and maintenance needs ($100) and for the annual Halloween
Party ($50).
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Carrie Mandler, Secretary/Program Aide
Mark Oestreich, Manager of Westwood Hills Nature Center
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 4m) Page 2
Title: Accept Monetary Donation to Westwood Hills Nature Center from Leslie Marcus & SLP Golden Kiwanis
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
IN THE AMOUNT OF $100 TO BE USED AT WESTWOOD HILLS NATURE CENTER
FOR PROGRAMMING AND MAINTENANCE NEEDS
AND
APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
IN THE AMOUNT OF $50 TO BE USED AT WESTWOOD HILLS NATURE CENTER
FOR THE ANNUAL HALLOWEEN PARTY
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize
acceptance of any donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by
the donor; and
WHEREAS, Leslie Marcus donated $100 and St. Louis Park Golden Kiwanis donated
$50; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the gifts are hereby accepted with thanks to Leslie Marcus and St. Louis Park Golden
Kiwanis with the understanding that they must be used at Westwood Hills Nature Center for
nature center programs and maintenance and the Halloween Party.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License – M.D. Liquors
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony, and close
public hearing. Motion to approve Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for M.D. Liquors2, Inc.
dba M.D. Liquors, located at 8942 Highway 7, for the license term through March 1, 2016.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to approve the off-sale intoxicating
liquor license for M.D. Liquors2, Inc.?
SUMMARY: The City received an application from M.D. Liquors2, Inc. dba M.D. Liquors, for
an off-sale intoxicating liquor license for the premises located at 8942 Highway 7, next to Target
Knollwood. The existing off-sale liquor store, Vintage Wine & Spiritz, has been in operation
since 2006 and is owned by Vintage Wine & Spiritz, Inc. The current owner has reached an
agreement to sell the business to M.D. Liquors2, Inc.
Vintage Wine & Spiritz is not currently open for business. The new owner, Mark Gettinger,
plans to reopen the business, under the new name, in November. The proposed hours of
operation will be Monday – Saturday, 8:00 am to 10:00 pm, which is the full range of hours
allowed by Minnesota State Statute.
Should Council approve the liquor license, no actual license is issued until all final State/City
compliance requirements are met.
The Police Department has run a full background investigation, and nothing was discovered
during the course of this investigation that would warrant denial of the license. The application
and Police report are on file in the Office of the City Clerk should Council members wish to
review the information prior to the public hearing. The required notice of the public hearing was
published on November 5, 2015.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Fees for this applicant include $500 for the
police background investigation and $380 for the annual license fee.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Name Change – Top Ten Liquors
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony, and close
public hearing. Motion to approve a name change for the off-sale intoxicating liquor license held
by Yayin Gadol, LLC. from Liquor Barrel to Top Ten Liquors for the premises located at 5111
Excelsior Boulevard, for the license term through March 1, 2016.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to approve the name change for the
off-sale intoxicating liquor license held by Yayin Gadol, LLC?
SUMMARY: In July, 2015 the City Council approved an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license
for Yayin Gadol, LLC dba Liquor Barrel for the premises located at 5111 Excelsior Boulevard.
The owner of the store has requested that the City approve changing the trade name of the store
to Top Ten Liquors. The principle ownership and management of the store remains unchanged
from what was approved in July, and the licensee will continue to be Yayin Gadol, LLC.
However, because the license was originally issued under a different trade name, the City must
formally approve the change to Top Ten Liquors.
The owner has made arrangements to change the signage at the Miracle Mile Shopping Center to
reflect the name change. Because the principle owners and management remain the same as
what was approved by the Council in July, no additional background investigation was required.
If the proposed change is approved staff will notify the State of Minnesota Alcohol and
Gambling Enforcement Division.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 6c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony, and close
public hearing.
• Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the elimination of parcels from the Park Commons
Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District (Hennepin County TIF District No. 1308),
within Redevelopment Project No. 1, in the City of St. Louis Park).
• Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment
Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (a redevelopment district).
(The EDA will have considered establishment of the 4900 Excelsior TIF District earlier in the
evening.)
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council support the establishment of 4900
Excelsior TIF District to facilitate the construction of a mixed use redevelopment at 4760 and
4900 Excelsior Blvd?
SUMMARY: Oppidan Investment Company’s application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
assistance in connection with its proposed 4900 Excelsior redevelopment at 4760 and 4900
Excelsior Blvd was reviewed at the June 8th Study Session and the August 17th Special Study
Session where it received consensus support. Constructing the 4900 Excelsior project is not
financially feasible but for the use of the proposed tax increment assistance. At its October 5th
meeting, the City Council set a public hearing date of November 16th for consideration of the
proposed 4900 Excelsior Redevelopment TIF District. It is now time to take the final step in the
TIF process which is to formally authorize the creation of the TIF district. Such authorization
enables the EDA to designate tax increment generated from the completed 4900 Excelsior
development as partial reimbursement to Oppidan for certain qualified costs incurred in
connection with the construction of the project so as to make it financially feasible.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Authorizing the establishment of 4900
Excelsior TIF District does not, in itself, commit the City to any specific level of financial
assistance for the proposed project. Procedurally, it simply creates the funding vehicle to
reimburse the Redeveloper for a portion of its qualified project costs. The terms and amount of
TIF assistance are specified within the Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247,
LLC which is also scheduled for consideration November 16th.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolutions
TIF Plan Overview
TIF Plan
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor, Deputy CD Director
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c) Page 2
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Oppidan Investment Company (“Redeveloper”) proposes to assemble and
redevelop the former Bally Total Fitness block bound by Excelsior Blvd, Quentin Ave S,
Princeton Ave S, and Park Commons Dr. The 1.6-acre redevelopment site consists of two
parcels: the former Bally Total Fitness property located at 4900 Excelsior Blvd. and the vacant
EDA property located at 4760 Excelsior Blvd (“subject site”).
Oppidan plans to raze the vacant Bally building and parking structure and replace them with a
mixed-use (residential and retail) development called 4900 Excelsior. The proposed 5 and
partial 6-story-building would consist of 176 residential units and 28,228 square feet of
commercial space to be leased to Fresh Thyme - a specialty grocer with a small liquor
component. Pursuant to the City’s new inclusionary housing policy, the Redeveloper will reserve
18 (10%) of the residential units for households at or below 60% of the area median income
(AMI). Also included would be 307 structured parking stalls and 33 on-street parking stalls.
Developer’s Request for Public Financing Assistance
There are significant extraordinary costs associated with redeveloping the subject site. These
include: environmental investigation and reporting, asbestos abatement, building demolition,
utility relocations, site preparation, shoring, underground stormwater retention, and structured
underground parking. Altogether, these costs exceed $7.1 million and prevent the proposed
project from achieving financial feasibility. Consequently Oppidan applied to the EDA for Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) assistance to offset a portion of these costs so as to enable the 4900
Excelsior project to proceed. Tax increment financing uses the increased future property taxes
generated by a new development to finance certain qualified costs incurred by that development
for a limited period of time.
Level and Type of Financial Assistance
Oppidan’s sources and uses statements, cash flow projections, and investor rate of return (IRR)
related to 4900 Excelsior were reviewed by staff and Ehlers (the EDA’s financial consultant).
The estimates were found to be reasonable and within industry standards for this type of
redevelopment. It was also determined, given the extraordinary costs outlined above, that but for
$2,800,000 in tax increment assistance from the EDA the proposed project would not attain the
necessary cash-on-cost return sufficient to attract the necessary equity capital to enable the
project to become financially feasible. That level of assistance would overcome enough of the
extraordinary site costs described above that it allows the project to achieve financing.
TIF District Approvals
As noted above, the EDA/City Council reviewed Oppidan’s TIF application for the proposed
4900 Excelsior project at the June 8th Study Session. The project and the Redeveloper’s request
for financial assistance was also discussed at the August 17th Special Study Session where it
received consensus support. As a result, staff was directed to call for a public hearing on the
proposed TIF District and begin drafting a formal purchase & redevelopment contract with
Oppidan. At its October 5th meeting, the City Council set a public hearing date of November
16th for consideration of the proposed 4900 Excelsior Redevelopment TIF District.
The Planning Commission reviewed the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing Plan on October
21st, as required by the TIF Act, and determined it was in conformance with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c) Page 3
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District
Synopsis of the Proposed 4900 Excelsior TIF District
The subject site is within the City’s Redevelopment Project Area which is the portion of the city
where the EDA may establish TIF districts. Inclusion of the proposed project within a designated
Redevelopment Project Area allows the EDA/City Council to establish a TIF district so as to
enable the EDA to provide the proposed financial assistance to the 4900 Excelsior project.
The Bally block lies within the current Park Commons TIF District. The period for amending the
TIF Plan budget for this district to include the proposed 4900 Excelsior project has expired.
Thus, the City Council will be formally asked to remove the subject properties from the existing
Park Commons TIF district and establish a new 25-year Redevelopment TIF District called 4900
Excelsior. The proposed 4900 Excelsior TIF District consists of two parcels: 4760 and 4900
Excelsior Blvd as shown in the attached TIF District map. Together, these parcels equal
approximately 1.6 acres. The proposed TIF district is further detailed in the attached TIF Plan.
Attached is an Overview which summarizes the basic elements of the proposed 4900 Excelsior
TIF District. Details of the proposed TIF District may be found in the attached 4900 Excelsior
TIF District Plan. Both the Overview and TIF Plan were prepared by the EDA’s TIF consultant,
Ehlers. In a general sense, TIF Plans may be viewed as enabling legislation. They establish the
proposed TIF district’s classification, geographic boundaries, maximum duration, maximum
budget authority for tax increment revenues and expenditures, fiscal disparities election as well
as estimated impact on various taxing jurisdictions along with findings which statutorily qualify
the district. The specific mutual obligations between the EDA and the Redeveloper as well as
the precise terms of the financial assistance are contained in the separate Purchase and
Redevelopment Contract between the parties. Both the TIF Plan and the Redevelopment
Contract need to be approved in order for redevelopment projects involving tax increment to
proceed.
Qualifications of the Proposed TIF District
The land use designation within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the subject site is Mixed-Use
and the current zoning map contemplates mixed-use and high-density residential development on
the subject site. The intent of the “Mixed Use” land use designation and the City’s Livable
Community design principles is to create compact, pedestrian-scale, mixed-use buildings,
typically with retail, service or other commercial uses on the ground floor and residential or
office uses on upper floors. Mixed-use is intended to accommodate mixed-income housing, a
mix of housing types on the same block, and higher density development. The subject site is
suitable for the proposed mixed-use development and multiple-family housing and meets many
of the objectives for the Park Commons redevelopment area. More specifically the proposed
project is consistent with the following goal and policies listed in the Land Use section of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan:
Mixed Use Goal #1
Continue to enhance the Park Commons area as St. Louis Park’s primary “town center.
Policy 1-A: Promote and support the redevelopment of the remaining designated
redevelopment sites in the Park Commons area with mixed-use buildings
to strengthen the area’s function as the “town center”.
Policy 1-B: Ensure that future redevelopment provides similar building forms and
densities that will complement the character of the “town center”.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c) Page 4
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District
Policy 1-C: Require that future redevelopment is designed with buildings that are
oriented to the public streets and spaces that are the heart of the “town
center”.
The subject site has convenient access to good bus service, Wolfe Park, and other services and
businesses along Excelsior Blvd, and is within biking distance of the SWLRT regional trail and
future LRT Beltline and Wooddale stations. Oppidan’s proposed project is a compact, mixed-
use, mixed-income building that promotes efficient use of the land, existing infrastructure, and
existing roadway system. It also incorporates underground parking, new sidewalks, and bicycle
facilities making the redevelopment walkable, bikable, and transit oriented. Thus, the proposed
4900 Excelsior project as specified in the attached TIF Plan conforms to the Mixed-Use land use
designation within the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the subject site.
Consulting architectural firm LHB, Inc. 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 (Report of Inspection Procedures
and Results for Determining Qualifications Of A Tax Increment Financing District As A
Redevelopment District: [Bally Block] TIF District, St. Louis Park, MN dated August 8, 2014)
that the proposed project site qualifies as a Redevelopment District based on the following
findings:
• The proposed TIF District has a coverage calculation of 74.6 percent which is above the
70 percent requirement.
• 100 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard which is above the 50 percent
requirement.
• The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed.
Thus the proposed 4900 Excelsior TIF District meets both the “Coverage Test” and the
“Condition of Buildings Test” and thereby qualifies under Minnesota Statutes Section 479.174,
Subdivision 10 as a redevelopment TIF district. Other findings for the qualification of the
proposed TIF District are contained in Appendix G of the attached TIF Plan.
Duration of the Proposed TIF District
Under the TIF Act, the duration of redevelopment districts is up to 25 years after receipt of the
first increment by the City (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The date of receipt by the City
of the first tax increment is expected to be 2017. Thus, the full term of the district is estimated to
terminate in 2043. The EDA and City have the right to decertify the District prior to the legally
required date. The City’s expressed obligations to the Redeveloper will likely be satisfied in
approximately 7 years. Once those obligations are satisfied, the City may terminate the District.
TIF District Budget
The TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment generated by the District to pay for certain
qualifying project expenses and capital improvements associated with the District (such as road
and traffic enhancements to Excelsior Blvd.) should they be necessary. It should be noted that
the financing uses and project costs reflected within Subsection 2-10 (Uses of Funds) of the
attached TIF Plan is a not-to-exceed budget and not the actual expected project budget.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c) Page 5
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District
Fiscal Disparities Election within the Proposed TIF District
The proposed redevelopment will contain commercial property therefore the proposed TIF
District is subject to the fiscal disparities calculation. Consistent with the city’s TIF Policy and
past practice, the 4900 Excelsior TIF District will contribute to fiscal disparities (as opposed to
the tax base of the City making the contribution).
Summary
Providing tax increment financing assistance to the proposed 4900 Excelsior redevelopment
makes it possible to remove a highly visible, structurally substandard building along the city’s
primary commercial corridor and replace it with a high quality, mixed use development of
complementary design consistent with Livable Communities design principles as well as the
City’s Comprehensive Plan, and Green Building Policy. The proposed project brings the subject
properties to optimal market value thereby enhancing the city’s tax base. The EDA’s financial
participation in the proposed project would leverage approximately $48 million in new
investment. The ratio of private to public investment in the project is $17 to $1. Additionally,
the proposed redevelopment will result in a new retail business and create 85 new FTE
employment positions as well as provide the community with expanded life-cycle housing
opportunities and 18 additional affordable housing units. Finally, 4900 Excelsior will re-
energize the currently vacant site and further enhance the economic vitality of the Excelsior Blvd
commercial area.
NEXT STEPS: The Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with KTJ 247, LLC which specifies
the terms and amount of TIF assistance related to the 4900 Excelsior project is also scheduled for
consideration by the EDA November 16th.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c) Page 6
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
ELIMINATING PARCELS
FROM PARK COMMONS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park (the “City”) and the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the “Authority”) established the Park Commons Tax Increment
Financing District (the “TIF District”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to
469.1794, as amended (the “TIF Act”) and approved a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the “TIF
Plan”) for the TIF District on January 16, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City has now determined that it is in the best interest of the City to
eliminate two parcels identified as 07-028-24-21-0002 and 07-028-24-21-0258 (“Eliminated
Parcels”) from the TIF District, in order to include such parcels in the new 4900 Excelsior Tax
Increment Financing District expected to be approved by the City and Authority on this date; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized to modify the TIF Plan by eliminating one or more
parcels without the notice and hearing required for approval of an initial plan if (a) the current
net tax capacity of the parcels eliminated from the TIF District equals or exceeds their original
net tax capacity, or (b) the City agrees that, not withstanding Section 469.177, subd. 1 of the TIF
Act, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of
the eliminated parcels.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota as follows:
1. The TIF Plan for the TIF District is hereby modified to remove the Eliminated
Parcels from the TIF District, effective for taxes payable in 2016.
2. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subd. 4(e)(2)(A), the
City finds that that the current net capacity of the Eliminated Parcels equals or exceeds their
original net tax capacity, and that no notice or hearing is required for this modification.
3. City staff are authorized and directed to attach a copy of this resolution to the TIF
Plan for the TIF District in City files, file a copy of this resolution with the Hennepin County
Director of Real Estate Services along with instructions to adjust the records for the TIF District
accordingly, and file a copy of the resolution with the Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue and
the Office of the State Auditor.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c) Page 7
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2015
Tom Harmening, City Manager Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c) Page 8
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1;
AND ESTABLISHING THE 4900 EXCELSIOR TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals
1.01. The Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority (the "EDA") has heretofore established Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopted the
Redevelopment Plan therefor. It has been proposed by the EDA and the City that the City adopt a
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment
Plan Modification") and establish the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District (the
"District") therein and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the
Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the
"Plans"); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.090 to 469.1082 and Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, all inclusive, as amended, (the
"Act") all as reflected in the Plans, and presented for the Council's consideration.
1.02. The EDA and City have investigated the facts relating to the Plans and have
caused the Plans to be prepared.
1.03. The EDA and City have performed all actions required by law to be performed
prior to the establishment of the District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Plans,
including, but not limited to, notification of Hennepin County and Independent School District
No. 283 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in the District, a review of
and written comment on the Plans by the City Planning Commission, approval of the Plans by
the EDA on November 16, 2015, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as
required by law.
1.04. Certain written reports (the ''Reports") relating to the Plans and to the activities
contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and consultants and submitted to the
Council and/or made a part of the City files and proceedings on the Plans. The Reports,
including the redevelopment qualifications reports and planning documents, include data,
information and/or substantiation constituting or relating to the basis for the other findings and
determinations made in this resolution. The Council hereby confirms, ratifies and adopts the
Reports, which are hereby incorporated into and made as fully a part of this resolution to the
same extent as if set forth in full herein.
1.05 The City is not modifying the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c) Page 9
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District
Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Redevelopment Plan Modification.
2.01. The Council approves the Redevelopment Plan Modification, and specifically
finds that: (a) the land within the Project area would not be available for redevelopment without
the financial aid to be sought under this Redevelopment Plan; (b) the Redevelopment Plan, as
modified, will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the City as a whole, for
the development of the Project by private enterprise; and (c) that the Redevelopment Plan, as
modified, conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole.
Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing
District.
3.01. The Council hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is a
"redevelopment district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 10 of the Act.
3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed redevelopment would not occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased
market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from
the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for
the maximum duration of the District permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan, that the
Plans conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole;
and that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City
as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the District by private enterprise.
3.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above
findings stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each
determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated into this Resolution by
reference.
3.04. The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority elects to calculate fiscal
disparities for the District in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3,
clause b, which means the fiscal disparities contribution would be taken from inside the District.
Section 4. Public Purpose
4.01. The adoption of the Plans conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act
and will help fulfill a need to develop an area of the City which is already built up, to provide
employment opportunities, to improve the tax base and to improve the general economy of the
State and thereby serves a public purpose. For the reasons described in Exhibit A, the City
believes these benefits directly derive from the tax increment assistance provided under the TIF
Plan. A private developer will receive only the assistance needed to make this development
financially feasible. As such, any private benefits received by a developer are incidental and do
not outweigh the primary public benefits.
Section 5. Approval and Adoption of the Plans
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c) Page 10
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District
5.01. The Plans, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation
the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified,
established, and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Economic Development
Coordinator.
5.02. The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and
directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and to negotiate, draft, prepare and
present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and
contracts necessary for this purpose.
5.03 The Taxpayer Services Division Manager of Hennepin County (“Manager”) is
requested to certify the original net tax capacity of the District, as described in the Plans, and to
certify in each year thereafter the amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or
decreased; and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority is authorized and directed to
forthwith transmit this request to the Manager in such form and content as the Manager may
specify, together with a list of all properties within the District, for which building permits have
been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution.
5.04. The Economic Development Coordinator is further authorized and directed to file
a copy of the Plans with the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue and the
Office of the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest
City Clerk
(Seal)
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c) Page 11
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing
Plan (the “TIF Plan”) for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District (the “District”), as
required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows:
1. Finding that the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment
district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10.
The District consists of two parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for
commercial/industrial and housing purposes. At least 70 percent of the area of the parcels in
the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other
similar structures and more than 50 percent of the buildings in the District, not including
outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or
clearance. (See Appendix F of the TIF Plan.)
2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not
reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably
foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be
expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase
in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the
present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District
permitted by the TIF Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to
occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This
finding is supported by the fact that the redevelopment proposed in the TIF Plan meets the
City's objectives for redevelopment, but due to the high cost of redevelopment on the parcels
currently occupied by a structurally substandard building and costs associated with
environmental investigation and reporting, asbestos abatement, demolition, shoring, utility
relocations, site work, underground stormwater management and structured parking, site
improvements, and other required site improvements, this project is feasible only through
assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The developer was asked for and provided
a letter and a proforma as justification that the developer would not have gone forward
without tax increment assistance.
The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without
the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated
to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected
tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan: This
finding is justified on the grounds that the cost of environmental investigation and reporting,
asbestos abatement, demolition, shoring, utility relocations, site work, underground
stormwater management and structured parking and other required site improvements add to
the total cost of redeveloping previously built-up parcels. Historically, these types of costs
have made redevelopment infeasible without tax increment assistance. In addition, the
privately owned site has been vacant and its owner has marketed the site for at least 3 years
without success. The City reasonably determines that no other redevelopment of similar
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c) Page 12
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District
scope is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the
development.
Therefore, the City concludes as follows:
a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will
increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0.
b. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be
$35,412,860.
c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the
district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $12,071,960.
d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the
Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value
increase greater than $23,340,900 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause
c) without tax increment assistance.
3. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District conforms to the general plan for the development
or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to
the general development plan of the City.
4. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with
the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of
Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise.
Through the implementation of the TIF Plan, the EDA or City will increase the availability
of safe and decent life-cycle housing in the City. The project to be assisted through tax
increment will result in the renovation of substandard properties in the City and the
corresponding reduction of blight, will increase the tax base of the City and State, and will
add a high quality mixed-use development to the City.
Tax Increment Financing District Overview
City of St. Louis Park
4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District
The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District. More detailed information on each of these topics
can be found in the complete Tax Increment Financing Plan.
Proposed action: Ø Establishment of the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District
(District) and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan).
Ø Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1
which includes the establishment of the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment
Financing District, which represents a continuation of the goals and
objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project
No. 1.
Type of TIF District: A redevelopment district
Parcel Numbers: 07-028-24-21-0002* 07-028-24-21-0258*
*These parcels are currently in the Park Commons Tax Increment Financing
District and will be decertified prior to certification of the District.
Proposed
Development:
The District is being created to facilitate the development of a mixed-use
development consisting of 176 apartments (of which 10% will be affordable
to persons at or below 60% of the AMI) and a 28,000 square foot grocer in
the City. Please see Appendix A of the TIF Plan for a more detailed project
description.
Maximum duration: The duration of the District will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the
first increment (26 years of increment). The City elects to receive the first tax
increment in 2018. It is estimated that the District, including any
modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would
terminate after December 31, 2043, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied.
Estimated annual tax
increment:
Up to $1,224,104
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 13
Page 2
Authorized uses:
The TIF Plan contains a budget that authorizes the maximum amount that
may be expended:
Land/Building Acquisition .................................................. $3,000,000
Site Improvements/Preparation ........................................... $2,000,000
Public Utilities .................................................................... $1,000,000
Other Qualifying Improvements ......................................... $6,508,567
Administrative Costs (up to 10%) ....................................... $2,161,096
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL .............................................. $14,669,663
Interest ................................................................................ $9,103,337
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL ........................................... $23,773,000
See Subsection 2-10, on page 2-6 of the TIF Plan for the full budget
authorization.
Form of financing: The project is proposed to be financed by a pay-as-you-go note and interfund
loan.
Administrative fee: Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs are justified.
Interfund Loan
Requirement:
If the City wants to pay for administrative or capital expenditures from a tax
increment fund, it is recommended that a resolution authorizing a loan from
another fund be passed PRIOR to the issuance of the check.
4 Year Activity Rule
(§ 469.176 Subd. 6)
After four years from the date of certification of the District one of the
following activities must have been commenced on each parcel in the District:
• Demolition
• Rehabilitation
• Renovation
• Other site preparation (not including utility services such as sewer and
water)
If the activity has not been started by approximately November 2019, no
additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel until the
commencement of a qualifying activity.
5 Year Rule
(§ 469.1763 Subd. 3)
Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax increments must be
expended or obligated to be expended.
Any obligations in the District made after approximately November 2020,
will not be eligible for repayment from tax increments.
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the TIF Plan for the District, as required
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are included in Exhibit A of the City resolution.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 14
Page 3
MAP OF THE
4900 EXCELSIOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 15
As of November 3, 2015
Draft for Public Hearing
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1
and the
Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the establishment of
the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District
(a redevelopment district)
within
Redevelopment Project No. 1
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
City of St. Louis Park
Hennepin County
State of Minnesota
Public Hearing: November 16, 2015
Adopted:
Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105
651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 16
Table of Contents
(for reference purposes only)
Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1 .......................................... 1-1
Foreword ............................................................. 1-1
Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District ......................... 2-1
Subsection 2-1. Foreword............................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority........................................ 2-1
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives ................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview .............................. 2-1
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 2-2
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District................................. 2-2
Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District ........... 2-4
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ................ 2-4
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued ...................... 2-5
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds ........................................... 2-6
Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election.................................. 2-7
Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies....................................... 2-7
Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs ....................................... 2-8
Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions................. 2-8
Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation ................................ 2-10
Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ....................... 2-10
Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District................................ 2-11
Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses .................................. 2-11
Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment ................................... 2-12
Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment .................................... 2-13
Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments ...................................... 2-13
Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 2-14
Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements ................................. 2-14
Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District ............................... 2-14
Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 2-14
Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations ................................. 2-14
Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment................. 2-15
Subsection 2-28. Summary.............................................. 2-16
Appendix A
Project Description ...................................................... A-1
Appendix B
Map of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District ........................... B-1
Appendix C
Description of Property to be Included in the District ............................ C-1
Appendix D
Estimated Cash Flow for the District ........................................ D-1
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 17
Appendix E
Minnesota Business Assistance Form ....................................... E-1
Appendix F
Redevelopment Qualifications for the District .................................. F-1
Appendix G
Findings Including But/For Qualifications..................................... G-1
Appendix H
Building Permits ........................................................ H-1
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 18
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 1-1
Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1
Foreword
The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of the 4900
Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District.
For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 is
recommended. It is available from the Economic Development Coordinator at the City of St. Louis Park.
Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment
Financing Districts located within Redevelopment Project No. 1.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 19
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-1
Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District
Subsection 2-1. Foreword
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "EDA"), the City of St. Louis Park (the "City"),
staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the 4900
Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District (the "District"), a redevelopment tax increment financing district,
located in Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority
Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or
redevelopment to occur. To this end, the EDA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes ("M.S."), Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to
469.1794, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing
public costs related to this project.
This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other relevant
information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives
The District currently consists of two parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District
is being created to facilitate the development of a mixed-use development consisting of approximately 176
apartments (of which 10% will be affordable to persons at or below 60% of the AMI) and approximately
28,000 square feet of retail (currently anticipated to be a grocery store) in the City. Please see Appendix A
for further District information. The EDA intends to enter into an agreement with KTJ 247, LLC (Oppidan)
as the developer and expects development to commence in late 2015. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve
many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do not preclude
the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated
to occur over the life of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District.
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview
1. Property to be Acquired - The EDA currently owns one parcel of property within the
District. The remaining property located within the District may be acquired by the EDA or
City but it is currently expected to be acquired by the developer.
2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary
legal requirements, the EDA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may
acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer.
4. The EDA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction,
relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 20
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-2
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Please also see the map in Appendix B for further information
on the location of the District.
The EDA or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of
way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the EDA or City only in order to
accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets,
utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to
accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The EDA or City may acquire property by gift,
dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF
Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition
and related costs.
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District
The EDA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with
M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a
redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) as defined below:
(a) "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project,
or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one or more of the
following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists:
(1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent
of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree
requiring substantial renovation or clearance;
(2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently
used rail yards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way;
(3) tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities, as defined
in Section 115C, Subd. 15, if the tank facility:
(i) have or had a capacity of more than one million gallons;
(ii) are located adjacent to rail facilities; or
(iii) have been removed, or are unused, underused, inappropriately used or infrequently
used; or
(4) a qualifying disaster area, as defined in Subd. 10b.
(b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in
structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and
ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions,
or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 21
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-3
(c) A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable
to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15
percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the
site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard
under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size,
type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or
other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without
an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal
prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the
property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable
to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that
owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion
that the building is structurally substandard.
(d) A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard building for purposes of the
finding under paragraph (a) or by the improvement described in paragraph (e) if all of the
following conditions are met:
(1) the parcel was occupied by a substandard building or met the requirements of paragraph
(e), as the case may be, within three years of the filing of the request for certification of the
parcel as part of the district with the county auditor;
(2) the substandard building or the improvements described in paragraph (e) were demolished
or removed by the authority or the demolition or removal was financed by the authority or
was done by a developer under a development agreement with the authority;
(3) the authority found by resolution before the demolition or removal that the parcel was
occupied by a structurally substandard building or met the requirement of paragraph (e) and
that after demolition and clearance the authority intended to include the parcel within a
district; and
(4) upon filing the request for certification of the tax capacity of the parcel as part of a district,
the authority notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be
adjusted as provided by § 469.177, subdivision 1, paragraph (f).
(e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved
or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel
contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures.
(f) For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a
redevelopment district under paragraph (a) to be included in the district, and the entire area of
the district must satisfy paragraph (a).
In meeting the statutory criteria the EDA and City rely on the following facts and findings:
• The District is a redevelopment district consisting of two parcels.
• An inventory shows that parcels consisting of more than 70 percent of the area in the District are
occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures.
• An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 50 percent of the buildings
are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix F).
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 22
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-4
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that
qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111, 273.112, or 273.114 or Chapter 473H for taxes
payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District.
Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration and first year of tax
increment of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b.,
the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the EDA or City (a total of
26 years of tax increment). The EDA or City elects to receive the first tax increment in 2018, which is no
later than four years following the year of approval of the District. Thus, it is estimated that the District,
including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after
2043, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The EDA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to
the legally required date.
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity
(ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor
in 2015 for taxes payable 2016.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning
in the payment year 2018) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of:
1. Change in tax exempt status of property;
2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
4. Change in the use of the property and classification;
5. Change in state law governing class rates; or
6. Change in previously issued building permits.
In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no
value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the EDA or City.
The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2016, assuming the
request for certification is made before June 30, 2016. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the
District appear in the table below.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated
Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within Redevelopment Project No. 1, upon completion of
the projects within the District, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table
below. The EDA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its
obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2018. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC)
listed is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are completed.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 23
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-5
Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC) $1,067,418
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) $37,884
Fiscal Disparities Contribution $88,263
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) $941,271
Original Local Tax Rate 1.30048 Pay 2015
Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $1,224,104
Percent Retained by the EDA 100%
Tax capacity includes a 3% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax capacity included in thischart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 25. The tax capacity of the District in year one isestimated to be $78,765.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the EDA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its
request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S.,
Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which
building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the
TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase
the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building
permit was issued.
The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and found two building permits have been
issued in the past 18 months, but they do not increase the original tax capacity. Please see Appendix
H for the building permits that were issued.
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued
The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax
increments. The EDA or City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF
Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by a pay-as-you-go note and
interfund loan. Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a formal TIF Plan
Modification. This provision does not obligate the EDA or City to incur debt. The EDA or City will issue
bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City.
The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table below:
SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL
Tax Increment $21,611,861
Interest $2,161,139
TOTAL $23,773,000
The EDA or City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments
from the District in a maximum principal amount of $14,669,663. Such bonds may be in the form of pay-as-
you-go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total
bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 24
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-6
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds
Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the development of a mixed-use
development consisting of approximately 176 apartments (of which 10% will be affordable to persons at or
below 60% of the AMI) and approximately 28,000 square feet of retail space (currently anticipated to be a
grocery store). The EDA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the
project for certain District costs, as described. The EDA has studied the feasibility of the development or
redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or
redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost
of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is
outlined in the following table.
USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS TOTAL
Land/Building Acquisition $3,000,000
Site Improvements/Preparation $2,000,000
Utilities $1,000,000
Other Qualifying Improvements $6,508,567
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)$2,161,096
PROJECT COST TOTAL $14,669,663
Interest $9,103,337
PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $23,773,000
The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the total
projected tax increments for the District as shown in Subsection 2-9.
Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification
to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed,
without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant
to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the
District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the District but within
the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1, (including administrative costs, which are considered to be
spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this TIF Plan.
Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the EDA or City may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal
disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, (within the District) are
followed, the following method of computation shall apply:
(1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity
provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal
disparity commercial-industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the
current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section
276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the original net tax
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 25
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-7
capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity
and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax
capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity
is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has
designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the
retained captured net tax capacity of the authority.
(2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the
net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The
local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity
of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by
the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate
to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority.
The EDA will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b.
According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3:
(c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or
(b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may
elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in
paragraph (b).
Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies
Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered
a business subsidy:
(1) A business subsidy of less than $150,000;
(2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses,
such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria;
(3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a
public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at
the time the improvements are made;
(4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3;
(5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing
it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that
the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost;
(6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to
provide those services;
(7) Assistance for housing;
(8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing
hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23;
(9) Assistance for energy conservation;
(10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law;
(11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation;
(12) Benefits derived from regulation;
(13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions;
(14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and
bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 26
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-8
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999;
(15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business;
(16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section
469.174, Subd. 19;
(17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation
is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value;
(18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally
technical nature;
(19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local
government agency;
(20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority;
(21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less;
(22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic
Development Administration; and
(23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section 469.1813 to property that is subject to
valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100.
The EDA expects that the tax increment assistance provided under this TIF Plan will not constitute a business
subsidy, because such assistance will qualify for an exemption under Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.993,
Subdivision 3 (17).
The EDA will comply with M.S., Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance
under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions.
Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1a, the county board may require the EDA or City to pay for all or
part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment
will, in the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of
road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five
years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan.
If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the EDA or City within forty-
five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of the EDA and City and consultants, the proposed
development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF Plan
was not forwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The EDA and City are aware that the
county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing.
Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF
Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the EDA or City has determined that such
development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the
fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as
follows if the "but for" test was not met:
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 27
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-9
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
2014/Pay 2015
Total Net
Tax Capacity
Estimated Captured
Tax Capacity (CTC)
Upon Completion
Percent of CTC
to Entity Total
Hennepin County 1,354,654,515 941,271 0.0695%
City of St. Louis Park 51,886,847 941,271 1.8141%
St. Louis Park ISD No. 283 49,130,597 941,271 1.9159%
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
Pay 2015
Extension Rates
Percent
of Total CTC
Potential
Taxes
Hennepin County 0.463980 35.68% 941,271 436,731
City of St. Louis Park 0.494330 38.01% 941,271 465,298
St. Louis Park ISD No. 283 0.226940 17.45% 941,271 213,612
Other 0.115230 8.86%941,271 108,463
Total 1.300480 100.00%1,224,104
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is the actual Pay 2015 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based
on actual Pay 2015 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2016 rates, which were
unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b):
(1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be
generated over the life of the District is $21,611,861;
(2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. An impact of the
District on police protection is not expected. With any addition of new residents or businesses, police
calls for service will be increased. New developments add an increase in traffic, and additional
overall demands to the call load. The City tracks all calls for service by neighborhood and property
type. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself, will necessitate new
capital investment in vehicles or require that the City expand its staff. Vacant buildings, like the
former Bally Fitness building, often become an attractive nuisance and are conducive to nefarious
activity which can become a blighting influence within the neighborhood. Removal of this building
as a result of the mixed-use project will alleviate these concerns.
