HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021/11/08 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
NOV. 8, 2021
The St. Louis Park City Council is meeting in person in accordance with the most recent COVID-
19 guidelines. Members of the public may attend the Nov. 8, 2021 meeting, in person at St.
Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. The meeting may also be viewed live via webstream
at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil and on local cable (Comcast SD channel 17/HD channel 859). Visit
bit.ly/slpccagendas to view the agenda.
Members of the public who want to address the city council during the special city council
meeting about the item on the agenda may attend the meeting in person or call 952.562.2886
when the meeting starts at 6:15 p.m. and follow instructions provided. Comments must relate
to the item on the current city council agenda.
6:15 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING – council chambers
1.Call to order
1a. Roll call
2. Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items
2a. Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt Resolution declaring results of the Nov. 2,
2021 Municipal General Election and set the date and time for post-election review.
3. Adjournment
6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – council chambers
Discussion items
1. 6:30 p.m. 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities
2. 7:15 p.m. Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF Policy
3. 8:45 p.m. Upcoming study session agenda
8:50 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal)
8:55 p.m. Adjourn
Written reports
4. September 2021 monthly financial report
5. Third quarter investment report (July – Sept. 2021)
6. Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment
7. Sustainability Division update for Q4 2021
8. Parking ordinance update
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. If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952-924-2525.
Meeting: Special city council
Meeting date: November 8, 2021
Action agenda item: 2a
Executive summary
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution declaring results of the Nov. 2, 2021
Municipal General Election and set the date and time for post-election review.
Policy consideration: Does the information provided meet the requirements for canvassing of
municipal election results as provided in Minnesota Statutes 205.185, subd. 3, St. Louis Park
City Charter Section 4.07, and St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 10?
Summary: Minnesota Statutes 205.185, sub. 3 states the canvassing of municipal general
election results must be conducted between the third and tenth days after an election. St. Louis
Park City Charter Section 4.07 requires the city council to meet and canvass election returns
within ten days of any regular or special election and declare the results as soon as possible.
As required by the City Charter, the attached resolution includes:
•Total number of good ballots cast
•Total number of spoiled or defective ballots
•The vote for each candidate with a declaration of those who were elected
•A true copy of the ballots used
•The names of the judges and clerks of election
•Such other information as may seem pertinent
Additionally, Chapter 10 of the St. Louis Park City Code requires a post-election review. At the
time of canvass, the chief election official (city clerk) will select, by lot, a total of two (2)
precincts to be reviewed and set the date, time, and place for the post-election review. Using
the actual ballots cast in the two (2) precincts selected, a hand count of ballots will be
conducted for the office of council member in each precinct. A comparison of the results
compiled by the voting system with the results compiled by the judges of election performing
the hand count must show that the results of the electronic voting system differed by no more
than the applicable percentage threshold, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, section 204C.36,
from the hand count of the sample tested. Valid votes that have been marked by the voter
outside the vote targets or using a manual marking device that cannot be read by the voting
system must not be included in making the determination whether the voting system has met
the standard of acceptable performance.
Financial or budget considerations: Election expenses are included in the 2021 budget.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Resolution; Exhibit A (copy of ballots); Exhibit B (elections abstracts)
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Michael Sund, elections specialist
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election
Resolution No. 21-____
Resolution canvassing election returns of
St. Louis Park Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election
Whereas, pursuant to City Charter Section 4.07, the city council shall meet, and canvass
election returns within ten days of any election and shall declare the results as soon as possible;
and
Whereas, Minnesota Statutes Section 205.185 sub. 3 states the canvassing of municipal
general election results must be conducted between the third and tenth days after an election;
and
Whereas, the results prepared and certified to by the election workers have been
presented in summary form to the city council for inspection,
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council as follows:
1.The Nov. 2, 2021 election returns having been canvassed the votes received by each
candidate for city offices are as follows:
Council Member Ward One
Candidate Number of Votes Percent of
Votes
Margaret Rog 818 91.40%
Undeclared Write-in (UWI) 70 7.82%
Overvote 0 0.00%
Undervote 7 0.78%
Total votes continuing 895
**Total votes cast for this office 895
Totally blank 37
Partially defective 1
Exhausted ballots 0
Total ballots cast 933
*Threshold to win = 448 votes
Margaret Rog received the most votes (818), which was more than the threshold.
Margaret Rog was declared the winner in a single round of counting.
*Threshold = ((Total votes cast)/(Seats to be elected + 1)) + 1
**The total votes cast for this office does not include totally blank or partially defective ballots
as defined by City Code Sec. 10-4.
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 3
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election
Council Member Ward Two
Candidate Number of Votes Percent of
Votes
Lynette Lungay Dumalag 965 60.84%
John Basill (write-in) 586 36.95%
Undeclared Write-in (UWI) 25 1.58%
Overvote 0 0.00%
Undervote 10 0.63%
Total votes continuing 1586
**Total votes cast for this office 1586
Totally blank 23
Partially defective 2
Exhausted ballots 0
Total ballots cast 1611
Threshold = 794 votes
Lynette Lungay Dumalag received the most votes (965), which was more than the threshold.
Lynette Lungay Dumalag was declared the winner in a single round of counting.
*Threshold = ((Total votes cast)/(Seats to be elected + 1)) + 1
**The total votes cast for this office does not include totally blank or partially defective ballots
as defined by City Code Sec. 10-4.
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 4
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election
Council Member Ward 3
Candidate
Number
of Votes
Round 1
Percent
of Votes
Number
of Votes
Round 2
Percent
of Votes
Number
of Votes
Round 3
Percent
of Votes
Saul Eugene 255 18.93% 257 19.08% Eliminated
Jim Leuthner 502 37.27% 503 37.34% 559 41.50%
Sue Budd 581 43.13% 581 43.13% 747 55.46%
Undeclared write-ins
(UWI) 6 0.45% Eliminated 0.00% Eliminated
Overvote 0 0.00% Eliminated 0.00% Eliminated
Undervote 3 0.22% Eliminated 0.00% Eliminated
Total votes continuing 1347 1341 1306
**Total votes cast for
this office 1347 1347 1347
Totally blank 12 12 12
Partially defective 0 0 0
Exhausted ballots 0 6 41
Total ballots cast 1359 1359 1359
Threshold = 674 votes
Round-by-round summary:
1. Sue Budd received the most votes (581) but did not have more than the threshold (674)
to be declared the winner. Overvotes, undervotes, and undeclared write-ins (UWI) will
be eliminated in the next round of counting. The next highest choices on those ballots
will be added to the totals of the remaining candidates.
2. Sue Budd received the most votes (581) but did not have more than the threshold (674)
to be declared the winner. Saul Eugene will be eliminated in the next round of counting.
The next highest choices on those ballots will be added to the totals of the remaining
candidates.
3. Sue Budd received the most votes (747), which was more than the threshold.
Sue Budd was declared the winner in the third round of counting.
*Threshold = ((Total votes cast)/(Seats to be elected + 1)) + 1
**The total votes cast for this office does not include totally blank or partially defective ballots
as defined by City Code Sec. 10-4.
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 5
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election
Council Member Ward Four
Candidate Number of Votes Percent of
Votes
Tim Brausen 667 93.68%
Undeclared Write-in (UWI) 32 4.49%
Overvote 1 0.14%
Undervote 12 1.69%
Total votes continuing 712
**Total votes cast for this office 712
Totally blank 45
Partially defective 0
Exhausted ballots 0
Total ballots cast 757
*Threshold to win = 357 votes
Tim Brausen received the most votes (667), which was more than the threshold (357).
Tim Brausen was declared the winner in a single round of counting.
*Threshold = ((Total votes cast)/(Seats to be elected + 1)) + 1
**The total votes cast for this office does not include totally blank or partially defective ballots
as defined by City Code Sec. 10-4.
2. The number of spoiled ballots, the number of persons registered prior to the election and on
Election Day, the number of voter receipts, the number of absentee ballots, and the total
number of good votes cast in the city are as follows:
Spoiled ballots 26
Registered at 7 a.m. 33875
Registered on Election Day 157
Total registered voters 34032
Voter receipts 3759
Absentee ballots 901
Total voters 4660
Percent voting citywide 13.7%
Percent voting absentee 19.3%
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 6
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election
3. The clerk and workers of the election were as follows:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Michael Sund, Elections Specialist
Devin Daye, Elections Specialist
WARD 1 Election Workers
1-1 St. Louis Park
City Hall (garage)
1-2, Wat Thai 1-3, St. Louis Park
City Hall
1-4, Central
Community Center
Theresa Ruttger Margaret Marek Barbara Ruhl Paul Martin
Mark Schwartz Katherine Kloehn Ann Olson Ross Penna
Trina Levin Jane Ahrens Kelly Munoz Hernandez Kim Curran-Moore
Kelly Priadka Rich Thorne Richard Erickson Todd Hendrickson
Marvin Mohr Cynthia Jones-
Klausing
Dana Uhrig-Fox Phillip Erwin
Barbara Resnick William Kenyon Gerald Gunderson
Maggie O’Connor Carolyne Turk
Barbara Resnick
Ben Duncan
WARD 2 Election Workers
2-5, Union
Congregational Church
2-6, St. Louis Park
Rec Center
2-7, Vista
Lutheran Church
2-8, Aldersgate
Methodist Church
Mary Maynard Debra Wuebker Loren Botner Julie Manuel
David Richards Emmett Pokorny Henry Solmer Marguerite Krause
Kathy Grose Jeffrey Gershone Amelia Merfeld Kyle Hakala
Thomas Lynch Ellen Lewin Steve Nachtwey Kellie Hultgren
Eric Nevermann Emily Schwalen Joy Showalter Heather Mainella
William Obert Gina Forneris Mark Ennenga Karen Oelschlaeger
Irwin Schreiner Claudia Johnston-
Madison
Jeffrey Sibert Cynthia Ridley
WARD 3 Election Workers
3-9, Municipal
Service Center
3-10, Lenox
Community Center
3-11, St. Louis Park
Senior High
3-12, Aquila
Elementary School
David Larson Judy Shapiro Janet Benson Jim Engelking
Christine Johnson Martin Lee Casey Merkwan Brent Cook
Elizabeth Stenglein Stephan Gipp Steven Erickson Lauri Kraft
Jeanne Stevens Jessica Knighton Joan Hjelmeland Joseph Miatech
Kathy Gremillion Cleo Wedge Gloria Murman Karen Tepley
Ernest Tursich Terry Ruane Lonni Ranallo
Linda Thompson Robert Estes
Christopher Wilhoit
Jennifer Zimmerman
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 7
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election
WARD 4 Election Workers
4-13, Westwood
Lutheran Church
4-14, Park Harbor
Church
4-15, Peace
Presbyterian Church
4-16, St. Louis Park
Middle School
Angela Fischels Lawrence Grose Roger Ruth Amanda Scott-Lerdal
Kathy Metzker Gina Soucheray Elaine Savick Anna Luckow
Gary Berkovitz Jim Brimeyer Juli Bergman Greta Hanson
Patricia Campbell Kay Peltier Chaiya Isenberg Bob Dummer
Rande Garnett Barb Person Malisa Lieser Rafael Geretz
Brian Miklos Mary Kay Conway Mary Kaye Conery Julie Weaver
Mary Obert RJ Twiford Mary Gosselin
Nicki Pretzer Barbara Wilensky Barb Osfar
4. True copies of the ballots are attached.
5. The post-election review is scheduled for Nov. 10, 2021 at 1 p.m. at St. Louis Park City
Hall.
Now, therefore, be it further resolved by the city council that the following candidates
have been elected to four (4) year terms commencing on the first (1st) regularly scheduled
meeting of 2022:
• Council Member Ward One – Margaret Rog
• Council Member Ward Two – Lynette Lungay Dumalag
• Council Member Ward Three – Sue Budd
• Council Member Ward Four – Tim Brausen
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council November 8, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Official Ballot
City General Election Ballot
City of St Louis Park
November 2, 2021
Judge _________ Judge _________
Ranked Choice Voting Instructions to the Voters:
• Vote from left to right in each office. Your first choice is the candidate you would most like to see elected.
• You are allowed to rank up to three (3) candidates for each office.
• Completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this: () Candidate Name
Fill in the oval(s)
completely.→
No more than one
oval in a column.→
City Offices
ST LOUIS PARK W-1 P-01
2790
Typ:01 Seq:0218 Spl:01
Vote front and back of ballot
Continue voting on the school
district ballot.
City Offices
Council Member Ward One Rank your first, second and third choice candidates in the columns
below. One to be elected.
1 1st Choice Council Member Ward One1st Choice, if any.
Select One
Margaret Rog
write-in, if any
2 2nd Choice Council Member Ward One2nd Choice, if any.
Select One
Margaret Rog
write-in, if any
3 3rd Choice Council Member Ward One3rd Choice, if any.
Select One
Margaret Rog
write-in, if any
11
21
40
43
45
46
52
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 8
General Election Ballot
School District Ballot
Independent School District No. 283 (St Louis Park)
November 2, 2021
Instructions to Voters:
To vote, completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this:
ST LOUIS PARK W-1 P-01
2790
Vote front and back of ballot
School District Offices
School Board Member
Independent School District No. 283
(St Louis Park)
Vote for Up to Three
Anne Casey
Abdihakim Arabow Ibrahim
Mary K. Tomback
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 9
Official Ballot
City General Election Ballot
City of St Louis Park
November 2, 2021
Judge _________ Judge _________
Ranked Choice Voting Instructions to the Voters:
• Vote from left to right in each office. Your first choice is the candidate you would most like to see elected.
• You are allowed to rank up to three (3) candidates for each office.
• Completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this: () Candidate Name
Fill in the oval(s)
completely.→
No more than one
oval in a column.→
City Offices
ST LOUIS PARK W-1 P-02
2795
Typ:01 Seq:0219 Spl:01
Vote front and back of ballot
Continue voting on the school
district ballot.
City Offices
Council Member Ward One Rank your first, second and third choice candidates in the columns
below. One to be elected.
1 1st Choice Council Member Ward One1st Choice, if any.
Select One
Margaret Rog
write-in, if any
2 2nd Choice Council Member Ward One2nd Choice, if any.
Select One
Margaret Rog
write-in, if any
3 3rd Choice Council Member Ward One3rd Choice, if any.
Select One
Margaret Rog
write-in, if any
11
21
40
43
45
46
53
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 10
General Election Ballot
School District Ballot
Independent School District No. 283 (St Louis Park)
November 2, 2021
Instructions to Voters:
To vote, completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this:
ST LOUIS PARK W-1 P-02
2795
Vote front and back of ballot
School District Offices
School Board Member
Independent School District No. 283
(St Louis Park)
Vote for Up to Three
Anne Casey
Abdihakim Arabow Ibrahim
Mary K. Tomback
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 11
Official Ballot
City General Election Ballot
City of St Louis Park
November 2, 2021
Judge _________ Judge _________
Ranked Choice Voting Instructions to the Voters:
• Vote from left to right in each office. Your first choice is the candidate you would most like to see elected.
• You are allowed to rank up to three (3) candidates for each office.
• Completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this: () Candidate Name
Fill in the oval(s)
completely.→
No more than one
oval in a column.→
City Offices
ST LOUIS PARK W-1 P-03
2800
Typ:01 Seq:0220 Spl:01
Vote front and back of ballot
Continue voting on the school
district ballot.
City Offices
Council Member Ward One Rank your first, second and third choice candidates in the columns
below. One to be elected.
1 1st Choice Council Member Ward One1st Choice, if any.
Select One
Margaret Rog
write-in, if any
2 2nd Choice Council Member Ward One2nd Choice, if any.
Select One
Margaret Rog
write-in, if any
3 3rd Choice Council Member Ward One3rd Choice, if any.
Select One
Margaret Rog
write-in, if any
11
21
40
43
45
46
54
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 12
General Election Ballot
School District Ballot
Independent School District No. 283 (St Louis Park)
November 2, 2021
Instructions to Voters:
To vote, completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this:
ST LOUIS PARK W-1 P-03
2800
Vote front and back of ballot
School District Offices
School Board Member
Independent School District No. 283
(St Louis Park)
Vote for Up to Three
Abdihakim Arabow Ibrahim
Mary K. Tomback
Anne Casey
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 13
Official Ballot
City General Election Ballot
City of St Louis Park
November 2, 2021
Judge _________ Judge _________
Ranked Choice Voting Instructions to the Voters:
• Vote from left to right in each office. Your first choice is the candidate you would most like to see elected.
• You are allowed to rank up to three (3) candidates for each office.
• Completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this: () Candidate Name
Fill in the oval(s)
completely.→
No more than one
oval in a column.→
City Offices
ST LOUIS PARK W-1 P-04
2805
Typ:01 Seq:0221 Spl:01
Vote front and back of ballot
Continue voting on the school
district ballot.
City Offices
Council Member Ward One Rank your first, second and third choice candidates in the columns
below. One to be elected.
1 1st Choice Council Member Ward One1st Choice, if any.
Select One
Margaret Rog
write-in, if any
2 2nd Choice Council Member Ward One2nd Choice, if any.
Select One
Margaret Rog
write-in, if any
3 3rd Choice Council Member Ward One3rd Choice, if any.
Select One
Margaret Rog
write-in, if any
11
21
40
43
45
47
51
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 14
General Election Ballot
School District Ballot
Independent School District No. 283 (St Louis Park)
November 2, 2021
Instructions to Voters:
To vote, completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this:
ST LOUIS PARK W-1 P-04
2805
Vote front and back of ballot
School District Offices
School Board Member
Independent School District No. 283
(St Louis Park)
Vote for Up to Three
Mary K. Tomback
Anne Casey
Abdihakim Arabow Ibrahim
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 15
Official Ballot
City General Election Ballot
City of St Louis Park
November 2, 2021
Judge _________ Judge _________
Ranked Choice Voting Instructions to the Voters:
• Vote from left to right in each office. Your first choice is the candidate you would most like to see elected.
• You are allowed to rank up to three (3) candidates for each office.
• Completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this: () Candidate Name
Fill in the oval(s)
completely.→
No more than one
oval in a column.→
City Offices
ST LOUIS PARK W-2 P-05
2810
Typ:01 Seq:0222 Spl:01
Vote front and back of ballot
Continue voting on the school
district ballot.
City Offices
Council Member Ward Two Rank your first, second and third choice candidates in the columns
below. One to be elected.
1 1st Choice Council Member Ward Two1st Choice, if any.
Select One
Lynette Lungay Dumalag
write-in, if any
2 2nd Choice Council Member Ward Two2nd Choice, if any.
Select One
Lynette Lungay Dumalag
write-in, if any
3 3rd Choice Council Member Ward Two3rd Choice, if any.
Select One
Lynette Lungay Dumalag
write-in, if any
11
21
40
43
45
47
52
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 16
General Election Ballot
School District Ballot
Independent School District No. 283 (St Louis Park)
November 2, 2021
Instructions to Voters:
To vote, completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this:
ST LOUIS PARK W-2 P-05
2810
Vote front and back of ballot
School District Offices
School Board Member
Independent School District No. 283
(St Louis Park)
Vote for Up to Three
Anne Casey
Abdihakim Arabow Ibrahim
Mary K. Tomback
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 17
Official Ballot
City General Election Ballot
City of St Louis Park
November 2, 2021
Judge _________ Judge _________
Ranked Choice Voting Instructions to the Voters:
• Vote from left to right in each office. Your first choice is the candidate you would most like to see elected.
• You are allowed to rank up to three (3) candidates for each office.
• Completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this: () Candidate Name
Fill in the oval(s)
completely.→
No more than one
oval in a column.→
City Offices
ST LOUIS PARK W-2 P-06
2815
Typ:01 Seq:0223 Spl:01
Vote front and back of ballot
Continue voting on the school
district ballot.
City Offices
Council Member Ward Two Rank your first, second and third choice candidates in the columns
below. One to be elected.
1 1st Choice Council Member Ward Two1st Choice, if any.
Select One
Lynette Lungay Dumalag
write-in, if any
2 2nd Choice Council Member Ward Two2nd Choice, if any.
Select One
Lynette Lungay Dumalag
write-in, if any
3 3rd Choice Council Member Ward Two3rd Choice, if any.
Select One
Lynette Lungay Dumalag
write-in, if any
11
21
40
43
45
47
53
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 18
General Election Ballot
School District Ballot
Independent School District No. 283 (St Louis Park)
November 2, 2021
Instructions to Voters:
To vote, completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this:
ST LOUIS PARK W-2 P-06
2815
Vote front and back of ballot
School District Offices
School Board Member
Independent School District No. 283
(St Louis Park)
Vote for Up to Three
Mary K. Tomback
Anne Casey
Abdihakim Arabow Ibrahim
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 19
Official Ballot
City General Election Ballot
City of St Louis Park
November 2, 2021
Judge _________ Judge _________
Ranked Choice Voting Instructions to the Voters:
• Vote from left to right in each office. Your first choice is the candidate you would most like to see elected.
• You are allowed to rank up to three (3) candidates for each office.
• Completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this: () Candidate Name
Fill in the oval(s)
completely.→
No more than one
oval in a column.→
City Offices
ST LOUIS PARK W-2 P-07
ISD 273
2820
Typ:01 Seq:0224 Spl:01
Vote front and back of ballot
Continue voting on the school
district ballot.
City Offices
Council Member Ward Two Rank your first, second and third choice candidates in the columns
below. One to be elected.
1 1st Choice Council Member Ward Two1st Choice, if any.
Select One
Lynette Lungay Dumalag
write-in, if any
2 2nd Choice Council Member Ward Two2nd Choice, if any.
Select One
Lynette Lungay Dumalag
write-in, if any
3 3rd Choice Council Member Ward Two3rd Choice, if any.
Select One
Lynette Lungay Dumalag
write-in, if any
11
21
40
43
45
47
54
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 20
General Election Ballot
School District Ballot
Independent School District No. 273
(Edina Public Schools)
November 2, 2021
Instructions to Voters:
To vote, completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this:
ST LOUIS PARK W-2 P-07
ISD 273
2820
Vote front and back of ballot
School District Offices
School Board Member
Independent School District No. 273
(Edina Public Schools)
Vote for Up to Four
Nicole Schnell
Owen Michaelson
Michael Birdman
Karen Gabler
Dan Arom
Erica Allenburg
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 21
Official Ballot
City General Election Ballot
City of St Louis Park
November 2, 2021
Judge _________ Judge _________
Ranked Choice Voting Instructions to the Voters:
• Vote from left to right in each office. Your first choice is the candidate you would most like to see elected.
• You are allowed to rank up to three (3) candidates for each office.
• Completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this: () Candidate Name
Fill in the oval(s)
completely.→
No more than one
oval in a column.→
City Offices
ST LOUIS PARK W-2 P-07
ISD 283
2820
Typ:01 Seq:0225 Spl:01
Vote front and back of ballot
Continue voting on the school
district ballot.
City Offices
Council Member Ward Two Rank your first, second and third choice candidates in the columns
below. One to be elected.
1 1st Choice Council Member Ward Two1st Choice, if any.
Select One
Lynette Lungay Dumalag
write-in, if any
2 2nd Choice Council Member Ward Two2nd Choice, if any.
Select One
Lynette Lungay Dumalag
write-in, if any
3 3rd Choice Council Member Ward Two3rd Choice, if any.
Select One
Lynette Lungay Dumalag
write-in, if any
11
21
40
43
45
48
51
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 22
General Election Ballot
School District Ballot
Independent School District No. 283 (St Louis Park)
November 2, 2021
Instructions to Voters:
To vote, completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this:
ST LOUIS PARK W-2 P-07
ISD 283
2820
Vote front and back of ballot
School District Offices
School Board Member
Independent School District No. 283
(St Louis Park)
Vote for Up to Three
Abdihakim Arabow Ibrahim
Mary K. Tomback
Anne Casey
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 23
Official Ballot
City General Election Ballot
City of St Louis Park
November 2, 2021
Judge _________ Judge _________
Ranked Choice Voting Instructions to the Voters:
• Vote from left to right in each office. Your first choice is the candidate you would most like to see elected.
• You are allowed to rank up to three (3) candidates for each office.
• Completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this: () Candidate Name
Fill in the oval(s)
completely.→
No more than one
oval in a column.→
City Offices
ST LOUIS PARK W-2 P-08
ISD 270
2825
Typ:01 Seq:0226 Spl:01
Vote front and back of ballot
Continue voting on the school
district ballot.
City Offices
Council Member Ward Two Rank your first, second and third choice candidates in the columns
below. One to be elected.
1 1st Choice Council Member Ward Two1st Choice, if any.
Select One
Lynette Lungay Dumalag
write-in, if any
2 2nd Choice Council Member Ward Two2nd Choice, if any.
Select One
Lynette Lungay Dumalag
write-in, if any
3 3rd Choice Council Member Ward Two3rd Choice, if any.
Select One
Lynette Lungay Dumalag
write-in, if any
11
21
40
43
45
48
52
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 24
General Election Ballot
School District Ballot
Independent School District No. 270
(Hopkins Public Schools)
November 2, 2021
Instructions to Voters:
To vote, completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this:
ST LOUIS PARK W-2 P-08
ISD 270
2825
Vote front and back of ballot
School District Offices
School Board Member
Independent School District No. 270
(Hopkins Public Schools)
Vote for Up to Three
Jen Westmoreland Bouchard
Sarah Vaye
Rachel Hartland
David (Dave) G. Larson
Jason Ross
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 25
Official Ballot
City General Election Ballot
City of St Louis Park
November 2, 2021
Judge _________ Judge _________
Ranked Choice Voting Instructions to the Voters:
• Vote from left to right in each office. Your first choice is the candidate you would most like to see elected.
• You are allowed to rank up to three (3) candidates for each office.
• Completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this: () Candidate Name
Fill in the oval(s)
completely.→
No more than one
oval in a column.→
City Offices
ST LOUIS PARK W-2 P-08
ISD 283
2825
Typ:01 Seq:0227 Spl:01
Vote front and back of ballot
Continue voting on the school
district ballot.
City Offices
Council Member Ward Two Rank your first, second and third choice candidates in the columns
below. One to be elected.
1 1st Choice Council Member Ward Two1st Choice, if any.
Select One
Lynette Lungay Dumalag
write-in, if any
2 2nd Choice Council Member Ward Two2nd Choice, if any.
Select One
Lynette Lungay Dumalag
write-in, if any
3 3rd Choice Council Member Ward Two3rd Choice, if any.
Select One
Lynette Lungay Dumalag
write-in, if any
11
21
40
43
45
48
53
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 26
General Election Ballot
School District Ballot
Independent School District No. 283 (St Louis Park)
November 2, 2021
Instructions to Voters:
To vote, completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this:
ST LOUIS PARK W-2 P-08
ISD 283
2825
Vote front and back of ballot
School District Offices
School Board Member
Independent School District No. 283
(St Louis Park)
Vote for Up to Three
Mary K. Tomback
Anne Casey
Abdihakim Arabow Ibrahim
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 27
Official Ballot
City General Election Ballot
City of St Louis Park
November 2, 2021
Judge _________ Judge _________
Ranked Choice Voting Instructions to the Voters:
• Vote from left to right in each office. Your first choice is the candidate you would most like to see elected.
• You are allowed to rank up to three (3) candidates for each office.
• Completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this: () Candidate Name
Fill in the oval(s)
completely.→
No more than one
oval in a column.→
City Offices
ST LOUIS PARK W-3 P-09
2830
Typ:01 Seq:0228 Spl:01
Vote front and back of ballot
Continue voting on the school
district ballot.
City Offices
Council Member Ward
Three
Rank your first, second and third choice candidates in the columns
below. One to be elected.
1 1st Choice Council Member Ward Three1st Choice, if any.
Select One
Sue Budd
Saul Eugene
Jim Leuthner
write-in, if any
2 2nd Choice Council Member Ward Three2nd Choice, if any.
Select One
Sue Budd
Saul Eugene
Jim Leuthner
write-in, if any
3 3rd Choice Council Member Ward Three3rd Choice, if any.
Select One
Sue Budd
Saul Eugene
Jim Leuthner
write-in, if any
11
21
40
43
45
48
54
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 28
General Election Ballot
School District Ballot
Independent School District No. 283 (St Louis Park)
November 2, 2021
Instructions to Voters:
To vote, completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this:
ST LOUIS PARK W-3 P-09
2830
Vote front and back of ballot
School District Offices
School Board Member
Independent School District No. 283
(St Louis Park)
Vote for Up to Three
Abdihakim Arabow Ibrahim
Mary K. Tomback
Anne Casey
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 29
Official Ballot
City General Election Ballot
City of St Louis Park
November 2, 2021
Judge _________ Judge _________
Ranked Choice Voting Instructions to the Voters:
• Vote from left to right in each office. Your first choice is the candidate you would most like to see elected.
• You are allowed to rank up to three (3) candidates for each office.
• Completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this: () Candidate Name
Fill in the oval(s)
completely.→
No more than one
oval in a column.→
City Offices
ST LOUIS PARK W-3 P-10
2835
Typ:01 Seq:0229 Spl:01
Vote front and back of ballot
Continue voting on the school
district ballot.
City Offices
Council Member Ward
Three
Rank your first, second and third choice candidates in the columns
below. One to be elected.
1 1st Choice Council Member Ward Three1st Choice, if any.
Select One
Jim Leuthner
Sue Budd
Saul Eugene
write-in, if any
2 2nd Choice Council Member Ward Three2nd Choice, if any.
Select One
Jim Leuthner
Sue Budd
Saul Eugene
write-in, if any
3 3rd Choice Council Member Ward Three3rd Choice, if any.
Select One
Jim Leuthner
Sue Budd
Saul Eugene
write-in, if any
11
21
40
43
45
49
51
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 30
General Election Ballot
School District Ballot
Independent School District No. 283 (St Louis Park)
November 2, 2021
Instructions to Voters:
To vote, completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this:
ST LOUIS PARK W-3 P-10
2835
Vote front and back of ballot
School District Offices
School Board Member
Independent School District No. 283
(St Louis Park)
Vote for Up to Three
Anne Casey
Abdihakim Arabow Ibrahim
Mary K. Tomback
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 31
Official Ballot
City General Election Ballot
City of St Louis Park
November 2, 2021
Judge _________ Judge _________
Ranked Choice Voting Instructions to the Voters:
• Vote from left to right in each office. Your first choice is the candidate you would most like to see elected.
• You are allowed to rank up to three (3) candidates for each office.
• Completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this: () Candidate Name
Fill in the oval(s)
completely.→
No more than one
oval in a column.→
City Offices
ST LOUIS PARK W-3 P-11
2840
Typ:01 Seq:0230 Spl:01
Vote front and back of ballot
Continue voting on the school
district ballot.
City Offices
Council Member Ward
Three
Rank your first, second and third choice candidates in the columns
below. One to be elected.
1 1st Choice Council Member Ward Three1st Choice, if any.
Select One
Sue Budd
Saul Eugene
Jim Leuthner
write-in, if any
2 2nd Choice Council Member Ward Three2nd Choice, if any.
Select One
Sue Budd
Saul Eugene
Jim Leuthner
write-in, if any
3 3rd Choice Council Member Ward Three3rd Choice, if any.
Select One
Sue Budd
Saul Eugene
Jim Leuthner
write-in, if any
11
21
40
43
45
49
52
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 32
General Election Ballot
School District Ballot
Independent School District No. 283 (St Louis Park)
November 2, 2021
Instructions to Voters:
To vote, completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this:
ST LOUIS PARK W-3 P-11
2840
Vote front and back of ballot
School District Offices
School Board Member
Independent School District No. 283
(St Louis Park)
Vote for Up to Three
Anne Casey
Abdihakim Arabow Ibrahim
Mary K. Tomback
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 33
Official Ballot
City General Election Ballot
City of St Louis Park
November 2, 2021
Judge _________ Judge _________
Ranked Choice Voting Instructions to the Voters:
• Vote from left to right in each office. Your first choice is the candidate you would most like to see elected.
• You are allowed to rank up to three (3) candidates for each office.
• Completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this: () Candidate Name
Fill in the oval(s)
completely.→
No more than one
oval in a column.→
City Offices
ST LOUIS PARK W-3 P-12
2845
Typ:01 Seq:0231 Spl:01
Vote front and back of ballot
Continue voting on the school
district ballot.
City Offices
Council Member Ward
Three
Rank your first, second and third choice candidates in the columns
below. One to be elected.
1 1st Choice Council Member Ward Three1st Choice, if any.
Select One
Saul Eugene
Jim Leuthner
Sue Budd
write-in, if any
2 2nd Choice Council Member Ward Three2nd Choice, if any.
Select One
Saul Eugene
Jim Leuthner
Sue Budd
write-in, if any
3 3rd Choice Council Member Ward Three3rd Choice, if any.
Select One
Saul Eugene
Jim Leuthner
Sue Budd
write-in, if any
11
21
40
43
45
49
53
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 34
General Election Ballot
School District Ballot
Independent School District No. 283 (St Louis Park)
November 2, 2021
Instructions to Voters:
To vote, completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this:
ST LOUIS PARK W-3 P-12
2845
Vote front and back of ballot
School District Offices
School Board Member
Independent School District No. 283
(St Louis Park)
Vote for Up to Three
Mary K. Tomback
Anne Casey
Abdihakim Arabow Ibrahim
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 35
Official Ballot
City General Election Ballot
City of St Louis Park
November 2, 2021
Judge _________ Judge _________
Ranked Choice Voting Instructions to the Voters:
• Vote from left to right in each office. Your first choice is the candidate you would most like to see elected.
• You are allowed to rank up to three (3) candidates for each office.
• Completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this: () Candidate Name
Fill in the oval(s)
completely.→
No more than one
oval in a column.→
City Offices
ST LOUIS PARK W-4 P-13
ISD 270
2850
Typ:01 Seq:0232 Spl:01
Vote front and back of ballot
Continue voting on the school
district ballot.
City Offices
Council Member Ward
Four
Rank your first, second and third choice candidates in the columns
below. One to be elected.
1 1st Choice Council Member Ward Four1st Choice, if any.
Select One
Tim Brausen
write-in, if any
2 2nd Choice Council Member Ward Four2nd Choice, if any.
Select One
Tim Brausen
write-in, if any
3 3rd Choice Council Member Ward Four3rd Choice, if any.
Select One
Tim Brausen
write-in, if any
11
21
40
43
45
49
54
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 36
General Election Ballot
School District Ballot
Independent School District No. 270
(Hopkins Public Schools)
November 2, 2021
Instructions to Voters:
To vote, completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this:
ST LOUIS PARK W-4 P-13
ISD 270
2850
Vote front and back of ballot
School District Offices
School Board Member
Independent School District No. 270
(Hopkins Public Schools)
Vote for Up to Three
Rachel Hartland
David (Dave) G. Larson
Jason Ross
Jen Westmoreland Bouchard
Sarah Vaye
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 37
Official Ballot
City General Election Ballot
City of St Louis Park
November 2, 2021
Judge _________ Judge _________
Ranked Choice Voting Instructions to the Voters:
• Vote from left to right in each office. Your first choice is the candidate you would most like to see elected.
• You are allowed to rank up to three (3) candidates for each office.
• Completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this: () Candidate Name
Fill in the oval(s)
completely.→
No more than one
oval in a column.→
City Offices
ST LOUIS PARK W-4 P-13
ISD 283
2850
Typ:01 Seq:0233 Spl:01
Vote front and back of ballot
Continue voting on the school
district ballot.
City Offices
Council Member Ward
Four
Rank your first, second and third choice candidates in the columns
below. One to be elected.
1 1st Choice Council Member Ward Four1st Choice, if any.
Select One
Tim Brausen
write-in, if any
2 2nd Choice Council Member Ward Four2nd Choice, if any.
Select One
Tim Brausen
write-in, if any
3 3rd Choice Council Member Ward Four3rd Choice, if any.
Select One
Tim Brausen
write-in, if any
11
21
40
43
46
47
51
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 38
General Election Ballot
School District Ballot
Independent School District No. 283 (St Louis Park)
November 2, 2021
Instructions to Voters:
To vote, completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this:
ST LOUIS PARK W-4 P-13
ISD 283
2850
Vote front and back of ballot
School District Offices
School Board Member
Independent School District No. 283
(St Louis Park)
Vote for Up to Three
Mary K. Tomback
Anne Casey
Abdihakim Arabow Ibrahim
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 39
Official Ballot
City General Election Ballot
City of St Louis Park
November 2, 2021
Judge _________ Judge _________
Ranked Choice Voting Instructions to the Voters:
• Vote from left to right in each office. Your first choice is the candidate you would most like to see elected.
• You are allowed to rank up to three (3) candidates for each office.
• Completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this: () Candidate Name
Fill in the oval(s)
completely.→
No more than one
oval in a column.→
City Offices
ST LOUIS PARK W-4 P-14
2855
Typ:01 Seq:0234 Spl:01
Vote front and back of ballot
Continue voting on the school
district ballot.
City Offices
Council Member Ward
Four
Rank your first, second and third choice candidates in the columns
below. One to be elected.
1 1st Choice Council Member Ward Four1st Choice, if any.
Select One
Tim Brausen
write-in, if any
2 2nd Choice Council Member Ward Four2nd Choice, if any.
Select One
Tim Brausen
write-in, if any
3 3rd Choice Council Member Ward Four3rd Choice, if any.
Select One
Tim Brausen
write-in, if any
11
21
40
43
46
47
52
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 40
General Election Ballot
School District Ballot
Independent School District No. 283 (St Louis Park)
November 2, 2021
Instructions to Voters:
To vote, completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this:
ST LOUIS PARK W-4 P-14
2855
Vote front and back of ballot
School District Offices
School Board Member
Independent School District No. 283
(St Louis Park)
Vote for Up to Three
Abdihakim Arabow Ibrahim
Mary K. Tomback
Anne Casey
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 41
Official Ballot
City General Election Ballot
City of St Louis Park
November 2, 2021
Judge _________ Judge _________
Ranked Choice Voting Instructions to the Voters:
• Vote from left to right in each office. Your first choice is the candidate you would most like to see elected.
• You are allowed to rank up to three (3) candidates for each office.
• Completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this: () Candidate Name
Fill in the oval(s)
completely.→
No more than one
oval in a column.→
City Offices
ST LOUIS PARK W-4 P-15
2860
Typ:01 Seq:0235 Spl:01
Vote front and back of ballot
Continue voting on the school
district ballot.
City Offices
Council Member Ward
Four
Rank your first, second and third choice candidates in the columns
below. One to be elected.
1 1st Choice Council Member Ward Four1st Choice, if any.
Select One
Tim Brausen
write-in, if any
2 2nd Choice Council Member Ward Four2nd Choice, if any.
Select One
Tim Brausen
write-in, if any
3 3rd Choice Council Member Ward Four3rd Choice, if any.
Select One
Tim Brausen
write-in, if any
11
21
40
43
46
47
53
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 42
General Election Ballot
School District Ballot
Independent School District No. 283 (St Louis Park)
November 2, 2021
Instructions to Voters:
To vote, completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this:
ST LOUIS PARK W-4 P-15
2860
Vote front and back of ballot
School District Offices
School Board Member
Independent School District No. 283
(St Louis Park)
Vote for Up to Three
Abdihakim Arabow Ibrahim
Mary K. Tomback
Anne Casey
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 43
Official Ballot
City General Election Ballot
City of St Louis Park
November 2, 2021
Judge _________ Judge _________
Ranked Choice Voting Instructions to the Voters:
• Vote from left to right in each office. Your first choice is the candidate you would most like to see elected.
• You are allowed to rank up to three (3) candidates for each office.
• Completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this: () Candidate Name
Fill in the oval(s)
completely.→
No more than one
oval in a column.→
City Offices
ST LOUIS PARK W-4 P-16
2865
Typ:01 Seq:0236 Spl:01
Vote front and back of ballot
Continue voting on the school
district ballot.
City Offices
Council Member Ward
Four
Rank your first, second and third choice candidates in the columns
below. One to be elected.
1 1st Choice Council Member Ward Four1st Choice, if any.
Select One
Tim Brausen
write-in, if any
2 2nd Choice Council Member Ward Four2nd Choice, if any.
Select One
Tim Brausen
write-in, if any
3 3rd Choice Council Member Ward Four3rd Choice, if any.
Select One
Tim Brausen
write-in, if any
11
21
40
43
46
47
54
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 44
General Election Ballot
School District Ballot
Independent School District No. 283 (St Louis Park)
November 2, 2021
Instructions to Voters:
To vote, completely fill in the oval(s) next to your choice(s) like this:
ST LOUIS PARK W-4 P-16
2865
Vote front and back of ballot
School District Offices
School Board Member
Independent School District No. 283
(St Louis Park)
Vote for Up to Three
Mary K. Tomback
Anne Casey
Abdihakim Arabow Ibrahim
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
write-in, if any
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 45
City of St. Louis Park Muncipal General Election November 2, 2021
Election Statistics Total WARD 1 WARD 2 WARD 3 WARD 4
Votes Total 1 2 3 4 Total 5 6 7 8 Total 9 10 11 12 Total 13 14 15 16
SPOILED BALLOTS 26 4 0 3 0 1 10 2 0 6 2 7 0 1 5 1 5 3 1 1 0
REGISTERED AT 7 A.M.33875 8,261 2,659 3,176 1,369 1,057 9,135 1,556 2,625 2,718 2,236 7,980 1,788 1,876 1,594 2,722 8,499 1,845 2,909 1,974 1,771
REG AT THE POLLS 157 28 6 9 8 5 61 12 24 13 12 48 6 14 11 17 20 4 4 6 6
TOTAL REGISTERED 34032 8,289 2,665 3,185 1,377 1,062 9,196 1,568 2,649 2,731 2,248 8,028 1,794 1,890 1,605 2,739 8,519 1,849 2,913 1,980 1,777
VOTER RECEIPTS 3,759 714 283 259 70 102 1,313 285 231 516 281 1,088 195 225 314 354 644 146 275 135 88
ABSENTEE BALLOTS 901 219 92 69 38 20 298 61 78 117 42 271 75 46 41 109 113 25 49 15 24
% Voting Absentee 19.3%23%25%21%35%16%18%18%25%18%13%20%28%17%12%24%15%15%15%10%21%
TOTAL VOTERS 4,660 933 375 328 108 122 1,611 346 309 633 323 1,359 270 271 355 463 757 171 324 150 112
(PERCENT VOTING)13.7%11%14%10%8%11%18%22%12%23%14%17%15%14%22%17%9%9%11%8%6%
UNOFFICIAL RESULTS
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 46
1st Choice
Ward Precinct Margaret Rog UWI Overvote Undervote Grand Total
1 818 70 1 44 933
1 319 36 0 20 375
2 295 22 1 10 328
3 90 7 0 11 108
4 114 5 0 3 122
2nd Choice
Ward Precinct Margaret Rog UWI Overvote Undervote Grand Total
1 368 43 0 522 933
1 157 20 0 198 375
2 122 16 0 190 328
3 37 3 0 68 108
4 52 4 0 66 122
3rd Choice
Ward Precinct Margaret Rog UWI Overvote Undervote Grand Total
1 349 34 0 550 933
1 148 15 0 212 375
2 118 16 0 194 328
3 36 1 0 71 108
4 47 2 0 73 122
Council Member Ward 1
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 47
1st Choice
Ward Precinct Lynette Lungay Dumalag John Basill (write-in)UWI Overvote Undervote Grand Total
2 965 586 25 2 33 1611
5 114 227 1 1 3 346
6 267 23 5 0 14 309
7 389 227 10 1 6 633
8 195 109 9 0 10 323
2nd Choice
Ward Precinct Lynette Lungay Dumalag John Basill (write-in)UWI Overvote Undervote Grand Total
2 448 176 36 1 950 1611
5 48 55 4 1 238 346
6 99 9 6 0 195 309
7 208 75 15 0 335 633
8 93 37 11 0 182 323
3rd Choice
Ward Precinct Lynette Lungay Dumalag John Basill (write-in)UWI Overvote Undervote Grand Total
2 405 137 24 1 1044 1611
5 40 44 2 1 259 346
6 88 6 4 0 211 309
7 188 60 8 0 377 633
8 89 27 10 0 197 323
Council Member Ward 2
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 48
1st Choice
Ward Precinct Saul Eugene Jim Leuthner Sue Budd UWI Overvote Undervote Grand Total
3 255 502 581 6 0 15 1359
9 48 90 127 1 0 4 270
10 65 98 102 1 0 5 271
11 65 148 139 2 0 1 355
12 77 166 213 2 0 5 463
2nd Choice
Ward Precinct Saul Eugene Jim Leuthner Sue Budd UWI Overvote Undervote Grand Total
3 338 396 392 12 0 221 1359
9 70 84 83 1 0 32 270
10 72 76 79 1 0 43 271
11 97 84 103 4 0 67 355
12 99 152 127 6 0 79 463
3rd Choice
Ward Precinct Saul Eugene Jim Leuthner Sue Budd UWI Overvote Undervote Grand Total
3 334 372 185 16 1 451 1359
9 65 91 42 1 1 70 270
10 63 88 31 3 0 86 271
11 81 83 49 6 0 136 355
12 125 110 63 6 0 159 463
Council Member Ward 3
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 49
1st Choice
Ward Precinct Tim Brausen UWI Overvote Undervote Grand Total
4 667 32 1 57 757
13 149 3 1 18 171
14 286 17 0 21 324
15 130 8 0 12 150
16 102 4 0 6 112
2nd Choice
Ward Precinct Tim Brausen UWI Overvote Undervote Grand Total
4 254 27 0 476 757
13 68 3 0 100 171
14 111 16 0 197 324
15 40 5 0 105 150
16 35 3 0 74 112
3rd Choice
Ward Precinct Tim Brausen UWI Overvote Undervote Grand Total
4 240 22 0 495 757
13 63 4 0 104 171
14 104 10 0 210 324
15 40 4 0 106 150
16 33 4 0 75 112
Council Member Ward 4
Special city council meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass results of Nov. 2, 2021 Municipal General Election Page 50
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: November 8, 2021
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities
Recommended action: The purpose of this report is to provide council with the draft list of
legislative positions and priorities for the 2022 legislative session.
