HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020/06/22 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JUNE 22, 2020
All meetings of the St. Louis Park City Council will be conducted by telephone or other electronic
means starting March 30, 2020, and until further notice. This is in accordance with a local
emergency declaration issued by the city council, in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19)
pandemic. Additionally, in accordance with Gov. Walz's “Stay Safe MN” executive order 20-056,
city facilities will remain closed to the public until further notice.
Some or all members of the St. Louis Park City Council will participate in the June 22, 2020 city
council meeting by electronic device or telephone rather than by being personally present at
the city council's regular meeting place at 5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
Members of the public can monitor meeting by video and audio at https://bit.ly/watchslpcouncil
or by calling +1-312-535-8110 meeting number (access code): 372 106 61 for audio only. Cisco
Webex will be used to conduct videoconference meetings of the city council, with council
members and staff participating from multiple locations.
6:30 p.m. - STUDY SESSION
Discussion items
1. 6:30 p.m. COVID-19 update/Information on CIP, debt and long-range financial
planning
2. 8:00 p.m. Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
8:05 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal)
8:10 p.m. Adjourn
Written reports
3. Application for Tax Increment Financing Assistance – Union Park Flats
4. May 2020 monthly financial report
5. Annual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Report
6. Metropolitan Council and Minnesota Brownfields grant application - Prince of Peace
7. Metropolitan Council grant application – Texa Tonka Apartments
During the COVID-19 pandemic, agendas will be posted on Fridays on the entrance doors to city hall and on the text
display on civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available after noon on Friday on the city’s website.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952-924-2525.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: June 22, 2020
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: COVID-19 update/Information on CIP, debt and long-range financial planning
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is categorized as Time-Sensitive**
•No formal action required. This report is provided to assist with the study session
discussion regarding the impact COVID 19 is anticipated to have on the 2020 budget, as well
as provide background information on the city’s capital improvement plan and related long-
range planning for debt.
Policy consideration: Does the council have any questions regarding the information
presented?
Summary: Stacie Kvilvang, consultant with Ehlers will present information to council on COVID
19 financial update and financial planning, debt and long-range planning.
At this meeting:
•Update on COVID 19 financials. As this is a fluid situation, staff continues to review
revenue changes, expenditures, and support in various areas to conduct business in the
time of COVID 19. Discussion will include an update on the projections made in April on
the impact the pandemic may have on the 2020 budget and other related matters.
•The second half of this discussion will be to review capital planning, debt, and bonding
related to long range financial planning.
•Staff will be available to assist with information and questions as needed.
Financial or budget considerations: The CIP and debt projections work in conjunction with the
city’s annual budgeting process to help determine an appropriate property tax levy to fund
operations, capital and debt in order to maintain the city’s AAA bond rating. COVID 19 will also
be monitored and incorporated into planning throughout 2020 and into 2021.
Strategic priority consideration: All areas of the adopted strategic priorities are impacted by
the city’s budget. St. Louis Park is committed to:
•being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive
community for all.
•continue to lead in environmental stewardship.
•providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood-oriented development.
•providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably,
safely and reliably.
•creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director
Elizabeth Diaz, interim CFO/Ehlers
Stacie Kvilvang, consultant Ehlers
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: COVID-19 update/Information on CIP, debt and long-range financial planning
Discussion
COVID 19 financial update: In April, staff presented information regarding estimates of impacts
on revenue, expenditures and operations due to COVID 19 (COVID). At that time, the COVID
related financial gap was estimated to be $2.4M. A variety of estimates went into generating
this number and there were, and still are, many unknowns regarding the final outcome of the
pandemic on the finances of the city. This continues to be a very fluid situation and not all the
answers to every scenario are currently known. Staff continues to monitor financial impacts as
a team, following Governor Walz directives and emergency operations while conducting
essential business operations.
In total, year to date general fund revenues are down approximately $449k from 2019 and
expenditures are up by approximately $607k (inclusive of COVID related expenditures)
providing for a gap of $1.056M related to COVID. This gap analysis will continue to be analyzed
and evaluated as the year progresses. The gap may get bigger or the gap may close depending
on several factors such as second half property tax collections, reimbursement from the
state/federal government for COVID expenses and any future pandemic related closures, which
are unknown at this time.
Major general fund revenue streams:
Permit revenues: The 2020 permit revenues continue to come in strong. To date, a total of
$2.1M has been collected as compared to $2.3M in 2019. It is expected that permit revenues
will meet the $3.5M 2020 budgeted amount.
License revenues: The 2020 license revenues are ahead of the actual year to date in 2019. A
total of $928K has been collected as compared to $851K in the same time frame in 2019.
Charges for services: This revenue line item is down from the same time from last year. These
revenues would include those activities which were required to shut down due to the pandemic.
For 2020 year to date, a total of $360K has been collected as compared to $724K in 2019.
Property taxes: Hennepin County, like other counties, adopted a different timeline for property
taxpayers to delay paying their property taxes, and would not incur a penalty if the payment
was not made by May 15th. Certain property owners are allowed to delay paying their first half
tax payments until July 15th without paying a penalty. Taxing jurisdictions in Hennepin County
will receive on June 19 an advance of 70% of property taxes collected. Additional distributions
will be made on July 6, July 23 and July 30. Property tax revenues are expected to be strong for
the advanced first half collections on June 19th. City staff did a thorough review of the top 100
taxpayers in the city and found that all paid their taxes. According to Hennepin County, the first
half advance will be $12.4M as compared to a first half advance of $12.2M in 2019.
COVID related expenditures:
The city has undertaken various measures to respond and to mitigate the financial impact of the
pandemic on its residents and businesses. The city continues to respond in the areas of public
safety and public works. As of June 12th, the city has spent, or intends to spend, $1.3M in
responding to the crisis. These costs are:
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: COVID-19 update/Information on CIP, debt and long-range financial planning
Description Amount
Regular, temporary and paid-on-call salaries, overtime and related benefits $ 699,701
Personal protective equipment 89,087
Emergency assistance (STEP) 108,000
Additional computer resources for city business needs related to remote work 150,000
Small business assistance grants 224,000
Discover SLP loan 35,000
Total $1,305,788
The Federal government has two funding streams to help mitigate unexpected costs. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has funding designed to reimburse
extraordinary costs that would not have been incurred except for the crisis. These reimbursable
costs include personal protective equipment and staff overtime. To date, the city has requested
a total of $38k in reimbursements for expenses related to personal protective equipment and
overtime. An additional reimbursement request is expected to be made at the end of June.
The Federal government also adopted a law to allow for a nationwide $150 billion Coronavirus
Relief Fund. The formula to distribute money from this Relief Fund is pending adoption by the
Minnesota State Legislature. This funding is expected to be distributed at the end of June. The
city’s share currently is estimated to be approximately $3.7M. The pending legislation clearly
states that a city may not retain any unused funds.
Financial overview of capital and debt:
The city finances capital improvements and equipment purchases through a combination of
cash and long-term borrowing. Debt for the city encompasses infrastructure improvements to
buildings, roads and sidewalks and to utility related infrastructure for water and sewer mains
and storm drainage. Each bond is issued under a specific statutory authorization and revenues
are pledged to repay the debt. The city has approximately $75.3M in outstanding debt which is
outlined on the following pages by repayment source.
Utility Revenue Debt: Revenues from the utility funds (water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer)
are pledged to repay the following debt.
Bond Issue Purpose Issue Date Principal
Balance
General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2013A Refunding of 2007A and 2008A Utility Bonds 7/10/2013 1,610,000
General Obligation Bonds, Series 2014A Water/Storm Sewer Imp 12/18/2014 3,070,000
General Obligation Bonds Series 2017A Water/Storm Sewer Imp & Refinance
2010B Water/Strom Sewer Bonds 7/13/2017 5,405,000
General Obligation Bonds, Series 2018A Water Treatment Plat #4 Filter and
Water/Storm Sewer Imp 6/14/2018 6,005,000
General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019B Water/Storm Sewer Imp 11/26/2019 7,520,000
General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds 23,610,000
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Title: COVID-19 update/Information on CIP, debt and long-range financial planning
Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Debt: Due to the size of funding needed for improvements,
certain HIA’s required the city to issue debt in order to finance various improvements (instead
of using internal funding sources). These debt obligations are repaid through special
assessments to the benefiting property owners.
Revenue Debt: Revenues from the specific projects, such as rental property revenue or tax
increment, are pledged to repay the following debt.
Tax Levy Debt: The following debt is repaid through property taxes in the form of a debt levy.
Hennepin County monitors the amount that is levied for debt purposes. The debt levy is fixed
for taxes payable in 2021. Long range financial planning that incorporates the city’s Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP), as discussed below, incorporates future levies related to existing debt
and to potential future debt.
Capital Improvement Plan – (CIP): Capital expenditures for the city range from buildings,
streets, sidewalks, IT, bridges and equipment. Capital purchases are funded by a range of
intergovernmental revenue, grants, state aid, charges for services and bond proceeds.