The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new
buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction. Continued development may
generate additional calls for service.
The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. The fee for each SAC
is $2,485 and $750 for each WAC.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 28
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-10
The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the ability to issue
debt for general fund purposes is minimal. It is not anticipated that there will be any general
obligation debt issued in relation to this project, therefore there will be no impact on the City's ability
to issue future debt or on the City's debt limit.
(3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. It is estimated that the
amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district
levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions
remained the same, is $3,771,270;
(4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the amount of
tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the
county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $7,711,112;
(5) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any
standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and
impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional
information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax
increment financing plan.
No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed
development for the District have been received.
Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and
description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd.
3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of
reports and studies on file at the City that support the EDA and City's findings:
• A list of applicable studies will be listed here prior to the public hearing.
Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing
district include all of the following potential revenue sources:
1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S.,
Section 469.177;
2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was
purchased by the authority with tax increments;
3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the authority with tax increments;
4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments;
5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for
which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and
6. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 29
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-11
Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any:
1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the District, if the reduction does not meet the
requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e);
2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred;
3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF
Plan;
4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the EDA or City;
5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the District, including administrative expenses, that will be paid
or financed with tax increment from the District; or
6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the EDA or City,
shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval
of the original TIF Plan.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 4(f), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall not
be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county
auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that
the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10, must be documented in
writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is
elimination of parcel(s) from the District and (2)(A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated
from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax
capacity or (B) the EDA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax
capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the
District.
The EDA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification to the District. Modifications to the
District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF
Plan.
Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the
EDA or City, other than:
1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land;
2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and
engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the
District;
3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the
District;
4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or
5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance
costs described in clauses (1) to (3).
For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982,
and before August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 30
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-12
counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section
469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative
expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures
authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause
(1), from the District, whichever is less.
For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, no tax increment may be used to pay
any administrative expenses for District costs which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax increment
expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd.
25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual
administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage limits
of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the
year following the year the expenses were incurred.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36
percent) of any increment distributed to the EDA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount
deducted to the State Commissioner of Management and Budget for deposit in the state general fund to be
appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information
and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be
adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue.
Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment
The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District
may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow
account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or
redemption date.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6:
if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation
or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a
street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water
systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district
by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing
plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel, and the original net tax
capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently
commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel
including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the
tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity
has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most
recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity
of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this
subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required
activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be
submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 31
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-13
as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a
street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street,
and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street.
The EDA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately November
2019 and report such actions to the County Auditor.
Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment
The EDA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable
property located in the District for the following purposes:
1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project;
2. To finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant
to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082;
3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan;
4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4;
5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the
EDA or City or for the benefit of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by a developer;
6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing
the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and
7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on
the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152
through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178.
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other
purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4.
Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Hennepin County to the EDA for the Tax Increment
Fund of said District. The EDA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an
amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public
improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds
will be used for EDA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and for the costs of public improvement
activities outside the District.
Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments
Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the
following:
1. Prepay any outstanding bonds;
2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds;
3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or
4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in
proportion to their local tax rates.
The EDA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after
the end of the year. In addition, the EDA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to
modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in Redevelopment Project No. 1 or the
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 32
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-14
District.
Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer
The EDA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the
Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the
following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and
electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any
other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the EDA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the
development with City plans and ordinances. The EDA or City may also use the Agreements to address other
issues related to the development.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be
acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the EDA or City as a result
of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments
from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, the EDA
or City concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which
provides recourse for the EDA or City should the development or redevelopment not be completed.
Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the EDA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement
in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market
value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement
shall be presented to the City Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements
to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are
to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears,
in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the City Assessor shall also certify the minimum
market value agreement. The EDA expects to enter into an assessment agreement with the developer in
connection with the planned development.
Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District
Administration of the District will be handled by the Economic Development Coordinator.
Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6b the EDA or City must undertake financial reporting
for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor
on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement
shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15.
If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section
469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the Office of the State Auditor will direct the County Auditor to withhold the
distribution of tax increment from the District.
Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations
As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated
development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 33
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-15
reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected
to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value
estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax
increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said determination,
reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects and upon EDA
and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site(s) within the District. A comparative
analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax
increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix
D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated
subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the
use of tax increments. The but-for findings and analysis are found in Appendix G.
Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment
1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF
Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the
Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082. Tax increments may not
be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition,
construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for
conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government
or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax
increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure.
2. Pooling Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on
activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance
activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not
more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise,
on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced
bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they
were solely for activities outside of the District.
3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall
be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule
set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year
following certification of the District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures
permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit
enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5.
4. Redevelopment District. At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a
redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation
of redevelopment and renewal and renovation districts under M.S., Section 469.176 Subd. 4j. These costs
include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or
improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary
to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures,
clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of
the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated
administrative expenses of the EDA or City, including the cost of preparation of the development action
response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 34
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-16
Subsection 2-28. Summary
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the
tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide life-cycle housing opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan
for the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota
55113, telephone (651) 697-8500.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 35
Appendix A-1
Appendix A
Project Description
The EDA will be entering into a redevelopment contract with KTJ 247, LLC (Oppidan) to facilitate the
redevelopment of the former Bally’s Fitness Center and a vacant lot owned by the EDA into a mixed-use
development consisting of approximately 176 apartments and approximately 28,000 square feet of
commercial space, currently expected to be a grocery store. Pursuant to the City’s new inclusionary housing
policy, the developer must provide 18 or 10% of the units (whichever is higher) to be affordable to persons
at or below 60% of the area median income (AMI) or 8% of the units affordable at 50% of the AMI. The city
will be providing assistance in the form of a pay-as-you-go TIF note.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 36
Appendix B-1
Appendix B
Map of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 37
´
4900 Excelsior TIF District
Legend
Parcels
Proposed TIF Distict
Redevelopment Area
October 13, 2015
Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Development Department
3,400 0 3,4001,700 Feet
SubjectArea
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 38
4900 4760
4760 Excelsior Blvd
PID: 0702824210258
4900 Excelsior Blvd
PID: 0702824210002
EXCEL
SI
O
R
WOLFE
VALLAC
H
E
R
PARK C
O
M
M
O
N
S
NATCHEZQUENTINGRANDPRINCETON
OTTAWA39THWOLFEEXCEL
SI
O
R PRINCETON
´
4900 Excelsior TIF District
Legend
Parcels
Proposed TIF Dist
Roads
October 13, 2015
Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Development Department
280 0 280140 Feet
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 39
Appendix C-1
Appendix C
Description of Property to be Included in the District
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed below.
Parcel Numbers Address Owner
07-028-24-21-0002*4900 Excelsior Blvd.Fitness International LLC
07-028-24-21-0258*4760 Excelsior Blvd.EDA
*These parcels are currently in the Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District and will be eliminated
from the Park Commons TIF District prior to certification of the District.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 40
Appendix D-1
Appendix D
Estimated Cash Flow for the District
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 41
11/3/2015Base Value Assumptions - Page 1Bally's Redevelopment - 3% InflationCity of St. Louis Park176 Apartments and 28,000 sq/ft GrocerASSUMPTIONS AND RATESDistrictType:RedevelopmentDistrict Name/Number:County District #:Exempt Class Rate (Exempt)0.00%First Year Construction or Inflation on Value2015Commercial Industrial Preferred Class Rate (C/I Pref.)Existing District - Specify No. Years RemainingFirst $150,0001.50%Inflation Rate - Every Year:3.00%Over $150,0002.00%Interest Rate:4.00%Commercial Industrial Class Rate (C/I)2.00%Present Value Date:1-Aug-16Rental Housing Class Rate (Rental)1.25%First Period Ending1-Feb-17Affordable Rental Housing Class Rate (Aff. Rental)Tax Year District was Certified:Pay 2016First $100,000 0.75%Cashflow Assumes First Tax Increment For Development: 2017 Over $100,000 0.25%Years of Tax Increment 26 Non-Homestead Residential (Non-H Res. 1 Unit)Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment2042First $500,0001.00%Fiscal Disparities Election [Outside (A), Inside (B), or NA]Inside(B)Over $500,0001.25%Incremental or Total Fiscal DisparitiesIncrementalHomestead Residental Class Rate (Hmstd. Res.)Fiscal Disparities Contribution Ratio35.0050% Pay 2015 First $500,0001.00%Fiscal Disparities Metro-Wide Tax Rate161.6250% Pay 2015Over $500,0001.25%Maximum/Frozen Local Tax Rate: 130.048% Pay 2015 Agricultural Non-Homestead1.00%Current Local Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max.) 130.048% Pay 2015 State-wide Tax Rate (Comm./Ind. only used for total taxes) 50.8400% Pay 2015Market Value Tax Rate (Used for total taxes)0.23783% Pay 2015 Building Total PercentageTax Year Property CurrentClassAfterLandMarket Market Of Value Used Original OriginalTaxOriginalAfterConversionMap # PIDOwner Address Market Value ValueValue for District Market Value Market Value Class Tax Capacity Conversion Orig. Tax Cap.10702824210002 Ballys 4900 Ex. Blvd 1,215,000 1,189,000 2,404,00020% 480,800 Pay 2016 C/I Pref.8,866 C/I Pref.8,866 110702824210002 Ballys 4900 Ex. Blvd 1,215,000 1,189,000 2,404,00080% 1,923,200 Pay 2016 C/I Pref.37,714 Rental24,040 120702824210258 EDA4760 Ex. Blvd 355,5800 355,58020%71,116 Pay 2016 Exempt- C/I1,422 120702824210258 EDA4760 Ex. Blvd 355,5800 355,58080% 284,464 Pay 2016 Exempt- Rental3,556 13,141,160 2,378,000 5,519,1602,759,580 46,58037,884Note:1. Base values for parcel #1 are for pay 2016 based upon review of County website on 4-28-15. 2. Base value for parcel #2 is based upon $20 sq/ft per City Assessor.Area/ PhaseTax Rates BASE VALUE INFORMATION (Original Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\4900 Excelsior\TIF Run 9-18-15 - FINAL For TIF Plan.xlsCity Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF DistrictPage 42
11/3/2015Base Value Assumptions - Page 23. Located in SD #283 and WS #3Bally's Redevelopment - 3% InflationCity of St. Louis Park176 Apartments and 28,000 sq/ft GrocerEstimated Taxable Total Taxable PropertyPercentage Percentage Percentage Percentage First YearMarket Value Market Value TotalMarketTaxProject Project Tax Completed Completed Completed Completed Full TaxesArea/Phase New Use Per Sq. Ft./Unit Per Sq. Ft./Unit Sq. Ft./UnitsValueClass Tax CapacityCapacity/Unit 2015201620172018 PayableApartment 180,000180,000 176 31,680,000 Rental396,0002,250 15%100%100%100%2018Grocery230230 28,228 6,492,440 C/I Pref. 129,0995 15%100%100%100%2018TOTAL38,172,440525,099 Subtotal Residential176 31,680,000396,000 Subtotal Commercial/Ind.28,228 6,492,440129,099 Note:1. Market values are based upon estimates from City Assessor.Total Fiscal Local Local Fiscal State-wide MarketTax Disparities Tax PropertyDisparities PropertyValueTotal Taxes PerNew UseCapacityTax CapacityCapacityTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxes Sq. Ft./UnitApartment 396,0000396,000 514,9900075,345 590,335 3,354.17Grocery129,099 45,191 83,908 109,120 73,040 65,63415,441 263,2359.33TOTAL 525,099 45,191 479,908 624,110 73,040 65,63490,786 853,570Note: 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary signficantly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted.Total Property Taxes853,570Current Market Value - Est.2,759,580less State-wide Taxes(65,634)New Market Value - Est.38,172,440less Fiscal Disp. Adj.(73,040) Difference35,412,860less Market Value Taxes(90,786)Present Value of Tax Increment12,071,960less Base Value Taxes(44,584) Difference23,340,900Annual Gross TIF 579,526Value likely to occur without Tax Increment is less than:23,340,900 WHAT IS EXCLUDED FROM TIF?MARKET VALUE BUT / FOR ANALYSISTAX CALCULATIONSPROJECT INFORMATION (Project Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\4900 Excelsior\TIF Run 9-18-15 - FINAL For TIF Plan.xlsCity Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF DistrictPage 43
11/3/2015Tax Increment Cashflow - Page 3Bally's Redevelopment - 3% InflationCity of St. Louis Park176 Apartments and 28,000 sq/ft GrocerTAX INCREMENT CASH FLOWProject Original Fiscal CapturedLocal Annual Semi-Annual State Admin. Semi-Annual Semi-Annual PERIOD% of TaxTax Disparities TaxTax Gross Tax Gross Tax AuditoratNet Tax Present ENDING Tax PaymentOTC Capacity Capacity Incremental CapacityRate Increment Increment 0.36%5% Increment Value Yrs. Year Date- - - - 02/01/17100% 78,765 (37,884) (3,177) 37,703 130.048% 49,033 24,516 (88) (1,221) 23,207 22,306 0.5 2017 08/01/17100% 78,765 (37,884) (3,177) 37,703 130.048% 49,033 24,516 (88) (1,221) 23,207 44,174 1 2017 02/01/18100% 525,099 (37,884) (41,590) 445,625 130.048% 579,526 289,763 (1,043) (14,436) 274,284 297,570 1.5 2018 08/01/18100% 525,099 (37,884) (41,590) 445,625 130.048% 579,526 289,763 (1,043) (14,436) 274,284 545,997 2 2018 02/01/19100% 540,852 (37,884) (42,945) 460,022 130.048% 598,250 299,125 (1,077) (14,902) 283,146 797,423 2.5 2019 08/01/19100% 540,852 (37,884) (42,945) 460,022 130.048% 598,250 299,125 (1,077) (14,902) 283,146 1,043,918 3 2019 02/01/20100% 557,077 (37,884) (44,342) 474,851 130.048% 617,535 308,767 (1,112) (15,383) 292,273 1,293,370 3.5 2020 08/01/20100% 557,077 (37,884) (44,342) 474,851 130.048% 617,535 308,767 (1,112) (15,383) 292,273 1,537,931 4 2020 02/01/21100% 573,790 (37,884) (45,780) 490,125 130.048%637,398 318,699 (1,147) (15,878) 301,674 1,785,409 4.5 2021 08/01/21100% 573,790 (37,884) (45,780) 490,125 130.048% 637,398 318,699 (1,147) (15,878) 301,674 2,028,035 5 2021 02/01/22100% 591,003 (37,884) (47,261) 505,858 130.048% 657,858 328,929 (1,184) (16,387) 311,358 2,273,538 5.5 2022 08/01/22100% 591,003 (37,884) (47,261) 505,858 130.048% 657,858 328,929 (1,184) (16,387) 311,358 2,514,227 6 2022 02/01/23100% 608,733 (37,884) (48,787) 522,062 130.048% 678,931 339,466 (1,222) (16,912) 321,331 2,757,756 6.5 2023 08/01/23100% 608,733 (37,884) (48,787) 522,062 130.048% 678,931 339,466 (1,222) (16,912) 321,331 2,996,510 7 2023 02/01/24100% 626,995 (37,884) (50,359) 538,752 130.048% 700,637 350,318 (1,261) (17,453) 331,604 3,238,066 7.5 2024 08/01/24100% 626,995 (37,884) (50,359) 538,752 130.048% 700,637 350,318 (1,261) (17,453) 331,604 3,474,885 8 2024 02/01/25100% 645,805 (37,884) (51,978) 555,943 130.048% 722,993 361,497 (1,301) (18,010) 342,185 3,714,470 8.5 2025 08/01/25100% 645,805 (37,884) (51,978) 555,943 130.048% 722,993 361,497 (1,301) (18,010) 342,185 3,949,356 9 2025 02/01/26100% 665,179 (37,884) (53,645) 573,650 130.048% 746,020 373,010 (1,343) (18,583) 353,084 4,186,972 9.5 2026 08/01/26100% 665,179 (37,884) (53,645) 573,650 130.048% 746,020 373,010 (1,343) (18,583) 353,084 4,419,928 10 2026 02/01/27100% 685,135 (37,884) (55,363) 591,888 130.048% 769,739 384,869 (1,386) (19,174) 364,310 4,655,578 10.5 2027 08/01/27100% 685,135 (37,884) (55,363) 591,888 130.048% 769,739 384,869 (1,386) (19,174) 364,310 4,886,607 11 2027 02/01/28100% 705,689 (37,884) (57,132) 610,673 130.048% 794,168 397,084 (1,430) (19,783) 375,872 5,120,294 11.5 2028 08/01/28100% 705,689 (37,884) (57,132) 610,673 130.048% 794,168 397,084 (1,430) (19,783) 375,872 5,349,400 12 2028 02/01/29100% 726,860 (37,884) (58,954) 630,022 130.048% 819,331 409,665 (1,475) (20,410) 387,781 5,581,130 12.5 2029 08/01/29100% 726,860 (37,884) (58,954) 630,022 130.048% 819,331 409,665 (1,475) (20,410) 387,781 5,808,316 132029 02/01/30100% 748,665 (37,884) (60,830) 649,951 130.048% 845,248 422,624 (1,521) (21,055) 400,048 6,038,093 13.5 2030 08/01/30100% 748,665 (37,884) (60,830) 649,951 130.048% 845,248 422,624 (1,521) (21,055) 400,048 6,263,365 14 2030 02/01/31100% 771,125 (37,884) (62,763) 670,478 130.048% 871,943 435,972 (1,569) (21,720) 412,682 6,491,195 14.5 2031 08/01/31100% 771,125 (37,884) (62,763) 670,478 130.048% 871,943 435,972 (1,569) (21,720) 412,682 6,714,557 15 2031 02/01/32100% 794,259 (37,884) (64,754) 691,621 130.048% 899,439 449,720 (1,619) (22,405) 425,696 6,940,445 15.5 2032 08/01/32100% 794,259 (37,884) (64,754) 691,621 130.048% 899,439 449,720 (1,619) (22,405) 425,696 7,161,905 16 2032 02/01/33100% 818,087 (37,884) (66,805) 713,398 130.048% 927,760 463,880 (1,670) (23,110) 439,099 7,385,858 16.5 2033 08/01/33100% 818,087 (37,884) (66,805) 713,398 130.048% 927,760 463,880 (1,670) (23,110) 439,099 7,605,419 17 2033 02/01/34100% 842,629 (37,884) (68,917) 735,828 130.048% 956,930 478,465 (1,722) (23,837) 452,905 7,827,444 17.5 2034 08/01/34100% 842,629 (37,884) (68,917) 735,828 130.048% 956,930 478,465 (1,722) (23,837) 452,905 8,045,115 18 2034 02/01/35100% 867,908 (37,884) (71,092) 758,932 130.048% 986,976 493,488 (1,777) (24,586) 467,126 8,265,219 18.5 2035 08/01/35100% 867,908 (37,884) (71,092) 758,932 130.048% 986,976 493,488 (1,777) (24,586) 467,126 8,481,007 19 2035 02/01/36100% 893,946 (37,884) (73,333) 782,728 130.048% 1,017,922 508,961 (1,832) (25,356) 481,772 8,699,197 19.5 2036 08/01/36100% 893,946 (37,884) (73,333) 782,728 130.048% 1,017,922 508,961 (1,832) (25,356) 481,772 8,913,109 20 2036 02/01/37100% 920,764 (37,884) (75,641) 807,238 130.048% 1,049,797 524,899 (1,890) (26,150) 496,859 9,129,394 20.5 2037 08/01/37100% 920,764 (37,884) (75,641) 807,238 130.048% 1,049,797 524,899 (1,890) (26,150) 496,859 9,341,437 21 2037 02/01/38100% 948,387 (37,884) (78,019) 832,484 130.048% 1,082,629 541,314 (1,949) (26,968) 512,397 9,555,825 21.5 2038 08/01/38100% 948,387 (37,884) (78,019) 832,484 130.048% 1,082,629 541,314 (1,949) (26,968) 512,397 9,766,009 22 2038 02/01/39100% 976,838 (37,884) (80,467) 858,487 130.048% 1,116,445 558,223 (2,010) (27,811) 528,402 9,978,508 22.5 2039 08/01/39100% 976,838 (37,884) (80,467) 858,487 130.048% 1,116,445 558,223 (2,010) (27,811) 528,402 10,186,840 23 2039 02/01/40100% 1,006,144 (37,884) (82,989) 885,270 130.048% 1,151,276 575,638 (2,072) (28,678) 544,888 10,397,459 23.5 2040 08/01/40100% 1,006,144 (37,884) (82,989) 885,270 130.048% 1,151,276 575,638 (2,072) (28,678) 544,888 10,603,949 24 2040 02/01/41100% 1,036,328 (37,884) (85,587) 912,857 130.048% 1,187,152 593,576 (2,137) (29,572) 561,867 10,812,699 24.5 2041 08/01/41100% 1,036,328 (37,884) (85,587) 912,857 130.048% 1,187,152 593,576 (2,137) (29,572) 561,867 11,017,355 25 2041 02/01/42100% 1,067,418 (37,884) (88,263) 941,271 130.048% 1,224,104 612,052 (2,203) (30,492) 579,356 11,224,243 25.5 2042 08/01/42100% 1,067,418 (37,884) (88,263) 941,271 130.048% 1,224,104 612,052 (2,203) (30,492) 579,356 11,427,075 26 2042 02/01/43 Total21,689,042 (78,081) (1,080,548) 20,530,413 Present Value From 08/01/2016 Present Value Rate 4.00%12,071,960 (43,459) (601,425) 11,427,075 Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\4900 Excelsior\TIF Run 9-18-15 - FINAL For TIF Plan.xlsCity Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF DistrictPage 44
Appendix E-1
Appendix E
Minnesota Business Assistance Form
(Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development)
A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar year's
activity by April 1 of the following year.
Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at
http://www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm for information and forms.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 45
Appendix F-1
Appendix F
Redevelopment Qualifications for the District
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 46
REPORT OF
INSPECTION PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
FOR
DETERMINING QUALIFICATIONS OF A
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
AS A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Bally Block TIF District
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
August 8, 2014
Prepared For The City of St. Louis Park
Prepared by
LHB, Inc.
701 Washington Avenue North, Suite 200
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
LHB Project No. 140199
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 47
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 2
Purpose of Evaluation.......................................................................................................... 2
Scope of Work....................................................................................................................... 2
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 3
PART 2 – MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDIVISION 10 REQUIREMENTS .................. 3
A. Coverage Test ................................................................................................................. 3
B. Condition of Buildings Test ......................................................................................... 4
PART 3 – PROCEDURES FOLLOWED ................................................................................................. 5
PART 4 – FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................... 5
A. Coverage Test ................................................................................................................. 5
B. Condition of Building Test ........................................................................................... 6
1. Building Inspection ......................................................................................... 6
2. Replacement Cost ............................................................................................ 6
3. Code Deficiencies ............................................................................................ 7
4. System Condition Deficiencies ...................................................................... 7
C. Distribution of substandard structures ....................................................................... 8
PART 5 - TEAM CREDENTIALS ............................................................................................................. 9
APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
APPENDIX B Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports
APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports
Code Deficiency Cost Reports
Photographs
Bally Block TIF District 1
LHB Project No. 140199
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 48
PART 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF EVALUATION
LHB was hired by the City of St. Louis Park to inspect and evaluate the properties within a Tax
Increment Financing Redevelopment District (“TIF District”) proposed to be established by the
City. The proposed TIF District is located on one city block bounded by Excelsior Boulevard,
Quentin Avenue, Park Commons Drive and Princeton Avenue South (Diagram 1). The purpose of
LHB’s work is to determine whether the proposed TIF District meets the statutory requirements
for coverage, and whether 1 building on 2 parcels, located within the proposed TIF District, meet
the qualifications required for a Redevelopment District.
Diagram 1 – Proposed TIF District
SCOPE OF WORK
The proposed TIF District consists of two (2) parcels with one (1) structure. One (1) building was
inspected on April 15, 2014. Building code and Condition Deficiency reports for the buildings that
were inspected are located in Appendix B.
Bally Block TIF District 2
LHB Project No. 140199
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 49
CONCLUSION
After inspecting and evaluating the properties within the proposed TIF District and applying
current statutory criteria for a Redevelopment District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174,
Subdivision 10, it is our professional opinion that the proposed TIF District qualifies as a
Redevelopment District because:
• The proposed TIF District has a coverage calculation of 74.6 percent which is above the 70
percent requirement.
• 100 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard which is above the 50 percent
requirement.
• The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed throughout the geographic area of the
proposed TIF District.
The remainder of this report describes our process and findings in detail.
PART 2 – MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDIVISION 10 REQUIREMENTS
The properties were inspected in accordance with the following requirements under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), which states:
Interior Inspection
“The municipality may not make such determination [that the building is structurally substandard]
without an interior inspection of the property...”
Exterior Inspection and Other Means
“An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that
(1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best
efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and
(2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally
substandard.”
Documentation
“Written documentation of the findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not conducted
must be made and retained under section 469.175, subdivision 3(1).”
Qualification Requirements
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 (a) (1) requires two tests for occupied parcels:
A. Coverage Test
…“parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings,
streets, utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots”
The coverage required by the parcel to be considered occupied is defined under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(e), which states: “For purposes of this subdivision, a
Bally Block TIF District 3
LHB Project No. 140199
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 50
parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots unless 15
percent of the area of the parcel contains building, streets, utilities, or paved or gravel
parking lots.”
B. Condition of Buildings Test
…“and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally
substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance;”
1. Structurally substandard is defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision
10(b), which states: “For purposes of this subdivision, ‘structurally substandard’ shall
mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in
essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate
egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or
deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or
clearance.”
a. We do not count energy code deficiencies toward the thresholds required by
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b)) defined as “structurally
substandard”, due to concerns expressed by the State of Minnesota Court of
Appeals in the Walser Auto Sales, Inc. vs. City of Richfield case filed November 13, 2001.
2. Buildings are not eligible to be considered structurally substandard unless they meet
certain additional criteria, as set forth in Subdivision 10(c) which states:
“A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code
applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of
less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square
footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified
as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably
available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of
plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs, or other similar reliable evidence.”
“Items of evidence that support such a conclusion [that the building is not disqualified]
include recent fire or police inspections, on-site property appraisals or housing
inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar reliable evidence.”
LHB counts energy code deficiencies toward the 15 percent code threshold required by
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c)) for the following reasons:
• The Minnesota energy code is one of ten building code areas highlighted by the
Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry website where minimum
construction standards are required by law.
• The index page of the 2007 Minnesota Building Code lists the Minnesota
Energy Code as a “Required Enforcement” area compared to an additional list
of “Optional Enforcement” chapters.
• The Senior Building Code Representative for the Construction Codes and
Licensing Division of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry
Bally Block TIF District 4
LHB Project No. 140199
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 51
confirmed that the Minnesota Energy Code is being enforced throughout the
State of Minnesota.
• In a January 2002 report to the Minnesota Legislature, the Management Analysis
Division of the Minnesota Department of Administration confirmed that the
construction cost of new buildings complying with the Minnesota Energy Code
is higher than buildings built prior to the enactment of the code.
• Proper TIF analysis requires a comparison between the replacement value of a
new building built under current code standards with the repairs that would be
necessary to bring the existing building up to current code standards. In order
for an equal comparison to be made, all applicable code chapters should be
applied to both scenarios. Since current construction estimating software
automatically applies the construction cost of complying with the Minnesota
Energy Code, energy code deficiencies should also be identified in the existing
structures.
PART 3 – PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
LHB was able to inspect the one existing building during the day of April 15, 2014.
PART 4 – FINDINGS
A. Coverage Test
1. The total square foot area of the parcel in the proposed TIF District was obtained from
City records, GIS mapping and site verification.
2. The total square foot area of buildings and site improvements on the parcels in the
proposed TIF District was obtained from City records, GIS mapping and site
verification.
3. The percentage of coverage for each parcel in the proposed TIF District was computed
to determine if the 15 percent minimum requirement was met. The total square footage
of parcels meeting the 15 percent requirement was divided into the total square footage
of the entire district to determine if the 70 percent requirement was met.
Finding:
The proposed TIF District met the coverage test under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174,
Subdivision 10(e), which resulted in parcels consisting of 74.6 percent of the area of the
proposed TIF District being occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel
parking lots, or other similar structures (Diagram 2). This exceeds the 70 percent area
coverage requirement for the proposed TIF District under Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subdivision (a) (1).
Bally Block TIF District 5
LHB Project No. 140199
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 52
Diagram 2 – Coverage Diagram
Shaded area depicts a parcel more than 15 percent occupied by buildings, streets, utilities,
Paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures
B. Condition of Building Test
1. Building Inspection
The first step in the evaluation process is the building inspection. After an initial walk-
thru, the inspector makes a judgment whether or not a building “appears” to have
enough defects or deficiencies of sufficient total significance to justify substantial
renovation or clearance. If it does, the inspector documents with notes and photographs
code and non-code deficiencies in the building.
2. Replacement Cost
The second step in evaluating a building to determine if it is substandard to a degree
requiring substantial renovation or clearance is to determine its replacement cost. This is
the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on site.
Replacement costs were researched using R.S. Means Cost Works square foot models for
2014.
Bally Block TIF District 6
LHB Project No. 140199
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 53
A replacement cost was calculated by first establishing building use (office, retail,
residential, etc.), building construction type (wood, concrete, masonry, etc.), and building
size to obtain the appropriate median replacement cost, which factors in the costs of
construction in St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
Replacement cost includes labor, materials, and the contractor’s overhead and profit.
Replacement costs do not include architectural fees, legal fees or other “soft” costs not
directly related to construction activities. Replacement cost for each building is tabulated
in Appendix A.
3. Code Deficiencies
The next step in evaluating a building is to determine what code deficiencies exist with
respect to such building. Code deficiencies are those conditions for a building which are
not in compliance with current building codes applicable to new buildings in the State of
Minnesota.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), specifically provides that a building
cannot be considered structurally substandard if its code deficiencies are not at least 15
percent of the replacement cost of the building. As a result, it was necessary to
determine the extent of code deficiencies for each building in the proposed TIF District.
The evaluation was made by reviewing all available information with respect to such
buildings contained in City Building Inspection records and making interior and exterior
inspections of the buildings. LHB utilizes the current Minnesota State Building Code as
the official code for our evaluations. The Minnesota State Building Code is actually a
series of provisional codes written specifically for Minnesota only requirements, adoption
of several international codes, and amendments to the adopted international codes.
After identifying the code deficiencies in each building, we used R.S. Means Cost Works
2014; Unit and Assembly Costs to determine the cost of correcting the identified
deficiencies. We were than able to compare the correction costs with the replacement
cost of each building to determine if the costs for correcting code deficiencies meet the
required 15 percent threshold.
Finding:
One (1) out of one (1) building (100 percent) in the proposed TIF District contained
code deficiencies exceeding the 15 percent threshold required by Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subdivision 10(c). A complete Building Code and Condition Deficiency report
for the building in the proposed TIF District can be found in Appendix B of this report.
4. System Condition Deficiencies
If a building meets the minimum code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), then in order for such building to be “structurally
substandard” under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b), the building’s
defects or deficiencies should be of sufficient total significance to justify “substantial
renovation or clearance.” Based on this definition, LHB re-evaluated each of the
buildings that met the code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174,
Bally Block TIF District 7
LHB Project No. 140199
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 54
Subdivision 10(c), to determine if the total deficiencies warranted “substantial renovation
or clearance” based on the criteria we outlined above.
System condition deficiencies are a measurement of defects or substantial deterioration
in site elements, structure, exterior envelope, mechanical and electrical components, fire
protection and emergency systems, interior partitions, ceilings, floors and doors.
The evaluation of system condition deficiencies was made by reviewing all available
information contained in City records, and making interior and exterior inspections of
the buildings. LHB only identified system condition deficiencies that were visible upon
our inspection of the building or contained in City records. We did not consider the
amount of “service life” used up for a particular component unless it was an obvious
part of that component’s deficiencies.
After identifying the system condition deficiencies in each building, we used our
professional judgment to determine if the list of defects or deficiencies is of sufficient
total significance to justify “substantial renovation or clearance.”
Finding:
In our professional opinion, one (1) out of one (1) buildings (100 percent) in the
proposed TIF District are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial
renovation or clearance, because of defects in structural elements or a combination of
deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection
including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors
which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial
renovation or clearance. This exceeds the 50 percent requirement of Subdivision 10a(1).
C. Distribution of substandard structures
Much of this report has focused on the condition of individual buildings as they relate to
requirements identified by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10. It is also
important to look at the distribution of substandard buildings throughout the geographic
area of the proposed TIF District (Diagram 3).
Bally Block TIF District 8
LHB Project No. 140199
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 55
Finding:
The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed throughout the geographic area of
the proposed TIF District.
Diagram 3 – Substandard Buildings
Shaded area depicts parcels with substandard buildings
PART 5 - TEAM CREDENTIALS
Michael A. Fischer, AIA, LEED AP - Project Principal/TIF Analyst
Michael has twenty-four years of architectural experience as project principal, project manager,
project designer and project architect on municipal planning, educational, commercial and
governmental projects. He is a Senior Vice President at LHB and currently leads the Minneapolis
office. Michael completed a two-year Bush Fellowship at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
in 1999, earning Masters Degrees in City Planning and Real Estate Development. Michael has
served on over 35 committees, boards and community task forces, including a term as a City
Council President, Chair of a Metropolitan Planning organization, and most recently, Chair of the
Bally Block TIF District 9
LHB Project No. 140199
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 56
Bally Block TIF District 10
LHB Project No. 140199
Planning Commission in Edina, Minnesota. He was one of four architects in the country to receive
the National "Young Architects Citation" from the American Institute of Architects in 1997.
Philip Waugh – Project Manager/TIF Analyst
Philip is a project manager with 13 years of experience in historic preservation, building
investigations, material research, and construction methods. He previously worked as a historic
preservationist and also served as the preservation specialist at the St. Paul Heritage Preservation
Commission. Currently, Phil sits on the Board of Directors for the Preservation Alliance of
Minnesota. His current responsibilities include project management of historic preservation
projects, performing building condition surveys and analysis, TIF analysis, writing preservation
specifications, historic design reviews, writing Historic Preservation Tax Credit applications,
preservation planning, and grant writing.
Ben Trousdale, AIA – Inspector
Ben is a project architect in LHB’s Minneapolis office with 20 years of experience working on a
variety of multi-family housing and commercial projects. He has extensive skills in creating quality
construction documents that convey a building’s fundamentals and unique design details. His
responsibilities include project management, code analysis, and overseeing document production.
Ben is a licensed architect in Minnesota and is involved with AIA activities including Search for
Shelter charrettes.