Policy consideration:
•Does the council agree with the policy positions included in the draft document?
•Would the council like to add additional policy positions to the draft document?
•Moving forward, what does the council see as the role of the city on issues where they
do not have oversight?
•Does the council wish to continue retaining legislative consulting assistance to help
promote the city’s legislative agenda?
Summary: The state legislature will be reconvening the 92nd session on Monday, Jan. 31, 2022.
Staff has prepared a draft list of legislative issues for the council to review. Staff will make
changes to the legislative agenda based on the council discussion. As the 2022 legislative
session progresses, additional issues may arise that can be addressed as necessary.
This study session also provides council members with an opportunity to discuss how best to
respond when approached by advocacy groups around issues outside of local control.
Staff is working on scheduling a special study session with the city’s legislators and lobbyist at a
future date to discuss the 2022 legislative session.
Financial or budget considerations: Funding for lobbyists is included in the budget.
Strategic priority consideration:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion to create a more just
and inclusive community for all.
•St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship.
•St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood-
oriented development.
•St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their
way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably.
•St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through
community engagement.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Excerpts from 2021 Omnibus Tax Bill
Prepared by: Michael Sund, elections specialist
Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities
Discussion
Background: The state legislature will be reconvening on Monday, Jan 30, 2022. Staff has
prepared a draft list of legislative issues for the council to review.
Additionally, multiple council members have been asked by advocacy groups for the council to
weigh in on issues generally addressed at other levels of government. Historically, the city has
redirected those efforts to those entities that have oversight over the issue. In instances where
the city has acted, it has done so with an eye towards what can be done at the local level given
our authority to enact and enforce. As the politics at other levels of government become
increasingly difficult to navigate for advocates, it is expected that these requests will grow in
volume and scope and become increasingly “politicized’ at the local level. The study session
includes time for the body to discuss questions including:
• Moving forward, what does the council see as the role of the city on issues where they
do not have oversight?
o How should the city best respond when advocates approach on issues outside of
local control?
o If council decides to consider these issues, is there criteria for what issues will be
reviewed?
If council desires, staff are prepared to return with additional analysis, policy considerations
and criteria for consideration.
2021 Review: Two bills passed last session that were included in the Omnibus Tax bill. The first
amended the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) laws to allow the City of St. Louis Park to deposit
excess TIF increments into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to be used for affordable home
ownership and rental projects. The second bill was a statewide measure that allowed cities to
do assessments for energy improvement projects. These assessments are completely voluntary
and need to be requested by the property owner. These assessments apply only to commercial
and multi-family properties.
Both bills were authored by Rep. Youakim in the House. In the Senate, Senator Latz authored
the TIF bill and Senator Senjem authored the Energy Improvement Assessment bill.
Rep. Youakim played a key role in the passage of both bills. She chaired the Property Tax
Division in the House where both bills were referred, and she was on the Tax Conference
Committee that negotiated and wrote the Omnibus Tax bill that included the provisions from
St. Louis Park.
Additionally, significant legislative work was done on the advanced state energy code.
Additional Resources:
League of Minnesota Cities:
Legislative policies
Policy committees
Metro Cities:
Legislative Policies
Policy committees
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities
City of St. Louis park
2022 Legislative positions
Community Development Issues
Establish a TOD (transit-oriented development) affordable housing fund
(Request directed to State Leg/Hennepin Co)
Issue: Efforts are being made to develop a corridor-wide housing strategy for the South West Light
Rail Transit (SWLRT) corridor for providing a full range of housing options specifically within a half-
mile of the station areas. An absence of funds is the fundamental issue with traditional approaches
to infill and redevelopment, and mixed-income housing production and preservation.
Position: The city supports the creation of a TOD affordable housing fund and requests that
Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota provide a financial resource to be used to support the
preservation and creation of affordable housing along the SWLRT corridor.
Local housing trust funds (LHTF)
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: The legislature passed language that enables cities, counties, or regions to set up and
resource LHTFs. Local affordable housing agencies continue to work on finding consistent
funding sources and methods to incentivize communities to take advantage of this locally
controlled tool.
Position: The city supports legislation that establishes a dedicated revenue source for LHTFs,
creates a state match, and provides technical assistance dollars to communities to set up their
individual LHTF and encourages them to set up a fund.
Rental rehab loan program for small to medium size developments in seven county
metropolitan area
(Request directed at the State Legislature)
Issue: Naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) is the largest resource of affordable
housing in the metro area. These multi-family residential rental developments which typically
have limited amenities are at risk of losing their affordability as investors purchase the
properties, renovate, add amenities, and increase rents. As an incentive for current NOAH
properties owners to retain the affordability of their properties, a multi-family rehab loan fund
should be established to provide funding for rehab and capital investment in the development
in exchange for establishing rent restrictions.
Position: St. Louis Park strongly supports and encourages affordable housing. The city supports
the establishment of a housing rehab loan program to facilitate the preservation of NOAH
multi-family residential rental properties and encourage owners to retain the affordability of
their developments.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities
Affordable housing fee on new development
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: There is an increasing need of affordable housing across the state. Additional funds are
needed to create and maintain affordable housing units within the city. An affordable housing
fee on new development would help increase funds for future housing projects and initiatives.
Position: The city supports legislation that would allow for the collection of an affordable
housing fee on new development.
Statewide prohibition on discriminating against renters receiving rental assistance
(Request directed to the State Legislature)
Issue: Rental property owners can legally refuse to rent to people based solely on the source of
income to pay their rent, leaving many households that receive various types of rental
assistance unable to find housing.
Position: The city supports a statewide prohibition on discrimination against renters receiving
rental assistance.
Continue to provide revenue resources for affordable housing
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: The need for affordable housing in the State of Minnesota continues to be a crisis,
requiring a larger response than local jurisdictions can provide on their own. Increased state
level funding is critical to enable local jurisdictions to enact programs to facilitate the creation
and preservation of affordable housing, including subsidized and naturally occurring affordable
housing.
Position: The City supports financing sources and increased funding for local and regional
programs to facilitate the creation and preservation of affordable housing.
Small business assistance during COVID
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Small businesses across Minnesota continue to struggle with the adverse health and
financial impacts resulting from COVID-19 and its variants. These businesses, which are both
the economic engine of the state and the bedrock of their communities, continue to be
vulnerable to significant employee challenges, revenue reductions and ultimately closures
stemming from the virus if additional actions are not taken. Continued federal and state
funding programs are needed to assist small businesses through the health crisis.
Position: The City supports continuing financial relief programs (such as grants and low interest
loans) to help sustain the state’s small businesses until the global health crisis has been
brought further under control. Such funding should particularly include assistance for the
state’s women and BIPOC-owned businesses as well as self-employed and sole proprietor
entrepreneurs.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities
DEED Program Funding
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: The Department of Employment & Economic Development (DEED) is critically important
in the support of communities and local economic development initiatives. DEED manages
several programs utilized by the city that have positively impacted St. Louis Park.
Position: St. Louis Park supports the continued annual funding of DEED programs at stable,
sustainable, or increased levels as it is vital to economic growth across Minnesota. Programs
administered by DEED and other state agencies include Small Business Development Centers,
the Minnesota Investment Fund, the Job Creation Fund, Contamination Cleanup and
Investigation Grant Program, Redevelopment Grant Program, Transportation Economic
Development Infrastructure Program and proposed new financing tools that support
development along transit corridors. The city further supports the continuation of the Angel Tax
Credit to spur the startup of high-technology businesses Minnesota. Communities rely on these
programs to remain competitive with neighboring states in their efforts to bring jobs back to
Minnesota and expand the tax base.
Special Service Districts Statutory Authority
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: In 1988, cities were granted general authority under Minn. Stat. § 428A.01 to§ 428A.101
to establish Special Service Districts. As the law is currently written, only commercial properties
can financially participate within Special Service Districts. This is challenging for funding
additional services within mixed-use project areas as they have multiple types of property. The
City of St. Louis Park has established six Special Service Districts, including multiple sections of
Excelsior Boulevard. Providing infrastructure improvements and on-going maintenance at the
LRT station near these areas may be impacted by this law.
Position: The city supports the inclusion of multi-family housing developments as financial
participants within Special Service Districts and the establishment of Special Service Districts
around transit and LRT station areas.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 6
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities
Building and Energy Issues
Advanced state energy code
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions of buildings is a major component
toward achieving the St. Louis Park Climate Action Plan, especially for larger commercial
structures. Continuing to construct new buildings to the current MN State energy code is
counterproductive as requirements are dated and allow for relatively high energy consumption.
Future retrofitting of these buildings to reduce energy and carbon emissions will be costly and
difficult.
The cities of Bloomington, Edina, Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, St. Paul, and Rochester (Planning
Team cities) began convening a series of meetings during 2019 with other cities from across the
state to discuss the topic of how to advance energy performance in new construction and
major renovations of buildings in Minnesota. This group is called the Cities Advanced Building
Performance Work Group.
St. Louis Park and St. Paul staff represented cities on the Minnesota Department of Commerce
(Commerce) and the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) Building Efficiency
Workgroup. The purpose was to explore potential policy solutions that will enable cities to
voluntarily promote or otherwise ensure greater energy performance measures for commercial
and multifamily residential buildings.
Position: Support legislation to adopt developing a more advanced state energy code and/or
allowing for local adoption of more efficient building standards.
Construction codes – limiting local regulatory authority
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Recent discussions on affordable housing solutions includes agencies advocating for
housing programs for primarily multiple family developments, and local home builders pursuing
reduced regulatory authority by the state and cities. Last year, the Builders Association of the
Twin Cities working through a newly created branch organization called Housing First MN,
worked toward a bill that was defeated. Requiring new construction codes could increase cost
to receive legislative committee approval before being adopted, potentially halting progress in
public safety and energy conservation standards. Additionally, these groups proposed
restricting or eliminating local land use standards developed by communities for livability.
Position: Although St. Louis Park strongly supports and encourages affordable housing,
minimum code requirements for energy conservation and building safety should not be
compromised on the concept of reducing construction costs to builders. In addition, local land
use and zoning standards for establishing quality of life standards in each community should
not be limited by legislative action.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 7
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities
Maintain local establishment of appropriate fee-for-service programs
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Calls for affordable housing by the construction industry mistakes codes and fees as being
the cause of rising home values as opposed to other causes like rapidly increasing price of
building materials and construction labor.
Position: Maintain a consistent minimum standard for building safety, longevity, and energy
conservation, and allow local government units to continue with fee-for-service programs as
currently outlined in statute (e.g., reasonable, and justifiable).
Safeguard public code administration employees
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: As public safety regulators, inspectors often face hostility from members of the public. A
no tolerance position for abusive behavior should be adopted. Assaults and murder have
occurred on code officials in the normal course of performing their duties for a local
government unit.
Position: Support Minnesota League of Cities SD-32 Assaults on Code Enforcement Officials. The
change would move assault charges from the current fifth degree, or misdemeanor, to a more
stringent fourth degree, a gross misdemeanor, by expanding the public Employees with
Mandated Duties statute to include code enforcement officials.
Environment and sustainability
(Climate Action Plan, Request directed to State Legislature, Met Council & Hennepin County)
Issue: The city adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in February 2018 with the ambitious goal of
achieving carbon neutrality (having a net zero carbon footprint) by 2040. The Climate Action
Plan outlines specific activities and goals the city will undertake to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. The plan includes seven mid-term goals by 2030 to keep the city on track, they
include:
• Reduce energy consumption in large commercial buildings by 30 percent
• Reduce energy consumption in small- to mid -size commercial buildings 30 percent
• Design and build all new construction to be net-zero energy Reduce energy
consumption in residential buildings 35 percent Achieve 100 percent renewable
electricity
• Reduce vehicle emissions by 25 percent
• Reduce solid waste 50 percent from business as usual
Position: The city supports the statewide adoption of similar goals to those in the St. Louis Park
Climate Action Plan and requests ongoing support to achieve these goals. The city supports
legislation that helps climate action planning by reducing energy usage and greenhouse- gas
emissions. In addition, the city supports legislation that provides state funding for energy
conservation and renewable energy initiatives.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 8
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities
Transportation Issues
Redesign and reconstruction of CSAH (county state aid highway) 25
(Request directed to Hennepin County)
Issue: The city and county have developed a long-term vision to transform the CSAH 25 Corridor
from the rural design through-route it is today to a multimodal urban boulevard with well-
designed landscape architecture and place-making features. The goal is to transform this
Hennepin County road into an amenity rich, pedestrian and bicycle friendly, transit-oriented
Boulevard, between Trunk Highway 100 and France Avenue. A clear long-term vision for CSAH
25 will serve to guide both public and private investment in this corridor. Already, the SWLRT
Beltline station, park & ride, and proposed Beltline Station Redevelopment project is beginning
to transform the west end of this corridor. The Shoreham mixed-use project started the
transformation at the east end, followed by Parkway 25 and the current Parkway Residences
project which continue the redevelopment pattern of the east end. The new concept for CSAH
25, which was developed in concert with Hennepin County, supports a change to a more urban
place that provides safe, attractive access to the Beltline LRT station in St. Louis Park and the
neighboring W. Lake Street LRT station in Minneapolis.
Analysis: The transformation of CSAH 25 into an urban boulevard would include the following
actions and considerations:
• A commitment from Hennepin County, with involvement from Minneapolis, to changing
the corridor.
• CSAH 25 serves many important functions and is home to a surprising number of
businesses, residents, and property owners. All stakeholders should be informed and
involved in the design processes.
• Integration of the planned improvements associated with SWLRT between Beltline
Boulevard and Lynn Avenue and the W. Lake Street multi-modal transportation plan into
the vision for the corridor.
• Strong connections to existing and planned bicycle routes, filling the existing gap in
access to the Cedar Lake Trail from the north.
• Providing space for pedestrians in the corridor and safe connections across CSAH 25 to
get to destinations. This includes amenities and landscaping to create a place where
people want to walk and spend time.
• Addressing storm water drainage and treatment.
• Consideration of the east end triangle-shaped area, where Minnetonka Blvd, CSAH 25,
France Avenue and W. Lake Street meet. This area presents both opportunities for
gateway treatments for both Minneapolis and St Louis Park as well as operational
challenges for the pedestrians, bicyclists, and local businesses.
• Consideration of a new name for the roadway that provides a positive identity while
eliminating the currently existing address confusion. Just as CSAH 5 is also named
Minnetonka Boulevard, CSAH 25 needs a street name around which an image and
identity can be built. In the case of CSAH 25, there is added confusion because of its
history of being originally part of MN Highway 7, a name that continues to be used by
many.
• Development of a funding and phasing plan. Transforming CSAH 25 will be a large
project and will take time and significant resources to implement. New development in
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 9
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities
the corridor may be able to play a significant role in funding the transformation, but
timing will be critical for that to happen.
Position: We thank Hennepin County for their participation in the redesign process and request
the County’s support and funding for the actual rehabilitation/reconstruction of CSAH 25.
Texas avenue/Minnetonka Blvd. intersection reconstruction
(Request directed to Hennepin County)
Issue: Texas Avenue between Lake Street and Wayzata Boulevard is one of the few continuous
north-to-south roadway connections in the City of St. Louis Park. The city reconstructed the
section of Texas Avenue from Lake Street to 400 feet south of Minnetonka Boulevard in 2017
and 2018. The new roadway includes bicycle, pedestrian and intersection improvements that
have greatly increased the efficiency and safety in this segment of the corridor. The road
project stopped short of the Minnetonka boulevard intersection. In 2016 and 2018 a bikeway
was installed along Texas Avenue north of Minnetonka Boulevard. There has been significant
private investment in the Texa Tonka area. In 2020, the Texa Tonka shopping center reopened
after a two-year renovation. In September 2021, construction started on a multi-family
development at the north east corner of this intersection. To complete the upgrade of the
Texas Avenue corridor, we would like to partner with Hennepin County on the reconstruction of
the intersection. The new intersection would include separate bicycle facilities, sidewalk
improvements, better sightlines for drivers, signal replacement, and ADA upgrades. All things
that are much needed at this location.
Analysis: To extend the bicycle, pedestrian and roadway enhancements that were completed to
the south and to the north of the Minnetonka Boulevard intersection the following items would
need to be addressed.
• Sidewalks: The sidewalks require updating to meet ADA requirements for pedestrian
ramps, width, and clearance from obstructions.
• Bike lanes: In 2018, the county enhanced the bike lanes on Minnetonka Boulevard.
However, at the intersection, these lanes do not have adequate space. The same is true
for the bikeway on Texas Avenue. Most bicycle related crashes occur at intersections, it
is important to maintain the bikeway through the intersection to eliminate confusion for
all users of the road.
• Intersection modifications: the city has developed a layout for this intersection that will
greatly improve the way it operates for all users. Eliminating sightlines issues, creating
space for bicycles and pedestrians.
• Replace signal system: The new signal system and intersection geometrics should be
updated to include flashing yellow arrows and turn lanes as needed to improve traffic
flow. The signal should be able to detect bicycles. Finally, the pedestrian push buttons
will be replaced to meet ADA requirements.
Position: The city is requesting that Hennepin County partner with the City for the
reconstruction of the Texas Avenue/Minnetonka Blvd intersection.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 10
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities
Southwest LRT
(Directed to State Legislature, Met Council & Hennepin County)
Position: The City continues to strongly support the Southwest LRT Project.
Transportation funding
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: A comprehensive transportation system is a vital component in planning for and meeting
the physical, social, and economic needs of our state and metropolitan region. Adequate and
stable sources of funding are necessary to ensure the development and maintenance of a high
quality, efficient and safe transportation system to meet these needs.
Analysis: Under current transportation financing structures, funding for the existing
transportation system in the metropolitan region continues to be inadequate. Our
transportation funding relies primarily on local property taxes, local fees, gas tax, and the motor
vehicle sales tax (MVST). Automobiles are becoming more fuel efficient and MVST receipts
continue to lag projections, resulting in funding levels that continually fail to meet needs.
Transportation funding and planning must be a high priority for state, regional and local
policymakers so that the regional transportation system can sufficiently meet the needs of the
state’s residents and businesses and its projected population growth. This includes the
municipal state aid system. In addition, cities lack adequate tools and resources for the
maintenance and improvement of local systems, with funding sources restricted to property
taxes, local fees, and special assessments. Cost participation requirements for state and county
roads can overburdened city budgets. It is imperative that alternative revenue generating
authority be granted to municipalities and additional state resources be made available for this
purpose to relieve the burden on the property tax system.
Position:
The city supports:
• Stable and sufficient statewide transportation funding, for all modes of travel
• Local tools to meet the long-term transportation system needs of the city
• Funding to assist cities overburdened by cost participation responsibilities
• State funding for state and county highway projects, including congestion and safety
improvements
• State financial assistance, as well as innovations in design and construction
Transit financing
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: The Twin Cities metropolitan area is served by a regional transit system that is expanding
to include rail transit and dedicated busways. Any operating subsidies necessary to support this
system should come from a regional or statewide funding source. The property taxpayers of
individual cities and counties should not be required to fund the operation of specific transit
lines or routes of service within this regional system.
Analysis: MVST revenue projections have not been reliable, and the Legislature has repeatedly
reduced general fund support for Metropolitan Transit. As a result, the regional transit
providers continue to operate at a funding deficit. Shifting demographics in the metropolitan
region will mean increased demand for transit in areas with and without current transit service.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 11
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities
Position: The city supports stable and growing revenue sources to fund the operating budget
for all regional transit providers at a level sufficient to meet the growing operational and capital
transit needs of the region and to expand the system to areas that currently have little or no
transit options. The city also supports an increase in the regional sales tax to fund the
expansion of regular route service, continuing capital expenses, and expanded operational
needs of the metropolitan transit system. If the increase is accompanied by sufficient local
controls over the collection and expenditure of the new revenue and geographic balance is
maintained in the expansion of service to allow cities to appropriately plan for growth in
population and service needs along new and expanded transit service. The city opposes
diversions of the uses of this tax for any other purposes.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 12
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities
Public Safety Issues
Police trainee/non-traditional pathway to policing program
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: The candidate pool for police officers in Minnesota continues to shrink in number and
diversity of candidates. There is a narrowing in the representation of a candidate’s diversity
including but not limited to race and ethnicity; gender; age and related life experience; and
academic and career development in other disciplines. During the 2017 legislative session
$400,000 was appropriated for communities participating in this new program on a 50/50 cost
split. The City of St. Louis Park and other cities have used this approach as a tool for diversifying
their departments, often partnering together to fill vacancies. Since 2017, St. Louis Park has
hired 5 officers (one each year) via this program and finds it to be successful. The need to
create a wider and deeper candidate pool will continue to be a long-term challenge for all
police departments in the state.
Position: The city requests that this funding not only be maintained but increased in future
biennia.
Railway safety of hazardous materials and oil train operations
(Request directed to State)
Issue: There will be continued flow of hazardous material commodities including but not limited
to crude oil and ethanol at current or increased levels in the future in St. Louis Park.
Analysis: The demand for these commodities and the proximity of facilities in Minneapolis that
use them may make St Louis Park an alternative for managing heavy traffic and staging within
the system. The potential risks across the system include the BNSF, CP and TCW lines. Track
improvements that result from the SWLRT will allow for higher speeds and safer options for the
rail companies to consider through St Louis Park.
Position: St. Louis Park needs to be an active participant in legislative discussions around the
accountability, safety and funding of accident prevention and responder training, and
information sharing. The city supports funding for community awareness, mitigation, and
resiliency efforts as well. Rail companies need to be required to share the needed information
for response and mitigation. The city also supports reinstatement of fees on railroads and
pipelines as outlined in 2018-HF3775/SF3527.
Local control of emergency medical services
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Current laws regulating emergency medical services (EMS) in Minnesota allow ambulance
providers the ability to provide EMS services in an exclusive operating area known as a Primary
Service Area (PSA) for an indefinite amount of time with little or no oversight or transparency.
Analysis: Ambulance services currently have no response time requirement from the
Emergency Medical Services Regulatory Board (EMSRB) - the state's EMS regulatory agency
which oversees and issues ambulance licenses. The EMSRB also has no oversight on ambulance
billing rates, while ambulance services (both public and private) have the ability to use revenue
recapture to receive unpaid bills from an individual's state tax returns. These are only a few of
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 13
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities
the many examples of the limited oversight of ambulance services in the state. The current
system does not require ambulance services to disclose the number of staffed ambulances,
where the ambulance is responding from, or any other important data points that would
ensure a community is receiving quality ambulance services. While the current structure of
Minnesota's EMS regulations is intended to create exclusive operating areas, there are
numerous overlapping service areas across the state with no guidance on who has the authority
to determine which provider is the primary ambulance service for those overlapped areas.
Position: It is our belief that local units of government who are closest to the service delivery
area are best positioned to determine who the licensed ambulance provider is, what level of
service is provided, and should have the authority to ensure there is transparency. The city
proposes uncoupling professional standards overview by the EMSRB from the service area
determination. This would allow the local unit of government to determine who provides
service within their political boundary. This allows the professional standards to continue to be
set by the EMSRB which is made up of industry professionals and stakeholders.
Oppose statutory prohibition on residential fire sprinklers
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: The Appellate Court struck down the Department of Labor and Industries (DLI) adoption
of the latest International Residential Code (IRC). The IRC is for building new single-family and
duplex homes, which had a provision for residential fire sprinklers in newly constructed one-
and two-family homes that were 4,500 sq. feet and larger.
Analysis: The sprinkler provision was challenged on whether it was done legally and
appropriately. Therefore, the requirement to build these homes safer using sprinklers is no
longer in effect. This is a concern because, in terms of fire safety, the most dangerous place to
be is at home. In addition, most often the victims of a fire are the young and elderly, who have
a more difficult time getting out in an emergency situation. Residential fire sprinklers save lives
and are cost-effective. Recent studies in Minnesota show the cost of installing residential fire
sprinkler systems averages $1.15 per sprinkled square foot, or approximately 1% of new home
construction.
Position: The city opposes efforts that prohibit future adoption of residential fire sprinkler
codes.
Oppose expansion of legal fireworks
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: There is a continued effort to expand the sale and use of a wider variety of fireworks
Analysis: Under a proposed bill, the measure would prohibit cities from banning the sale of
fireworks, but it allows cities to pass ordinances banning people from using fireworks. Exploding
fireworks would be available for purchase from June 1 to July 7, the use is not restricted. In the
city of St. Louis Park where both business and residential properties are in close proximity there
is an unacceptable level of risk given that many buildings are wood frame combustible
construction, non-sprinkled and high occupancy. There is an inherent danger in aerial fireworks
which cause a number of injuries and pose a serious fire risk.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 14
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities
Position: The city opposes the following legislation which expands fireworks in Minnesota
• Tents (2018 - HF328/SF235)
• Bricks and Mortar (2017- HF1395/SF1191
Continued health insurance coverage for disabled public safety officers
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: MS299A.465 states that the employer is responsible for continued payment of their
contribution for health insurance coverage for police officers, firefighters, and dependents, if
applicable, that were disabled in the line of duty. Although cities may request a reimbursement
of the health insurance payments, only a fraction is reimbursed from the Department of Public
Safety, resulting in increasing costs due to this functionally unfunded mandate.
Position: The city has only been partially reimbursed for the cost of this mandate. Over the past
10 years, the city has paid over $289,000 in health contributions for disabled public safety
officers, and only 23% of the city’s 2020 request was reimbursed. The city requests that this
mandate be fully funded by the state.
Criminal background checks
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Every day in Minnesota guns are sold by unlicensed sellers without first conducting a
criminal background check to ensure that the buyer is not a prohibited purchaser.
Analysis: The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 stipulates that individuals "engaged in the
business" of selling firearms must possess a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Holders of FFLs are
required to conduct background checks and maintain a record of all their firearm sales. Certain
gun sales and transfers between private individuals, however, are exempt from this
requirement. Those who would fail a background check can access firearms through these
sources. Unlike an FFL, the seller is not required to conduct a background check to determine
whether the purchaser is prohibited from purchasing and possessing a gun. Federal, state, local
and tribal laws should be enacted to close these loopholes. If all gun sales proceed through an
FFL, a single, consistent system for conducting gun sales, including background checks, will be
established. Current law to ensure gun purchasers go through FFLs are undermined by
oversights in the law that allow individuals prohibited from owning firearms to obtain weapons
at events such as gun shows without undergoing a background check.
Position: The City supports preventing individuals who are not legally able to purchase a gun
from doing so without background checks at gun shows, online, or in private transactions. This
proposal would close the online, gun show, and individual sale loophole by requiring all sales to
at least have a criminal background check at the point of sale at an FFL before a transaction is
legally allowed to occur.
Investments for mandated law enforcement training
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Position: The city supports continuing the POST Board training reimbursement allocation to
local agencies, which began in 2018, into fiscal year 2022-2023 through the Peace Officer
Training Fund. This funding helps provide mandated training in the areas of recognizing and
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 15
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities
valuing diversity and cultural differences, conflict management and mediation, crisis
intervention and resolving mental Illness crises.
Gun violence protective orders (GVPOS)
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Position: The city supports allowing law enforcement, qualified health care practitioners, family
members, and intimate partners who believe an individual's dangerous behavior has a
substantial likelihood to lead to violence to request an order from a civil court authorizing law
enforcement to temporarily remove any guns in the individual's possession and to prohibit new
gun purchases for the duration of the order.
Statewide data collection on race and/or ethnicity for stopped motorists
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: There is not a statewide method of collecting a motorist's race or ethnicity for traffic
stops. Some police departments ask officers to report a person's race and/or ethnicity. This
option results in officers making assumptions on the motorist's race and/or ethnicity and can
lead to inaccurate data.
Analysis: A statewide system would allow for agencies to submit, and most importantly review,
accurate data to determine whether racial profiling is a problem in cities across the state. This
information allows for greater police transparency and accountability.
Position: The city supports a statewide system that accurately tracks information on traffic
stops, including race and ethnicity, of stopped motorists.
Permit to Purchase Firearms/Permit to Carry
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Currently the Permits to Purchase Firearms statute (MN Stat. 624.7131; 624.7132)
requires local law enforcement agencies to complete required background checks within 7 days
and the Permit to Carry (MN Stat. 624.714) statute requires a county’s sheriff department to
complete the required background checks within 30 days.
Analysis: The St. Louis Park Police Department completes approximately 300 permit to
purchase background checks per year. In 2020, the St. Louis Park Police Department anticipates
having to complete approximately 500 permit to purchase backgrounds checks. Aligning the
two statutes to require the background checks be done in 30 days would allow local law
enforcement agencies more time to complete thorough background checks and reduce the
number of applicants who attempt to buy a firearm on impulse.
Position: St. Louis Park supports aligning the Permit to Purchase Firearms statutes (MN Stat.
624.7131; 624. 7132) with the Permit to Carry (MN Stat. 624.714) statute in terms of the time
required for conducting background checks (from 7 to 30 days).
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 16
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities
General Issues
Local control
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Cities are often laboratories for determining public policy approaches to the challenges
that face residents. Success in providing for the basic needs of a functional society is rooted in
local control to determine how best to respond to the ever-changing needs of residential
populations. Because city government most directly impacts the lives of people, and
representative democracy ensures that locally elected officials are held accountable for their
decisions through local elections, local governments must have sufficient authority and
flexibility to meet the challenges of governing and providing citizens with public services.
Position: Individual communities should be allowed to tailor their services to meet the unique
needs of their residents without mandates and policy restrictions imposed by state and federal
policy makers. The state should recognize that local governments, of all sizes, are often the first
to identify problems and inventive solutions to solve them and should encourage further
innovation by increasing local control. The state should not enact initiatives that erode the
fundamental principle of local control in cities across Minnesota.
Levy limits
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: During the 2008 legislative session, levy limits were imposed for three years (2009-2011)
on cities over 2,500 in population.
A one-time levy limit was applied to taxes levied in 2013, payable in 2014. This was in effect for
all counties with a population of 5,000 and over and cities with a population of 2,500 and over.
All cities with a population less than 2,500, all towns, and all special taxing districts were
exempt from the limits.
Levy limits replace local accountability with a state judgment about the appropriate level of
local taxation and local services. Additionally, state restrictions on local budgets can have a
negative effect on a city's bond rating due to the restriction on revenue flexibility.
Position: St. Louis Park opposes efforts to establish a levy limit or other proposed restrictions
for local government budgets. Based on our legislative policies that strongly support local
budgetary decision making, St. Louis Park opposes levy limits of any type.
Legal notices: eliminate requirement for paid publication
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Current law requires print ads for “proceedings, official notices, and summaries” in local
newspapers. In the 2011 Session, House File 162 called for allowing political subdivisions (cities,
counties, school boards, etc.) to replace the print ads with a single annual notice stating that all
such notices would appear on the political subdivision’s website (e.g., a city or county website).
Additionally, businesses working with the city or bidding on city projects find it cumbersome to
monitor many different publications. Publishing legal notices on the city website instead allows
for the potential to reach a much greater audience in St. Louis Park than via the local
newspaper, which only reaches about half of the community.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 17
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities
Position: The city continues to support the elimination of this requirement, which would save
cities thousands of dollars in annual publishing costs.
Urban forest management funding - emerald ash borer
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Emerald ash borer (EAB) threatens our investment in trees. The costs for control and
removal can be catastrophic and put pressure on city budgets. Specifically, EAB is the most
destructive and economically costly forest pest ever to invade North America. Ash trees killed
by EAB become brittle very quickly and will begin to fall apart and threaten overhead cables
and power lines, vehicles, buildings, and people. Few cities are prepared, and no city can easily
afford the costs and the liability threats resulting from EAB. Peer-reviewed studies have
confirmed that a coordinated, landscape-based strategy is more cost effective than fighting EAB
city by city.
In addition, there are new maintenance costs for the hundreds of thousands of new trees that
are being installed because of EAB. The lack of juvenile tree maintenance and pruning in
maturing trees from the mass plantings after Dutch elm disease presents an opportunity to
address this now with EAB infestation programing.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, through its Urban and Community Forestry
program, and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, through its Shade Tree and Invasive
Species program, currently have regulatory authority to direct tree sanitation and control
programs. Although these programs allow for addressing some tree disease, pest, and other
problems, funding levels have been inadequate to meet the need of cities to build capacity for
urban tree programs and respond to catastrophic problems. A lack of timely investment in
urban forests costs cities significantly more in the long run. Further, more and more cities are
facing immediate costs for the identification, removal, replacement, and treatment of EAB as it
spreads across the state. The state has no program to assist cities in covering those expenses.
Position: St. Louis Park supports funding from the general fund or other appropriate state funds
for a state matching grant program to provide technical assistance and grants to communities
for EAB management/removal costs and related practices. Specifically, direct grants to cities are
desperately needed for the identification, removal, replacement, and treatment of trees
related to management of EAB. The state should establish an ongoing grant program with at
least $5 million per year that is usable for those activities
Records retention related to correspondence
(Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: HF 1185 was introduced during the 2017 legislative session relating to data practices that
included changing the definition of “correspondence” in government record retention law to
include social media and text messaging and requiring a minimum three-year retention period
for correspondence.
Analysis: The proposed bill was designed to provide a statewide standard retention period for
correspondence. Concerns with the bill include an unfunded mandate on cities (especially small
ones) to meet the new requirements, and the burden of including social media and text
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 18
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities
messaging in the definition of correspondence. Social media and text messaging capture
typically requires separate capture software/hardware than email, and thus contributes to
increased costs. Additionally, the various device providers (Verizon, Apple, etc.) typically
require separate legal order from the court to obtain text message records for an individual if
the message is not actively stored on the device. This contributes to increased legal costs and is
overly burdensome on local jurisdictions.
Position: The city opposes the bill in its current form. Delaying full inclusion of social media and
text messaging to future years so the State can include funding options (and possibly some
standards) would be helpful. The city does support a standard correspondence retention period
and feels the proposed 3 year minimum is reasonable. That said, not every city is funded or
technically ready to do this. As a result, the city currently endorses the LMC position on the role
that should be fulfilled by existing records retention requirements. The current LMC position is
to oppose HF 1185.
Telecommunications and information technology
(Request directed to State and Federal Legislature)
Issue: Telecommunications and information technology is essential public infrastructure for the
efficient, equitable, and affordable delivery of local government services to residents and
businesses. Telecommunications includes voice, video, data, and services delivered over cable,
telephone, fiber-optic, wireless, and all other platforms.
Analysis: The city and League of Minnesota Cities supports a balanced approach to
telecommunications policy that allows new technologies to flourish while preserving local
regulatory authority. Regulations and oversight of telecommunications services are important
prerogatives for local government to advance community interests, including the provision of
high-quality basic services that meet local needs, spur economic development, and are
available at affordable rates to all consumers. For the City of St. Louis Park, this is also
consistent with its priority efforts to advance racial equity and to be a technology connected
community. Supportive policies should also not diminish local authority to work cooperatively
with other public agencies, non-profit organizations, and the private sector to broaden choice
and competition of telecommunications services to meet local needs.
Position: The city opposes the adoption of state and federal policies that restrict cities’ ability to
finance, construct, or operate telecommunications networks.
Cable franchising authority
(request directed to state and federal legislature)
Issue: In 2019, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an Order known as the
“621 Order” which took effect with the potential to significantly reduce franchise fee and
public, educational and government (PEG) fee revenue received by cities from cable operators.
In response, a petition for review was filed in federal court (Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
seeking review of the 621 Order on the grounds that it is arbitrary and capricious, violates
federal law and is otherwise contrary to the law. Oral arguments were scheduled for April 2021.
On May 26, 2021, the Sixth Circuit of Appeals issues its decision regarding the 621 order,
upholding it in part and reversing it in part as follows: PEG transport and free service to schools
and government buildings – “in-kind” services The Court held that noncash (or “in-kind”) cable-
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 19
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities
related obligations mandated by the Cable Act are not franchise fees. But noncash cable-related
exactions such as free cable service or PEG transport that the Cable Act merely permits a
franchising authority to impose, are franchise fees and thus count toward the 5% cap. As a
result, a city may now be required to pay for these in-kind services. However, the Court
softened the impact of this conclusion by holding that when calculating the cost of these in-kind
services a cable operator can assign a value equal to the cable operator’s “marginal cost” in
providing them. This is a significant victory for local franchising authorities, as the 621 Order
had concluded that an operator could charge the “fair market value” of the in-kind obligations.
However, calculating marginal cost is a complex proposition and will likely be a source of
considerable debate between the cable industry and local franchising authorities. At this time
the City of St. Louis Park has not been approached by Comcast regarding imposing these
marginal costs, and in fact a new 10-year cable franchise agreement was recently completed
with no mention of imposing these fees. Nevertheless, it’s an issue we will continue to monitor.
Local authority over broadband services – the “Mixed use” rule. The main issue at stake under
the “mixed use” rule is whether the 621 Order’s broad preemption of state and local authority
over the ever-expanding broadband services being provided by cable companies is authorized
by the Cable Act. The Court held that the imposition of a broadband fee on a cable operator
circumvents the Cable Act’s limitations and thus the fee is not “consistent with” the Cable Act
and is therefore preempted. This decision on mixed use likely will not end the debate regarding
the imposition of right-of-way fees on broadband services. The Court’s detailed analysis will
leave both local governments and the cable industry with plenty to consider as this issue
continues to evolve. Local governments and municipal organizations have filed Petitions for
Rehearing asking the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to revisit the May 26, 2021, decision. The
Petitions ask the Court for rehearing with respect to the finding that most cable franchise
requirements are “franchise fees” under the Cable Act as well as with respect to the
preemption portion of the decision as applied to the broadband services provided by cable
operators.
Position: The City of St. Louis Park participated in the joint appeal of the 621 Order, along with
many other cities and cable commissions from Minnesota and across the country. The
Legislature, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Congress should also continue to
recognize, support and maintain the exercise of local franchising authority to encourage
increased competition between incumbent cable system operators and new wireline
competitive video service providers including: maintaining provisions in Minn. Stat. Ch. 238 that
establish and uphold local franchising authority, including the authority to receive a gross
revenues based franchise fee and local authority over areas including: control and access to
public rights-of-way by all video and cable service providers; fees on providers to ensure the
provision of public, educational, and governmental (PEG) programming; video channels and
video streaming for PEG programming equivalent to that of the local broadcast stations;
ensuring programming is accessible and searchable through detailed Electronic Programming
Guide listings that are equivalent to that of local broadcast stations; access to capacity on
institutional networks (I-Nets) provided by local cable system operators for public safety
communications, libraries, schools, and other public institutions; and strengthening local
authority to enforce customer service standards and transparency in pricing.
99.1 (2) "retirement base amount" means the deductible amount for the taxable year for the
99.2 claimant and spouse under section 219(b)(5)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code, adjusted for
99.3 inflation as provided in section 219(b)(5)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code, without regard
99.4 to whether the claimant or spouse claimed a deduction; and
99.5 (3) "traditional or Roth style retirement account or plan" means retirement plans under
99.6 sections 401, 403, 408, 408A, and 457 of the Internal Revenue Code.
99.7 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective for refund claims based on property taxes
99.8 payable in 2022 and rent paid in 2021 and thereafter.
99.9 Sec. 15. Minnesota Statutes 2020, section 429.021, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
99.10 Subdivision 1.Improvements authorized.The council of a municipality shall have
99.11 power to make the following improvements:
99.12 (1) To acquire, open, and widen any street, and to improve the same by constructing,
99.13 reconstructing, and maintaining sidewalks, pavement, gutters, curbs, and vehicle parking
99.14 strips of any material, or by grading, graveling, oiling, or otherwise improving the same,
99.15 including the beautification thereof and including storm sewers or other street drainage and
99.16 connections from sewer, water, or similar mains to curb lines.
99.17 (2) To acquire, develop, construct, reconstruct, extend, and maintain storm and sanitary
99.18 sewers and systems, including outlets, holding areas and ponds, treatment plants, pumps,
99.19 lift stations, service connections, and other appurtenances of a sewer system, within and
99.20 without the corporate limits.
99.21 (3) To construct, reconstruct, extend, and maintain steam heating mains.
99.22 (4) To install, replace, extend, and maintain street lights and street lighting systems and
99.23 special lighting systems.
99.24 (5) To acquire, improve, construct, reconstruct, extend, and maintain water works systems,
99.25 including mains, valves, hydrants, service connections, wells, pumps, reservoirs, tanks,
99.26 treatment plants, and other appurtenances of a water works system, within and without the
99.27 corporate limits.
99.28 (6) To acquire, improve and equip parks, open space areas, playgrounds, and recreational
99.29 facilities within or without the corporate limits.
99.30 (7) To plant trees on streets and provide for their trimming, care, and removal.
99.31 (8) To abate nuisances and to drain swamps, marshes, and ponds on public or private
99.32 property and to fill the same.
99Article 6 Sec. 15.
REVISOR EAP/CH 21-0431906/13/21
Study session meeting of Nov. 8, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities Page 20
100.1 (9) To construct, reconstruct, extend, and maintain dikes and other flood control works.
100.2 (10) To construct, reconstruct, extend, and maintain retaining walls and area walls.
100.3 (11) To acquire, construct, reconstruct, improve, alter, extend, operate, maintain, and
100.4 promote a pedestrian skyway system. Such improvement may be made upon a petition
100.5 pursuant to section 429.031, subdivision 3.
100.6 (12) To acquire, construct, reconstruct, extend, operate, maintain, and promote
100.7 underground pedestrian concourses.
100.8 (13) To acquire, construct, improve, alter, extend, operate, maintain, and promote public
100.9 malls, plazas or courtyards.
100.10 (14) To construct, reconstruct, extend, and maintain district heating systems.
100.11 (15) To construct, reconstruct, alter, extend, operate, maintain, and promote fire protection
100.12 systems in existing buildings, but only upon a petition pursuant to section 429.031,
100.13 subdivision 3.
100.14 (16) To acquire, construct, reconstruct, improve, alter, extend, and maintain highway
100.15 sound barriers.
100.16 (17) To improve, construct, reconstruct, extend, and maintain gas and electric distribution
100.17 facilities owned by a municipal gas or electric utility.
100.18 (18) To purchase, install, and maintain signs, posts, and other markers for addressing
100.19 related to the operation of enhanced 911 telephone service.
100.20 (19) To improve, construct, extend, and maintain facilities for Internet access and other
100.21 communications purposes, if the council finds that:
100.22 (i) the facilities are necessary to make available Internet access or other communications
100.23 services that are not and will not be available through other providers or the private market
100.24 in the reasonably foreseeable future; and
100.25 (ii) the service to be provided by the facilities will not compete with service provided
100.26 by private entities.