This year’s capital planning process is still taking place and staff is analyzing and generating
expected future project costs. As stated above, the city finances capital improvements through
a combination of cash and debt issuances. The CIP takes a ten-year look into the future for
expected infrastructure improvement and repair.
Bond Issue Purpose Issue Date Principal
Balance
Taxable General Obligation HIA Bonds, Series 2012A Greensboro 10/17/2012 915,000
Taxable General Obligation HIA Refunding Bonds, Series 2019C Sunset Ridge Condominiums 11/26/2019 2,010,000
General Obligation Housing Bonds 2,925,000
Bond Issue Purpose Issue Date Principal
Balance
General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2010C Louisiana Court Apartments 12/29/2010 1,435,000
General Obligation Revenue Bonds 1,435,000
Bond Issue Purpose Issue Date Principal
Balance
General Obligation Bonds, Series 2014A CTP 12/18/2014 3,160,000
General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016A Ice Arena & Outdoor Recreation Facilities 7/14/2016 7,645,000
General Obligation Bonds Series 2017A CTP, SWLRT & Fiber 7/13/2017 2,820,000
General Obligation Bonds, Series 2018A CTP, Fiber& Softball Fields 6/14/2018 1,855,000
General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019A CTP, SWLRT, Fiber, Cedar Lake Road 4/10/2019 9,760,000
General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019A Abatement Westwood Hills Nature Center 4/10/2019 12,460,000
General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019B Refinance 2010 Fire Stations Bonds 11/26/2019 7,585,000
General Obligation Tax Supported Bonds 45,285,000
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Title: COVID-19 update/Information on CIP, debt and long-range financial planning
Each year, staff is asked to determine the needs of the city and their respective departments
regarding purchases or construction of capital items. In general, a capital item that has a cost
greater than $5,000 and a useful life of 3 years or more is included. The CIP is adopted and
updated annually.
As departments prepare their respective CIP’s, they are asked to provide specific information
regarding the improvement or capital purchase. They are asked to consider the importance of
the capital need and classify them as follows:
1) Have to do – meaning required by mandate, or to maintain a system or business need.
2) Smart to do – meaning makes sound business sense, and/or anticipates opportunities
and takes advantage of them.
3) Would like to do – meaning if resources became available or made available, it would
make business sense but not as crucial as the Smart to do items.
Staff also takes into consideration council policy direction from the strategic priorities, climate
action plan, Vision 3.0, racial equity and inclusion and the comprehensive plan when reviewing
projects, purchases, programs and planning in the CIP and other budget areas.
The first draft of the CIP was due to finance by the end of May, with additional opportunities
for revisions occurring in late July and late September or early October. These revision periods
are meant for fine tuning costs or funding sources for projects and any possible additions or
deletions of projects based on updated business needs or council direction
Information from the CIP and the preliminary budget are included in long range financial
planning. This planning brings together all the sources and needs of the city’s general
operations and provides the Council with an overall, long range look at the various impacts of
projects. This tool allows the Council to weigh the need and impact of one request against the
city’s strategic goals and priorities.
Next steps: Provide updated long-range financial management plan and CIP later this fall.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: June 22, 2020
Discussion item: 2
Executive summary
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is Categorized as Time-Sensitive**
•The city council and city manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled study session
on July 13, 2020.
Policy consideration: Not applicable.
Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the regularly scheduled study session
on July 13, 2020.
Also attached to this report is:
- Study session discussion topics and timeline
-Proposed topics for future study session discussion:
Topic Proposed by Councilmember(s)
Policing: immediate harm reduction Mohamed and Kraft
Policing: structural analysis Mohamed and Kraft
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Tentative agenda – July 13, 2020
Study session discussion topics and timeline
Proposed topics for future study session discussion
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant
Reviewed by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
July 13, 2020.
6:30 p.m. Study session - To be held via videoconference
Tentative discussion items
1.Racial equity check-in/learning – Administrative services (60 minutes)
This quarterly racial equity council check-in will review the council’s IDI journey and build on
next steps.
**Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered essential business and is
Categorized as Time-Sensitive**
2.Connect the Park discussion – Engineering (60 minutes)
A continuation of the connect the park policy discussion that occurred August 26, 2019. After
that discussion, the council asked staff to return with additional policy questions at a future
date. The purpose of this item is for staff to seek council input on the scope of the additional
policy questions. It is expected that this item will be the first of a series of study session
discussions.
**Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered essential business and is
Categorized as Time-Sensitive**
3.P1 Prioritizing transit options through investments, and engineering and operations decisions
–Ops & recreation / Engineering (30 minutes)
Staff will inform Council of the conversations that they had with Met Council on snow removal at
bus stops and discuss possible next steps.
**Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered essential business and is
Categorized as Time-Sensitive**
4.Future study session agenda planning – Administrative services (5 minutes)
Communications/meeting check-in – Administrative services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Written reports
5.Census update
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Study session discussion topics and timeline
Priority Discussion topic Comments Timeline
1
Prioritizing transit options
thru investments, and
engineering and operations
SS discussion 10/21/19. Next steps: staff reach out to Metro
Transit, bench company, and Met Council rep. Update – staff
met with Metro Transit Dec., 2019
July 13,
2020
2 Climate crisis SS discussion re: climate action in time of COVID. Discussed
May 26, 2020
In
process
3 Discuss public process
expectations and outcomes
Staff is working on the approach for undertaking this
discussion. TBD
4
Revisit housing setback, FRA,
& more to maintain and
create more affordable
TBD
5 Home-based businesses TBD
6 Public forums at council mtgs 9/23/19 SS. Staff is doing research of other cities. TBD
7 STEP discussion: facilities
Discussed on 1/14/19; city, STEP & school toured Central
Community Ctr and continuing discussions; 5/11/20 council
asked staff to consider lending options to assist STEP in buying
a new building
TBD
8 Community and neighbor-
hood sidewalk designations TBD
9
Remove mint & menthol
exemption from existing
flavored tobacco policy
TBD
10
Easy access to nature, across
city, starting w/ low-income
neighborhoods
TBD
11 Conversion therapy ban TBD
12 Changes to sign ordinance TBD
13 WHNC Access Fund *On hold pending direction from school district.*On hold
Revitalization of Walker Lake
area
Part of preserving Walker building reports: 8/28/17, 9/25/17,
1/22/18, design study 2/12/18, update 4/23/18, design study
updates 8/27/18; SS report 2/11/19; SS discussion 5/28/19,
planning commission reviewed ordinances for
implementation Qtr. 3 & 4 2019; parking ord. in process of
council approval; construction of phase 1 completed; Planning
for 2020 phase 2 construction work underway.
In
process
Crime free ordinance/
affordable housing strategies
Discussed 5/14/18. 1st reading housing trust fund 10/1/18;
Other affordable housing strategies/CF ordinance – Nov/Dec,
12/10 & 12/17/18 & 1/14/19 council discussion; Certain
provisions of CF ordinance suspended; Work group formed;
CFO work group discussed on 3/25/19; In 2019 work group
had 1st mtg in May and met approx. monthly thereafter. Work
group presented recommendations to council 6/8/2020.
In
process
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: June 22, 2020
Written report: 3
Executive summary
Title: Application for tax increment financing assistance – Union Park Flats
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is categorized as a Required action**
• No formal action required at this time. This staff report outlines PPL’s application for tax
increment financing (TIF) in connection with its proposed Union Park Flats redevelopment.
Staff would appreciate input on the policy questions noted below.
Policy consideration: Should the EDA approve a non-binding resolution of financial support for
up to $370,000 in tax increment financing assistance to support PPL’s application for Low-
Income Housing Tax Credits? Should the EDA approve a resolution of support for PPL’s
transportation-oriented development (TOD) and contamination cleanup grant applications?
Summary: Nonprofit Redeveloper Project for Pride in Living (PPL) (“Redeveloper”) has a
purchase agreement to acquire approximately the north half of the block owned and occupied
by Union Congregational Church located at 3700 Alabama Ave. PPL’s proposed plans call for the
removal of the church’s education building and adjacent parking lot and construction of a three
story apartment building, providing 60 units of affordable multi-family housing, including 15 3-
bedroom units. An affiliate of PPL would then own and manage the new housing for the long
term.
The proposed $22.2 million project includes a mix of studios, one-bedrooms, two-bedrooms,
and three-bedrooms. All units would be affordable to households between 30 percent of the
area median income (AMI) to 80 percent AMI with an average income of less than 60% AMI,
which exceeds the city's Inclusionary Housing Policy requirements.
Financial or budget considerations: PPL is seeking project financing from a variety of public
agencies. Despite these sources, PPL maintains the project’s proforma exhibits a funding gap.