M:\14Proj\140199\400 Design\406 Reports\Final Report\Bally Block TIF Report.doc
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
APPENDIX B Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports
APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports
Code Deficiency Cost Reports
Photograph
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 57
APPENDIX A
Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 58
08/06/2014Bally Block TIF Analysis ‐ St. Louis ParkSUMMARY SPREADSHEETTIF Map No.PID #Owner/BusinessProperty AddressImproved or VacantSurvey Method UsedSite Area(S.F.)Coverage Area of Improvements(S.F.)Coverage Percent of ImprovementsCoverageQuantity(S.F.)No. of BuildingsBuildingReplacementCost15% of Replacement CostBuilding Code DeficienciesNo. of Buildings Exceeding 15% CriteriaNo. of buildings determined substandard107‐028‐24‐21‐0002Fitness International LLC4900 Excelsior BoulevardImproved Interior/Exterior52,09442,06880.8%52,094 1 $4,454,532 $668,180 $808,58311207‐028‐24‐21‐0258St Louis Park Econ Dev Auth4760 Excelsior BoulevardVacantExterior17,7792,08611.7%00$0$0$000TOTALS 69,87352,094 1 11 74.6% 100.0%M:\14Proj\140199\400 Design\406 Reports\Final Report\[St. Louis Park Bally Block TIF Summary Spreadsheet.xls]Property Info100.0%Total Coverage Percent:Percent of buildings exceeding 15 percent code deficiency threshold: Percent of buildings determined substandard: LHB Project No. 140199Page 1 of 1City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF DistrictPage 59
APPENDIX B
Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 60
BALLY BLOCK
REDEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICT
CODE/CONDITION DEFICIENCY/CONTEXT ANALYSIS
August 8, 2014
Map No. & Address: Map No. 1 – 4900 Excelsior Boulevard
Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): 15 April 2014, 10:30am
Inspection Type: Interior and Exterior
Summary of Deficiencies: It is our professional opinion that this building is Substandard
because:
- Substantial renovation is required to correct Conditions found.
- Building Code deficiencies total more than 15% of replacement
cost, NOT including energy code deficiencies.
Estimated Replacement Cost: $4,454,532.00
Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $ 808,583.20
Percentage of Replacement Cost for Building Code Deficiencies: 18.2 %
A. Defects in Structural Elements
- Cracks in exterior walls may indicate settlement in the building structure.
B. Combination of Deficiencies
1. Essential Utilities and Facilities
a. Remove and replace existing toilet rooms.
b. Add elevator with the following:
i Elevator Pit and footings
ii 12” CMU shaft walls
iii Elevator equipment and equipment room
iv 100amp 3 phase power
v safety switch
vi fire alarm connections
vii emergency phone connection
c. Stainless steel removable ramp for pool and spa.
2. Light and Ventilation
a. Reinstall Toilet Room Ventilation System.
b. Provide additional ventilation to comply with current code for fresh air.
c. Ventilation ducts on roof are rusted and need replacement.
3. Fire Protection/Adequate Egress
a. Non-compliant exit stairs to 2nd floor & pool egress.
b. Provide sprinkler system in basement to comply with 903.2.12.1 and 903.2.12.1.3
4. Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials
a. Interior room reconstruction (doors, partitions, finishes).
b. Move conflicting toilet partition and water closet in Men’s locker room.
c. Replace water damaged and cracked acoustical ceiling tile. Install ceiling tile where none
exists.
d. Replace warped fluorescent light covers at ceiling.
e. Replace worn carpeting in corridors.
f. Patch and repaint walls
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 61
g. Replace worn rubber trim at floor level.
h. Replace warped and cracked wood gym flooring.
i. Rubber flooring in fitness area is worn and damaged. Requires replacement.
j. Baseboard missing in fitness area.
k. Patch empty conduit drill holes in drywall in corridor and remove electrical conduit not
in use.
l. Rust forming on metal ceilings.
m. Uneven rubber flooring transition at top of stair.
n. Evidence of water damage on flooring.
o. Shower room tiles exhibit signs of mold and mildew.
p. Cracked tiles at pool surround.
q. Tiles at spa exhibit signs of mildew.
r. Cracked floor tiles at building entry.
5. Exterior Construction
a. Landings not at same level on both sides of egress door.
b. Install new stoop at 10 locations.
c. Remove and reinstall roof providing adequate sloped drainage.
d. Standing water on roof due to insufficient drainage.
e. Install overflow drainage system.
f. Cracks in roof sealant.
g. Aging wood enclosure surrounding HVAC unit on roof.
h. Moss growth on roof.
i. Exterior wall discolored from previous signage.
j. Exterior wall exhibits extensive cracks.
k. Side entry requires landscaping or concrete walkway.
l. Exterior rubber seal at windows peeling away from mullion.
m. Cracked window. Requires replacement.
n. Uneven pavement at rear entry.
o. Exterior wall shows signs of patching and needs repainting.
p. Wood chips covering exterior window sill.
q. Exterior metal stair rusted at parking structure.
Description of Code Deficiencies
- Replace toilets to provide handicap access for each sex.
- Build (2) new accessible toilet rooms with compliant number of accessories and fixtures.
- Interior configuration does not provide for accessible route. Interior handicap access route not
provided throughout building. MN 1341.0405, Item E.
- MN 1341.0488: Provide handicap access to pool and spa.
- MN 1341.0458 Subpart 2: Provide adequate access to shower unit at Men’s and Women’s locker
rooms.
- MN 1341.0442 - Provide adequate maneuvering space at Men's and Women's locker room doors.
- Move conflicting toilet partition and water closet in Men’s locker room.
- Landings not at same level both sides of egress door.
- Install new stoop at 10 locations.
- Non-compliant exit stairs to 2nd floor & pool egress.
- Stair treads exceeds min. run of 11" and stair riser greater than max. 7".
- Provide sprinkler system in basement to comply with 903.2.12.1 and 903.2.12.1.3.
- Remove and reinstall roof providing adequate sloped drainage.
- Install overflow drainage system.
- Provide additional ventilation to comply with current code for fresh air.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 62
Overview of Deficiencies
- This building is a two story, commercial building in generally poor condition. According to property
records, it was built in 1983.
- In total, the defects and deficiencies in this building are of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 63
APPENDIX C
Building Replacement Cost Reports
Code Deficiency Cost Reports
Photographs
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 64
Square Foot Cost Estimate Report
Bally Block
St Louis Park
4900 Excelsior Boulevard , St Louis Park , MN
Building Type:Health Club with Concrete Block / Steel Frame
Location:MINNEAPOLIS, MN
Story Count:2
Story Height (L.F.):12
Floor Area (S.F.):24,685
Labor Type:STD
Basement Included:Yes
Data Release:Year 2014 Quarter 1
Cost Per Square Foot:$180.46
Building Cost:$4,454,532
% of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost
8.81% $15.89 $392,245
A1010 Standard Foundations $3.91 $96,518
A1030 Slab on Grade $3.50 $86,398
A2010 Basement Excavation $2.69 $66,403
A2020 Basement Walls $5.79 $142,926
26.17% $47.22 $1,165,626
B1010 Floor Construction $25.04 $618,112
B1020 Roof Construction $5.49 $135,521
B2010 Exterior Walls $8.95 $220,931
B2020 Exterior Windows $2.69 $66,403
B2030 Exterior Doors $1.17 $28,881
B3010 Roof Coverings $3.80 $93,803
B3020 Roof Openings $0.08 $1,975
19.41% $35.03 $864,716
C1010 Partitions $6.58 $162,427
Spread footings, 3000 PSI concrete, load 200K, soil bearing capacity 6
Estimate Name:
Costs are derived from a building model with basic components.
Scope differences and market conditions can cause costs to vary significantly.
A Substructure
Strip footing, concrete, reinforced, load 11.1 KLF, soil bearing capacity 6
Windows, aluminum, picture unit, insulated glass, 3'‐4" x 5'‐0"
Slab on grade, 4" thick, non industrial, reinforced
Excavate and fill, 10,000 SF, 8' deep, sand, gravel, or common earth, on
Foundation wall, CIP, 12' wall height, pumped, .444 CY/LF, 21.59 PLF,
B Shell
Cast‐in‐place concrete column, 12" square, tied, 200K load, 12' story
Flat slab, concrete, with drop panels, 6" slab/2.5" panel, 12" column,
Floor, concrete, slab form, open web bar joist @ 2' OC, on W beam and
Floor, concrete, slab form, open web bar joist @ 2' OC, on W beam and
Roof, steel joists, joist girder, 1.5" 22 ga metal deck, on columns, 30'x30'
Roof, steel joists, joist girder, 1.5" 22 ga metal deck, on columns, 30'x30'
Concrete block (CMU) wall, regular weight, 75% solid, 8 x 8 x 16, 4500
Windows, aluminum, awning type, standard glass, 3'‐0" x 4'‐0", 3 lite
Door, aluminum & glass, without transom, black finish, double door,
Door, steel 18 gauge, hollow metal, 1 door with frame, no label, 3'‐0" x
Roofing, asphalt flood coat, gravel, base sheet, 3 plies 15# asphalt felt,
Insulation, rigid, roof deck, composite with 2" EPS, 1" perlite
Roof edges, aluminum, duranodic, .050" thick, 6" face
Gravel stop, aluminum, extruded, 4", mill finish, .050" thick
Skylight, plastic domes, insululated curbs, nominal size to 10 SF, single
Roof hatch, with curb, 1" fiberglass insulation, 2'‐6" x 3'‐0", galvanized
C Interiors
Bally Block TIF District
LHB Project No. 140199 1 of 3 Parcel #07‐028‐24‐21‐0002
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 65
C1020 Interior Doors $2.25 $55,541
C1030 Fittings $3.41 $84,176
C2010 Stair Construction $5.29 $130,584
C3010 Wall Finishes $1.40 $34,559
C3020 Floor Finishes $12.22 $301,651
C3030 Ceiling Finishes $3.88 $95,778
36.52% $65.91 $1,626,988
D2010 Plumbing Fixtures $3.98 $98,246
D2010 Plumbing Fixtures $6.42 $158,478
D2020 Domestic Water Distribution $1.42 $35,053
D2040 Rain Water Drainage $0.73 $18,020
D3050 Terminal & Package Units $32.25 $796,091
D4010 Sprinklers $3.80 $93,803
D4020 Standpipes $0.38 $9,380
D5010 Electrical Service/Distribution $2.93 $72,327
D5020 Lighting and Branch Wiring $11.72 $289,308
D5030 Communications and Security $2.22 $54,801
Hydraulic passenger elevator, 3,500 lb, 3 floors, 12 story height
1 car group, 125 FPM
Metal partition, 5/8"fire rated gypsum board face, 1/4" sound deadening
Concrete block (CMU) partition, light weight, hollow, 6" thick, no finish
Urinal, vitreous china, wall hung
1/2" fire rated gypsum board, taped & finished, painted on metal furring
Door, single leaf, kd steel frame, hollow metal, commercial quality, flush,
Toilet partitions, cubicles, ceiling hung, stainless steel
Stairs, steel, cement filled metal pan & picket rail, 16 risers, with landing
Painting, interior on plaster and drywall, walls & ceilings, roller work,
Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, primer & 2 coats
Carpet tile, nylon, fusion bonded, 18" x 18" or 24" x 24", 35 oz
Tile, ceramic natural clay
Acoustic ceilings, 3/4"mineral fiber, 12" x 12" tile, concealed 2" bar &
D Services
Water closet, vitreous china, tank type, floor mount, 1 piece
Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, light hazard, each additional floor,
Lavatory w/trim, vanity top, PE on CI, 19" x 16" oval
Kitchen sink w/trim, countertop, stainless steel, 25" x 22" single bowl
Service sink w/trim, PE on CI,wall hung w/rim guard, 24" x 20"
Bathtub, recessed, PE on CI, mat bottom, corner, 48" x 42"
Shower, stall, baked enamel, terrazzo receptor, 36" square
Water cooler, electric, wall hung, dual height, 14.3 GPH
Gas fired water heater, commercial, 100< F rise, 600 MBH input, 576
Roof drain, DWV PVC, 4" diam, diam, 10' high
Roof drain, DWV PVC, 4" diam, for each additional foot add
Rooftop, multizone, air conditioner, bowling alleys, 20,000 SF, 113.00
Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, light hazard, 1 floor, 10,000 SF
Communication and alarm systems, fire detection, addressable, 25
Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, 1 floor
Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe,
Overhead service installation, includes breakers, metering, 20' conduit &
Feeder installation 600 V, including RGS conduit and XHHW wire, 400 A
Switchgear installation, incl switchboard, panels & circuit breaker,
Receptacles incl plate, box, conduit, wire, 2.5 per 1000 SF, .3 watts per
Wall switches, 1.0 per 1000 SF
Miscellaneous power, to .5 watts
Central air conditioning power, 4 watts
Fluorescent fixtures recess mounted in ceiling, 0.8 watt per SF, 20 FC, 5
HID fixture, 20' above work plane, 3 watt/SF, type G, 151 FC, 3 fixtures
Fire alarm command center, addressable with voice, excl. wire & conduit
Bally Block TIF District
LHB Project No. 140199 2 of 3 Parcel #07‐028‐24‐21‐0002
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 66
D5090 Other Electrical Systems $0.06 $1,481
0.00% $0.00 $0
E1090 Other Equipment $0.00 $0
0.00% $0.00 $0
0.00% $0.00 $0
100% $164.05 $4,049,574
10.00% $16.41 $404,957
0.00% $0.00 $0
0.00% $0.00 $0
$180.46 $4,454,532
Contractor Fees (General Conditions,Overhead,Profit)
Architectural Fees
User Fees
Total Building Cost
Generator sets, w/battery, charger, muffler and transfer switch,
E Equipment & Furnishings
F Special Construction
G Building Sitework
SubTotal
Bally Block TIF District
LHB Project No. 140199 3 of 3 Parcel #07‐028‐24‐21‐0002
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 67
Bally Block TIF District
LHB Project No. 140199
Page 1 of 2 Parcel #07-028-24-21-0002
Bally Block Proposed TIF District
Project No. 140199
4900 Excelsior Blvd
Parcel #07-028-24-21-0002
Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Unit
Quantity Total
Handicap Items
Replace toilets to provide handicap access for each sex
Build (2) new accessible toilet rooms W/ compliant number of accessories and fixtures
Remove existing toilet rooms 2,275.00$ Lump 1 2,275.00$
2 water closets 3,250.00$ each 2 6,500.00$
2 lavs 2,275.00$ each 2 4,550.00$
1 Urinal 2,275.00$ each 1 2,275.00$
2 sets of grab bars 520.00$ each 2 1,040.00$
2 sets toilet room accessories 650.00$ each 2 1,300.00$
Interior room reconstruction (doors, partitions, finishes)80.00$ SF 120 9,600.00$
Reinstall toilet Room Ventilation System 650.00$ each 2 1,300.00$
Interior configuration does not provide for accessible route. Interior handicap access route not
provided throughout building. MN 1341.0405, Item E
Add Elevator
Elevator Pit and footings 8,000.00$ Lump 1 8,000.00$
12" CMU Elevator Shaft walls 13.00$ SF 1,216 15,808.00$
Elevator Equipment (3 stop)44,575.00$ Lump 1 44,575.00$
Elevator Equipment Room (Assume 64 SF)30.00$ SF 64 1,920.00$
Power 100 amp 3 phase
Safety Switch 520.00$ Lump 1 520.00$
Circuit Breaker 795.00$ Lump 1 795.00$
Motor Starter 450.00$ Lump 1 450.00$
Wire and Conduit Feeder (150 feet assumed)31.00$ LF 150 4,650.00$
Fire Alarm Connections 1,000.00$ lump 1 1,000.00$
Emergency Phone Connection 12.00$ LF 150 1,800.00$
MN 1341.0488 Provide handicap access to pool and spa
Stainless steel removable ramp 10,550.00$ Each 2.00 21,100.00$
MN 1341.0458 Subpart 2 - Provide adequate access to shower unit at Men's and Women's locker rooms
Install new shower enclosure in locker area
Sawcut floor for new drain and waste.65.00$ HR 12.00 780.00$
Provide piping for hot and cold water 65.00$ HR 24.00 1,560.00$
Provide 8" CMU for wall enclosure at 2 sides of shower unit 12.00$ SF 96.00 1,152.00$
Furnish install new shower 36" x 36" enclosure with seat and bars 670.00$ Each 2.00 1,340.00$
Shower valve, head 350.00$ Each 2.00 700.00$
Grab Bars 205.00$ Each 2.00 410.00$
Patch flooring 7.00$ SF 12.00 84.00$
MN 1341.0442 - Provide adequate maneuvering space at Men's and Women's locker room doors
Men - move conflicting toilet partition and water closet
Modify conflicting partition 900.00$ Each 2.00 1,800.00$
Patch flooring 14.00$ SF 8.00 112.00$
Landings not at same level both sides of egress door
Install new stoop at 10 locations
Concrete stoop foundations 8' x 4'
Excavation/Backfill 105.00$ LF 16.00 1,680.00$
Strip Footings 12" x 18"520.00$ CY 1.00 520.00$
8" CMU foundation walls grout solid 9.00$ SF 90.00 810.00$
Reinforced Concrete stoop on metal form deck 520.00$ CY 1.00 520.00$
Exiting
Non-compliant exit stairs to 2nd floor & pool egress
Stair treads exceeds min. run of 11" and stair riser greater than max. 7". IBC1009.3.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 68
Bally Block TIF District
LHB Project No. 140199
Page 2 of 2 Parcel #07-028-24-21-0002
Bally Block Proposed TIF District
Project No. 140199
4900 Excelsior Blvd
Parcel #07-028-24-21-0002
Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Unit
Quantity Total
Remove existing steel and concrete stairs.3,000.00$ Each 2 6,000.00$
Provide new stairs at each location (assume 22 risers/stair)420.00$ Riser 44 18,480.00$
Provide new railings at each location 50 feet per stair 60.00$ Foot 200 12,000.00$
Provide new stair tread coverings 67.20$ Riser 44 2,956.80$
Fire Protection
IBC Chapter 9 - Provide Fire Alarm System 0.95$ SF 24,685 23,450.75$
Provide sprinkler system in basement to comply with 903.2.12.1 and 903.2.12.1.3
Sprinkler piping and heads for building 4.05$ SF 24,685 99,974.25$
Provide 6" water line from public right of way, include cut and patch 300.00$ LF 80 24,000.00$
Roof Construction
Remove and reinstall roof providing adequate sloped drainage
MN1305.1507.10.1 to 1305.1507.15.1
Remove existing roof $3.25 SF 13,556 44,057.00$
Install new roofing system with 6" rigid insulation minimum with taper.$10.40 SF 13,556 140,982.40$
Add additional wood blocking $6.50 LF 638 4,147.00$
Install overflow drainage system at buildings 11 and 7 ( 13,700 SF)
4 roof drains 650.00$ Each 6 3,900.00$
3" piping @ 300 feet 21.00$ LF 300 6,300.00$
Mechanical- Electrical
Provide additional ventilation to comply with current code for fresh air
MN 1346.0403 Section 403.3
Assumes 100% of floor area is non-code compliant
Mechanical equipment, ductwork and units 8.80$ SF 24,685 217,228.00$
Additional electrical service and distribution for mechanical equipment 2.60$ SF 24,685 64,181.00$
Total Code Improvements 808,583.20$
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 69
Cover Image-rev 1.jpg IMGP4000.JPG IMGP3960.JPG IMGP3959.JPG
IMGP4018.JPG IMGP4009.JPG IMGP4010.JPG IMGP4011.JPG
IMGP3958.JPG IMGP3937.JPG IMGP3941.JPG IMGP3942.JPG
IMGP3945.JPG IMGP3947.JPG IMGP3951.JPG IMGP3955.JPG
Bally Block TIF Analysis Photos - 4900 Excelsior Boulevard
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 70
IMGP3956.JPG IMGP3969.JPG IMGP3971.JPG IMGP3976.JPG
IMGP3982.JPG IMGP3991.JPG IMGP3993.JPG IMGP4001.JPG
IMGP4014.JPG IMGP4019.JPG IMGP4020.JPG IMGP3815.JPG
IMGP3817.JPG IMGP3818.JPG IMGP3823.JPG IMGP3824.JPG
Bally Block TIF Analysis Photos - 4900 Excelsior Boulevard
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 71
IMGP3825.JPG IMGP3835.JPG IMGP3829.JPG IMGP3828.JPG
IMGP3831.JPG IMGP3933.JPG IMGP3932.JPG IMGP3788.JPG
IMGP3778.JPG IMGP3780.JPG IMGP3784.JPG IMGP3803.JPG
IMGP3795.JPG IMGP3930.JPG IMGP3843.JPG IMGP3807.JPG
Bally Block TIF Analysis Photos - 4900 Excelsior Boulevard
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 72
IMGP3837.JPG IMGP3874.JPG IMGP3875.JPG IMGP3877.JPG
IMGP3882.JPG IMGP3790.JPG IMGP3883.JPG IMGP3884.JPG
IMGP3888.JPG IMGP3891.JPG IMGP3918.JPG IMGP3893.JPG
IMGP3894.JPG IMGP3785.JPG IMGP3786.JPG IMGP3896.JPG
Bally Block TIF Analysis Photos - 4900 Excelsior Boulevard
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 73
IMGP3898.JPG IMGP3907.JPG IMGP3899.JPG IMGP3902.JPG
IMGP3848.JPG IMGP3862.JPG IMGP3799.JPG IMGP3910.JPG
IMGP3917.JPG IMGP3920.JPG
Bally Block TIF Analysis Photos - 4900 Excelsior Boulevard
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 74
Appendix G-1
Appendix G
Findings Including But/For Qualifications
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF
Plan) for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District (District), as required pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows:
1. Finding that the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defined
in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10.
The District consists of two parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for commercial/industrial and
housing purposes. At least 70 percent of the area of the parcels in the District are occupied by buildings,
streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent of the
buildings in the District, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring
substantial renovation or clearance. (See Appendix F of the TIF Plan.)
2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be
expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the
increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the
proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the
maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding is supported by the fact
that the redevelopment proposed in the TIF Plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment, but due
to the inclusion of affordable housing units and the high cost of redevelopment on the parcels currently
occupied by substandard buildings and costs associated with their removal, soil remediation, site
improvements and utility relocation, and the cost of financing the proposed improvements, this project
is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The developer was asked for
and provided a letter and a proforma as justification that the developer would not have gone forward
without tax increment assistance.
The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed
development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration
of the District permitted by the TIF Plan: This finding is justified on the grounds that the cost of
demolition, site and public improvements and utilities add to the total cost of redeveloping previously
built-up parcels. Historically, these types of costs have made redevelopment infeasible without tax
increment assistance. In addition, the privately owned site has been vacant and its owner has marketed
the site for at least 3 years without success. The City reasonably determines that no other redevelopment
of similar scope is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the
development.
Therefore, the City concludes as follows:
a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will
increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0.
b. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be $35,412,860.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 75
Appendix G-2
c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the
district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $12,071,960.
d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Council
finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than
$23,340,900 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment
assistance.
3. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District conforms to the general plan for the development or
redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to the
general development plan of the City.
4. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound
needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project No.
1 by private enterprise.
Through the implementation of the TIF Plan, the EDA or City will increase the availability of safe
and decent life-cycle housing in the City. The project to be assisted through tax increment will result
in the renovation of substandard properties in the City and the corresponding reduction in blight, will
increase the tax base of the City and State, and will add a high quality mixed-use development to the
City.
But-For Analysis
Current Market Value 2,759,580
New Market Value - Estimate 38,172,440
Difference 35,412,860
Present Value of Tax Increment 12,071,960
Difference 23,340,900
Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 23,340,900
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 76
Appendix H-1
Appendix H
Building Permits
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 77
Report Name: Permit Search Printed: 9/30/2015
Page: 1Permit Search Results
City of St. Louis Park
Permit #Permit Type Sub Type Work Type Description Issued Date Final DateHouseUse Dead Date Cancel DateStreetUnit Valuation ePermit User 1 User 2Exp Date
SL224835 Electrical Repair/Re
place
Principal
Building
replace fire
sprinkler
monitoring
panel
01/07/20144900Excelsior
Blvd
1,500 No
SL224831 Fire Alteration;
Fire Alarm
System
Fire Alarm
System
Replace
existing
panel with
DMP
XR100 &
new horn 3
pull st
01/07/20144900Excelsior
Blvd
1,500 No
SL210487 User
Defined
Occupanc
y
Certificati
on
Commercial
Property
Maintenance
sale of
building
08/09/20124900Excelsior
Blvd
old bally's
bldg
39,156 No
SL204094 Plumbing Alteration
Nonreside
ntial
Principal
Building
hook up
water
heaters
supplied by
others
12/05/2011 12/07/20114900Excelsior
Blvd
2,000 No
SL203934 User
Defined
Land Use
Registratio
n
Land Use
Registration
11/23/2011 08/22/20124900Excelsior
Blvd
Bally Total
Fitness
39,000 No
SL195937 Electrical Repair/Re
place
Principal
Building
Install 1
two-hour
timer switch,
aerobics rm
light
02/11/20114900Excelsior
Blvd
1,100 No
SL194849 Public
Works
Utility
work
above
ground
Bituminous R-O-W Lane
Closure
12/14/2010 11/08/20134900Excelsior
Blvd
0 No
SL194325 Mechanical Replaceme
nt
Principal
Building
Remove
existing rtu
and install
new bryant
rtu
11/22/2010 11/28/20114900Excelsior
Blvd
8,800 No
SL192487 Plumbing Alteration
Nonreside
ntial
Principal
Building
Rebuild
RPZ
Assembly
09/23/2010 12/08/20114900Excelsior
Blvd
450 No
SL188332 Building Alteration
Commeric
al
Accessory
Building
Parking
Ramp, new
expansion,
concrete
patching
04/13/20104900Excelsior
Blvd
26,300 No
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 78
Report Name: Permit Search Printed: 9/30/2015
Page: 2Permit Search Results
City of St. Louis Park
Permit #Permit Type Sub Type Work Type Description Issued Date Final DateHouseUse Dead Date Cancel DateStreetUnit Valuation ePermit User 1 User 2Exp Date
SL181570 Electrical Repair/Re
place
Garage Redo
conduit for
ramp,
lighting S &
E walls
06/26/2009 07/15/20094900Excelsior
Blvd
3,600 No
SL176130 Plumbing Alteration
Nonreside
ntial
Principal
Building
Replace 85
gallon water
heater
11/10/2008 11/14/20084900Excelsior
Blvd
11,500 No
SL161676 Electrical Addition/
Alteration
Commeric
al
Principal
Building
wire 3 new
vending
machines
near front
door
10/24/2007 11/28/20114900Excelsior
Blvd
900 No
SL145824 Fire Alteration;
Sprinkler,
Wet
System
Sprinkler
System
NFPA 13
01/18/2006 01/23/20144900Excelsior
Blvd
1,000 No
SL145439 Sign Sign -
Temporary
Wall Bally
Martial Arts
Available
12/28/2005 01/04/20064900Excelsior
Blvd
0 No
SL145195 Electrical Repair/Re
place
Principal
Building
connect pool
railing to
grounding gr
12/15/2005 12/21/20054900Excelsior
Blvd
150 No
SL144982 Sign Sign -
Temporary
Wall Bally
Martial Arts
Available
12/09/2005 12/12/20054900Excelsior
Blvd
0 No
SL135069 Public
Works
Utility
work
below
ground
Sod Dir bore
buried tel
cable
11/05/2004 11/29/20114900Excelsior
Blvd
0 No
SL124197 Electrical Remodel Principal
Building
new ckts of
additional
equipment
09/11/20034900Excelsior
Blvd
18,000 No
SL121603 Sign Sign -
Temporary
Other
(Replaceme
nt only)
2 side with
hinges on
top
06/11/2003 06/12/20034900Excelsior
Blvd
0 No
SL120205 Electrical Repair/Re
place
Principal
Building
wire 2 water
heater
changes
04/24/2003 05/02/20034900Excelsior
Blvd
300 No
SL119989 Plumbing Replaceme
nt
Principal
Building
Replace 2
waterheaters
04/22/2003 12/08/20114900Excelsior
Blvd
12,000 No
SL115360 Fire Tank
abandonm
ent; Below
grade
Flammable /
Comb.
Liquid Stor.
Tank
09/19/20024900Excelsior
Blvd
8,500 No
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 79
Report Name: Permit Search Printed: 9/30/2015
Page: 3Permit Search Results
City of St. Louis Park
Permit #Permit Type Sub Type Work Type Description Issued Date Final DateHouseUse Dead Date Cancel DateStreetUnit Valuation ePermit User 1 User 2Exp Date
SL108809 Electrical Repair/Re
place
Principal
Building
Lighting
upgrades
01/16/2002 02/07/20024900Excelsior
Blvd
17,500 No
SL091123 Plumbing RPZ
Overhaul
or
Replaceme
nt
Principal
Building
Overhaul
RPZ, pool
fill
12/03/1999 12/08/20114900Excelsior
Blvd
210 No
SL084910 Plumbing Alteration
Nonreside
ntial
Principal
Building
Install
valves/heads
04/28/1999 05/13/19994900Excelsior
Blvd
3,300 No
SL083631 Electrical Remodel Principal
Building
Wire circuit 03/04/1999 05/12/19994900Excelsior
Blvd
60 No
SL083396 Electrical Remodel Principal
Building
02/19/1999 05/12/19994900Excelsior
Blvd
500 No
SL062654 Plumbing New
Nonreside
ntial
10/17/1996 11/28/20114900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
100 No
SL056231 Building Alteration
Commeric
al
02/21/1996 07/19/19964900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
200 No
SL055957 Building Alteration
Commeric
al
02/02/1996 11/28/20114900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
7,500 No
SL052218 Plumbing New
Nonreside
ntial
08/21/1995 10/03/19954900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
400 No
SL051784 Sign 08/03/1995 10/06/19954900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
76 No
SL051783 Sign 08/03/1995 10/06/19954900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
76 No
SL047810 Mechanical Addition
Residentia
l
02/16/1995 05/04/19954900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
3,140 No
SL043005 Plumbing Alteration
Nonreside
ntial
07/05/1994 07/05/19944900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
561 No
SL041335 Electrical Remodel SEE
REMARKS
04/25/1994 05/03/19944900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
3,000 No
SL040800 Plumbing Alteration
Nonreside
ntial
03/31/1994 06/30/19944900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
800 No
SL040049 Electrical Remodel SEE
REMARKS
02/22/1994 05/03/19944900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
200 No
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 80
Report Name: Permit Search Printed: 9/30/2015
Page: 4Permit Search Results
City of St. Louis Park
Permit #Permit Type Sub Type Work Type Description Issued Date Final DateHouseUse Dead Date Cancel DateStreetUnit Valuation ePermit User 1 User 2Exp Date
SL038627 Electrical Remodel 11/16/1993 11/28/20114900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
2,000 No
SL036772 Electrical Remodel 08/27/1993 10/12/19934900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
1,600 No
SL017398 Electrical Disconnec
t
SEE
REMARKS
10/25/1990 11/19/19904900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
500 No
SL012838 Building Alteration
Commeric
al
03/16/1990 04/01/19924900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
5,600 No
SL010883 Mechanical Alteration
Nonreside
ntial
$400.00 10/27/1989 11/19/19904900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
400 No
SL010138 Mechanical 09/22/1989 10/12/19894900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
2,132 No
SL010007 Mechanical Alteration
Nonreside
ntial
09/15/1989 10/03/19914900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
8,000 No
SL009961 Plumbing Alteration
Nonreside
ntial
09/14/1989 10/12/19894900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
16,161 No
SL009832 Building Alteration
Commeric
al
09/11/1989 11/28/19894900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
72,500 No
SL005755 Mechanical Alteration
Nonreside
ntial
12/27/1988 09/22/19894900EXCELSI
OR BLVD
100 No
SL144590 Building Alteration
Commeric
al
Swimming
Pool
install
concrete
steps to
swim pool
4900 Excelsior
Blvd
5,000 No
50 Permit record(s) found Total Valuation: 327,372
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior TIF District Page 81
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 4900 Excelsior - Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) (First Reading)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
• Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Final Plat of PARK COMMONS WEST for
properties at 4760 and 4900 Excelsior Boulevard, subject to conditions.
• Motion to approve First Reading of the Ordinance creating Section 36-268-PUD 2 and
amending the Zoning Map from MX Mixed Use and R-C High Density Multiple Family
Residence to PUD 2 for property bound by Excelsior Boulevard, Quentin Avenue South,
Park Commons Drive and Princeton Avenue South, and to set the Second Reading of the
Ordinance for December 7, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the Final Plat substantially consistent with the approved
Preliminary Plat with Variances? Does Council support the proposed rezoning of 4760 and 4900
Excelsior Boulevard (EDA lot and former Bally’s site) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to
accommodate the proposed mixed-use redevelopment?
SUMMARY: Oppidan Inc. is requesting approval of a Final Plat and Final PUD for the
properties at 4760 and 4900 Excelsior Boulevard. The City Council approved the Preliminary
Plat with Variances on May 18, 2015, and approved the Preliminary PUD on September 8, 2015.
The developer proposes a six-story, mixed-use building. The development includes
approximately 28,228 square feet of commercial space to include a specialty grocery store and
small off-sale liquor store, 176 apartment units, and structured parking. The plan includes 18
affordable dwelling units to comply with the City’s Inclusionary Housing policies. Approval of
the Final Plat will join the two parcels and dedicate right-of-way and drainage and utility
easements. Approvals of the Final PUD will amend the City’s zoning ordinance and the zoning
map. A draft zoning ordinance and zoning map amendment were provided for review during the
Preliminary PUD review process. Approval of the Final PUD requires an affirmative vote of
five of seven City Councilmembers.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Final Plat and Final PUD actions do
not have financial implications for the City; however, the developer has requested tax increment
financing for the project and the Economic Development Authority would sell the parcel at 4760
Excelsior Boulevard to the developer. The City Council/Economic Development Authority will
consider action on the TIF application on November 16, 2015, as well.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion, Resolution, Ordinance, Proposed Zoning Map
Amendment, Traffic Study, Shared Parking Study, Final Plat, Development Plans
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Oppidan Development proposes to redevelop the former Bally Total Fitness
block bound by Excelsior Boulevard, Quentin Avenue South, Princeton Avenue South, and Park
Commons Drive. Oppidan requests approval of a Final Plat and Final PUD for the properties at
4760 and 4900 Excelsior Boulevard to allow construction of a six-story, mixed use building that
includes 28,228 square feet of commercial space including a specialty grocery store and small
off-sale liquor store, 176 apartment units, and structured parking. The PUD is a rezoning of the
property under the City’s PUD ordinance.
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Site Area: 2.00 acres
Current Zoning:
MX – Mixed Use,
RC – High Density Multiple Family
Proposed Zoning:
PUD – Planned Unit Development
Comp. Plan: M-X Mixed Use
Neighborhood: Wolfe Park
Current Use: Vacant athletic club
building, parking ramp & vacant lot
Adjacent Land Uses:
North: Park Commons Drive, 3-story condominiums, Wolfe Park
East: Princeton Avenue South, 4-story mixed-use building
South: Excelsior Boulevard, 1- and 2-story commercial buildings
West: Quentin Avenue South, 2-story office building
FINAL PLAT ANALYSIS: The Final Plat, called “Park Commons West”, combines two lots
into one new parcel, dedicates right-of-way to surrounding streets where street easements
currently exist, and it provides drainage and utility easements surrounding the parcel adjacent to
the proposed right-of-way.
Lot: Lot 1, Block 1, Park Commons West will have a lot area of 1.59 acres. This lot is proposed
to be developed with a mixed-use building with 28,228 square feet of ground floor commercial
space and 176 multiple-family residential units with parking under the building. The lot covers
an entire block and is bound on four sides by public roadways.
Block: The block is approximately 290 feet wide by 260 feet deep. It has a perimeter of 1,147
feet which approaches the optimal block size of 1,300 feet prescribed by the subdivision
ordinance.
Right-of-Way Dedication: The area dedicated to surrounding streets replaces existing road
easements. Hennepin County reviewed the proposal and did not provide any comments.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Utility Easements: The plan provides a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along
Excelsior Boulevard as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. The City Council granted
subdivision variances to allow 5-foot wide drainage and utility easements along Quentin Avenue
South, Park Commons Drive, and Princeton Avenue South, instead of 10-foot wide easements
with the preliminary plat.
The Final Plat is substantially consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat with Variances.