100.27 (20) To assess affected property owners for all or a portion of the costs agreed to with
100.28 an electric utility, telecommunications carrier, or cable system operator to bury or alter a
100.29 new or existing distribution system within the public right-of-way that exceeds the utility's
100.30 design and construction standards, or those set by law, tariff, or franchise, but only upon
100.31 petition under section 429.031, subdivision 3.
100Article 6 Sec. 15.
REVISOR EAP/CH 21-0431906/13/21
Study session meeting of Nov. 8, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities Page 21
101.1 (21) To assess affected property owners for repayment of voluntary energy improvement
101.2 financings under section 216C.436, subdivision 7, or 216C.437, subdivision 28.
101.3 (22) To construct, reconstruct, alter, extend, operate, maintain, and promote energy
101.4 improvement projects in existing buildings, provided that:
101.5 (i) a petition for the improvement is made by a property owner under section 429.031,
101.6 subdivision 3;
101.7 (ii) the municipality funds and administers the energy improvement project;
101.8 (iii) project funds are only used for the installation of improvements to heating,
101.9 ventilation, and air conditioning equipment and building envelope and for the installation
101.10 of renewable energy systems;
101.11 (iv) each property owner petitioning for the improvement receives notice that free or
101.12 low-cost energy improvements may be available under federal, state, or utility programs;
101.13 (v) for energy improvement projects on residential property, only residential property
101.14 having five or more units may obtain financing for projects under this clause; and
101.15 (vi) prior to financing an energy improvement project or imposing an assessment for a
101.16 project, written notice is provided to the mortgage lender of any mortgage encumbering or
101.17 otherwise secured by the property proposed to be improved.
101.18 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective for special assessments payable in 2022
101.19 and thereafter.
101.20 Sec. 16. Minnesota Statutes 2020, section 429.031, subdivision 3, is amended to read:
101.21 Subd. 3.Petition by all owners.Whenever all owners of real property abutting upon
101.22 any street named as the location of any improvement shall petition the council to construct
101.23 the improvement and to assess the entire cost against their property, the council may, without
101.24 a public hearing, adopt a resolution determining such fact and ordering the improvement.
101.25 The validity of the resolution shall not be questioned by any taxpayer or property owner or
101.26 the municipality unless an action for that purpose is commenced within 30 days after adoption
101.27 of the resolution as provided in section 429.036. Nothing herein prevents any property
101.28 owner from questioning the amount or validity of the special assessment against the owner's
101.29 property pursuant to section 429.081. In the case of a petition for the municipality to own
101.30 and install a fire protection system, energy improvement projects, a pedestrian skyway
101.31 system, or on-site water contaminant improvements, the petition must contain or be
101.32 accompanied by an undertaking satisfactory to the city by the petitioner that the petitioner
101Article 6 Sec. 16.
REVISOR EAP/CH 21-0431906/13/21
Study session meeting of Nov. 8, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities Page 22
141.1 (1) contractual obligations as defined in subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clauses (3) and
141.2 (4);
141.3 (2) the amount specified in the tax increment financing plan for activities qualifying
141.4 under subdivision 2, paragraph (b), that have not been funded with the proceeds of bonds
141.5 qualifying under paragraph (a), clause (1); and
141.6 (3) the additional expenditures permitted by the tax increment financing plan for housing
141.7 activities under an election under subdivision 2, paragraph (d), that have not been funded
141.8 with the proceeds of bonds qualifying under paragraph (a), clause (1).
141.9 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.
141.10 Sec. 5. CITIES OF MINNETONKA, RICHFIELD, AND ST. LOUIS PARK;
141.11 TEMPORARY TRANSFER OF INCREMENT AUTHORIZED.
141.12 Subdivision 1.Transfer of increment.(a) The city of Minnetonka, or its economic
141.13 development authority, may transfer tax increment accumulated for housing development
141.14 purposes under Minnesota Statutes, section 469.1763, subdivision 2, paragraph (b) or (d),
141.15 to the housing trust fund established by the city of Minnetonka under Minnesota Statutes,
141.16 section 462C.16. Increment transferred under this paragraph must be used as provided in
141.17 subdivision 2.
141.18 (b) The city of Richfield, or its economic development authority, may transfer tax
141.19 increment accumulated for housing development purposes under Minnesota Statutes, section
141.20 469.1763, subdivision 2, paragraph (b) or (d), to the housing trust fund established by the
141.21 city of Richfield under Minnesota Statutes, section 462C.16. Increment transferred under
141.22 this paragraph must be used as provided in subdivision 2.
141.23 (c) The city of St. Louis Park, or its economic development authority, may transfer tax
141.24 increment accumulated for housing development purposes under Minnesota Statutes, section
141.25 469.1763, subdivision 2, paragraph (b) or (d), to the housing trust fund established by the
141.26 city of St. Louis Park under Minnesota Statutes, section 462C.16. Increment transferred
141.27 under this paragraph must be used as provided in subdivision 2.
141.28 Subd. 2.Allowable use.Tax increment transferred under subdivision 1 must be used
141.29 only to:
141.30 (1) make grants, loans, and loan guarantees for the development, rehabilitation, or
141.31 financing of housing; or
141.32 (2) match other funds from federal, state, or private resources for housing projects.
141Article 9 Sec. 5.
REVISOR EAP/CH 21-0431906/13/21
Study session meeting of Nov. 8, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities Page 23
142.1 Subd. 3.Annual financial reporting.Tax increment transferred under this section is
142.2 subject to the annual reporting requirements under Minnesota Statutes, section 469.175,
142.3 subdivision 6.
142.4 Subd. 4.Legislative report.By February 1, 2024, and February 1, 2026, each city must
142.5 issue a report to the chairs and ranking minority members of the legislative committees with
142.6 jurisdiction over taxes and property taxes. The report must include detailed information
142.7 relating to each housing project financed with increment transferred under this section,
142.8 including, when applicable, the percentage of area median income relative to each housing
142.9 project, the total cost per housing project, the number of units per housing project, and
142.10 income and rent limitations required under federal, state, or local law for each housing
142.11 project.
142.12 Subd. 5.Expiration.The authority to make transfers under subdivision 1 expires
142.13 December 31, 2026.
142.14 EFFECTIVE DATE.(a) Subdivision 1, paragraph (a), is effective the day after the
142.15 governing body of the city of Minnetonka and its chief clerical officer comply with the
142.16 requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 645.021, subdivisions 2 and 3.
142.17 (b) Subdivision 1, paragraph (b), is effective the day after the governing body of the city
142.18 of Richfield and its chief clerical officer comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes,
142.19 section 645.021, subdivisions 2 and 3.
142.20 (c) Subdivision 1, paragraph (c), is effective the day after the governing body of the city
142.21 of St. Louis Park and its chief clerical officer comply with the requirements of Minnesota
142.22 Statutes, section 645.021, subdivisions 2 and 3.
142.23 Sec. 6. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON; TIF AUTHORITY; AMERICAN BOULEVARD.
142.24 Subdivision 1.Establishment.Pursuant to the special rules established in subdivision
142.25 2, the housing and redevelopment authority of the city of Bloomington or the city of
142.26 Bloomington may establish a redevelopment district within the city of Bloomington, limited
142.27 to the following parcels, identified by tax identification numbers, together with adjacent
142.28 roads and rights-of-way: 04-027-24-11-0032, 04-027-24-11-0033, and 04-027-24-11-0034.
142.29 Subd. 2.Special rules.If the city or authority establishes a tax increment financing
142.30 district under this section, the following special rules apply:
142.31 (1) the district meets all the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 469.174,
142.32 subdivision 10;
142Article 9 Sec. 6.
REVISOR EAP/CH 21-0431906/13/21
Study session meeting of Nov. 8, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2022 draft legislative positions and priorities Page 24
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: November 8, 2021
Discussion item: 2
Executive summary
Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF Policy
Recommended action: No formal action required. This is an annual update. Council/EDA is
asked to provide feedback on the proposed amended and restated TIF Policy.
Policy consideration:
• Does the city council/EDA have any questions or concerns regarding the status of the tax
increment financing (TIF) districts within the city?
• Does the city council/EDA continue to support capturing a portion of tax increment
generated by the districts to be utilized for qualified affordable housing uses associated
with the city’s affordable housing trust fund?
• Does the EDA approve the proposed updates and revisions to the amended and restated
TIF Policy?
Summary: Annually, staff along with representatives from Ehlers, the EDA’s financial consultant,
present the city council/EDA with a comprehensive report regarding the financial condition and
management of the city’s 22 tax increment financing (TIF) districts. At the study session Stacie
Kvilvang, with Ehlers, and staff will present the attached Annual TIF district management report
to review the status, financial condition, debt management, and future value of the city’s tax
increment districts. Information in the report is used by staff throughout the year to provide a
reference guide when performing analyses and making recommendations to the EDA. The report
also describes the revenues generated from each TIF district and presents recommendations to
consider, including the capture of tax increment for qualified affordable housing uses associated
with the city’s affordable housing trust fund. It also describes how recently enacted special
legislation will provide the city with greater flexibility on the use of TIF funds to enable the
creation of additional affordable rental and owner-occupied housing.
At the Oct. 11, 2021 study session, the EDA received a staff report relative to proposed updates
and revisions to the city’s TIF Policy. Subsequently, councilmembers requested that language be
inserted in the TIF Policy requiring developers receiving tax increment financing to adhere to
fair labor laws. Therefore, a new section has been added to the proposed amended and
restated TIF Policy.
Financial or budget considerations: A portion of the tax increment from several existing TIF
districts is being captured to advance the city’s strategic goal of increasing and maintaining the
city’s supply of affordable housing.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Annual TIF district management review and analysis report
Amended and restated TIF Policy
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, economic development manager
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director / EDA executive director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF Policy
Discussion
Present considerations: For many years, staff along with representatives from Ehlers, the
city’s/EDA’s financial consultant, have presented the city council/EDA with an annual report
regarding the financial status and management of the city’s 22 tax increment financing (TIF)
districts.
The purpose of the Annual TIF district report is to review the status, financial condition, debt
management and future value of the city’s tax increment districts. Information in the report is
used by staff throughout the year to serve as a reference guide when performing analyses and
making recommendations to the EDA. The report also describes the revenues generated from
each TIF district and presents recommendations to consider, including the capture of tax
increment for qualified affordable housing uses associated with the city’s affordable housing
trust fund. It also describes how recently enacted special legislation will provide the city with
greater flexibility on the use of TIF funds to enable the creation of additional affordable rental
and owner-occupied housing.
According to Ehlers, the city has proactively utilized TIF to spur significant redevelopment within
the city and to create options for affordable housing. Overall, the city’s TIF districts have
performed well and have met their intended purposes of facilitating developments that would
not have occurred but for the use of TIF, advancing the city’s strategic priorities, and furthering
other city projects such as roads and infrastructure. Key findings within this year’s annual report
include the following:
• Most districts are expected to fully pay off their obligations to developers ahead of their
term.
• The overall market value of the city’s TIF district portfolio has increased approximately
1,100 percent.
• The average number of years of TIF assistance for projects in the last ten (10) years is
approximately nine (9) years and within the last five (5) years is eleven (11) years,
consistent with the city’s TIF policy.
• The EDA’s annual election to modify TIF district budgets to utilize tax increment for
affordable housing is helping the city meet its affordable housing goals.
• The total amount of tax increment available for affordable housing purposes in 2022 is
estimated at approximately $2.6 million.
• Projects assisted with TIF are making a substantive contribution to the city’s economy,
taxable market value, affordable housing goals and it’s AAA bond rating.
Management of the City’s TIF districts are regularly monitored by Ehlers and city staff and
annual reports on the financial condition of each TIF district are filed with the State Auditor’s
Office. While the EDA’s use of TIF is positively contributing to the city’s economic vitality, it will
need to continue monitoring the desire to keep districts open to fund affordable housing goals
versus utilizing those captured dollars to reduce the financial impacts to taxpayers.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF Policy
Amended and restated TIF Policy: At the Oct. 11, 2021 study session, the EDA received a staff
report relative to proposed updates and revisions to the city’s TIF Policy. Those changes are
reflected in the attached amended and restated TIF Policy.
Since that study session, councilmembers requested language be inserted in the TIF Policy
requiring developers receiving tax increment financing to adhere to fair labor laws. Per that
request, staff consulted with the EDA’s attorney and the following language has been added to
the Minimum qualifications section within the proposed amended and restated TIF Policy:
I. All developers receiving TIF assistance will be required to agree to comply with all
federal, state, and local labor laws in connection with the development, and to enforce
compliance with such laws by all contractors and subcontractors retained for the project.
From legal counsel’s perspective, the Policy is a place to mention requirements but not list all
details of such requirements (similar to referring to the Green Building Policy or the
Inclusionary Housing Policy). Kennedy & Graven has prepared more extensive sample language
to be inserted into future TIF contracts with developers, as follows:
Section . Additional Responsibilities of the Developer.
(6) The Developer shall prepare, utilize in all subcontracts, and enforce the
Subcontractor Addendum, in substantially the form attached as Exhibit H hereto, which
outlines fair labor law compliance, and allows general contractor to withhold payment or
cancel contract if violations are discovered.
(7) The Developer shall prohibit use of all disqualified contractors on state
"disqualified" list; review list prior to construction commencement with respect to each
subcontractor; remove any subcontractor added to the list.
(8) The Developer and all contractors and subcontractors shall comply with all
federal, state, and local labor laws.
(9) If a third party files a claim with the Minnesota Department Labor regarding any
contractor or subcontractor doing work on the Property, the Developer shall fully cooperate
with the Department, including taking any action required by the Department. Developer
shall also fully enforce the contracts with the General Contractor and subcontractors,
including enforcing and requiring the General Contractor to enforce the Subcontract
Addendum.
(10) The Developer shall cause the General Contractor to use the Subcontract
Addendum with all subcontractors, and shall require the General Contractor to cooperate
with the Department of Labor regarding any claim that the Department elects to enforce
and cause the General Contractor to enforce the Subcontract Addendum.
(11) The Developer acknowledges that failure to comply with this Section will be an
Event of Default under in accordance with Section hereof and could result in a penalty
(such as non-issuance of the TIF Note and non-payment of other assistance, or, if the TIF
Note has already been issued, delaying, reducing and/or ceasing TIF Note payments).
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF Policy
EXHIBIT H
FORM OF SUBCONTRACTOR ADDENDUM
EXHIBIT [ ] TO SUBCONTRACT AGREEMENT
SUBCONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION
A. No Undocumented Employees. Subcontractor certifies that Subcontractor does not
knowingly employ any undocumented employees.
B. Wage Enforcement. Subcontractor shall report, and shall require its Sub-
subcontractors to report, all complaints or adverse determinations of wage theft or
payroll fraud arising out of this project against Subcontractor or its Sub-
subcontractors to Contractor within seven (7) days of notification of the complaint or
adverse determination. If an adverse decision is rendered against the Subcontractor,
Contractor may terminate the Contract or exercise any other remedy under the
Subcontractor Agreement or available under applicable law, including the right to
withhold amounts otherwise owed to Subcontractor to protect Contractor against
damage that may be incurred by Contractor. Subcontractor certifies that there has
not been any adverse determination against Subcontractor within the proceeding 3-
year period for wage theft or payroll fraud.
C. Worker’s Compensation. Subcontractor and its Sub-subcontractors and legal
representatives shall comply with all laws, rules, regulations, and orders governing
worker’s compensation insurance. Subcontractor agrees to procure and maintain
worker’s compensation insurance as required by the Subcontract and applicable law.
D. Combating Trafficking in Persons. Subcontractor shall notify employees of the
Government's "zero tolerance" policy towards trafficking in persons and to take
action against employees or subcontractors that violate the policy. Subcontractor
agrees that it will not engage in any unlawful trafficking of persons and will take all
commercially reasonable measures to prevent and protect against the trafficking of
persons by Subcontractor and its employees.
E. Human Rights. Subcontractor shall conduct its activities in a manner that respects
human rights. Subcontractor shall not use any form of child, slave, forced,
bonded, indentured, or involuntary labor, including prison labor. Subcontractor shall
not engage in human trafficking or exploitation, or import goods that have been
manufactured, procured, produced, or transported by slavery or human trafficking.
Subcontractor shall not retain employees’ government-issued identification,
passports or work permits as a condition of employment.
F. Wages and Benefits. Subcontractor shall ensure that its employees are paid lawful
wages, including overtime, premium pay, and equal pay for equal work without
discrimination. There shall be no disciplinary deductions from pay.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF Policy
G. Non-Discrimination. Subcontractor shall ensure that no person shall on the grounds
of race, color, religions, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, handicap, familial
status, national origin, or any other protected category be subjected to unlawful
discrimination under any scope of work carried out by Subcontractor or any of its lower-
tier subcontractors or labor suppliers.
H. Flow-Down. Subcontractor shall require all lower-tier subcontractors and labor
suppliers to certify compliance with the terms of this Exhibit.
I. Certification. Subcontractor agrees that execution of the subcontract constitutes a
certification on the part of the Subcontractor that it is compliant with all of the
representations and requirements set forth in this Exhibit and that Subcontractor
will remain in compliance with all terms of this Exhibit. Subcontractor agrees to
indemnify, defend, and hold Contractor harmless from and against all damages,
expenses, costs, claims, and liabilities (including attorneys’ fees) suffered by
Contractor as a result of Subcontractor’s failure to comply with this Exhibit.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the date of the
Subcontract Agreement
Subcontractor:
By:
Name:
Its:
Next steps: The proposed amended and restated TIF Policy has been reviewed by the EDA’s
financial consultant and legal counsel who recommend its approval. The proposed revisions
may be discussed at the November 8th study session. If it is the consensus of the EDA that the
proposed amended and restated TIF Policy is acceptable, it will be scheduled for subsequent
EDA consideration and adoption.
November 2021 TIF DISTRICT MANAGEMENT REVIEW & ANALYSIS: City of St. Louis Park, MN Prepared by: Ehlers 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113 BUILDING COMMUNITIES. IT’S WHAT WE DO. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 6
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 2 Table of Contents Management Review and Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 TIF DISTRICT SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 OBLIGATIONS OF THE TIF DISTRICTS ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 TIF FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 16 IMPACT OF DECERTIFIED AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING POOLING TIF DISTRICTS .................................................................................................... 19 ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 21 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Tax Increment Financing Districts ........................................................................................................................................................... 24 VICTORIA PONDS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 PARK CENTER HOUSING .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 27 ZARTHAN AVENUE/16TH STREET .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 31 MILL CITY .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 PARK COMMONS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 AQUILA COMMONS ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48 ELMWOOD VILLAGE ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 52 HIGHWAY 7 CORPORATE CENTER............................................................................................................................................................................................ 59 WEST END ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 64 ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 70 HARDCOAT ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 74 ELIOT PARK ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 77 THE SHOREHAM ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 81 4900 EXCELSIOR ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 85 WAYZATA BOULEVARD (PLATIA PLACE) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 89 ELMWOOD APARTMENTS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 92 WOODDALE STATION ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 96 BRIDGEWATER BANK .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 101 PARKWAY RESIDENCES ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 104 TEXA TONKA ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 108 BELTLINE RESIDENCES ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 112 Definitions ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 116 City Map of the TIF Districts ..................................................................................................................................................................... 118 Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 7
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 3 Management Review and Analysis OVERVIEW Tax increment is a financing tool authorized by state law, that allows an authority to capture and use most of the increased local property tax revenues from new development within a defined geographic area for a defined period of time. In general, tax increment revenues are used to pay for eligible project costs which encourage creation or retention of jobs, redevelop blighted areas or polluted sites and construction of affordable housing. Revenue from tax increment financing (TIF) districts is a financial asset of the City. This revenue tool allows the City to address blight, contamination, housing or redevelopment needs for the parcels in the TIF district for a specified period of time. The revenue generated is first used to pay debt service on outstanding bonds, interfund loans and developer pay-as-you-go notes (PAYGO). A portion, but not all, of the remaining revenues can be used to participate in other eligible development projects and City initiatives. Over the years, the City utilized unobligated revenues from older TIF districts to complete the following projects: Park Commons property assembly and public improvements Excelsior Boulevard streetscape improvements Excelsior Boulevard bridge improvements Reilly tar clean-up activities Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue storm water intersection improvements Louisiana Court Rehabilitation Erv’s Garage redevelopment Bikemasters (Construction Assistance Program) Hardcoat (Construction Assistance Program) Home Hardware Store (Construction Assistance Program) Projects related to Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) Fiber optic infrastructure The Quentin Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 8
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 4 The City has proactively utilized TIF to spur significant redevelopment within the City and to create options for affordable housing. Overall, the City’s TIF districts have met their intended purpose, performed well, and furthered other City projects as noted above. In summary: Most districts are expected to fully pay off their obligations to developers ahead of their term The overall market value of the City’s TIF district portfolio has increased approximately 1,100 percent The average number of years of TIF assistance for projects in the last ten (10) years is approximately nine (9) years and within the last five (5) years is eleven (11) years, consistent with the City’s TIF policy The EDA’s annual election to modify TIF district budgets to utilize tax increment for affordable housing is helping the City meet its affordable housing goals The total amount of tax increment available for affordable housing purposes in 2022 is estimated at approximately $2.6 million Projects assisted with TIF are making a substantive contribution to the City’s economy, taxable market value, affordable housing goals and it’s AAA bond rating Management of the City’s TIF districts are regularly monitored by Ehlers and City staff and annual reports on the financial condition of each TIF district are filed with the State Auditor’s Office. While the EDA’s use of TIF is positively contributing to the City’s economic vitality, it will need to continue monitoring the desire to keep districts open to fund affordable housing goals versus utilizing those captured dollars to reduce the financial impacts to taxpayers. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 9
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 5 TIF DISTRICT SUMMARY Currently the City has one inactive district (Victoria Ponds) and twenty-one (21) active TIF districts, and one HSTI District (Hwy 7 Corporate Center). Overall, the makeup of the types of districts is as follows: These districts are outlined in the charts that follow on the next pages. A more detailed explanation of each district can be found starting on page 25. Type of District NumberEconomic Development 1 Housing3 HSTI Sub District 1 Redevelopment 16Renovation and Renewal1 TOTAL 22* Actual number is 21 districts as the HSTI district is a subdistrict Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 10
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 6 VictoriaParkZarthan/ MillParkAquilaElmwoodPondsCenter16th AvenueCityCommonsCommonsVillageDistrict TypeRedevelopmentHousingRedevelopmentRedevelopmentRedevelopmentRedevelopmentHousingRenewal and RenovationProject72 twin home units and part of the Hutchinson Spur trail91 units of senior assisted living Two hotels developed by CSM and 86 townhome units built by Rottlund200 rental housing units developed by MSP Real EstatedExcelsior and Grand retail, office and rental housing and condos developed by TOLDTwo office/commercial buildings consisting of 65,000 s.f. developed by Beltline Industrial Park, Inc. 122 senior cooperative developed by StonebridgeRottlund ‐ 224 townhomes and condos. Hoigaards ‐74 apts over 25,000 sq/ft of retail, 220 non age restricted apartments, 100 sr. apartmenst and 22 town homes. Grecco ‐ 115 senior rental units over 10,000 sq/ft of retailCertified6/28/19965/19/19975/9/20006/19/20006/7/20014/26/20044/4/20055/31/2005Legal Max Term12/31/202312/31/202312/31/202612/31/202612/31/202712/31/203112/31/203212/31/2029Keep Open for Pooling for Aff. Hsg.N/AYesTBDTBDTBDYesYesTBDAnticipated TermDecertified12/31/202312/31/202612/31/202612/31/202712/31/203112/31/203212/31/20291st Increment19981998200120012002200620072007Current Obligations$115,000 IFL for ERV's garage redevelopment100% TIF for affordable housing$1,101,362 PAYGO Note 1 $1,448,088 PAYGO Note 2 and $1,395,547 PAYGO Note 3$3,531,853 PAYGO Note$3,145,046 interfund loan $3,500,000 Phase I PAYGO Note, $3,300,715 Phase E PAYGO Note, $4,668,633 Phase NE PAYGO Note, $4,079,105 Phase NW PAYGO Note35% TIF for affordable housing 100% TIF for affordable housingHoigaards ‐ 2010A TIF Revenue Bonds ‐ $3,495,000 and IFL ‐ $3,298,200 Other ObligationsNone$500,000 Loan to Lousisana Ct to buy down bondsNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneContruction Assistance Program (CAP) Funding$500,000 for Hardcoat (former Flame Metals property. Portion will be repaid from new ED TIF district) and $25,000 to CAR Properties LLC (former Home Hardware Store)None None$70,000 to CKJ Properties (former Bikemasters property)None None None None2021 TIF RevenueN/A$184,519$529,396$608,246$3,001,430$157,569$239,263$2,322,539Funds for Affordable HousingN/A$184,519$0$0$0$55,149$239,263$0County Number130313041305/130613071308131013111312CategoryWolfe Lake Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 11
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 7 Highway 7 CorporateEllipse on Center & HSTIExcelsiorDistrict TypeRedevelopment and Hazardous Substance SubdistrictRedevelopment Redevelopment Economic Development Redevelopment Redevelopment RedevelopmentProject 78,000 s.f. multi tenant office/warehouse buildingMajor mixed use redevelopment (office, retail, hotel, entertainment, housing, hotel) developed by Duke Realty. Ellipse I ‐ 132 Market Rate Apartments and 16,000 s.f. commercial and Ellipse II ‐ 58 Units of MarketRrate ApartmentsAcqisition and renovation of a 33,600 sq/ft manufacturing facility and construction of 1,500 sq/ft of officeRedevelopment of the Eliot School site into 138 market rate apartments and 2 single-family homesRedevelopment of 5 parcels into 148 apartments with 20% of the units affordable at 50% of the AMI and 20,000 sq/ft of retail/office spaceRedevelopment of the former Bally's site into 164 apartments with 10% of the units affordable at 60% of AMI and a 28,000 sq/ft grocery storeCertified7/17/20067/9/20087/9/20094/27/20117/16/20134/18/20167/1/2016Legal Max Term12/31/203212/31/203612/31/203612/31/202212/31/204112/31/204312/31/2044Keep Open for Pooling for Aff. Hsg.TBDTBDYesTBDYesYesTBDAnticipated Term12/31/202712/31/203612/31/203612/31/202212/31/204112/31/204312/31/20441st Increment2007201120112014201620182019Current Obligations PAYGO Notes - Note A $2,100,000 Note B $360,000 Note C $72,000 and Note D $23,000$21,100,000 - PAYGO and 2008B GO Tax Increment Bonds35% TIF for affordable housing$115,000 Interfund Loan from Victoria Ponds TIF District35% TIF for affordable housing35% TIF for affordable housing$2.6 Million PAYGO NoteOther ObligationsNone None None None None None NoneContruction Assistance Program (CAP) FundingNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone2021 TIF Revenue$148,423$2,924,758$707,747$29,366$468,429$553,120$698,141$0$0$247,711$0$163,950$193,592$0County Number13131314131513161318/131913201321CategoryEliot Park The Shoreham 4900 ExcelsiorWest End Hardcoat Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 12
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 8 District TypeRedevelopmentRedevelopmentRedevelopmentRedevelopmentRedevelopmentHousingRedevelopmentProjectRedevelopment of 2 parcels into a 100 room hotel and 149 unit apartment and/or office buildingRedevelopment of 1 parcel into 70 agre restricted apartment units with 20% of units reserved for 60% of AME and 4,400 sq/ft of retailRedevelopment of 2 parcels into 217 unit mixed income apartment building, 2,500 square feet of commercial space, e-generation building and structural parkingRedevelopment of 3 parcels into the Headquarters for Bridgewater Bank (38,967 sq/ft), Bank Facility (7,152 sq/ft ), 19,775 sq/ft of office and 7,530 sq/ft of retailRedevelopment of 6 parcels into a 95-unit market rate apartmentRedevelopment of 9 parcels into 101 apartments and 11 retnal town homes Redevelopment of 1 parcel into a 250-unit market rate apartment with 7,445 sq/ft of retailCertified7/1/20166/30/20176/30/20175/11/20197/17/20205/10/2021TBDLegal Max Term12/31/204612/31/204412/31/204612/31/204612/31/204712/31/204812/31/2049Keep Open for Pooling for Aff. Hsg.TBDTBDTBDTBDTBDyesyesAnticipated Term12/31/204612/31/204412/31/204612/31/204612/31/204712/31/204812/31/20491st Increment20212019202120212022 est2023 est2024 estCurrent ObligationsNone at this time$950,000 PAYGO Note (Note not issued yet)$3,377,236 PAYGO Note (Note not issued yet)$951,596 IFL$3,350,000 PAYGO Note (Note not issued yet)$2,600,000 PAYGO Note (Note not issued yet)$5,200,000 PAYGO Note (Note not issued yet)Other ObligationsNone None$975,000 mortgage for purchase of EDA propertyNone None None NoneContruction Assistance Program (CAP) FundingNone None None None None None None2021 TIF Revenue$8,442$213,594$489,765$56,399$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0County Number132213231324132513261327TBDTexa TonkaWayzata Blvd Elmwood AptsBeltline ResidencesBridgewater Bank Parkway ResidencesWooddale StationCategory Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 13
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 9 OBLIGATIONS OF THE TIF DISTRICTS The revenues from these districts are largely site specific, meaning that the revenues are restricted by law and by contract with the developers. The revenues must be used primarily to address blight, contamination, housing or redevelopment needs for the parcels in the TIF district within a specified period of time. The City has the following obligations outstanding (after the August 1, 2021 bond and PAYGO payments were made): Summary of Outstanding Obligations (after the 8/1/2021 payment) DistrictNoteOutstanding After 8/1/2021Total By TIF DistrictIssueAmount Paying District TermNote A 635,218$ 2008B GO Tax Increment Bonds1,045,000$ West End2/1/2024Note B 108,894$ 2010A Tax Increment Revenue Bonds - Hoigaards680,000$ Elmwood2/1/2023Note C 72,372$ TOTAL5,385,635$ N/AN/ANote D 23,119$ Excelsior & Grand 259,131$ Phase NE 4,313,673$ Phase E 4,121,785$ Phase NW 4,094,307$ Mill CitySLP Apts 2,739,310$ 2,739,310$ CSM Note 1 1,218,476$ CSM Note 2 1,750,836$ Rottlund Note 3 223,187$ West EndDuke Realty 20,909,528$ 20,909,528$ 4900 ExcelsiorWeidner1,792,528$ 1,792,528$ Wooddale StationPLACE3,377,236$ 3,377,236$ Elmwood Apartments36th Street LLC950,000$ 950,000$ Bridgewater BankBridgewater Bank943,867$ 943,867$ Pakway ResidencesSela Investments LLC3,350,000$ 3,350,000$ Texa TonkaPastor Properties2,600,000$ 2,600,000$ Beltline ResidencesOpus5,200,000$ 5,200,000$ TOTAL 58,683,467$ Bonds After 8/1/2021Pay As You Go ObligationsHwy 7 Corporate Center $ 839,603 Park Commons12,788,896$ Zarthan3,192,499$ Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 14
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 10 Construction Assistance Program In 2009, the Legislature passed the JOBS Bill and extended it for one year as part of the 2010 legislative session. One element of this was the temporary authority to stimulate construction. This portion of the legislation allowed cities to utilize cash balances in existing TIF districts (not needed to pay debt service on outstanding obligations) to spur new construction or substantial rehabilitation of private buildings and ancillary facilities, if construction commenced by July 1, 2012 and the dollars expended by December 31, 2012. On July 19, 2010, the EDA approved a Construction Assistance Program (CAP) and at a public hearing, adopted the required Spending Plan. The TIF districts that utilized funding for CAP were: Victoria Ponds Park Center Housing CSM Mill City Edgewood Wolfe Lake Aquila Commons Elmwood Village (Rottlund portion of TIF only) Three projects were funded through the CAP program – Hardcoat (former Flame Metals building), CKJ Properties LLC (former Bikemasters building) and CAR Properties LLC (former Home Hardware Store). The EDA provided $500,000 to Hardcoat to purchase and renovate the former Flame Metals property within the City. Hardcoat renovated the building and site, constructed a small addition, and relocated its operations there. The existing industrial building is approximately 33,600 square feet and was constructed in 1963. Both the interior and exterior had numerous building code deficiencies. Following Flame Metals’ departure in 2009, the building’s interior was emptied, thoroughly cleaned, repainted, and code deficiencies were addressed. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 15
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 11 The project includes a complete renovation of both the interior and exterior of the building and an addition on the north side of the building. Renovation included a new roof, new exterior facelift, new windows and dock doors, new offices and interior spaces, new electrical and plumbing systems, new energy efficient HVAC equipment, new parking lot and landscaping, rain gardens and site amenities, as well as the construction of a 1,500 SF addition for office/conference space. Hardcoat initially occupied approximately 25,000 square feet of the building. The balance has been leased to a complementary business and will provide Hardcoat with future expansion capacity. The $500,000 in funding for this project came from the Victoria Ponds TIF district. In addition, the EDA created an economic development TIF district on December 20, 2010 for the project to repay as much of the CAP funds back to this district. The EDA provided $70,000 to CKJ Properties LLC from the Mill City TIF District to renovate the former Bikemasters building within the City. The 18,000 s.f. building, constructed in 1950 was neglected and fell into disrepair. As a result, the building sustained damage due to lack of maintenance and vandalism. The building went into foreclosure in 2009 year and was purchased in September 2010 by CKJ Properties LLC. The project includes a complete renovation of both the interior and exterior of the building. Renovation included new windows and doors, new bathrooms, new flooring and carpeting, new ceilings, new electrical and plumbing systems, new energy efficient HVAC equipment, new dock doors and downspouts, as well as interior and exterior painting, landscaping, parking lot resurfacing and striping, and screening of outdoor dumpsters. The property is currently leased to six (6) office tenants. The City provided $25,000 to CAR Properties LLC. to renovate the former Home Hardware Store. The building is located in the historic Walker Lake area near the intersection of Wooddale and West Lake Street. It was originally constructed in the 1950’s within a strip of commercial buildings and had always been a hardware store. Despite its use as a former hardware store, the building was neglected for some time. CAR Properties made the required repairs and renovated the building. Renovation included a new roof, front window, energy efficient HVAC equipment, as well as remodeling the bathroom and making other various repairs to make the building code compliant. Upon renovation the property was leased to another commercial tenant. The $25,000 in funding for this project came from the Victoria Ponds TIF District. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 16
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 12 TIF as a Development Tool Continuous redevelopment is vital to maintaining the City’s long-term economic health and vitality. St Louis Park has judiciously utilized TIF for key redevelopment and housing projects since 1972 when the Oak Park Village TIF District was established. Utilizing this tool to accomplish the various community development goals of the City has optimized land uses, strengthened the tax base, diversified housing options, while cleaning up contaminated sites and increasing employment opportunities. One immediate benchmark of the benefit of utilizing TIF is the overall increase in market value from when the district was created to when it is fully developed and aging. As indicated in the following table, the overall market value of the City’s TIF district portfolio has increased by nearly 1100%: DistrictCounty District NumberOriginal Market ValuePay 2021 Taxable Market ValuePercent Increase in ValuePark Center 1304 493,000 13,195,000 2576.47%Zarthan 1305 and 1306 4,053,600 45,190,700 1014.83%Mill City 1307 708,700 42,000,000 5826.34%Park Commons 1308 4,618,000 223,455,900 4738.80%Edgewood 1309 1,000,000 5,535,000 453.50%Wolfe Lake 1310 1,717,300 11,777,000 585.79%Aquila 1311 1,900,000 24,400,800 1184.25%Elmwood 1312 10,864,500 190,148,900 1650.19%Highway 7 Business Center 1313 2,792,700 9,050,000 224.06%West End (Partial Construction)1314 43,051,000 263,396,000 511.82%Ellipse 1315 1,931,800 54,220,000 2706.71%Hardcoat 1316 1,184,700 3,008,000 153.90%Eliot Park 1318/1319 2,143,000 34,287,300 1499.97%The Shoreham 1320 2,476,200 44,328,000 1690.16%4900 Excelsior 1321 2,404,000 49,536,000 1960.57%Elmwood Apartments 1323 1,100,000 16,200,000 1372.73%Wooddale Station 1324 5,811,900 39,060,000 572.07%Bridgewater Bank (Partial Valuation) 1325 3,772,400 7,346,000 94.73%92,022,800 1,076,134,600 1069.42%Wayzata Boulevard 13222,331,000 2,866,000122.95%Parkway Residences13263,006,600 3,466,500115.30%Texa Tonka13272,114,000 2,114,0000.00%Beltline ResidencesTBD5,423,000 5,423,0000.00%TOTALN/AN/AN/ANote: % increase in value excludes the 5 districts where construction hasn't commenced or value realizedStudy session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 17
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 13 Due to the age of the City, the majority of the TIF districts created are redevelopment districts which have a 26-year term. However, most of the City’s Districts do not extend to the entire term as noted in the chart below: DistrictYear Established Term of District# of Years of TIF Based Upon Obligation Being Paid OffDifferenceZarthan19992622‐4Mill City20002622‐4Park Commons200126260Edgewood200320211Wolfe Lake20032614‐12Aquila20042612‐14Elmwood Village200426260Highway 7 Business Center20062622‐4West End (Partial Construction)20072620‐6Ellipse 20092610‐16Hardcoat2010990Eliot Park 2013265‐21The Shoreham 2015262‐244900 Excelsior 2015268‐18Wayzata Boulevard (No construction yet)2016269‐17Elmwood Apartments 2017268‐19Wooddale Station (Under construction)20172615‐11Bridgewater Bank 20172611.5‐14.5Parkway Residences (Under construction)20202615.0‐11.0Texa Tonka (Under construction)20212612.0‐14.0Beltline Residences (No construction yet)2021268.0‐18.0AVERAGEN/A24.9014.14‐10.76AVERAGE LAST 10 YEARSN/A26.009.30‐16.70AVERAGE LAST 5 YEARSN/A26.0011.14‐14.86 As noted, since 1999, the average term of the TIF districts is approximately 14.14 years. In the last 5 years, the average has declined to approximately 11.14 years. While there are undoubtedly many benefits to utilizing TIF as a development tool, cities still wonder if they are utilizing the tool too much or not enough. One good way to measure a city’s use of TIF is to compare the use of TIF with similar cities. A common measure of the use of TIF is the percentage of the gross tax base captured in TIF districts. Below is a chart which demonstrates the City’s current and projected tax base, which is captured in TIF districts with similar cities, as shown on the following page. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 18
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 14 Projected Captured TIF Tax Capacity and Comparison with Other CitiesCity of St. Louis Park2017 2018 2019 2020 20212022 2023 2024 2025 2026Park Center-1304 133,828 139,228 144,515 150,890 156,578 158,144 159,725 0 0 0Zarthan-1305/1306 377,405 408,163 419,982 467,481 451,000 455,510 460,065 464,666 469,312 474,006Mill City-1307 424,401 453,641 466,141 491,141 516,141 521,302 526,515 531,781 537,098 542,469Park Commons-1308 2,277,376 2,230,111 2,327,335 2,406,018 2,546,930 2,572,399 2,598,123 2,624,105 2,650,346 2,676,849Edgewood-1309 51,923 49,321 50,117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Wolfe Lake-1310 106,605 110,527 121,173 129,144 133,709 135,046 136,397 137,761 139,138 140,530Aquila Commons-1311 159,581 170,473 184,737 201,109 209,382 211,476 213,591 215,726 217,884 220,063Elmwood-1312 1,621,959 1,725,298 1,765,394 1,975,041 2,032,483 2,052,808 2,073,336 2,094,069 2,115,010 2,136,160Highway 7 Business Center-1313 91,015 78,272 79,537 81,904 84,865 85,714 86,571 87,436 88,311 89,194Highway 7 Subdistrict-1313 53,504 53,504 53,504 53,504 53,504 54,039 54,579 55,125 55,676 56,233West End-1314 2,084,801 2,114,759 2,621,257 2,855,997 2,838,055 2,866,436 2,895,100 2,924,051 2,953,291 2,982,824Ellipse on Excelsior-1315 535,561 546,235 620,639 652,232 656,421 662,985 669,615 676,311 683,074 689,905Hardcoat-1316 16,887 19,314 19,626 22,974 24,919 25,168 0 0 0 0Eliot Park-1318/1319 277,040 345,732 364,571 390,896 399,659 403,656 407,692 411,769 415,887 420,046The Shoreham - 1320 0 301,653 482,482 444,609 469,362 474,056 478,796 483,584 488,420 493,3044900 Excelsior - 1321 0 0 405,085 548,563 592,423 598,347 604,331 610,374 616,478 622,643Wayzata Blvd - 1322 0 0 0 4,021 7,164 7,236 7,308 7,381 7,455 7,529Elmwood Apartments - 1323 0 0 3,555 0 181,250 183,063 184,893 186,742 188,609 190,496Wooddale Station - 1324 0 0 0 0 415,601 419,757 423,955 428,194 432,476 436,801Bridgewater Bank - 1325 0 0 0 0 47,859 99,880 100,879 101,888 102,906 103,936Parkway Residences - 1326 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 381,924 831,635 839,951Texa Tonka - 1327 0 0 0 0 0 0 127,308 281,415 284,229 287,071Beltline Reidences - TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 202,039 606,779 831,635 839,951Captured TIF Tax Capacity 8,211,886 8,746,231 10,129,650 10,875,52411,817,305 11,987,020 12,410,818 13,311,081 14,108,872 14,249,960Total Tax Capacity (Gross) 77,974,751 82,002,664 88,770,448 96,057,628 102,157,645 103,179,221 104,211,014 105,253,124 106,305,655 107,368,712Percentage of Tax Base in TIF 10.5% 10.7% 11.4% 11.3% 11.6% 11.6% 11.9% 12.6% 13.3% 13.3%ActualProjected Today, the City’s use of TIF is a bit higher compared to other first ring suburbs, however historically shorter terms of assistance in your TIF districts mitigates this. Overall, this amount of use is expected given that St Louis Park is fully developed, and portions are in need of redevelopment. The city has chosen to use TIF to achieve strategic priorities such as affordable housing. Also shown are comparable cities’ tax rates and bond ratings. Although this is a small sample of municipalities, the amount of TIF used by a City does not seem to correlate directly with a City’s tax rate or bond rating. In conversations with rating agencies, we do know that market value growth and redevelopment are important factors in maintaining St Louis Park’s AAA bond rating. Following is a table Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 19
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 15 which demonstrates the historical market value growth of St. Louis Park. ComparableFinal Pay 2021CityCityCaptured TIF as a % of Tax Base City Tax Rate Bond RatingBrooklyn Park1.1%47.129%AA+Golden Valley2.1%52.596%AaaBloomington2.6%41.355%Aaa/AAAMinnetonka2.9%35.813%AaaMinneapolis2.9%54.880%Aaa/AAAEdina5.0%28.939%Aaa/AAARichfield9.7%55.501%Aa2Hopkins10.2%67.664%AA+St. Louis Park11.6%44.554%AAAFinal Pay 2021 Tax Year Taxable Percent ChangeTax YearCityPercent ChangePayable Market Value From Prior YearPayableTax Rate From Prior Year20218,060,720,233 5.79%202144.5542.66%2020 7,619,717,196 8.27% 2020 43.398 -2.93%2019 7,037,442,189 8.50% 2019 44.706 -7.06%2018 6,486,028,398 5.65% 2018 48.101 4.11%2017 6,138,955,694 8.47% 2017 46.200 0.01%2016 5,659,666,031 7.95% 2016 46.195 -3.26%2015 5,242,685,184 6.68% 2015 47.754 -1.68%2014 4,914,404,312 0.48% 2014 48.570 0.71%2013 4,891,018,550 -2.54% 2013 48.228 5.60%2012 5,018,306,562 -5.61% 2012 45.672 5.54%2011 5,316,617,000 -4.40% 2011 43.276 11.44% The above two tables show the history for St Louis Park’s taxable market value and the City’s tax rate over the last ten (10) years. Factors such as total general and debt levy needs, State law and economic factors will influence both the market value and the corresponding tax rate. A correlation cannot always be made when considering market value, tax rate and total tax capacity captured by tax increment districts. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 20