Consequently, PPL applied for tax increment financing (TIF) assistance to address the remaining
gap. Ehlers, the EDA’s financial consultant, and staff reviewed the project’s proforma and
determined that approximately $370,000 in TIF assistance is warranted to enable the project to
proceed. It is recommended that such assistance derive from a new housing TIF district. With
the project’s numerous applications for financing pending approval and to bolster its
applications to these agencies, PPL has requested the EDA provide a non-binding resolution of
support for up to $370,000 in tax increment financing assistance. Once PPL receives
commitments from its other funders, staff will work with PPL to prepare business terms for a
formal redevelopment contract for subsequent EDA review and approval.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, economic development coordinator
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA executive director and city manager
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Application for tax increment financing assistance – Union Park Flats
Discussion
Background: The proposed redevelopment site (6027 37th Street West and approximately the
north half of 3700 Alabama Avenue South) is located along the south side of 37th Street West
between Alabama and Brunswick Avenues in the Elmwood neighborhood. It is occupied by
Union Congregational Church’s single-story education building and adjacent parking lot.
The redevelopment site is approximately 1.2 acres and is underutilized from a market value
perspective given the multi-story office building and multi-family residential development
(Village in the Park) across the street to the east and its approximate 3-block proximity to the
future SWLRT Wooddale Avenue Station. In addition, major redevelopment is likely to occur
across the street to the north.
Proposed redevelopment location:
Site information:
Redevelopment site area:
51,713 square feet (1.19 acres)
Current use: Surrounding land uses:
Religious institution, daycare
Neighborhood: Elmwood
North: General Industrial
East: Multi-family residential, office
South: single-family residential
West: single-family residential
Project site
Oxford Street
West 37th Street
Church site
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Application for tax increment financing assistance – Union Park Flats
Proposed project: Nonprofit Redeveloper Project for Pride in Living (PPL) (“Redeveloper”) has a
purchase agreement to acquire 6027 37th Street West and approximately the north half of 3700
Alabama Avenue South from the Union Congregational Church. PPL’s proposed plans call for
the removal of the church’s education building and adjacent parking lot and construction of a
three story, 60-unit apartment building. Walk-up units with covered porches would be located
along the public streets. Pedestrian walkways, a play area, and an educational stormwater
pollinator garden would be located on the building’s southside. Structured parking would be
provided below grade and would be accessed from Alabama Avenue. An affiliate of PPL would
then own and manage the new housing for the long term. Union Congregational intends to use
the land sale proceeds to preserve and renovate the church’s sanctuary to make it more
welcoming and accommodating
Rendering of proposed Union Park Flats
The proposed building would have the following unit breakdown:
Unit Type Number of Units Number of Bedrooms
Studio 2 2
One bedroom 13 13
Two bedroom 30 60
Three bedroom 15 45
Total 60 120
Pending approval of its financing with various public agencies, PPL plans to commence
construction in the fall of 2021 and complete construction by fall 2022.
Affordable housing: The redevelopment’s focus is to provide affordable housing for families,
with units ranging from studios to three-bedrooms. It is proposed as an "Income Averaging"
development, in which the units would be considered affordable to households at incomes
ranging from 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) ($30,000 for a household of 4) to 80% of
AMI ($80,000 for a household of 4), with a building average income of less than 60% AMI
($60,000 for a family of 4). This level of affordability exceeds the city’s Inclusionary Housing
Policy requirements.
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Application for tax increment financing assistance – Union Park Flats
Green Building compliance: The proposed Union Park Flats will comply with the city's Green
Building Policy by meeting SB2030 goals and following the Enterprise Green Communities
Criteria ('GCC'). The project has a goal of obtaining over 105 points through the GCC, compared
to 35 points for a typical GCC project. Some of the project's specific sustainable elements are
explained below.
• Reuse of a likely brownfield site (former parking lot with possible contamination and
buried debris from decades-old demolition).
• Access to bus and light rail transit at the Wooddale Avenue LRT Station approximately
three blocks away. This frequent transit service reduces the need for single-occupancy
vehicles and vehicle miles traveled to reduce vehicle emissions.
• Access to bike lanes (i.e. along Alabama Avenue) and regional trails.
• A new, advanced stormwater management system will replace the highly impervious
parking lot that covers much of the site currently. Stormwater will be held on site for re-
use in irrigation, preserving potable water for domestic use with a goal of 50% of
irrigation needs covered by re-used stormwater.
• The project will meet SB 2030 requirements. Exactly how the project will achieve the
required performance standard will be determined through energy modeling and
building design, but areas that will be considered as part of the energy design package
will include: mechanical systems; electrical systems and controls; building envelope,
including insulation, roof and windows.
• Water Sense labeled toilets, showerheads, and faucets.
• Low volatile organic compound and asthmagen-free interior finish materials.
• Construction waste recycling.
• The building has been sited to take advantage of a “high spot” along 37th Avenue for the
primary first-floor building entrance, and a “low spot” along Alabama Avenue for the
vehicular access to lower-level parking. PPL has allowed for a low-slope garage entrance
ramp that does not need to be heated for safety reasons - to melt winter snow and ice –
which would save energy.
• At a minimum, the project will be designed to be “solar ready.” If selected for funding by
the Metropolitan Council's LCDA program, the project will also include a solar
photovoltaic array.
Additional community design attributes: Additional urban design elements that enhance the
neighborhood include:
• Buildings appropriately scaled to blend into the existing neighborhood and feature
underground vs surface parking,
• Extensive landscaping and hardscaping,
• A new mid-block sidewalk with pedestrian amenities including benches, shade trees and
lighting,
• Extensive bike parking, bike storage and repair stations--including bike facilities that
serve the community,
• Pedestrian-scaled and designed to encourage community interactions at the street
level,
• A variety of quality, exterior building materials in natural colors, abundant windows and
decorative lighting.
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: Application for tax increment financing assistance – Union Park Flats
The Redeveloper: PPL has developed more than 2,500 affordable housing units, both rental and
for-sale, over its’s nearly 50-year history of renovating and building homes. PPL’s mission “is to
build the hope, assets, and self-reliance of individuals and families who have lower incomes by
providing transformative affordable housing and career readiness services.”
Application for Tax Increment Financing assistance: The proposed project will be funded using
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, and a combination of other sources including those from:
Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account, MN Brownfields, MN
Housing’s deferred loan program, Hennepin County’s Affordable Housing Incentive Fund and
Transit-Oriented Development programs, and a first mortgage maximized by using either the
HUD 221d or MN Housing LMIR programs. Despite these sources, PPL maintains the project’s
proforma exhibits a funding gap. Consequently, the Redeveloper submitted an application for
$1,163,000 in tax increment financing (TIF) assistance to address the project’s perceived
remaining gap. Tax increment financing uses most of the increased future property taxes
generated by a new development to finance certain qualified development costs incurred by that
project for a limited period to enable the redevelopment to move forward. Also, according to the
Redeveloper, a commitment of TIF assistance would make the project more competitive when
applying for other financing, as most funders listed above count other public funding sources as
leverage which results in a higher project score and makes the project more likely to be funded.
Overview of proposed project’s sources and uses: The EDA’s financial consultant, Ehlers,
conducted a thorough review of the project based on general industry standards for land,
construction, and project costs; rents; operating expenses; fees; underwriting and financing
criteria; and project cash flow Based on this detailed analysis, it collaborated with staff to
determine to what extent the proposed project exhibits a financial gap justifying the use of TIF
assistance.
The estimated total development cost (TDC) to construct the proposed Union Park Flats project
is approximately $22.2 million. The project’s anticipated sources and uses are summarized in
the tables below along with their respective percentage of the total development cost.
Project Financing Sources: Financing sources for the new construction of the proposed project
are as follows:
SOURCES AMOUNT ($) % of TDC
First Mortgage Debt $4,707,999 21%
Tax Credit Investor Equity $11,048,895 50%
City of St. Louis Park TIF (proposed) $370,000 2%
MH Deferred Loan $2,328,089 10%
Deferred Developer Fee $600,000 3%
Other Public Agencies $3,125,773 14%
TOTAL Project Sources $22,180,756 100%
Financing Structure: As noted above the proposed project will be funded using a variety of
public financing sources. PPL anticipates using a conventional 40-year mortgage at a 4.75%
interest rate and generating equity through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Title: Application for tax increment financing assistance – Union Park Flats
program offered through Minnesota Housing. The financing terms are typical and reasonable
for the product type.
Project Uses: Uses for the new construction of the proposed project are as follows:
USES AMOUNT ($) Per Unit
Land $1,460,000 $24,333
Construction Costs $16,045,692 $267,428
Permit & Public Fees $536,319 $8,939
Professional Services $1,015,700 $16,928
Financing Costs $1,178,688 $19,645
Developer Fee $1,200,000 $20,000
Cash Accounts/Escrows/Reserves $744,357 $12,406
TOTAL Project Costs $22,180,756 $369,679
Construction/Affordability Impact*: The cost of land acquisition, demolition and contamination
cleanup as well as site and public improvements typically make affordable housing
developments infeasible without public assistance since rental income is capped at a rate below
market. It is estimated that the affordability impact over 15 years will amount to $7,928,105 or
$132,135 per unit as shown in the table below. However, since PPL is requesting additional
sources of funding from several other public agencies, only a modest amount of TIF assistance
may be necessary to fill the remaining funding gap.