Certain private improvements are shown within public drainage and utility easements.
Specifically, along Princeton Avenue, there are encroachments into the proposed drainage and
utility easements including stairways to individual units and long private service lines for
communications and gas. Also, upper level decks extend over the drainage and utility
easements. These encroachments could hinder the public purpose of these easements. These
encroachments will be allowed with an encroachment agreement that makes the property owner
responsible for removing such encroachments or other related costs for public use and
maintenance of the easements. This provision is included in the Planning Development
Contract.
Park and Trail Dedication: The proposed development would increase the intensity of the
development on the property. The City will require park and trail dedication fees to be collected
for the residential units that are being added to the site. The park dedication fee is estimated to
be $296,914 and the trail dedication fees will be $39,600.
Tree Replacement: A number of trees on public and private land will be removed to
accommodate the planned development. The tree replacement requirement is 222.1 caliper
inches. The proposed landscaping plan provides 55 caliper inches. Therefore, $21,593 for cash-
in-lieu of plantings will be collected and directed to the City’s tree fund as a condition of
approval.
PUD ANALYSIS:
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for “Mixed-Use” and the
current zoning map contemplates mixed-use and high-density residential development on the
property. The proposed PUD would create a new zoning district and zoning regulations for uses
and dimensional standards that are unique to this site and the proposed site and building plans.
The intent of the “Mixed Use” land use designation and the City’s Livable Community design
principles is to create compact, pedestrian-scale, mixed-use buildings, typically with retail,
service or other commercial uses on the ground floor and residential or office uses on upper
floors. Mixed-use is intended to accommodate mixed-income housing, a mix of housing types on
the same block, and higher density development.
The most recent 2030 Comprehensive Plan (adopted in 2009) guides the subject parcels for
mixed-use development and encourages development consistent with Livable Community
Principles.
Staff finds that this site is suitable for the proposed mixed-use development and multiple-family
housing and meets many of the objectives for the Park Commons redevelopment area. The
development will follow the City’s Green Building Policy and is located in a neighborhood that
received LEED-ND certification from the U.S. Green Building Council. Ten percent of the units
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
will be affordable to households earning 60% of the area median income to create a mixed-
income development and expands housing choices for the community. The site has convenient
access to frequent bus service, Wolfe Park, and other services and businesses along Excelsior
Boulevard, and is within biking distance of the SWLRT regional trail and future Beltline and
Wooddale stations along the Green Line Extension of light rail transit.
The proposed development is a mixed-use building that promotes efficient use of the land,
existing infrastructure, and existing roadway system. The plan places the majority of the parking
under the building; it is screened from view.
The plan provides private rooftop designed outdoor recreation area amenities for its residents on
the second floor. The building design includes active uses at the pedestrian-level along Excelsior
Boulevard, including storefront windows, entrances, high quality building materials, and other
measures to enhance the character at the pedestrian level along Excelsior Boulevard. Portions of
the upper stories are set back to minimize the visual impact of the building at the pedestrian-
level.
Building and Site Design Analysis: The PUD ordinance requires the City to find that the
quality of building and site design proposed will substantially enhance aesthetics of the site and
implement relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the following
criteria shall be satisfied:
(1) The design shall consider the project as a whole, and shall create a unified environment
within project boundaries by ensuring architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient
vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and
design and efficient use of utilities.
(2) The design of a PUD shall achieve compatibility of the project with surrounding land uses,
both existing and proposed, and shall minimize the potential adverse impacts of the PUD on
surrounding land uses and the potential adverse impacts of the surrounding land uses on the
PUD.
(3) A PUD shall comply with the City’s Green Building Policy.
(4) The use of green roofs or white roofs and on-site renewable energy is encouraged.
[The remainder of the page is left blank intentionally.]
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
ZONING ANALYSIS: The following table provides the development metrics.
Zoning Table.
Factor Required Proposed Met
?
Use Mixed-use/Residential Mixed-use/Residential Yes
Lot Area 2.0 acres in an area identified in
the Comprehensive Plan for
redevelopment
2.0 acres (1.59 after the plat) Yes
Density Up to 50 units per acre, or more
with a PUD based on the
Comprehensive Plan designation
110.7 units per acre
Yes
Height No maximum with a PUD.
(Current zoning allows 6 stories.)
77 ft. tall; 85 feet to the top of
the tallest trellis feature
Yes
Off-Street
Parking
Parking details provided later in the report.
Yes
Setbacks None with a PUD Front (south) – 5 to 10 ft.
Side (west) – 5 ft.
Side (east) – 1.5 ft. to 5 ft.
Rear (north) – 1.5 ft. to 5 ft.
Yes
Commercial
Use of Ground
Floor Area
None with a PUD 28,228, plus parking and
apartment lobby and rental
office
Yes
Ground Floor
Area Ratio
None with a PUD
0.90 Yes
Floor Area
Ratio
None with a PUD
3.3 (excludes Levels P1 & P2
which are mostly below grade)
Yes
D.O.R.A. 8,311 sq. ft. (12%)
Approx. 11,976 sq. ft. (17%) Yes
Tree
Replacement
222.1 caliper inches
($130 per caliper inch not planted)
55 caliper inches +
Cash-in-lieu ($21,593)
Yes
Landscaping 205 trees 22 trees Yes
213 shrubs 61 shrubs, plus perennial,
annual and vine plantings
Alternative landscaping Partial green roof in the terrace
area, green wall elements,
rooftop amenities on 2nd floor
Transit service Frequently operating service
required for a parking reduction
Frequently operating bus
service Route 12, and 615, 604
Yes
Stormwater Required city and watershed
standards
Stormwater management is
provided underground
Yes
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Architectural Design:
Height: The proposed building is six stories tall and 77 feet tall (85 feet to the top of the tallest
trellis). Per the zoning code, the height is measured at the front of the building (Excelsior
Boulevard/south side). On the north side, due to the grade change, the parking levels become
exposed, so the building height ranges from 66 to 70 feet above the grade of Park Commons
Drive.
The current RC and MX district zoning allow six stories or more in height. The PUD district
provides the flexibility to allow taller buildings and smaller setbacks, as the City Council deems
appropriate.
Massing:
The massing of the building is broken up with wall deviations on the second though sixth floors.
The central portion of these upper floors step back six feet from the first floor elevation along
Excelsior Boulevard and Park Commons Drive. On Excelsior Boulevard, the sixth floor steps
back 47 feet in the central part of the building. On the Park Commons side the uppermost floor
steps back 26 to 36 feet and is not visible from Park Commons at the ground level. On the
Princeton Avenue side the building steps back 35 feet and on Quentin Avenue it opens up
entirely with a 155-foot setback for the rooftop terrace.
There will be upper level decks that hang over these spaces, but overall this approach helps add
visual interest to the building and helps reduce the impact of the building on the public realm at
the pedestrian level.
Pedestrian-level design elements: The grocery store has storefront windows all along Excelsior
Boulevard. There will be an entrance from a vestibule off Excelsior Boulevard into the grocery
store and liquor store. The grocery store will also be a connection to the first floor parking. The
apartment lobby entrance and rental office is at the corner of Excelsior Boulevard and Princeton
Avenue and also provides an active presence along the sidewalk. The PUD ordinance includes
transparency requirements for the pedestrian level storefront windows along Excelsior
Boulevard. On Excelsior Boulevard there are two resident entrance/exit glass doorways at the
sidewalk level.
The pedestrian level glass wraps around the front of the building along Quentin Avenue near the
angled parking; however, here the glass is proposed to be opaque, so there will not be views into
the store due to shelving or store room uses against this wall. A “green” wall is shown near this
corner, too. A glass doorway is provided near the garage entrance on Quentin Avenue as well.
On the east side of the building, along Princeton Avenue, there are staircases that lead up to
individual apartment units and decks. These staircases, along with foundation plantings add to
the pedestrian experience.
On the north side of the building, there are staircases to a resident entrance/exit and to the
grocery store parking level. There will be a decorative metal screen on the first floor parking
level. Lower parking levels will be fully enclosed, with a stone exterior building wall and vines
will be planted along the foundation.
Exterior Materials: The exterior materials include brick, stone, glass, stucco, and fiber cement
board siding. The building meets or exceeds the minimum requirements for Class I materials.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Shadowing: The shadow study provided by the architect demonstrates the building meets the
City’s shadowing requirements. Changes to the massing along Park Commons also have reduced
the amount of shadowing indicated in earlier plans.
Density: The current zoning of Mixed-Use and High Density Residential zoning districts allow
densities of 50 units per acre. With the PUD zoning district, the density may be increased further.
The proposed density is 110.7 units per acre.
The appropriateness of the density can be further evaluated based upon projected parking
demand and traffic impacts. As described in later sections of this report, the development does
not impact the overall level of service (LOS) of the surrounding intersections, Excelsior
Boulevard has capacity to handle the traffic generated, and the parking requirements have been
met.
Parking: The revised plan of 176 units (13 fewer units than when the Planning Commission
reviewed the plans) provides the number of parking stalls required by the zoning code without
any reductions. The commercial use of the building is eligible for the ten percent transit
reduction, which reduces the required parking by 11 spaces. The parking is summarized in the
table below.
There are 99 spaces available at the first floor/ground level. Of the 99 spaces, 66 spaces are
under the building on the first level and 33 are on-street parking spaces adjacent to site. The P1
and P2 parking levels will have secured access and are not available to commercial customers.
These levels will be restricted to residential tenants, guests, and commercial employees.
The mix of commercial and residential uses provides an opportunity for shared parking, since
each of these uses have different peak hours of demand. The number of stalls that would be
available to share may be somewhat limited, due to the desire for secure parking for residents
and convenient parking for customers. Staff finds some shared use will be critical to the success
of the project and providing adequate parking for the development. With proper management,
there is an opportunity to share spaces in the P1 Level of the building with employees of the
commercial use and accommodate guest parking for the residential use.
The City commissioned a shared parking study, at the developer’s expense, that was prepared by
Walker Parking Consultants. The parking study was based on 189 dwelling units, not the 176
units now proposed. Based on the information in that study, if approximately 20 parking stalls in
Off-Street
Parking
Requirement
Required Parking Proposed Parking
228 bedrooms 228 spaces Underground spaces
(P1, P2 levels),
including 23 tandem
241 spaces
Commercial
(28,228 sq. ft.)
113 spaces 1st level off-street (66)
and on-street (33)
parking spaces
99 spaces
Minimum required
without reductions
341 spaces Total provided 340 spaces
10% transit reduction (11 spaces )
Minimum required
with reduction
330 spaces Total provided 340 spaces
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
the P1 Level are available for use by commercial employees and/or residential guests, the site
will meet the projected peak parking demands. The developer agrees to allow 20 stalls to be
shared with the commercial tenant(s).
A permanent agreement for shared parking and a Parking Management Plan will be required to
be submitted prior to issuance of building permits (excluding demolition permits) for City
Attorney review and administrative approval. These requirements will be included in the
Planning Development Contract and the documents may be added as Official Exhibits.
The plan also provides the bicycle parking as required by City Code requirements. There will be
a combination of secured parking for the residents in the building and exterior customer and
guest bicycle parking at the sidewalk level.
Access: The site can be accessed from all four surrounding streets. There is on-street parking, a
bus stop, and sidewalk access directly from Excelsior Boulevard. The commercial parking lot on
the main level has two full access points. One is on Princeton Avenue and the other on Quentin
Avenue. The parking lot design allows an efficient movement for vehicles through the parking
lot. Also, the access to the secured parking for residential and employee parking is off of Park
Commons Drive and separate from the commercial parking. On-street parking is also provided
on Quentin Avenue, Park Commons Drive and Princeton Avenue with sidewalk connections
around the entire site. Staff anticipates parking restrictions will be needed to ensure convenient
access for commercial customers and overnight residential guest parking. This can be explored
further when the opening of the project approaches and can be changed by City Council after it is
open and operating.
The proposed loading area for the grocery store is similar to the Trader Joe’s building with trucks
backing up from the street into the loading area off of Quentin Avenue. The depth is sufficient
that semi-tractor trailers will not block traffic on Quentin, and shorter service vehicles will not
impede the sidewalks. City Council has suggested limiting the hours of operation of the loading
docks to be conscientious to residents above and across the street. The proposed ordinance limits
hours of operation, including loading/unloading of deliveries, to 6 a.m. through 12 a.m.
Traffic: A traffic study by Spack Consulting was submitted with the application. The study was
based on 183 dwelling units, so the reduction to 176 units will reduce the projected trips
generated. A copy of the study is attached for your review (Appendices C and D were excluded
due to the size of the report).
The study concludes that Excelsior Boulevard has capacity to handle the additional traffic, and
the impact of the proposed development will not significantly impact the level of service (LOS)
for the intersections surrounding the site or Excelsior Boulevard adjacent to the site. The study
concludes that no mitigation is required. The Engineering Department reviewed the study and
concurred with the findings. The City has subsequently hired SRF Consulting Group to further
review the traffic generated from this and another nearby proposed development. The combined
traffic generation did not change the conclusions of the traffic study. The intersections
surrounding the development will operate acceptably overall. The only projected change to LOS
was for left turns from westbound Excelsior Boulevard to southbound Quentin Avenue in the
peak hour. The “no build” scenario results in LOS D and the “build” scenario is LOS E. The
Engineering Department is working with Hennepin County to potentially install a flashing
yellow arrow for left turns at this intersection.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Further study regarding the traffic operations of specific intersections in the area was conducted
and presented to residents in the area on September 29, and later discussed by the City Council at
the October 19 and November 9 study sessions. These studies all concluded that the impacts of
this development will not adversely impact operations, beyond what was described previously
for the left turn from westbound Excelsior Boulevard to southbound Quentin Avenue South.
Potential changes to the intersection of Park Commons Drive and Monterey were discussed at
the most recent meetings, but traffic from 4900 Excelsior Boulevard was not a significant factor.
Setbacks: The plan provides setbacks ranging from 5.0 feet to 10.0 feet on the south side, 5.0
feet on the west side, and 1.5 feet to 5.0 feet on the east side, and 1.5 feet to 5.0 feet on the north
side. The reason for the range of setbacks is that staircases and decks will extend out from the
building.
Some of the decks are built over, and the staircases along Princeton Avenue and Park Commons
Drive are built upon, drainage and utility easements. Since overhead utilities would be
discouraged in these locations, and space is available on the Quentin side, the City Council may
allow these encroachments provided the property owner is responsible for the costs to remove
the stairs or decks if needed to access the easements for public purposes. This requirement will
be included in the Planning Development Contract that will bind current and future property
owners.
Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA): The plan indicates 17% of the lot area is
provided for DORA. By staff’s calculation approximately 20% of the area is eligible for DORA.
These spaces are provided exclusively on the private rooftop terraces. The plan meets the DORA
requirement.
Landscaping: The landscaping plan provides 21 of the 204 trees, and provides 61 of the 213
shrubs, that are required by City Code. The plan includes perennials, annuals and vines on the
site as well. All of the trees provided will be street boulevard trees and arranged in landscaped
boulevard areas. Concept plans have indicated large planter pots will be provided along the
south foundation.
The proposed Excelsior Boulevard streetscape has been redesigned to incorporate additional
boulevard landscaping, instead of relying on trees in grates/vaults. The plan also incorporates
planted boulevards, foundation plantings, or a combination thereof. The plan tries to balance
other site design interests including maintenance, maintaining visibility of the storefront, and
accessibility of the on-street parking.
There are also alternative landscaping components provided. Amenities are provided on the
second floor terraces. One of the second floor terraces includes a partial green roof. The first
floor of the building includes green wall features. Also, the plan includes an art mural on the
northwest corner of the building at the pedestrian level.
In the Planning Development Contract, it stipulates the artist and artwork will be selected with
public input through a City-led process. While the details of the process have yet to be defined,
it is expected that a small group that includes representation from the neighborhood, staff and
developer would be included. Council will likely be asked to approve the list of
City/Neighborhood representatives at a later date.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Waste Storage: The trash is proposed to be managed inside the building. The main residential
trash and recycling room is on the P1 Level, and smaller rooms and chutes are provided on each
residential floor. Garbage haulers will roll the trash out to the truck and back into the building to
avoid trash cans being stored outside on collection days. The commercial trash and recycling will
be stored on Level 1 within the loading area under the building near Quentin Avenue. Hours of
waste collection is limited by the City’s licensing rules. Both trash and recycling chutes will be
provided in the building. The plans also indicate space that would be available if organics
collection is available. The Operations and Recreation Department staff reviewed the plans and
adequate space has been provided.
Utilities: The plans have been reviewed by Engineering and Inspections staff. The system will
meet the City Code requirements and the City’s services have capacity to serve the development.
The stormwater management and erosion control plans also require review and approval by the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The on-site stormwater management system
will be privately-owned and privately-maintained. Agreements will be required with the MCWD
and City regarding ongoing maintenance.
PUBLIC INPUT: The Developer held a neighborhood meeting on Wednesday, April 8, to
present the proposed development, respond to questions, and learn about resident’s concerns.
The meeting was well-attended with approximately 60 people.
The major concerns expressed at the neighborhood meeting included: 1) traffic, including
congestion on Excelsior Boulevard, capacity of the Quentin Avenue intersection, and cut through
traffic in the neighborhoods to the south and on Park Commons Boulevard; 2) adequate parking
and access; 3) the building height, including the fit in the area, the impact to the feel along the
sidewalks, blocking views/sun, and general density of the development; and 4) the sustainability
of the market demand for more apartments and another grocery store in this area.
Other issues that were mentioned included hours of operation for the grocery store, the similarity
of the building design to Ellipse on Excelsior and other recent developments, lighting impacts,
and property tax impacts if the City provides financial assistance to the developer.
There were also several residents that attended and spoke at the public hearing on April 15, 2015,
where similar concerns were expressed.
PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the
preliminary plat, though they did not support the subdivision variances. City Council approved
the preliminary plat with variances.
As previously stated in the report, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the
Preliminary PUD. Following the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant made revisions to
the proposal to try to address concerns raised by the Planning Commissioners and other public
input, including, but not limited to eliminating 13 units, stepping back the portions of the upper
floors, and improving the appearance of the first floor of the building.
The revised plans responded to several of the concerns and issues raised by residents, Planning
Commissioners, and City Council through the public review process. Iterations of the plan were
presented in detail in the staff reports and presentations to the City Council at its May 18 regular
meeting, June 8 study session, and August 17 study session. Staff also presented an assessment
of Excelsior Boulevard traffic capacity to City Council at its August 10 study session.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 11
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT
PARK COMMONS WEST
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Oppidan Development, subdivider of the land proposed to be platted as Park
Commons West has submitted an application for approval of final plat of said subdivision in the
manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all
proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the
City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the
ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The final plat is consistent with the Preliminary Plat with Subdivision Variances
approved by City Council Resolution No. 15-072 on May 18, 2015.
3. The proposed final plat is situated upon the following described lands in
Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit:
Outlot H, PARK COMMONS EAST, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
And:
Commencing at a point in the center line of Excelsior Avenue distant 313.25 feet
Northeasterly from its intersection with the Westerly line of the Northeast Quarter
of the Northwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County,
Minnesota; thence Northwesterly at right angles from the center line of said
Excelsior Avenue a distance of 310.0 feet; thence Northeasterly along a line
parallel to said center line to the most Westerly comer of Registered Land Survey
No. 832; thence Southeasterly along the Westerly line of said Registered Land
Survey and its extension Southeasterly to the center line of Excelsior Avenue;
thence Southwesterly along said center line to the place of beginning; all in said
Section 7, Township 28, Range 24, according to the United States Government
Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Conclusion
1. The proposed final plat of Park Commons West is hereby approved and accepted
by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of
the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, provided, however, that this
approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk
subject to the following conditions:
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 12
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
A. The final plat shall be consistent with the City Council resolution, Official
Exhibits, Planning Development Agreement and City Code.
B. All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure
cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the building
design and 100% screened from off-site.
C. The tree replacement fee of $21,593, park dedication fee of $296,914, and trail
dedication fees of $39,600 shall be paid to the City of St. Louis Park prior to
signing the final plat and releasing it to be recorded with Hennepin County.
D. A financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in the
amount of $1,000 shall be submitted to the City to insure that a signed Mylar copy
of the final plat is provided to the City.
E. A financial security in the amount of $5,000 shall be submitted to the City to
ensure the placement of iron monuments on all property corners. The surveyor
shall provide the City written verification that the monuments were set.
F. A permanent shared parking agreement between the commercial and residential
uses shall be recorded upon filing of the final plat and prior to issuance of
building permits for the development. Said agreement shall be in a form approved
by the City Attorney.
F. Prior to signing the final plat, a development agreement shall be executed
between the City and Developer that addresses, at a minimum:
1) A performance guarantee for 1.25 times the estimated costs for the
installation of all public improvements, placement of iron monuments
at property corners, landscaping and irrigation.
2) The applicant shall reimburse City attorney’s fees in drafting and
reviewing such documents as required in the final plat approval.
3) Prior to starting any land disturbing activities (excluding demolition),
the following conditions shall be met:
a. City approval of the final plat.
b. Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City.
c. Assent Form and Official Exhibits must be signed by the applicant
and property owner(s).
d. Final construction plans for all public improvements shall be
signed by a registered engineer and submitted to the City Engineer
for review and approval.
e. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate
development, construction, private utility, and City representatives.
f. All necessary permits must be obtained.
g. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or
irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St.
Louis Park for all public improvements (sidewalks, utilities,
street lights, landscaping, irrigation, etc.) and the private site
landscaping.
h. Encroachment agreement that assigns to the property owner the
responsibility and costs for removing decks and stairs located upon
or above public easements and other related costs for public use
and maintenance of the easements.
i. Permanent shared parking agreement and Parking Management
Plan in a form approved by the City Attorney.
G. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities (excluding demolition), the
following conditions shall be met:
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 13
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
1) Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City.
2) Assent Form and Official Exhibits must be signed by the applicant and
property owner(s).
3) Final construction plans for all public improvements shall be signed by a
registered engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and
approval.
4) A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development,
construction, private utility, and City representatives.
5) All necessary permits must be obtained.
6) A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter
of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park for all public
improvements (sidewalks, utilities, street lights, landscaping, irrigation,
etc.) and private site landscaping.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution
to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts
required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on
behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph
No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled.
4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required
under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of
proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above
described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 14
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
ORDINANCE NO.____ -15
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
CREATING SECTION 36-268-PUD 2 AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
4760 AND 4900 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 15-03-S and 15-04-PUD) for amending the Zoning Ordinance to create a
new Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District.
Sec. 2. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Mixed Use.
Sec. 3. The legal description for the property this PUD applies to is as follows:
Outlot H, PARK COMMONS EAST, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
And:
Commencing at a point in the center line of Excelsior Avenue distant 313.25 feet
Northeasterly from its intersection with the Westerly line of the Northeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota;
thence Northwesterly at right angles from the center line of said Excelsior Avenue a
distance of 310.0 feet; thence Northeasterly along a line parallel to said center line to the
most Westerly comer of Registered Land Survey No. 832; thence Southeasterly along the
Westerly line of said Registered Land Survey and its extension Southeasterly to the
center line of Excelsior Avenue; thence Southwesterly along said center line to the place
of beginning; all in said Section 7, Township 28, Range 24, according to the United
States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(To be platted and legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Park Commons West, Hennepin
County, Minnesota;)
And extending to the center line of all adjacent right-of-way.
Sec. 4. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-268 is hereby amended to add the
following Planned Unit Development Zoning District:
Section 36-268-PUD 2.
(a). Development Plan
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 15
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the following
Final PUD signed Official Exhibits:
C1.0 Cover Sheet
C2.0 Demolition Plan
C2.1 Phase I Erosion Control Plan
C2.2 Phase II Erosion Control Plan
C2.3 Erosion Control Details
C3.0 Site Plan
C4.0 Grading and Drainage Plan
C4.1 P-01 Drainage Plan
C4.2 P-02 Drainage Plan
C4.3 Stormwater Details
C5.0 Utility Plan
L100 Landscape Plan
A001 Site Plan
A002 Floor Plans
A003 Floor Plans
A004 Floor Plans
A005 Floor Plans
A006 Rendering
A007 Elevations
A008 Elevations
A009 Elevations
E001 Exterior Lighting Plan
PP2 Preliminary Plat
Final Plat
Zoning Map Amendment Exhibit
The site shall also conform to the following requirements:
(1) The property shall be developed with up to 176 multiple family dwelling units
and 28,250 square feet of commercial space.
(2) Parking will be provided in parking ramps and adjacent on-street parking bays.
Three-hundred thirty-nine (340) parking spaces will be provided: 241 spaces for
residential units, 66 spaces for commercial uses, and 33 on-street spaces. At least
20 of parking spaces on Level P1 will be available for shared parking for
employees of the commercial uses and residential guest parking.
(3) The maximum building height will be 77 feet and six stories tall, plus up to an
additional eight feet for the rooftop metal trellis architectural elements.
(4) The development site shall include a minimum of 12 percent designed outdoor
recreation area based on private developable land area.
(b) Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in the PUD 2 district.
(1) Multiple family uses.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 16
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
(c) Uses permitted with conditions. The following uses in the PUD 2 district may be
used for one or more of the following uses if it complies with the conditions specified for
those uses below:
(1) Commercial uses. Commercial uses limited to the following: bank, food service,
grocery store, large item retail, liquor store, medical or dental office, office,
private entertainment (indoor), retail, service, showroom and studio. These
commercial uses shall meet the following conditions:
a. Commercial uses are limited to the first floor.
b. Hours of operation, including loading/unloading of deliveries, for commercial
uses shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 12 a.m.
c. In -vehicle sales or service is prohibited.
d. Restaurants are prohibited.
e. Outdoor storage is prohibited.
(2) Civic and institutional uses. Civic and institutional uses are limited to the
following: education/academic, indoor public parks/open space, libraries,
museums/art galleries, police service substations, post office customer service
facilities, public studios and performance theaters.
(d) Accessory uses
Accessory uses are as follows:
(1) Parking ramps.
(2) Incidental repair or processing which is necessary to conduct a permitted use and
not to exceed ten percent of the gross floor area of the associated permitted use.
(3) Home occupations complying with all of the conditions in the R-C district.
(4) Catering, if accessory to a food service, grocery store or retail bakery.
(5) No outdoor uses or storage allowed.
(f) Special Performance Standards
(1) All general zoning requirements not specifically addressed in this ordinance must
be met, including but not limited to outdoor lighting, architectural design,
landscaping and all screening requirements.
(2) All trash handling and loading areas must be inside of the building and screened
from view.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 17
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
(3) Signs shall be allowed in conformance with the following conditions:
a. Pylon signs are not permitted; and
b. Maximum allowable number, size and height of signs shall be regulated by
section 36-362 per the MX district regulations.
(4) Façade. The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground
floor non-residential facades located in the mixed-use building facing Excelsior
Boulevard:
a. Façade Transparency. Windows and doors shall meet the following
requirements:
1. For street-facing facades, no more than 10% of total window and door
area shall be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass,
finishes or material including window painting and signage. The
remaining 90% of window and door area shall be clear or slightly tinted
glass, allowing views into and out of the interior.
2. Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum depth of three
feet. This requirement shall not prohibit the display of merchandise.
Display windows may be used to meet the transparency requirement.
(5) Awnings.
a. Awnings must be constructed of heavy canvas fabric, metal and/or glass.
Plastic and vinyl awnings are prohibited.
b. Backlit awnings are prohibited.
(6) Use of Sidewalk. A business may use that portion of a sidewalk extending a
maximum of five feet from the building wall for the following purposes, provided
a six-foot minimum horizontal clearance along Excelsior Boulevard is maintained
between obstructions on public sidewalks and provided that all activity is
occurring on private property:
a. Display of merchandise.
b. Benches, planters, ornaments and art.
c. Signage, as permitted in the zoning ordinance.
d. Dining areas may extend beyond five feet of the building, provided six
feet minimum horizontal clearance along Excelsior Boulevard is
maintained between the obstructions on the sidewalk. An agreement shall
be obtained for any temporary private use of public land for seating upon
any public right-of-way or easements.
Sec. 4. The contents of Planning Case File 15-03-S and 15-04-PUD are hereby entered
into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec. 5. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Public Hearing April 15, 2015
First Reading November 16, 2015
Second Reading December 7, 2015
Date of Publication
Date Ordinance takes effect
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 18
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 7, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 19
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
!" !#
$
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
" #
$ % &
' ()*+)
, ')-)+.(
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 20
!"
#$%
&
!'
$
()
#*+
!
'
, -./0
!'
1
! '
%0..
,$% 23 !!
$
0 !!$
!
! '
,
4
!
,
./0
!
! '
$
//
()
!
5
%
!
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 21
!"
# " $ %
$$ #
&
'
$$ (
(
$$ " )
)
*% " +
," - .
+ .
/" 0 % * 1
" $
2
3 &
/" 0 .) " $
2
3 )
/" # 0 ! "
$$ 4" ,
/" & 0
*% -5
6
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 22
!"
#$%
&
! (
%
!'
$
()
#*+
!
'
5!
%
!
'
4
1
! 6
$
!
! +
4
!
! +, $
!
! 7
%!
'
1
!
!
#
! #$(
+ #
! #$(
+ 89
! :
! #$(
+ ;
! #
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 23
.
!"
'
<=(
=,> !"
#$%&
!'
$#$(
+
%
,
%#
<
6
>!
'
'
6
!
'
!'
!5
#$(
+ ,
$! '
%
,
#
%, $
8
$!'
$
,
$
#$(
+ %4
!
,6 .
!
'
$
00
!'
$
.3
! '
$
//
!
6
%
./?!'
./0%
!
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 24
# " $ %
$$
!"#
=(
=,!@
, ,
! '
?
!
&
+
'
<&+5'>
%
./%?//
!
%#
%#$(
+ ,
!'
/!
.%//
&+5'
!'
%
,
,
!
'
,
!'
#
,
8
!'
,
,
,
,
!
,
6
!
$
@
,
,$
5
./3!*
%
$
,
!'!!$
,
21/
1/!!'!!$
,
?1//
01//!!'!!$
#$(
+
,
31//
?1//!!
#
313?
?13?!! !
'
!
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 25
3
1(
A
%(
,
!@
B"
C
$
%
%
! "
<"5 >
, <
,
> , "
6 <"5 6>
, <
>! "5 +
', (
!
@
"5
!
5
"5 6 ,
"5 +! '
"5
<
A
%(>!'
"5
%
!
' "5
,' !'
,
6 !'
,
"5
!'"5
,
,
D@ '75'&
,!
,
!
'
"5
% ,
% ! '
"5 (
,
"5 +
!
/" 0 % * 1
" $
2
3
7 * 7 *
8 (<> (<>
8#
<> <>
#$(
+8#
<> <>
#$(
+8 <> <>
'
"
!'
<
>
"
,
!
8 9 /"
! 8 /"
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 26
?
&
'
$$
%
,
! "
#
!
!
$
8
,
%
,
$
! "
$
!
!
! '
1
%
%
!
2
/
!!$
!
3
!!$
!
@
,
,
!' %
,
,
%
,
!'
8
!
'
,
!'
,
$
%'
,
,!!!!
$
!@ %
</E>
!
9
<?E>% #$ (
+ </E>%
</E>!'
6 3!
'
,
,
!
&
%
./0% $
,
,
!'
,
,
!'&+5'
./
,
4
=(
/!'
./
,%&+5'
4
, /E
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 27
0
! *
, %
,
/!?
! '
%
,<
,
>,
,
$!
'
,
./0 ;
!';
,
,
! '
;
!'
./0 $
,
!
(
$$ "
'
'"5
./0;
,' .!'
,
./0
!'
,
,
,
!'
! '
./0 $
, ,
"5
!'"5
,
,.//
D@ '75'&
,!'
"5
% ,
% !
/" 0 .) " $
2
3
7 * 1
7 * 1
:" " :" "
8 (<> (<> (<> (<>
8#
<> <> <> <>
#$(
+8#
<> <> <> <>
#$(
+8 <> <> <> <>
8
8 <> 8 <>
#$(
+8
8 <> 8 <>
#
8
8 <> 8 <>
'
"
!'
<
>
"
,
!
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 28
2
' .
,
, ;
%
,
!'
"5 ,
,
8
, 4
"5 ./0!!$
!'
,
9?
!@
%
,
!@
,
!7%
!
;
!
'
,
&+5'
!'
,
./0
;
,' !'
,
!'
'
,
4
!
/" # 0 ! "
$$ 4"
-
%
%
; % .)
:"
4" <<< .) "
:
.2%.//F
.%///./%?//GG.%??/ %??/ .%//
;
%?//F
/%///.%//G .%.?/ .%?/ 3%0//
%?//F
/%///%?/G .%/// 3?/ .%3?/
D
7
;
?/
H
(
("
!"
#$(
#
G.//9 + 'D
1&+5''&
GG./ + 'D
1&+5''&
GGG;
!&
, $
%
4
,
!
%#$(
+ #
&+5'
,
!
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 29
%
$
!
'
.//
%?/
#$(
+ %
!'
0?/
2?/
#
! '
, ,
,
!
)
*% "
!
%$
,
!'
$
00
!'
$
.3
!'
$
//
!
( )
!"
#$
$
!6
%
!6
%
.?/
?/
!'(
,
$
,4
4
$! ' 3
,
$
(
! '
$
$
!
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 30
9
/" & 0
*% -5
9
=7
*%
7
*%
I
8"
.0
?2.
.9%2 6
.0
3
9
.0
3
99
'
?9 39
7
'
5
</E>
?3?
0
.2
33
.
>
"
6)
#,&
./
.? $!&
4
!
%
!
$
,
!
&
"
'!
!'
1
.
$
,$%.? %.3/ !
?
/
$
,$!
'
$
,
$ ,
!
%
$,
$!
'
?
$
/
$!=
, %
%
,
!
,
?
$
.
%,
$ 4
$!
@
,
%
$ ,
,
!
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 31
/
, " -
'$
, - ./0
! '
1
! '
%0..
,$% 23 !!$
!!$
!
! '
,
4
!
,
./0
!
! '
// $
()
!
5
%
!
+
'%
*&+
, -
" "
"
' ,!