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 16 TIF FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING General The rules for utilizing TIF for affordable housing are complex. St. Louis Park has used TIF from several sources to assist affordable housing developments. The statutory authorities for each case are outlined below: 1. Special Pooling Provision for Tax-Credit Eligible Rental Housing. Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1763, subdivision 2(d), allows the EDA/City to pool up to an additional 10% above the standard allowable limit for owner-occupied housing that meets the income qualifications noted in #2 below and rental housing that meets low-income housing tax credit requirements (the projects do not need to receive tax credits, they just need to be tax credit eligible, meaning they are both rent and income restricted). Eligible uses include acquisition and site preparation, construction, rehabilitation and public improvements directly related to the housing, as long as these costs were not funded through tax credits (does not apply if all eligible expenses are funded through tax credits). The funds can be spent anywhere within the City and do not need to be located within a Project Area. The income and rent guidelines are defined as follows: Rental Housing: 20% of the units occupied by families at 50% of area median income (AMI) (20/50) or 40% of the units occupied by families at 60% of AMI (40/60) and rents for all the income-restricted units must not exceed 30% of the applicable income limit For a redevelopment district the total pooling may be up to 35%. This pooling, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176 subdivision 4k, can be done without regard to project area/development district limitations. The EDA/City would not implement this pooling until the obligations in the various TIF districts are paid off since typically 95% of the TIF is pledged to the obligation. 2. Pooling from Housing Districts. A housing district is established for either rental or owner-occupied housing. The rental housing developments are income limited to those noted in #1 above. The owner-occupied housing is limited to 100% of AMI for families of two or less, or 115% for families of three or more. The rental housing restrictions remain for the life of the TIF district while the owner-occupied restrictions apply only to the first occupants. If excess funds from a housing district are realized, then 100% of the tax increment may be pooled for other housing projects that meet the income limitations listed above. This pooling can be done without regard to project area and development district limitations. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 21
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 17 Currently, the main tax increment sources, from which the City could fund affordable housing, are from Aquila and Park Center (housing), Wolfe Lake, Ellipse, Eliot Park and The Shoreham (redevelopment). In addition, the EDA will review making the additional 10% election to the Zarthan, Mill City, West End and 4900 Excelsior TIF Districts closer to the payoff date of the obligations. The table below summarizes the amounts that are anticipated to be available and are based upon pay 2021 TIF estimates: Wolfe Lake Zarthan Mill City Ellipse Eliot Park Shoreham West End 4900 Excelsior Park Center AquilaRedev Redev Redev Redev Redev Redev Redev Redev Hsg Hsg2019‐ 2020 53,005 239,014 940,487 495,420 1,727,926 1,727,9262021 51,106 242,407 157,713 ‐ ‐ ‐ 183,690 232,704 867,618 2,595,545 202251,361 ‐ ‐ 243,619 158,501 188,904 ‐ ‐ 184,608 232,704 1,059,697 3,655,242 202351,618 180,589 212,120 244,837 159,294 189,849 ‐ ‐ 185,531 232,704 1,456,541 5,111,784 202451,876 181,492 212,120 246,061 160,090 190,798 ‐ ‐ ‐ 232,704 1,275,141 6,386,925 2025 52,135 182,400 212,120 247,292 160,891 191,752 ‐ ‐ ‐ 232,704 1,279,293 7,666,218 2026 52,396 183,312 212,120 248,528 161,695 192,711 ‐ 244,389 ‐ 232,704 1,527,854 9,194,072 202752,658 ‐ ‐ 249,771 162,504 193,674 ‐ 245,611 ‐ 232,704 1,136,922 10,330,994 202852,921 ‐ 251,020 163,316 194,643 ‐ 246,839 ‐ 232,704 1,141,443 11,472,436 2029 53,186 252,275 164,133 195,616 ‐ 248,073 ‐ 232,704 1,145,986 12,618,423 2030 53,452 253,536 164,954 196,594 ‐ 249,314 ‐ 232,704 1,150,553 13,768,976 2031 53,719 254,804 165,778 197,577 ‐ 250,560 ‐ 232,704 1,155,142 14,924,118 2032‐ 256,078 166,607 198,565 1,019,614 251,813 ‐ 232,704 2,125,380 17,049,498 2033 257,358 167,440 199,558 1,024,712 253,072 ‐ ‐ 1,902,140 18,951,638 2034 258,645 168,277 200,556 1,029,835 254,338 ‐ ‐ 1,911,651 20,863,289 2035 259,938 169,119 201,558 1,034,984 255,609 ‐ ‐ 1,921,209 22,784,498 2036 261,238 169,964 202,566 1,040,159 256,887 ‐ ‐ 1,930,815 24,715,313 2037‐ 170,814 203,579 ‐ 258,172 ‐ ‐ 632,565 25,347,878 2038171,668 204,597 ‐ 259,463 ‐ ‐ 635,728 25,983,605 2039172,527 205,620 ‐ 260,760 ‐ ‐ 638,906 26,622,512 2040173,389 206,648 ‐ 262,064 ‐ ‐ 642,101 27,264,613 2041174,256 207,681 ‐ 263,374 ‐ ‐ 645,311 27,909,924 2042208,720 ‐ 264,691 ‐ ‐ 473,410 28,383,334 2043‐ ‐ 266,014 ‐ ‐ 266,014 28,649,349 TOTAL 629,433 727,792 848,479 4,266,421 3,482,932 4,171,766 5,149,305 4,591,043 1,494,315 3,287,863 28,649,349 Note: Districtricts highlighted in grey have had budgets amended by the EDA to allow the additional pooling for housingPOOLING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSINGGray Shaded Areas Depict TIF District That Have Been Modified to Allow For Additional 10% ‐ Green Shaded Area Are Hsg TIF DistrictsYearYearly Total Cumulative Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 22
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 18 Special Legislation During the 2021 legislative session, the State approved Minnesota Sessions Laws 2021, 1st Special Session, Chapter 14, Article 9, Section 5 (the “Special Legislation”). The Special Legislation authorizes the City/EDA to transfer tax increment accumulated for housing purposes from its housing TIF districts and 35% from its redevelopment TIF districts to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF). The Special Legislation allows the City/EDA to provide grants, loans, and loan guarantees for the development, rehabilitation, or financing of housing; or match other funds from federal, state, or private resource for housing projects. Housing projects are not defined in the Special Legislation, but it is the intent of the City/EDA to use it for rental and for-sale housing projects in accordance with its AHTF guidelines. The City’s EDA has until December 31, 2026 to transfer the funds to its AHTF. In addition, the City/EDA has to provide a report to the Chair and ranking Minority Leader of the House and Senate Tax Committees by February 1, 2024 and February 1, 2026 detailing the housing projects financed with the transferred funds, including the percentage of area median income provided, total cost per project, number of units and income and rent limitations The City currently has six (6) districts as noted above that could transfer funds. Staff and Ehlers will work together to determine the amount to transfer over in 2022 for use on projects. In addition, the City will have an additional three (3) districts (Zarthan, Mill City and 4900 Excelsior) that it could transfer funds from until December 31, 2026, if the City/EDA amend the TIF plans to allow for the 35% pooling for housing. If the EDA amends the TIF plans, the City/EDA in total could have approximately $9.1 million in funds available for affordable housing (based upon 2021 TIF estimates). Once these funds are transferred over to the City’s AHTF, they are no longer considered TIF and all restrictions (income and percent of units required to be affordable), are no longer applicable. The only limitations are what are in the City’s policy, which is to fund affordable housing projects for very low (50% or less AMI), low (between 51% and 80% AMI) and moderate (between 81% and 120% AMI) income households. Staff will review the TIF funds annually to determine future transfers, up until December 31, 2026 per the Special Legislation. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 23
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 19 IMPACT OF DECERTIFIED AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING POOLING TIF DISTRICTS One frequent question we receive is what are the additional levy dollars the City can expect to receive from future TIF districts after they are decertified? As shown on Pages 6-9 in the District Summary Tables, the City will see the gradual decertification of seven (7) TIF districts over the next ten (10) years, starting with Hardcoat on December 31, 2022. These districts, when decertified, will return value to the tax rolls for general taxing purposes, and the City will see a corresponding increase in its tax base. The Districts to provide the most benefit to the tax levy will be when Park Commons and Hwy 7 Corporate Center decertify in 2027, which will provide an additional $1,270,011 in tax levy authority in 2028. The table below shows how much more the City could levy and still maintain a stable tax rate. Projected Additional Tax Levy Dollars As A Result of DECERTIFED TIF DistrictsTIF DistrictDecertifies2023 2024 202720282030Hardcoat (Obligation Paid in 2022)25,178 Park Center (Obligations Paid in Full)159,725 Zarthan (Obligations Paid in 2022)473,661 Mill City (Obligation Paid in 2022)542,469 Park Commons2,703,618 Highway 7 Corporate Center146,881 Elmwood Village2,200,888 Total Annual Captured Net Tax Capacity Returned to Tax Rolls25,178 159,725 1,016,130 2,850,499 2,200,888 City Tax Rate for Taxes Payable in 2021 (1)44.554%Estimated Additional Annual Tax Levy Available (1)11,218$ 71,164$ 452,727$ 1,270,011$ 980,584$ (1) - Assumptions:- Calculates additional dollars the City could levy and still maintain the same tax rate as Pay 2020.- Assumes no change in existing tax base from prior year- Assumes no change in the Fiscal Disparities Distribution Dollars from Pay 2020Projected Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 24
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 20 Currently, the City is keeping four (4) redevelopment TIF districts open even though their obligations are paid in full. They are retaining 35% of the TIF received for affordable housing purposes and annually returning the remaining 65% to the County for redistribution as tax dollars to the City, County and School District(s). The City’s proportionate share of the tax dollars being returned to the City annually are noted in the table below: Projected Dollars To General Fund As A Result of 65% of Returned Increment ProjectedTIF District20212022202320242025Ellipse188,036 188,036 188,036 188,036 188,036 Eliot Park124,454 124,454 124,454 124,454 124,454 Wolfe Lake41,863 41,863 41,863 41,863 41,863 Shoreham146,954 146,954 146,954 146,954 146,954 Total Annual Returned Increment-City Share501,307 501,307 501,307 501,307 501,307 Projected Dollars To General Fund As A Result of 100% of Returned Increment ProjectedTIF District20212022202320242025Ellipse292,462 292,462 292,462 292,462 292,462 Eliot Park178,064 178,064 178,064 178,064 178,064 Wolfe Lake59,573 59,573 59,573 59,573 59,573 Shoreham209,120 209,120 209,120 209,120 209,120 Total Annual City Share of Taxes if Districts Decertified739,218 739,218 739,218 739,218 739,218 Net difference237,911 237,911 237,911 237,911 237,911 Affordable housing pooling not retained(Includes loss of County dollars)451,225 451,225 451,225 451,225 451,225 Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 25
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 21 As noted in the tables above, the City’s share of the 65% returned TIF is approximately $501,000 in 2021 – 2025. In contrast, if the Districts were decertified and 100% of the City’s taxes were available, this number would increase to approximately $739,000 in the same years. However, it should be noted that if the City chose to decertify the Districts rather than keep them open for funding affordable housing initiatives, they would lose the County and School District(s) TIF dollars too, which would be a net loss of approximately $451,000 in those same years. ASSUMPTIONS Before discussing the recommendations of the current TIF analysis, it is important to understand the assumptions used in making these projections. 1. Fund Balances. Fund balances shown for debt service funds are based on actual audited amounts for December 31, 2020. 2. Tax Increment. Pay 2021 tax increment revenues are based upon Hennepin County receipts. 3. Projected Revenues. Projected revenues do not account for additional development (except the developments under a development agreement) or inflation/decrease of existing values. RECOMMENDATIONS The updated financial analysis of the City’s TIF Districts offers the following recommendations: 1. 2021 Special Legislation. We recommend staff and Ehlers review the TIF districts that have cash balances available for transfer to determine the amount to transfer to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) for 2021 and 2022. In addition, we recommend that staff develop a tracking spreadsheet for projects where the transferred TIF dollars have been expended in preparation for the first report due to the Legislature by February 1, 2024. 2. Special Pooling Provision for Affordable Housing. We recommend that staff review if the EDA should modify the TIF plan budgets for Mill City and Zarthan TIF Districts to allow for the additional 10% to be retained for affordable housing (total of 35%) or decertify one or both of the Districts to allow the tax capacity to be available for General Fund purposes. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 26
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 22 3. Pooling. Four of the redevelopment districts have cash balances within them due to funds not being fully utilized for administration or other projects within or outside the district. Following is a chart outlining four districts that have cash balances available for pooling as of December 31, 2021. Staff recommends that staff determine uses for the funds to be utilized to pay for acquisition/demolition of blighted property, environmental remediation and/or public infrastructure costs associated with redevelopment. TIF District Cash Balances Currently Available for Legal Pooling DistrictDecember 31, 2021 Cash BalanceType of Project EligibleZarthan363,991$ Victoria Ponds 132,392$ Mill City 422,469$ Wolf Lake 116,000$ West End 445,000$ Total Redevelopment1,479,852$ Redevelopment 4. Increase Interfund Loan (IFL) For Elmwood TIF District. During 2018, $2,532,200 was used for the Wooddale Bridge project. In 2019, an additional $407,870 pooling was used for the bridge. Additional pooling is anticipated in 2022 for the project. The planned expenditure would increase the amount of the interfund loan beyond the amount authorized of $7 million. We recommend that the interfund loan authorization be increased or a new IFL be created to address the costs of the Bridge. 5. Decertify Parcels in Eliot Park TIF District. Decertify the two (2) single-family home parcels from the Eliot Park TIF District. 6. Return of Increment from Redevelopment TIF Districts on an Annual Basis. Wolfe Lake, Ellipse, Eliot Park and the Shoreham have elected the additional 10% for affordable housing projects. However, the in-district obligations are over so the EDA will need to annually monitor, calculate and return any increment in excess of the 35% it is retaining for affordable housing purposes in the District (can retain up to 45% if additional 10% for admin is documented and spent on tax credit eligible projects). The City intends to utilize its proportionate share of the 65% of increment that is returned for redistribution to pay Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 27
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 23 for capital replacement projects within the General Fund in accordance with its long-range financial management plan (2021 estimated to total $501,300). 7. Inclusionary Housing Annual Reporting. The Shoreham, 4900 Excelsior, Elmwood Apartments, Wooddale Station, Parkway Residences, Texa Tonka and Beltline Residences projects have affordable housing requirements to meet. Staff should continue to work with the developers to ensure they are providing the EDA with the necessary compliance information when it is due. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 28
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 24 Tax Increment Financing Districts VICTORIA PONDS Description: Victoria Ponds TIF District (County #1303) is a redevelopment district adopted on April 1, 1996. Originally, the district encompassed four parcels of land and was established to facilitate the construction of 74 owner occupied townhomes. 90% of increment was utilized for payment on the $760,000 PAYGO note with SVK Development. This note has been paid in full. Increment not used for this agreement was used to repay a $700,000 interfund loan for a portion of the costs associated with Hutchinson Spur Trail, which has been paid in full. Excess increment was returned to Hennepin County in 2008 in order to be able to pool future increments. The City pooled $410,715 from this District for the Erv’s Garage/Lake Street Office Building LLC and paid this amount in full in July 2008. In 2012, $525,000 was used for the CAP program ($500,000 for Hardcoat and $25,000 for CAR Properties LLC). These funds were spent under the JOBS Bill authorized by the legislature in 2009 and extended in the 2010 legislative session. Use of these dollars under the special legislative authority are exempt from the standard pooling limitations of the District. The City also created an economic development TIF district under the JOBS Bill for Hardcoat, with the increment that is generated going to repay an interfund loan to this District. In 2013 the City modified the TIF district to authorize the use of approximately $490,000 in legal pooling funds to finance public improvements which consist of the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of 36th Street and Xenwood Avenue and reconstruction of the intersection and traffic signal at 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue. A total of $250,000 was used in 2019 for the South West Light Rail transit project. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 29
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 25 VICTORIA PONDS CONTINUED This District was decertified for pay 2014. There will be an approximately $132,400 cash balance at the end of 2021, which the City can retain for legal pooling. Adopted…………………………. 04/01/1996 Certified Date…………………… 06/28/1996 First Increment…………………….….07/1998 Decertification……...................... 11/18/2013 Modifications………………….… 04/07/2008 07/03/2013 Former and Current PID Numbers: Recommendations: 1. Use of Legal Pooling Funds. When the interfund loan due from Hardcoat is paid (anticipated in 2022), there will be a fund balance of approximately $133,100 that will be available for legal pooling. During 2019, $250,000 was used from this district to pool for the Southwest Light Rail Transit project. We recommend that the City develop a plan for use of these funds. If no pooling is completed, the balance will have to be returned to the County for redistribution. Former PID # New PID #New Use07-117-21-44-0103 07-117-21-41-0072, 07-117-21-41-0074 thru 07-117-21-41-010708-117-21-32-005007-117-21-44-010318-117-21-12-000508-117-21-32-0054 thru 08-117-21-32-0069, 08-117-21-32-0071, 08-117-21-32-0074 thru 08-117-21-32-010018-117-21-31-000118-117-21-12-0048 thru 18-117-21-12-005618-117-21-13-0088 thru 18-117-21-13-009018-117-21-31-006318-117-21-34-002118-117-21-34-0030 thru 18-117-21-34-003274 Town HomesStudy session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 30
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 26 VICTORIA PONDS CONTINUED City of St. Louis ParkVictoria PondsORIGINALInterest Income 0.50% 1) Limited Pooling options availableDistrict TypeRedevelopmentAdmin Expense3.00%2) Budget Mod: Not Recommended at this timeProject Area3) Admin. Expense is currently:4.6%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesA ElectionCounty Number1303TIF Report # 11886Frozen RateUTA #1 0.000%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%First ReceiptCity Approved Cert Request Certified Legal TermExpected Term Tax IncrementIFLInterest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectJobs BillPaygoAdmin Expense County Admin Outside District Other Expense TOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget1998 4/1/1996 6/19/1996 6/28/1996 12/31/2023 11/18/2013‐ ‐ ‐ Cumulative Modified6,100,000 200,000 6,300,000 4,015,000 800,000 500,000 5,315,000 5,315,000 End of District Projected Actual Total5,739,893 144,876 5,884,769 734,300 525,000 1,807,053 254,770 3,620 660,715 1,766,247 5,751,705 5,751,705 Under / (Over) Budget360,107 55,124 415,231 3,280,700 (525,000) (1,007,053) 245,230 (3,620) (660,715) (1,766,247) (436,705) (436,705) Year Base CurrentFiscal DisparitiesCapturedTax IncrementIFLInterest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Jobs BillPaygoAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE19 2016‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 128.561%‐ 8,555 8,555 ‐ ‐ 25,587 ‐ 248,100 273,687 361,894 20 2017‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 124.745%‐ 6,201 6,201 ‐ ‐ 1,427 ‐ ‐ 1,427 366,668 21 2018‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ 7,903 7,903 ‐ ‐ 901 ‐ ‐ 901 373,670 22 2019‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ 3,893 3,893 ‐ ‐ 609 250,000 ‐ 250,609 126,954 23 2020‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ 4,226 4,226 ‐ ‐ 59 572 ‐ ‐ 631 130,549 24 2021‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ 1,902 1,902 ‐ ‐ 59 ‐ ‐ 59 132,392 25 2022‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ 790 790 ‐ ‐ 59 ‐ ‐ 59 133,123 26 2023‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 59 ‐ ‐ 59 133,064 TIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal Budget DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPIDIDStudy session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 31
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 27 PARK CENTER HOUSING Description: Park Center TIF District (County #1304) is a housing district adopted on October 7, 1996. Originally, the district encompassed a portion of one parcel of land that was originally in the Excelsior Boulevard district. It was created to facilitate the development of 45 units of senior assisted living rental housing. This district was modified in 1999 to include additional parcels (which were replatted into one parcel) to allow for the construction of an additional 45 units of senior assisted living. Legislative change in 2001 eliminated the state aid penalty for this district. Increment was used to repay a $500,000 interfund loan for the Park Shores Assisted Living Project, which was paid off on September 30, 2003. In 2007, $131,000 of increment was used as part of a $400,000 deferred loan fund capital improvements for the Louisiana Court assisted living development. On February 1, 2011 $500,000 was transferred out of the District to repay the GO Louisiana Court Bonds that were refinanced. This is a deferred loan at 2% interest over a 30-year term. With the Park Shores interfund loan being repaid, there is ample increment generated on an annual basis to utilize for other affordable housing initiatives within the constraints of the TIF Act. A total of $1,435,678 has been transferred to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund to fund affordable housing initiatives through 2020. Any and all amounts transferred to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund must be used for affordable housing in the period in which it is transferred. Adopted…………………………. 10/07/1996 Certified Date…………………....05/19/1997 First Increment………………………07/1998 Anticipated Decertification…….. 12/31/2023 Modifications………………….… 09/21/1999 01/16/2007 Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 32
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 28 PARK CENTER HOUSING CONTINUED Former and Current PID Numbers: Fiscal Disparities Election: The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from outside (A election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 126.2470% Allowable Uses: MN Statute 469.176 subd. 4d specifies the activities on which tax increment from a housing district may be spent. In general, tax increment must be spent on housing projects meeting the income guidelines, public improvements directly related to housing projects and administrative expenses. The City has used increment from this district to support affordable housing initiatives, in compliance with TIF law. Obligations: None. Three-Year and Four-Year Rules: All requirements were met for the District. Five-Year Rule: Five-year rule does not pertain to housing districts since pursuant to MN Statute 469.1763 subd. 2 (b), activities for affordable housing projects spent in the project area is considered an activity within the district. Former PID # New PID #New Use06-028-24-33-001706-028-24-33-002006-028-24-33-0022Park Shores Assisted LivingStudy session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 33
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 29 PARK CENTER HOUSING CONTINUED Compliance Requirements: Income limitations are required to be monitored on an on-going basis for a Housing District. The Authority is required to substantiate that the applicable income limitations and rent restrictions are being met on an annual basis for rental. The compliance must be completed regardless of whether the project receives tax credits or not, pursuant to 469.174 sub 11. For both facilities, they have been submitting the required documentation on an annual basis and have continued to meet the requirement that 20% of the units are affordable to persons at or below 50% of the area median income. Recommendations: 1. Transfer of Increment to Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF). We recommend that staff and Ehlers determine how much of the $1,124,176 in available TIF should be transferred to the City’s AHTF by the end of 2021. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 34
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 30 PARK CENTER HOUSING CONTINUED City of St. Louis ParkPark Center HousingORIGINALInterest Income 0.50% 1) Limited Pooling options availableDistrict TypeHousing Admin Expense 3.00% 2) Budget Mod: Not Recommended at this timeProject Area3) Admin. Expense is currently:6.4%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesA ElectionCounty Number1304TIF Report # 11884Frozen RateUTA #1 126.247%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%First ReceiptCity Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax Increment Interest Income Other Revenue TOTAL REVENUESProjectAffordable Housing Interest ExpenseInterfund LoanAdmin Expense County Admin Outside District Other Expense TOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget1998 10/7/1996 12/19/1996 5/19/1997 12/31/2023 12/31/2023‐ ‐ ‐ Cumulative Modified5,750,000 250,000 6,000,000 3,700,000 2,550,000 200,000 6,450,000 6,450,000 End of District Projected Actual Total3,293,728 256,520 450,000 3,985,131 713,583 1,435,678 ‐ 136,718 183,245 8,051 ‐ ‐ 2,477,275 2,477,275 Under / (Over) Budget2,456,272 (6,520) (450,000) 2,014,869 2,986,417 (1,435,678) 2,550,000 (136,718) 16,755 (8,051) ‐ ‐ 3,972,725 3,972,725 Year Base Current iscal DisparitieCapturedTax Increment Interest Income Other Revenue TOTAL REVENUESProjectAffordable HousingPaygoInterfund LoanAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE19 20168,360 125,125 ‐ 116,765 128.561% 146,882 1,683 ‐ 148,565 144,000 4,901 719 ‐ ‐ 149,620 841,357 20 20178,360 142,188 ‐ 133,828 124.745% 166,343 1,906 ‐ 168,249 160,000 3,836 744 ‐ ‐ 164,580 845,026 21 20188,360 147,588 ‐ 139,228 130.191% 175,139 3,491 ‐ 178,630 160,000 4,682 757 ‐ ‐ 165,439 858,217 22 20198,360 152,875 ‐ 144,515 125.012% 180,010 7,438 ‐ 187,448 160,000 4,301 752 ‐ ‐ 165,053 880,612 23 20208,360 159,250 ‐ 150,890 121.682% 182,944 8,077 ‐ 191,021 126,278 4,122 746 ‐ ‐ 131,146 940,487 24 20218,360 164,938 ‐ 156,578 117.845% 183,855 4,702 ‐ 188,558 ‐ 4,122 746 ‐ ‐ 4,868 1,124,176 25 20228,360 164,938 ‐ 156,578 117.845% 183,855 5,621 ‐ 189,476 ‐ 4,122 746 ‐ ‐ 4,868 1,308,784 26 20238,360 164,938 ‐ 156,578 117.845% 183,855 6,544 ‐ 190,399 ‐ 4,122 746 ‐ ‐ 4,868 1,494,315 27 2024‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ 7,472 ‐ 7,472 ‐ 4,122 ‐ ‐ 4,122 1,497,665 28 2025‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ 7,488 ‐ 7,488 ‐ 4,122 ‐ ‐ 4,122 1,501,031 29 2026‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ 7,505 ‐ 7,505 ‐ 4,122 ‐ ‐ 4,122 1,504,414 30 2027‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ 7,522 ‐ 7,522 ‐ 4,122 ‐ ‐ 4,122 1,507,814 31 2028‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ 7,539 ‐ 7,539 ‐ 7,497 ‐ ‐ 7,497 1,507,856 32 2029‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ 7,539 ‐ 7,539 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,515,396 33 2030‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ 7,577 ‐ 7,577 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,522,973 34 2031‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,522,973 35 2032‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,522,973 36 2033‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,522,973 TIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal Budget DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPIDStudy session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 35
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 31 ZARTHAN AVENUE/16TH STREET Description: Zarthan Avenue/16th Street TIF District (County #1305 and #1306) is a redevelopment district adopted on December 20, 1999. Originally, the district encompassed twelve parcels of land and was created to facilitate the development of two hotels and 86 townhome units just south of I-394. The EDA pledged tax increment revenues from this district to three PAYGO notes, which are all held by CSM. The property tax reform of 2001 hit this development particularly hard. Currently, tax increment income is less than the annual interest payments on the notes. The notes contain pledges from three properties. The Rottlund note covers 86 owner-occupied townhomes. These tax capacities dropped by 25% in 2001. Due to the reallocation of the market value homestead credit to market value homestead exclusion in 2011, the tax capacities dropped. The remaining two notes are supported by increments from two hotels. The tax-capacities on these properties dropped by 40% in 2001, but the actual tax savings was significantly less than that amount. Assuming no change in the local tax rate, the larger of the two hotels would have seen a property tax savings of $115,000 per year but the new statewide property tax substituted a new tax for $75,000 of the savings. The state property tax is not captured by TIF and is therefore a net loss to the note holder. CSM had approached the City after the 2001 legislative changes asking for future consideration through several potential actions such as a change in the interest rate on the notes, the extension of the term of the district, pooling among the notes, a change in the fiscal disparities election in the district, lifting of the frozen tax rate, and/or pooling from other districts. No action was taken on that request. In 2014, the two (2) hotels were sold to Garrison Investment Group of New York and the TIF notes were transferred to the new owners. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 36
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 32 ZARTHAN AVENUE/16TH STREET CONTINUED Adopted………………………. 12/20/1999 Certified Date………………… 05/09/2000 First Increment…………………… 07/2001 Anticipated Decertification…...12/31/2026 Former and Current PID Numbers: Former PID # New PID #New Use130504-117-21-32-000804-117-21-32-0094Rottlund Master Parcel04-117-21-32-006604-117-21-32-0088Spring Hill Suites04-117-21-32-0102 thru 013304-117-21-32-0168 thru 018304-117-21-32-0102 thru 013304-117-21-32-0168 thru 018304-117-21-32-0088Spring Hill Suites04-117-21-32-0089Town Place Suites130604-117-21-32-000904-117-21-32-001004-117-21-32-001104-117-21-32-001204-117-21-32-001304-117-21-32-001404-117-21-32-001504-117-21-32-001604-117-21-32-0150 thru 167 and 04-117-21-32-0185 thru 20438 Rottlund Town Homes48 Rottlund Town Homes04-117-21-32-007904-117-21-32-0078 Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 37
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 33 ZARTHAN AVENUE/16TH STREET CONTINUED Fiscal Disparities Election: The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: The parcels in this district cross over two watershed districts. The county has assigned two numbers to correspond with the different watershed rates. 1305 - 143.7690% 1306 - 144.2940% Allowable Uses: MN Statute 469.176 subd. 4j specifies the activities on which tax increment from a redevelopment district may be spent. In general, tax increment must be spent on correcting those conditions which caused the area to be designated a redevelopment district. Allowable uses include property acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, installation of public utilities, road, sidewalks, public parking facilities, and allowable administrative expenses. Obligations: There are three (3) PAYGO TIF Note obligations for this district as follows: Note #1: CSM Hospitality (Town Place Suites) in the amount of $1,101,362 at 8.0% and is payable from 8/1/2002 to 2/1/2022. This note was reassigned in February of 2016 and is currently owned by MMP OpCo LLC (Minneapolis West PT) Note #2: CSM Hospitality (Spring Hill Suites) in the amount of $1,448,088 at 8.0% and is payable from 8/1/2002 to 2/1/2022. This note was reassigned in February of 2016 and is currently owned by MMP OpCo LLC (Minneapolis West HS) Note #3: The Rottlund Company in the amount of $1,395,547 at 8.0% and is payable from 8/1/2003 to 2/1/2023. This note was reassigned in February of 2016 and is currently owned by MMP OpCo LLC (Minneapolis West HS) Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 38
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 34 ZARTHAN AVENUE/16TH STREET CONTINUED Due to legislative changes to tax rates in 2001 and reallocation of the market value homestead credit to a market value homestead exclusion in 2011, it is anticipated that payments will be made on these notes through the duration stated above and that there will not be adequate TIF to pay off Notes 1 and 2. Three-Year, Four-Year and Five-Year Rules: All requirements were met for the District. Recommendations: 1. Pooling Analysis and Use of Funds. During 2019, $450,000 was used for the Southwest Light Rail Transit project and another $34,234 was to install fiberoptic cable. In 2020, an additional $29,903 was used for fiber optic. It is estimated that there will be approximately $364,000 available for pooling for qualified redevelopment costs at the end of 2021. Staff should determine a use for these funds. 2. Special Pooling Provision for Affordable Housing. Sine the obligations of the District will be paid off in 2022, we recommend that staff review if the EDA should modify the TIF plan budget to allow for the additional 10% to be retained for affordable housing (total of 35%) or decertify the District to allow the tax capacity to be available for General Fund purposes. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 39
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 35 ZARTHAN AVENUE/16TH STREET CONTINUED City of St. Louis ParkZarthan Ave ‐ 16th StORIGINALInterest Income 0.50% 1) Limited Pooling options availableDistrict TypeRedevelopment Admin Expense 1.00% 2) Budget Mod: Not Recommended at this timeProject Area3) Admin. Expense is currently:2.5%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1305, 1306TI Freport #12684Frozen RateUTA #1 143.769%UTA #2 144.294%UTA #3 0.000%484316First Receipt City Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected TermTax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectAdmin Expense County Admin Outside District Other Expense TOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget2001 12/20/1999 1/28/2000 5/9/2000 12/31/2026 12/31/2026‐ ‐ ‐ Cumulative Modified13,500,000 110,000 13,610,000 5,910,000 6,785,000 1,000,000 13,695,000 13,695,000 End of District Projected Actual Total10,509,936 65,236 10,575,173 34,070 1,516,130 1,906,252 3,692,527 203,888 20,683 553,832 1,371,474 9,298,855 9,298,855 Under / (Over) Budget2,990,064 44,764 3,034,827 5,875,930 5,268,870 (1,906,252) (3,692,527) 796,112 (20,683) (553,832) (1,371,474) 4,396,145 4,396,145 Year Base Currentiscal DisparitieCapturedTax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject CSM‐Town Place CSM‐Spring Hill CSM‐RottlundAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE17 201772,212 520,609 70,992 377,405 124.745% 467,997 3,592 471,589 ‐ 89,501 108,658 216,547 7,143 1,410 39,689 ‐ 462,949 646,153 18 201872,212 562,169 81,794 408,163 130.191% 524,194 6,978 531,172 ‐ 94,025 113,680 238,273 15,184 1,500 ‐ ‐ 462,663 714,662 19 201972,212 569,253 77,059 419,982 125.012% 520,654 1,319 521,973 ‐ 91,930 118,621 252,421 6,091 1,467 484,234 ‐ 954,764 281,871 20 202072,212 625,626 85,933 467,481 121.036% 568,320 2,696 571,016 ‐ 91,184 116,882 276,250 4,703 1,503 29,909 ‐ 520,431 332,456 21 202172,212 604,151 80,939 451,000 117.208% 527,490 1,662 529,152 ‐ 94,220 115,000 281,622 5,275 1,500 ‐ 497,617 363,991 22 202272,212 604,151 80,939 451,000 117.208% 527,490 1,820 529,310 ‐ 45,190 56,598 236,213 5,275 1,500 ‐ ‐ 344,776 548,525 23 202372,212 604,151 80,939 451,000 117.208% 527,490 2,743 530,232 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5,275 1,500 ‐ 342,868 349,643 729,114 24 202472,212 604,151 80,939 451,000 117.208% 527,490 3,646 531,135 ‐ 5,275 1,500 ‐ 342,868 349,643 910,606 25 202572,212 604,151 80,939 451,000 117.208% 527,490 4,553 532,043 ‐ 5,275 1,500 ‐ 342,868 349,643 1,093,006 26 202672,212 604,151 80,939 451,000 117.208% 527,490 5,465 532,955 ‐ 5,275 1,500 ‐ 342,868 349,643 1,276,317 TIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetPaygo DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPID Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 40
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 36 MILL CITY Description: Mill City TIF District (County #1307) is a redevelopment district adopted on March 20, 2000. Originally, the district was established with two (2) parcels to facilitate the redevelopment of a polluted site and construction of a multi-family rental housing development. Rental housing class rates were reduced dramatically by the 2001 legislature from 2.4% to 1.25%. Projected increment when the note was sized was expected to be $394,188 per year beginning in 2003, which is substantially less than the current annual tax increment. However, the reduction of increment also meant a decrease in taxes paid by the owner. Therefore, the effect upon the rental housing development should be neutral for the owner because rental housing pays no state property tax (tax obligated for the State’s education system). In 2011, The City utilized $70,000 from this district to pay for project costs for the Bikemasters project through the City’s CAP program. These funds were spent under the JOBS Bill authorized by the legislature in 2009 and extended in the 2010 legislative session. Use of these dollars under the special legislative authority are exempt from the standard pooling limitations of the District. In 2015 the property was sold. At that time, the TIF Note was reviewed to determine if the following conditions existed: (1) the property was assigned an assessor's market value as of January 2, 2001, that exceeds the market value as of January 2, 2000; and (2) there is any unpaid principal or accrued interest on this Note after the payment of available Tax Increment on February 1, 2022. Based upon the analysis that was completed, it was determined that the final TIF Note payment would be February 1, 2023. Even with the extension of payments, it is anticipated that the TIF Note will not be paid in full. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 41
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 37 MILL CITY CONTINUED Adopted…………………..….…. 03/20/2000 Certified Date……………………06/19/2000 First Increment……..……….…… 07/2001 Anticipated Decertification...… 12/31/2026 Former and Current PID Numbers: Fiscal Disparities Election: The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 144.2940% Allowable Uses: MN Statute 469.176 subd. 4j specifies the activities on which tax increment from a redevelopment district may be spent. In general, tax increment must be spent on correcting those conditions which caused the area to be designated a redevelopment district. Allowable uses include property acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, installation of public utilities, road, sidewalks, public parking facilities, and allowable administrative expenses. Former PID # Former UseNew PID #New Use17-117-21-31-0012 Vacant Land17-117-21-42-0094City Vacant Land17-117-21-34-0082 Mill City Plywood17-117-21-34-0087Mill City ApartmentsStudy session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 42
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 38 MILL CITY CONTINUED Obligations: There is currently one PAYGO Note in this district as follows: $3,431,137 at 8.75% interest. The Note was issued on November 20, 2000 to MSP SLP Apartments, LLC. The note is payable from 94.75% of the increment received on the project. After the 8/1/2021 payment, the current balance is $2,739,309 and the projected final payment is on February 1, 2023. It is expected the Note will not be paid in full due to tax rate compression from tax reform in 2001. Other Development Agreement Compliance: 1. Minimum Assessment Agreement. The minimum market value as of January 2, 2002 shall be $13,400,000. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the TIF Note is paid in full or the TIF District terminates, whichever is sooner. Three-Year, Four-Year and Five-Year Rules: All requirements were met for the District. Recommendations: 1. Pooling Analysis and Use of Funds. During 2019, $125,000 was used for the Southwest Light Rail Transit project and another $6,739 was used for fiberoptic cable. There is approximately $422,000 for pooling available by the end of 2021 and we recommend that staff determine a plan for use of the funds. 2. Special Pooling Provision for Affordable Housing. Since the obligation will be terminated after the February 1, 2023 payment, we recommend that staff review if the EDA should modify the TIF plan budget to allow for the additional 10% to be retained for affordable housing (total of 35%) or decertify the District to allow the tax capacity to be available for General Fund purposes. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 43
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 39 MILL CITY CONTINUED City of St. Louis ParkMill City ORIGINALInterest Income 0.50% 1) Limited Pooling options availableDistrict TypeRedevelopment Admin Expense 4.25% 2) Budget Mod: Not Recommended at this timeProject Area3) Admin. Expense is currently: 1.9%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1307TIF Report #12685Frozen RateUTA #1 144.294%UTA #20.000%UTA #30.000%First Receipt City Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax IncrementInterest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Interest Expense BondsAdmin Expense County Admin Outside District Other Expense TOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget2001 3/20/2000 6/8/2000 6/19/2000 12/31/2026 12/31/2026‐ ‐ ‐ Cumulative Modified11,500,000 100,000 11,600,000 8,000,000 4,300,000 1,000,000 13,300,000 13,300,000 End of District Projected Actual Total9,895,664 72,705 9,968,369 8,981 7,029,089 70,000 138,277 15,581 131,739 1,575,747 8,969,414 8,969,414 Under / (Over) Budget1,604,336 27,295 1,631,631 7,991,019 (2,729,089) (70,000) 861,723 (15,581) (131,739) (1,575,747) 4,330,586 4,330,586 Year Base CurrentFiscal DisparitieCapturedTax IncrementInterest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectPaygo Jobs BillAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE17 201712,674 437,075 ‐ 424,401 124.745% 527,513 914 528,427 ‐ 469,792 ‐ 5,026 1,218 ‐ ‐ 476,036 385,961 18 20188,859 462,500 ‐ 453,641 130.191% 588,476 2,456 590,932 ‐ 528,699 ‐ 11,235 1,275 ‐ ‐ 541,209 435,685 19 20198,859 475,000 ‐ 466,141 125.012% 580,635 1,935 582,570 ‐ 553,865 ‐ 6,078 1,231 131,739 ‐ 692,913 325,341 20 20208,859 500,000 ‐ 491,141 121.682% 595,478 3,311 598,789 ‐ 542,824 ‐ 4,731 1,220 ‐ ‐ 548,775 375,355 21 20218,859 525,000 ‐ 516,141 117.845% 606,057 1,877 607,933 ‐ 554,869 ‐ 4,731 1,220 ‐ ‐ 560,820 422,469 22 20228,859 525,000 ‐ 516,141 117.845% 606,057 2,112 608,169 ‐ 574,241 ‐ 4,731 1,220 ‐ ‐ 580,192 450,446 23 20238,859 525,000 ‐ 516,141 117.845% 606,057 2,252 608,309 ‐ 287,121 ‐ 4,731 1,220 ‐ 393,937 687,008 371,747 24 20248,859 525,000 ‐ 516,141 117.845% 606,057 1,859 607,915 ‐ ‐ 4,731 1,220 ‐ 393,937 399,888 579,774 25 20258,859 525,000 ‐ 516,141 117.845% 606,057 2,899 608,956 ‐ ‐ 4,731 1,220 ‐ 393,937 399,888 788,842 26 20268,859 525,000 ‐ 516,141 117.845% 606,057 3,944 610,001 ‐ ‐ 4,731 1,220 ‐ 393,937 399,888 998,955 TIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal Budget DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPID Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 44
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 40 PARK COMMONS Description: Park Commons TIF District (County #1308) is a redevelopment district adopted on January 16, 2001. Originally, the district encompassed 38 parcels of land, most of which were in the Excelsior Boulevard District and was established to facilitate the construction of mixed-use housing and retail facilities. Construction has been completed on all phases and consists of 338 market rate apartments, 306 condominiums and approximately 86,500 sq/ft of commercial space. The EDA entered into a contract with Meridian Properties (TOLD Development) on January 16, 2001 and executed five amendments to it for various items including end uses, timing of construction, transfer of property and remediation issues. Overall, the contract delineates PAYGO obligation for the development in an amount not to exceed $18 million at 8.5% interest, over a 22-year period. On July 1, 2003, the EDA issued a PAYGO note in the principal amount of $3.5 Million at 8.5% for the Phase I public improvements in Park Commons East. In addition, three (3) Phase Notes were issued on June 5, 2006 at 8.5% as follows: Phase NE Note for $4,668,633, Phase NW Note for $4,079,105 and Phase E Note for $3,300,715. Each Note is payable with 97% of the TIF generated from the parcels within each phase. In addition, the EDA issued an interfund loan of $3,145,046 for other public improvements. The loan is payable from the Park Commons TIF District to the Excelsior Boulevard TIF District, with interest at the rate of 4.53% (determined by the City’s financial advisor in accordance with the Contract). The improvements were financed from proceeds of the Series 1997A Bonds, and in accordance with Section on 7.3(c)(7) of the Contract, retained Available Tax Increment (as defined in the Contract) from the Park Commons TIF District is used to repay the EDA based on a payment schedule determined as if the City had issued new tax increment bonds (the effect of this provision was to create the interfund loan). Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 45
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 41 PARK COMMONS CONTINUED Expenditure of the Series 1997A Bond proceeds diverted funds that were available for ongoing redevelopment activities in the Project Area. Accordingly, the Authority determined to replenish the funds in the Excelsior Boulevard TIF District by making a loan from the Authority’s Development Fund to the account for the Excelsior Boulevard TIF District. By Resolution No. 07-02 approved January 16, 2007 (the 2007 Interfund Loan Resolution) the Authority approved a transfer of funds in the amount of $2,945,497.40 (representing the unpaid balance of the original interfund loan described in the Contract) from the Development Fund to the Excelsior Boulevard TIF District fund, thereby making those funds immediately available for redevelopment activities until termination of the Excelsior Boulevard TIF District on August 1, 2009. Due to the reallocation of the market value homestead credit to market value homestead exclusion in 2011, the tax capacities dropped for the pay 2012 taxes, thus impacting several of the Notes. Adopted……………………….. 01/16/2001 Certified Date………………… 06/07/2001 First Increment…………………… 07/2002 Decertifies…………………..… 12/31/2027 REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 46
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 42 PARK COMMONS CONTINUED Former and Current PID Numbers: Fiscal Disparities Election: The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from outside (A election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 119.0650% PhaseFormer PID # New PID #New Use07-028-24-21-010707-028-24-21-010807-028-24-21-025007-028-24-21-025107-028-24-21-025506-028-24-43-007907-028-24-12-017007-028-24-12-017407-028-24-2-1011606-028-24-34-000806-028-24-34-001806-028-24-34-000906-028-24-34-001906-028-24-34-001006-028-24-34-0022 Wolfe Park07-028-24-21-009807-028-24-21-0257 Center Green Space/Median - City Owned07-028-24-21-010907-028-24-21-011207-028-24-21-011706-028-24-34-000106-028-24-34-001106-028-24-34-001206-028-24-34-001307-028-24-21-050407-028-24-21-0099 07-028-24-21-0510 (formerly part of 7-028-24-21-0503)07-028-24-21-0254 07-028-24-21-0511 (formerly part of 7-028-24-21-0503)06-028-24-34-000206-028-24-34-0024 Outlot - Parking06-028-24-34-000306-028-24-34-000406-028-24-34-000506-028-24-34-000606-028-24-34-000706-028-24-34-0016NE06-028-24-34-0025 thru 06-028-24-34-0265Grand Condominiums at Excelsior06-028-24-34-0267 thru 06-028-24-34-0330Grand Condominiums at Excelsior1A07-028-24-21-0256 Excelsior and Grand Apartment Over Retail1B07-028-24-12-0175Excelsior and Grand Apartment Over RetailCityNWCentral Green SpaceMedian - City Owned 07-028-24-21-0258EDA Vacant Land (next to Bally's) & Part of Princeton Ln07-028-24-21-0261 thru 07-028-24-21-0502Grand Condominiums at ExcelsiorStudy session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 47