Affordability Impact # of Units AMOUNT ($)
30% AMI Units 12 $1,497,265
50% AMI Units 30 $4,787,947
70% AMI Units 8 $789,743
80% AMI Units 10 $853,150
TOTAL 60 $7,928,105
*Affordability Impact: Due to decreased rental income from the proposed project being 100%
affordable, there is insufficient cash flow to provide a market rate of return, pay operating
expenses, and service the debt outstanding on the property. This leaves a gap in the funding
for the project and makes this housing development infeasible without public assistance from
local, state and other public agencies. Under MN TIF statutes, costs to construct affordable
housing are an eligible expense that may be reimbursed through tax increment originating from
a housing TIF District.
Developer Fee: The proposed developer fee is approximately 5.4% of the development cost,
which is lower than the typical industry range of 8-10% for LIHTC projects. PPL is limiting its fee
and deferring 50% of it to close the financial gap. Instead of PPL being compensated upfront for
the time and resources spent to develop the project, PPL will be paid out of available cash flow.
Currently, it is anticipated to be repaid within five years. Upon repayment, the project is
expected to have more than enough cash flow to cover operating expenses and debt service.
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 7
Title: Application for tax increment financing assistance – Union Park Flats
Proposed level of assistance: For an affordable housing development utilizing the low-income
housing tax credit program such as this one, TIF assistance would be used to stabilize a
sufficient debt service coverage ratio and pay the deferred developer fee. Ehlers estimates the
proposed project would need $370,000 in tax increment assistance to cash flow and become
“financially feasible”. This level of assistance, along with the other sources of funding from
other public agencies would offset the affordability impact described above and to allow the
proposed project to proceed. By law, the proposed tax increment assistance could only be
applied toward the cost of constructing affordable housing. It is proposed that the assistance
would be provided to the Redeveloper over a 6-year term upon project completion and
stabilization (i.e. approximately 95% lease-up). The Redeveloper has indicated the
recommended level of assistance is acceptable.
Consistent with previous EDA redevelopment agreements, a "lookback" provision would be
incorporated into the future redevelopment agreement with the Redeveloper. The Redeveloper
would be required to submit verified final project costs and reports detailing the actual financial
performance of the project. The lookback provision establishes a benchmark return based on
industry standards for similar projects. The lookback provision ensures that if the project’s total
development costs are lower than the estimates provided, the EDA will share economically in
the success of the project by reducing the amount of TIF assistance provided.
TIF District: In order to provide the Redeveloper with the proposed tax increment it is
recommended that such assistance derive from a new housing TIF district. As a tax credit
eligible affordable rental housing project, the Union Park Flats project meets the statutory
requirements for establishment a housing TIF district. Typically, the EDA would not create a
new TIF district to provide such a modest amount of assistance, however in this case, once the
obligation to the Redeveloper has been paid off, the housing district could remain open to
assist other affordable housing projects and programs into the future, if desired by the council.
Creating a new revenue stream for future affordable housing is prudent as the Park Center TIF
District (one of the city’s only two housing districts) is scheduled to decertify at the end of 2023.
The proposed redevelopment TIF district would include the following two parcels:
• 6027 37th Street West
• approximately the north half of 3700 Alabama Avenue South
Such a TIF district would allow for up to 26 years of tax increment by state statute.
Property value and taxes: The two proposed redevelopment parcels are currently tax exempt
but for tax increment purposes it was determined that their total estimated market value is
$1,557,000. The combined estimated market value of these properties upon the proposed
project’s completion (for TIF estimation purposes) is $12,000,000. Upon full project completion
and occupancy, it is estimated that Union Park Flats would annually generate approximately
$115,530 in total property taxes.
Analysis of conformity with the city’s TIF Policy: As proposed, Union Park Flats meets the
following Minimum Qualifications as outlined in the city’s TIF Policy:
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 8
Title: Application for tax increment financing assistance – Union Park Flats
• Promotes neighborhood stabilization and revitalization by the upgrading of existing
housing stock.
• Provides a balanced and sustainable housing stock to meet diverse needs both today
and in the future.
• The project is consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances.
• The Redeveloper has demonstrated that the proposed project is not financially feasible
“but-for” the use of tax increment financing.
• The Redeveloper has a proven track record of successful real estate development
performance and has demonstrated the capability to fully complete the multi-phase
project as proposed.
The proposed project meets the following “Desired Qualifications” as outlined in the TIF Policy:
• Creates a substantially higher ratio of property taxes paid before and after
redevelopment and provides a significant increase in taxable market value.
• Facilitates new construction on a site which would not likely be redeveloped to its
optimal use without such assistance.
• Redevelops underutilized property.
• Creates a high-quality building (e.g. sound architectural design, quality construction and
materials) with underground parking, public features and sustainable elements.
In addition to the above, the proposed project would have the following additional benefits:
• Intensifies the subject site and makes higher use of the property
• Creates a cohesive and attractive multi-family development that is pedestrian scale.
• Complements, integrates with, and invigorates the surrounding neighborhood.
• Helps stabilize the commercial businesses in the area by increasing the potential
customer base.
• Incorporates numerous Green Building design and features.
• Lies within proximity to current bus and planned light rail transit.
• Incorporates Livable Communities and Transit Oriented Design principles.
• Provides convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections.
• Provides significant affordable housing particularly for larger families.
Grading under Project Report Card: PPL’s TIF application for its proposed multi-family
affordable housing development was graded according to the Project Report Card within the
city’s TIF Policy. The application was graded as follows:
• Promotes housing for large families.
The proposed project provides fifteen 3-bedroom units which is 25% of all the units in
the building. This high level of units garnered a grade of “A” on the scale.
• Provides economic integration of rental or ownership projects.
As an "Income Averaging" development, all 60 units would be considered affordable to
households at incomes ranging from 30% to $80% of the Area Median Income (AMI),
with a building average income of less than 60% AMI. This percent of affordable housing
to total units translated to a grade of “A” on the scale.
• Level of affordable housing provided
The wide range of affordability of the project’s units (from 30% to 80% of AMI), with a
building average income of less than 60% AMI represented a grade of “A” on the scale.
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 9
Title: Application for tax increment financing assistance – Union Park Flats
• Ratio of soft costs to Total Project Costs.
Soft costs of the total project were estimated at approximately $4.1 million or 18.6% of
the total development costs, which corresponded to a grade of “B” on the scale.
• Ratio of developer to public (TIF) financing.
$22.2 million in private development costs to $370,000 in TIF assistance roughly equals
a $60 developer / $1 public ratio which garnered an “A” on the scale.
• The value of the site before and after redevelopment
For TIF estimation purposes, the current total taxable market value of the project site is
estimated at just over $1,557,000. The projected market value of the property upon
redevelopment is $12 million. This is a ratio of $1: $7.71 represented an “A” on the scale.
The proposed project received bonus points for:
• assembling all the properties required for the redevelopment,
• redeveloping environmentally challenging property,
• incorporating New Urbanism and livable communities design principles,
• incorporating energy efficient components,
• optimizing use of the property,
• incorporating principles of livable communities,
• likely stimulating further investment in the surrounding neighborhood,
• being located in proximity to one of the city’s planned light rail stations,
• having a significant positive community impact.
Upon calculation of all applicable factors and bonus points, the Union Park Flats project
received a final grade of “A-” according to the Project Report Card within the TIF Policy.
Conformance with the city’s Business Subsidy Policy: Any TIF assistance provided to PPL for
the proposed redevelopment would be exempt from state business subsidy requirements as it
relates to housing (Section 116J.993, Subdivision 3(7)). Therefore, no public subsidy hearing
would be required; however, the EDA would still be subject to TIF reporting requirements.
Applications for TOD and Contamination Cleanup Grant Assistance: In addition to its request
for TIF assistance, PPL lists Other Public Agencies in its project financing sources above. As a
result, PPL has requested that the EDA submit an application on its behalf to the Metropolitan
Council for a Livable Communities Demonstration Account Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
grant in the amount of approximately $1 million. PPL is requesting this grant be used for
demolition, stormwater, solar panels, sidewalks, bike racks, pedestrian lighting, and rain
gardens. TOD grant applications are due July 1st and require a resolution authorizing the grant
application from the governing body of the city where the project is located.
PPL has also requested the EDA approve a resolution of support for its application to Minnesota
Brownfields for funding through the Brownfields Gap Funding Program. This funding would be
used to conduct a Phase II environmental investigation to determine if any contamination exists
on the Union Park site. PPL has submitted a Minnesota Brownfields application for
approximately $14,800. This program also requires a resolution in support of PPL’s application
from the governing body of the city where the project is located.
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 3) Page 10
Title: Application for tax increment financing assistance – Union Park Flats
Summary and recommendation: Based upon its analysis of the project’s proforma, Ehlers
determined that the proposed Union Park Flats redevelopment has a verified financial gap and
is not financially feasible but-for the provision of tax increment financing. To offset this gap, it is
proposed that the EDA consider providing the Redeveloper up to $370,000 in tax increment
over a six-year term derived from a new housing TIF district upon completion of the proposed
project and stabilization.