&
#&
&./0;
#&./0;
&./0
#&./0
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 32
1Traffic Impact Study A Excelsior Blvd Mixed-Use
Appendix A - Figures
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 33
2Traffic Impact Study A Excelsior Blvd Mixed-UseAppendix A - FiguresCity Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 34
3Traffic Impact Study A Excelsior Blvd Mixed-Use
Appendix A - Figures
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 35
! " ! #"
! " ! #" 4Traffic Impact Study A Excelsior Blvd Mixed-UseAppendix A - FiguresCity Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 36
Daily VolumesDAILYENTER EXIT INTERNAL INTERNAL PASSBY PASSBYRATE PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT TRIPS PERCENT TRIPS ENTER EXITApartment220 1,000 GFA 183.0 6.65 50% 50% 15% 183 0%0 517 517Grocery Store850 1,000 GFA 29.8 102.24 50% 50% 15% 457 0%0 1,294 1,294TOTALS6390 1,811 1,811AM Peak HourAM ENTER EXIT INTERNAL INTERNAL PASSBY PASSBYRATE PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT TRIPS PERCENT TRIPS ENTER EXITApartment220 1,000 GFA 183.0 0.51 20% 80% 11% 10 0%014 70Grocery Store850 1,000 GFA 29.8 3.40 62% 38% 11% 11 0%057 33TOTALS21071 103PM Peak HourPM ENTER EXIT INTERNAL INTERNAL PASSBY PASSBYRATE PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT TRIPS PERCENT TRIPS ENTER EXITApartment220 1,000 GFA 183.0 0.62 65% 35% 15% 17 0%065 31Grocery Store850 1,000 GFA 29.8 9.48 51% 49% 15% 42 0%0 123 117TOTALS590 188 148NOTES:1. GFA = Gross Floor Area2. All trip generation rates based on "Trip Generation", Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9th Edition unless otherwise noted.3. Reduction for internal trips (Internal Percent) is based on "Trip Generation Handbook", Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2nd Edition.4. No reduction made for passby trips due to the location of the site accesses. Most passbys will likely be from Excelsior Blvd, so they are just treated as new trips.5. A.M. Trip Generation is for the peak hour of adjacent street traffic (one hour between 7 and 9 a.m.).6. P.M. Trip Generation is for the peak hour of adjacent street traffic (one hour between 4 and 6 p.m.).NEW TRIPSLAND USEITECODE #DEVELOPMENTUNITS (GFA)QUANTITYNEW TRIPSLAND USEITECODE #DEVELOPMENTUNITS (GFA)QUANTITYNEW TRIPSLAND USEITECODE #DEVELOPMENTUNITS (GFA)QUANTITYTable B1Forecast Trip GenerationAppendix B - Trip Generation TableTraffic Impact StudyB1Excelsior Blvd Mixed-UseCity Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 37
April 3, 2015
Mr. Sean Walther
Senior Planner
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Re: 4900 Excelsior Boulevard – St. Louis Park, MN
Shared Parking Analysis
Walker Project # 21-4092.00
Dear Mr. Walther,
Walker Parking Consultants (“Walker”) is pleased to submit the findings that resulted from the
Shared Parking Analysis prepared for the 4900 Excelsior Boulevard mixed-use Development
(the “Development”) in St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
INTRODUCTION
The proposed Development will reside on the former site of Bally Total Fitness on the north
side of Excelsior Boulevard. The site is bound by Quentin Avenue S on the west, Park
Commons Drive on the north and Princeton Avenue on the east.
Three vehicular access points are planned, with resident parking access proposed on the
north off Park Commons Drive and access for grocery store and resident guest parking
planned off Quentin Avenue on the west and off Princeton Avenue on the east. Additionally,
there is a bus stop located on the southwest corner of the Development that serves patrons
traveling eastbound, as well as a second bus stop on the northeast corner of Excelsior
Boulevard and Quentin Avenue S that serves customers traveling westbound.
The City of St. Louis Park (the “City”) engaged Walker to assist them to determine the number
of parking spaces needed to serve the Development, assuming the effects of the Urban
Land Institute’s (ULI) Shared Parking1. An aerial view of the proposed site is shown on the
following page in (Figure 1).
1 Shared Parking, second edition, ULI-Urban Land Institute and the International Council of Shopping Centers, Mary Smith, 2005
1660 South Highway 100
Suite 424
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 952.595.9116
Fax: 952.595.9516
www.walkerparking.com
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 38
Mr. Sean Walther
April 3, 2015
Page 2
Figure 1: 4900 Excelsior Boulevard – Proposed Development Site
Source: Bing Maps
LAND USES
Based upon Walker’s discussion with the City, at full build-out the Development will contain
183 residential units, a 28,200 ± square foot specialty grocery store and possibly a liquor store.
We utilized this information to develop a Shared Parking demand model that depicts the
approximate parking supply of spaces needed to accommodate the projected peak-hour
parking demand for the site.
PARKING SUPPLY
The inset table details the parking supply proposed
by Oppidan Investment Company (the
“Developer”), to accommodate the anticipated
peak-hour parking demand generated by the
Development. In total, 339 spaces are planned; 33
on street, 66 in a surface lot adjacent to the site,
and 240 in a below-grade parking structure.
Location Supply
On-Street 33
Surface Lot 66
P1 172
P2 45
Tandem 23
Total Supply 339
Parking Supply (projected)
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 39
Mr. Sean Walther
April 3, 2015
Page 3
ZONING CODE REQUIREMENT
Historically, city planners calculate parking demand for each land use as a stand-alone
entity; assuming that each use requires an independent supply of spaces. This action
typically guarantees code requirements that result in a parking surplus.
In reality and contrary to the estimated code requirement, fluctuating patterns of demand
typically allow different land uses to share some or all of the same parking spaces; thereby,
reducing the total supply needed to support development. Moreover, the more the
individual utilization patterns of land uses differ from each other, the more complimentary
they are to sharing the available parking supply. For example, office and hotel components
are complimentary, as they experience peak demand periods at different times of the day,
on different days of the week.
A comparison of the zoning code requirement, as calculated by Walker, to the weekday
(398 ± spaces) and weekend day (400 ± spaces) unadjusted parking demand calculation
established using the Shared Parking methodology is included below in Table 1.
Pursuant to the City code, the grocery/liquor store will require one (1) space per 250 gross
square feet and the residential component will require one (1) space per bedroom.
Furthermore, the code allows a transit reduction of 10% for commercial uses that are located
within one-quarter mile of a transit stop. The code also allows the on street spaces
immediately adjacent to the site to count toward the minimum parking supply on a one to
one basis, as well as for a reduction for Shared Parking, if supporting data is provided.
Walker’s estimate of the code requirement for the Development, assuming a transit
reduction, is 348 ± spaces as shown below.
Table 1: Unadjusted Parking Demand/ St. Louis Park Zoning Code (estimated)
Source: St. Louis Park Zoning Code, Walker Parking Consultants (estimated)
Land Use Unit 2 Base Ratio Unit Demand Base Ratio Units Demand Base Ratio Units Demand
Specialty Grocery 28,228 3.50 /ksf GLA 99 3.70 /ksf GLA 104 4.00 /ksf GLA 113
Employee 0.60 17 0.50 14
Residential Guests 189 0.10 /unit 19 0.10 /unit 19
Studio/Efficiency 4 1.00 /unit 4 1.00 /unit 4 1.00 /eff unit 4
1 bedroom 128 1.40 /unit 179 1.40 0.00 179 1.00 /1br unit 128
2 bedroom 57 1.40 /unit 80 1.40 0.00 80 2.00 /2 br unit 114
Subtotal Customer/Guest 118 123
Subtotal Employee/Resident 280 277
SUB TOTAL 359
less Transit allowance (10% of commercial)(11)
TOTAL 398 400 348
Notes:
1 Unadjusted demand per Shared Parking.
2 Unit of measure; square feet for grocery, number of units for residential component.
Weekdays 1 Weekends 1 Local Zoning Rquirement
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 40
Mr. Sean Walther
April 3, 2015
Page 4
PARKING DEMAND RATIOS
The base parking demand ratios used in Urban Land Institute’s Shared Parking were
developed by observing hourly accumulations of vehicles around standalone land-uses
during the course of a typical year (365 consecutive days) and identifying design conditions
for weekdays as well as for a weekend day. At the peak-hour of the year a comparison was
made between the total number of cars parked and a designated key unit of measure
specific to each land-use (e.g. square footage for many land-uses, rooms for hotels or
bedrooms per residence). Additionally, some ratios were supplemented through added
fieldwork.
Due to the mixed-use nature of the proposed Development, as well as potential variations
in operating hours and peak parking demand times associated with the proposed
grocery/liquor store, a Shared Parking analysis should prove beneficial in assessing the
projected peak-hour parking demand for the site.
Given the above, to prepare this analysis we utilized the mixed use parking standards
established in Shared Parking to project the approximate peak-hour parking demand;
moreover, we applied both month and time of day adjustments for each land use to the
individual parking ratios. The ratios used for analysis are shown in the following table.
Table 2: Base Parking Demand Ratios
Source: Walker Parking Consultants
We used the base ratios shown above and considered the following three factors when
developing the Shared Parking model:
1) Non-captive Ratio. Non-captive ratios are typically expressed as a percentage of
users who create no incremental parking demand when visiting more than one land
use on the same trip (e.g. an office employee that walks to a retailer to shop or eat
lunch or a resident shopping at the grocery store). Overall, the effect of the captive
market can be significant, and the use of non-captive factors ensures that patrons
are not counted twice in the overall estimated parking demand. The non-captive
ratios assumed for this analysis assume that 3% of the residents are captive with regard
to using the specialty grocery/liquor store. This assumption is based on observations
and shared use studies compiled over time at other mixed-use Developments
throughout North America.
Land Use Visitor Emp./User Visitor Emp./User Unit Source Weekday Weekend
Specialty Grocery 3.50 0.60 3.70 0.50 /ksf GLA 5 4.10 4.20
Residential : Studio 0.10 1.00 0.15 1.00 /unit 4 1.10 1.15
Residential: 1 Bedroom 0.10 1.40 0.10 1.40 /unit 4 1.50 1.50
Residential: 2 Bedroom 0.10 1.40 0.10 1.40 /unit 4 1.50 1.50
Source:
4. Recommended Zoning Ordinance Provisions for Parking Washington DC: National Parking Association
5. Field study of Whole Foods (8 locations), Trader Joes (4 locations) and Wild Oats (2 locations).
Weekday Weekend Total
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 41
Mr. Sean Walther
April 3, 2015
Page 5
2) Presence Factor - Presence is expressed as a
percentage of the peak potential demand
modified for time of day and month of year, which
can have a significant effect on demand at a
mixed-use Development. For example, a 10,000 sf
retail store has a peak demand of about 36 spaces
on a weekday and 40 spaces on a weekend day
during the peak-hour (11:00 AM); while the same
store is unlikely to project any parking demand at
11:00 PM.
3) Driving Ratio - Driving ratio represents the percentage of users arriving at the site by
means other than a personal vehicle. According to the U.S. Census “Journey to Work”
statistics shown in the inset table, about eighty-seven percent (87%) of the St. Louis
Park residents drive to work.
Typically, adjustments made to the driving ratio mirror the “Journey to Work” statistics for the
demographic area. However, if the proposed land-use(s) are service oriented, similar to the
grocery/liquor store proposed for the Development, an additional adjustment of -5% is
applied to the driving ratio. This assumes that service employees are more likely to utilize
public transportation or carpool to work rather than drive; which differs from office workers
that may require the higher drive ratio represented in the Journey to Work statistics. The
various adjustments made to the base parking demand ratios, in an effort to render project
specific projections, are shown in the following table.
Table 3: Adjustments to Base Ratios for Driving and Captive Users
Source: Walker Parking Consultants
Using the land-use data provided by the City, Walker developed the Shared Parking model
detailed in the next section, which projects the approximate number of spaces needed to
provide adequate parking on weekdays and weekend days during peak-hour demand
conditions.
Drive to Work
Drive Alone 78.5%
Carpool 8.7%
Sub-Total - Drive 87.2%
Other Means
Public Transportation 6.1%
Taxi 0.3%
Bicycle 0.4%
Walk 2.0%
Work at Home 4.0%
Sub Total - Other 12.8%
Total 100.0%
Journey to Work - St. Louis Park, MN
Land Use Quantity Unit Daytime Evening Daytime Evening Daytime Evening Daytime Evening
Specialty Grocery 28,228 GLA 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 97% 97% 97%
Employee 82% 82% 82% 82% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Studio/Efficiency 4 units 97% 97% 97% 97% 100% 100% 100% 100%
1 bedroom 128 units 97% 97% 97% 97% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2 bedroom 57 units 97% 97% 97% 97% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Driving Ratio
Weekday Weekend
Non Captive Ratio
Weekday Weekend
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 42
Mr. Sean Walther
April 3, 2015
Page 6
SHARED PARKING
Walker has conducted numerous studies and consulted with leading organizations such as
the Institute of Transportation Engineers, ULI and the International Council of Shopping
Centers to determine appropriate parking demand ratios for use when developing Shared
Parking models.
Parking demand is influenced by the time of year, such as when the volume of patronage
for a retail establishment peaks during the holiday season and decreases rapidly thereafter.
Retailers typically report peak annual activity for the two weeks prior to Christmas, and during
this time parking demand may equal 100 percent of the peak projections for a particular
site. Inversely, office demand often decreases during the same period, as employees are
often absent or away on vacation. These variations by time of day and time of year were
assumed for this analysis and applied to our Shared Parking model.
Finally, parking demand is a fluid force, subject to variations according to the availability of
alternative transportation, proximity of complimentary land uses, differences in user
presence by time of day and time of year, building occupancy rates and a host of other
factors. Conversely, the available parking supply tends to be a fixed quantity, limited by the
amount of space that can be allocated on a given site for parking.
Assuming the effects of Shared Parking, the projected weekday peak-hour parking demand
for the Development is 331 ± spaces, on the busiest weekday annually. The peak-hour
demand, which is projected to occur in May at 5:00 PM, is calculated based upon the driving
and non-captive ratios as well as the presence factors (peak-hour adjustments) shown in the
following table. As depicted, the projected peak-hour weekday demand represents a 17%
or 67 space reduction from the unadjusted weekday parking demand projected for the site.
Table 4: Peak-Hour Demand – Weekday (projected)
Source: Walker Parking Consultants
Weekday Unadjusted Adjustment Pk Hr Adj Non Captive Drive Ratio May May
Land Use Demand May 5:00 PM Daytime Daytime 5:00 PM 6:00 PM
Specialty Grocery 99 100%97%97% 100%93 72
Employee 17 100%90% 100% 82%13 11
Residential Guests 19 100%40% 100% 100%8 11
Residential Unreserved 263 100%85% 100% 97%217 230
Subtotal Customer/Guest 118 101 83
Subtotal Employee/Resident 280 230 241
Total Parking Spaces Required 398 331 324
% reduction 17%
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 43
Mr. Sean Walther
April 3, 2015
Page 7
In addition to the weekday peak-hour parking demand, the projected weekday demand
by time of day (twelve-hour period from 9:00 AM until 9:00 PM), is shown graphically below
in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Parking Demand by Time of Day – Weekdays (projected)
Source: Walker Parking Consultants
Assuming the effects of Shared Parking, the projected weekend day peak-hour parking
demand for the Development is 312 ± spaces; on the busiest weekend day annually. The
peak-hour demand, which is also projected to occur in May at 5:00 PM, is calculated using
the driving and non-captive ratios and presence factors (peak-hour adjustments) shown in
Table 5 on the following table. As shown, the projected peak-hour weekend day demand
represents a 22% or 88 space reduction from the unadjusted weekend day parking demand
projection.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 44
Mr. Sean Walther
April 3, 2015
Page 8
Table 5: Peak-Hour Demand – Weekend Day (projected)
Source: Walker Parking Consultants
VARIANCE TO LOCAL ZONING CODE
When the projected peak-hour parking demand
(weekday in May at 5:00 PM) is compared to
Walker’s estimated zoning code requirement, a
negative variance of 28 ± spaces exists, as shown in
the inset table.
PARKING ADEQUACY
The term “Parking Adequacy” is defined as the ability
of the parking supply to accommodate the Design
Day peak-hour parking demand. A positive or
negative remainder when compared to the
proposed parking supply indicates a parking surplus
or deficit within the system, structure or lot.
Based on our analysis, when the proposed parking supply (339 spaces) is compared to the
peak-hour parking demand projection (331 ± spaces), a positive surplus of 8 ± spaces will
exist. Therefore, the parking supply proposed for the Development should adequately
accommodate the peak-hour parking demand projection, as shown in the inset table.
User Group Existing
Customer/Guest, All Uses 101
Employee, All Uses 230
Parking Demand (projected)331
Supply 339
Surplus/(Deficit)8
Parking Adequacy (projected)
Weekend Unadjusted Adjustment Pk Hr Adj Non Captive Drive Ratio May May
Land Use Demand May 5:00 PM Daytime Daytime 5:00 PM 7:00 PM
Specialty Grocery 104 100% 80%97% 100%81 34
Grocery Employees 14 100% 55% 100% 82%6 5
Residential Guests 19 100% 40% 100% 100%8 19
Residential 263 100% 85% 100% 97%217 244
Subtotal Customer/Guest 123 89 53
Subtotal Employee/Resident 277 223 249
Total Parking Spaces Required 400 312 302
% reduction 22%
Sub-Total Zoning Code Requirement 359
(less) Transit Rqeduction of 10%(11)
Total - Zoning Code Requirement 348
Shared Parking Peak-Hour 331
Surplus/(Deficit) Code vs. Shared Parking (28)
Variance to Zoning Code
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 45
Mr. Sean Walther
April 3, 2015
Page 9
CONCLUSION
Based upon Walker’s analysis of the land use data provided by the City, and the Shared
Parking model prepared for the 4900 Excelsior Boulevard mixed-use Development, the
following summarizes the results of our analysis.
o The projected weekday peak-hour parking demand is 331 ± spaces, on the busiest
weekday annually. This calculation is based upon the drive ratios, non-captive ratios
and peak-hour adjustments discussed throughout our report.
o When the projected peak-hour parking demand (331 ± spaces) is compared to
Walker’s estimate of the zoning code requirement (348 ±), a variance of 28 ± fewer
spaces is projected.
o When the proposed parking supply (339 spaces) is compared to the peak-hour
parking demand projection (331 ± spaces), a surplus of 8 ± spaces will exist.
o The parking supply proposed for the Development should adequately
accommodate the peak-hour parking demand projection.
In closing, we hope the enclosed analysis satisfies the scope of work anticipated for the 4900
Excelsior Boulevard engagement. Please call me at your convenience with any questions
or comments regarding the material provided for review.
Respectfully submitted,
Phill Schragal
Director of Operations Consulting
cc: Carl Schneeman – Walker Parking Consultants
C:\Users\schragal\Desktop\St Louis Park\Report\(1.0) Draft 4900 Excelsior_Shared Parking Analysis_040315.docx
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 46
Mr. Sean Walther
April 3, 2015
Page 10
SCOPE OF SERVICES
A. Meet with the City’s representative via teleconference to clarify study objectives,
define project parameters and review the proposed deliverable product and
schedule.
B. Obtain from the City’s representative detailed information regarding the land use
programming (i.e. square footage, type, etc.) All land use data should be provided
in square feet for retail entities, rooms for hotel Development and units (i.e. one-
bedroom, two-bedrooms and three-bedroom units, etc.) for residential components.
C. Discuss with the City’s representative anticipated peak patronage, visitation or
occupancy periods.
D. Prepare a Shared Parking Analysis employing the mixed use parking standards
established in Urban Land Institute’s Shared Parking to project the approximate
parking demand for the site.
E. In preparing the analysis, we will apply both month and time of day adjustments for
each land use to individual parking ratios to determine the approximate shared
parking demand for the Development site.
F. Summarize Walker’s findings in a draft letter report and submit to the City
representative for review and comment.
G. Obtain review comments from the City’s representative regarding the draft report.
H. Incorporate draft report comments into a final report and submit to the City’s
representative.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 47
Mr. Sean Walther
April 3, 2015
Page 11
STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. This report is to be used in whole and not in part.
2. Walker’s report and recommendations are based on certain assumptions pertaining
to the future performance of the local economy and other factors typically related
to individual user characteristics that are either outside Walker’s control or that of the
client. To the best of Walker’s ability we analyzed available information that was
incorporated in projecting future performance of the proposed subject site.
3. Sketches, photographs, maps and other exhibits are included to assist the reader in
visualizing the property. It is assumed that the use of the land and improvements is
within the boundaries of the property described, and that there is no encroachment
or trespass unless noted.
4. All information, estimates, and opinions obtained from parties not employed by
Walker Parking Consultants are assumed to be true and correct. We assume no
liability resulting from misinformation.
5. None of this material may be reproduced in any form without our written permission,
and the report cannot be disseminated to the public through advertising, public
relations, news, sales, or other media.
6. We take no responsibility for any events or circumstances that take place subsequent
to the date of our field inspections.
7. We do not warrant that the projections will be attained, but they have been prepared
on the basis of information obtained during the course of this study and are intended
to reflect the expectations of a typical parking patron.
8. The numeric figures presented in this report were generated using computer models
that make calculations based on numbers carried out to three decimal places. In
the interest of simplicity, most numbers have been rounded to the nearest thousand;
therefore, these figures may be subject to small rounding errors.
9. This report was prepared by Walker Parking Consultants, and all opinions,
recommendations, and conclusions expressed during the course of this assignment
are rendered by the staff of Walker Parking Consultants as employees, rather than as
individuals.
10. The conclusions and recommendations presented were reached based on Walker’s
analysis of the information obtained from the client and our own sources. Information
furnished by others, upon which portions of this study may be predicated, is believed
to be reliable; however, it has not been verified in all cases.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 48
SHEET X OF X
N
R.T. DOC. NO.
C.R. DOC. NO.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 49
4900 ExcElsior BoulEvard
07/07/2015
OVERSTORY
TREES (TYP)
SPA
GREENROOF
(TYP)
FIRE PIT AND
GRILL AREA
CLUB
FITNESS
YOGARAISED
DECK
CABANAS
DOG RUN
UNDERSTORY
TREES (TYP)
LEASING COMMON/
SUPPORT
PARK COMMONS DRIVE
EXCELSIOR BLVDQUENTIN AVEPRINCETON AVE SOUTHBOCCE
Site Plan
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 50
4900 ExcElsior BoulEvard
07/07/2015
PARK COMMONS DRIVE
EXCELSIOR BLVDQUENTIN AVEPRINCETON AVE SOUTHSite Plan
OVERSTORY
TREES (TYP)
UNDERSTORY
TREES (TYP)
GROCER
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 51
4900 ExcElsior BoulEvard
07/07/2015
Perspective from Excelsior Blvd & Quentin Ave
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 52
4900 ExcElsior BoulEvard
07/07/2015
Perspective from Park Commons Dr & Quentin Ave
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 53
4900 ExcElsior BoulEvard
07/07/2015
View of Proposed North Building Facade from Park Commons Drive
View of Proposed Parking Screen from Park Commons DriveDecorative Metal Screening at Parking Structures
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 54
4900 ExcElsior BoulEvard
07/07/2015
View from Park Commons Dr & Quentin Ave
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 55
4900 ExcElsior BoulEvard
07/07/2015
View from Excelsior Blvd & Princeton Ave S
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 56
4900 ExcElsior BoulEvard
07/07/2015
Green Roof Courtyards and Landscape
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 57
4900 ExcElsior BoulEvard
07/07/2015
Green Roof Courtyards and Landscape
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 58
4900 ExcElsior BoulEvard
07/07/2015
Green Wall Systems / Live Planted Walls
Vine growth over parking screen wall in Minneapolis Proposed Green Walls at Excelsior and Quentin
Green Wall System and Decorative Metal Screening at Parking Structure
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 59
4900 ExcElsior BoulEvard
07/07/2015
Walk-up Townhome Stairs and Landscaping
Landscaping at Walk-up Townhomes
Landscaping at Walk-up Townhomes
Proposed Walk-up Townhomes - View from Princeton Ave
Proposed Typical Walk-up Townhome - View from Princeton Ave
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 60
4900 ExcElsior BoulEvard
07/07/2015
Enlarged view of the elevation above - Entry at corner of Excelsior and Quentin Enlarged view of the elevation above - Entry at corner of Excelsior and Princeton
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 61
4900 ExcElsior BoulEvard
07/07/2015
Enlarged view of the entry in the elevation above
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 62
4900 ExcElsior BoulEvard
07/07/2015
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 63
4900 ExcElsior BoulEvard
07/07/2015
Enlarged view of townhomes in elevation aboveEnlarged view of corner entry and sidewalk in elevation above
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 64
4900 ExcElsior BoulEvard
07/07/2015
November 22nd / January 20th - 9am November 22nd / January 20th - 10 am November 22nd / January 20th - 11 am
November 22nd / January 20th - 1 pm November 22nd / January 20th - 2 pmNovember 22nd / January 20th - 12 pm
November 22nd / January 20th - 3 pm
Shadowing at Wolfe Park Condominiums (4800 Park Commons Drive) - Neighboring Building to Northeast
Allowable Shadow Coverage starting Nov 22: 50%
Actual Shadow Coverage starting Nov 22: 29%
Shadowing at West Building of Excelsior and Grand (4756 Excelsior Boulevard) - Neighboring Building to East
Allowable Shadow Coverage starting Nov: 22: 50%
Actual Shadow Coverage starting Nov 22: 39%
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 65
COVER SHEETC1.0
NORTH
ST. LOUIS PARK, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM THAT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE SITE MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE
DRAWINGS INCLUDED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
2. IF REPRODUCED, THE SCALES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED ON A 22" X 34" SHEET.
3. ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND/OR CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY CODES AND/OR UTILITY SERVICES
COMPANIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO ANNOUNCED BUILDING POSSESSION AND THE FINAL CONNECTION
OF SERVICES.
4. ALL GENERAL CONTRACTOR WORK TO BE COMPLETED (EARTHWORK, FINAL UTILITIES, AND FINAL GRADING) BY
THE MILESTONE DATE IN PROJECT DOCUMENTS.
NOTES:
ARCHITECT
BKV GROUP
GRETCHEN CAMP
222 NORTH 2ND STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
TELEPHONE (612) 373-9122
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
LOREN BRAUN
BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
1826 BUERKLE ROAD
ST. PAUL, MN 55110
TELEPHONE (651) 487-3245
PROJECT TEAM:
SURVEYOR
BRENT PETERS
EGAN, FIELD & NOWAK, INC.
1229 TYLER STREET NE, SUITE 100
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55413
TELEPHONE (612) 466-3300
ENGINEER
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
PREPARED BY: TRISH ROTHE, P.E.
2550 UNIVERSITY AVE W, SUITE 238 N
ST. PAUL, MN 55114
TELEPHONE (651) 645-4197
DEVELOPER
OPPIDAN INVESTMENT COMPANY
ART TEMPLIN
5125 COUNTY ROAD 101, SUITE 100
MINNETONKA, MN 55345
TELEPHONE (952) 294-0353
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
DANIELLE S. TAUTGES
BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
1826 BUERKLE ROAD
ST. PAUL, MN 55110
TELEPHONE (651) 487-3245
4900 EXCELSIORFOR PERMIT
Know what's
R NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONST. LOUIS PARKRESIDENTIAL UNIT MIX
UNIT TYPE 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH 5TH TOTAL ACTUAL %
STUDIO
ALCOVE
1 BR
1 BR + DEN
2 BR
2 BR + DEN
0
0
0
0
6
0
1
11
16
3
6
2
1
9
20
3
9
2
4
34
75
11
44
8
2%
19%
43%
6%
25%
5%
TOTAL 63944 44 34 176 100%
1
9
20
3
9
2
1
5
17
2
8
1
BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE SUMMARY
FLOOR NET RENT SF
FIRST
SECOND
THIRD
FOURTH
FIFTH
5,861
30,102
35,062
TOTAL 142,948
COMMON SF GBA
(GROSS BLDG)
35,702
GROCER RETAIL EFFICIENCY
35,062
26,756
1,614
9,848
4,888
29,297
4,888
5,419
39,950
39,950
200,472
39,950
32,175
28,228 95.48%
75.35%
87.76%
85%
87.76%
83.16%
PARKING
PROVIDED SF
STREET PARKING
SURFACE LOT
P1
P2
TANDEM
24,694
54,442
97,112TOTAL
STALLS
17,976
33
66
172
340
46
23
PARKING
REQUIRED
GROCERY
124 UNITS (STUDIO, ALCOVE, 1-BR, 1-BR+)
52 UNITS (2-BR, 2-BR+)
SUBTOTAL
TRANSIT (-10%)
TOTAL
STALLS
113
124
104
330
341
-11--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
PARKING SUMMARY
EXISTING SITE AREA 2.00 ACRES
ROW DEDICATION 0.41 ACRES
PROPOSED SITE AREA 1.59 ACRES
PRE-DEVELOPMENT PERVIOUS AREA 0.69 ACRES
PRE-DEVELOPMENT IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.90 ACRES
POST-DEVELOPMENT PERVIOUS AREA 0.05 ACRES
POST-DEVELOPMENT IMPERVIOUS AREA 1.54 ACRES
SITE DATA SUMMARY
ZONING REZONE TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
STORMWATER SUMMARY TABLE
SOIL TYPE HYDROLOGIC TYPE A
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE UNDERGROUND PERFORATED PIPE SYSTEM
WITH GRAVITY OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE
ABSTRACTION VOLUME REQUIRED =>1" OVER IMPERVIOUS AREA = 5,772 CF
RATE CONTROL
EVENT EX. RUNOFF RATE (CFS) PR. RUNOFF RATE (CFS)
1-YR
10-YR
100-YR
2.9
6.2
9.6
0.5
3.5
6.2
28,228
4900 EXCELSIOR
PROVIDED =>5,780 CF BELOW OVERFLOW ELEV. 895.13
6TH
9
0
0
2
0
6
1
SIXTH 10,105 2,640 12,745 79.29%-- --
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 66
PROPERTY L
INE
PROPE
R
T
Y
LI
N
E PROPERTY L
INE
PROPE
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
C
D
D
D
D
E F
F
F
H
F
G
TYP.
H
I
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
EXIST
ING
EXCELS
IOR
AND
GRANDMIXED
USERESIDENT
IAL
/COMMERC
IAL
R-C HIG
H
D
E
N
SI
T
Y
M
U
L
TI
P
L
E
F
A
MI
L
Y
R
E
SI
D
E
N
C
E
O
-
OFF
ICE
C-1 NEI
G
H
B
O
R
H
O
O
D
C
O
M
M
E
R
CI
A
L
G
TYP.
J
J
J
J
J
PROPERTY LINE
CURRENT PROPERTY LINE/TO BE
REMOVED VIA PLAT
EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER
EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER TO BE
REMOVED
EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING STORM SEWER
EXISTING STORM CATCH BASIN /
MANHOLE
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE
EXISTING WATERMAIN
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING GATE VALVE
EXISTING GAS LINE
EXISTING LIGHT POLE
EXISTING SIGN
REMOVE ENTIRE BUILDING, FOUNDATIO
STRUCTURE AND FOOTINGS
REMOVE PAVEMENT
UTILITY OR APPURTENANCE TO BE
REMOVED
CLEAR AND GRUB TREE
SAWCUT PAVEMENT
KEYNOTE LEGEND:
EXISTING STRUCTURE, FOOTING, AND
FOUNDATIONS TO BE REMOVED.A
B
C
D
E
F
G
EXISTING PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING STORM SEWER TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING WATERMAIN TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING UTILITY TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED
H EXISTING UTILITY TO BE RELOCATED
I PROTECT EXISTING UTILITIES
J PROTECT EXISTING TREE 4900 EXCELSIORFOR PERMIT
Know what's
R NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONST. LOUIS PARK1. THE INTENT OF THE DEMOLITION PLAN IS TO DEPICT EXISTING FEATURES THAT
ENCUMBER THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AREA AND ARE SCHEDULED FOR
REMOVAL. SOME INCIDENTAL ITEMS MAY HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY OMITTED FROM
THE PLAN. THE CONTRACTOR IS ENCOURAGED TO THOROUGHLY INSPECT THE SITE AS
WELL AS REVIEW THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS PRIOR TO SUBMITTING PRICING.
CONTRACTOR WILL NOT RECEIVE ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR INCIDENTAL ITEMS
NOT SHOWN ON THIS DEMOLITION PLAN.
2. THIS DEMOLITION PLAN IS BASED ON AVAILABLE UTILITY INFORMATION AND MAY OR
MAY NOT BE ALL INCLUSIVE FOR THIS SITE. ANY UTILITIES ENCOUNTERED DURING
DEMOLITION THAT ARE NOT DEPICTED/ADDRESSED ON THIS DRAWING SHOULD BE
BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PROJECT ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY.
3. INFORMATION ON THE PLAN BASED UPON BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
PREPARED BY EGAN, FIELD & NOWAK, INC., DATED NOVEMBER 05, 2014.
4. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN ALL DEMOLITION PERMITS.
5. SEE EROSION CONTROL PLAN ON SHEETS C-2.1 AND C-2.2 FOR REMAINING INLET
PROTECTION AND EROSION PREVENTION.
6. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ARE TO PROPERTY LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
7. ALL EXISTING UTILITES WHICH WILL BE ABANDONED OR REMOVED MUST BE
DISCONNECTED AND CAPPED AT THE MAIN.
8. RESTORATION WILL BE REQUIRED WITHIN THE CITY ROW
NORTH
DEMOLITIONPLANC2.0
DEMOLITION NOTES
1. A PHASE 1 ESA HAS BEEN CONDUCTED FOR THIS SITE BY BRAUN INTERTEC, DATED
NOVEMBER 13, 2014, PROJECT NUMBER B14-08122. THE POTENTIAL EXISTS FOR AN
EXISTING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK ON THE SITE OR FOR CONTAMINATION
ASSOCIATED WITH PAST USE OF THE TANK IN THE SOILS AND/OR GROUNDWATER
BENEATH THE SITE. NOTIFY KIMLEY-HORN IMMEDIATELY IF ANY SIGNS OF A TANK OR
CONTAMINATION IS ENCOUNTERED.
2. AN ASBESTOS PRE-RENOVATION SURVEY HAS BEEN CONDUCTED FOR THIS SITE BY
BRAUN INTERTEC, DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2014, PROJECT NUMBER B14-0822. NO
ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIALS WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE SAMPLES COLLECTED
FROM THE SITE.
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL / PHASE 1 ESA NOTES
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 67
A
C
B
B
B
B
BE
C
A
C
A
C
D
PARK C
O
M
M
O
N
S
D
RI
V
E
EXCEL
SI
O
R
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
(CR 3 - 4
L
A
N
E
DI
VI
D
E
D)PRINCETON
AVENUE
SOUTHQUENTIN
AVENUE
I
K
D
G
J
J
11
7
7
8
D
D
A
G
G
G
D
H EXIST
ING
EXCELS
IOR
AND
GRANDMIXED
USERESIDENT
IAL
/COMMERC
IAL
RESIDENTIAL LOBBY
GROCERY
10.0' WIDE
SETBACK
RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY L
INE PROPERTY L
INE
PROPE
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
59.0
'
218.1'
156.0'24.0
'182.0
'153.3
'29.0
'
35.3'43.0
'25.0
'
10.0' D
&
U
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T5.0
'
D&U
EASEMENT5.0
'
D&U
EASEMENT
50.0' ROW
DEDICATION
26.0' ROW
DEDICATION
PROPE
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
11.2'
18.0'9.5
'
COMPACT
MECHANICAL
ROOM
ACCESS TO
P.01 PARKING
6.6
'8.5
'
23.0'18.0
'
11.0'
8.5'23.0
'8.5
'
23.0'17.4
'25.0
'18.0
'
R-C HIG
H
D
E
N
SI
T
Y
M
U
L
TI
P
L
E
F
A
MI
L
Y
R
E
SI
D
E
N
C
E
O
-
OFF
ICE
C-1 NEI
G
H
B
O
R
H
O
O
D
C
O
M
M
E
R
CI
A
L
22.6
'28.9'5.0' D&
U
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
29.9'17.6'
16.9'18.0
'23.0
'18.0
'
TREES SHOWN
FOR REFERENCE,
SEE LANDSCAPE
PLANS
TREES SHOWN
FOR REFERENCE,
SEE LANDSCAPE
PLANS
L
M
VINES TO BE PROVIDED ALONG
EXPOSED FOUNDATION WALL,
SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS
GREEN WALL OR
GRAPHIC DESIGN
PROVIDED ALONG
BUILDING WALL
GREEN WALL OR
GRAPHIC DESIGN
PROVIDED ALONG
BUILDING WALL
EXISTING
STOP SIGN
TO BE
RELOCATED
EXISTING STOP
LIGHT TO
REMAIN
LEGEND:
PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED BUILDING
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
CURRENT PROPERTY LINE/TO BE REMOVED VIA PLAT
PROPOSED B612 CURB AND GUTTER
EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER
PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT
PROPOSED STANDARD DUTY PAVEMENT
PROPOSED TURF
SITE PLANC3.04900 EXCELSIORFOR PERMIT
Know what's
R NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONST. LOUIS PARKNORTH
KEYNOTE LEGEND:
PROPOSED B612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
PROPOSED PUBLIC CONCRETE SIDEWALK
PROPOSED ADA RAMP @ 1:12 MAX. SLOPE WITH
WARNING SURFACE AND TRUNCATED DOME
PROPOSED DIRECTION ARROW
PROPOSED 18' X 8.5' REGULAR PARKING STALL WITH
4" SWSL (TYP)
NOT USED
PROPOSED BUILDING ACCESS STAIR
PROPOSED ENTRY VESTIBULE
PROPOSED TRUCK RECEIVING AREA
EXISTING PARKING STALLS
PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE STALLS
PROPOSED TREE. REFERENCE LANDSCAPE PLAN
GROCERY PARKING SIGN FOR CITY STREET PARKING
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
SITE DATA SUMMARY
ZONING REZONE TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
EXISTING SITE AREA 2.00 ACRES
ROW DEDICATION 0.41 ACRES
PROPOSED SITE AREA 1.59 ACRES
PRE-DEVELOPMENT PERVIOUS AREA 0.68 ACRES
PRE-DEVELOPMENT IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.91 ACRES
POST-DEVELOPMENT PERVIOUS AREA 0.05 ACRES
POST-DEVELOPMENT IMPERVIOUS AREA 1.54 ACRES
L
M
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 68
GROCERY
FFE = ±913'
TRUCK
RECEIVING AREA
PARKING FIELD
FFE = ±912.5'
P-02 UN
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
STORM
W
A
T
E
R
T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
A
R
E
A
REFER
E
N
C
E
C-
4.