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 43 PARK COMMONS CONTINUED Allowable Uses: MN Statute 469.176 subd. 4j specifies the activities on which tax increment from a redevelopment district may be spent. In general, tax increment must be spent on correcting those conditions which caused the area to be designated a redevelopment district. Allowable uses include property acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, installation of public utilities, road, sidewalks, public parking facilities, and allowable administrative expenses. Obligations: There are currently four (4) obligations in this district as follows: $3,500,000 PAYGO Note at 8.5% interest for Phase I. This Note was issued on July 1, 2003 and is payable from 97% of the increment generated from the parcels making up the development. $3,300,715 PAYGO Note at 8.5% for Excelsior and Grand Phase E. This Note was issued on June 5, 2006 and is payable from 97% of the increment generated from the parcels making up the development. $4,668,633 PAYGO Note at 8.5% for Excelsior and Grand Phase NE. This Note was issued on June 5, 2006 and is payable from 97% of the increment generated from the parcels making up the development. $4,079,105 PAYGO Note at 8.5% for Excelsior and Grand Phase NW. This Note was issued on June 5, 2006 and is payable from 97% of the increment generated from the parcels making up the development. Three-Year, Four-Year and Five-Year Rules: All requirements were met for the District. Recommendations: None at this time. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 48
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 44 PARK COMMONS CONTINUED City of St. Louis ParkPark CommonsORIGINALInterest Income 0.50% 1) Limited Pooling options availableDistrict TypeRedevelopment Admin Expense 3.00% 2) Budget Mod: Not Recommended at this timeProject Area3) Admin. Expense is currently:0.5%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesA ElectionCounty Number1308TIF Report #12802Frozen RateUTA #1 119.065%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%First Receipt City Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected TermTax IncrementOther RevenuesInterest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Interest ExpenseAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictTOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget2002 1/16/2001 3/8/2001 6/7/2001 12/31/2027 12/31/2027‐ ‐ ‐ Cumulative Modified75,000,000 3,250,000 250,000 78,500,000 49,750,000 45,000,000 7,500,000 102,250,000 102,250,000 End of District Projected Actual Total50,855,630 128,266 50,983,896 7,396 4,733,317 9,597,913 8,215,743 11,878,864 11,005,169 204,999 95,143 511,327 ‐ 46,249,872 46,249,872 Under / (Over) Budget24,144,370 121,734 27,516,104 49,742,604 40,266,683 (9,597,913) (8,215,743) (11,878,864) (11,005,169) 7,295,001 (95,143) (511,327) ‐ 56,000,128 56,000,128 YearBase Currentiscal DisparitieCapturedTax IncrementInterest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectTOLD Excel and Grand Phase EPhase NE Phase NW Admin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE15 2016112,685 1,995,905 ‐ 1,883,220 128.561% 2,226,110 2,226,110 ‐ 279,317 737,328 270,127 442,759 427,443 10,440 6,066 ‐ ‐ 2,173,480 926,567 16 201772,035 2,349,411 ‐ 2,277,376 124.745% 2,652,452 114 2,652,566 ‐ 279,317 881,761 278,355 442,129 475,217 10,985 6,517 ‐ ‐ 2,374,281 1,204,852 17 201872,035 2,302,146 ‐ 2,230,111 130.191% 2,633,103 2,626 2,635,729 ‐ 279,317 976,442 303,186 496,951 512,157 6,133 6,387 ‐ ‐ 2,580,573 1,260,008 18 201972,035 2,399,370 ‐ 2,327,335 125.012% 2,757,776 10,137 2,767,913 ‐ 279,317 1,035,706 299,242 480,190 465,105 5,811 6,406 ‐ ‐ 2,571,776 1,456,145 19 202072,035 2,478,053 ‐ 2,406,018 121.682% 2,860,262 13,289 2,873,551 ‐ 279,317 1,074,568 319,494 488,543 528,545 6,579 6,488 ‐ ‐ 2,703,533 1,626,163 20 202172,035 2,618,965 ‐ 2,546,930 117.845% 2,990,625 8,131 2,998,755 ‐ 161,073 1,289,204 327,769 533,096 514,559 6,579 6,488 ‐ ‐ 2,838,768 1,786,151 21 202272,035 2,618,965 ‐ 2,546,930 117.845% 2,990,625 8,931 2,999,555 ‐ 270,144 507,387 864,510 880,089 6,579 6,488 ‐ ‐ 2,535,197 2,250,509 22 202372,035 2,618,965 ‐ 2,546,930 117.845% 2,990,625 11,253 3,001,877 ‐ 667,948 1,149,140 1,157,421 6,579 6,488 ‐ ‐ 2,987,576 2,264,810 23 202472,035 2,618,965 ‐ 2,546,930 117.845% 2,990,625 11,324 3,001,949 ‐ 667,948 1,149,140 1,157,421 6,579 6,488 ‐ ‐ 2,987,576 2,279,183 24 202572,035 2,618,965 ‐ 2,546,930 117.845% 2,990,625 11,396 3,002,020 ‐ 667,948 1,149,140 1,157,421 6,579 6,488 ‐ ‐ 2,987,576 2,293,628 25 202672,035 2,618,965 ‐ 2,546,930 117.845% 2,990,625 11,468 3,002,093 ‐ 667,948 1,149,140 739,475 6,579 6,488 ‐ ‐ 2,569,630 2,726,090 26 202772,035 2,618,965 ‐ 2,546,930 117.845% 2,990,625 13,630 3,004,255 ‐ 667,948 ‐ ‐ 6,579 6,488 ‐ ‐ 681,015 5,049,331 27 2028‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ 25,247 25,247 ‐ 333,974 ‐ ‐ 6,579 ‐ ‐ 340,553 4,734,024 Paygo Notes DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceIDStudy session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 49
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 45 WOLFE LAKE Description: Wolfe Lake TIF District (County #1310) is a redevelopment district adopted on July 7, 2003. Originally the district encompassed four (4) parcels of land and was established to facilitate the rehabilitation of an area adjacent to West 36th Street and Belt Line Boulevard into office and other commercial uses. These parcels were eventually replatted into two (2) parcels when development was commenced. This district was certified by the County on April 26, 2004 and first increment was received in 2006. The EDA modified the budget in 2019 to allow for an additional 10% pooling for affordable housing. Since the in-district obligations are paid in full the EDA will need to annually monitor, calculate and return any increment in excess of the 35% it is retaining for affordable housing purposes in the District (can retain up to 45% if additional 10% for admin is documented and spent on tax credit eligible projects). The City intends to utilize its proportionate share of the 65% of increment that is returned for redistribution to pay for capital replacement projects within the General Fund in accordance with its long-range financial management plan. Adopted……………………..….…07/07/2003 Certified Date……………….…….04/26/2004 First Increment………………..…......07/2006 Modification…………………….…..12/2/2019 Anticipated Decertification……....12/31/2031 Former and Current PID Numbers: Fiscal Disparities Election: The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Former PID # Former UseNew PID #New Use06-028-24-31-0020 Vacant Land06-028-24-31-0022Wolfe Lake West Multi-Tenant Commercial06-028-24-31-0020 Multi-Tenant Building06-028-24-31-0023Wolfe Lake East - OfficeStudy session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 50
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 46 WOLFE LAKE CONTINUED Frozen Tax Rate: 120.9240% Allowable Uses: MN Statute 469.176 subd. 4j specifies the activities on which tax increment from a redevelopment district may be spent. In general, tax increment must be spent on correcting those conditions which caused the area to be designated a redevelopment district. Allowable uses include property acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, installation of public utilities, road, sidewalks, public parking facilities, and allowable administrative expenses. Obligations: None. Three-Year, Four-Year and Five-Year Rules: All requirements were met for the District. Recommendations: 1. Use of TIF For Redevelopment. The TIF Note for this District was paid off on February 1, 2020. At the end of 2021, there is a cash balance of approximately $116,000 in the District for use on redevelopment projects. We recommend that staff determine a plan for use of the funds for redevelopment purposes. 2. Return of Increment For Redistribution on an Annual Basis. The EDA modified the budget in 2019 to allow for an additional 10% pooling for affordable housing. Since the in-district obligations are paid in full the EDA will need to annually monitor, calculate and return any increment in excess of the 35% (can retain up to 45% if additional 10% for admin is documented and spent on tax credit eligible projects). The City intends to utilize its proportionate share of the 65% of increment that is returned for redistribution to pay for capital replacement projects within the General Fund in accordance with its long-range financial management plan. 3. Transfer of Increment to Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF). We recommend that staff and Ehlers determine how much of the $104,110 available should be transferred to the City’s AHTF by the end of 2021. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 51
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 47 WOLFE LAKE CONTINUED City of St. Louis ParkWolfe lakeORIGINALHSS Geo. EnlargementInterest Income 0.50% 1) Limited Pooling options availableDistrict TypeRedevelopmentAdmin Expense3.00%2) Budget Mod: Not Recommended at this timeProject Area3) Admin. Expense is currently:3.6%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1310TIF Report #16078Frozen RateUTA #1 120.942%0.000%0.000%UTA #20.000%UTA #30.000%First ReceiptCity Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Intersest ExpenseAffordable HousingAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget2006 7/7/2003 12/15/2003 4/26/2004 12/31/2031 12/31/2031‐ ‐ ‐ Cumulative Modified12/2/20192,594,000 50,000 2,644,000 593,000 1,350,000 572,000 129,000 2,644,000 2,644,000 End of District Projected Actual Total3,645,951 29,305 3,195,400 ‐ 1,630,947 ‐ 110,031 13,569 ‐ 1,223,724 2,658,773 2,978,271 Under / (Over) Budget(1,051,951) 20,695 (551,400) 593,000 (280,947) 572,000 18,969 (13,569) ‐ (1,223,724) (14,773) (334,271) YearBaseCurrent Fiscal Disparities CapturedTax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectPaygoAffordable HousingAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE11 201634,346 191,770 46,716 110,708 128.561% 133,411 181 133,592 ‐ 120,721 ‐ 6,099 704 ‐ ‐ 127,524 89,839 12 201734,346 192,520 51,569 106,605 124.745% 128,466 186 128,652 ‐ 124,392 ‐ 7,121 697 ‐ ‐ 132,210 86,281 13 201834,346 202,420 57,547 110,527 130.191% 133,191 510 133,701 ‐ 117,352 ‐ 5,307 708 ‐ ‐ 123,367 96,615 14 201934,346 215,680 60,161 121,173 125.012% 146,024 1,634 147,658 ‐ 118,185 ‐ 9,372 716 ‐ ‐ 128,273 116,000 15 202034,346 227,700 64,210 129,144 121.682% 155,628 2,983 158,611 ‐ 48,449 ‐ 3,730 718 ‐ 101,158 154,055 120,557 16 202134,346 234,040 65,985 133,709 117.845% 157,002 603 157,605 ‐ ‐ 3,730 718 ‐ 102,051 106,499 171,662 17 202234,346 234,040 65,985 133,709 117.845% 157,002 858 157,860 ‐ ‐ 3,730 718 ‐ 102,051 106,499 223,023 18 202334,346 234,040 65,985 133,709 117.845% 157,002 1,115 158,117 ‐ ‐ 3,730 718 ‐ 102,051 106,499 274,641 19 202434,346 234,040 65,985 133,709 117.845% 157,002 1,373 158,375 ‐ ‐ 3,730 718 ‐ 102,051 106,499 326,517 20 202534,346 234,040 65,985 133,709 117.845% 157,002 1,633 158,635 ‐ ‐ 3,730 718 ‐ 102,051 106,499 378,652 21 202634,346 234,040 65,985 133,709 117.845% 157,002 1,893 158,895 ‐ ‐ 3,730 718 ‐ 102,051 106,499 431,048 22 2027 34,346 234,040 65,985 133,709 117.845% 157,002 2,155 159,157 ‐ ‐ 3,730 718 ‐ 102,051 106,499 483,706 23 202834,346 234,040 65,985 133,709 117.845% 157,002 2,419 159,421 ‐ ‐ 3,730 718 ‐ 102,051 106,499 536,628 24 202934,346 234,040 65,985 133,709 117.845% 157,002 2,683 159,685 ‐ ‐ 3,730 718 ‐ 102,051 106,499 589,813 25 203034,346 234,040 65,985 133,709 117.845% 157,002 2,949 159,951 ‐ ‐ 3,730 718 ‐ 102,051 106,499 643,265 26 203134,346 234,040 65,985 133,709 117.845% 157,002 3,216 160,218 ‐ ‐ 3,730 718 ‐ 102,051 106,499 696,984 27 2032‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 696,984 28 2033‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 696,984 DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetID Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 52
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 48 AQUILA COMMONS Description: Aquila Commons (County #1311) is a housing district adopted on September 7, 2004. Originally the district encompassed one (1) parcel of land and was established to facilitate the construction of a limited equity senior housing co-operative on the former Talmud Torah School. The district currently contains 106 owner-occupied units in the form of a limited equity cooperative, under which 95% of the initial buyers will need to meet TIF income restrictions Adopted………………………..09/07/2004 Certified Date………….....… 04/04/2005 First Increment………………….…07/2007 Anticipated Decertification… 12/31/2032 Former and Current PID Numbers: This TIF district originally had one (1) parcel and was replatted into 107 parcels. Fiscal Disparities Election: The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 114.27100% Former PID # Former UseNew PID #New Use18-117-21-14-0008Aquila Commons Senior Cooperative - Master Parcel18-117-21-14-0167 through 0272Aquila Commons Senior Cooperative18-117-21-14-0008SchoolStudy session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 53
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 49 AQUILA COMMONS CONTINUED Allowable Uses: MN Statute 469.176 subd. 4d specifies the activities on which tax increment from a housing district may be spent. In general, tax increment must be spent on housing projects meeting the income guidelines, public improvements directly related to housing projects and administrative expenses. Obligations: None. Three-Year and Four-Year Rules: All requirements were met for the District. Five Year Rule: Five-year rule does not pertain to housing districts since pursuant to MN Statute 469.1763 subd. 2 (b), activities for affordable housing projects spent in the project area is considered an activity within the district. Recommendation: 1. Transfer of Increment to Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF). We recommend that staff and Ehlers determine how much of the $1,124,176 in available TIF should be transferred to the City’s AHTF by the end of 2021. 2. Use of Future TIF After December 31, 2026. Through December 31, 2026 the City will transfer its funds to its AHTF for use on affordable housing projects. After this date and through December 31, 2032 the District will generate approximately $238,000 annually. These funds will need to be utilized to pay eligible costs for “housing projects” located anywhere within the City limits. A housing project is a rental or owner-occupied housing development intended for occupancy by low and moderate-income families. The income guidelines are defined in MS 469.1761 as follows: Rental Housing: 20% of the units occupied by families at 50% of median income (20/50) or 40% of the units occupied by families at 60% of median income (40/60). Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 54
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 50 AQUILA COMMONS CONTINUED Owner Occupied: Assistance to homeowners with an income at or below 100% of the median income for a family of two or less or 115% of the median income for a family of three or more. TIF is utilized for capital expenditures and examples of potential rental housing projects would include: New affordable rental housing as part of redevelopment (20/50 or 40/60 election) Renovation of an existing rental housing development (20/50 or 40/60 election) Providing subsidy to an existing project that is earmarked for additional affordability (20/50 or 40/60 election) Examples of potential owner-occupied projects would include: Site acquisition and demolition for infill lots that will be sold for new housing construction Acquisition of foreclosed homes for resale to income qualified buyers Rehabilitation loans for home improvements (including HIA owners) Second mortgages to qualified home buyers Due to the on-going need to fund the City’s single-family, owner-occupied housing rehab program (to income qualified residents), the current policy around inclusionary housing and the EDA’s/Council’s expressed desire to retain naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH), we recommend that the EDA/City keep this District open (just like they did with Park Center) and utilize the funds for affordable housing projects within the City. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 55
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 51 AQUILA COMMONS CONTINUED City of St. Louis ParkAquila CommonsORIGINALHSS Geo. EnlargementInterest Income 0.50% 1) Limited Pooling options availableDistrict TypeHousing Admin Expense 3.00% 2) Budget Mod: Not Recommended at this timeProject Area3) Admin. Expense is currently:3.4%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1311TIF Report # 16081Frozen RateUTA #1 114.271%0.000%0.000%UTA #20.000%UTA #30.000%First ReceiptCity Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax IncrementInterest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Interest ExpenseAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget2007 9/7/2004 12/20/2004 4/4/2005 12/31/2032 12/31/2032‐ ‐ ‐ Cumulative Modified7,271,716 7,271,716 5,750,000 794,544 727,712 7,272,256 7,272,256 End of District Projected Actual Total5,088,579 22,783 4,157,755 ‐ 1,551,143 122,631 23,101 126,278 346 1,800,707 1,823,499 Under / (Over) Budget2,183,137 (22,783) 3,113,961 5,750,000 (756,599) 605,081 (23,101) (126,278) (346) 5,471,549 5,448,757 YearBaseCurrent Fiscal Disparities CapturedTax IncrementInterest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectPaygoAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE11 201716,906 176,487 ‐ 159,581 124.745% 181,535 145 181,680 ‐ 165,416 5,796 1,110 ‐ ‐ 172,322 109,855 12 201816,906 187,379 ‐ 170,473 130.191% 194,003 1,009 195,012 ‐ 124,226 5,935 1,139 ‐ ‐ 131,300 173,566 13 201916,906 201,643 ‐ 184,737 125.012% 210,278 7,865 218,143 4,715 1,153 ‐ ‐ 5,868 385,841 14 202016,906 218,015 ‐ 201,109 121.682% 228,980 12,575 241,555 ‐ 4,521 1,177 126,278 ‐ 131,976 495,420 15 202116,906 226,288 ‐ 209,382 117.845% 238,402 238,402 ‐ 4,521 1,177 ‐ ‐ 5,698 728,124 16 202216,906 226,288 ‐ 209,382 117.845% 238,402 238,402 ‐ 4,521 1,177 ‐ ‐ 5,698 960,827 17 202316,906 226,288 ‐ 209,382 117.845% 238,402 238,402 ‐ 4,521 1,177 ‐ ‐ 5,698 1,193,531 18 202416,906 226,288 ‐ 209,382 117.845% 238,402 238,402 ‐ ‐ 4,521 1,177 ‐ ‐ 5,698 1,426,235 19 202516,906 226,288 ‐ 209,382 117.845% 238,402 238,402 ‐ ‐ 4,521 1,177 ‐ ‐ 5,698 1,658,938 20 202616,906 226,288 ‐ 209,382 117.845% 238,402 238,402 ‐ ‐ 4,521 1,177 ‐ ‐ 5,698 1,891,642 21 202716,906 226,288 ‐ 209,382 117.845% 238,402 238,402 ‐ ‐ 4,521 1,177 ‐ ‐ 5,698 2,124,345 22 202816,906 226,288 ‐ 209,382 117.845% 238,402 238,402 ‐ ‐ 4,521 1,177 ‐ ‐ 5,698 2,357,049 23 202916,906 226,288 ‐ 209,382 117.845% 238,402 238,402 ‐ ‐ 4,521 1,177 ‐ ‐ 5,698 2,589,752 24 203016,906 226,288 ‐ 209,382 117.845% 238,402 238,402 ‐ ‐ 4,521 1,177 ‐ ‐ 5,698 2,822,456 25 203116,906 226,288 ‐ 209,382 117.845% 238,402 238,402 ‐ ‐ 4,521 1,177 ‐ ‐ 5,698 3,055,160 26 203216,906 226,288 ‐ 209,382 117.845% 238,402 238,402 ‐ ‐ 4,521 1,177 ‐ ‐ 5,698 3,287,863 27 2033‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,287,863 DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetID Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 56
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 52 ELMWOOD VILLAGE Description: Elmwood Village (County #1312) is a renewal and renovation district adopted on August 2, 2004. Originally the district encompassed seventeen (17) parcels of land and was established to facilitate the construction of various public improvements related to the construction of housing and commercial facilities (a portion of this district is derived from parcels decertified from the Trunk Highway 7 TIF District). The District was initially established to assist Rottlund Homes with additional site improvements and land acquisition costs associated with a condominium/townhome project on the old Quadian site. Rottlund was issued a PAYGO note in the amount of $790,000 at 5.75% interest. The note was paid off on February 1, 2010 and the TIF generated from these parcels can be utilized by the City for other qualified TIF costs. On February 21, 2006 this district was modified to add eight additional parcels. The parcels were part of the Hoigaards redevelopment project which consists of a 220-unit market rate apartment building, 100-unit senior independent apartment building, 22 rental townhomes, a mixed-use residential development consisting of 74 condos (temporarily turned rental) over 25,000 square feet retail and a regional storm pond. The City issued short-term taxable tax increment revenue notes to finance costs for the Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 57
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 53 ELMWOOD VILLAGE CONTINUED mixed-use building and the market rate apartment building. The first note was issued in 2006 in the amount of $1,663,000 and the second note was issued in 2007 in the amount of $2,540,000. On October 21, 2010, the EDA issued long-term tax-exempt tax increment revenue bonds to refinance the short-term notes in the amount of $3,495,000 (the A bonds). These revenue bonds are paid from tax increment generated from the Camarata Apartments (220 units) and the Harmony Vista condos/Apartments and retail. Since these are revenue bonds, the EDA does not carry any legal liability to make payments on the bonds if the tax increment generated is insufficient to do so. The bonds were sized with 125% debt service coverage and a debt service reserve fund in the amount of $165,875 was funded with bond proceeds. In addition, the EDA issued a subordinated TIF note in the amount of $935,000 to Northern Holding II, LLC on the same date. This note is paid from increment generated from the Camarata Apartments and Harmony Vista Condos/Apartments and retail on a subordinate basis to the A note (paid from available increment not needed to pay debt service on the A bonds). In 2009, Greco Development purchased a parcel of land from Rottlund for redevelopment into a vertical mixed-use development consisting of 115 units of senior housing over approximately 10,000 sq/ft of retail. On June 7, 2010, the EDA approved a development agreement with Wooddale Catered Living LLC to provide them a PAYGO note in the amount of $490,000. The project is complete and the TIF Note was issued on August 1, 2013. This note was issued for $490,000 and is payable through 95% of increment related to the project. Construction of the last two phases began in 2012. In early 2013, both the Adagio (100-unit senior apartment) and the Medley Row rental townhomes (26-units) were completed. TIF Notes were issued for these projects in 2013 for $1,020,000 ($820,000 for Adagio and $200,000 for Medley Row). Due to the reallocation of the market value homestead credit to market value homestead exclusion in 2011, the tax capacities dropped for the pay 2012 taxes on the Rottlund town homes, thus reducing the amount of TIF generated for use by the EDA. During 2018, $2,530,000 was pooled from this District for the Wooddale Bridge project. In 2019, an additional $407,870 was pooled outside the district. It is estimated that an additional $4.3M for that project in 2022. Further, the projections anticipate an additional $3.M that could be pooled for projects in the future. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 58
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 54 ELMWOOD VILLAGE CONTINUED Adopted:…………………….….08/02/2004 Certified Date:………….……...05/31/2005 First Increment……………….… 07/2007 Anticipated Decertification……12/31/2029 Modifications:…………………. 02/21/2006 10/19/2009 Special Legislation: In 2009 the City received special legislation to extend the term of the district by 6 years. The duration of the district is now 22 years, versus the original 16 years (Laws of 2009, Chapter 88, Article 5, Section 19). The reason for the extension was to utilize the additional TIF revenue generated to complete improvements to Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue bridge as well as the Wooddale and 36th Street intersection (see language on page below): Sec. 19. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK; EXTENSION OF TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT DURATION. Notwithstanding Minnesota Statutes, section 469.176, subdivision 1b, the duration of the Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing District is extended to 22 years after receipt by the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority of the first increment from the district. In 2016, the City obtained special legislation to increase the pooling percentage from 20% to 30%. (Laws of 2017, 1st Special Session 1, Article 6, Section 21) Sec. 21 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK; ELMWOOD VILLAGE TIF DISTRICT; POOLING PERCENTAGE INCREASE. For purposes of the Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing District in the city of St. Louis Park, including the duration extension authorized by Laws 2009, chapter 88, article 5, section 19, the permitted percentage of increments that may be expended on activities outside the district under Minnesota Statutes, section 469.1763, subdivision 2, is increased to 30 percent for the district. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 59
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 55 ELMWOOD VILLAGE CONTINUED Former and Current PID Numbers: Former PID # New PID #New Use06-028-24-32-002006-028-24-32-0024 and 16-117-21-34-0355Detention Pond (24) and Commercial component of Harmony Vista (including triangular parking parcel)16-117-21-31-006516-117-21-31-0077Medly Row Town Homes (yet to be built)16-117-21-31-006606-028-24-32-0023Camerata Apartments16-117-21-34-001816-117-21-34-0340Adagio Condos (yet to be built)16-117-21-34-007516-117-21-34-003516-117-21-34-0017Same as Former PIDExisting Bldg - No Redev16-117-21-34-0015Same as Former PIDExisting Bldg - No Redev16-117-21-34-002716-117-21-34-000116-117-21-33-010416-117-21-33-0107 through 16-117-21-33-0196; & 16-117-21-34-0146 through 16-117-21-34-0194Senior (55+) Condos16-117-21-34-009516-117-21-34-0218 through 16-117-21-34-0339Village Lofts-Condos16-117-21-34-009616-117-21-34-0100 through 16-117-21-34-0119Elmwood Village-Condos16-117-21-34-009716-117-21-34-0120 through 16-117-21-34-0137Elmwood Village-Condos16-117-21-34-009816-117-21-34-0195 through 16-117-21-34-0217Elmwood Village-Condos16-117-21-33-010516-117-21-33-0197 through 16-117-21-33-0212Elmwood Village-Condos16-117-21-33-0106Same as Former PIDLuther Car Dealership16-117-21-34-0099Same as Former PIDCommon Area (Condos/TH)16-117-21-31-0071Same as Former PIDExisting Building - Industrial (EDA Owned)16-117-21-32-0057Same as Former PIDExisting Building - Office16-117-21-33-0089Same as Former PIDEDA Owned Vacant Land16-117-21-33-0091Same as Former PIDEDA Owned Parking16-117-21-33-0092Same as Former PIDEDA Owned Vacant Land16-117-21-33-0094Same as Former PIDEDA Owned Vacant Land16-117-21-34-003421-117-21-21-005316-117-21-34-0603Center Park16-117-21-34-0355 and 16-117-21-34-0356 thru 16-117-21-34-0604Harmony Vista Condos (includes garage stalls and hallways)16-117-21-34-0607Woodale Catered Living Apts Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 60
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 56 ELMWOOD VILLAGE CONTINUED Fiscal Disparities Election: The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 114.2710% Allowable Uses: MN Statute 469.176 subd. 4j specifies the activities on which tax increment from a renewal and renovation district may be spent. In general, tax increment must be spent on correcting those conditions which caused the area to be designated a redevelopment district. Allowable uses include property acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, installation of public utilities, road, sidewalks, public parking facilities, and allowable administrative expenses. In addition, pursuant to the TIF plan the dollars can be utilized for improvements of a grade separated crossing for Wooddale Avenue at Highway 100. Obligations: There are four (4) Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds, one (1) PAYGO Note and one (1) Interfund Loan that were issued for the projects within this district as follows: $3,495,000 Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bond, Series 2010A. This Bond was issued on October 21, 2010 and sold to third party investors. The EDA has pledged 95% of the tax increment revenues from the project. This Bond will be paid in full on February 1, 2023. $935,000 Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bond, Series 2010B. This Bond was issued on October 21, 2010 and was privately placed. This Bond is subordinated to the 2010A bonds and is paid from 95% of the tax increment revenues from the project. This Bond were repaid in full on February 1, 2018. $490,000 TIF Note at 6.5% interest. This Note was issued to Wooddale Catered Living on August 1, 2013. The EDA has pledged 95% of the tax increment revenues from the project. This Note was paid in full by February 1, 2017. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 61
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 57 ELMWOOD VILLAGE CONTINUED $3,298,200 Interfund Loan for site improvements. The EDA approved an interfund loan on December 20, 2010 for public improvements associated with the District and will be repaid from 100% of the TIF generated from the extension of the District. The IFL was for up to $5 million in expenditures. Originally, the City, advanced $3,298,200 of the loan based upon the 5-year rule date of May 31, 2015. Subsequent to the 2017 Special Legislation, the City increased the amount authorized under the interfund loan to $7 million on resolution 17-22. At year-end 2020, the balance of the interfund loan was $1,886,043. The 2018 pooled expenditures for the Wooddale Bridge project did not increase the balance of the loan. It is anticipated that additional pooling expenditures in 2022 should increase the balance of the interfund loan by approximately $3,571,500. Any additional amounts would increase the principal amount of the loan over the amount authorized. We would recommend that the interfund loan amount is increased to accommodate this expenditure. $820,000 Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Note of 2013A. This bond was issued on July 29, 2013 and is payable at 4.0% to Webster LLC for the Adagio Senior Apartments. This Note was paid in full on August 1, 2019. $200,000 Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Note of 2013B. This bond was issued on July 29, 2013 and is payable at 4.00% to Medley Row Town Homes. This Note was paid in full by August 1, 2019. Three-Year, Four-Year and Five-Year Rules: All requirements were met for the District. Recommendation: 1. Increase Interfund Loan (IFL). During 2018, $2,532,200 was used for the Wooddale Bridge project. In 2019, an additional $407,870 pooling was used for the bridge. Additional pooling is anticipated in 2022 for the Wooddale Bridge. The planned expenditure would increase the amount of the interfund loan beyond the amount authorized of $7 million. We recommend that the interfund loan authorization be increased or a new IFL be created to address the costs of the Bridge. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 62
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 58 ELMWOOD VILLAGE CONTINUED City of St. Louis ParkElmwood VillageORIGINALHSS Geo. EnlargementInterest Income 0.50% 1) Limited Pooling options availableDistrict TypeRenewal and Renovation Admin Expense2) Budget Mod: Not Recommended at this timeProject Area3) Admin. Expense is currently: for year 20192.0%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1312TIF Report #16080Frozen RateUTA #1 114.271% 0.000% 0.000%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2019First ReceiptCity Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax IncrementInterest Income Other Revenue TOTAL REVENUESProject Interest ExpenseInterfund LoanAdmin Expense County Admin Outside District TOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget2007 8/2/2004 12/20/2004 5/31/2005 12/31/2029 12/31/2029‐ ‐ ‐ Cumulative Modified44,100,000 44,100,000 13,590,000 26,100,000 4,410,000 44,100,000 44,100,000 End of District Projected Actual Total39,649,409 563,893 190,469 8,633,000 46,514,921 6,628,418 956,050 566,314 954,776 235,578 8,836,865 4,653,075 1,111,894 1,926,141 438,710 63,711 6,641,858 33,006,327 33,013,390 Under / (Over) Budget4,450,591 (563,893) (190,469) (8,633,000) (2,414,921) 6,961,582 25,143,950 (566,314) (954,776) (235,578) (8,836,865) (4,653,075) (1,111,894) (1,926,141) 3,971,290 (63,711) (6,641,858) 11,093,673 11,086,610 YearBaseCurrent Fiscal Disparities CapturedTax IncrementOther Revenue Interest Income Bond ProceedsTOTAL REVENUESProject Rottlund GreccoAdagio Medey Row Refunded Bonds 2010A 2010B Interfund LoanAdmin Expense County Admin Outside District TOTAL EXPENSE14 2017168,836 1,803,274 12,479 1,621,959 124.745% 1,653,982 4,661 ‐ 1,658,643 21,043 211,650 45,927 ‐ 356,762 272,709 107,228 21,275 4,986 1,041,580 (1,365,648) 15 2018168,836 1,911,784 17,650 1,725,298 130.191% 1,875,124 18,642 ‐ 1,893,766 ‐ 239,731 54,578 ‐ 365,869 83,852 111,517 8,768 5,104 2,532,188 3,401,606 (2,873,488) 16 2019168,836 1,958,006 23,776 1,765,394 125.012% 2,014,165 9,830 ‐ 2,023,995 ‐ 165,029 66,848 ‐ 367,500 115,978 8,973 5,075 407,870 1,137,273 (1,986,766) 17 2020168,836 2,173,854 29,977 1,975,041 121.682% 2,212,120 39,409 ‐ 2,251,529 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 377,625 120,617 7,462 5,339 511,043 (246,280) 18 2021168,836 2,232,779 31,460 2,032,483 117.845% 2,314,178 ‐ 2,314,178 ‐ ‐ 381,625 75,442 4,954 462,021 1,605,877 19 2022 168,836 2,255,107 31,775 2,054,496 117.845% 2,339,242 ‐ 2,339,242 ‐ ‐ 389,625 48,459 4,954 3,561,211 4,004,249 (59,131) 20 2023 168,836 2,277,658 32,092 2,076,730 117.845% 2,364,556 ‐ 2,364,556 ‐ ‐ 328,000 162,846 10,000 4,954 ‐ 505,800 1,799,626 21 2024 168,836 2,300,434 32,413 2,099,185 117.845% 2,390,124 ‐ 2,390,124 ‐ ‐ ‐ 139,360 10,000 4,954 ‐ 154,314 4,035,436 22 2025168,836 2,323,439 32,737 2,121,865 117.845% 2,415,948 ‐ 2,415,948 ‐ ‐ ‐ 114,934 10,000 4,954 ‐ 129,888 6,321,495 23 2026168,836 2,346,673 33,065 2,144,772 117.845% 2,442,030 ‐ 2,442,030 ‐ ‐ ‐ 89,532 10,000 ‐ 99,532 8,663,994 24 2027168,836 2,370,140 33,395 2,167,908 117.845% 2,468,372 ‐ 2,468,372 ‐ ‐ ‐ 63,113 10,000 ‐ 73,113 11,059,253 25 2028168,836 2,393,841 33,729 2,191,276 117.845% 2,494,979 ‐ 2,494,979 ‐ ‐ ‐ 35,638 10,000 ‐ 45,638 13,508,594 26 2029168,836 2,417,780 34,067 2,214,877 117.845% 2,521,851 ‐ 2,521,851 ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,063 ‐ ‐ 7,063 16,023,382 27 2030‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 16,023,382 28 2031‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 16,023,382 29 2032‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 16,023,382 30 2033‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 16,023,382 Ending BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local Tax RateRevenuesExpenditures DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSBondsPaygoTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetID Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 63
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 59 HIGHWAY 7 CORPORATE CENTER Description: Highway 7 Business Center (redevelopment district) and the Highway 7 Hazardous Substance Subdistrict (County #1313) were adopted on May 15, 2006. Originally the district encompassed five (5) parcels of land and was established to facilitate the cleanup of contaminated land and the construction of a 78,000 square foot multi-tenant office/showroom/tech building. The City also received environmental grant funds from Hennepin County, the Minnesota Department of Employee and Economic Development and the Metropolitan Council in the amount of $4,950,000, $1,904,456 and $967,000 respectively. A development agreement was signed on June 28, 2006 with the Highway 7 Business Center LLC in which the developer agreed to construct a 78,000 square foot multi-tenant industrial building, including all related parking improvements. Adopted…………………….... 05/15/2006 Certified Date……………….. 07/17/2006 First Increment…………..……… 07/2007 Required Decertification…… 12/31/2032 Anticipated Decertification…. 12/31/2027 Before After Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 64
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 60 HIGHWAY 7 CORPORATE CENTER CONTINUED Former and Current PID Numbers: Former PIDFormer UseNew PIDNew Use17-117-21-44-0002Vacant Land17-117-21-44-0023Multi Tenant17-117-21-44-0024LBF17-117-21-44-0060 Caryn International School17-117-21-44-0065Golden AutoHwy 7 Corporate Center17-117-21-44-006917-117-21-44-0070 Fiscal Disparities Election: The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 107.2660% Allowable Uses: MN Statute 469.176 subd. 4j specifies the activities on which tax increment from a redevelopment district may be spent. In general, tax increment must be spent on correcting those conditions which caused the area to be designated a redevelopment district. Allowable uses include property acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, installation of public utilities, road, sidewalks, public parking facilities, and allowable administrative expenses. MN Statute 469.176 subd. 4e specifies the activities on which tax increment from a hazardous substance subdistrict may be spent. In general, tax increment must be spent only on removing hazardous substances from the site, pollution testing and related administrative and legal costs. Obligations: There are four (4) PAYGO notes, totaling $2,555,000 that were issued for this project on July 24, 2008 (Note A and B) and October 6, 2008 (Note C & D) as follows: $2,100,000 PAYGO Note A for Highway Business center LLC paid at 1% interest. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 65
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 61 HIGHWAY 7 CORPORATE CENTER CONTINUED $360,000 PAYGO Note B for Highway Business Center LLC paid at 1% interest. $72,000 PAYGO Note C for Highway Business Center LLC paid at 1% interest. $23,000 PAYGO Note D for Highway Business Center LLC paid at 1% interest. These Notes are paid from 95% of the available increment. The available increment is prorated semi-annually with the TIF payments prorated to Notes A and B first before payment is made to Notes C and D 86% being paid to the A Note and 14% being paid to the B Note. It is anticipated that the Notes A and B will be repaid in 2027 and Notes C and D will be repaid in 2028. Other Development Agreement Compliance: 1. Railroad Easement. By December 31, 2006, the Developer agrees to execute and deliver to the City the Railroad Easement Agreement. Under the Easement Agreement, the Developer grants to the City an easement for railroad right of way purposes on a portion of the property. 2. Look Back. (a) Within 60 days before any Transfer of the property (excluding any Transfer to an Affiliate) that occurs within five years after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion, the Developer must deliver to the EDA evidence of its annualized cumulative internal rate of return from the property (the “IRR”), calculated as of the date of closing on the transfer. The IRR shall be calculated with equity, revenues and expenses all determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, provided that the amount of Developer’s equity must exclude the principal amount of the Notes, and any developer’s fee in excess of 7.0 percent of total development costs. The amount by which the IRR exceeds 12.0 percent is a percentage referred to as “Excess Percentage.” The Excess Percentage, multiplied by Redeveloper’s equity (as calculated for purposes of determining the IRR), is the “Participation Amount.” The Redeveloper must pay 50 percent of the Participation Amount to the Authority upon closing on the Transfer. If the Developer does not affect a Transfer within the five-year period, the Developer’s obligation under this Section is deemed terminated. The CO was issued on November 21, 2007, which means the 5-year period would expire on November 21, 2012. In June 2012 the City completed the required lookback calculation since the property was going to be sold in July 2012. It was determined that the development did not cash flow as expected and therefore had a negative Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 66
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 62 HIGHWAY 7 CORPORATE CENTER CONTINUED IRR. There was no reduction in the principal amount of the TIF Notes due to this and the property was sold to Ax Rer LP (Artis Reit). 3. Assessment Agreement. The Developer shall execute a Minimum Assessment Agreement (MAA). The minimum market value shall be $6,300,000 as of January 2, 2008 and each January 2 thereafter, notwithstanding the progress of construction of the Minimum Improvements by such date. Three-Year, Four-Year and Five-Year Rules: All requirements were met for the District. Recommendations: None at this time. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 67
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 63 HIGHWAY 7 CORPORATE CENTER CONTINUED City of St. Louis ParkTrunk Hwy 7ORIGINALHSS Geo. EnlargementInterest Income 0.50% 1) Limited Pooling options availableDistrict TypeRedevelopment Admin Expense 2) Budget Mod: Not Recommended at this timeProject Area3) Admin. Expense is currently:At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1313TIF Report #16527Frozen RateUTA #1 107.266%0.000%0.000%UTA #20.000%UTA #30.000%First ReceiptCity Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectAdmin Expense County AdminOther ExpenseTOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget2007 5/15/2006 6/30/2006 7/17/2006 12/31/2032 12/31/2027‐ ‐ ‐ Cumulative Modified4,181,054 4,181,054 3,135,784 627,165 418,105 4,181,054 4,181,054 End of District Projected Actual Total2,999,472 5,965 3,005,437 26,862 2,309,393 395,896 72,372 23,119 114,277 11,511 ‐ 2,953,430 2,953,430 Under / (Over) Budget1,181,582 (5,965) 1,175,617 3,108,922 (1,682,228) (395,896) (72,372) (23,119) 303,828 (11,511) ‐ 1,227,624 1,227,624 YearBaseCurrent Fiscal Disparities CapturedTax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Note ANote BNote CNote DAdmin Expense County AdminIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE10 2016‐ 187,796 39,851 147,945 128.561% 158,123 158,123 ‐ 110,530 18,948 6,068 738 ‐ 136,284 76,584 11 2017‐ 188,546 44,027 144,519 124.745% 115,413 114 115,527 ‐ 114,330 19,599 4,870 731 ‐ 139,530 52,581 12 2018‐ 172,530 40,754 131,776 130.191% 140,843 99 140,942 ‐ 99,929 17,131 5,284 717 ‐ 123,060 70,462 13 2019‐ 172,530 78,978 93,552 125.012% 142,195 423 142,618 ‐ 114,768 19,674 5,253 711 ‐ 140,406 72,674 14 2020‐ 176,130 40,722 135,408 121.682% 144,722 523 145,245 ‐ 116,341 19,944 4,655 707 ‐ 141,647 76,272 15 2021‐ 180,250 41,881 138,369 117.845% 147,889 381 148,270 ‐ 118,650 20,340 4,655 707 ‐ 144,352 80,190 16 2022‐ 180,250 41,881 138,369 117.845% 147,889 401 148,290 ‐ 119,934 20,560 4,655 707 ‐ 145,856 82,623 17 2023‐ 180,250 41,881 138,369 117.845% 147,889 413 148,302 ‐ 119,934 20,560 4,655 707 ‐ 145,856 85,069 18 2024‐ 180,250 41,881 138,369 117.845% 147,889 425 148,314 ‐ 119,934 20,560 4,655 707 ‐ 145,856 87,526 19 2025‐ 180,250 41,881 138,369 117.845% 147,889 438 148,326 ‐ 119,934 20,560 4,655 707 ‐ 145,856 89,996 20 2026‐ 180,250 41,881 138,369 117.845% 147,889 450 148,339 ‐ 119,934 20,560 ‐ ‐ 4,655 707 ‐ 145,856 92,479 21 2027‐ 180,250 41,881 138,369 117.845% 147,889 462 148,351 ‐ 70,519 12,089 54,991 ‐ 4,655 707 ‐ 142,962 97,868 22 2028‐ 180,250 41,881 138,369 0.000%‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 17,381 23,119 4,655 707 ‐ 45,862 52,006 23 2029‐ 180,250 41,881 138,369 0.000%‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 52,006 24 2030‐ 180,250 41,881 138,369 0.000%‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 52,006 25 2031‐ 180,250 41,881 138,369 0.000%‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 52,006 26 2032‐ 180,250 41,881 138,369 0.000%‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 52,006 27 2033‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000%‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 52,006 DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetInterest Expense on PaygoID Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 68
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 64 WEST END Description: West End (County #1314) is a redevelopment district that was adopted on November 19, 2007. Originally the district encompassed six (6) parcels of land and was established to facilitate the redevelopment of a site near I-394 and Highway 100 into approximately 1.5 million square feet of office, 350,000 square feet of retail, 124 hotel units and a 120-unit luxury apartment building by Duke Realty. Subsequent to Duke Realty’s acquisition of the parcels, the property has been replatted into 9 parcels. The EDA executed a Development Agreement with Duke Realty Limited Partnership on December 17, 2007. The EDA provided Duke Realty a PAYGO note in a maximum principle of $21.1 million at 6.75% interest. In addition to the PAYGO note, the City issued $5,490,000 in GO TIF bonds in 2008 to pay for various public improvements in the area, which have a priority claim on annual TIF revenue. On May 17, 2010 and November 21, 2011, the EDA entered into the first amendment to the contract to describe the party’s respective responsibilities regarding redevelopment of property in the District. On May 8, 2015, the EDA entered into a second amended and restated contract with Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Central Park West LLC. This amendment assigned rights and obligations of Duke to Central Park West LLC, further defined the new phasing plan and updated timing of construction of the various phases. On May 2, 2016 the EDA entered into its third amendment to the contract with Central Park West LLC, Millennium Phase II LLC ad ACSLP LLC. This amendment stated what properties Central Park West had assigned to the other developers for the Millennium Apartments and to modify the construction schedule. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 69
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 65 WEST END CONTINUED To date the Homewood Suites hotel (2009), 350,000 sq/ft of retail (2011), the 119-unit Flats at West End Apartments (2013) and the 158-unit Millennium apartments (2015) have been constructed. Duke sold the retail and undeveloped portion of the project in 2015 to American Realty Capital-Retail Centers of America Inc. Duke then sold the eastern portion of the redevelopment site to several developers for various aspects of the remaining development, once sufficient pre-leasing commitments have been secured. The plan is to construct ½ of the structured parking (1,214 stalls) and will include approximately 5,000 sq/ft of shared outdoor amenity space, 3,500 sq/ft of covered retail at ground level a fitness facility, public locker rooms, and an indoor bike room that can be accessed from the linear civic space. TPI Hospitality completed construction in early 2018 on a 126-room AC Hotel by Marriott. It features approximately 3,000 sq/ft of restaurant/lounge area, 1,000 sq/ft of meeting space and a spa. DLC Residential completed construction in late 2017 on Central Park West Apartment (building #1) which is a 6-story apartment complex with 199 units (approximately 115 in the City and the remaining 84 in Golden Valley). It plans to begin Building #2 in the spring of 2018. It is expected to be six stories and be comprised of 164 housing units. The Excelsior Group and Ryan Companies have begun construction in late 2019/early 2020 on an 11-story Class A office building with adjacent structured parking (Phase IV) Adopted………………..…… .11/19/2007 Certified Date……………… 07/09/2008 First Increment……..…….…… 07/2011 Anticipated Decertification....12/31/2036 Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 70
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 66 WEST END CONTINUED Former and Current PID Numbers: Property AddressFormer PID # Former UseNew PID #'sNew Use30-029-24-32-0031 thru 0033 Office Bldgs - Land East of Utica30-029-24-32-0028 thru 0029 Apartments, Retail30-029-24-32-0019 Millennium Apartments30-029-24-32-0020 Olive Garden30-029-24-32-0021 The Flats at West End30-029-24-32-0022 Rainbow Grocery 30-029-24-33-0031 Shops at West End1600 Utica 30-029-24-33-0019 None This is now a portion of Utica Ave-No PID1621 Park Place 30-029-24-33-0002 Tennis Club 30-029-24-33-0031 Shops at West End30-029-24-32-0025 Homeward Suits Hotel30-029-24-32-0026 Existing Bank - Building5353 Wayzata Blvd 30-029-24-32-0015 Existing Bank5201 Wayzata 30-029-24-32-0018 Commercial5245 Wayzata 30-029-24-32-0007 Chilis & Olive Garden1551 Park Place 30-029-24-32-0011 Novartis Fiscal Disparities Election: The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 103.0550% Allowable Uses: MN Statute 469.176 subd. 4j specifies the activities on which tax increment from a redevelopment district may be spent. In general, tax increment must be spent on correcting those conditions which caused the area to be designated a redevelopment district. Allowable uses include property acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, installation of public utilities, road, sidewalks, public parking facilities, and allowable administrative expenses. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 71