Providing tax increment financing assistance to the proposed redevelopment makes it possible
to construct a quality, multi-family housing development consistent with many goals of the
2040 Comprehensive Plan, to bring the subject properties to optimal market value, and provide
the community with a significant number of affordable housing units (particularly for larger
families) with numerous energy efficient features. It also creates a new revenue stream to
assist future affordable housing projects and programs. The proposed amount of TIF assistance
is in-line with other developments the EDA has previously assisted.
PPL’s proposed Union Park Flats development meets the city’s objectives for the provision of
Tax Increment Financing as specified in the city’s TIF Policy. As noted above, the project meets
all the Minimum and Desired Qualifications for providing TIF assistance and received a final
grade of “A-” according to the Project Report Card within the TIF Policy. Furthermore, it has
been demonstrated that the proposed project is not financially feasible but-for the provision of
tax increment financing. So as to bolster PPL’s applications for financial assistance with other
public agencies, staff supports approving a non-binding resolution of support for up to
$370,000 in tax increment financing assistance as well as resolutions of support for PPL’s
contamination cleanup and transportation-oriented development (TOD) grant applications.
Next steps: As with all such TIF applications, it is at the EDA’s discretion as to whether it wishes
to provide the proposed project financial assistance at the recommended level. Provided the
EDA supports providing the requested financial assistance to Union Park Flats as proposed, and
in order to support PPL’s financing application with Minnesota Housing (due July 15, 2020), the
EDA will be asked to approve a non-binding resolution of financial support July 6, 2020. An
authorizing resolution allowing submission of the Metropolitan Council LCDA application and a
resolution of support of PPL’s application to Minnesota Brownfields will also be brought to the
EDA for consideration at the July 6th meeting.
Formal approval of the requested TIF assistance would follow the Redeveloper obtaining
financing commitments from all other lenders supporting the project which is estimated this
fall. Following that, the next steps in the TIF approval process would be as follows:
1. Negotiation of business terms for the provision of financial assistance
2. Review of proposed business terms of Redevelopment Contract
3. Call for public hearing for the establishment of a housing TIF district
4. Approval of redevelopment contract & TIF District Public Hearing & Plan approval –
EDA and City Council
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: June 22, 2020
Written report: 4
Executive summary
Title: May 2020 monthly financial report
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is categorized as Time-Sensitive**
•No action required at this time.
Policy consideration: Monthly financial reports are part of our financial management policies.
Summary: The monthly financial report provides an overview of general fund revenues and
departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. A
budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included.
Financial or budget considerations: Under normal circumstances, expenditures would generally
be at approximately 42% of the annual budget at the end of May. General fund expenditures
are running about 5% under at 37% of the adopted annual budget through May.
License and permit revenues combined are at 65% of the annual budget through May. Much of
the business and liquor license revenue has been received, which is consistent with prior years.
Permit revenue is at 60% through May, which is only about $100,000 lower than the same point
in time last year.
Staff continues to monitor things such as permit revenue for COVID-19 impacts. The property
tax distribution from the county the first week in July will be another key indicator, however,
preliminary information appears to not show a significant change in tax delinquencies.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Summary of revenues and expenditures – general fund
Budget to actual – enterprise funds
Prepared by: Darla Monson, accountant
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Actual $2,899 $6,184 $8,981 $11,848 $15,420
Budget $3,475 $6,949 $10,424 $13,898 $17,373 $20,847 $24,322 $27,796 $31,271 $34,745 $38,220 $41,694
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
$ THOUSANDS Monthly Expenditures -General Fund
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of May 31, 2020 20202020201820182019201920202020Balance YTD Budget Budget Audited Budget Audited Budget YTD MayRemaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes25,705,886$ 26,597,928$ 26,880,004$ 26,952,306$ 28,393,728$ 28,393,728$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits3,924,648 4,001,644 4,103,424 5,264,659 4,660,811 3,046,001 1,614,810 65.35% Fines & Forfeits269,200 282,146 279,700 274,340 280,000 54,749 225,251 19.55% Intergovernmental1,864,877 2,006,435 1,760,900 1,761,763 1,760,082 409,480 1,350,602 23.26% Charges for Services2,162,410 2,180,589 2,187,319 2,160,345 2,273,824 360,071 1,913,753 15.84% Rents & Other Miscellaneous1,318,037 1,427,744 1,367,012 1,500,867 1,456,102 419,458 1,036,644 28.81% Transfers In1,929,090 1,929,076 1,999,877 2,012,706 2,038,338 825,974 1,212,364 40.52% Investment Earnings 160,000 251,494 180,000 523,124 210,000 210,000 0.00% Other Income40,950 35,802 31,300 57,274 621,280 349,199 272,081 56.21% Use of Fund Balance 523,835 298,156 230,026 - 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues37,898,933$ 38,712,858$ 39,087,692$ 40,737,411$ 41,694,165$ 5,464,933$ 36,229,232$ 13.11%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration1,341,606$ 1,340,282$ 1,837,620$ 1,673,619$ 1,868,599$ 532,021$ 1,336,578$ 28.47% Finance978,752 964,036 1,034,199 1,078,291 1,124,045 424,981 699,064 37.81% Assessing759,865 710,715 772,746 751,737 808,171 320,430 487,741 39.65% Human Resources796,666 735,050 805,620 756,767 823,209 325,207 498,002 39.50% Community Development1,479,911 1,559,721 1,502,521 1,515,672 1,571,894 632,827 939,067 40.26% Facilities Maintenance1,162,342 1,223,109 1,170,211 1,209,474 1,265,337 509,806 755,531 40.29% Information Resources1,589,432 1,526,028 1,674,937 1,474,604 1,709,255 684,588 1,024,667 40.05% Communications & Marketing755,940 829,732 805,674 786,448 828,004 322,046 505,958 38.89% Community Outreach27,637 12,085 0.00%Total General Government8,892,151$ 8,900,758$ 9,603,528$ 9,246,612$ 9,998,514$ 3,751,908$ 6,246,606$ 37.52% Public Safety: Police9,930,681$ 9,877,014$ 10,335,497$ 10,452,038$ 10,853,821$ 4,278,453$ 6,575,368$ 39.42% Fire Protection4,657,973 4,630,520 4,813,078 4,754,524 5,040,703 1,929,919 3,110,784 38.29% Building 2,544,762 2,295,910 2,555,335 2,430,473 2,696,585 971,221 1,725,364 36.02%Total Public Safety17,133,416$ 16,803,444$ 17,703,910$ 17,637,035$ 18,591,109$ 7,179,593$ 11,411,516$ 38.62% Operations: Public Works Administration230,753$ 208,050$ 290,753$ 214,436$ 273,318$ 94,490$ 178,828$ 34.57% Public Works Operations3,091,857 2,998,935 3,111,481 3,099,493 3,331,966 1,180,756 2,151,210 35.44% Vehicle Maintenance1,253,367 1,210,279 1,242,236 1,268,700 1,278,827 494,997 783,830 38.71% Engineering525,834 552,432 570,377 609,567 551,285 157,354 393,931 28.54%Total Operations5,101,811$ 4,969,696$ 5,214,847$ 5,192,196$ 5,435,396$ 1,927,598$ 3,507,798$ 35.46% Parks and Recreation: Organized Recreation1,582,490 1,499,780 1,579,569 1,498,462 1,637,002 660,033 976,969 40.32% Recreation Center1,860,755 2,004,937 1,949,657 2,041,386 2,061,394 616,696 1,444,698 29.92% Park Maintenance1,830,530 1,866,744 1,833,297 1,820,455 1,906,363 665,634 1,240,729 34.92% Westwood Nature Center622,346 599,704 643,750 612,266 748,683 244,157 504,526 32.61% Natural Resources559,662 376,359 484,784 429,409 504,143 162,035 342,109 32.14%Total Parks and Recreation6,455,783$ 6,347,524$ 6,491,057$ 6,401,977$ 6,857,585$ 2,348,555$ 4,509,030$ 34.25% Other Depts and Non-Departmental: Racial Equity and Inclusion -$-$ -$ 4,592$ 314,077$ 116,484$ 197,593$ 37.09% Sustainability26,283 497,484 95,396 402,088 19.18% Transfers Out1,040,000 300,000 0.00% Contingency and Other315,772 186,966 74,350 121,245 0.00%Total Other Depts and Non-Departmental315,772$ 1,226,966$ 74,350$ 452,119$ 811,561$ 211,881$ 599,680$ 26.11%Total General Fund Expenditures37,898,933$ 38,248,388$ 39,087,692$ 38,929,940$ 41,694,165$ 15,419,533$ 26,274,632$ 36.98%Page 2Study Session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 4) Title: May 2020 monthly financial report