2
PARK C
O
M
M
O
N
S
D
RI
V
E
EXCEL
SI
O
R
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
(CR 3 - 4
L
A
N
E
DI
VI
D
E
D)PRINCETON
AVENUE
SOUTHQUENTIN
AVENUEPROPERTY L
INE
PROPE
R
T
Y
LI
N
E PROPERTY L
INE
PROPE
R
T
Y
LI
N
E EXIST
ING
EXCELS
IOR
AND
GRANDMIXED
USERESIDENT
IAL
/COMMERC
IAL
R-C HIG
H
D
E
N
SI
T
Y
M
U
L
TI
P
L
E
F
A
MI
L
Y
R
E
SI
D
E
N
C
E
O
-
OFF
ICE
C-1 NEI
G
H
B
O
R
H
O
O
D
C
O
M
M
E
R
CI
A
L
LEGEND:
PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED CONTOUR
PROPOSED SLOPE
PROPOSED SPOT GRADE (ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE
TO FLOWLINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
PROPOSED STORM STRUCTURE
PROPOSED STORM SEWER PIPE
PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE
PROPOSED STORM CURB INLET
EXISTING STORM SEWER
PUBLIC CONCRETE SIDEWALK: CROSS SLOPES NOT TO EXCEED
LONGITUDINAL SLOPES NOT TO EXCEED 5%
EXISTING CONTOUR
MATCH EXISTING ELEVATION
EXISTING DRAINTILE
PROPOSED UNDERGROUND STORMWATER
TREATMENT AREA
EXISTING CATCH BASIN / MANHOLE
SAWCUT/MATCH EXISTING LINE
PROPOSED SPOT GRADE AT TOP OF CURB
PROPOSED TURF
4900 EXCELSIORFOR PERMIT
Know what's
R NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONST. LOUIS PARKGRADING ANDDRAINAGE PLANC4.0
NORTH
1. ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE TO FLOWLINE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
2. PRECAST CONCRETE RISER SECTIONS AND APPURTENANT UNITS USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF
MANHOLE, FLARED END SECTIONS, AND CATCH BASIN STRUCTURES SHALL CONFORM WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM C-478, C-76 AND MN/DOT 2506.
3. STORM SEWER SHALL BE REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE WITHIN THE PUBLIC ROW. SEWER NOT WITHIN
THE PUBLIC ROW MAY BE EITHER RCP, PVC, OR HDPE.
3.1. RCP PIPE, FITTINGS, AND SPECIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM C-76.
JOINTS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM C-361, C-990, AND C-443.
3.2. PVC PIPE, FITTINGS, AND SPECIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM D-3034.
PIPE JOINTS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM D-3212 AND ASTM F-477.
3.3. HDPE PIPE MAY BE EITHER AASHTO M252 TYPE S, M294 TYPE S, OR ASTM F-2306.
4. ALL BRANCH FITTINGS SHALL BE CAST AS INTEGRAL PARTS OF THE PIPE. ALL FITTINGS AND SPECIALS
SHALL BE OF THE SAME STRENGTH CLASS AS THE PIPE TO WHICH THEY ARE ATTACHED.
*REFERENCE MEP PLANS FOR AREA INLETS WITHIN PARKING GARAGE.
GRADING NOTES:
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK UTILITIES DIVISION
(952-924-2558) SHALL BE CONTACTED AT LEAST
48-HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WATER-SHUT OFFS, SEWER
CONNECTIONS, EXCAVATIONS, OR ANY OTHER WORK
RELATED TO THE CITY'S UTILITY SYSTEM. THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
PROTECTING THE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER AND
STORM SEWER SYSTEM DURING CONSTRUCTION
INCLUDING THE COST OF REMOVING AND CLEANING
OF ANY DEBRIS IN THE LINES OF BOTH DURING AND
AFTER COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 69
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 70
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 71
66" Ø UNDERGROUND STORMWATER SYSTEM PROFILE DETAIL
N.T.S.
FINISH GRADE
30" DIA. ACCESS
RISER RIM: 902.0'
5'-8" DEPTH
STORMTRAP
UNITS
IE 5'-8"
STORMTRAP
=892.31'±
ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION
REFER TO ARCH.
ROOF DRAIN
CONNECTION,
REFER TO ARCH.
30" DIA. ACCESS
RISER RIM: 902.0'
48" DIA. OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE
W/WEIR WALL RIM: 902.0'±
IE: 894.85
WEIR WALL
122.0'
OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE DETAIL
N.T.S
INFILTRATION INTO
EXISTING SUBGRADE,
EXISTING SOILS,
HYDROLOGIC SOIL
GROUP TYPE A
SEE OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE DETAIL
892.31'
24" DIA.
ORIFICE
IE: 895.00'
T/WALL = 897.65'
15" PIPE
IE: 894.85
RE = 902.00'
SEE SECTION VIEW FOR WEIR
WALL/ORIFICE LAYOUT
3, 6" ORIFICE AND 1, 5" ORIFICE
IE: 895.00,
6" SPACING BETWEEN ORIFICE
OPENINGS AND MANHOLE WALL
T/WALL = 897.65'
15" PIPE ON
DOWNSTREAM SIDE
OF WEIR WALL
IE: 894.85
RE = 902.00'
ABSTRACTION
VOLUME BELOW
OVERFLOW
ELEVATION=5,930
CUBIC FEET
48" DIAMETER
MANHOLE
OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE SECTION DETAIL
N.T.S
66" Ø UNDERGROUND STORMWATER SYSTEM PLAN DETAIL
N.T.S.
EL: 898.47
EL: 897.97
EL: 892.31
32.3'5.67'8"" DEPTH CONCRETE
BASE STORMTRAP
6"TYP.
TOP OF
INSIDE OF
UNIT
EL=897.97
TOP OF
OUTSIDE OF
UNIT EL=898.47
IE 5'-8"
STORMTRAP
=892.31'±86.10'32.3'
(4) ROWS OF
STORMTRAP UN
30.3'EL: 891.64 6.27'6" THICK TOP OF
CONCRETE UNIT
8" THICK
CONCRETE BASE
2' DIAMETER ORIFICE PROVIDED IN
BOTTOM TO ALLOW INFILTRATION,
SPACING PER STORMTRAP
RECOMMENDATIONS
4"3"4900 EXCELSIORFOR PERMIT
Know what's
R NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONST. LOUIS PARKSTORMWATERDETAILSC-4.3
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO ACKNOWLEDGE
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR UNDERGROUND
STORMWATER DETENTION SYSTEM ON SIGNED
AND SEALED BUILDING PERMIT PLANS
CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER PRIOR
TO INSTALLATION OF UNDERGROUND SYSTEM.
INSTALLION INSPECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
INSPECTION FORM FOR UNDERGROUND SYSTEM.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 72
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 73
5'
-0
"10'
-0
"10'
-0
"13'
-3
1
/2
"4'
-0
"4'
-0
"4'
-0
"4'
-0
"45'
-0
"00'
-0"1010'
-0
"2"2"13'
-3
1
/2
"34'
BUILDING/ EXCAVATION AREA
266'-5"
20'-6"
25'-5"25'-1/2"13'-9 1/
2"20'
-2
1
/2
"
33'-9"
22'-11"2"17'
-5
"
CONST
R
U
C
TI
O
N
L
O
A
DI
N
G
Z
O
N
E
CONED
O
R
F
E
N
C
E
D I
N
CONST
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
L
O
A
DI
N
G
Z
O
N
E
CONED
O
R
F
E
N
C
E
D I
N
CONSTRUCTION
LOAD
ING
ZONECONED OR
FENCED
IN
SHUT DOWN WEST PARKING LANE FOR CONSTRUCTION
TURN EAST PARKING LANE INTO MOVING LANE
KEEP ROAD OPEN MINIMUM WIDTH
FOR TWO WAY TRAFFIC
KEEP 4' MINIMUM PATH OPEN FOR EXCELSIOR SIDEWALK
SIDE WALK MAY NEED TO BE SHUT DOWN PERIODICALLY
CONTRACTOR'S STAGING DIAGRAM
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 74
No.REVISIONS DATE
DATE
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
COMMISSION NO.
CERTIFICATION
License Number
C
08-25-2015
Date
1990.01
4900 Excelsior
BH
L100
BH
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
L100
1 SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN
1/16" = 1'-0"
RAIN SENSORS TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE IRRIGATION DESIGN.
COORDINATE IRRIGATION SLEEVING LOCATIONS WITH GENERAL CONTRACTOR.
SHRUB & PERENNIAL BEDS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH DRIP IRRIGATION. SOD TO BE IRRIGATED WITH SPRAY.
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A WATERING/LAWN IRRIGATION SCHEDULE
APPROPRIATE TO THE PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS AND TO PLANT MATERIALS GROWTH REQUIREMENTS.
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSURE THAT SOIL CONDITIONS AND COMPACTION ARE ADEQUATE TO ALLOW FOR
PROPER DRAINAGE AROUND THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. UNDESIRABLE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE
ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF WORK. IT SHALL BE THE LANDSCAPE
CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO INSURE PROPER SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE IN ALL PLANTING AREAS.
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING A PERFORMANCE IRRIGATION PLAN AND
SPECIFICATIONS AS PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK WHEN BIDDING. THESE SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ORDER AND/OR INSTALLATION. IT SHALL BE THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY
TO INSURE THAT SODDED/SEEDED AND PLANTED AREAS ARE IRRIGATED PROPERLY, INCLUDING THOSE AREAS
DIRECTLY AROUND AND ABUTTING BUILDING FOUNDATION.
IRRIGATION LIMITS TO EXTEND TO STREET BACK OF CURB.
WEE TREE WALL SHALL BE CONNECTED TO IRRIGATION SYSTEM. COORDINATE WALL IRRIGATION WITH WEETREE WALL DESIGNER.
COORDINATE LOCATION OF WATER SUPPLY AND CONTROLLER WITH MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS.
L100
2 PLANTING DETAILS
1/16" = 1'-0"
PUD SUBMITTAL
11-09-2015(9) HONEYLOCUST
(1) PRINCETON ELM
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 75
PUD SUBMITTAL
11-09-2015
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 76
REVISIONS DATENo.
DATE
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
COMMISSION NO.
CERTIFICATION
License Number
2014 BKV Group, Inc. EOEC
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
08-25-2015
Date
1990.01
BH
BH
A002
4900 Excelsior
FLOOR PLANS
PUD SUBMITTAL
11-09-2015
25 SHARED SPACES FOR
GROCERY EMPLOYEES AND
RESIDENTIAL GUESTS
TRASH AND RECYCLING AREA:
LEVEL P2: 740 SF
LEVEL 1: 430 SF
LEVEL 2: 35 SF
LEVEL 3: 35 SF
LEVEL 4: 35 SF
LEVEL 5: 35 SF
LEVEL 6: 35 SF
TOTAL: 1,345 SF
OFF-STREET PARKING
LEVEL P2: 69
LEVEL P1: 172
LEVEL 1: 66
TOTAL: 307
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 77
REVISIONS DATENo.
DATE
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
COMMISSION NO.
CERTIFICATION
License Number
2014 BKV Group, Inc. EOEC
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
08-25-2015
Date
1990.01
BH
BH
A003
4900 Excelsior
FLOOR PLANS
PUD SUBMITTAL
11-09-2015
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 78
REVISIONS DATENo.
DATE
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
COMMISSION NO.
CERTIFICATION
License Number
2014 BKV Group, Inc. EOEC
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
08-25-2015
Date
1990.01
BH
BH
A004
4900 Excelsior
FLOOR PLANS
PUD SUBMITTAL
11-09-2015
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 79
REVISIONS DATENo.
DATE
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
COMMISSION NO.
CERTIFICATION
License Number
2014 BKV Group, Inc. EOEC
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
08-25-2015
Date
1990.01
BH
BH
A005
4900 Excelsior
FLOOR PLANS
PUD SUBMITTAL
11-09-2015
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 80
REVISIONS DATENo.
DATE
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
COMMISSION NO.
CERTIFICATION
License Number
2014 BKV Group, Inc. EOEC
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
08-25-2015
Date
1990.01
BH
BH
A006
4900 Excelsior
RENDERING
PUD SUBMITTAL
11-09-2015
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 81
REVISIONS DATENo.
DATE
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
COMMISSION NO.
CERTIFICATION
License Number
2014 BKV Group, Inc. EOEC
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
08-25-2015
Date
1990.01
BH
BH
A007
4900 Excelsior
ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
PUD SUBMITTAL
11-09-2015
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 82
REVISIONS DATENo.
DATE
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
COMMISSION NO.
CERTIFICATION
License Number
2014 BKV Group, Inc. EOEC
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
08-25-2015
Date
1990.01
BH
BH
A008
4900 Excelsior
ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
PUD SUBMITTAL
11-09-2015
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 83
REVISIONS DATENo.
DATE
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
COMMISSION NO.
CERTIFICATION
License Number
2014 BKV Group, Inc. EOEC
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
08-25-2015
Date
1990.01
BH
BH
A009
4900 Excelsior
ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
PUD SUBMITTAL
11-09-2015
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 84
0.2 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.4 1.8 1.4 1.5 1.9 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.0 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.9 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.7
0.3 0.7 1.2 1.8 3.4 4.4 3.5 3.6 4.5 3.4 2.6 3.1 3.2 2.7 3.4 4.1 3.4 2.5 3.2 4.0 2.7 2.0 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.9 2.4 3.2 2.0 1.1 0.9
0.3 0.7 1.3 2.7 6.3 9.6 5.9 6.6 8.1 5.7 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.6 5.9 9.6 5.7 3.3 4.6 8.5 6.8 3.0 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.2 1.9 1.8 2.9 6.6 7.7 3.3 1.3 0.7
0.4 1.0 1.7 2.6 4.1 5.7 4.0 4.0 3.9 2.1 1.2 0.8
0.4 1.2 2.6 3.2 0.6 1.3 0.9 0.6
0.2 0.4 0.6 4.7 0.8 1.1 0.6 0.4
0.4 1.0 2.6 3.1 1.4 1.4 0.6 0.1
0.4 1.0 2.6 3.3 2.2 2.0 0.7 0.2
0.2 0.4 0.7 5.1 2.4 2.7 1.0 0.2
0.4 1.0 2.6 3.3 3.1 2.6 1.3 0.2
0.4 1.0 2.5 3.1 3.0 2.5 1.4 0.2
0.1 0.2 0.4 4.5 2.6 2.7 1.7 0.3
0.3 0.7 2.0 2.5 2.9 2.7 1.8 0.2
0.2 0.4 0.8 1.0 2.8 2.4 2.0 0.3
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 2.6 2.5 2.0 0.3
0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 3.1 2.7 2.0 0.3
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 3.1 2.7 2.2 0.3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 10.4 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.3 0.3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 9.6 9.9 3.1 2.7 2.1 0.3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 5.6 2.3 2.9 2.6 2.2 0.3
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.4 7.0 3.1 2.7 2.5 2.2 0.3
0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 7.6 12.5 3.4 3.0 2.5 2.2 0.3
0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 2.6 2.6 2.1 0.3
0.1 0.2 0.6 1.0 2.4 2.3 1.9 0.3
0.2 0.3 1.1 1.4 2.5 1.9 1.7 0.2
0.2 0.5 2.0 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.7 0.2
0.3 0.8 3.1 3.7 1.6 1.9 1.5 0.2
0.3 1.2 4.4 5.1 1.5 1.4 1.2 0.2
0.3 1.1 3.7 4.8 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.2
0.3 0.8 2.0 3.3 2.8 2.3 1.7 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.5 1.0 1.7 2.3 2.2 1.7 0.8 0.5 0.5 1.1 1.7 2.3 2.2 1.7 0.9 0.7 1.1 1.8 2.3 2.2 1.7 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.1
0.2 0.5 1.2 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.1 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.1
0.2 0.5 1.1 1.9 2.4 2.2 1.5 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.9 1.5 2.0 1.9 1.5 0.7 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.9 1.5 0.8 0.7 1.1 1.5 2.0 1.9 1.5 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.1
0.1 0.4 1.0 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.3 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.4 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.4 0.5 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.1
PUD SUBMITTAL
11-09-2015
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: 4900 Excelsior – Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Page 85
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional
Use Permit
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
• Motion to Adopt Resolution Approving the Preliminary and Final Plat of “Westside Center
Izzie Addition”, subject to conditions.
• Motion to Adopt Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit to import fill material
and for fill within the floodplain, subject to conditions.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Do the proposed land use applications meet the requirements of
City Code?
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to subdivide the northeast 2.7 acres from the overall 24.8
acre property. A current tenant, Zerorez, intends to purchase the east lot from COB, LLC. The
two lots are proposed to be operated as a cohesive development, in part, with cross access and
parking easements, common area maintenance obligations, and certain other restrictions.
There is also a separate and unrelated request to expand the parking lot at Westside Center
located at 5320 West 23rd Street by approximately 60 more parking spaces to accommodate its
projected parking demand when its remaining vacant tenant spaces are occupied. They also
propose to subdivide the property.
The parking lot expansion would require importing approximately 2,785 cubic yards of fill,
including approximately 1,229 cubic yards that would be within the floodplain district. The City
requires a conditional use permit when the amount of fill exceeds 400 cubic yards and for
placing fill within the floodplain.
Planning Commission recommended approval of the requests 5-1 following the public hearing
held on October 21, 2015.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed applications do not have
financial or budget impacts upon the City.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolutions
Preliminary and Final Plat
Site Plans for the Conditional Use Permit
Landscaping Plans
Haul Route Map
Stormwater Calculations Report (excerpts)
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Deputy Comm. Dev. Dir./Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: COB, LLC (Owner) is in the process of completing a major renovation of
the former Nestle/Novartis/Sandoz site into a multi-tenant office/industrial building. As of
September 1, 2015, 83% of the previously vacant building has been leased to 10 tenants. At full
occupancy, there may be up to 15 tenants and approximately 420 employees. The applicant
wants to ensure that the parking provided on the site will accommodate the potential parking
demand.
The City has granted permits and approvals for two previous phases of development on the site,
including a previous CUP for import and export of materials. The work under these previous
permits continues on the site.
Location: The property is generally located west of State Highway 100 and Utica Avenue S, south
of the BNSF Railroad tracks and the N. Cedar Lake Regional Trail, and north of the 5500-5800
Blocks of 25 ½ Street W in the Birchwood Neighborhood.
Comprehensive Plan: Industrial
Zoning: IG – General Industrial, IP – Industrial Park, Floodplain District
Surrounding Uses:
East: Auto Body Shop, Highway 100, Utica Ave S, car dealership
South: Multi-family apartments, city-owned land and wetland, single family houses
West: City-owned land and wetland
North: Regional Trail, BNSF railroad tracks, condominiums, mini-storage, fitness center
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit
Public Input: As will be clear from the attached Planning Commission meeting minutes, the
nearby Birchwood neighborhood residents south of the property were surpised and distressed by
the scope of the previously approved project that is under construction. They are very concerned
about the impacts of the development. They are also frustrated that they missed the opportunity
to potentially influence the previous design and mitigate some of the development impacts as
part of the approval process. Residents feel the hearing notice did not adequately describe the
location and scope of work. They also indicated the staff reports did not address the potential
impacts to their properties. Finally, they requested more information about the stormwater and
floodplain modeling before the City takes action on the current CUP applicaton, and they would
like to identify additional ways to mitigate the visual and noise impacts from the outdoor storage
yard and on-site traffic (buffer/screening).
Staff has reviewed the public hearing notices, staff reports, and presentations from the previous
approvals. The City Attorney has confirmed that the legal requirements of both State Statutes
and City Code for notice were met. Property owners within 350 feet were notified of the
applications which noted that grading and fill in the flood plain were being considered. The City
also had a sign posted on the site announcing there was a proposed development before the
public hearing. While all technical and legal notification requirements were met by the City,
staff would agree that more clear or descriptive information should have been included in mailed
communications sent out by the City regarding the scope of the project.
As a result of this most recent experience, Community Development staff has made changes to
its public hearing notice template for mailings to property owners. These templates are written
in more plain language and in some cases would include maps, and more clearly describe the
location, size and scope of the projects. Staff is also providing more project details and plans on
the City website in advance of public hearings. These changes were reflected in the hearing
notices for the current applications before the City Council.
In addition to the City approvals of the previous project, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District (MCWD) and Army Corps of Engineers also issued permits for the work. As part of
MCWD’s process, notice was mailed to property owners within 600 feet of the property. The
notice stated the project resulted in a 2.33-acre increase in impervious surface on the 24.8-acre
site and impacts to wetlands and flood plain. MCWD did not receive any comments or requests
for a public hearing.
Based on calls made by residents in the Birchwood Neighborhood, Staff met with residents one
week after construction on the Westside Center project started. The meetings were held on July
21 and July 23, 2015 at City Hall to provide information about the approved project and review
process, to respond to questions, and to listen to concerns.
Since the July meetings with Birchwood residents, staff has discussed and explored with the
property owner and contractor potential changes to the tree removals, to the site grading plan,
and to the landscaping and screening plan. Staff also encouraged weekly communications about
the construction schedule, activities, and progress. The property owner has been very proactive
and has both anticipated and responded to these suggestions. However, in some instances, staff’s
suggestions could not be accommodated by the property owner due to conflicts with the project
goals and schedule or due to the site conditions. Staff has shared any concerns it received from
the neighborhood with the property owner. Staff and the property owner have responded to
neighborhood concerns that arose during construction, such as work outside of the hours allowed
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit
and lighting complaints. Staff has also provided neighbors with additional information and maps
regarding the stormwater system on the site in the broader area.
Representatives from Westside Center owners, Lyman Lumber (tenant), the project engineers,
and City staff met with neighbors on the construction site on August 12 and August 20, 2015 to
further respond to questions about the project, stormwater design, permitting process,
construction schedule, and planned future improvements.
The property owner and City staff also met with two of the neighboring residents on September
15, 2015 at their properties to see the project from the vantage point of their homes. At that
meeting, neighbors’ provided input on the landscape plan. In addition, City staff was asked to
explore what the City might be able to do on its land to improve screening. Environmental
Coordinator Jim Vaughan evaluated locations where additional trees may be planted by the City
and on City land. He found limited opportunities, but he added 4-6 trees to the City’s spring
planting schedule on the City land between the neighbors closest to the development where soils
were suitable.
On November 5 the City Manager and Community Development Director met with residents at
one of their homes to view the situation first hand. From this meeting specific follow-up steps
will be undertaken to further explore possible measures to improve screening and other matters.
A meeting is also scheduled with neighbors, MCWD permitting staff and its consulting engineer,
and City staff to try to respond to residents’ remaining questions about stormwater and flooding.
That meeting will be held November 12, 2015.
For the current applications, the applicant held a neighborhood information meeting at the
Zerorez building on October 13, 2015. Two of the neighborhood leaders attended that meeting,
as well as representatives from Westside Volkswagen. The main issues discussed were traffic
through the Birchwood neighborhood while Highway 100 is under construction and the
southbound entrance ramp is closed, and concerns about the traffic on the east frontage road of
Highway 100 at Westside Drive.
No concerns were raised about the proposed subdivision at the neighborhood meeting or the
public hearing.
CURRENT APPLICATIONS: The applicant proposes to subdivide the northeast 2.7 acres
from the overall 24.8 acre property. A current tenant, Zerorez, intends to purchase the east lot
from COB, LLC. The two lots are proposed to be operated as a cohesive development, in part,
with cross access and parking easements, common area maintenance obligations, and certain
other restrictions.
There is also a separate and unrelated request to expand the parking lot at Westside Center
located at 5320 West 23rd Street by approximately 60 more parking spaces to accommodate its
projected parking demand when its remaining vacant tenant spaces are occupied.
The parking lot expansion would require importing approximately 2,785 cubic yards of fill,
including approximately 1,229 cubic yards that would be within the floodplain district. The City
requires a conditional use permit when the amount of fill exceeds 400 cubic yards and for
placing fill within the floodplain.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit
Preliminary and Final Plat Analysis:
Description: The developer requests approval of the “Westside Center Izzie Addition”
preliminary and final plat. The plat would subdivide the 24.8-acre property into one block and
two lots.
Uses: The existing industrial use is permitted in the I-G General Industrial and I-P Industrial
Park zoning districts.
Lot 1, Block 1 would be approximately 22.1 acres in size. The majority of the existing building
approximately 213,400 sq. ft. (191,547 sq. ft. leasable), surface parking, outdoor storage,
stormwater management, and compensatory flood storage pond are contained on this lot. The lot
has frontage onto Utica Avenue and 23rd Street W.
Lot 2, Block 1 will be approximately 2.7 acres in size. It fronts onto 23rd Street W. It includes
84,548 square feet of the building and surface parking.
Required Agreements: The lots in the proposed plat meet all subdivision requirements for
minimum lot size, shape, and dimensions. However, the proposed lots are reliant upon one
another for access and parking. Permanent agreements for access, parking, and maintenance will
be required to operate in compliance with City Code. This is included as a condition of
approval.
The on-site underground stormwater management systems are privately-owned and privately
maintained. An easement and/or drainage agreement must also be engaged between the property
owners so that proper drainage is maintained from the newly subdivided property.
Easement Dedications: The plat provides the required perimeter easements, except along the
interior lot line, due to the nature of the existing building and subdivision. This is a zero lot line
subdivision of the building. Each of the parcels will be served by separate utilities and will have
the required fire separations along the lot line. A subdivision variance is warranted and the
easements along the common internal lot line between Lots 1 and 2 are not needed for public
purposes.
Park & Trail Dedication: Park dedication fees that will be due for the proposed Lot 2, Block 1.
The fee will be 5% of the land value. The City will collect the fees prior to signing the final plat.
The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission recommended accepting cash-in-lieu of land at
its October 21, 2015 meeting. Lot 1, Block 1 is over 20 acres in size; therefore, it is exempt from
park dedication requirements.
Conditional Use Permit Analysis:
The CUP would allow for fill on the southeastern portion of the site to expand the parking lot by
approximately 60 parking spaces. The proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Ordinance.
The CUP requirements for fill include an analysis of the following criteria:
• Hauling Duration & Hours of Operation
• Hauling Route
• Equipment to be Used
• Materials Used
• Erosion Control
• Stormwater
• Floodplain
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit
Hauling Duration & Hours of Operation: All the hauling and associated grading, paving, and
landscaping is projected to last approximately 7 weeks and would begin in the spring of 2016
when site conditions and road restrictions allow.
During this time, there will be an average of 5-10 trucks per day. It is estimated that there will be
25 total trucks to import the fill.
The proposed hours of operation are 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekdays. Weekend work is not
expected, but may occur due to unexpected weather delays throughout the project. Hours would
be limited to 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. as a condition of approval on weekends and holidays. These
restrictions on the hours of operation are for all related construction activity, not just the hauling
of materials to the site.
Hauling Route: A map of the haul routes are attached. Trucks exiting the site will travel north on
Utica Ave S, east on 23rd St W, and north on the Highway 100 east frontage road to I-394.
Trucks entering the site will travel on I-394 and take Exit 5 (Westside Drive). Trucks will then
turn right on Westside Dr and proceed to the driveway entrance on Utica Ave S.
Equipment to be Used: Construction equipment will consist of backhoes, crusher, bulldozers,
end- and belly dump trucks.
Materials Used: Clean fill will be imported and used on the site that is suitable for the proposed
use, again, estimated to be 2,785 cubic yards.
Erosion Control: To mitigate the effects on the surrounding community, the developer plans to
install rock construction entrances, silt fence, and catchbasin inserts downstream from the site.
Also, construction sweeping and watering of the site will be implemented as needed. Any soil
stockpiles will be covered when not used for more than 48 hours or temporarily seeded to
prevent windblown sediment from transporting off-site.
Stormwater: The proposed addition increases the impervious surface on the site. Additional
biofiltration basins will be installed on-site north of the parking lot addition to capture initial
stormwater flow and then flow to the large biofiltration basin (stormwater pond). The previously
approved stormwater pond that is under construction has capacity to accommodate the added
stormwater. All stormwater will filter through this system prior to discharging into the city storm
sewer.
The stormwater management plan has been reviewed by the Engineering Department and
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and the plan meets all water treatment and rate
control requirements.
Floodplain: The proposed project would impact 1,229 cubic yards of floodplain. Combined with
the previously approved work approved for the site, the total fill within the floodplain will be
2,485.5 cubic yards.
The site provides 2,498.6 cubic yards of compensatory floodplain storage volume on the western
portion of the site. This area was previously outside the floodplain district and expands the
storage area previously approved for the Phase II improvements.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit
The MCWD and Army Corps of Engineers reviewed the proposed site grading, drainage, and
utility plans. These agencies have approved the proposed expanded work administratively as an
amendment to the permits that have already been issued for the site.
The City Engineering Department also reviewed the plans and concurs that the work will not
cause a flood stage increase.
Based on the review of the Engineering Department, MWCD and Army Corps of Engineers, the
Planning Commisson and staff find that the proposal does not endanger life or property, it does
not cause a stage increase of the 100-year flood event, and it does not increase flood heights or
velocities. The compensating storage of floodwaters displaced by the import of fill is located
where it achieves the goal of eliminating a stage increase, and the area where the compensating
storage is proposed was outside of the 100-year flood zone before development as compensating
storage. The project will reduce the susceptibility of the proposed parking lot and vehicles in
parking lot to flood damage. The plan meets the City’s minimum requirements for fill in the
floodplain.
Tree Removals: The proposed new work will result in the removal of six significant trees,
including two Cottonwood and four American Elm trees. The total new removals will total 72.5
caliper inches.
Combined with the previous removals during earlier phases, the overall required tree
replacement totals 399.6 caliper inches. The proposed landscaping plan, described below and
attached, plants approximately 531 caliper inches of new trees on the site. This meets and
exceeds the tree replacement requirements.
Landscaping Plan: The overall plan proposes to plant 179 trees (technically 174 trees as counted
in the zoning code), 700 shrubs, and 618 perennials. Several of the trees that will be planted are
larger than the minimum size required, which will give a head start to adding screening on the
site and also helps the applicant meet the tree replacement requirements on site, rather than
paying fees to the City’s tree fund.
In addition, the landscaping proposed is designed to respond to the conditions on the site, help
screen the outdoor storage yard, and enhance the aesthetics of the property. The species include
native and pollinator-friendly plantings, shade trees, and evergreen trees. The plan also
preserves many existing mature trees on property.
Staff finds the planting requirements will be met on the site.
Parking Requirements: The industrial zoning districts allow a variety of manufacturing,
warehouse, office and showroom uses. Office uses generate the highest parking demand,
manufacturing and showroom uses generate less demand, and warehouse and outdoor storage
uses generate the least parking demand. City staff reviews changes in tenants and uses as part of
the Registration of Land Use and Certificate of Occupancy process. If the parking available on
the site does not support the proposed uses, City staff can deny a certificate of occupancy,
especially when there is a change and intensification of uses.
Westside Center currently meets the off-street parking requirements in the zoning code. The
current mix of uses is approximately 30% office/showroom, 10% manufacturing, and 60 percent
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 8
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit
warehouse. At full occupancy, the property owner estimates a potential parking shortfall of
approximately 30 to 60 stalls, which it could accommodate with the proposed parking lot
expansion. The applicant’s estimates are not just based on City parking formulas, but also the
employment counts of the current tenants and the types of spaces remaining in the building.
The success of the remodeling and the businesses occupying Westside Center is generating
higher than usual parking demand and motivating the property owner to expand the parking
supply on the property through this application. The applicant would like to meet City Code
requirements, provide the needed parking, make full use the available space in the building, and
avoid undue parking from their development on the adjacent streets.
NEXT STEPS: The property owner will continue construction of the previously approved
Phase I and Phase II improvements. The site restoration and landscaping will be completed in
spring/summer of 2016.
The property owner and major tenants intend to meet with neighbors to explore ways of reducing
impacts. For example, efforts will be made to schedule trash pickup, snow plowing, street
sweeping and similar maintenance activities during daytime hours. One of those meetings is
scheduled for November 12, 2015. As noted previously in this report, further exploration will be
undertaken regarding enhanced screening between the single family homes and the subject
property.
City staff will continue to monitor the uses, parking, noise and other activities on the site for
conformance with City Code standards. Staff will continue to engage with the property owner
and tenants regarding any potential site improvements or operational changes they would
consider to reduce impacts beyond the code requirements. Staff will also communicate with
residents if there are any changes to the plans or schedule, as well as respond to any inquiries and
questions in a timely fashion.
If the subdivision is approved, the applicant intends to quickly record the plat and close on the
property. If the CUP is approved, the applicant would construct the expanded parking lot in
spring/summer 2016. The approval would also allow the applicant to proceed with their
marketing and leasing of the remaining tenant spaces with occupancy to be timed with
completion of the parking lot expansion.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 9
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT
WITH SUBDIVISION VARIANCES FOR PERIMETER DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS
WESTSIDE CENTER IZZIE ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. COB, LLC, subdivider of the land proposed to be platted as Westside Center Izzie
Addition has submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final plat with subdivision
variances of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park
Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects
consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of
Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The proposed preliminary and final plat is situated upon the following described
lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit:
Lot 1, Block 1, Novartis Addition, except that part thereof embraced within the
plat of Ridge Addition, also except that part of the most northwesterly 80 feet of
said Lot 1 lying southwesterly of the southerly right of way line of the Burlington
Northern Inc. Railroad, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Torrens Property, Certificate
of Title No. 1057969)
That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Novartis Addition, embraced within the plat of Ridge
Addition; and that part of the most northwesterly 80 feet of said Lot 1, lying
southwesterly of the southerly right of way line of the Burlington Northern Inc.
Railroad, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Abstract property)
4. There are special circumstances affecting the property such that the strict
application of the provisions of the subdivision ordinance would deprive the applicant/owner of
the reasonable use of the land. The Plat subdivides the property along an existing building wall
that has the required building and fire code separations.
5. Granting the variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. Granting
variances to allow no perimeter drainage and utility easements along the common property line
of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 on the Plat will not impair the ability to accommodate needed utilities to
serve the development. The present road right-of-way and proposed drainage and utility
easements will accommodate existing and proposed utilities.