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 67 WEST END CONTINUED Obligations: There is one GO Tax Increment Bond (2 purposes) and one PAYGO Note for this district as follows: $5,490,000 GO Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2008B - $4,965,000 Senior TIF Bonds and $525,000 5% Admin Bonds. These bonds mature on February 1, 2024. $21,100,000 PAYGO Note - This Note was issued to Duke Realty on November 1, 2010 at 6.75%. The EDA has pledged 95% of the tax increment revenues from the project for a twenty-one (21) year term (end date of August 1, 2031). The City issued the 2008B TIF Bonds to pay for such public improvements as the reconstruction of Duke Place Boulevard, required for the West End development. Pursuant to the Development Agreement, the City could issue TIF Bonds that produced net proceeds (after deducting costs of issuance, discount and capitalized interest) in the amount of $4,500,000 (Senior TIF Bonds) and were required to have 120% debt service coverage. These Bonds have a first priority on the TIF and are paid from 95% of the increment generated by all property in the TIF District. If the increment generated is insufficient to make the Senior TIF Bond payments, then Duke Realty is required to make up this shortfall within 20 days of receipt of notice from the EDA (failure by the EDA to provide this notice does not relieve Duke Realty of its obligation to make the required payment). The City could also issue a bond of any size it determined that is secured in whole or in part by any portion of the 5% of Tax Increments that are withheld by the EDA as administration fee. These Bonds were issued as part of the 2008B TIF Bond issue and had a principle amount of $525,000. Other Development Agreement Compliance: 1. Outdoor Gathering Spaces. The Redeveloper will provide outdoor gathering spaces and at least one 5,000-square foot indoor gathering space, that are privately owned by and available for public use (this includes public restrooms). The City and Duke Realty will enter into use agreements regarding these spaces to describe their respective responsibilities regarding procedures for notice and comment about activities, insurance and the like. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 72
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 68 WEST END CONTINUED 2. Neighborhood Police Station. The Redeveloper will provide to City, without charge, approximately 250 square feet of finished space in Phase IIA for use as a neighborhood City police station. Upon completion, Duke Realty must operate and maintain the facility at their cost, including cleaning, heat and electricity. 3. Minimum Assessment Agreement. The Redeveloper is required to execute a Minimum Assessment Agreement (MAA) for each phase. The Phase IIA MAA (retail portion) has been executed and states that the minimum market value shall be $70,216,260 on January 1, 2009 for payable 2010 and shall be in effect for the term of the obligation. A Minimum Assessment Agreement with WEA, LLC for Phase IIC for the Flats at West End at $15,470,000 was also executed. In addition, upon completion of each Central Park West’s six (6) phases, they are required to enter into a in MAA, of which the market value for each agreement will be mutually determined by the parties based upon final construction plans. Three-Year, Four-Year and Five-Year Rules: All requirements were met for the District. Recommendations: 1. Use of Legal Pooling Dollars. Currently, as of October 2021, there is approximately cash balance $445,500 in the District for use on redevelopment projects. During 2019, $100,000 was used for the Southwest Light Rail Transit project. An additional $375,000 is anticipated to be used for street rehab in 2024. We recommend staff determine a use for the funds for redevelopment purposes. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 73
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 69 WEST END CONTINUED City of St. Louis ParkWest EndORIGINALInterest Income 0.50% 1) Limited Pooling options availableDistrict TypeRedevelopment Admin Expense 0.25% 2) Budget Mod: Not Recommended at this timeProject Area3) Admin. Expense is currently: 1.3%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB Election16875 TIF Report #County Number1314Frozen RateUTA #1 103.055%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%1927217 565563First Receipt City Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax Increment Interest Income Other Revenue TOTAL REVENUES Project Interest Expense Bonds Interfund Loan Admin Expense County Admin Outside District Other Expense TOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget2011 11/19/2007 6/30/2008 7/9/2008 12/31/2036 12/31/2036‐ ‐ ‐ Cumulative Modified143,914,895 143,914,895 95,000,000 34,523,405 14,391,490 143,914,895 143,914,895 End of District Projected Actual Total62,307,205 288,288 5,490,000 44,638,008 5,402,854 36,907,883 7,793,222 304,449 327,096 86,100 474,688 9,471,242 42,901,083 60,767,535 Under / (Over) Budget81,607,690 (288,288) (5,490,000) 99,276,887 89,597,146 (2,384,478) (7,793,222) (304,449) 14,064,394 (86,100) (474,688) (9,471,242) 101,013,812 83,147,360 (237,977) 118,804.80 (237,977) Year Base CurrentFiscal DisparitiesCapturedTax Increment Interest Income Other Revenue TOTAL REVENUESProjectPaygoBonds Interfund LoanAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE7 2017859,520 3,575,601 631,280 2,084,801 124.745% 2,076,586 2,839 ‐ 2,079,425 35,440 1,078,322 552,813 19,086 12,637 3,351 ‐ ‐ 1,701,649 799,732 8 2018859,520 3,637,813 663,534 2,114,759 130.191% 2,500,563 4,531 ‐ 2,505,094 ‐ 1,614,363 556,612 19,086 19,808 3,282 ‐ ‐ 2,213,151 1,091,674 9 2019859,520 4,166,046 685,269 2,621,257 125.012% 2,360,794 15,302 ‐ 2,376,096 ‐ 1,919,765 559,613 19,086 11,839 3,770 100,000 ‐ 2,614,073 853,697 10 2020859,520 4,442,268 726,751 2,855,997 121.682% 2,746,899 14,012 ‐ 2,760,911 ‐ 1,927,217 565,563 19,086 5,974 3,924 2,521,764 1,092,844 11 2021859,520 4,335,843 638,268 2,838,055 117.845% 2,914,228 5,464 ‐ 2,919,693 ‐ 1,970,961 569,300 22,077 7,286 3,924 ‐ ‐ 2,573,547 1,438,990 12 2022859,520 4,335,843 638,268 2,838,055 117.845% 2,914,228 7,195 ‐ 2,921,423 ‐ 2,275,480 571,913 19,431 7,286 3,924 ‐ ‐ 2,878,033 1,482,380 13 2023859,520 4,335,843 638,268 2,838,055 117.845% 2,914,228 7,412 ‐ 2,921,640 ‐ 2,275,730 573,400 16,653 7,286 3,924 ‐ ‐ 2,876,992 1,527,029 14 2024859,520 4,335,843 638,268 2,838,055 117.845% 2,914,228 7,635 ‐ 2,921,864 ‐ 2,272,295 583,181 13,735 7,286 3,924 374,688 ‐ 3,255,109 1,193,783 15 2025859,520 4,335,843 638,268 2,838,055 117.845% 2,914,228 5,969 ‐ 2,920,197 ‐ 2,768,511 ‐ 10,672 7,286 3,924 ‐ ‐ 2,790,392 1,323,588 16 2026859,520 4,335,843 638,268 2,838,055 117.845% 2,914,228 6,618 ‐ 2,920,846 ‐ 2,768,511 ‐ 7,455 7,286 3,924 ‐ ‐ 2,787,176 1,457,258 17 2027859,520 4,335,843 638,268 2,838,055 117.845% 2,914,228 7,286 ‐ 2,921,515 ‐ 2,768,511 ‐ 4,078 7,286 3,924 ‐ ‐ 2,783,799 1,594,974 18 2028859,520 4,335,843 638,268 2,838,055 117.845% 2,914,228 7,975 ‐ 2,922,203 ‐ 2,768,511 ‐ 532 7,286 3,924 ‐ ‐ 2,780,253 1,736,925 19 2029859,520 4,335,843 638,268 2,838,055 117.845% 2,914,228 8,685 ‐ 2,922,913 ‐ 2,768,511 ‐ 7,286 3,924 ‐ ‐ 2,779,721 1,880,117 20 2030859,520 4,335,843 638,268 2,838,055 117.845% 2,914,228 9,401 ‐ 2,923,629 ‐ 2,768,511 ‐ 7,286 3,924 ‐ ‐ 2,779,721 2,024,026 21 2031859,520 4,335,843 638,268 2,838,055 117.845% 2,914,228 10,120 ‐ 2,924,349 ‐ 2,768,511 ‐ 7,286 3,924 ‐ ‐ 2,779,721 2,168,654 22 2032859,520 4,335,843 638,268 2,838,055 117.845% 2,914,228 10,843 ‐ 2,925,072 ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,286 3,924 ‐ 1,894,248 1,905,458 3,188,268 ‐ 23 2033859,520 4,335,843 638,268 2,838,055 117.845% 2,914,228 15,941 ‐ 2,930,170 ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,286 3,924 ‐ 1,894,248 1,905,458 4,212,979 ‐ 24 2034859,520 4,335,843 638,268 2,838,055 117.845% 2,914,228 21,065 ‐ 2,935,293 ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,286 3,924 ‐ 1,894,248 1,905,458 5,242,815 ‐ 25 2035859,520 4,335,843 638,268 2,838,055 117.845% 2,914,228 26,214 ‐ 2,940,443 ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,286 3,924 ‐ 1,894,248 1,905,458 6,277,799 ‐ 26 2036859,520 4,335,843 638,268 2,838,055 117.845% 2,914,228 31,389 ‐ 2,945,617 ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,286 3,924 ‐ 1,894,248 1,905,458 7,317,958 ExpendituresTotal Budget DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceDecertifies RevenuesCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPID Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 74
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 70 ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR Description: Ellipse on Excelsior (County #1315) is a redevelopment district that was adopted on February 2, 2009. Originally the district encompassed ten (10) parcels of land and was established to facilitate the purchase and redevelopment at the northwest corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue (former Al’s Liquors, Anderson Cleaners and motel sites). The first phase consists of the redevelopment of the Al’s Bar and Anderson Cleaner’s site into a five-story mixed use building consisting of 132 market rate apartments and 16,394 square feet of retail. The EDA is required to issue the Developer two TIF notes totaling up to $1,430,000, at an interest rate of 6%, to reimburse them for qualified redevelopment costs. The City purchased the motel site in 2009 and demolished the building in 2010. On February 6, 2012, the City entered into a development agreement with Ellipse II, LLC. to construct the second phase of the development, which consists of 58 market rate rental units. On August 20, 2012, the EDA entered into an amended and restated purchase and redevelopment agreement to allocate a portion of the property from Phase I to Phase II. The project was completed in early 2013. The EDA issued the Developer a pay-as-you-go TIF note for $686,195, at an interest rate of 5.6%, to reimburse them for qualified redevelopment costs (reduced from $700,000 after completion of the look back). The EDA modified the budget in 2019 to allow for an additional 10% pooling for affordable housing. Since the in-district obligations are paid in full the EDA will need to annually monitor, calculate and return any increment in excess of the 35% it is retaining for affordable housing purposes in the District (can retain up to 45% if additional 10% for admin is documented and spent on tax credit Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 75
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 71 eligible projects). The City intends to utilize its proportionate share of the 65% of increment that is returned for redistribution to pay for capital replacement projects within the General Fund in accordance with its long-range financial management plan. Adopted……………..………. 02/02/2009 Certified Date………..…..…..07/09/2009 First Increment………..…....…. 07/2011 Decertifies……………………12/31/2036 Former and Current PID Numbers: Former PIDFormer UseNew PIDNew Use06-028-24-41-0002Al's Liquor06-028-24-41-0069Al's Liquor06-028-24-41-0053 Excelsior Blvd LLC06-028-24-41-0052Al's Liquor06-028-24-41-0056Al's Liquor06-028-24-41-0057Al's Liquor06-028-24-41-0051Al's Liquor06-028-24-41-0050Al's Liquor06-028-24-41-0058Al's Liquor06-028-24-41-0003 Budget Motel 06-028-24-41-0076 E2 Apartments06-028-24-41-0075 Ellipse Apartments Fiscal Disparities Election: The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 107.8190% Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 76
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 72 ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR CONTINUED Allowable Uses: MN Statute 469.176 sub 4j specifies the activities on which tax increment from a redevelopment district may be spent. In general, tax increment must be spent on correcting those conditions which caused the area to be designated a redevelopment district. Allowable uses include property acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, installation of public utilities, road, sidewalks, public parking facilities, and allowable administrative expenses. Obligations: None. Four-Year and Five-Year Rules: All requirements were met for the District. Recommendations: 1. Use of TIF For Redevelopment. The E2 TIF Note for this District was paid off on August 1, 2020. Legal pooling of $178,589 was used in 2020 for the fiber optic cable project and an additional $170,000 was used for The Quentin, a multi-family housing development along Cedar Lake Road. Currently there is a cash balance of $715,000 in the District. At year-end 2021, a total of approximately $458,400 should be returned to the County for redistribution. This allows the remaining balance to be used for affordable housing. 2. Transfer of Increment to Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF). We recommend that staff and Ehlers determine how much of the $481,421 available should be transferred to the City’s AHTF by the end of 2021. 3. Return of Increment For Redistribution on an Annual Basis. The EDA will need to annually monitor, calculate and return any increment in excess of the 35% (approximately $240,000) it is retaining for affordable housing purposes in the District (can retain up to 45% if additional 10% for admin is documented and spent on tax credit eligible projects). The City intends to utilize its proportionate share of the 65% of increment that is returned for redistribution to pay for capital replacement projects within the General Fund in accordance with its long-range financial management plan (2021 estimated to total $188,000. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 77
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 73 ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR CONTINUED City of St. Louis ParkEllipse on ExcelsiorORIGINALInterest Income 0.50% 1) Limited Pooling options availableDistrict TypeRedevelopmentAdmin Expense3.00%2) Budget Mod: Not Recommended at this timeProject Area3) Admin. Expense is currently:1.7%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1315TIF Report #16899Frozen RateUTA #1 107.819%UTA #20.000%UTA #30.000%First Receipt City Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUES ProjectInterfund Loan Admin Expense County AdminAffordable Housing Outside District Other Expense TOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget2011 2/2/2009 6/30/2009 7/9/2009 12/31/2036 12/31/2036‐ ‐ ‐ Cumulative Modified12/2/201911,058,500 11,058,500 4,530,300 1,652,670 1,105,830 3,769,700 11,058,500 11,058,500 End of District Projected Actual Total15,428,372 198,684 9,856,303 176,599 1,592,574 289,207 792,719 51,917 148,866 30,876 170,000 193,668 7,789,522 7,519,067 11,235,948 Under / (Over) Budget(4,369,872) (198,684) 1,202,197 4,353,701 60,096 (289,207) (792,719) (51,917) 956,964 (30,876) 3,599,700 (193,668) (7,789,522) 3,539,433 (177,448) (245,245) Year Base CurrentFiscal DisparitiesCapturedTax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Ellipse Note A Ellipse Note B Ellipse E2 Interfund LoanAdmin Expense County AdminAffordable HousingOutside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE7 201724,527 584,015 23,927 535,561 124.745% 575,358 178 575,536 ‐ 279,016 45,421 138,468 8,096 7,426 1,280 ‐ ‐ 479,708 163,084 8 201824,527 595,890 25,128 546,235 130.191% 586,830 47 586,877 ‐ 360,134 88,578 153,267 8,501 5,674 1,273 ‐ 617,427 132,534 9 201924,527 669,515 24,527 620,461 125.012% 666,760 8,705 675,465 ‐ ‐ ‐ 157,300 ‐ 9,520 1,333 15,080 ‐ 183,233 624,766 10 202024,527 703,860 27,101 652,232 121.682% 700,701 11,313 712,014 ‐ ‐ 162,804 ‐ 4,891 1,340 170,000 178,588 455,456 973,079 363,701 11 202124,527 708,133 27,185 656,421 117.845% 705,199 1,819 707,017 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4,891 1,340 458,379 464,610 606,109 12 202224,527 708,133 27,185 656,421 117.845% 705,199 3,031 708,229 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4,891 1,340 ‐ 458,379 464,610 849,728 13 202324,527 708,133 27,185 656,421 117.845% 705,199 4,249 709,447 ‐ ‐ 4,891 1,340 ‐ 458,379 464,610 1,094,565 14 202424,527 708,133 27,185 656,421 117.845% 705,199 5,473 710,671 ‐ ‐ 4,891 1,340 ‐ 458,379 464,610 1,340,626 15 202524,527 708,133 27,185 656,421 117.845% 705,199 6,703 711,902 ‐ ‐ 4,891 1,340 ‐ 458,379 464,610 1,587,918 16 202624,527 708,133 27,185 656,421 117.845% 705,199 7,940 713,138 ‐ ‐ 4,891 1,340 ‐ 458,379 464,610 1,836,446 17 202724,527 708,133 27,185 656,421 117.845% 705,199 9,182 714,381 ‐ ‐ 4,891 1,340 ‐ 458,379 464,610 2,086,217 18 202824,527 708,133 27,185 656,421 117.845% 705,199 10,431 715,630 ‐ ‐ 4,891 1,340 ‐ 458,379 464,610 2,337,236 19 202924,527 708,133 27,185 656,421 117.845% 705,199 11,686 716,885 ‐ ‐ 4,891 1,340 ‐ 458,379 464,610 2,589,511 20 203024,527 708,133 27,185 656,421 117.845% 705,199 12,948 718,146 ‐ ‐ 4,891 1,340 ‐ 458,379 464,610 2,843,047 21 203124,527 708,133 27,185 656,421 117.845% 705,199 14,215 719,414 ‐ ‐ 4,891 1,340 ‐ 458,379 464,610 3,097,851 22 203224,527 708,133 27,185 656,421 117.845% 705,199 15,489 720,688 ‐ ‐ 4,891 1,340 ‐ 458,379 464,610 3,353,929 23 2033 24,527 708,133 27,185 656,421 117.845% 705,199 16,770 721,968 ‐ ‐ 4,891 1,340 ‐ 458,379 464,610 3,611,287 24 2034 24,527 708,133 27,185 656,421 117.845% 705,199 18,056 723,255 ‐ ‐ 4,891 1,340 ‐ 458,379 464,610 3,869,932 25 2035 24,527 708,133 27,185 656,421 117.845% 705,199 19,350 724,548 ‐ ‐ 4,891 1,340 ‐ 458,379 464,610 4,129,870 26 2036 24,527 708,133 27,185 656,421 117.845% 705,199 20,649 725,848 ‐ ‐ 4,891 1,340 ‐ 458,379 464,610 4,391,108 CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceDecertifies RevenuesExpendituresTotal Budget DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSPaygoIDID Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 78
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 74 HARDCOAT Description: Hardcoat (County #1316) is an economic development district that was adopted on December 20, 2010. Originally the district encompassed two (2) parcels of land and was established to facilitate the redevelopment of the former Flame Metals building. The City provided them a $500,000 grant through the Construction Assistance Program (CAP). Hardcoat renovated the building and site and relocated its operations there. The existing industrial building is approximately 33,600 square feet and was constructed in 1963. Both the interior and exterior had numerous building code deficiencies. Following Flame Metals’ departure in 2009, the building’s interior was emptied, thoroughly cleaned, repainted, and code deficiencies were addressed. Nearly all the building’s operating systems were removed. The project included a complete renovation of both the interior and exterior of the building as well as the addition of approximately 1,500 square feet of office/conference space on the north side of the building. Renovations included a new roof, new exterior facelift, new windows and dock doors, new offices and interior spaces, new electrical and plumbing systems, new energy efficient HVAC equipment, new parking lot and landscaping, rain gardens and site amenities, as well as the construction of a 1,500 SF addition for office/conference space. Hardcoat occupies approximately 25,000 square feet of the building. Adopted……………..….… 12/20/2010 Certified Date……………. . 04/27/2011 First Increment………………… 7/2014 Decertifies……………….... 12/31/2022 Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 79
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 75 HARDCOAT CONTINUED Former and Current PID Numbers: Fiscal Disparities Election: The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 121.8240% Obligations: There is one interfund loan as follows: $500,000 Interfund Loan payable from the Hardcoat TIF district adopted on EDA Resolution 10-24 on January 26, 2011. This Loan carries a 4% interest rate and is paid from 100% of the available increment generated by Hardcoat. The loan was structured so that $420,000 was authorized for construction costs and the remaining $80,000 was authorized for administrative costs. The actual amount that was loaned from Victoria Ponds was $115,000 for construction and $32,575 was loaned from the EDA for administrative costs. The EDA loan was repaid and a total of $31,221 was outstanding at year end 2020. It is anticipated that this loan will be repaid in full by year end 2022. Other Development Agreement Compliance: 1. Minimum Assessment Agreement. The minimum market value as of January 2, 2013 shall be $2,400,000. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the Interfund Loan is paid in full or the TIF District terminates, whichever is sooner. Four-Year and Five-Year Rules: All requirements were met for the District. Recommendations: None at this time. Former PIDFormer UseNew PIDNew Use20-117-21-21-0093 Flame Metals Same as Original17-117-21-34-0027 Flame Metals Same as OriginalHardcoatStudy session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 80
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 76 HARDCOAT CONTINUED City of St. Louis ParkHardcoatORIGINALHSS Geo. EnlargementInterest Income 0.50% 1) Limited Pooling options availableDistrict TypeEconomic Development Admin Expense 0.00% 2) Budget Mod: Not Recommended at this timeProject Area3) Admin. Expense is currently: 11.9%Over LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1316TIF Report #18048Frozen RateUTA #1 121.824% 0.000% 0.000%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2019First ReceiptCity Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Paygo Interfund LoanAdmin Expense County Admin Outside District Other Expense TOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget2014 12/20/2010 4/20/2011 4/27/2011 12/31/2022 12/31/2022‐ ‐ ‐ Cumulative Modified326,186 50,000 376,186 317,861 20,706 37,619 376,186 376,186 End of District Projected Actual Total213,770 2,346 216,116 115,000 ‐ 18,754 1,641 ‐ ‐ 163,867 135,395 Under / (Over) Budget112,416 47,654 160,070 202,861 20,706 18,865 (1,641) ‐ ‐ 212,319 240,791 YearBaseCurrent Fiscal Disparities CapturedTax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectPaygo Interfund LoanAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE4 201722,194 47,250 8,169 16,887 124.745%20,498 54 20,552 ‐ 4,600 7 556 ‐ ‐ 5,163 (72,788) 5 201822,194 51,564 10,056 19,314 130.191%23,444 513 23,957 ‐ 3,992 ‐ ‐ 3,992 (52,823) 6 201922,194 51,564 9,744 19,626 125.012%23,823 894 24,717 ‐ 3,152 25 ‐ ‐ 3,177 (31,282) 7 202022,194 56,590 11,422 22,974 121.682%27,854 812 28,666 ‐ 2,278 ‐ ‐ 2,278 (4,894) 8 202122,194 59,410 12,297 24,919 117.845% 29,260 29,260 ‐ 1,249 ‐ ‐ 1,249 23,117 9 2022 22,194 59,410 12,297 24,919 117.845% 29,260 29,260 ‐ 128 ‐ ‐ 128 52,249 TIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal Budget DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPIDStudy session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 81
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 77 ELIOT PARK Description: Eliot Park (County #1318/1319) is redevelopment district that was adopted on July 16, 2013. Originally the district encompassed two (2) parcels of land and was established to facilitate the redevelopment of the former Eliot School building into 138 market rate apartments and two (2) single-family homes. The EDA is required to issue the Developer a $1,100,000 PAYGO TIF Note at 5.5% interest, to reimburse them for qualified redevelopment costs. On July 1, 2014, the EDA entered into a development Agreement with Cedar Lake Road Apartments LLC. The project began construction in 2014 and opened as the Siena Apartment Homes in July 2015. Subsequently two single family homes were constructed on the property as required under the extended redevelopment contract. The EDA modified the budget in 2020 to allow for an additional 10% pooling for affordable housing. Since the in-district obligations are paid in full the EDA will need to annually monitor, calculate and return any increment in excess of the 35% it is retaining for affordable housing purposes in the District (can retain up to 45% if additional 10% for admin is documented and spent on tax credit eligible projects). The City intends to utilize its proportionate share of the 65% of increment that is returned for redistribution to pay for capital replacement projects within the General Fund in accordance with its long-range financial management plan. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 82
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 78 ELLIOT PARK CONTINUED Adopted……………..…..…. 05/06/2013 Certified Date………..….…. 07/16/2013 First Increment………..…..……07/2016 Decertifies………………….. 12/31/2041 Former and Current PID Numbers: Property Address Former PID # Former Use New PID #'sNew Use6720 Cedar Lake Road 08-117-21-11-0079Vacant lot 08-117-21-11-0094 Vacant08-117-21-12-0149Siena Apartment Homes08-117-21-12-0150Single Family Lot08-117-21-12-0151Single Family Lot6800 Cedar Lake Road 08-117-21-12-0028Eliot School Fiscal Disparities Election: The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 1318 – 132.209% 1319 - 133.134% Allowable Uses: MN Statute 469.176 sub 4j specifies the activities on which tax increment from a redevelopment district may be spent. In general, tax increment must be spent on correcting those conditions which caused the area to be designated a redevelopment district. Allowable uses include property acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, installation of public utilities, road, sidewalks, public parking facilities, and allowable administrative expenses. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 83
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 79 ELLIOT PARK CONTINUED Obligations: None. Four-Year and Five-Year Rules: All requirements were met for the District. Recommendations: 1. Use of TIF For Redevelopment. The TIF Note for this District was paid off on August 1, 2020. Legal pooling of $330,000 was used in 2020 for The Quentin, a multi-family housing project. Currently there is approximately $27,344 in the District for use on redevelopment projects. We recommend either coming up with a plan to expend the funds for redevelopment or to leave the funds in the TIF fund for future use. 2. Transfer of Increment to Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF). We recommend that staff and Ehlers determine how much of the $157,713 available should be transferred to the City’s AHTF by the end of 2021. 3. Return of Increment For Redistribution on an Annual Basis. The EDA modified the budget in 2020 to allow for an additional 10% pooling for affordable housing. Since the in-district obligations are paid in full the EDA will need to annually monitor, calculate and return any increment in excess of the 35% (approximately $163,300) it is retaining for affordable housing purposes in the District (can retain up to 45% if additional 10% for admin is documented and spent on tax credit eligible projects). The City intends to utilize its proportionate share of the 65% of increment that is returned for redistribution to pay for capital replacement projects within the General Fund in accordance with its long-range financial management plan. 4. Decertify Parcels. Decertify the two (2) single-family homes from the District. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 84
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 80 ELLIOT PARK CONTINUED City of St. Louis ParkElliot ParkORIGINALHSS Geo. EnlargementInterest Income 0.50% 1) Limited Pooling options availableDistrict TypeRedevelopmentAdmin Expense3.00%2) Budget Mod: Not Recommended at this timeProject Area3) Admin. Expense is currently:2.9%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1318, 1319TIF Report #18331Frozen RateUTA #1 132.209%0.000%0.000%UTA #2 133.134%UTA #30.000%First ReceiptCity Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax Increment Interest IncomeRTOTAL REVENUESProject Interest Expense Interfund LoanAdmin Expense County Admin Outside District Other Expense TOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget2015 5/6/2013 6/28/2013 7/16/2013 12/31/2041 12/31/2041‐ ‐ ‐ Cumulative Modified9,825,365 982,537 10,807,902 5,404,624 4,420,741 982,537 10,807,902 10,807,902 End of District Projected Actual Total11,478,935 176,871 3,083,324 ‐ 1,265,573 2,741 147,391 28,742 330,000 6,371,083 2,580,472 8,145,530 Under / (Over) Budget(1,653,570) 805,666 7,724,578 5,404,624 3,155,168 (2,741) 835,146 (28,742) (330,000) (6,371,083) 8,227,430 2,662,372 Year Base Current Fiscal Disparities CapturedTax Increment Interest IncomeRTOTAL REVENUESProject Paygo Interfund LoanAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement TOTAL EXPENSE1 2016‐ 52,201 ‐ 52,201 128.561%65,244 65,244 30,424 734 10,093 616 ‐ ‐ 41,867 3,978 2 201726,433 303,473 ‐ 277,040 124.745% 343,232 58 343,290 ‐ 195,168 734 4,714 982 ‐ ‐ 201,598 145,670 3 201826,433 372,164 ‐ 345,731 130.191% 445,675 617 446,292 ‐ 350,721 734 5,323 1,104 ‐ ‐ 357,882 234,080 4201926,433 391,004 ‐ 364,571 125.012% 351,696 2,362 354,058 ‐ 309,043 ‐ 6,086 1,085 ‐ ‐ 316,214 271,924 5 202026,433 417,329 ‐ 390,896 121.682% 471,422 ‐ 471,422 ‐ 380,217 ‐ 4,698 1,087 330,000 ‐ 716,002 27,344 6 202126,433 426,092 ‐ 399,659 117.208% 466,746 137 466,883 ‐ ‐ 4,698 1,087 303,385 309,170 185,057 7 202226,433 426,092 ‐ 399,659 117.208% 466,746 925 467,671 ‐ 4,698 1,087 303,385 309,170 343,558 8 202326,433 426,092 ‐ 399,659 117.208% 466,746 1,718 468,464 ‐ 4,698 1,087 ‐ 303,385 309,170 502,852 9 202426,433 426,092 ‐ 399,659 117.208% 466,746 2,514 469,260 ‐ 4,698 1,087 ‐ 303,385 309,170 662,943 10 202526,433 426,092 ‐ 399,659 117.208% 466,746 3,315 470,061 ‐ 4,698 1,087 ‐ 303,385 309,170 823,833 11 202626,433 426,092 ‐ 399,659 117.208% 466,746 4,119 470,865 ‐ 4,698 1,087 ‐ 303,385 309,170 985,529 12 202726,433 426,092 ‐ 399,659 117.208% 466,746 4,928 471,674 ‐ 4,698 1,087 ‐ 303,385 309,170 1,148,032 13 202826,433 426,092 ‐ 399,659 117.208% 466,746 5,740 472,486 ‐ 4,698 1,087 ‐ 303,385 309,170 1,311,349 14 202926,433 426,092 ‐ 399,659 117.208% 466,746 6,557 473,303 ‐ 4,698 1,087 ‐ 303,385 309,170 1,475,481 15 203026,433 426,092 ‐ 399,659 117.208% 466,746 7,377 474,123 ‐ 4,698 1,087 ‐ 303,385 309,170 1,640,435 16 203126,433 426,092 ‐ 399,659 117.208% 466,746 8,202 474,948 ‐ 4,698 1,087 ‐ 303,385 309,170 1,806,213 17 203226,433 426,092 ‐ 399,659 117.208% 466,746 9,031 475,777 ‐ 4,698 1,087 ‐ 303,385 309,170 1,972,820 18 203326,433 426,092 ‐ 399,659 117.208% 466,746 9,864 476,610 ‐ 4,698 1,087 ‐ 303,385 309,170 2,140,261 19 203426,433 426,092 ‐ 399,659 117.208% 466,746 10,701 477,447 ‐ 4,698 1,087 ‐ 303,385 309,170 2,308,538 20 203526,433 426,092 ‐ 399,659 117.208% 466,746 11,543 478,289 ‐ 4,698 1,087 ‐ 303,385 309,170 2,477,657 21 203626,433 426,092 ‐ 399,659 117.208% 466,746 12,388 479,134 ‐ 4,698 1,087 ‐ 303,385 309,170 2,647,621 22 203726,433 426,092 ‐ 399,659 117.208% 466,746 13,238 479,984 ‐ 4,698 1,087 ‐ 303,385 309,170 2,818,435 23 203826,433 426,092 ‐ 399,659 117.208% 466,746 14,092 480,838 ‐ 4,698 1,087 ‐ 303,385 309,170 2,990,104 24 203926,433 426,092 ‐ 399,659 117.208% 466,746 14,951 481,697 ‐ 4,698 1,087 ‐ 303,385 309,170 3,162,630 25 204026,433 426,092 ‐ 399,659 117.208% 466,746 15,813 482,559 ‐ 4,698 1,087 ‐ 303,385 309,170 3,336,019 26 204126,433 426,092 ‐ 399,659 117.208% 466,746 16,680 483,426 ‐ 4,698 1,087 ‐ 303,385 309,170 3,510,276 TIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal Budget DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPIDStudy session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 85
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 81 THE SHOREHAM Description: The Shoreham (County #1320) is a redevelopment district that was adopted on August 17, 2015. The district encompasses five (5) parcels of land and was established to facilitate the redevelopment of the properties into 148 apartments and 20,000 sq/ft of retail/office. The Redeveloper agreed to reserve 20% of the apartment units for households earning 50% of Area Median Income (AMI) for at least 15 years following building occupancy. For the next 10 years, Redeveloper agreed 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. The EDA is required to issue the Developer a $1,200,000 PAYGO TIF Note at 3.75% interest, to reimburse them for qualified redevelopment costs. On August 17, 2015, the EDA approved a development Agreement with Shoreham Apartments LLC. The project was awarded grants from the following agencies and in the following amounts: DEED: $625,075 Hennepin County: $430,000 Hennepin County: $200,000 Met Council: $594,000 On November 16, 2015 the EDA entered into a first amendment to the contract to clarify the amounts and purposes of the County Grants. The project began construction in late 2015. In 2019 the required lookback was completed, and it was determined that no reduction in principal amount of the TIF Note was warranted. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 86
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 82 THE SHOREHAM CONTINUED The EDA modified the budget in 2020 to allow for an additional 10% pooling for affordable housing. Since the in-district obligations are paid in full the EDA will need to annually monitor, calculate and return any increment in excess of the 35% it is retaining for affordable housing purposes in the District (can retain up to 45% if additional 10% for admin is documented and spent on tax credit eligible projects). The City intends to utilize its proportionate share of the 65% of increment that is returned for redistribution to pay for capital replacement projects within the General Fund in accordance with its long-range financial management plan. Adopted……………..…….…...8/17/2015 Certified Date………..……… 4/18/2016 First Increment………..….....…..07/2018 Decertifies……………………12/31/2043 Former and Current PID Numbers: Property Address Former PID # Former UseNew PID #'sNew Use3915 Hwy 706-028-24-11-0007Commercial3907 Hwy 706-028-24-11-0056Commercial3031 Glenhurst Ave06-028-24-11-0016Single-Family Rental3918 31st St W06-028-24-11-0015Single-Family Rental3914 31st St W06-028-24-11-0014Single-Family 06-028-24-11-0111Mixed Use (Apartment over Office) Fiscal Disparities Election: The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 128.260% Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 87
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 83 THE SHOREHAM CONTINUED Allowable Uses: MN Statute 469.176 sub 4j specifies the activities on which tax increment from a redevelopment district may be spent. In general, tax increment must be spent on correcting those conditions which caused the area to be designated a redevelopment district. Allowable uses include property acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, installation of public utilities, road, sidewalks, public parking facilities, and allowable administrative expenses. Obligations: None. Other Development Agreement Compliance: 1. Inclusionary Housing. The Redeveloper agrees to reserve at least 20% of the units for household earning 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for at least 15 years following building occupancy. For the next 10 years, the Redeveloper agrees to reserve at least 10% of the apartments for households earning 60% of the AMI or at least 8% of the units for households earning 50% of the AMI. The monthly rental price shall include rent and utility costs as determined annually by MHFA for the Housing Tax Credit Program. The size and design of these units shall be consistent and comparable with the market rate units and is subject to approval of the City. The units shall be distributed throughout the entire project. The units shall have a number of bedrooms in the approximate proportions of the market rate units. Four-Year and Five-Year Rules: All requirements were met for the District. Recommendations: 1. Inclusionary Housing. The Redeveloper agreed to reserve at least 18 of the units for household earning 60% of the Area Median Income for at least 25 years following building occupancy. We recommend that staff continue to review and retain the required documentation to assure compliance. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 88
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 84 THE SHOREHAM CONTINUED City of St. Louis ParkShorehamORIGINALHSS Geo. EnlargementInterest Income 0.50% 1) Limited Pooling options availableDistrict TypeRedevelopment Admin Expense 3.00% 2) Budget Mod: Not Recommended at this timeProject Area3) Admin. Expense is currently: 0.3%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1320TIF Report #19027Frozen RateUTA #1 128.260%0.000%0.000%UTA #20.000%UTA #30.000%First ReceiptCity Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectPaygo Interfund LoanAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget2017 8/17/2015 8/17/2015 4/18/2016 12/31/2043 12/31/2043‐ ‐ ‐ Cumulative Modified12,293,160 1,229,316 13,522,476 8,150,030 4,757,788 614,658 13,522,476 13,522,476 End of District Projected Actual Total14,202,065 292,347 5,987,362 ‐ 1,229,766 2,305 151,113 30,446 ‐ 8,239,370 4,185,148 9,653,000 Under / (Over) Budget(1,908,905) 936,969 7,535,114 8,150,030 3,528,022 (2,305) 463,545 (30,446) ‐ (8,239,370) 9,337,328 3,869,476 YearBaseCurrent Fiscal Disparities CapturedTax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectPaygo Interfund LoanAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE1 201841,112 342,765 ‐ 301,653 130.191% 386,056 2,262 388,318 ‐ ‐ 748 4,366 1,019 ‐ ‐ 6,133 362,196 2 201941,112 536,400 12,806 482,482 125.012% 600,991 7,488 608,479 ‐ 620,441 269 5,261 1,252 ‐ ‐ 627,223 343,452 3 202041,112 499,230 13,509 444,609 121.682% 539,064 4,386 543,450 ‐ 482,380 0 5,138 1,152 ‐ ‐ 488,670 398,232 4 202141,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 1,991 553,120 ‐ 126,945 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 491,469 459,883 5 202241,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 2,299 553,428 ‐ ‐ 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 364,523 648,787 6 202341,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 3,244 554,372 ‐ 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 364,523 838,636 7 202441,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 4,193 555,322 ‐ ‐ 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 364,523 1,029,434 8 2025 41,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 5,147 556,276 ‐ ‐ 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 364,523 1,221,186 9 2026 41,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 6,106 557,234 ‐ ‐ 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 364,523 1,413,897 10 2027 41,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 7,069 558,198 ‐ ‐ 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 364,523 1,607,572 11 2028 41,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 8,038 559,166 ‐ ‐ 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 364,523 1,802,214 12 202941,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 9,011 560,139 ‐ ‐ 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 364,523 1,997,830 13 203041,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 9,989 561,118 ‐ ‐ 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 364,523 2,194,424 14 203141,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 10,972 562,101 ‐ ‐ 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 364,523 2,392,002 15 203241,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 11,960 563,088 ‐ ‐ 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 364,523 2,590,566 16 2033 41,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 12,953 564,081 ‐ ‐ 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 364,523 2,790,124 17 2034 41,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 13,951 565,079 ‐ ‐ 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 364,523 2,990,680 18 2035 41,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 14,953 566,082 ‐ ‐ 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 364,523 3,192,238 19 203641,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 15,961 567,090 ‐ ‐ 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 364,523 3,394,804 20 203741,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 16,974 568,102 ‐ ‐ 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 364,523 3,598,383 21 203841,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 17,992 569,120 ‐ ‐ 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 364,523 3,802,980 22 203941,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 19,015 570,143 ‐ ‐ 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 364,523 4,008,600 23 2040 41,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 20,043 571,171 ‐ ‐ 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 364,523 4,215,248 24 2041 41,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 21,076 572,205 ‐ ‐ 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 364,523 4,422,929 25 2042 41,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 22,115 573,243 ‐ ‐ 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 364,523 4,631,649 26 2043 41,112 524,550 14,076 469,362 117.845% 551,128 23,158 574,287 ‐ ‐ 5,138 1,152 ‐ 358,233 364,523 4,841,412 TIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal Budget DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPID Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 89
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 85 4900 EXCELSIOR Description: 4900 Excelsior (County #1321) is a redevelopment district that was adopted on November 16, 2015. The district encompasses two (2) parcels of land (former Bally’s Fitness Center and EDA vacant parcel) and established to facilitate the redevelopment of the properties into 164 apartments and a 28,000 sq/ft grocery store. On December 7, 2015, the EDA approved a development Agreement with 4900 Excelsior Apartments LLC. The Redeveloper agreed to reserve 18 of the residential units for households earning 60% of Area Median Income (AMI) for at least 25 years following building occupancy. The EDA is required to issue the Developer a $2,800,000 PAYGO TIF Note at 4.5% interest, to reimburse them for qualified redevelopment costs. In early March, the lookback was completed for the project and it was determined that no reduction in assistance was warranted. Therefore, on March 5, 2019 the TIF Note was issued and 4900 Excelsior Boulevard project was later renamed 4800 Excelsior. Adopted……………………. 11/16/2015 Certified Date……………... 07/01/2016 First Increment…………….. 07/01/2019 Expected Decertification…..12/31/2024 Decertifies…………………. 12/31/2044 Former and Current PID Numbers: Property Address Former PID # Former UseNew PID #'sNew Use4900 Excelsior Blvd07-028-24-21-0002Bally's Fitness CenterTBD4760 Excelsior Blvd07-028-24-21-0258 Vacant LotTBDMixed-Use Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 90
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 86 4900 EXCELSIOR CONTINUED Fiscal Disparities Election: The City will elect to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 128.561% Obligations: There is one PAYGO Note in this district as follows: $2,600,000 at 4.50% interest. The Note was issued on March 5, 2019, payable from August 1, 2019 through February 1, 2027. Other Development Agreement Compliance: 1. Minimum Assessment Agreement. The minimum market value as of January 2, 2018 shall be $31,680,000. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the TIF Note is paid in full or the TIF District terminates, whichever is sooner. 2. Inclusionary Housing. The Redeveloper agrees to reserve at least 18 of the units for household earning 60% of the Area Median Income for at least 25 years following building occupancy. The monthly rental price shall include rent and utility costs as determined annually by MHFA for the Housing Tax Credit Program. The size and design of these units shall be consistent and comparable with the market rate units and is subject to approval of the City. The units shall be distributed throughout the entire project. The units shall have a number of bedrooms in the approximate proportions of the market rate units. The Redeveloper agrees to prepare an affordable housing plan as required in the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy. 3. Property Management. The Redeveloper shall cause the project to be professionally managed by a management company with substantial experience in operating mixed-use developments. The selection of the property management company is subject to approval by the EDA, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 91
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 87 4900 EXCELSIOR CONTINUED Four-Year and Five-Year Rules: All requirements were met for the District. Recommendations: 1. Inclusionary Housing. The Redeveloper agreed to reserve at least 18 of the units for household earning 60% of the Area Median Income for at least 25 years following building occupancy. We recommend that staff continue to review and retain the required documentation to assure compliance. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 92
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 88 4900 EXCELSIOR CONTINUED City of St. Louis Park4900 ExcelsiorORIGINALHSS Geo. EnlargementInterest Income 0.50% 1) Limited Pooling options availableDistrict TypeRedevelopment Admin Expense 3.00% 2) Budget Mod: Not Recommended at this timeProject Area3) Admin. Expense is currently:3.4%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1321TIF Report #19115Frozen RateUTA #1 128.260% 0.000% 0.000%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%First ReceiptCity Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Paygo Bonds Interfund LoanAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget2019 11/16/2015 6/16/2016 7/1/2016 12/31/2044 12/31/2044‐ ‐ ‐ Cumulative Modified21,611,861 2,161,139 23,773,000 12,508,567 9,103,337 2,161,096 23,773,000 23,773,000 End of District Projected Actual Total17,864,740 ‐ 367,936 6,781,704 ‐ 3,225,043 ‐ 3,061 151,003 34,075 ‐ 8,591,001 4,674,760 12,004,183 Under / (Over) Budget3,747,121 1,793,203 16,991,296 12,508,567 5,878,294 ‐ 2,010,093 (34,075) ‐ (8,591,001) 19,098,240 11,771,878 YearBaseCurrent Fiscal Disparities CapturedTax IncrementInterest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectPaygoBonds Interfund LoanAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE1 201947,330 475,420 23,005 405,085 125.012% 504,580 2,389 506,969 ‐ 211,547 ‐ 1,182 5,574 1,137 ‐ ‐ 219,440 255,558 2 202047,330 618,920 23,027 548,563 121.682% 665,098 3,759 668,857 ‐ 491,826 ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ ‐ 497,757 426,658 3 202147,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 2,133 697,761 ‐ 568,382 ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ ‐ 574,313 550,106 4 202247,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 2,751 698,378 ‐ 576,207 ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ ‐ 582,138 666,347 5 202347,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 3,332 698,959 ‐ 576,207 ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ ‐ 582,138 783,168 6 202447,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 3,916 699,543 ‐ 576,207 ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ 582,138 900,574 7 202547,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 4,503 700,130 ‐ 224,668 ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ 230,599 1,370,105 8 202647,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 6,851 702,478 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ 452,158 458,089 1,614,494 9 202747,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 8,072 703,700 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ 452,158 458,089 1,860,105 10 202847,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 9,301 704,928 ‐ ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ 452,158 458,089 2,106,945 11 202947,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 10,535 706,162 ‐ ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ 452,158 458,089 2,355,018 ‐ ‐ 12 203047,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 11,775 707,403 ‐ ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ 452,158 458,089 2,604,332 13 203147,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 13,022 708,649 ‐ ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ 452,158 458,089 2,854,892 14 203247,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 14,274 709,902 ‐ ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ 452,158 458,089 3,106,705 15 203347,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 15,534 711,161 ‐ ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ 452,158 458,089 3,359,777 16 203447,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 16,799 712,426 ‐ ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ 452,158 458,089 3,614,115 17 203547,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 18,071 713,698 ‐ ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ 452,158 458,089 3,869,724 18 203647,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 19,349 714,976 ‐ ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ 452,158 458,089 4,126,611 19 203747,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 20,633 716,261 ‐ ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ 452,158 458,089 4,384,783 20 203847,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 21,924 717,551 ‐ ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ 452,158 458,089 4,644,246 21 203947,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 23,221 718,849 ‐ ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ 452,158 458,089 4,905,006 22 204047,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 24,525 720,153 ‐ ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ 452,158 458,089 5,167,069 23 204147,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 25,835 721,463 ‐ ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ 452,158 458,089 5,430,443 24 204247,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 27,152 722,780 ‐ ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ 452,158 458,089 5,695,134 25 204347,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 28,476 724,103 ‐ ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ 452,158 458,089 5,961,148 26 204447,330 664,020 24,267 592,423 117.845% 695,628 29,806 725,433 ‐ ‐ 4,635 1,296 ‐ 452,158 458,089 6,228,493 TIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal Budget DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPID Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 93
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 89 WAYZATA BOULEVARD (PLATIA PLACE) Description: Wayzata Boulevard (County #1322) is a redevelopment district adopted on June 16, 2017. The district encompasses two (2) parcels of land (former Santorini’s restaurant site and related ROW owned by the EDA) and was established to facilitate the redevelopment of the properties into a 100-room hotel and 149-unit apartment building. On October 15, 2018, the EDA approved a revised Purchase and Redevelopment Agreement with SLP Park Ventures LLC. Under which the developer agreed to purchase the vacated ROW from the EDA and construct the two projects. The EDA is required to issue the Developer two pay-as-you-go TIF Notes (Hotel Note - $714,000 and Apartment Note - $2,760,000) at 5.5% interest, to reimburse them for qualified redevelopment costs. Given current market conditions, the proposed hotel and apartment building will not be proceeding. Therefore, the district is expected to be decertified. A new apartment development requiring a housing district has been approved in its place Adopted…………………….03/21/2016 Certified Date………………07/01/2016 First Increment……………..08/01/2021 Decertifies………………….12/31/2046 Former and Current PID Numbers: Property Address Former PID # Former UseNew PID #'sNew Use9920 Wayzata Blvd01-117-22-14-0018Santorini TBD9808 Wayzata Blvd01-117-22-14-0002SantoriniTBDMixed-Use Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 94