Budget to Actual - Enterprise FundsAs of May 31, 2020 Current BudgetMay Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetMay Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetMay Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetMay Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetOperating revenues: User charges 7,472,931$ 1,826,388$ 5,646,543$ 24.44% 7,897,086$ 2,270,471$ 5,626,615$ 28.75% 3,510,090$ 916,346$ 2,593,744$ 26.11% 3,065,882$ 993,149$ 2,072,733$ 32.39% Rent revenue, permits & other 533,242 461,292 71,950 86.51% 43,000 3,242 39,758 7.54% 169,100 169,100 0.00% - - Total operating revenues8,006,173 2,287,680 5,718,493 28.57% 7,940,086 2,273,713 5,666,373 28.64% 3,679,190 916,346 2,762,844 24.91% 3,065,882 993,149 2,072,733 32.39%Operating expenses: Personal services1,521,345 619,948 901,397 40.75% 809,868 340,654 469,214 42.06% 539,901 202,638 337,263 37.53% 896,367 247,403 648,964 27.60% Supplies & non-capital268,300 136,700 131,600 50.95% 72,500 15,413 57,087 21.26% 247,550 47,535 200,015 19.20% 12,500 257 12,244 2.05% Services & other charges2,073,702 849,178 1,224,524 40.95% 4,621,847 2,384,559 2,237,288 51.59% 2,920,580 848,248 2,072,332 29.04% 329,946 242,251 87,695 73.42% Depreciation * Total operating expenses3,863,347 1,605,825 2,257,522 41.57% 5,504,215 2,740,625 2,763,590 49.79% 3,708,031 1,098,421 2,609,610 29.62% 1,238,813 489,910 748,903 39.55%Operating income (loss)4,142,826 681,855 3,460,971 16.46% 2,435,871 (466,912) 2,902,783 -19.17% (28,841) (182,075) 153,234 631.30% 1,827,069 503,238 1,323,831 27.54%Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Interest income 7,450 7,450 0.00% 13,250 13,250 0.00% 13,000 13,000 0.00% 5,600 5,600 0.00% Interest expense/bank charges(412,950) (203,835) (209,115) 49.36% (87,250) (33,136) (54,114) 37.98% (23,500) (23,500) 0.00% (34,850) (6,087) (28,763) 17.47% Total nonoperating rev (exp)(405,500) (203,835) (201,665) 50.27% (74,000) (33,136) (40,864) 44.78% (10,500) - (10,500) 0.00% (29,250) (6,087) (23,163) 20.81%Income (loss) before transfers3,737,326 478,020 3,259,306 12.79% 2,361,871 (500,047) 2,861,918 -21.17% (39,341) (182,075) 142,734 462.81% 1,797,819 497,152 1,300,667 27.65%Transfers inTransfers out(638,635) (266,098) (372,537) 41.67% (873,785) (364,077) (509,708) 41.67% (248,289) (103,454) (144,835) 41.67% (342,130) (142,554) (199,576) 41.67%NET INCOME (LOSS)3,098,691 211,922 2,886,769 6.84% 1,488,086 (864,124) 2,352,210 -58.07%(287,630) (285,528) (2,102) 99.27% 1,455,689 354,598 1,101,091 24.36%Items reclassified to bal sht at year end: Capital Outlay(2,649,356) (245,768) (2,403,588) 9.28% (1,411,750) (225,662) (1,186,088) 15.98%- - - (3,245,049) (225,662) (3,019,387) 6.95%Revenues over/(under) expenditures449,335 (33,846) 483,181 76,336 (1,089,786) 1,166,122 (287,630) (285,528) (2,102) (1,789,360) 128,936 (1,918,296) *Depreciation is recorded at end of year (non-cash item).Water SewerSolid WasteStorm WaterStudy Session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 4) Title: May 2020 monthly financial reportPage 3
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: June 22, 2020
Written report: 5
Executive summary
Title: Annual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Report
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is Categorized as Time-Sensitive**
•None at this time. The purpose of this report is to provide the city council with an overview
of how the city is meeting the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit and
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) requirements.
Policy consideration: Does the city council have questions or concerns regarding the city’s
stormwater pollution prevention program?
Summary: The City of St. Louis Park is a MS4 operator. As a result, the city is permitted by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for the discharge of stormwater from the city’s
storm sewer system into waters of the state, such as Minnehaha Creek. This permit is required
based on an amendment to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Water Act
(CWA) and the creation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). There
are over 200 other cities permitted as MS4 communities within the state of Minnesota.
Public outreach is an important element of our SWPPP. Historically, we have held public
meetings followed up with a city council presentation. This provided the public opportunity to
review and comment on the city’s SWPPP. These comments are then recorded and considered
for incorporation in the city’s SWPPP. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the
associated limitations on gatherings, all city events have been canceled or postponed up to this
point, as further outlined in the Discussion section of this report.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable at this time.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Discussion
2019 SWPPP stormwater activity highlights
2020 SWPPP stormwater initiatives
EPA Stormwater Phase II final rule
Prepared by: Erick Francis, water resources manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Page 2 Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 5)
Title: Annual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Report
Discussion
Background:
COVID-19 Stormwater Management public presentation schedule update:
Historically, staff presented stormwater management activities completed in the previous year
and outlined the initiatives planned for the current year at a regular city council meeting. Prior
to the city council presentation, staff also held an additional stormwater open house to receive
public comments. Our efforts exceed the minimum requirements of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA).
This year, to improve public participation and to facilitate greater engagement from a wider
range of residents, staff planned to solicit comments by attending city events that usually
attract a larger and more diverse group of residents. We had targeted Parktacular and the
Westwood Hills Nature center grand opening for this engagement.
However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated limitations on gatherings, these
events have been postponed.
The MPCA recognizes the challenges that the pandemic has created for public input on our
SWPPP; as a result, they are flexible with the timing of the public meeting. While the deadline
to submit this report to the MPCA is June 30, our meeting can be held at any point during 2020.
In the interest of sharing this information with the city council prior to submitting to the MPCA,
we are providing this report. To share the information and received public comment, we will be
attending the grand opening of the Westwood Hills Nature Center on Sept. 13, 2020. We will
also be working with communications staff on other ways to get feedback in the next few
months.
Program outline:
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4) permit establishes conditions for discharging stormwater and other related
discharges into waters of the state. Operators of regulated small MS4s are required to design
their Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) to:
•Reduce the discharge of pollutants to the “maximum extent practicable” (MEP); and
•Protect water quality; and
•Satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act.
The EPA’s Phase II Rule (see attached) defines a small MS4 stormwater management program as
a program comprising six elements that, when implemented in concert, are expected to result in
significant reductions of pollutants discharged into receiving water bodies. The SWPPP is broken
out into six program elements, termed Minimum Control Measures (MCMs). These are:
MCM 1 Public Education and Outreach
Distributing educational materials and performing outreach to inform citizens about
the impacts polluted stormwater runoff discharges can have on water quality.
Page 3 Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 5)
Title: Annual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Report
MCM 2 Public Participation/Involvement
Providing opportunities for citizens to participate in program development and
implementation, including effectively publicizing public hearings and/or encouraging
citizen representatives on a stormwater management panel.
MCM3 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
Developing and implementing a plan to detect and eliminate illicit discharges to the
storm sewer system (includes developing a system map and informing the
community about hazards associated with illegal discharges and improper disposal of
waste).
MCM 4 Construction Site Runoff Control
Developing, implementing, and enforcing an erosion and sediment control program
for construction activities that disturb 1 or more acres of land (controls could include
silt fences and temporary stormwater detention ponds).
MCM 5 Post-Construction Runoff Control
Developing, implementing, and enforcing a program to address discharges of post-
construction stormwater runoff from new development and redevelopment areas.
Applicable controls could include preventative actions such as protecting sensitive
areas (e.g., wetlands) or the use of structural BMPs.
MCM 6 Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping
Developing and implementing a program with the goal of preventing or reducing
pollutant runoff from municipal operations. The program must include municipal
staff training on pollution prevention measures and techniques (e.g., regular street
sweeping, reduction in the use of pesticides or street salt, or frequent catch-basin
cleaning).
Implementation of the MEP standard requires the development and implementation of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) and the achievement of measurable goals to satisfy each of the
six MCMs.
BMPs are practices, techniques, and measures that prevent or reduce water pollution from
nonpoint sources by using the most effective and practicable means of achieving water quality
goals. BMPs include, but are not limited to, official controls, structural and nonstructural
controls, and operation and maintenance procedures.
Each year, permittees are required to conduct a review of their SWPPP to determine program
compliance, the appropriateness of BMPs, and progress towards achieving the goals identified
in their SWPPP. To document this review, we submit an annual report to the MPCA by June 30
of each calendar year. The city’s SWPPP and annual report are located on the city’s stormwater
management webpage.
https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-divisions/engineering/stormwater-
management/plans
The information requested by the MPCA in the report is meant to provide the basis for an
assessment of the appropriateness of the BMPs and the progress that has been made toward
achieving the identified goals for each of the MCMs. This assessment is based on results
Page 4 Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 5)
Title: Annual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Report
collected and analyzed from inspection findings and public input received during the reporting
period.
Staff is always continuing to review and refine our processes to reduce pollutants from entering
our surface waters and record-keeping procedures. One of the initiatives for 2019 was to
prepare for the re-issuance of the MS4 general permit, which is anticipated to be reissued later
in 2020.
Present considerations: Does the city council have questions regarding the city’s stormwater
pollution prevention program?
Next steps: City staff is committed to implement the SWPPP and maintain a high level of
compliance.
Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Program
2019 Activities
The following outlines the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) Minimum
Control Measure (MCM) activities that have been completed in 2019. These MCMs are included
in the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit issued by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA).
MCM‐1: Public education and outreach activities
Permit requirement:
Permittees shall develop and implement a public education program and distribute educational
materials that inform the public of the impact stormwater discharges have on water bodies and
that include actions citizens, businesses, and other local organizations can take to reduce the
discharge of pollutants to stormwater. The program shall include the following:
Activities completed:
•High-priority stormwater-related issue for 2019
o Rainwater Rewards Program
Installed 30 rain gardens and 2 rain barrels
Received $4,700 in grant funding from the Clean Water, Land and Legacy
Amendment
•Distributed other stormwater management related educational materials
o Participated in the Adopt-A-Drain Program (97 participants and 161 adopted drains)
o Stormwater and environmental education at Westwood Hills Nature Center (25,541)
o 9 articles in 4 issues in the Park Perspective (circulation of approximately 27,500
residents)
o 6 articles in the City Manager’s Digest
o 1 article in the Park and Recreation Guide
o Stormwater information on city’s website (3,741 clicks)
o Sun Sailor article for the Rainwater Rewards Program and Metro Blooms Workshops
(approximately 3,000 people)
o Social media outreach on stormwater management
24 postings
o Annual Rain Barrel sale (sold 156 barrels at a discounted rate for residents)
o Participated in Metro Blooms Resilient Yard Workshop (40 attendees)
o Participated in Metro Blooms Turf Alternative Workshop (50 attendees)
o Participated in Metro Blooms Healthy Soils Workshop (33 attendees)
MCM‐2: Public involvement and participation
Permit requirement:
Permittees shall implement a public participation/involvement program to solicit public input
on the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 5)
Title: Annual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Report Page 5
Activities completed:
•Held additional public open house on May 9, to receive comments on the city’s SWPPP
activities in 2018 (1 attendee)
•Held city council meeting presentation on the SWPPP on May 20, to review 2018
activities (2 attendees)
MCM‐3: Illicit discharge detection and elimination
Permit requirement:
Permittees shall implement and enforce a program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges into
the city’s storm sewer system.
Activities completed:
•Observed 15 illicit discharges and responded with verbal warnings and letters of
warning on illicit discharge
•Identified and monitored areas within the city that have an elevated potential for illicit
stormwater discharges
•Implemented a comprehensive training program for city field staff
•Distributed illicit discharge detection and elimination social media information
MCM‐4: Construction site stormwater runoff control
Permit requirement:
Permittees shall implement and enforce a construction site stormwater runoff control program
that reduces pollutants in stormwater runoff related to construction activity.
Activities completed:
•Performed 8 plan reviews on projects greater than one acre
•Performed 25 plan reviews on projects less than one acre
•Issued 33 erosion and sediment control permits (both over and under one acre)
•Performed 58 inspections on 12 projects greater than one acre
•Performed 206 compliance inspections on 56 projects
•Collected damage deposits for erosion control permits to aid in maintaining compliance
o Issued 73 notices of violation for noncompliance, including verbal and written
warnings
MCM‐5: Post‐construction runoff control
Permit requirement:
Permittees shall implement and enforce a post-construction stormwater management program
that prevents or reduces water pollution after construction activity is completed.
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 5)
Title: Annual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Report Page 6
Activities completed:
•Implement stormwater best management practices as part of the 2019 Pavement
Management Project, including:
o Rain garden
o SAFL baffle and sump manholes
o Reduction in impervious surfaces (approximately 5%)
•Provided stormwater management plan review for 6 projects greater than one acre
•Provided stormwater management plan review for 4 projects less than one acre
o BMPs included underground treatment facilities, rain gardens, and biofiltration
basins
MCM‐6: Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations
Permit requirement:
Permittees shall develop and implement an operations and maintenance program that prevents
or reduces the discharge of pollutants from permittee owned and operated facilities.
Activities completed:
•Completed city-wide Wetland Inventory Update
•Completed Louisiana Avenue and Oxford Street Drainage Study
•Completed Klodt Pond and Beltline Boulevard Drainage Study
•Inspected 30 storm sewer outfalls
•Inspected 57 public and 38 private stormwater ponds and wetlands
•Inspected 17 stormwater management best practices
•Swept over 1,328 miles of streets and alleys
o Removed approximately 6,472 cubic yards of material from city streets
•Inspected stockpile and storage areas
•Provide stormwater management training to city staff
•Worked with Operations to evaluate existing policies and practices and to look for areas
to improve process and reduce pollution
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 5)
Title: Annual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Report Page 7
Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Program
2020 Activities
The following outlines the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) Minimum
Control Measure (MCM) planned activities for 2020. These MCMs are included in the City of St.
Louis Park’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit issued by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
MCM‐1: Public education and outreach activities
Permit requirement:
Permittees shall develop and implement a public education program and distribute educational
materials that inform the public of the impact stormwater discharges have on water bodies and
that include actions citizens, businesses, and other local organizations can take to reduce the
discharge of pollutants to stormwater. The program shall include the following:
Activities to initiate:
•Select high-priority stormwater-related issue
o Rainwater Rewards Program
Partner with Metro Blooms and Conservation Corps of Minnesota to provide
additional funding and technical assistance for the installation of 40 residential
rain gardens
Received $12,400 in grant funding from the Clean Water, Land and Legacy
Amendment to assist in the installation of the 40 rain gardens
•Continue Adopt-a-Drain program in collaboration Clean Water Minnesota
•Continue to promote stormwater pollution prevention throughout the city, including:
o Partner with Clean Water Minnesota Outreach Program
o Park Perspective articles
o Social media postings
o Partner with other cities, watershed and/or other organization’s activities and
workshops
o Continue Westwood Hills Nature Center educational programs
MCM‐2: Public involvement and participation
Permit requirement:
Permittees shall implement a public participation/involvement program to solicit public input
on the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Activities to initiate:
•Provide annual report to city council in summer 2020.
•Hold public open house in fall 2020 to provide the public with an opportunity to
comment on the SWPPP
•Present SWPPP comments to city council in fall 2020
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 5)
Title: Annual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Report Page 8
MCM‐3: Illicit discharge detection and elimination
Permit requirement:
Permittees shall implement and enforce a program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges into
the city’s storm sewer system.
Activities to initiate:
•Continue illicit discharge detection and elimination program
o Continue inspections
o Update mapping
o Provide city field staff training for illicit discharges
o Continue to educate public about illicit discharges
MCM‐4: Construction site stormwater runoff control
Permit requirement:
Permittees shall implement and enforce a construction site stormwater runoff control program
that reduces pollutants in stormwater runoff related to construction activity.
Activities to initiate:
•Continue erosion control site plan review, site inspection and enforcement
•Continue to educate city staff and the public about the importance of construction
stormwater management and erosion and sediment control
MCM‐5: Post‐construction runoff control
Permit requirement:
Permittees shall implement and enforce a post-construction stormwater management program
that prevents or reduces water pollution after construction activity is completed.
Activities to initiate:
•Continue to review plans and work with local watersheds to maintain compliance
MCM‐6: Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations
Permit requirement:
Permittees shall develop and implement an operations and maintenance program that prevents
or reduces the discharge of pollutants from permittee owned and operated facilities.
Activities to initiate:
•Review future projects and identify potential stormwater best management practices
that would reduce runoff and improve water quality on local street projects
•Continue routine inspections and maintenance practices (i.e., street sweeping, storm
sewer inspection, and maintenance work) in 2020
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 5)
Title: Annual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Report Page 9
•Continue the use of Cartegraph and GIS mapping in 2020, to assist with tracking
inspections, findings and recommendations
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (4203) EPA 833-F-00-002 January 2000 (revised December 2005) Fact Sheet 2.0
Stormwater Phase II
Final Rule
Small MS4 Stormwater Program
Overview
Stormwater Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series
Overview
1.0 – Stormwater Phase II Final Rule: An Overview
Small MS4 Program
2.0 – Small MS4 Stormwater Program Overview
2.1 – Who’s Covered? Designationand Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s
2.2 – Urbanized Areas: Definition and Description
Minimum Control Measures
2.3 – Public Education and Outreach
2.4 – Public Participation/ Involvement
2.5 – Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
2.6 – Construction Site Runoff Control
2.7 – Post-Construction Runoff Control
2.8 – Pollution Prevention/GoodHousekeeping
2.9 – Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements
2.10 – Federal and State-OperatedMS4s: Program Implementation
Construction Program
3.0 – Construction ProgramOverview
3.1 – Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver
Industrial “No Exposure”
4.0 – Conditional No ExposureExclusion for Industrial Activity
In 1990, EPA promulgated rules establishing Phase I of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater program. The Phase I program for MS4s requires
operators of “medium” and “large” MS4s, that is, those that generally serve populations of
100,000 or greater, to implement a stormwater management program as a means to control
polluted discharges from these MS4s. The Stormwater Phase II Rule extends coverage of the
NPDES stormwater program to certain “small” MS4s but takes a slightly different approach to
how the stormwater management program is developed and implemented.