6. The variances are needed because
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 10
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit
7. The variances are not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Conclusion
1. The proposed preliminary and final plat with subdivision variances of Westside
Center Izzie Addition are hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and
conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the
laws of the State of Minnesota, provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the
opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk subject to the following
conditions:
A. The final plat application shall be consistent with the City Council resolution,
Official Exhibits, Development Agreement and City Code.
B. All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure
cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the building
design and 100% screened from off-site.
C. Prior to the City signing and releasing the final plat to the developer for filing
with Hennepin County:
1. The Assent Form and Official Exhibits must be signed by the applicant
and property owner(s) prior to the City signing and releasing the final plat
for recording.
2. Permanent cross access, parking, stormwater, and maintenance easements
or agreements between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 shall be submitted for City
review, and City Attorney review and approval as to the form.
3. Park dedication fees for Lot 2, Block 1 shall be paid to the City.
4. A financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in the
amount of $1,000 shall be submitted to the City to insure that a signed
Mylar copy of the final plat is provided to the City.
5. A financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in the
amount of $5,000 shall be submitted to the City to insure that installation
of iron monuments at property corners.
D. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the following conditions shall be
met:
1. Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City.
2. Proof of recording the approved permanent cross access, parking,
stormwater, and maintenance agreements between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1,
Westside Center Izzie Addition.
3. Building separation along the common lot line are required to meet the
provisions of the 2015 Minnesota State Building Code.
E. The applicant shall reimburse attorney’s fees incurred by the City in drafting or
reviewing such documents as required under this approval.
F. All necessary permits must be obtained.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution
to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts
required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on
behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph
No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 11
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit
4. Such execution of the certificate upon said Plat by the City Clerk, as required
under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of
proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above
described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 12
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
UNDER SECTION 36-79(a) AND 36-294(f) OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING
TO PERMIT 2,785 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL INCLUDING
1,229 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL IN THE FLOOD PLAIN
ON PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL PARK AND FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICT
LOCATED AT 5320 WEST 23RD STREET
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. COB, LLC has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use
Permit under Section 36-79(a) and 36-294(f) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the
purpose of importing fill, including fill in the floodplain.
2. The subject property is located in Industrial Park and Floodplain Districts at
5320 West 23rd Street legally described as follows, to-wit:
Lot 1, Block 1, Novartis Addition, except that part thereof embraced within the
plat of Ridge Addition, also except that part of the most northwesterly 80 feet
of said Lot 1 lying southwesterly of the southerly right of way line of the
Burlington Northern Inc. Railroad, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Torrens
Property, Certificate of Title No. 1057969)
That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Novartis Addition, embraced within the plat of
Ridge Addition; and that part of the most northwesterly 80 feet of said Lot 1,
lying southwesterly of the southerly right of way line of the Burlington
Northern Inc. Railroad, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Abstract property)
3. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
Planning Commission (Case No. 15-40-CUP) and the effect of the proposed fill on the health,
safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on
the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The Council has determined that the fill does not endanger life or property, it
does not cause a stage increase of the 100-year flood event, and it does not increase flood
heights or velocities.
5. The Council has determined that the compensating storage of floodwaters
displaced by the import of fill is located where it achieves the goal of eliminating a stage
increase, and the area where the compensating storage is proposed was outside of the 100-year
flood zone before development as compensating storage.
6. The Council has determined that the overall use of the site is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan land use designation as industrial, and the renovation of the site has
restored the site as a major employment center in the community.
7. The Council has determined that the fill and use are consistent with the
regulations, intent and purpose of City Code and the zoning districts in which the property is
located.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 13
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit
8. The Council has determined that the proposed use will not have undue adverse
impacts on governmental facilities, services or improvements.
9. The Council has determined that the proposed fill and use do not conflict with
the City’s stormwater, sanitary sewer, and water plans.
10. The Council has determined that the proposed fill and expanded off-street
parking use is not detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the
community as a whole. It will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of
properties, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, parking facilities on adjacent streets, and
values of properties in close proximity.
11. The Council has determined that the proposed fill and use will not be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause neither
serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property
values, and the proposed fill is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
12. The contents of Planning Case File 15-40-CUP are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Conditional Use Permit to permit fill of approximately 2,785 cubic yards of materials at
the location described, including 1,229 cubic yards of fill in the flood plain, is granted based on
the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of
this resolution, approved Official Exhibits, and City Code.
2. Prior to placement of any fill in the floodplain, the compensating flood storage shall
be provided in compliance with floodplain district requirements and Official Exhibits.
3. All construction activities related to grading, paving and landscaping the site occur
only between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on the weekdays. Truck hauling
shall be limited to 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM in accordance with the applicant’s proposed
hours. Any construction work related to this application on weekends or holidays
shall be limited to 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
4. Haul routes shall shall follow the Official Exhibits to avoid truck traffic through
residential neighborhoods.
5. All required permits shall be obtained prior to starting the work, including but not
necessarily limited to, parking lot permit from the Community Development
Department, an erosion control permit from the Engineering Department, and storm
water utility permit and building permit for the retaining wall (if required) from the
Inspections Department.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750
per violation of any condition of this approval.
Under the Zoning Ordinance Code, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or
structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed.
Assent Form and Official Exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 14
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
N
LEGEND
VICINITY MAP
SITE
N
REVISIONSPAGE
DRAWING NAME:
JOB NO.
FILE NO.
FIELD BOOK
Hillcrest Development
SURVEY FOR:PROPERTY ADDRESS:
5320 23rd Street West
St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416
SHEET 1 OF 1
DRAWN BY:
BY:CHECKED
FIELDWORKCHIEF:
WWW.EFNSURVEY.COM
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413
PHONE: (612) 466-3300
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 100
FAX: (612) 466-3383WESTSIDE CENTER IZZIE ADDITION
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF:
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 15
B L O C K 1
2
1
N
R.T. DOC. NO.
C.R. DOC. NO.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 16
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 17
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 18
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 19
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use PermitPage 20
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 21
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 22
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 23
12
7
33
36 7012
7
30
10
1023
12
11
12
14 14 18
13
7
5
9
9 9
9 9
7
6
31
33
36
8
30
24
24
2770 S
S
S
S
S
ST
ST
ST
STST
ST
MW
MW
Luminaire Schedule
Symbol Qty Label Arrangement LLF Description Lum. Lumens
10 BB SINGLE 0.900 D816-LED-160-50-UNV-T3/4-SF-BZ/25FT SSS POLE 16140
15 A SINGLE 0.900 D816-LED-160-50-UNV-T3/4-SF-BZ/25FT SSS POLE 16140
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 24
30
10
1023
12
8
30
24
24
27
MW
Luminaire Schedule
Symbol Qty Label Arrangement LLF Description Lum. Lumens
10 BB SINGLE 0.900 D816-LED-160-50-UNV-T3/4-SF-BZ/25FT SSS POLE 16140
15 A SINGLE 0.900 D816-LED-160-50-UNV-T3/4-SF-BZ/25FT SSS POLE 16140
12
7
30
10
1023
12
11
12
14 14 18
13
7
5
9
9 9
9 9
7
6
31
33
36
8
30
24
24
2770 S
S
S
S
S
ST ST
ST
STST
ST
MW
MW
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 25
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 26
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 27
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 28
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 29
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 30
Truck Hauling Routes
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 31
STORMWATER CALCULATIONS
FOR
Lyman Lumber
5320 West 23rd Street
St Louis Park, MN
September 3, 2015
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under
my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
41333 09/03/15
Name: Rhonda S. Pierce Reg. No. Date
P I E RC E P I N I & A S S O C I AT E S , I N C .
C O N S U L T I N G C I V I L E N G I N E E R S
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 32
– 2 –
INDEX
1. DRAINAGE NARRATIVE
2. DRAINAGE CALCULATION SUMMARY
a. DRAINAGE AREAS
b. RATE SUMMARY BY SUBCATCHMENT
c. RATE SUMMARY BY REACH
d. WATER QUALITY VOLUME
e. PHOSPHOROUS CALCULATIONS – PROPOSED CONDITIONS
f. PHOSPHPROUS CALCULATIONS – REMOVAL SUMMARY
3. DRAINAGE MAPS
a. EXISTING CONDITIONS DRAINAGE MAP
b. PROPOSED CONDITIONS DRAINAGE MAP
c. TOTAL SITE DISTURBED AREA MAP
d. 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN - EXISTING MAP
e. 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN – CUT/FILL MAP
f. WETLAND IMPACT MAP
4. EXISTING CONDITIONS HYDROCAD REPORT
a. 1-YEAR EVENT
b. 10-YEAR EVENT
c. 100-YEAR EVENT
5. PROPOSED CONDITIONS HYDROCAD REPORT
a. 1-YEAR EVENT
b. 10-YEAR EVENT
c. 100-YEAR EVENT
6. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
9 2 9 8 C E N T R A L A V E N U E N E , S U I T E 3 1 2 • B L A I N E , M N • 5 5 4 3 4
P H O N E : 7 6 3 . 5 3 7 . 1 3 1 1 • F A X : 7 6 3 . 5 3 7 . 1 3 5 4 • E M A I L : P P A @ P I E R C E P I N I . C O M
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 33
5320 23rd Street West St. Louis Park, MN
Stormwater Narrative
PPA Project #14-052
Page 1 of 4
R:\Project Folders\2014\14-052 Lyman Lumber Build-out\Phase 3 - Parking Expansion\Stormwater Report\02 - Drainage Narrative.doc
STORMWATER MANGEMENT NARRATIVE
Existing Conditions
The existing site is located at 5320 23rd Street West, St. Louis Park, MN. The site
consists of the Nestle Healthcare Nutrition buildings and bituminous parking lots. The property
is bounded by West 23rd Street and West 24th Street to the south, ABRA Autobody & Glass and
Utica Avenue South to the east. The property is adjacent to existing wetlands to the west and the
North Cedar Regional Trail to the north. Phase 1 of the project began in the fall of 2014, which
included the demolition of building 3 and the surrounding loading dock area in the center of the
site. There were also some pavement removals on the northeast and northwest side of the site
that were associated with tenant initiated loading dock improvements and the construction of
exterior ramps.
The exterior demolition on the second phase of this project will consist of the removal of
existing bituminous pavement and existing utilities on the western side of the site. The total site
is 24.8 acres of which consists 12.84 acres of impervious surfaces. The eastern portion of the site
currently drains to existing city storm sewer in west 23rd street. The central portion of the site
and the northern edge of the site currently collect in a series of private catch basins that direct the
storm water to the city storm sewer in west 24th street. The western portion of the site currently
drains to the south and south-west to two existing catch basins and existing wetlands.
Soils
Braun Intertec has performed a geotechnical evaluation for this site. The geotechnical
report indicated the on-site soils for this project primarily consist of fill materials composed of
silty sand, clayey sand, sand and lesser amounts of lean clay and silt. The fill layer is underlain
by swamp deposits, peat and clays. The thickness of the underlying organic materials increases
in thickness to the south and west in the area of the proposed development. The soils are not
considered conducive to infiltration. The infiltration rate for this soil type, per the MPCA
manual, is 0.06 in/hr. The groundwater table was encountered approximately 6.5 to 20 feet below
grade with the 6.5’ water likely a perched water condition.
Proposed Conditions
This redevelopment project consists of three phases. The first phase consists of
constructing a new bituminous parking lot in place of the removed building 3 and improvements
to the loading dock areas for tenant uses. The new parking lot at the site of the old building 3 will
include several pervious islands constructed to differentiate the parking aisles and loading docks
areas. A bituminous path will also be constructed along the north side of the building to provide
access from the existing egress locations. Within the new parking lot, four new stormwater catch
basins with 4’ sumps will be installed to provide drainage and Best Management Practices for
the area. This storm sewer will connect to the existing private storm sewer, which ultimately
connects to the city storm sewer in Utica Ave S. and W. 24th Street. In the northwest corner of
the site a new concrete loading dock pad will be installed. This will also include the installation
of two new guard posts and a stormwater catch basin with a 4’ sump. On the eastern side of the
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 34
5320 23rd Street West St. Louis Park, MN
Stormwater Narrative
PPA Project #14-052
Page 2 of 4
R:\Project Folders\2014\14-052 Lyman Lumber Build-out\Phase 3 - Parking Expansion\Stormwater Report\02 - Drainage Narrative.doc
site, two new van ramps will be constructed to allow access into and out of the elevated building.
This will also include some reconstruction of the existing parking lot, sidewalks and an ADA
ramp.
The second phase of the project will occur on the southwestern portion of the site.
Stormwater management will be required due to the extent of the disturbed area within this phase
of work. This phase will include the construction of a ring road that sweeps around the western
side of the property to provide tenant access to the northwestern portion of the building. Within
the ring road a secured outdoor storage lot will be constructed for one of the tenants. Included in
this tenant improvement is a thirty-six thousand square foot at-grade one-story building that will
be constructed along the southern edge of the existing building 12. Additionally, along the
southern side of the ring road a new parking lot will be constructed to accommodate the
additional parking stalls required by the new addition.
The third phase of the project will include the expansion of the parking lot on the south
side of the site. These additional stalls will accommodate the increase in building tenants for the
spring of 2016. The parking lot addition will require supplemental stormwater management, site
lighting, landscaping, retaining walls and flood plain compensatory storage.
Stormwater Management
The total disturbed area on the site is approximately 12.34 acres which is 49.65% of the
total site. The impervious surface area will be increased 2.74 acres to a total of 15.58 acres for
the entire site. The required water quality volume was determined by multiplying the impervious
surface area of the entire site by a two inch rainfall depth (the 50% abstraction method was used
because the existing soil conditions are not conducive to infiltration). The proposed stormwater
management consists of three interconnected biofiltration basins.
The majority of the existing building’s roof and the roof of the proposed addition will be
collected by a series of roof drains that will be directed to the stormwater system. The proposed
ring road, storage yard and two southern most parking lots will also be collected and routed to
the stormwater management system. The proposed stormwater management system consists of
four interconnected biofiltration basins that connect to a larger biofiltration basin on the south
side of the ring road. The stormwater will sheet flow into the smaller basins and will filtrate
through a sand media section to the bottom of the basin. Within the filtration media, there will be
perforated draintile that will collect the stormwater and direct it to the large biofiltration basin
via proposed stormwater sewer.
Each of the smaller biofiltration basins will have a raised outlet that will allow larger
volumes of stormwater to flow to the larger basin more quickly in larger rainfall events. Due to
the limited vertical clearance between the bottom of the smaller biofiltration basins and the
bottom of the pavement sections on the western side of the site, larger culverts were utilized to
provide the discharge capacity needed to allow the stormwater drainage to pass under the
pavement sections. A box culvert has been provided for the crossing under the driveway entrance
and three round culverts were provided for the crossing under the south side of the ring road.
Once again the vertical limitations required the culverts to be buried deeper so that the top
sections of the culverts will be utilized for drainage. The three box culvert that was selected is
the lowest profile culver that is provide by the manufacturer. The lower half of the culverts will
then be filled with grout to provide the cross-sectional area that is required. Since the southern
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 35
5320 23rd Street West St. Louis Park, MN
Stormwater Narrative
PPA Project #14-052
Page 3 of 4
R:\Project Folders\2014\14-052 Lyman Lumber Build-out\Phase 3 - Parking Expansion\Stormwater Report\02 - Drainage Narrative.doc
section crossing the road had more available width, round culverts were used instead of a box
culvert. Unfortunately HydroCAD is not able to model a customized pipe section, so a box
culvert was used to model the section under the ring road. The required cross-sectional area was
calculated and then converted to an equivalent area of half of the area of round culvert pipes.
The large biofiltration basin will consist of a storage pool volume above a three foot layer
of filtration media that is embedded with perforated draintile. The entire water quality volume
will filtrate through the sand layer before discharging to the city storm sewer. The MPCA design
guidelines recommend a three foot minimum depth of filtration media to ensure sufficient Total
Suspended Solid (TSS) removals and Phosphorous removals. Additional treatment will be
required to meet the MCWD phosphorus control requirement which is the amount equivalent to
that which would be achieved through abstraction of one inch of rainfall from the site’s
impervious surface. Since there are sections of the site that are infeasible to collect and treat, the
proposed biofiltration basin will be modified with iron enhancements to achieve the required
amount of phosphorous removals. The filtration media will be modified so that 0.3% of the
volume will consist of iron filings, which will allow for additional removals of dissolved
phosphorus within the collected stormwater. The biofiltration basin will also include a raised
overflow weir wall that will be utilized in larger stormwater events. This weir wall overflow will
allow excess storm water to discharge to the western side of the site while controlling the rate of
discharge. This outlet will be heavily rip-rapped to prevent scouring and erosion issues on the
downstream end.
During construction, additional test pits were excavated and it was discovered that there
was perched ground water at a higher elevation than previously expected in the location of the
large biofiltration basin. An impervious (60 mil geomembrane) liner will be installed at the
bottom of the system to prevent perched groundwater from percolating up into the drain tile and
ultimately to the city stormwater sewer. Additional precautions were included to weigh down the
liner and protect it from being damaged. Please see the associated details on sheet C5.1
Additional best management practices will also be incorporated on the proposed site with
4’ sediment sumps in the proposed catch basins throughout the site to limit pollutant generation.
There will also be additional enhancements to the site by the means of new trees and parking lot
islands throughout the property.
Wetlands
A wetland delineation report has been completed by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
dated September 2014 and the wetland boundaries were verified by the Technical Evaluation
Panel (TEP) this spring. On May 5, 2015, representatives from the MCWD, BWDR, and U.S.
ACOE met in a pre-application meeting to discuss the proposed project. The proposed impact of
the existing wetland includes 4,595 SF of wet meadow area (wetland 1) and 9,410 SF of a
seasonally flooded basin (wetland 3). A Minnesota/ACOE joint wetland permit application has
be submitted by Pinnacle Engineering, INC (PN: R015264.00). The application is requesting
sequencing flexibility and proposing the purchase of wetland banking credits, thereby ensuring
the public value of the replacement wetland will be greater than the public value of the proposed
impacted wetlands. Please see the application for more information pertaining to the wetland
impacts. A wetland impact exhibit has also been included in this report for reference.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 36
5320 23rd Street West St. Louis Park, MN
Stormwater Narrative
PPA Project #14-052
Page 4 of 4
R:\Project Folders\2014\14-052 Lyman Lumber Build-out\Phase 3 - Parking Expansion\Stormwater Report\02 - Drainage Narrative.doc
100 Year Flood Plain Elevation
The existing Hennepin county floodplain maps were determine to be inaccurate as the
floodplain does not follow a consistent contour line. The MCWD was able to update the DNR’s
FEMA XPSWMM Model with the current ATLAS 14 rainfall data. The updated 100 year flood
plain elevation was determined to be 880.00 for the NGVD 1929 datum, which is the equivalent
elevation of 879.8 for the NAVD 1988 datum that was used for the project’s survey. The project
Surveyor, Brent Peters, from Egan, Field & Novak, INC. submitted a Letter of Map amendment
(LOMA) determination document to FEMA. The final determination was received from FEMA
in April, 2015 (Case Number 15-05-3433A). This updated elevation has been shown on the
provided survey and plans.
The proposed design impacts 2,485.5 cubic yards of floodplain. A proposed
compensatory flood plain storage volume of 2,498.6 cubic yards will be provided on the western
portion of the site to mitigate the lost floodplain storage throughout the site. Please see the
attached exhibits and calculations for details.
Sediment and Erosion Control
Silt fence, catchbasin inserts and biologs will need to be placed along the perimeter of the
disturbed construction area prior to construction to prevent silt from leaving the site.
A rock construction entrance will need to be established and site street sweeping performed
throughout the construction phase. Soils stockpiles shall be covered when not used for more
than 48 hours or temporarily seeded to prevent windblown sediment from transporting off-site.
Permanent erosion control will consist of sod and paved sidewalks and roads. Slopes and
swales will be stabilized with a heavy duty erosion control mat designed for the intended area.
Please refer to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for additional information regarding to
the project.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 37
Lyman Lumber Stormwater Drainage Area Summary
PN: 14-052
9/3/2015
Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Area
Drainage Area Area [SF]CN Value Area [SF]CN Value Area [SF]CN Value
EX1 12,820 80 22,210 98 35,030 91
EX2 2,104 80 7,850 98 9,954 94
EX3.1 0 80 7,732 98 7,732 98
EX3.2 0 80 25,297 98 25,297 98
EX3.3 0 80 30,080 98 30,080 98
EX3.4 0 80 4,987 98 4,987 98
EX3.5 0 80 7,115 98 7,115 98
EX3.6 0 80 45,793 98 45,793 98
EX3.7 0 80 49,584 98 49,584 98
EX3.8 0 80 8,834 98 8,834 98
EX3.9 0 80 21,939 98 21,939 98
EX4 0 80 16,181 98 16,181 98
EX5 2,246 80 28,024 98 30,270 97
EX6.1 7,120 80 63,219 98 70,339 96
EX6.2 11,519 80 6,733 98 18,252 87
EX7 35,173 80 48,623 98 83,796 90
EX8.1 10,411 80 30,426 98 40,837 93
EX8.2 28,714 80 9,410 98 38,124 84
EX9 0 80 8,350 98 8,350 98
EX10 413,398 80 116,913 98 530,311 84
Total =523,505 Total =559,300 Total =1,082,805
Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Area
Drainage Area Area [SF]CN Value Area [SF]CN Value Area [SF]CN Value
PR1 11,256 80 23,774 98 35,030 92
PR2 2,131 80 7,823 98 9,954 94
PR3 10,044 80 48,756 98 58,800 95
PR4.1 0 80 7,732 98 7,732 98
PR4.2 0 80 25,297 98 25,297 98
PR4.3 0 80 30,080 98 30,080 98
PR4.4 0 80 4,987 98 4,987 98
PR4.5 0 80 7,115 98 7,115 98
PR4.6 0 80 45,793 98 45,793 98
PR4.7 0 80 49,584 98 49,584 98
PR4.8 0 80 8,834 98 8,834 98
PR4.9 0 80 21,939 98 21,939 98
PR5 0 80 36,495 98 36,495 98
PR6.1 6,715 80 5,392 98 12,107 88
PR6.2 2,338 80 47,947 98 50,285 97
PR6.3 1,454 80 5,527 98 6,981 94
PR6.4 4,041 80 3,545 98 7,586 88
PR7.1 11,185 80 42,040 98 53,225 94
PR7.2 6,274 80 28,038 98 34,312 95
PR8 13,184 80 527 98 13,711 81
PR9.1 4,844 80 94,211 98 99,055 97
PR9.2 0 80 15,083 98 15,083 98
PR9.3 13,010 80 88,376 98 101,386 96
PR10 45,141 80 3,828 98 48,969 81
PR11 257,139 80 25,853 98 282,992 82
PR12 15,473 80 0 98 15,473 80
Total =404,229 Total =678,576 Total =1,082,805
Existing Conditions
Proposed Conditions
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 38
Lyman Lumber
Stormwater - Discharge Rate Summary by Subcatchment
PN: 14-052
9/3/2015
Existing Conditions
1-Year 10-Year 100-Year 1-Year 10-Year 100-Year
Drainage Area Event (cfs)Event (cfs)Event (cfs)Volume (ac-ft)Volume (ac-ft)Volume (ac-ft)
EX1 1.74 3.59 5.44 0.099 0.212 0.329
EX2 0.76 1.46 2.14 0.033 0.066 0.100
EX3.1 0.58 1.05 1.51 0.031 0.058 0.074
EX3.2 1.91 3.42 4.93 0.103 0.189 0.276
EX3.3 2.27 4.07 5.86 0.122 0.225 0.328
EX3.4 0.38 0.67 0.97 0.020 0.037 0.054
EX3.5 0.54 0.96 1.39 0.029 0.053 0.078
EX3.6 3.46 6.20 8.92 0.186 0.343 0.500
EX3.7 3.75 6.71 9.65 0.201 0.371 0.541
EX3.8 0.67 1.20 1.72 0.036 0.066 0.096
EX3.9 1.66 2.97 4.27 0.089 0.164 0.239
EX4 1.22 2.19 3.15 0.066 0.121 0.177
EX5 2.13 3.87 5.59 0.117 0.220 0.324
EX6.1 5.31 9.79 14.21 0.258 0.496 0.737
EX6.2 0.74 1.70 2.67 0.041 0.097 0.156
EX7 2.68 5.77 8.86 0.224 0.491 0.769
EX8.1 2.79 5.46 8.09 0.128 0.263 0.401
EX8.2 1.21 3.02 4.92 0.073 0.183 0.303
EX9 0.73 1.31 1.88 0.034 0.063 0.091
EX10 12.90 32.76 53.69 1.015 2.540 4.210
Proposed Conditions
1-Year 10-Year 100-Year 1-Year 10-Year 100-Year
Drainage Area Event (cfs)Event (cfs)Event (cfs)Volume (ac-ft)Volume (ac-ft)Volume (ac-ft)
PR2 0.76 1.46 2.14 0.033 0.066 0.100
PR4.4 0.38 0.67 0.97 0.020 0.037 0.054
PR4.6 3.46 6.20 8.92 0.186 0.343 0.500
PR6.1 0.62 1.36 2.11 0.029 0.066 0.106
PR6.4 0.31 0.69 1.08 0.018 0.042 0.066
PR8 0.26 0.73 1.25 0.022 0.059 0.101
PR11 5.31 14.43 24.31 0.481 1.262 2.134
PR12 0.29 0.83 1.43 0.023 0.064 0.111
System A (1)0.65 0.71 0.72 2.421 3.992 4.111
System A (2)0.00 0.72 16.25 0.000 0.206 1.938
CB C (2)4.57 12.61 22.59 0.052 0.583 1.075
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 39
Lyman Lumber
Stormwater Rate and Volume Summary
PN: 14-052
9/3/2015
Existing Condtions Proposed Conditions
Rate (cfs)Rate (cfs)
1-Year Event 47.43 16.61
10-Year Event 98.17 40.41
100-Year Event 149.86 81.77
Existing Condtions Proposed Conditions
Volume (ac-ft)Volume (ac-ft)
1-Year Event 2.905 3.285
10-Year Event 6.258 6.720
100-Year Event 9.783 10.296
Lyman Lumber
Stormwater Rate and Volume Summary By Reach
PN: 14-052
Reach Existing Rate (cfs)Proposed Rate (cfs)
23rd Street 4.05 4.05
24th Street 16.09 5.80
South Wetland 10.11 0.29
South Off-Site 2.68 0.9
West Wetland 12.9 5.31
Reach Existing Rate (cfs)Proposed Rate (cfs)
23rd Street 7.31 7.31
24th Street 29.91 15.20
South Wetland 19.29 0.83
South Off-Site 5.77 1.42
West Wetland 32.76 14.43
Reach Existing Rate (cfs)Proposed Rate (cfs)
23rd Street 10.56 10.56
24th Street 43.64 26.56
South Wetland 28.50 1.43
South Off-Site 8.86 1.97
West Wetland 53.69 40.32
1-year Storm Event
100-year Storm Event
10-year Storm Event
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 40
Lyman Lumber - Water Quality CalculationsPN: 14-052 9/3/15Impervious Required TreatmentRequired TreatmentDrainage Area IdentificationArea (sq. ft.)Depth (in.)Volume (cu. ft.)PR123,77423,962PR27,82321,304PR348,75628,126PR4.17,73221,289PR4.225,29724,216PR4.330,08025,013PR4.44,9872831PR4.57,11521,186PR4.645,79327,632PR4.749,58428,264PR4.88,83421,472PR4.921,93923,657PR536,49526,083PR6.15,3922899PR6.247,94727,991PR6.35,5272921PR6.43,5452591PR7.142,04027,007PR7.228,03824,673PR8527288PR9.194,211215,702PR9.215,08322,514PR9.388,376214,729PR103,8282638PR1125,85324,309PR12020Total Required Volume678,5762113,096Water Quality CalculationsProposed Stormwater Management Systemslowest PoolOverflow OutletDescriptionElevation (ft.)Elevation (ft.)System A - Large Filtration Pond878.0880.9System B - N Parking Lot Filtration Swale878.3881.0System B - S Parking Lot Filtration Swale878.0880.2System C - NW Filtration Swale878.2880.2System C - SW Filtration Swale878.1880.1116,8755,450Total Required Volume100,5472,177Below overflow outlet (cu. ft.)Abstraction Volume3,944.04,757City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use PermitPage 41
Lyman LumberStormwater Drainage Area Summary & Phosphorous LoadingPN: 14-0529/3/2015Proposed ConditionsPerviousImperviousImperviousOutflow DeviceDrainage AreaNon RoofNon RoofRoofTo:PR111,25623,7740 PondPR22,1317,8230 CityPR3 10,044 48,756 0 PondPR4.1 0 0 7,732 PondPR4.2 0 0 25,297 PondPR4.30030,080PondPR4.4004,987 CityPR4.5007,115PondTotal Site with (partial concentration on roofs)PR4.600 45,793 CityRoofsPR4.700 49,584 PondP=26 inPR4.8008,834 PondI=100.0 %PR4.900 21,939 PondRv=0.95PR500 36,495 PondC=0.13 mg/LPR6.16,7155,3920 CityA=5.46 AcPR6.22,33847,9470 PondPR6.31,4545,5270PondL(post R)=3.5lbs/yearPR6.44,0413,5450 CityNon-RoofsPR7.111,18542,0400 PondP=26 inPR7.26,27428,0380 PondI=52.2 %PR813,1845270 OffsiteRv=0.52PR9.14,84494,2110 PondC=0.3 mg/LPR9.2015,0830 PondA=19.40 AcPR9.313,01088,3760 PondPR1045,1413,8280PondL(post NR)=15.7lbs/yearPR11257,13925,8530 OffsiteTotalPR1215,47300OffsiteCheck TotalL (post)=19.2lbs/yearTotal (SF)= 404,229440,720 237,8561,082,805Total (AC)=9.2810.125.4624.86City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use PermitPage 42
Lyman Lumber
Stormwater Drainage Area Summary & Phosphorous Removals
PN: 14-052
9/3/2015
Summary Pervious Imp.(Non Roof) Imp. (Roof) Imp. (Total) Total
City 0.30 0.38 1.17 1.55 1.85
Pond 2.42 9.13 4.29 13.42 15.84
Offsite 6.56 0.61 0.00 0.61 7.17
Total 9.28 10.12 5.46 15.58 24.86
Pollutant Load
L(post)= 19.2 lbs/year
L(pre)=15.8 lbs/year
BMP Removal Requirement
L(post)= 19.2 lbs/year
BMP(Filtration) 50.0 %
DA (Fraction of Imp.) 100.0 %
LR=9.6 lbs/year
Proposed BMP Removal
L(post)= 19.2 lbs/year
BMP(Filtration) 50.0 %
BMP(iron filing) 8.2 %
BMP(Total) 58.2 %
DA (Fraction of Imp.) 86.2 %
LR=9.6 lbs/year
This scenario demonstrates the phosphorous removals if 100%
of the site's impervious surface area is collected and routed to a
hypothetical filtration system
Filtration system removal efficiency = 50%
*Iron Enhancements at a ratio of 0.3% will get an average
removal rate of 18.3% of the dissolved phosphorous. The
amount of dissolved phosphorous is approximately 45% of the
total influent concentration. (18.3%*45%=8.24%). The
proposed design routes 12.92 acres of the total 15.17 acres of
the site impervious surfaces to the proposed stormwater
system. (13.42ac/15.58ac=86.2%)
Filtration system removal efficiency = 50%
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 43
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 44
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 45
WWWWW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W WU
EUEU EUEUEUEUEUEUEG
G
GGGGGGGUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUF
UF ST. LOUIS PARK, MNPIERCE PINI &
ASSOCIATES
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 46
EXISTING FLOODPLAIN
AREA = 43,327 SF
EXISTING FLOODPLAIN
AREA = 235,203 SF ST. LOUIS PARK, MNPIERCE PINI &
ASSOCIATES
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 47
FILLED FLOODPLAIN
AREA = 33,390 SF
FILLED FLOODPLAIN
AREA = 5,623 SF
EXISTING FLOODPLAIN AREA
TO REMIAN= 9,837 SF
FILLED FLOODPLAIN
AREA = 10,742 SF
EXCAVATED FLOODPLAIN
AREA = 27,655 SF ST. LOUIS PARK, MNPIERCE PINI &
ASSOCIATES
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 48
ST. LOUIS PARK, MNPIERCE PINI &
ASSOCIATES
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Page 49
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: CenturyLink Cable Franchise Findings of Fact and Resolution
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the Findings of Fact and Resolution
regarding an ordinance granting a competitive cable franchise for Qwest Broadband Services,
Inc. D/B/A CenturyLink.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the City Council take final action to grant a second
Cable TV franchise which would allow St. Louis Park residents and businesses to have a choice
of two Cable TV providers. The recommended action supports the following recently approved
City Council Goal and Priority: “St. Louis Park is a technology connected community”.
SUMMARY: The City franchise negotiation team and Telecommunications Advisory
Commission support granting a competitive Cable TV franchise to CenturyLink, which is as
similar as possible to the existing Comcast Cable TV franchise. Comcast has provided comment
on the franchise. It is attached to this report along with an analysis of issues raised.
The City Council approved the franchise ordinance on first reading on November 2, 2015 and on
second reading November 16, 2015.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Cable TV franchise fees are included in the
proposed franchise ordinance. They are similar to those paid by Comcast, largely based on gross
Cable TV revenues generated in St. Louis Park.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Moss & Barnett Memo
Resolution
Comcast Letter Dated November 4, 2015
Prepared by: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator
Reviewed by: Jacqueline Larson, Communications & Marketing Manager
Through: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Title: CenturyLink Cable Franchise Findings of Fact and Resolution
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The City hired Moss & Barnett Attorney Brian Grogan to assist in
negotiations with CenturyLink in the competitive Cable TV franchise process. Mr. Grogan
provided a memorandum on October 27, 2015 that addressed the legal issues related to the
proposed CenturyLink franchise (attached), and which was also provided in the Council packet
of November 2, 2015.
The key issues are build-out and competitive equity. Mr. Grogan has addressed both with this
summary: “Several attempts have been made to ensure that the CenturyLink Franchise is
substantially similar to Comcast’s existing franchise: first, the Comcast franchise served as the
base document for negotiation of the CenturyLink Franchise; second, the franchise fees required
by the CenturyLink Franchise are identical to those required by Comcast’s franchise; third, the
geographic area (after complete build-out) of the CenturyLink Franchise matches the area
specified in Comcast’s franchise; and fourth, the CenturyLink Franchise requires CenturyLink to
require substantially similar—if not greater—public, educational, and governmental access.”
Comcast’s Emmett Coleman raises these issues in a letter dated November 4, 2015 (attached).
He points out that Minnesota Statute 238.08 says the city cannot grant an additional franchise
with “terms and conditions more favorable or less burdensome than those in the existing
franchise pertaining to (1) the area served; (2) public, educational or government access; or (3)
franchise fees.”
He says that the CenturyLink franchise requires that “CenturyLink build to only 15% of the City.
The Executive Summary, however, contains no discussion of what may be a reasonable
requirement for St. Louis Park, or why CenturyLink’s proposal, that fails to address 85% of its
citizens, meets this standard.”
City staff’s report to Council on November 2, 2015 addresses this concern. CenturyLink desires
to keep the percentage of homes built-out to 15% in the franchise because that is a number
consistent with their commitments in other markets. CenturyLink has shown maps of the St.
Louis Park coverage areas to members of the franchise negotiating team which show where the
Prism TV product will be immediately available, and it is far more than 15% of the city. Moss &
Barnett Attorney Brian Grogan says that St. Louis Park’s coverage map is one of the most
favorable in the metro area. At the first quarterly meeting, which could occur as early as April,
2016, CenturyLink will be required to identify the actual number of living units that can receive
Prism TV services, and if it is greater than twenty-seven and one half percent (27 ½%), “then
Company agrees the minimum build-out commitment shall increase to include all of the
households then capable of receiving Cable Service plus an additional fifteen (15%) of the
total households in the City.” (Emphasis added).