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 90 WAYZATA BOULEVARD (PLATIA PLACE) CONTINUED Fiscal Disparities Election: The City will elect to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 131.8230% Obligations: It is anticipated that there will be two (2) PAYGO Note in this district as follows: $714,000 for the hotel. To date the Note has not been issued. $2,760,000 for the apartments. To date the Note has not been issued. Other Development Agreement Compliance: 1. Look Back. There are three (3) components to the lookback. (1) At the time of completion of construction of each component, if the amount of the Public Redevelopment Costs actually incurred is less than anticipated, the TIF Note(s) will be reduced on a dollar for dollar basis. (2) Within 60 days after the earliest of (i) stabilization (93% of the rental units are leased or hotel is at 68% occupancy); (ii) sale of property or; (iii) three years after the issuance of the CO, the developer will provide the City the financial data to calculate the actual rate of return to the developer. If, based on such review, the actual cash-on-cash (COC) return to the developer(s) exceeds 10% for the apartments or 9% for the hotel, then the TIF Notes will be reduced by 50% of the amount that results in an annual COC return equal to 10% for the apartments and 9% for the hotel; and (3) At the time of sale of either of the projects during the first five (5) years after issuance of the CO, if the COC exceeds 10% for the apartments or 9% for the hotel, the amount that exceeds these thresholds will be used to reduce the principal amount of the TIF Note(s). Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 95
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 91 WAYZATA BOULEVARD (PLATIA PLACE) CONTINUED 2. Minimum Assessment Agreement. The minimum market value for the hotel as on January 2, 2021 shall be $8,500,000. The minimum market value for the apartments as of January 2, 2020 shall be $14,900,000 and $29,800,000 as of January 2, 2021. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the applicable TIF Note is paid in full or the TIF District terminates, whichever is sooner. 3. Inclusionary Housing. The Redeveloper agrees to reserve at least 15 of the units for household earning 50% of the Area Median Income for at least 25 years following building occupancy. The size and design of these units shall be consistent and comparable with the market rate units and is subject to approval of the City. The units shall be distributed throughout the entire project. The units shall have a number of bedrooms in the approximate proportions of the market rate units. The Redeveloper agrees to prepare an affordable housing plan as required in the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy. Four-Year and Five-Year Rules: All requirements were met for the District. Recommendations: Staff should decertify this District due to inactivity. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 96
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 92 ELMWOOD APARTMENTS Description: Elmwood Apartments (County #1323) is a redevelopment district adopted on May 15, 2017. The district encompasses one (1) parcel of land (former 36th Street Business Center) and was established to facilitate the redevelopment of the property into a five-story, 70-unit apartment (with 17 affordable units) and 4,400 sq/ft of retail space. On September 18, 2017 the EDA entered into a revised contract for private redevelopment with 36th Street LLC and agreed to provide a pay-as-you-go note in the amount of $950,000. The Redeveloper agreed to reserve 24% of the residential units for households earning 60% of Area Median Income (AMI) for at least 25 years following building occupancy. Adopted……………………..05/15/2017 Certified Date………….……06/30/2017 First Increment………..……….7/1/2019 Decertifies…………….…….12/31/2044 Former and Current PID Numbers: Property Addresss Foremer PID #Former Use New PID #New Use5605 36th Street West 16‐117‐21‐34‐0073 36th St Business Ctr Same as former PID Sr. Apartments over retail Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 97
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 93 ELMWOOD APARTMENTS CONTINUED Fiscal Disparities Election: The City will elect to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 124.605% Obligations: It is anticipated there will be one PAYGO Note in this district as follows: $950,000 at the lesser of 5% or the Redeveloper’s actual financing rate and paid with 95% of the TIF generated from the project. The Note has not yet been issued Other Development Agreement Compliance: 1. Look Back. At the time of completion of construction, if the aggregate total amount of the Public Redevelopment Costs paid or incurred by the Redeveloper is less than the aggregate total amount of Public Redevelopment Costs projected (in Schedule E of the Development Agreement), the total assistance provided will be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis and the principal amount of the TIF Note will be reduced accordingly. In addition, if the Projected Total Development costs, excluding Public Redevelopment Costs (in Schedule F of the Development Agreement), are less than the Projected Total Development Costs, the principal amount of the Note will be reduced by 50% of the excess of the Projected Total Development Costs over the actual Total Development Costs paid or incurred by the Redeveloper. 2. Minimum Assessment Agreement. The minimum market value as of January 2, 2019, shall be $8,100,000 and $16,200,000 as of January 2, 2020. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the TIF Note is paid in full or the TIF District terminates, whichever is sooner. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 98
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 94 ELMWOOD APARTMENTS CONTINUED 3. Designated Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA). The Redeveloper shall construct a DORA for the use and enjoyment of residents and invitees of the project and members of the general public. The DORA shall incorporate amenities to be mutually agreed upon by the Authority and Redeveloper, and which shall include public art and may include street furnishings or landscaping, and/or decorative lighting elements. The parties agree and understand that the Redeveloper shall be responsible for the cost of any maintenance and repair of the public art. If the Redeveloper fails to perform the Art Maintenance after thirty (30) days written notice from the Authority of the Redeveloper’s obligation to perform such maintenance (or such longer period of time as is reasonably necessary if the Maintenance cannot reasonably be completed within said thirty-day period), then the Authority or City may perform the Art Maintenance and forward evidence of the costs incurred in such Art Maintenance to the Redeveloper. The Redeveloper shall pay the Authority the costs of the Art Maintenance within sixty (60) days of receipt of such evidence. 4. Inclusionary Housing. The Redeveloper agrees to reserve at least 24% of the units for household earning 60% of the Area Median Income for at least 25 years following building occupancy. The monthly rental price shall include rent and utility costs as determined annually by MHFA for the Housing Tax Credit Program. The size and design of these units shall be consistent and comparable with the market rate units and is subject to approval of the City. The units shall be distributed throughout the entire project. The units shall have a number of bedrooms in the approximate proportions of the market rate units. The Redeveloper agrees to prepare an affordable housing plan as required in the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy. 5. Management. The Redeveloper shall at all times engage a property management company with substantial experience in operating mixed-use developments, subject to approval by the Authority, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. The Redeveloper will submit evidence of such management upon request by the Authority. The Redeveloper has notified the Authority of, and the Authority has approved, the engagement of Main Street Companies as property management company. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 99
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 95 ELMWOOD APARTMENTS CONTINUED 6. Special Service District Maintenance. The Redeveloper understands that the project currently lies within the City’s Special Service District No. 6 and is subject to existing special service charges. Upon written request of the Authority or City, the Redeveloper will file any petition required under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 428A in order to renew any levy of special service charges within 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. By no later than December 31, 2018, 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 project. Four-Year and Five-Year Rules: All requirements were met for the District. Geographic Enlargements: MN Statute 469.175 sub 4 (f) places limits on the length of time a TIF district may add parcels. No parcels may be added five years after the certification date. The district may not be enlarged after June 30, 2022. Recommendations: 1. Issuance of TIF Note. Since the project has been completed, staff should reach out to the Developer to attain the necessary documentation for issuance of the TIF Note. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 100
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 96 WOODDALE STATION Description: Wooddale Station (County #1324) is a redevelopment district adopted on May 1, 2017. The district encompasses ten (10) parcels of land (former McGarvey Coffee and others) and was established to facilitate the redevelopment of the properties into 200 affordable apartments, 99 market rate apartments, 110-room hotel, 16,261 sq/ft commercial space and a 10,800 sq/ft Greenhouse/E-Generation facility. The development incorporates a mix of renewable energy sources, including an anaerobic digester, wind turbines and solar panels, which will provide 90% of the heat and power for the development. The entire development is designed to achieve LEED certification. The development also includes a mobility plan to lessen the traffic impact in the area, including car-free living, car share, bike share, multiple onsite live/work opportunities, transit passes and a local shuttle. On May 1, 2017 the EDA entered into a Purchase and Redevelopment contract with PLACE E-Generation One LLC and agreed to sell the redevelopment site and provide PLACE with a pay-as-you-go note in the total amount of $5,660,000. The 1st amendment was dated November 6, 2017. The 2nd amendment was dated December 18, 2017. The 3rd amendment was dated May 7, 2018, the 4th amendment was dated November 5, 2018 and the 5th amendment was dated June 17, 2019. The 6th amendment was approved on April 20, 2020. To date, demolition and remediation of the North parcel has been completed and building construction has commenced. The south side of PLACE project did not proceed. As a result, the TIF note was reduced to $3,377,236, per the 6th amendment. The south side of the district is expected to be decertified within the next two years and a new multi-family redevelopment project is expected in a new TIF district. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 101
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 97 WOODALE STATION CONTINUED Adopted…………………….05/01/2017 Certified Date………………06/30/2017 First Increment…………..…07/01/2021 Decertifies………………….12/31/2046 Former and Current PID Numbers: Property Addresss Foremer PID #Former Use New PID #New Use5815 Hwy 716-117-21-31-0079Vacant Same as former PID5725 Hwy 716-117-21-31-0078Frmr industrial bldg Same as former PID3520 Yosemite16-117-21-31-0002Rail ROW Same as former PID5925 Hwy 716-117-21-31-0071Vacant Same as former PID5816 36th St W16-117-21-34-0041Parking lot Same as former PID5814 36th St W16-117-21-34-0042Parking lot Same as former PID3565 Wooddale 16-117-21-34-0069 Commerical bldg Same as former PID3548 Xenwood Ave 16-117-21-31-0076Rail ROW Same as former PIDN/AROWROW Same as former PID3575 Wooddale16-117-21-34-0024Parking lot Same as former PIDMixed Use Development Fiscal Disparities Election: The City will elect to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 124.605% Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 102
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 98 WOODALE STATION CONTINUED Obligations: It is anticipated there will be one PAYGO Note in this district as follows: $3,377,236 at the lesser of 5% or the Redeveloper’s actual financing rate and paid with 95% of the TIF generated from the project. The Note has not yet been issued. Other Development Agreement Compliance: 1. Look Back. At the time of completion of construction of the Minimum Improvements, if the aggregate total amount of the Public Redevelopment Costs paid or incurred is less than the aggregate total amount of Public Redevelopment Costs, the total assistance provided will be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis and the principal amount of the TIF Note will be reduced accordingly. In addition, if the Projected Total Development costs, excluding Public Redevelopment Costs (in Schedule E of the Development Agreement), are less than the Projected Total Development Costs, the principal amount of the Note will be reduced by 50% of the excess of the Projected Total Development Costs over the actual Total Development Costs paid or incurred by the Redeveloper. 2. Minimum Assessment Agreement. As of January 2, 2019 the minimum market value for the North Side Apartments Components, shall be $18,100,000, the minimum market value for the North Commercial Space Component shall be $390,600, the minimum market value for the E-Generation Facility Component shall be $108,000. As of January 2, 2020 and each January 2 thereafter, the minimum market value for the North Apartments Component shall be $36,200,000, the minimum market value for the North Commercial Space Component shall be $781,000, the minimum market value for the E-Generation Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 103
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 99 WOODALE STATION CONTINUED Facility Component shall be $216,000. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the TIF Note is paid in full or the TIF District terminates, whichever is sooner. 3. Live/Work Units. The Redeveloper agrees to design 18 of the units of the North Apartment Component as Live/Work Type I Units, which will include a large working space within the dwelling unit, but no physical storefront. 4. Inclusionary Housing. The Redeveloper agrees to reserve 152 units of the North Apartment Component for households earning between 50% and 80% of the Area Median Income for at least 25 years following building occupancy. The monthly rental price shall include rent and utility costs as determined annually by MHFA for the Housing Tax Credit Program. The size and design of these units shall be consistent and comparable with the market rate units and is subject to approval of the City. The units shall be distributed throughout the entire project. The units shall have a number of bedrooms in the approximate proportions the market rate units. The Redeveloper agrees to prepare an affordable housing plan as defined in the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy. 5. Public Art. The Redeveloper agrees to incorporate public art curated by the Museum of Outdoor Arts (the “Public Art”) throughout the Redevelopment Property. The Public Art will include: (i) community-led art components involving collaboration with local artists, schools, and organizations; (ii) 8 to 10 art installations interwoven into the Urban Forest; (iii) additional pieces to be installed in the Plaza and other publicly accessible pedestrian areas on the Redevelopment Property, as well as affixed to various of the Components; and (iv) multipurpose spaces featuring exhibits and presentations from creatives as well as hosting community gatherings. 6. Special Service District Maintenance. The Redeveloper understands that the project currently lies within the City’s Special Service District No. 6 and is subject to existing special service charges. Upon written request of the EDA or City, the Redeveloper will file any petition required under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 428A in order to renew any levy of special service charges within the Special Service District. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 104
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 100 WOODALE STATION CONTINUED 7. Property Management. The Redeveloper agrees to have the Minimum Improvements 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. Four Year Rule: This requirement was met for the District since construction commenced. Five Year Rule: A At least 75% of tax increment revenues must be used to pay for qualified costs within the district. Statute further specifies that within five years, tax increment must be paid to a third party for activities or bonds issued in order for revenues to be considered to have been spent. The five-year rule is June 30, 2022. Recommendations: None at this time. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 105
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 101 BRIDGEWATER BANK Description: Bridgewater Bank (County #1325) is a redevelopment district adopted on July 16, 2018. The district encompasses three (3) parcels of land and was established to facilitate the redevelopment of the properties into the corporate headquarters of Bridgewater Bank (39,967 sq/ft), 19,775 sq/ft of additional office, 7,530 sq/ft of retail space and 7,152 sq/ft Bridgewater Bank facility. The project has been completed. On August 6, 2018 the EDA entered into a contract for Private Redevelopment with Bridgewater Bank and agreed to provide it with a pay-as-you-go note in the amount of $950,000. In 2021 when the first TIF payment was to be made, the EDA approved paying the PAYGO Note in full and issuing an interfund loan from the EDA Development Fund to be repaid with future TIF receipts at 4% interest. Adopted…………………….08/06/2018 Certified Date………………05/11/2019 First Increment……………..07/01/2021 Decertifies………………….12/31/2046 Former and Current PID Numbers: Property Addresss Foremer PID #Former Use New PID #New Use4424 Excelsior Blvd 06‐028‐24‐43‐0064Vacant Same as former PID4400 Excelsior Blvd 06‐028‐24‐43‐0187Vacant Same as former PID3743 Monterey Drive 06‐028‐24‐43‐0065Vacant Same as former PIDOffice/Retail Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 106
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 102 BRIDGEWATER BANK CONTINUED Fiscal Disparities Election: The City will elect to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 125.012% Obligations: There is one obligation in this district as follows: $951,596 Interfund Loan paid at 4% interest with 90% of the TIF. Other Development Agreement Compliance: 1. Minimum Assessment Agreement. As of January 2, 2020, the minimum market value for the development shall be $5,883,300 and $11,766,600 as of January 2, 2021. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the TIF Note is paid in full. 2. Entrepreneurial Center. Until the Redeveloper needs all or any part of the fourth floor for their business operations, Redeveloper shall use commercially reasonable efforts to cause the Fourth Floor to be used as an Entrepreneurial Center. For a period of ten (10) months following the date of the Agreement, the Redeveloper shall expend reasonable time, resources and efforts to secure a lease with a tenant who will operate an Entrepreneurial Center on all or a portion of the Fourth Floor upon terms and conditions reasonably acceptable to Redeveloper (an “EC Lease”). If Redeveloper is unsuccessful in securing an EC lease despite expending reasonable time, resources and efforts to do so, then Redeveloper may lease or use the Fourth Floor for any other purpose consistent with the Agreement. Thereafter if all or any portion of the Fourth Floor becomes available for lease (or if the then-current EC Lease expires or terminates) and Redeveloper does not need such available area for its own operations, then Redeveloper shall expend reasonable time, resources and efforts for at least ninety (90) days from the date of notice of the termination or expiration of any option notice period of the then-current EC Lease to attempt to secure an EC Lease prior to proceeding with any other lease or use of all or the applicable portion of the Fourth Floor. Notwithstanding any other Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 107
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 103 BRIDGEWATER BANK CONTINUED provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, the obligations of the Redeveloper shall continue until the TIF Note is paid in full. The foregoing covenant shall be binding upon Redeveloper and any of its Affiliates. Beginning five (5) years from the issuance of a CO for the Minimum Improvements, the foregoing covenant shall not bind any subsequent fee owner of the Redevelopment Property. 3. Special Service District Maintenance. The Redeveloper understands that the project currently lies within the City’s Special Service District No. 2 and is subject to existing special service charges. Upon written request of the EDA or City, the Redeveloper will file any petition required under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 428A in order to renew any levy of special service charges within the Special Service District. Four-Year and Five-Year Rules: All requirements were met for the District. Recommendations: None at this time. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 108
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 104 PARKWAY RESIDENCES Description: Parkway Residences (County #1326) is a redevelopment district adopted on May 18, 2020. The district encompasses six (6) parcels of land and only Phase I (which consists of 95 units of market rate apartments) of a 4-Phase development is in the TIF District. Phases 2 – 4 will produce another 116 market rate apartments as well as rehabilitation of three existing apartment buildings that contain 24 units (total of 235 units). These 24 units will be available at 50% area median income and 6 units available at 60% area median income. On May 18, 2020 the EDA entered into a contract for Private Redevelopment with Parkway Place, LLC, Parkway Flats, LLC, Sela Group LLC, and Sela Investments, LTC., LLP and agreed to provide them with a pay-as-you-go note in the amount of $3,350,000. Adopted…………………….05/18/2020 Certified Date………………07/17/2020 First Increment……………….est. 2022 Decertifies………………….12/31/2047 Current PID Numbers: Former PID #New PID #New Use06-028-24-11-001706-028-24-11-001806-028-24-11-001906-028-24-11-002006-028-24-11-002106-028-24-11-002206-028-24-11-0113Parkway Residences Apartments (95 Units) Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 109
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 105 PARKWAY RESIDENCES CONTINUED Fiscal Disparities Election: The City will elect to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 121.682% Obligations: It is anticipated there will be one PAYGO Note in this district as follows: $3,350,000 and paid with 95% of the TIF generated from the project. The Note has not yet been issued. Other Development Agreement Compliance: 1. Commencement and Completion of Construction. The Redeveloper shall commence construction of Phase I by May 31, 2020 and be substantially completed by August 31, 2021. Phase II shall commence by October 31, 2021 and be substantially complete by August 31, 2022. Phase III shall commence by September 30, 2023 and be substantially complete by August 31, 2024. 2. Green Building Policy. In the construction of all Phases, Redeveloper will comply with the City’s Green Building Policy as most recently amended at the time of Contract execution and incorporating sustainable features to include solar panels on the Phase I Large Apartment Component, solar-ready roofs on Phase II and Phase III of the Minimum Improvements; white roofs and partial green roofs throughout the Minimum Improvements; insulated underground parking structures and EV charging outlets in the majority of indoor parking spaces; and LED lighting. In addition, Redeveloper will construct the Phase I Small Apartment Component as a Demonstration Building, including a net zero energy performance design, high-performance insulation and windows, energy-efficient lighting and mechanical systems, and solar roof panels. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 110
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 106 PARKWAY RESIDENCES CONTINUED 3. Inclusionary Housing. The Redeveloper agrees to reserve 24 of the units of the renovation portion of the project for households at or below 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI) and 6 units in Phase I for residents at or below 60% of AMI for at least 25 years following building occupancy. The monthly rental price shall include rent and utility costs as determined annually by MHFA for the Housing Tax Credit Program. The Redeveloper will assist any current residents in the Renovation Component with relocation and moving and transition costs during the Phase I construction period. 4. Minimum Assessment Agreement. As of January 2, 2022 the minimum market value for Phase I, shall be $25,650,000. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the TIF Note is paid in full or the TIF District terminates, whichever is sooner. 5. Look Back. A portion of the tax increment assistance in the principal amount of $2,250,000 will be subject to a two-part lookback to be performed by the EDA’s Municipal Advisor upon stabilization (defined as the date the Phase I Large Apartment Component of the Minimum Improvements achieve 93% lease-up). First, if Redeveloper’s total actual Public Redevelopment Costs are less than those projected, the principal amount of the TIF Note will be reduced by such difference. Second, if Redeveloper’s cash-on-cost return for the Phase I Large Apartment Component exceeds 6%, $2,250,000 of the principal amount of the TIF Note will be reduced by an amount equal to 50% of the amount that results in a stabilized 6% cash-on-cost return over the term of the TIF Note. In addition to the two-part lookback upon Stabilization, the TIF Note will be subject to adjustment if Redeveloper fails to commence construction of Phase II and/or III of the Minimum Improvements by the dates agreed upon for the commencement of construction for such Phases. The principal amount of the TIF Note will be reduced by $550,000 for each Phase for which construction has not commenced by the date required under the Contract. 6. Property Management. The Redeveloper agrees to have the Minimum Improvements 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. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 111
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 107 PARKWAY RESIDENCES CONTINUED 7. Public Art and Fiber. The Redeveloper agrees to incorporate public art install dedicated fiber optic connections in accordance with the City’s Planning Contract. Four Year Rule: MN Statute 469.176 sub 6 requires that, within four years from certification date, certain activities must have taken place on each parcel within the TIF district. Required activities include demolition, rehabilitation, renovation and site improvements. The four-year deadline is July 17, 2024. Five Year Rule: At least 75% of tax increment revenues must be used to pay for qualified costs within the district. Statute further specifies that within five years, tax increment must be paid to a third party for activities or bonds issued in order for revenues to be considered to have been spent. This date is July 17, 2025. Geographic Enlargements: MN Statute 469.175 sub 4 (f) places limits on the length of time a TIF district may add parcels. No parcels may be added five years after the certification date. The district may not be enlarged after July 17, 2025. Recommendations: None at this time. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 112
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 108 TEXA TONKA Description: Texa Tonka (County #1327) is a housing district adopted on May 18, 2020. The district encompasses nine (9) parcels of land and was established to facilitate the construction of 101-unit apartment building and eleven (11) townhomes with 20% of the units affordable at 50% of the area median income (AMI). Adopted…………………….04/05/2021 Certified Date………………05/10/2021 First Increment……….…….…est 2023 Decertifies………………….12/31/2048 Current PID Numbers: Current PIDFuture Use08-117-21-33-016508-117-21-33-016608-117-21-33-016708-117-21-33-016808-117-21-33-016908-117-21-33-017008-117-21-33-017108-117-21-33-017208-117-21-33-0173101 Apartments and 11 Town Homes Fiscal Disparities Election: The City will elect to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 113
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 109 TEXA TONKA CONTINUED Frozen Tax Rate: 117.8450% Obligations: It is anticipated there will be one PAYGO Note in this district as follows: $2,600,000 and paid with 95% of the TIF generated from the project. The Note has not yet been issued. Other Development Agreement Compliance: 1. Commencement and Completion of Construction. The Redeveloper shall commence construction by October 31, 2021 and be substantially completed by October 31, 2023. 2. Green Building Policy. The Redeveloper will comply with the City’s Green Building Policy as adopted by the City on February 16, 2010, or as amended as of the date of issuance of a building permit. Redeveloper to submit proof of LEED certification as a condition to issuance of CO. 3. Inclusionary Housing. The Redeveloper agrees to reserve 23 of the units for households at or below 50% of the AMI for at least 25 years following building occupancy (21 in the apartments and 2 in the town homes). The monthly rental price shall include rent and utility costs as determined annually by MHFA for the Housing Tax Credit Program. The size and design of the units shall be consistent and comparable with the market rate units and shall be distributed throughout the units. 4. Minimum Assessment Agreement. As of January 2, 2022, the minimum market value shall be $7,926,000 and as of January 2, 2021 shall be $21,136,000 and as of January 2, 2024 shall be $26,240,000. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the TIF Note is paid in full or the TIF District terminates, whichever is sooner. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 114
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 110 TEXA TONKA CONTINUED 5. Look Back. A portion of the tax increment assistance in the principal amount of $2,600,000 will be subject to a three-part lookback to be performed by the EDA’s Municipal Advisor upon stabilization (defined as 95% occupied). First, if Redeveloper’s total actual Public Redevelopment Costs are less than those projected, the principal amount of the TIF Note will be reduced by such difference. Second, if Redeveloper’s cash-on-cash (COC) return exceeds 10% on a cumulative basis, the principal amount of the TIF Note will be reduced by an amount equal to 50% of the amount that results in a COC return equal to 10% over the term of the TIF Note. Third, if the Redeveloper sells the property or refinances during the first six (6) years after issuance of a certificate of completion, if the Redeveloper’s cumulative COC return exceeds 10% then the principal amount of the TIF Note will be reduced by an amount equal to 50% of the amount that exceeds the annual 10% cumulative COC over the term of the TIF Note. 6. Property Management. The Redeveloper agrees to have the Minimum Improvements professionally managed by a property management company with substantial experience in operating apartments. The Redeveloper’s selection of the property management company is subject to approval by the Authority, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Four Year Rule: MN Statute 469.176 sub 6 requires that, within four years from certification date, certain activities must have taken place on each parcel within the TIF district. Required activities include demolition, rehabilitation, renovation and site improvements. The four-year deadline is May 10, 2025. Five Year Rule: At least 75% of tax increment revenues must be used to pay for qualified costs within the district. Statute further specifies that within five years, tax increment must be paid to a third party for activities or bonds issued in order for revenues to be considered to have been spent. This date is May 10, 2026. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 115
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 111 TEXA TONKA CONTINUED Geographic Enlargements: MN Statute 469.175 sub 4 (f) places limits on the length of time a TIF district may add parcels. No parcels may be added five years after the certification date. The district may not be enlarged after May 10, 2026. Recommendations: None at this time. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 116
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 112 BELTLINE RESIDENCES Description: Beltline Residences (County #TBD) is a redevelopment district adopted on September 20, 2021. The district encompasses one (1) parcel of land and was established to facilitate the construction of a 250-unit market rate apartment with 7,449 square feet of retail. Adopted………………………..09/18/21 Certified Date………………..….…TBD First Increment………………..est 2024 Decertifies………………….12/31/2049 Current PID Numbers: Current PID #Future Use06-028-24-31-0015250 Apartments and 7,445 Sq. Ft Commercial Fiscal Disparities Election: The City will elect to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: TBD Obligations: It is anticipated there will be one PAYGO Note in this district as follows: $5,200,000 and paid with 95% of the TIF generated from the project. The Note has not yet been issued. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 117
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 113 BELTLINE RESIDENCES CONTINUED Other Development Agreement Compliance: 1. Commencement and Completion of Construction. The Redeveloper shall commence construction by February 1, 2022 and be substantially completed by February 1, 2024. 2. Green Building Policy & Sustainability Features. The Redeveloper will comply with the City’s Green Building Policy as adopted by the City on July 14, 2020. Redeveloper to submit proof of LEED, B3, or similar certification (or evidence of commercially reasonable efforts to obtain such certification) as a condition to issuance of CO. In addition, the Redeveloper agrees that it shall construct agreed upon Sustainability Features and maintain and operate those features. 3. Workforce Goals. Redeveloper shall use reasonable efforts to meet the following workforce participation goals of the City: Participation Goals Women BIPOC Business Enterprises 6% 13% Workforce 20% 32% 4. Inclusionary Housing. The Redeveloper agrees to reserve at least 10% of the units for households at or below 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for at least 25 years following building occupancy. The monthly rental price shall include rent and utility costs as determined annually by MHFA for the Housing Tax Credit Program. 5. Minimum Assessment Agreement. As of January 2, 2023 the minimum market value shall be $31,180,625 and as of January 2, 2023 the minimum market value shall be $64,361,250. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the TIF Note is paid in full or the TIF District terminates, whichever is sooner. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 118
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 114 BELTLINE RESIDENCES CONTINUED 6. Look Back. The tax increment assistance will be subject to a three-part lookback to be performed by the EDA’s Municipal Advisor upon stabilization (defined as 95% of units are leased and rental obligations have commenced). First, if Redeveloper’s total actual Public Redevelopment Costs are less than those projected, the principal amount of the TIF Note will be reduced by such difference. Second, if Redeveloper’s cash-on-cost (COC) return exceeds 6.5%, the principal amount of the TIF Note will be reduced by an amount equal to 50% of the difference between the actual NOI and the amount of NOI that would result in an annual COC equal to 6.5% over the term of the Note. Third, if the Redeveloper sells during the first eight (8) years after issuance of a CO the City’s Municipal Advisor will review all costs, rents and operating expenses from the date of the TIF agreement to the day of sale. Based upon the review if the actual COC exceeds 6.5%, then an amount equal to 50% of the difference between the net amounts actual received by the Redeveloper and the net amounts that would be required by the Redeveloper to result in an annual COC of 6.5% will go to reduce the principal amount of the TIF note. 7. Property Management. The Redeveloper agrees to at all times engage a reputable property management company with substantial experience in managing multi-family developments. The Redeveloper will submit evidence of such management upon request by the Authority. Four Year Rule: MN Statute 469.176 sub 6 requires that, within four years from certification date, certain activities must have taken place on each parcel within the TIF district. Required activities include demolition, rehabilitation, renovation and site improvements. The four-year deadline is TBD. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 119
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 115 BELTLINE RESIDENCES CONTINUED Five Year Rule: At least 75% of tax increment revenues must be used to pay for qualified costs within the district. Statute further specifies that within five years, tax increment must be paid to a third party for activities or bonds issued in order for revenues to be considered to have been spent. This date is TBD. Geographic Enlargements: MN Statute 469.175 sub 4 (f) places limits on the length of time a TIF district may add parcels. No parcels may be added five years after the certification date. The district may not be enlarged after a date TBD. Recommendations: None at this time. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 120
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 116 Definitions Administrative expenses. “Administrative expenses" means all expenditures other than: amounts paid for the purchase of land; amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the property in the project; relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the project; amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued, or amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance costs, "administrative expenses" includes amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants, city staff and property maintenance. Bonds. Bonds or other obligations include: refunding bonds, paygo notes, interim certificates, debentures; and interfund loans or advances. Captured net tax capacity. "Captured net tax capacity" means the amount by which the current net tax capacity of a tax increment financing district or an extended subdistrict exceeds the original net tax capacity. Five Year Rule. Within five years from certification, certain financing activities must take place in the district in order to retain the ability to collect increment from the district as a whole. These financing activities include issuing bonds, paying revenues to a third party or expending dollars on qualified costs. For certain districts, no additional obligations may be entered into after the five years have elapsed. Beginning in the sixth year following certification of the district, increment may only be used to pay, subject to applicable restrictions for in-district use, outstanding obligations, and amounts for housing projects, as subject to limitations regarding pooling percentages and district type. Four Year Rule. Within four years from certification, certain improvements must be made to each parcel or to a street adjacent to the parcel in order for the Authority to retain the ability to capture increment from that parcel. If no activities take place, the parcel is ‘knocked down’ from the district and no increment is collected on that parcel. If those activities subsequently take place, the authority must notify the county in order to collect future increment from the parcel. Activities include: demolition, rehabilitation, renovation, site preparation and improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel. Qualified street improvements are limited to construction or opening of a new street, relocation of a street, and substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 121
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 117 Housing district. "Housing district" means a type of tax increment financing district which consists of a project, or a portion of a project, intended for occupancy, in part, by persons or families of low and moderate income (minimum of 20% of the units affordable at 50% AMI or 40% at 60% AMI). The duration of a Housing District is 25 years after the first receipt of increment. Increment Revenue. "Tax increment revenues" include: taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, proceeds from the sale or lease of property that was purchased with tax increments, principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the authority with tax increment. Original net tax capacity. "original net tax capacity" means the tax capacity of all taxable real property within a tax increment financing district as certified by the commissioner of revenue for the previous assessment year. Tax increment financing district. "Tax increment financing district" or "district" means a contiguous or noncontiguous geographic area within a project delineated in the tax increment financing plan, for the purpose of financing redevelopment, housing or economic development in municipalities through the use of tax increment generated from the captured net tax capacity in the tax increment financing district. Project Area “Project Area” means a defined geographic area in which tax increment districts may be established. The project area may be larger than or equal to the size of the district (City’s project area is coterminous with the corporate boundaries of the City). A Project Area Plan is adopted that outlines the conditions in the district and the statutory authority under which development or redevelopment will take place. Redevelopment district. "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district within which the authority finds by resolution that more than 50% of the buildings are considered to be blighted and the blighted buildings are reasonably distributed throughout the district. The duration of a Redevelopment District is 25 years after the receipt of first increment. Renewal and renovation district. "Renewal and renovation district" means a type of tax increment financing district within which the authority finds by resolution that at least 30% of the buildings are blighted and the remaining parcels and the remaining buildings require substantial renovation or clearance to remove existing conditions. The qualification rules are less stringent than a Redevelopment District. The duration of a Renewal and Renovation District is 15 years after the receipt of first increment. Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 122
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts November 2021 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 118 City Map of the TIF DistrictsStudy session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF PolicyPage 123
SA285\3\751909.v3
Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Policy
Adopted August 18, 1997
Amended and Restated 2021
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF Policy Page 124
SA285\3\751909.v3 1
City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Policy
For the purpose of this policy, the "city" shall primarily mean the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (EDA), which serves in conducting various economic development,
housing and redevelopment programs and activities within the City of St. Louis Park.
I.General policy
The purpose of this policy is to establish the city's position relating to the use of Tax Increment
Financing (TIF) for private development. This policy shall be used as a guide in processing and
reviewing applications requesting tax increment assistance. The fundamental purpose of tax
increment financing in St. Louis Park is to encourage desirable development and/or
redevelopment that would not otherwise occur “but for” the assistance provided through TIF.
The City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority shall consider TIF for projects that
serve to accomplish the city’s goals for economic development and housing as they may change
over time. The goals include facilitating projects that would result in the attraction, retention,
and/or expansion of businesses, creation or retention of quality jobs (e.g., stable employment
and/or attractive wages and benefits), remediation of contaminated properties, or
development and renovation of market rate and affordable housing options in the city.
At the time of any application for a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment, rezoning or site
plan approval for a project, whichever occurs first, applicants must divulge that TIF will be
requested.
II.City EDA’s objectives for the use of TIF
As a matter of adopted policy, the City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority will
consider using TIF to assist private development projects to achieve one or more of the
following purposes:
•Foster racial equity and economic inclusion.
•Encourage development incorporating green building components and processes that help
achieve the city’s Climate Action Plan goals.
•Remove blight, contamination, and/or encourage redevelopment in the commercial and
industrial areas of the city in order to encourage high quality development and
revitalization.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF Policy Page 125
SA285\3\751909.v3 2
• Enhance the overall livability and economic vitality of the community.
• Retain and expand the city’s businesses as well as attract new, complementary, investment
and employment.
• Retain local jobs and/or increase the number and diversity of quality jobs (e.g., stable
employment and/or living wages and benefits).
• Provide public amenities, improvements and/or placemaking features which benefit a larger
area than the subject development site.
• Encourage additional unsubsidized private development in the area, either directly, or
through secondary "spin-off" development.
• Achieve any of the following housing-related goals:
• to promote high quality housing for households with a variety of income levels, ages,
and sizes in order to meet the city's goal of preserving and promoting economically
diverse housing options in the community.
• to provide a balanced, broad range and sustainable housing stock of both market
rate and affordable housing stock to meet diverse needs maintain a diverse
population and to provide housing for those who live or work in the city.
• to promote neighborhood stabilization and revitalization by the removal of blight
and the upgrading of existing housing stock.
• to ensure all housing is safe and well maintained.
• Offset increased costs of redevelopment (e.g., contaminated site clean-up, soil correction,
lead and asbestos abatement, demolition), over and above the costs that a developer would
incur in normally incurred in urban and suburban development.
• Facilitate the development process and to achieve development on sites which would not
be developed without this assistance.
• Meet other uses of public policy, as adopted by the council from time to time, including
promotion of quality human-scaled urban design, quality architecture, environmental
stewardship, energy conservation, decreasing the capital and operating costs of local
government, etc.
• Encourage the application of Livable Communities, New Urbanism and Transit Oriented
Development principles to a development project so as to create compact, efficient mixed-
use development, quality amenities (e.g., public art), and attractive, pedestrian and transit
friendly development.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF Policy Page 126
SA285\3\751909.v3 3
III. Costs that qualify for tax increment financing assistance
The EDA will consider the following development costs eligible for reimbursement through tax
increment financing:
• Land acquisition
• Demolition
• Project design fees including: utilities, landscape, architectural and engineering.
• Site work including permits for site work, earthwork/excavation, soil correction, shoring,
additional structural support systems such as pilings and related architectural and
engineering fees
• Design and construction of utilities, stormwater systems, streets and roads,
street/parking lot paving, curb and gutter, sidewalks, lighting, and landscaping
• Special assessments
• Legal fees (acquisition, finance, closing)
• Soil tests
• Environmental studies and remediation
• Surveys
• Park and open space dedication fees
• Interest rate write downs
• Replacement or clean-up of contaminated soils which would otherwise preclude
redevelopment
• Parking structures
• Construction of affordable housing
• Rehabilitation of commercial and industrial buildings and multi-family housing facilities
• Relocation assistance
• Any other costs allowable by Statute
IV. Projects that may qualify for tax increment financing assistance
All new TIF projects considered by the City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
must meet each of the following minimum qualifications and will also be evaluated based on
their ability to meet the desired qualifications for assistance. However, it should not be
presumed that a project meeting any of the qualifications will automatically be approved.