Polluted storm water runoff is often transported to municipal separate storm sewer systems
(MS4s) and ultimately discharged into local rivers and streams without treatment. EPA’s
Stormwater Phase II Rule establishes an MS4 stormwater management program that is intended
to improve the Nation’s waterways by reducing the quantity of pollutants that stormwater picks
up and carries into storm sewer systems during storm events. Common pollutants include oil and
grease from roadways, pesticides from lawns, sediment from construction sites, and carelessly
discarded trash, such as cigarette butts, paper wrappers, and plastic bottles. When deposited into
nearby waterways through MS4 discharges, these pollutants can impair the waterways, thereby
discouraging recreational use of the resource, contaminating drinking water supplies, and
interfering with the habitat for fish, other aquatic organisms, and wildlife.
What Is a Phase II Small MS4?
Asmall MS4 is any MS4 not already covered by the Phase I program as a medium or large
MS4. The Phase II Rule automatically covers on a nationwide basis all small MS4s located
in “urbanized areas” (UAs) as defined by the Bureau of the Census (unless waived by the
NPDES permitting authority), and on a case-by-case basis those small MS4s located outside of
UAs that the NPDES permitting authority designates. For more information on Phase II small
MS4 coverage, see Fact Sheets 2.1 and 2.2.
What Are the Phase II Small MS4 Program Requirements?
Operators of regulated small MS4s are required to design their programs to:
‘ Reduce the discharge of pollutants to the “maximum extent practicable” (MEP);
‘ Protect water quality; and
‘ Satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act.
Implementation of the MEP standard will typically require the development and implementation
of BMPs and the achievement of measurable goals to satisfy each of the six minimum control
measures.
The Phase II Rule defines a small MS4 stormwater management program as a program
comprising six elements that, when implemented in concert, are expected to result in significant
reductions of pollutants discharged into receiving waterbodies.
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 5)
Title: Annual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Report Page 10
Fact Sheet 2.0 – An Overview of the Small MS4 Stormwater Program Page 2
The six MS4 program elements, termed “minimum control
measures,” are outlined below. For more information on each
of these required control measures, see Fact Sheets 2.3 – 2.8.
Ø Public Education and Outreach
Distributing educational materials and performing
outreach to inform citizens about the impacts polluted
stormwater runoff discharges can have on water quality.
Ù Public Participation/Involvement
Providing opportunities for citizens to participate in
program development and implementation, including
effectively publicizing public hearings and/or
encouraging citizen representatives on a stormwater
management panel.
Ú Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
Developing and implementing a plan to detect and
eliminate illicit discharges to the storm sewer system
(includes developing a system map and informing the
community about hazards associated with illegal
discharges and improper disposal of waste).
Û Construction Site Runoff Control
Developing, implementing, and enforcing an erosion and
sediment control program for construction activities that
disturb 1 or more acres of land (controls could include
silt fences and temporary stormwater detention ponds).
Ü Post-Construction Runoff Control
Developing, implementing, and enforcing a program to
address discharges of post-construction stormwater
runoff from new development and redevelopment areas.
Applicable controls could include preventative actions
such as protecting sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands) or the
use of structural BMPs such as grassed swales or porous
pavement.
Ý Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping
Developing and implementing a program with the goal of
preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from municipal
operations. The program must include municipal staff
training on pollution prevention measures and techniques
(e.g., regular street sweeping, reduction in the use of
pesticides or street salt, or frequent catch-basin cleaning).
What Information Must the NPDES Permit
Application Include?
The Phase II program for MS4s is designed to accommodate
a general permit approach using a Notice of Intent (NOI)
as the permit application. The operator of a regulated small
MS4 must include in its permit application, or NOI, its chosen
BMPs and measurable goals for each minimum control
measure. To help permittees identify the most appropriate
BMPs for their programs, EPA issued a Menu of BMPs to
serve as guidance. NPDES permitting authorities can modify
the EPA menu or develop their own list. For more information
on application requirements, see Fact Sheet 2.9.
What Are the Implementation Options?
The rule identifies a number of implementation options for
regulated small MS4 operators. These include sharing
responsibility for program development with a nearby
regulated small MS4, taking advantage of existing local or
State programs, or participating in the implementation of an
existing Phase I MS4's stormwater program as a co-permittee.
These options are intended to promote a regional approach to
stormwater management coordinated on a watershed basis.
What Kind of Program Evaluation/Assessment Is
Required?
Permittees need to evaluate the effectiveness of their chosen
BMPs to determine whether the BMPs are reducing the
discharge of pollutants from their systems to the “maximum
extent practicable” and to determine if the BMP mix is
satisfying the water quality requirements of the Clean Water
Act. Permittees also are required to assess their progress
in achieving their program’s measurable goals. While
monitoring is not required under the rule, the NPDES
permitting authority has the discretion to require monitoring
if deemed necessary. If there is an indication of a need for
improved controls, permittees can revise their mix of BMPs
to create a more effective program. For more information
on program evaluation/assessment, see Fact Sheet 2.9.
Study session meeting of June 22, 2020 (Item No. 5)
Title: Annual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Report Page 11
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: June 22, 2020
Written report: 6
Executive summary
Title: Metropolitan Council and Minnesota Brownfields grant application - Prince of Peace
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is categorized as Time-Sensitive**
• The purpose of this item is to provide an update to the EDA regarding grant applications to
the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) and Hennepin
County Minnesota Brownfields program for the Prince of Peace apartment project.
Policy consideration: Does the EDA support the submission of a grant application to the
Metropolitan Council LCDA program and to the Hennepin County Minnesota Brownfields
program to facilitate the Prince of Peace affordable housing project?
Summary: As noted in the January 13, 2020 study session staff report, CommonBond has a
purchase agreement for the Prince of Peace church located at 8115 MN Highway 7. In January,
CommonBond indicated it would like to redevelop the site and build a four story, 120-unit
apartment building that would be 100% affordable and include an affordable childcare center.
The developer is currently working on plan revisions, conducting environmental investigations
and pursuing project financing. CommonBond anticipates submitting applications seeking city
approvals this fall or early winter 2021.
As part of its financing, CommonBond recently requested that the EDA submit an application on
its behalf to the Metropolitan Council for its Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA)
grant for approximately $1.6 million. If awarded, this grant would be used for property acquisition,
stormwater, rain garden and a public sidewalk. Grant applications are due July 31, 2020 and
require a resolution authorizing the grant application from the governing body of the city where
the project is located.
In addition, CommonBond has applied to Hennepin County for its Minnesota Brownfields Gap
Financing program which provides small grants to nonprofits for environmental assessment and
cleanup. The developer applied for approximately $11,000 to be used for environmental
investigation to determine any potential site contamination. This program also requires a city
resolution in support of CommonBond’s grant application.
The LCDA grant is only offered once a year and awards will not be determined until later this
year. The proposed resolutions of support for these grant applications do not commit the EDA
to any of the upcoming planning or TIF approvals that will be requested by the developer.
Financial or budget considerations: The LCDA grant request will be for approximately $1.6 million.
There is no match requirement for LCDA Development grant. The EDA would simply serve as the
conduit for the grant funds. CommonBond is the grant applicant for the Minnesota Brownfields
grant and CommonBond will work directly with Hennepin County to administer the grant.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: none
Prepared by: Julie Grove, economic development specialist
Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, economic dev. coordinator; Karen Barton, community development dir.
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: June 22, 2020
Written report: 7
Executive summary
Title: Metropolitan Council grant application - Texa Tonka Apartments
Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered
essential business and is categorized as Time-Sensitive**
• The purpose of this item is to provide an update to the EDA regarding a grant application to
the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) for the Texa-
Tonka apartment project.
Policy consideration: Does the EDA support the submission of a grant application to the
Metropolitan Council LCDA program to facilitate the Texa-Tonka apartment project?
Summary: As noted in the January 27, 2020 study session staff report, Paster Development has
a purchase agreement for the property at the NE corner of Texas Ave and Minnetonka Blvd. In
January, Paster Development indicated it would like to redevelop the site and build a 95-unit, 3-
5 story apartment building and two 2-story townhouse buildings with a total of 11 units. The
developer is currently drafting plan revisions, conducting environmental investigations and
working with the neighborhood leaders on input. Paster Development anticipates submitting
applications seeking city approvals in July 2020.
Paster Development recently requested that the EDA submit an application on its behalf to the
Metropolitan Council for its Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) grant for
approximately $480,000. If awarded, this grant would be used for stormwater, utilities,
pedestrian connections, decorative lighting, and rain gardens. Grant applications are due July
31, 2020, and require a resolution authorizing the grant application from the governing body of
the city where the project is located.
The LCDA grant is only offered once a year and funding awards will be made later this year. The
proposed resolution of support for this grant application does not commit the EDA to any of the
upcoming planning or TIF approvals that will be requested by the developer.
Financial or budget considerations: The LCDA grant request is for $480,000. There is no match
requirement for LCDA Development grant. The EDA would simply serve as the conduit for the
grant funds.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: None
Prepared by: Julie Grove, economic development specialist
Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, economic development coordinator
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA executive director/city manager