CenturyLink has assured staff that they can immediately serve more than 27 ½% of the City, so
whatever percentage they CAN serve, as of April, 2016, becomes the new baseline and
CenturyLink must serve 15% higher than that in the next two years. CenturyLink considers the
maps and actual customer figures to be trade secret information which is why it cannot be
included in the public record at this point.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
Title: CenturyLink Cable Franchise Findings of Fact and Resolution
Coleman’s letter says, “At this current rate, Comcast expects to have fully recovered its $1.1
million in PEG (public, educational, government) capital grants by 2018. At such time Comcast
will no longer collect a PEG fee from subscribers.”
Until this letter, Comcast has never given City staff any indication that the PEG fee would end
prior to the end of the franchise. There is precedent that charging the competitive cable operator
the same PEG fee, rather than requiring up-front payments, meets the requirement for
competitive equity.
If Comcast does in fact discontinue the PEG fee in two years, all of their St. Louis Park
customers will receive a one-time price drop of $1.12, and sixty days later the City could stop
receiving $1.12 per customer from CenturyLink. The CenturyLink franchise says: “In no event
shall the PEG Fee be assessed in an amount or manner different from that imposed upon the
incumbent cable provider.”
The City will still continue to receive 5% franchise fees from both providers. This and the
assumption that Comcast fulfills its remaining franchise grant obligation of $100,000 means
Park TV functions will continue at the current level. Further PEG equipment grants could be
part of the negotiations with both CenturyLink and Comcast when the franchises expire in
December, 2020 and January, 2021, respectively.
“Losing” the PEG fee from CenturyLink is a surprise, but could be considered an unanticipated
benefit of competition for customers, lowering their bills by $1.12 per month. The potential loss
to the City of the PEG fee from Century Link until their franchise expires is not significant. And,
competitive equity still applies because CenturyLink will be providing areas of PEG support that
won’t apply to Comcast, like access to PEG channels from all over the metro area; carriage of
high definition (HD) channels as soon as the City converts to that format; up to 20 hours of HD
video on demand; and access to the electronic programming guide.
Public, Education and Government (PEG) access requirements, and competitive equity:
The PEG channels in St. Louis Park are collectively called Park TV and include channels 14, 15,
16, 17 and 96. Park TV is funded by Comcast franchise fees of 5% of the gross revenues from
cable TV services in St. Louis Park, in exchange for use of the public right-of-way. In addition,
Comcast committed to a series of equipment grants over the life of its franchise: $800,000 in
2006; $200,000 in 2011; and $100,000 in 2016. Comcast has a 15-year franchise that ends in
January 2021.
The CenturyLink franchise requires a PEG fee of $1.12 per month for each subscriber which
would be forwarded to the City on a quarterly basis along with the 5% franchise fee. This is the
exact same amount Comcast charges customers each month to pay for their lump sum equipment
grants.
CenturyLink uses what they call a “mosaic” channel for local PEG channels. For example, if a
viewer tuned to channel 22 on the CenturyLink system, they would see a miniature version of all
five Park TV channels. They would hear the sound for channel 22, and could listen to, for
example, a Council meeting while watching all five Park TV channels simultaneously. When
they decide to go to another Park TV channel they would use their CenturyLink remote control
to select that preview image and switch to that channel.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 4
Title: CenturyLink Cable Franchise Findings of Fact and Resolution
The actual channel assignments would be in the 8000 range, so direct tuning to the local
channels would not be as easy as on the Comcast cable system. However, staff has experimented
with the CenturyLink equipment and believes Park TV users will quickly learn how to use the
“last channel” feature on the remote control to switch to the channel 22 mosaic channel to
preview all Park TV channels. In addition, while tuned to channel 8017, for example,
CenturyLink will have a program guide that will show the adjacent five channels.
CenturyLink will allow access to almost 200 local PEG channels around the metro area, which
can’t be seen on Comcast. Currently, Park TV typically covers home high school sporting
events and as many regional playoff games as possible. But since CenturyLink will allow access
to all PEG channels on their system, when St. Louis Park High School plays at a Bloomington
school, for example, and the game is carried on CenturyLink cable TV in those cities, the St.
Louis Park CenturyLink customer could watch it on that community’s PEG channel. Many other
events are covered around the metro area that St. Louis Park customers could watch, like Edina
or Minnetonka city council meetings, Hopkins Center for the Arts concerts, parades,
performances or weekly news programs.
Another area where CenturyLink’s commitments exceed those of Comcast is in providing high
definition (HD) channels. Without negotiations, Comcast will not offer HD channels for Park
TV before the end of its franchise in 2021. CenturyLink will carry all Park TV channels in HD
as soon as the city offers their channels in HD. This is a real benefit, since virtually all new TV
production equipment is HD or Ultra HD so eventually all Park TV programs will be recorded in
HD. Customers that have only standard definition (SD) TV’s will be able to see the Park TV
channels in SD, since the CenturyLink system will automatically convert the HD channels to SD.
Channels 16 and 17 could be fairly easily converted to be fully HD within one year, but channels
14, 15 and 96 will still have to show standard definition (SD) programming for several years.
Currently, all of the van productions are in HD and converted to SD to play on the cable channel,
so channel 16 could convert to HD as soon as control room equipment is upgraded to HD, which
is budgeted for 2016. Channel 17 requires a replacement control room switcher to record
Council meetings in HD. Camcorders and edit systems used by most Park TV staff have been
HD since 2009, with the programs converted to SD to play on the cable channels
Currently, Comcast allows the City to provide up to 20 hours per month of SD of video on
demand (VOD) programming on their system, or five hours of HD programming. CenturyLink
would allow up to 20 hours of HD programming on their VOD system.
Comcast does not allow access to the electronic program guide (EPG) to allow customers to see
the exact program listings for the Park TV channels. All Park TV channels are simply described
as “Pub17,” and the specific program listing is “community programming” in the Comcast guide.
In contrast, CenturyLink would:
• Use City branding information on channel descriptions, for example, Civic TV 8017.
• Allow the city to provide the generic description language seen in the program listing
area. For example: “Civic TV 8017: City topic programs, City Council and Planning
Commission meetings.”
• Supply contact information so the city could pursue the option of paying the third party
responsible for the detailed program listings. This is very important when many cable
TV customers are using digital video recorders (DVRs) to record programs to watch
later.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 5
Title: CenturyLink Cable Franchise Findings of Fact and Resolution
Comcast’s obligations are greater than those of CenturyLink in two areas: live programming
sites, and free cable TV service.
Comcast provides fiber connections to allow live programming from five locations:
• City Hall control room (for Council Chambers and eventually, Community Room
productions)
• School Board meeting room
• High School football field
• The Rec Center hockey arena
• Wolfe Park Veterans Amphitheater
These sites are used for dozens of TV productions each year. CenturyLink will not duplicate
links to these sites. However if any of the sites were to become unavailable through the Comcast
system, CenturyLink would then step in and provide the fiber, equipment and maintenance to
those sites. Also, CenturyLink would provide fiber, equipment and maintenance for any new
live locations the city might decide to add.
Comcast provides free cable TV service and three digital adapters (DTAs) at 19 city or school
district buildings. This is a very significant benefit. CenturyLink will provide service to those
locations but only if they are not served by Comcast, with these exceptions: City Hall, so Park
TV staff can monitor the City channels on the CenturyLink system, and the Police Station and
Fire Station #1 Emergency Operations Centers for a redundant connection in case of emergency.
However, the franchise allows the City the discretion to disconnect from Comcast cable service
to receive CenturyLink service, to promote competitive equity.
Here’s a summary of the differences in the franchise obligations:
Comcast obligations CenturyLink obligations
Up-front capital equipment grants totaling
$1.1 million
Match the amount Comcast charges to each
customer per month, $1.12
Free cable TV service to 19 city and school
district buildings
Free cable TV service to any city or school
district building not served by Comcast,
including those the city chooses to switch to
CenturyLink’s Prism TV service.
20 hours of standard definition (SD) video
on demand (VOD) programs; or five hours
of high definition (HD) VOD programs.
20 hours of HD VOD
Five SD cable TV channels. No HD Park
TV channels before the end of the franchise
(2021) unless negotiated.
Will carry Park TV channels in HD when the
City is prepared to deliver them. The city will
eventually convert all Park TV channels to
HD, but could be ready for two HD channels
within one year.
No City control over electronic program
guide (EPG)
City control over EPG channel descriptions
and generic program listing description
Live production from four remote sites (high
school football field, school board meeting
room, The Rec Center and Wolfe Park
Amphitheater) and City Hall control room,
Will provide fiber link from City Hall control
room. If the four remote sites are no longer
available for whatever reason, will provide
links to the sites. If any additional live remote
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 6
Title: CenturyLink Cable Franchise Findings of Fact and Resolution
for Council Chambers events. sites are needed to schools or other locations,
would provide the fiber, equipment and
maintenance to those sites.
Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached findings of fact and
resolution.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The City of St. Louis Park currently has one cable TV
provider and CenturyLink has applied for a cable TV franchise. Granting of this franchise will
make St. Louis Park the second Minnesota Local Franchising Authority to grant a second cable
TV franchise to CenturyLink. Minneapolis is the only other LFA do so thus far, though
CenturyLink franchise approvals are pending in several other communities.
NEXT STEPS: This franchise ordinance shall be effective fifteen (15) days after its passage
(this meeting) and publication, and after acceptance by the company. CenturyLink will be
implementing marketing efforts. In addition, any construction associated with provision of cable
TV service will go through the usual permitting processes, as applicable.
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
From: Brian Grogan
Date: October 27, 2015
Re: Competition in Cable Communications Franchising
Executive Summary
The City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“City”) is considering granting a competitive cable
franchise to Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., d/b/a CenturyLink (“CenturyLink”) in a service
area for which Comcast holds an existing franchise. This memorandum is intended to assist the
City Council (“Council”) in its consideration of the proposed Ordinance Granting a Competitive
Cable Franchise for Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., d/b/a CenturyLink (“CenturyLink
Franchise”) by summarizing the legal issues surrounding its terms that relate to competition in
the cable communications industry.
Details
The Council has previously adopted a resolution finding CenturyLink to be legally,
technically, and financially qualified to provide cable communications services to residents of
the City. In connection with that finding, the Council authorized City staff to negotiate with
CenturyLink to determine if mutually agreeable terms for such a franchise could be reached.
Those negotiations are now complete and have resulted in the proposed CenturyLink Franchise.
City staff has also prepared for the Council’s review and consideration, written “findings of fact,”
enclosed as Exhibit 1, setting forth the factual and legal basis for the grant of the CenturyLink
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8c)
Title: CenturyLink Cable Franchise Findings of Fact and Resolution Page 7
Franchise and the impact of relevant State and federal competitive cable franchise laws and
regulations.
Build-out
To help promote competition in and minimize unnecessary regulatory burdens on the
cable communications industry, the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended by
the Cable Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 and Telecommunications Act of
1996 (the “Cable Act”) prohibits local franchising authorities from granting exclusive cable
communications franchises or unreasonably refusing to award an additional franchise to a
qualified applicant.1 The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), which administers the
Cable Act, addressed competitive cable franchising in its 2007 Report and Order and Further
Notice of Rulemaking (generally referred to as the “621 Order” after its subject, Section 621 of
the legislation that became the Cable Act). The 621 Order explained that an unreasonable
refusal in contravention of the Cable Act could occur not only by outright denial of a franchise
application, but also by creating conditions that operate as de facto denials.
One variety of de facto denial addressed by the 621 Order is the imposition of
unreasonable build out requirements that act as a barrier for an additional cable provider to
enter a market with an existing franchise:
Build-out requirements deter market entry because a new entrant generally must
take customers from the incumbent cable operator . . . . Because the second
provider realistically cannot count on acquiring a share of the market similar to
the incumbent’s share, the second entrant cannot justify a large initial
deployment. Rather, a new entrant must begin offering service within a smaller
area to determine whether it can reasonably ensure a return on its investment
before expanding.2
1 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1).
2 621 Order at ¶ 35.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8c)
Title: CenturyLink Cable Franchise Findings of Fact and Resolution Page 8
The 621 Order did not prohibit all build out requirements, but instead provided examples of
unreasonable build out requirements—and of reasonable ones, such as a small initial
deployment and required expansion triggered by market success.3
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238, which establishes statewide cable communications
requirements, also addresses build out by requiring “a provision in initial franchises identifying
. . . a schedule showing: . . . that construction throughout the authorized franchise area must
be substantially completed within five years of the granting of the franchise.”4 CenturyLink
takes the position that Minnesota’s five-year build out requirement is unreasonable under the
621 Order and is therefore preempted by the federal law. Comcast disagrees and points to the
FCC’s recent reaffirmation that the 621 Order’s rulings “were intended to apply only to the local
franchising process and not to franchising laws and decisions at the state level.”5
The CenturyLink Franchise addresses this issue by requiring a modest initial deployment
(at least 15% of the service area within two years) and linking build out requirements to
market-success benchmarks that CenturyLink must use its best efforts to meet, but granting the
City sole discretion to determine, at the end of five years, whether CenturyLink has fulfilled its
build out obligations to qualify for renewal of the franchise.6
Competitive Equity
The Minnesota cable communications statutes also contain a general level-playing-field
(i.e., “competitive equity”) provision that requires that an additional franchise include no terms
or conditions “more favorable or less burdensome than those in the existing franchise pertaining
to: (1) the area served; (2) public, educational, or governmental access requirements; or
3 Id. at ¶ 89-90.
4 Minn. Stat. § 238.084, subd. 1(m).
5 621 Order at ¶ 7, cited in Letter, dated July 1, 2015
6 CenturyLink Franchise §§ 28-1-5 and 28-1-8.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8c)
Title: CenturyLink Cable Franchise Findings of Fact and Resolution Page 9
(3) franchise fees.”7 Minnesota courts have interpreted this provision as requiring “substantially
similar”—rather than identical—terms.8 Several attempts have been made to ensure that the
CenturyLink Franchise is substantially similar to Comcast’s existing franchise: first, the Comcast
franchise served as the base document for negotiation of the CenturyLink Franchise; second,
the franchise fees required by the CenturyLink Franchise are identical to those required by
Comcast’s franchise; third, the geographic area (after complete build-out) of the CenturyLink
Franchise matches the area specified in Comcast’s franchise; and fourth, the CenturyLink
Franchise requires CenturyLink to require substantially similar—if not greater—public,
educational, and governmental access.
Findings of Fact
As previously indicated, whether the Council ultimately grants or denies the proposed
CenturyLink Franchise, it must examine all of the evidence presented to it, weigh the facts, and
apply the correct legal standards. Enclosed as Exhibit 1 are draft findings of fact generally
supporting a decision to approve the CenturyLink Franchise. With the caveat that best practices
dictate that the final findings of fact should respond to any evidence or argument against
approval, the attached findings of fact may serve as a useful starting point if the Council elects
to grant CenturyLink the franchise it seeks.
2987004v2
7 Minn. Stat. § 238.08, subd. 1(b).
8 See WH Link, LLC v. City of Otsego, 664 N.W.2d 390, 396 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003).
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8c)
Title: CenturyLink Cable Franchise Findings of Fact and Resolution Page 10
EXHIBIT 1
Findings of Fact/Resolution
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8c)
Title: CenturyLink Cable Franchise Findings of Fact and Resolution Page 11
RESOLUTION NO. 15-_____
RESOLUTION REGARDING AND ORDINANCE
GRANTING A COMPETITIVE CABLE FRANCHISE
FOR QWEST BROADBAND SERVICES, INC. D/B/A CENTURYLINK
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota makes the following FINDINGS OF
FACT:
1. In December 2014, Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., d/b/a CenturyLink, Inc.
(“CenturyLink”) requested that the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“City”) initiate
proceedings to consider awarding it a franchise to provide cable communications services
in the City (“Service Territory”).
2. Comcast of Arkansas/Florida/Louisiana/Minnesota/Mississippi/Tennessee, Inc.
(“Comcast”) holds a non-exclusive cable communications franchise for the Service
Territory (“Comcast Franchise”).
3. The Comcast Franchise, which the City last renewed in January, 2006, is currently the
only cable communications franchise for the Service Territory.
4. The monopoly held by a sole cable communication provider in a particular market is a
barrier to entry for additional providers, which does not have a captive market but must
instead “win” every subscriber.1
5. The presence of a second cable operator in a market improves the quality of service
offerings and drives down prices by approximately 15%.2
6. On May 14 and 21, 2015, the City published a Notice of Intent to Franchise a Cable
Communications System (“Notice”) in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor, a newspaper of
general circulation in the Service Territory.
7. The Notice indicated that the City was soliciting franchise applications and provided
information regarding the application process, including that applications were required
to be submitted on or before June 8, 2015 and that a public hearing to hear proposals
from applicants would be held July 6, 2015 at 7:30 PM.
8. The City also mailed copies of the Notice and application materials to CenturyLink and
Comcast.3
9. On June 8, 2015, the City received an application from CenturyLink (the “CenturyLink
Application”). The City did not receive any other applications.
1 In the Matter of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 05-311, at ¶ 138 (Rel. Mar. 5, 2007) (“621 Order”). 2 Id. at ¶¶ 2, 50. 3 Notice by the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota of Its Intent to Consider An Application for a Franchise and
Request for Proposals - Official Application Form
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8c)
Title: CenturyLink Cable Franchise Findings of Fact and Resolution Page 12
10. As provided by the Notice, on July 6, 2015 the City held a public hearing during the City
Council’s regularly scheduled meeting to consider CenturyLink’s application and
qualifications.
11. On July 1, 2015, Comcast submitted a letter to the City setting forth its position regarding
the CenturyLink Application (“Comcast Letter”).4
12. The Comcast Letter expresses concern about how CenturyLink’s proposal compared to
particular provisions of the existing Comcast Franchise.5
13. The Comcast Letter also summarizes Comcast’s position regarding build-out
requirements and other proposed terms related to competition in the cable industry.6
14. During the hearing, CenturyLink presented its proposal and all other interested parties
were provided an opportunity to speak and present information to the City Council
regarding the CenturyLink Application.
15. The law firm of Moss & Barnett, a Professional Association prepared a report, dated June
24, 2015 (“Franchise Report”), reviewing and analyzing the City’s franchising
procedures, the CenturyLink Application and other information provided by CenturyLink
in connection with the scheduled July 6, 2015 public hearing.7
16. The Franchise Report identifies and discusses federal and state legal requirements
relevant to the City’s consideration of the CenturyLink Application, including laws
pertaining to franchising procedures and competition between providers.8
17. The Franchise Report also analyzes information provided by CenturyLink to establish its
qualifications to operate a cable communications franchise in the Service Territory.9
18. At its meeting on July 6, 2015, the City Council considered the Franchise Report, along
with the information and documentation it had received regarding the CenturyLink
Application, and adopted Resolution 15-092 finding and concluding that the CenturyLink
Application complied with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 238.081 and that
CenturyLink is legally, technically, and financially qualified to operate a cable
communications system within the Service Territory.
19. As a result of its determination that CenturyLink complied with all application
requirements and is a qualified applicant, the City Council authorized City staff to
negotiate with CenturyLink to attempt to reach mutually acceptable terms for such a
franchise.
4See, July 1, 2015 letter from Emmett Coleman to Reg Dunlap regarding CenturyLink Video Franchise Application. 5 Id. at 2. 6 Id. at 1-3. 7 Report to the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota Regarding Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. d/b/a/ CenturyLink –
Proposal for a Cable Communication Franchise, June 24, 2015. 8 Franchise Report at 2-9.
9 Id. at 11-12.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8c)
Title: CenturyLink Cable Franchise Findings of Fact and Resolution Page 13
20. In Minnesota, both State and federal law govern the terms and conditions of an additional
cable communications franchise in an already-franchised service area.10
21. The franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise or unreasonably refuse to
award an additional competitive franchise.11
22. The franchising authority must allow an applicant reasonable time to become capable of
providing cable service to all households in the service area.12
23. The franchising authority may grant an additional franchise in an already-franchised
service area if the terms and conditions of the additional franchise are not “more
favorable or less burdensome than those in the existing franchise” regarding the area
served, the PEG access requirements, and franchise fees.13
24. The additional franchise must also include, among other things, “a schedule showing . . .
that the construction throughout the authorized franchise area must be substantially
completed within five years of the granting of the franchise.”14
25. In order to ensure that any additional franchise granted to CenturyLink would contain
substantially similar service area, PEG access requirement, and franchise fees to the
Comcast Franchise, the City used the Comcast Franchise as the base document for its
negotiations.
26. On September 23, 2015, the City’s Telecommunications Advisory Commission
(“Commission”) held a special meeting to review progress toward a CenturyLink cable
communications franchise ordinance (CenturyLink Franchise”). Staff presented an
overview of the CenturyLink Franchise and interested parties were provided an
opportunity to comment. CenturyLink answered questions posed by the Commission and
City staff. The Commission unanimously passed a motion directing City staff to finalize
the CenturyLink Franchise and recommended that the City Council adopt the
CenturyLink Franchise.
27. On October 8, 2015, the City Council gave notice that it intended to introduce an
ordinance granting a cable communications franchise to CenturyLink.
28. On November 2, 2015, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. ___, An Ordinance of
the City of St. Louis Park Granting a Cable Communications Franchise to Qwest
Broadband Services, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink (“CenturyLink Franchise”).
29. Copies of the CenturyLink Franchise were made available to the public, including
Comcast, in advance of the November 2, 2015 City Council meeting.
10 See 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1); Minn. Stat. §§ 238.08, .084; see also Franchise Report at 2-8. 11 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). 12 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(4). 13 Minn. Stat. § 238.08, subd. 1(b).
14 Minn. Stat. § 238.84, subd. 1(m).
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8c)
Title: CenturyLink Cable Franchise Findings of Fact and Resolution Page 14
30. The CenturyLink Franchise encompasses the same Service Territory encompassed by the
Comcast Franchise.15
31. The franchise fees required by the CenturyLink Franchise are identical to those required
by the Comcast Franchise.16
32. The PEG access requirements in the CenturyLink Franchise mandate certain obligations,
such as HD channel capacity for all PEG channels that go beyond the commitments made
in the Comcast franchise.17
33. The City recognizes that CenturyLink, which currently offers no cable communications
services in the Service Territory, cannot justify a large initial deployment because it
“realistically cannot count on acquiring a share of the market similar to Comcast’s share .
. . [and] must begin offering service within a smaller area to determine whether it can
reasonably ensure a return on its investment before expanding.”18
34. The CenturyLink Franchise therefore requires CenturyLink’s initial deployment to be
capable of serving at least 15% of the living units in the Service Territory within two
years.
35. The CenturyLink Franchise permits the City to monitor CenturyLink’s progress and
compliance with build-out requirements via quarterly meeting and accelerates the build-
out schedule if CenturyLink has market success, with the goal and expectation that build-
out will be substantially complete before the CenturyLink Franchise’s five-year term
expires.19
36. During its regularly scheduled meeting on November 2, 2015, the City Council held a
public hearing at which all interested parties were provided an opportunity to speak and
present information regarding the proposed CenturyLink Franchise.
37. On November 4, 2015, Comcast submitted a letter to The Honorable Mayor Jeff Jacobs
with copy to each City Council member setting forth Comcast’s position regarding the
CenturyLink Franchise (“Comcast Letter”).20
38. The Comcast Letter asserts that the CenturyLink Franchise does not impose binding and
enforceable build out requirements and does not require CenturyLink to contribute the
same amount of PEG funding required of Comcast.
39. CenturyLink was provided a copy of the Comcast Letter but CenturyLink did not provide
the City with a written reply to the Comcast Letter.
15 CenturyLink Franchise § 28-1-5; Comcast Franchise § 28-1-5. 16 CenturyLink Franchise § 28-1-9; Comcast Franchise § 28-1-9. 17 CenturyLink Franchise § 28-1-14; Comcast Franchise § 28-1-14. 18 621 Order at ¶ 35. 19 CenturyLink Franchise §§ 28-1-5 and 28-1-8. 20See, November 4, 2015 letter from Emmett Coleman to Jeff Jacobs, Mayor, City of St. Louis Park regarding the
CenturyLink Cable TV Franchise Ordinance.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8c)
Title: CenturyLink Cable Franchise Findings of Fact and Resolution Page 15
WHEREAS, the City has considered these facts and the cable-related needs and interests
of the community:
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council for the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota hereby
resolves as follows:
1. The foregoing findings are adopted as the official findings of the City Council and made
a part of the official record.
2. The City has authority to adopt an ordinance granting a cable communications franchise
to CenturyLink for the Service Territory.
3. The City may not unreasonably refuse to award a competitive cable communications
franchise to CenturyLink.
4. The City and its residents will benefit from adoption of the CenturyLink Franchise, which
will introduce facilities-based competition into the cable communications market in the
Service Territory and thereby reduce costs to consumers and increase the quality and
availability of services.
5. CenturyLink is legally, technically, and financially qualified to operate a cable
communications system in the Service Territory and has complied with all application
requirements.
6. The City has complied with all franchise application requirements imposed by State and
federal law, including those identified herein or in the Franchise Report.
7. The terms and conditions of the CenturyLink Franchise pertaining to service area, PEG
access requirements, and franchise fees are not more favorable or less burdensome than
the corollary terms of the Comcast Franchise.
8. As compared to the Comcast Franchise, the CenturyLink Franchise requires an identical
per subscriber PEG fee as directed by the Federal Communications Commission.21
9. The CenturyLink Franchise’s initial deployment requirement of 15% within two years
and 5-year timeline for substantially completing build-out provides a reasonable period of
time for CenturyLink to become capable of reaching full deployment and is therefore
consistent with both State and federal law.
10. The Ordinance Granting a Cable Communications Franchise for Qwest Broadband
Services, Inc., d/b/a CenturyLink is formally and finally adopted.
11. The City finds and concludes that its actions are appropriate, reasonable, and consistent
in all respects with the mandates set forth in Chapter 238 of Minnesota Statutes and
applicable provisions of federal law, including 47 U.S.C. § 541(a).
21 Id. at 621 Order, ¶¶ 120 and footnote 396.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8c)
Title: CenturyLink Cable Franchise Findings of Fact and Resolution Page 16
Approved this 16th day of November, 2015, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8c)
Title: CenturyLink Cable Franchise Findings of Fact and Resolution Page 17
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8c)
Title: CenturyLink Cable Franchise Findings of Fact and Resolution Page 18
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8c)
Title: CenturyLink Cable Franchise Findings of Fact and Resolution Page 19
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8c)
Title: CenturyLink Cable Franchise Findings of Fact and Resolution Page 20
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Bid Tabulation: Reject Bids for the Outdoor Ice Rink Site Work and Grading Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to reject bids for the Outdoor Ice Rink Site Work and
Grading Project and authorize re-advertisement for bids.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Council is being asked to reject the bids now so that this project
can be rebid with all of the components at a later date.
SUMMARY: A total of five (5) bids were received for this project. We had estimated
$300,000-$350,000 for grading and site work. Due to the contamination found on site, the bids
came back about $350,000 higher. A summary of the bid results is as follows:
Company Bid Amount
Belair Sitework Services $660,987
Max Steininger $874,900
MN Utilities & Excavating $796,764
Park Construction $662,000
Veit Construction $922,415
As a result of the latest estimate on the entire project coming in over budget, staff has been
working with the architect on some re-design options as well as seeking grants to help fund the
project. This has delayed the overall project timeline and has resulted in the site work and
grading bids submitted to not be honorable by the low bid contractor with the revised timeline.
Staff recommends rejecting these bids and re-advertising the site work and grading, along with
all other components of the entire outdoor rink project in December 2015 and January 2016.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Sine the latest revised cost estimate on the
entire project is $7.1M, staff has been exploring ways to decrease the project cost and to bring in
additional revenue. By rebidding the project in December & January, we have become eligible
for grant funding through the Hennepin County ERF Grant. Staff has applied for $357,200 in
grant funding to help off-set the cost of grading.
In addition to applying for the Hennepin County ERF grant, staff has also applied for a Hennepin
County Youth Sports Grant in the amount of $300,000 to help offset the costs. If we receive
either of these grants, staff will bring the entire financial package to Council at the time we are
asking the City Council to approve bids to move ahead on the project. We anticipate this being at
a February 2016 City Council meeting.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Jason Eisold, Rec Center Manager
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 16, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Traffic Study No. 659: All Way Stop Signs on Ottawa Avenue at 29th Street
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing installation of stop
signs on Ottawa Avenue at 29th Street
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The restriction is allowed per the City’s established regulatory
authority.
SUMMARY: In September, the City received a request to evaluate the intersection of Ottawa
Avenue at 29th Street. This intersection currently has stop signs on the east-west legs of the
intersection, stopping 29th Street. The request was to add stop signs on the north-south leg of
the intersection, stopping Ottawa Avenue.
The City’s Traffic Control Policy and the MN Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN
MUTCD) guide the installation of stop signs. The policy sets out warrant criteria which an
intersection should meet in order to have stop signs installed. The stop sign warrants for traffic
volume, crash history and sightlines were not met for this intersection. As a result, the Traffic
Committee does not recommend the installation of stop signs on Ottawa Avenue.
When the Traffic Committee does not recommend the installation of a traffic control device,
residents have an opportunity to petition the City Council to consider the Committee’s
recommendation and hear input from the community. Per City policy, non-qualifying devices
and traffic calming methods may be considered if both the following are satisfied.
• 70% of residents within a 600 foot radius from the location sign a petition or a
neighborhood association supports a neighborhood study and calming strategy.
• Special studies and installation of traffic calming controls (except signs) would be at
residents or neighborhood cost (specially assessed to benefited residents or areas)
The City has received a petition that meets the requirements listed above. Council options are to
approve, deny, or refer the request to the neighborhood (association) for further study and/or
support. Past practice by the Council has been to approve stop sign requests when a petition is
received that meets the requirements of the Traffic Control Policy.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost of enacting these controls is
minimal and will come out of the general operating budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Traffic Study #659
Petition
Resolution
Map
Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Page 2
Title: Traffic Study No. 659: All Way Stop Signs on Ottawa Avenue at 29th Street
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: In September, the City received a request from a resident to install stop signs
on Ottawa Avenue at 29th Street. The intersection currently has stop signs on 29th Street only.
The city conducted an engineering study that included a Multi-way Stop Sign Control Warrant
Analysis on this intersection. The results of the study are that this intersection does not meet the
warrant criteria for installation of all-way stop control. The Traffic Committee does not
recommend installation of additional stop signs where warrant criteria are not met.
When the Traffic Committee does not recommend the installation of a traffic control device,
residents have an opportunity to petition the City Council to consider the Committee’s
recommendation and receive input from residents. Non-qualifying devices and traffic calming
methods may be considered if both the following are satisfied.
• 70% of residents within a 600 foot radius from the location sign a petition or a
neighborhood association supports a neighborhood study and calming strategy.
• Special studies and installation of traffic calming controls (except signs) would be at
residents or neighborhood cost (specially assessed to benefited residents or areas)
The City has received a petition that meets the requirements listed above. Council options are to
approve, deny, or refer the request to the neighborhood (association) for further study and/or
support.
ANALYSIS: The Traffic Committee is made up of staff from Police, Public Works,
Community Development and Engineering. When we receive a request from the public we
review it and complete engineering study as needed. Recommendations on whether to install a
traffic control device are based on industry guidelines and studies. The installation of a stop sign
carries with it a regulatory component that requires City Council approval for enforcement.
The current traffic condition at this intersection is as follows:
Ottawa Ave
(avg vehicles/ day)
29th Street
(avg vehicles/ day)
Before School Started (8/25/15 to 8/31/15) 2032 277
After School Started (9/8/15 to 9/10/15) 2560 311
After Minnetonka Bridge ramps opened
(10/22/15 to 10/27/15) 1838 299
Stop signs are installed to control conflicting traffic movements at intersections. The stop sign is
meant for safety and to assign right-of-way. Stops signs are not intended to be used as a traffic
calming device. Multiple studies have determined that unwarranted multi-way stop signs do not
typically control traffic speeds or provide more safety. Instead, they can create traffic delay or
traffic impacts on other streets, noise, additional pollution, poor stop compliance, and pedestrian
safety when drivers believe the signs have no justification. More information on these impacts
will be provided at the meeting if requested by the Council.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the technical analysis undertaken by staff, the Traffic
Committee does not recommend the installation of additional stop signs at this intersection.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Page 3
Title: Traffic Study No. 659: All Way Stop Signs on Ottawa Avenue at 29th Street
Traffic Study No. 659: All Way Stop Signs on Ottawa Avenue at 29th Street
The Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD) guides the
installation of stop signs. The decision to install multi-way stop control should be based on an
engineering study. The following warrant criteria were reviewed for this multi-way stop sign
installation request:
• Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that can
be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation
of the traffic control signal.
This intersection is not a location of a future traffic signal and thus did not meet this
warrant required for a multi-way stop sign.
• Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a
multi-way stop installation. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn collisions as well as
right-angle collisions.
Crash history showed there was one (1) reported and correctable accident in a 12-month
period. The crash history did not meet this warrant for a multi-way stop sign.
• Minimum Volumes:
o The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of
both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average
day.
Ottawa Avenue
• Before School Started (8/25/15 to 8/31/15) = 192 vehicles/hour
• After School Started (9/8/15 to 9/10/15) = 210 vehicles/hour
• After Minnetonka Bridge ramps opened (10/22/15 to 10/27/15) = 162 vehicles/hour
Traffic volumes on Ottawa Avenue did not meet this warrant for a multi-way stop sign.
o The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from
the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per
hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at
least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour.
29th Street
• Before School Started (8/25/15 to 8/31/15) = 20 vehicles/hour
• After School Started (9/8/15 to 9/10/15) = 20 vehicles/hour
• After Minnetonka Bridge ramps opened (10/22/15 to 10/27/15) = 30 vehicles/hour
Traffic volumes on 29th Street did not meet this warrant for a multi-way stop sign.
o But if the 85th- percentile approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the
minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided above.
Ottawa Avenue (85th Percentile Speeds)
• Before School Started (8/25/15 to 8/31/15) = 33.7 mph
• After School Started (9/8/15 to 9/10/15) = 33.6 mph
• After Minnetonka Bridge ramps opened (10/22/15 to 10/27/15) = 34.3 mph
The major street, Ottawa Avenue, did not meet this warrant for reduced minimum
vehicular volumes.
Traffic Committee Recommendation
Due to none of the warrant criteria being met for a multi-way stop sign, the Traffic Committee
does not recommend that stop signs on Ottawa Ave at 29th Street be installed.
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: Traffic Study No. 659: All Way Stop Signs on Ottawa Avenue at 29th Street Page 4
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: Traffic Study No. 659: All Way Stop Signs on Ottawa Avenue at 29th Street Page 5
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Title: Traffic Study No. 659: All Way Stop Signs on Ottawa Avenue at 29th Street Page 6
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Page
Title: Traffic Study No. 659: All Way Stop Signs on Ottawa Avenue at 29th Street
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF
STOP SIGNS ON OTTAWA AVE
AT 29TH STREET
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 659
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested by petition to
install stop signs on Ottawa Ave S at 29th Street.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The Engineering Director is hereby authorized to install stop signs on Ottawa Avenue
at 29th Street.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 16, 2015
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of November 16, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Page
Title: Traffic Study No. 659: All Way Stop Signs on Ottawa Avenue at 29th Street
Ottawa Avenue at 29th Street
(All-Way Stop Sign Installation)
Glenhurst Avenue