Meeting the qualifications creates no contractual rights on the part of any potential developer
to have its project approved.
Minimum qualifications
The project should meet one or more than half of the Tax Increment Financing Objectives
outlined in Section II, but at a minimum shall:
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF Policy Page 127
SA285\3\751909.v3 4
A. Be consistent with the city's Strategic Priorities, Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and
Building Readiness Ordinances effective at the time of final TIF application submittal.
The project shall also be consistent with any changes to the plan and ordinances under
active consideration by the City at the time of final TIF application submittal and
adopted during the period of negotiation of TIF assistance.
B. Meet requirements of the city’s Green Building, Inclusionary Housing, and Diversity,
Equity, and Inclusion Policies (if applicable).
C. Remove contamination, blight, poor soils, and/or encourage redevelopment in the
commercial and industrial areas of the city in order to encourage high quality
development or redevelopment and private reinvestment in those areas.
D. To fFacilitate the development process and to achieve desired development on sites
which would not be developed without this assistance.
E. Demonstrate to the satisfaction of the EDA’s financial and legal consultants that the
project is not financially feasible "but-for" the use of tax increment financing.
F. Prior to approval of a TIF financing plan, the developer shall provide any requested
market and financial feasibility studies, appraisals, soil boring, private lender
commitment, and/or other information the City or its financial consultants may require
in order to proceed with an independent underwriting of the proposal.
G. The developer must provide adequate financial guarantees to ensure the repayment of
the TIF loan and completion of the project. These may include, but are not limited to:
assessment agreements, letters of credit, personal deficiency guarantees, guaranteed
maximum cost contract, etc.
H. Any developer requesting TIF assistance should be able to demonstrate past successful
general development capability as well as specific capability in the type and size of
development proposed. TIF will not be used when the developer's credentials, in the
sole judgment of the city, are inadequate due to past track record relating to:
completion of projects, general reputation and/or bankruptcy, or other problems or
issues considered relevant by the city.
I. All developers receiving TIF assistance will be required to agree to comply with all
federal, state, and local labor laws in connection with the development, and to enforce
compliance with such laws by all contractors and subcontractors retained for the
project.
J. The developer should retain ownership of the project at least long enough to complete
it, to stabilize its occupancy, to establish the project management, and to initiate
repayment of the TIF loan.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF Policy Page 128
SA285\3\751909.v3 5
Desired qualifications
A. TIF proposals creating a higher ratio of property taxes paid before and after
redevelopment will receive priority consideration. Given the different assessment
circumstances in the city, this ratio will vary widely. A 1:2 ratio of property taxes paid
before and after redevelopment is desired.
B. TIF proposals should normally not be used to support speculative industrial, commercial,
or office development; however, any such speculative projects will be considered on a
case-by-case basis. In general, the developer should be able to provide market data,
tenant letters of commitment or finance statements which support the market
potential/demand for the proposed project.
C. Requests for TIF assistance should not exceed 10% of a project’s Total Development
Cost and should not exceed 15 years’ worth of tax increment generated by the project
unless there are mitigating circumstances in accordance with this policy which require
these parameters to be exceeded.
D. The proposed amount of TIF assistance or term of the TIF Note should be within range
of similar developments which previously received TIF assistance.
E. TIF will normally not be used in provided to a project that involves an excessive land
and/or property price i.e., where the acquisition price exceeds the property’s market
value by more than 20% as determined by an independent appraisal of the property.
F. TIF will not be used in projects that would give a significant competitive financial
advantage over similar projects in the area due to the use of tax increment subsidies.
Developers should provide information to support that TIF assistance will not create
such a competitive advantage. Priority consideration will be given to projects that fill an
unmet market need.
A. TIF will be provided on a pay-as-you-go-basis. Any request for upfront assistance will
be evaluated on its own merit in accordance with the City's general financing policies.
Projects requesting pay-as-you-go financing will receive priority consideration. See
Section V below
G. TIF will normally not be used considered for projects that would generate significant
environmental problems in the opinion of the local, state, or federal governments.
Priority will be given to projects that aim to clean-up existing contaminated sites and
would facilitate the location of business or industry that has an environmentally sound
track record.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF Policy Page 129
SA285\3\751909.v3 6
H. Preference will be given to projects that meet good public policy criteria as determined
by the EDA and city council, including:
• High project quality (e.g., sound architectural design, quality construction and
materials).
• Projects that complement and provide significant improvement to surrounding land
uses, the neighborhood, and/or the city.
• Projects that provide a significant increase in tax base.
• Projects that provide new, or retained, employment (if applicable).
• Provides units for families (i.e., 3 & 4 bedrooms if applicable).
• Projects that meet financial feasibility criteria established by the city.
• Projects that provide optimal the highest and best desired use for the property.
• Projects consistent with Livable Communities, New Urbanism, Transit Oriented
Development, and Sustainable Design principles.
• Projects that complement and/or add value to neighborhood by providing public
elements (if applicable).
• Projects that stimulate further investment in surrounding neighborhood.
• Projects that will generally have a positive community impact.
I. TIF will not be used to support projects that likely to place extraordinary demands on
city services.
V. Form of assistance
Tax increment financing will generally be provided on a “pay-as-you-go” basis wherein
the EDA reimburses the applicant for eligible project costs for a stated number of years,
up to a predetermined maximum amount. The EDA will have the option to issue a TIF
Note with or without interest, where the principal amount of the TIF Note is equal to
the amount of eligible project costs incurred and proven by the developer. In all cases,
semi-annual TIF payments will be based on available increment generated from the
project. TIF payments will be made after collection of property taxes.
Any request for upfront assistance will be evaluated on its own merit in accordance with
the city's general financing policies. Projects requesting pay-as-you-go financing will
receive priority consideration.
VI. Evaluation process for all tax increment financing applications TAX INCREMENT
PROJECT EVALUATION PROCESS
The following four methods of analysis, as reflected in the TIF Policy Compliance Table attached
as Exhibit B, will be used for all TIF proposals applications:
1. Is the project consistent with the city’s Strategic Plan Priorities, plans, ordinances, and
policies?
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF Policy Page 130
SA285\3\751909.v3 7
2. Does the project meet minimum qualifications?
3. Does the project meet desired qualifications?
4. Does the project meet statutory qualifications and "but-for" analysis?
Please note that the evaluation methodology is intended to provide a balanced review. Each
area will be evaluated individually and collectively and in no case shall one area outweigh
another in terms of importance to determining the level of TIF assistance.
VII. Application for TIF assistance for all TIF districts AND PROJECT AREAS
The tax increment financing program will be administered by the St. Louis Park EDA. The St.
Louis Park EDA will require a non-refundable application fee in the amount of $3,000 for its
processing of the application. The amount of the application fee will be determined from time
to time by the EDA or city council. The application fee shall be paid to the EDA at the time a
final TIF application is submitted.
At the time a final TIF application is submitted, the applicant shall also make an initial deposit
$20,000 with the EDA (depending on project size and complexity) to cover its attorney’s legal,
financial, and other necessary consultant costs incurred as part of establishing or amending a
TIF district, drafting and negotiating a development agreement, and conducting any fiscal
analysis that may be required to meet the requirements of utilizing TIF. If additional expenses
are incurred beyond the initial deposit $20,000, prior to the execution of a during the term of
the redevelopment agreement, the EDA shall notify the applicant in writing and the applicant
will be required to deposit additional funds upon notice.
If the project is approved and the applicant proceeds with the project, the EDA shall reimburse
the applicant any unused portion of the deposit as of the date of execution of the development
agreement after issuance of the TIF Note. If the applicant does not proceed with the project,
the EDA shall reimburse the applicant for the unused portion of the deposit as of the date that
the EDA is notified in writing that the applicant desires to withdraw its application.
VIII. Application process and procedures
The application process is a two-step process and must be completed in accordance with the
TIF application procedures outlined in Exhibit A. The purpose of this approach is to give an
applicant the opportunity to present a development proposal without expending a great deal of
money and time in pursuing a development that may conflict with the city's goals and
objectives.
IX. Other policy issues
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF Policy Page 131
SA285\3\751909.v3 8
Fiscal disparities
It is the CityEDA’s general policy to have tax increment financing districts contribute to fiscal
disparities in accordance with applicable State law. Tax revenues for fiscal disparities generated
by the project will be the responsibility of properties inside the TIF district. In the event a
project cannot be completed as a result of this election, the city may re-evaluate the impact of
this policy on the project within the framework of State statutes.
Loss of government aid
At any time, if the formation of a new TIF district or the use of an existing district to finance a
project will subject the city to an LGA/HACA penalty or local contribution to a project, the
transaction shall be structured so as to have the ultimate cost to the city minimized to the
greatest extent permitted by law, so as to have the project bear the cost of the penalty or
contribution. This section no longer applicable.
Public use of tax increment
The EDA and City shall follow applicable state laws in terms of potential public improvement
financing with TIF. It shall be the general policy of the EDA and City to identify public
improvements at the time of adoption or amendment of the TIF Plan.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 18th day of August, 1997 by the
City of St. Louis Park/St. Louis Park EDA
_____________________________
Mayor
_____________________________
EDA President
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Manager/EDA Executive Director
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF Policy Page 132
SA285\3\751909.v3 9
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF Policy Page 133
SA285\3\751909.v3 10
ADDENDUM
The TIF Policy shall be implemented and administered in accordance with the requirements set
forth in adopted EDA and city policies including the following:
• Green Building Policy adopted February 16, 2010, as updated September 16, 2014, and
July 14, 2020, and as subsequently amended.
• Inclusionary Housing Policy adopted June 1, 2015, as amended May 15, 2017,
September 6, 2018, September 2019, and July 2021 and as subsequently amended.
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Policy (adoption pending) as finally adopted and as
subsequently amended.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF Policy Page 134
SA285\3\751909.v3 11
Exhibit A
Application procedures for tax increment financing assistance
1. Meet with city economic development and planning staff to discuss the scope of the
project, financial assistance being requested, time schedule, city policy requirements
and other information as may be necessary before applying for tax increment
assistance.
2. If the applicant plans to apply for tax increment assistance, the applicant must divulge
that TIF will be requested at the time of any application for a Comprehensive Guide Plan
amendment, rezoning or site plan approval for a project, whichever occurs first.
3. Preliminary project plans, requested planning applications, and indication of need for
TIF assistance shall be submitted/presented in a staff report at a city council/EDA study
session for initial concept review and feedback. The applicant may make a formal
presentation of the project if necessary or requested. If the council/EDA’s preliminary
concept review is generally positive, and the EDA indicates that it is willing to consider a
formal request for tax increment assistance then the applicant may file a formal
application for TIF assistance. At the time of such application, the applicant is to submit
the required application fee and initial escrow deposit to be placed in a segregated
account to cover the EDA’s financial and legal consulting fees associated with the
application.
4. The application shall be reviewed by city staff and the EDA’s financial consultant in a
timely manner. Once an appropriate amount of assistance is determined, staff shall
prepare a report with its findings of compliance with applicable city policies along with
its recommendation for TIF assistance.
5. The staff report shall be submitted/presented at a city council/EDA study session. If the
council/EDA wishes to proceed and formally consider providing assistance to the
proposed project, staff will be directed to undertake the following steps:
- schedule a public hearing for the establishment of the appropriate TIF district type.
- have a tax increment financing plan prepared.
- prepare business terms for the provision of the agreed upon amount of tax increment.
6. The proposed business terms shall be submitted/presented in a staff report at a city
council/EDA study session. If the terms are found to be generally acceptable and the
EDA wishes to formally consider them, staff shall be directed to incorporate the terms
into a redevelopment contract.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF Policy Page 135
SA285\3\751909.v3 12
7. A public hearing for the establishment of the proposed TIF district shall then be held in
conjunction with formal consideration of the proposed TIF district and redevelopment
contract.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF Policy Page 136
SA285\3\751909.v3 13
Exhibit B
TIF Policy Compliance Table*
Factor Requirement/Guideline Proposed Project Met?
Applicable TIF
District
Redevelopment/Renewal & Renovation/
Housing/Economic Development
Statutory TIF
district
requirements
Redevelopment District (example)
70% site coverage,
More than 50% of bldgs structurally
substandard & are reasonably distributed
Use of TIF Proposed costs are statutorily eligible for
reimbursement through proposed TIF district.
TIF Objectives TIF Policy requires projects to meet one or
more of objectives for use of TIF.
Minimum
qualifications
Applicable Strategic Priorities
Meets Green Building Policy requirements
Meets Inclusionary Housing Policy
requirements (if applicable)
Meets Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Policy
Consistent with city's Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Ordinance, or approvals pending
Removes contamination, blight and/or will not
generate significant environmental problems
Helps facilitate desired development that
would not occur without assistance
Developer provided necessary documentation
to evaluate TIF need and proposed project
Determined not financially feasible "but-for"
the use of tax increment financing
Developer has experience and capability to
construct proposed project
Developer plans to retain ownership of project
long enough to stabilize occupancy (if
applicable)
Desired
qualifications
Incorporates Livable Communities, New
Urbanism, TOD, Sustainable Design principles
(i.e., mixed-use, urban design, human scale,
walkable, public spaces, and sustainable
design features).
High quality development (sound architectural
design, quality construction and materials)
Provides rents at deeper affordability levels
such as 30% or 50% AMI (if applicable)
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF Policy Page 137
SA285\3\751909.v3 14
Provides units for larger families (i.e., 3- & 4-
bedroom units (if applicable)
Complements and/or adds value to
neighborhood by providing public elements or
placemaking features (if applicable)
Proposed development will likely stimulate
further investment in surrounding
area/neighborhood
Provides new, or retained, employment (if
applicable)
The increase in market value of the property
after redevelopment is more than 8 times the
original market value
Will have a positive community impact
Will not place extraordinary demands on city
services
Land price for project site is within market
range.
Ratio of private to city investment (TIF and
grants) is more than $5 to $1
The proposed amount of TIF assistance or
term of the TIF Note is within range of similar
developments which received TIF assistance.
Proposed TIF assistance will be provided on a
pay-as-you-go-basis.
*This table may be amended from time to time to reflect changes to city policy and to provide
additional clarity to applicants.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Annual TIF district management report and amended and restated TIF Policy Page 138
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: November 8, 2021
Discussion item: 3
Executive summary
Title: Upcoming study session agenda
Recommended action: The city council and city manager to set the agenda for the special study
session scheduled for Nov. 15, 2021 and the regularly scheduled study session on Nov. 22, 2021.
Policy consideration: Not applicable.
Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the special study session scheduled
for Nov. 15, 2021 and the regularly scheduled study session on Nov. 22, 2021.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Tentative agenda – Nov. 15 and Nov. 22, 2021
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Upcoming study session agenda
Nov. 15, 2021.
5:30 p.m. Special study session – council chambers
Tentative discussion items
1.Neighborhood- focused commercial activity in public parks
Operations & recreation (60 minutes)
Per council request, staff will discuss how short term or permanent commercial vendors
could operate in a park or public space.
Nov. 22, 2021.
6:30 p.m. Study session – community room
Tentative discussion items
1.Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and report (with LHB, Inc.)
Building & Energy (60 minutes)
Becky Alexander of LHB, Inc. will present a report analyzing changes in St. Louis Park’s
greenhouse gas emissions from energy, travel and waste from 2015-2020. This is an
informational presentation, after which staff and Ms. Alexander will be available if there are
questions.
2.Upcoming study session agenda – 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
3.October monthly financial report
4.MnDOT excess land
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: November 8, 2021
Written report: 4
Executive summary
Title: September 2021 monthly financial report
Recommended action: No action is required.
Policy consideration: Monthly financial reporting is part of our financial management policies.
Summary: The monthly financial report provides an overview of general fund revenues and
departmental expenditures comparing them to budget throughout the year. This report is
normally provided for the second study session each month. Due to the cancelation of the
October 25 study session, the September report was moved to the first study session in
November and the October report will be provided on November 22.
Financial or budget considerations: Expenditures should generally be at about 75% of the
annual budget through September. General fund expenditures are under budget at
approximately 71%. Revenues are difficult to measure in the same way due to the timing of
when some are received, examples of which include property taxes and State aid payments. A
summary of general fund revenues and departmental expenditures is attached, and a few
comments are provided below.
Charges for services revenues are at 84.5% as revenue from the aquatic park was higher than
what was budgeted this summer.
Rec center expenditures are exceeding budget by about 7%, which is a normal seasonal
variance after the pool season due to temporary staffing and supplies.
Engineering has an expenditure overage due to the portion of staff time that has been charged
to other funds for projects year to date.
Departments that are running well under budget for expenditures is due in large part to staff
turnover and position vacancies. One of the larger variances is Administration, where
expenditures are 17% less than budget due to the unfilled management assistant position and
because most of the election expenses won’t be incurred until the last quarter of the year.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Summary of revenues and departmental expenditures – General Fund
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Accountant
Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt, Chief Financial Officer
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Summary of Revenues & Departmental Expenditures - General Fund As of September 30, 2021 20212021201920192020202020212021Balance YTD Budget Budget Audited Budget Audited Budget YTD Sept Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes26,880,004$ 26,952,306$ 28,393,728$ 28,635,694$ 29,601,811$ 15,170,398$ 14,431,413$ 51.25% Licenses and Permits4,103,424 5,264,659 4,660,811 5,294,310 4,621,829 3,597,835 1,023,994 77.84% Fines & Forfeits279,700 274,340 280,000 126,192 231,000 115,820 115,180 50.14% Intergovernmental1,760,900 1,761,763 1,760,082 2,061,267 1,661,549 890,499 771,050 53.59% Charges for Services2,187,319 2,160,345 2,273,824 1,600,806 2,013,834 1,702,571 311,263 84.54% Rents & Other Miscellaneous1,367,012 1,500,867 1,456,102 1,201,119 1,499,091 1,097,916 401,175 73.24% Transfers In1,999,877 2,012,706 2,038,338 2,049,976 2,055,017 1,524,013 531,004 74.16% Investment Earnings 180,000 523,124 210,000 486,468 200,000 81,575 118,425 40.79% Other Income31,300 57,274 621,280 3,442,900 593,300 430,493 162,807 72.56% Use of Fund Balance298,156 230,026 25,000 25,000 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues39,087,692$ 40,737,411$ 41,694,165$ 44,898,732$ 42,502,431$ 24,611,119$ 17,891,312$ 57.91%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration1,837,620$ 1,673,619$ 1,868,599$ 1,472,421$ 1,617,882$ 941,675$ 676,207$ 58.20% Finance1,034,199 1,078,291 1,124,045 1,194,828 1,129,591 800,959 328,632 70.91% Assessing772,746 751,737 808,171 792,277 798,244 571,101 227,143 71.54% Human Resources805,620 756,767 823,209 796,088 837,736 567,014 270,722 67.68% Community Development1,502,521 1,515,672 1,571,894 1,536,657 1,576,323 1,102,626 473,697 69.95% Facilities Maintenance1,170,211 1,209,474 1,265,337 1,246,439 1,349,365 985,946 363,419 73.07% Information Resources1,674,937 1,474,604 1,709,255 1,596,487 1,683,216 1,261,181 422,035 74.93% Communications & Marketing805,674 786,448 828,004 710,334 970,934 617,573 353,361 63.61%Total General Government9,603,528$ 9,246,612$ 9,998,514$ 9,345,531$ 9,963,291$ 6,848,075$ 3,115,216$ 68.73% Public Safety: Police10,335,497$ 10,452,038$ 10,853,821$ 10,611,141$ 11,307,863$ 8,417,974$ 2,889,889$ 74.44% Fire Protection4,813,078 4,754,524 5,040,703 4,764,337 4,998,636 3,761,082 1,237,554 75.24% Building 2,555,335 2,430,473 2,696,585 2,321,664 2,571,968 1,823,932 748,036 70.92%Total Public Safety17,703,910$ 17,637,035$ 18,591,109$ 17,697,142$ 18,878,467$ 14,002,988$ 4,875,479$ 74.17% Operations: Public Works Administration290,753$ 214,436$ 273,318$ 216,899$ 249,256$ 167,435$ 81,821$ 67.17% Public Works Operations3,111,481 3,099,493 3,331,966 3,168,538 3,285,820 2,200,932 1,084,888 66.98% Vehicle Maintenance1,242,236 1,268,700 1,278,827 1,207,998 1,303,159 902,563 400,596 69.26% Engineering570,377 609,567 551,285 531,801 523,547 474,317 49,230 90.60%Total Operations5,214,847$ 5,192,196$ 5,435,396$ 5,125,236$ 5,361,782$ 3,745,248$ 1,616,534$ 69.85% Parks and Recreation: Organized Recreation1,579,569 1,498,462 1,637,002 1,369,309 1,639,358 1,229,670 409,688 75.01% Recreation Center1,949,657 2,041,386 2,061,394 1,864,459 2,082,697 1,708,299 374,398 82.02% Park Maintenance1,833,297 1,820,455 1,906,363 1,802,534 1,916,643 1,354,527 562,116 70.67% Westwood Nature Center643,750 612,266 748,683 606,378 736,515 475,182 261,333 64.52% Natural Resources484,784 429,409 504,143 433,362 496,497 312,167 184,330 62.87%Total Parks and Recreation6,491,057$ 6,401,977$ 6,857,585$ 6,076,042$ 6,871,710$ 5,079,846$ 1,791,864$ 73.92% Other Depts and Non-Departmental: Racial Equity and Inclusion -$4,592$ 314,077$ 272,994$ 341,293$ 197,753$ 143,540$ 57.94% Sustainability26,283 497,484 244,655 432,043 217,154 214,889 50.26% Transfers Out300,000 428,845 0.00% Contingency and Other74,350 121,245 144,860 225,000 0.00%Total Other Depts and Non-Departmental74,350$ 452,119$ 811,561$ 662,509$ 1,427,181$ 414,907$ 358,429$ 29.07%Total General Fund Expenditures39,087,692$ 38,929,940$ 41,694,165$ 38,906,460$ 42,502,431$ 30,091,064$ 11,757,522$ 70.80%Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 4) Title: September 2021 monthly financial reportPage 2
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: November 8, 2021
Written report: 5
Executive summary
Title: Third quarter investment report (July – Sept. 2021)
Recommended action: No action required at this time.
Policy consideration: Reporting on investments quarterly is part of our financial management
policies.
Summary: The quarterly investment report provides an overview of the City’s investment
portfolio, including the types of investments held, length of maturity and yield.
Financial or budget considerations: The total portfolio value at Sept. 30, 2021 is $80.2 million.
Approximately $32 million of the portfolio continues to be invested in longer term securities
that include commercial paper, U.S. Treasury notes, Federal agency bonds and municipal debt
securities. The rest of the portfolio is held in money market accounts for bond project
expenditures and operating cashflow needs between property tax settlements, as well as future
investment opportunities when interest rates improve. The overall yield to maturity is .61%
compared to .66% the prior quarter and .73% at the end of 2020. Interest rates on money
markets remain near zero and Treasury securities purchased during the quarter to replace older
investments that reached maturity averaged only about .5%.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Investment portfolio summary
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Accountant
Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Third quarter investment report (July – Sept. 2021)
Discussion
Background: The City’s investment portfolio is focused on cash flow needs and investment in
longer term securities in accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A and the City’s investment
policy objectives of: 1) preservation of capital; 2) liquidity; and 3) return on investment.
Present considerations: The total portfolio value was nearly unchanged during the third
quarter. The value at Sept. 30, 2021 was $80.2 million compared to $80.7 million at the end of
the prior quarter. There was very little change in the total cash on hand as the remainder of the
first half property tax settlement was received on July 6, and the first half of the city’s American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) money was received on Aug. 10, with the remainder to follow in 2022.
With little change in interest rates, the overall yield to maturity also remained nearly the same
during the quarter at .61% on Sept. 30, 2021. This is the combined yield including both the
funds held in money market accounts and long-term investments. Interest rates on money
markets continue to be near zero as they have been for the past year. The yield to maturity on
the $32 million of longer-term securities in the portfolio is 1.5%. The overall yield remains
higher than the two-year Treasury of .28% on Sept. 30, 2021, which is a typical benchmark used
by cities for yield comparison of their overall portfolio.
The money market accounts include $15 million of bond proceeds to finish current projects that
are in progress such as the Louisiana and Dakota bridges, the water tower, connect the park
and street construction work, as well as upcoming capital improvement projects in 2022. It is
also necessary to keep sufficient cash available in money market accounts for on-going
cashflow needs for payroll and operating expenses, as well as having liquidity to purchase
longer term investments when interest rates improve.
The portfolio has approximately $32 million of longer-term securities including U.S. Treasury notes
($26.3 mil), Federal agency bonds ($3.9 mil), municipal bonds ($878K) and commercial paper
($800K). Agency bonds are issued by government agencies such as the Federal Home Loan Bank
and Fannie Mae. Municipal bonds are issued by states, local governments, or school districts to
finance special projects, similar to when the city issues debt. Commercial paper are promissory
notes with short maturity periods issued by financial institutions and large corporations and
usually have higher rates than money market accounts for investing cash in the shorter term.
A Treasury and two agency bonds matured during the quarter, and each had yields to maturity
of between 1.25% - 2.5%. Four Treasury securities purchased during the quarter had rates to
maturity ranging from .41% to .82% and 2024 and 2025 maturity dates.
This table summarizes the City’s portfolio at Sept. 30, 2021:
Next steps: None at this time.
6/30/21 9/30/21
<1 Year 70% 69%
1-2 Years 10% 10%
2-3 Years 8% 8%
3-4 Years 10% 10%
>4 Years 2% 3%
6/30/21 9/30/21
Money Markets/Cash $48,042,121 $48,314,285
Commercial Paper $798,976 $799,496
Certificates of Deposit $0 $0
Municipal Debt $881,270 $877,743
Agencies/Treasuries $31,023,641 $30,244,543
City of St. Louis Park
Investment Portfolio Summary
September 30, 2021
Institution/Broker Investment Type CUSIP
Maturity
Date
Yield To
Maturity Par Value
Market Value at
9/30/2021
Estimated Avg
Annual Income
4M Liquid Asset Money Market 0.01%19,902,363 19,902,363 1,990
4M Plus Money Market 0.03%10,000,896 10,000,896 3,000
UBS Institutional Money Market 0.01% 3,410,183 3,410,183 341
UBS Institutional Money Market (bond proceeds)0.01% 15,000,843 15,000,843 1,500
48,314,285
PFM / UBS Comm Paper - Natixis NY 63873KCR6 03/25/2022 0.16% 800,000 799,496 1,280
799,496
PFM / UBS Muni Debt - Minnesota State Txble GO Bonds 60412ASE4 08/01/2022 1.76% 200,000 204,726 3,520
PFM / UBS Muni Debt - San Jose CA Txbl GO Bonds 798135H51 09/01/2023 2.13% 650,000 673,017 13,845
877,743
PFM / UBS FHLB 3130AF5B9 10/12/2021 3.02% 750,000 750,675 22,650
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.72% 700,000 700,679 12,040
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.64% 575,000 575,558 9,430
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.85% 200,000 200,194 3,700
PFM / UBS Fannie Mae 3135G0U92 01/11/2022 2.65% 400,000 402,768 10,600
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.12% 500,000 505,255 10,600
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.18% 800,000 808,408 17,440
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.69% 1,300,000 1,313,663 34,970
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828TJ9 08/15/2022 2.76% 430,000 435,762 11,868
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.78% 925,000 947,801 25,715
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.51% 2,550,000 2,612,858 64,005
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.55% 1,675,000 1,716,289 42,713
PFM / UBS FHLB 3130AJ7E3 02/17/2023 1.44% 620,000 630,385 8,928
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828R69 05/31/2023 2.53% 1,000,000 1,023,240 25,300
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828R69 05/31/2023 1.83% 350,000 358,134 6,405
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828T91 10/31/2023 1.55% 75,000 77,054 1,163
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828T91 10/31/2023 1.48% 450,000 462,321 6,660
PFM / UBS FHLB 3130AFW94 02/13/2024 2.58% 500,000 525,270 12,900
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.55% 600,000 625,219 9,300
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.66% 1,600,000 1,666,477 26,560
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 0.85% 260,000 270,837 2,210
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.36% 350,000 364,588 4,760
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.66% 1,150,000 1,197,932 19,090
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 0.41% 475,000 494,798 1,948
PFM / UBS FHLB 3130AGWK7 08/15/2024 1.55% 175,000 179,947 2,713
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 91282CCT6 08/15/2024 0.41% 850,000 846,813 3,485
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828YY0 12/31/2024 0.32% 1,900,000 1,970,946 6,080
PFM / UBS Fannie Mae 3135G0X24 01/07/2025 1.69% 650,000 672,029 10,985
PFM / UBS Freddie Mac 3137EAEP0 02/12/2025 1.52% 750,000 771,360 11,400
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828ZW3 06/30/2025 0.36% 150,000 147,287 540
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828ZW3 06/30/2025 0.58% 725,000 711,885 4,205
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828ZW3 06/30/2025 0.39% 3,300,000 3,240,303 12,870
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 912828ZW3 06/30/2025 0.72% 575,000 564,598 4,140
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 91282CBC4 12/31/2025 0.75% 725,000 710,130 5,438
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 91282CBC4 12/31/2025 0.70% 750,000 734,618 5,250
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 91282CBC4 12/31/2025 0.82% 350,000 342,822 2,870
PFM / UBS US Treasury Note 91282CBC4 12/31/2025 0.57% 700,000 685,643 3,990
30,244,543
GRAND TOTAL 80,236,067 490,395
Current Portfolio Yield To Maturity 0.61%
Page 2 Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 5)
Title: Third quarter investment report (July – Sept. 2021)
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: November 8, 2021
Written report: 6
Executive summary
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment
Recommended action: Staff and the developer would like feedback on the updated concept
plan and project program for the Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Site at the
southeast corner of CSAH 25 and Beltline Boulevard.
Policy consideration: Does the EDA/city council continue to support staff and the applicant
working toward formal applications based on the updated concept plan and project program?
Summary: Sherman proposes to construct the following building components on the 6.6-acre
redevelopment site at the southeast corner of CSAH 25 and Beltline Boulevard:
• Seven-story mixed-use building with six levels of market rate housing (159 units) and
approximately 21,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial space, potentially
anchored by a grocer.
• Five-story market rate apartment building with 160 units and underground parking.
• Four-story all affordable apartment building with 82 units and underground parking. Of
these, 77 units would be available at 60% AMI, five units would be available at 30% AMI
and 22 units would be three-bedrooms.
• 594-stall parking ramp, which would include 268 park and ride stalls, 326 residential stalls
and 1,800 square feet of retail/commercial space.
• Sustainable features including on and off-site solar, greenspace, plazas, and public art will
be incorporated throughout the development. The development will adhere to the city’s
green building policy.
The EDA/city council received an update on the development plans in June and July 2021 and
approved a finding of fact and negative declaration for the environmental assessment worksheet
(EAW) in August 2021. Additional soil borings were completed during the summer of 2021,
which found areas beneath the site with higher than anticipated ground water. This affects the
ability to construct underground parking beneath the seven-story, mixed-use building, while still
having the commercial entrances at grade with the surrounding street and sidewalk network.
The developer proposes relocating these underground spaces to the parking ramp.
Financial or budget considerations: See EDA report from June 14, 2021 related to the application
for tax increment financing assistance.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Site plan and concept images
Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, senior planner
Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, economic development manager
Sean Walther, planning manager
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment
Discussion
Site information: The proposed redevelopment site is located in the southeast quadrant of
CSAH 25 and Beltline Boulevard. The site is immediately north of the Southwest Light Rail
(SWLRT) Beltline Boulevard Station. The site is in the Triangle neighborhood.
Site area (acres): ~7.0 acres
Current use: Vacant land Surrounding land uses:
North: CSAH25
East: General Office Products
South: SWLRT Beltline Station
West: Beltline Boulevard
Current 2040 land use guidance Current zoning
TOD - transit oriented development I-G general industrial
ROW - right of way
Proposed 2040 land use guidance Proposed zoning
TOD - transit oriented development PUD planned unit development
ROW - right of way
Background: A 268-stall park and ride is required for the SWLRT Beltline Boulevard Station per
the Federal Transit Administration’s approved SWLRT plans. The official SWLRT plans show the
park and ride being provided in a large surface parking lot at the corner of Beltline Blvd and
CSAH 25. Those plans ran counter to the city’s and EDA’s vision for the property. On Nov. 17,
2014, the EDA approved a resolution authorizing submittal of a federal congestion mitigation air
quality (CMAQ) grant for a structured parking ramp to be constructed in lieu of a large parking
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment
lot. The EDA was subsequently awarded a $6.4 million grant through the Federal Transit
Administration’s (FTA) CMAQ program that is regionally administered by the Metropolitan
Council. The CMAQ grant requires a twenty-percent local match which is anticipated to be
provided through that tax increment financing (TIF). The Metropolitan Council established a
transportation easement over the west side of the redevelopment property requiring it be used
for transit parking. In November 2020, the EDA entered into a Cooperative Construction
Agreement with the Metropolitan Council in which it agreed to construct or cause the
construction of a parking structure with 268 park and ride spaces on the property at least three
months prior to the start of SWLRT revenue service, now anticipated in 2024. If the Metropolitan
Council determines the ramp will not be operational by that time, the EDA is obligated to
construct the surface parking lot on the western portion of the site, eliminating the ability to
utilize it for long envisioned redevelopment purposes.
In July 2017, the EDA conducted a formal request for proposals process to solicit transit-
oriented development proposals for the Beltline Boulevard Station site. The development
objectives for the site listed in the request for proposals were as follows:
• Construct a signature, transit-oriented development (TOD),
• Transform the SWLRT Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Site into an active,
TOD-focused place with:
− Mixed use development (including multi-family residential, office and small
commercial components),
− Housing density to support transit ridership,
− Mixed income housing (both market rate and affordable),
− High-quality shared site amenities,
• Optimize the site’s development and employment potential,
• Integrate development with the adjacent SWLRT Beltline Boulevard Station and connect
with the surrounding areas,
• Build a parking structure for required park-and-ride purposes,
• Demonstrate high standards for environmental sustainability.
The preferred Development Program for the site described in the request for proposals included:
• Multi-story, multi-family, mixed-use (commercial and residential), mixed-income,
residential buildings.
• More than 180 multi-family housing units and compliance with the city’s Inclusionary
Housing Policy.
• At least 8,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space.
• Adequate parking to serve the needs of the proposed redevelopment, primarily located
below buildings or in structures.
• A multi-story office building of at least 80,000 square feet containing ground floor
retail/service spaces. Structured underground parking may be included but is not required.
• Multi-story parking structure to accommodate the Metropolitan Council’s required 268-
park-and-ride stalls. Requires hazardous materials removal and soil remediation.
• Design of the parking structure must be coordinated with the city, SWLRT project and the
Southwest LRT Project Office (SPO) to ensure park-and-ride and site requirements are met.
• The parking structure may be designed to accommodate the required parking for the
adjacent office building.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 4
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment
The EDA determined Sherman Associates’ proposal most closely aligned with the city’s vision,
development objectives and preferred programming for the site.
Present considerations: At the July 12, 2021 study session, EDA/city council directed staff and
Sherman Associates to move forward with the proposed concept plan for the site as presented.
Later in the month, additional soil boring tests were completed which found higher than
expected groundwater on the site. The higher groundwater means in order to provide
underground parking, the first floor of the buildings would need to be raised slightly. This would
result in building entrances above the grade of the surrounding sidewalk and street network.
Sherman Associates proposes to retain underground parking for the residential buildings on the
east side of the site which will require the first floor of the buildings to be higher than grade.
However, the developer and commercial grocer tenant share city staff’s desire to have the
primary entrance to the commercial use on the ground floor of the mixed-use building remain
at grade with the surrounding sidewalk and street elevations. To facilitate this, Sherman
Associates proposes relocating the residential parking spaces under the mixed-use building to
the parking ramp. This results in a seven-level, 594-stall ramp on the southwest corner of the
development site slightly lower in height than the adjacent mixed-use building.
The ramp is designed to have separate accesses and parking areas for public and private uses. It
would have one level of underground parking that is private use and dedicated to the market
rate building on the southeast corner of the site and is proposed to be connected with an
underground tunnel connection. The park and ride public spaces would be on levels 1-3 and
open on the sides for ventilation, and levels 4-7 would be fully enclosed private use parking
reserved for the residents of the mixed-use building. The upper levels are accessed via a speed
ramp that wraps around the north and west façades of the ramp, separating the residential
entrance from park and ride spaces. The separation of parking uses is desired by Metro Transit.
The overall parking proposed for the site is approximately 1.3 parking spaces per dwelling unit,
which the developer maintains is necessarily to make the development competitive in the
rental market. The city typically requires one parking space per bedroom and has recently given
the option of parking reductions for developments near LRT to allow for a flexible mix of
commercial and residential uses. For reference, the recently approved Beltline Residences
development southwest of the Beltline LRT station also included 1.3 parking spaces per
dwelling unit.
All commercial parking for the grocer tenant would be provided in the surface parking lot. The
development team and city staff are also working with Metro Transit to facilitate a portion of
the park and ride spaces be available for shared parking, specifically for guest parking and
commercial overflow parking during off-peak park and ride hours.
There are no other substantial changes proposed to the site plan or the development’s
programming.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 5
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment
Proposed site plan
Building design: Since the July study session, portions of the development’s architecture have
been refined, responding to comments from a 2018 neighborhood meeting which neighbors
expressed the desire for innovative and unique architecture. Included in EDA/city council’s
packet is a concept rendering, showing the site from CSAH 25 and Beltline Boulevard.
The seven-story mixed-use building is located at the corner of the site, with a highly transparent
ground floor street facing façade for the commercial grocer tenant. Floors 2-7 are stepped back
and angled along Beltline Boulevard, reducing the mass of the building from street level.
As noted earlier, the height of the parking ramp along Beltline Boulevard is slightly lower than
that of the mixed-use building. This makes the western edge of the development appear more
cohesive and helps to blend the parking ramp in with the rest of the development. The ramp is
proposed to be cladded in a metal mesh material, metal panels and fiber cement panels to
mimic the materials used on the mixed-use and residential buildings. The zoning ordinance
classifies fiber cement panels as a class I material. The speed ramp visible on the ramp’s façade,
utilizes the architecture theory of form follows function. The speed ramp design also mimics the
angled shape of the multi-use bridge over Beltline Boulevard, and the angle of Beltline
Boulevard itself.
The architecture will continue to be refined in the coming months.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 6
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment
Conceptual rendering of the Beltline Boulevard Station development
Next steps: A neighborhood meeting will be scheduled in the coming months, prior to formal
submittal of planning and zoning applications. The developer also intends to submit a bond
application to the State of Minnesota Department of Management and Budget in January 2022
to pursue bond funding for the all-affordable residential building. The city’s chief financial officer
will be submitting a resolution of support for city council’s consideration in November 2021.
Future actions: There are several approvals needed from the city and other agencies for this
project to proceed.
Requests for city council/EDA approvals include:
1.Resolution of support for a bond application to the State of Minnesota Department of
Management and Budget
2.Financial assistance request
3.Utility and right-of-way vacations including vacation of the frontage road
4.Comprehensive plan amendment to re-guide right-of-way to transit-oriented
development
5.Preliminary and final plat, including the creation of the right-of-way for the backage
road and Monterey Drive
6.Preliminary and final PUD
7.Transfer of the vacated frontage road right-of-way from the city to the EDA
8.Establishment of the TIF district
9.Purchase and Redevelopment Contract
Requests for other agencies
1.Hennepin County vacation of right of way along CSAH25
2.Hennepin County approval of a right-out onto CSAH25 from Monterey Drive
3.Metropolitan Council / Hennepin County approvals for relocation of the force sewer main
4.Metropolitan Council approval of the ¾ intersection at Beltline Boulevard and the
backage road and park and ride ramp design
1
Beltline Visioning
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Page 7
2
Beltline Visioning
Community Health and Safety
-Community engagement is critical
to neighborhood connections and
preserving their unique identities.
Racial Equity and Inclusion
-Creating opportunity and
expression of all cultures.
Environmental Stewardship
-Leading with a practice of
sustainable techniques. Passive and
active design for a brighter future.
Livable Community
-This project creates an essential
neighborhood node with the grocer
and housing. As well as offering
gathering spaces within a pocket
park/plaza. It is a transit-oriented
site, with mixed uses and a variety of
housing choices.
Mobility
-Encourage the priorities of mobility,
provide needed access and
resources for each mode.
(Walking, Biking, Transit, Vehicle)
2040 COMP PLAN
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Page 8
3
Beltline Visioning
Neighborhood
The site falls within the Neighborhood Planning
Area of East Central. A vison for the Triangle
neighborhood is High Density Residential. This
project responds to this need as well as the need
for variety in housing options.
As the emerging mixed-use area of Beltline
Station, it is important to provide community
needs beyond housing for this site. Access to
mobility options, public plaza/pocket parks, and
a retail grocer all add to the diversity of the site.
A past neighborhood activity seen in the lower
right, brought up 3 key ideas of gathering,
mobility, and environmental assets. Working to
connect these dots in diagram 1 and 3 will work
to engage more of the community. A major
street(Minnetonka Blvd.) is seen as a divider for
difficulty passing through.
Community responses to 12 key areas of
development had varying themes of importance.
Some of these include:
-Trees and green spaces, trails/sidewalks
-Grocery/mixed use
-Affordability, scale of multi-family, +density
-Improve ped/bike crossings/intersections
-Add places for neighborhood gathering/events
-Improve/maintain walkability
-Increase bus service/develop light rail line
-Increase non-motorized traffic/bike facilities
-Preserve/improve green spaces or add more
-Increase/improve recycling, water quality
-Existing parks top recreation uses
2040 COMP PLAN
SITE SITE SITE
1 (gathering spaces)2 (mobility)3 (environmental)
Public spaces
Pocket ParksPlaza/gathering areas
Water quality
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Page 9
4
Beltline RFP Visioning
SWLRT
Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment
“a premier development opportunity”
Narrative
THE CONTEXT… A Reinvented Urban Hub
The Beltline Boulevard Station is the multimodal lynchpin for a new and visionary urban center linking
the districts of St. Louis Park and Bass Lake Preserve, along with County State Aid Highway 25, Beltline
Boulevard, Southwest Light Rail Transit, and Cedar Lake Reginal trail. These all converge at the site to
create what will be a walkable urban fabric of retail and residential uses. The new hub will be woven
together by a network of flexible gathering spaces, plazas, bark parks, bike stations, green roofs. With
innovative green and storm water features such as integrated bio-swale gardens to create an
active, vibrant and connected place where people can live, work, and recreate.
Our vision is to transform this understated intersection into a vital and sustainable activity center, that
conforms to the City’s vision for great mixed-use place-making, inclusionary housing, outdoor
recreation areas, and visible green building elements that meet and promote the City’s goals for
net-zero energy consumption. Doing so through Green Building Policy, Energy Action Plan, and
Climate Action Plan.
THE BRANDED BIG IDEA… A dynamic collection of interconnected Campos
(Pocket Parks) and the Central Piazza (plaza)
Imagine a place of blurred lines where pavement and greenspace merge; where pedestrians and
plants dominated the ground and building planes; there dogs, people, bikes, and cars co-mingle
effortlessly and safely. As one arrives to this place, from any of the surrounding districts, or by bike
from the Cedar Lake Regional Bike Trail, or steps off the LRT, they arrive into a place dominated by a
series of strategically placed pocket parks and plazas stitched and woven together through
meandering greenways to create a newly fresh and unique urban center.
Using Italian terms to best describe a particular character trait of place, the reinvented urban hub
known as the Beltline Boulevard Station site, is being transformed into a dynamic collection of
interconnected Campos with a Central Piazza. Each smaller campo contains distinct activities and
uses; the public Campos for recreation, dog runs, bike parks/repair; the private residential for pool
activity, grilling, games, green roof deck areas, and leisure. The Campos are linked together through
district pathways with north/south connection through the site as pedestrian dominated. With the
South and East access points for vehicle traffic. The perimeter site edges contain distinct treatments
for shop and primary street frontage – entry plazas with public art at the arrival to the buildings and
stations. Individual walk-up units that bridge over aesthetic bio-wales at the residential buildings and
inviting retail access with outdoor seating at the retail and parking structure. Central to the entire
complex is the larger Piazza, shaped and hemmed in by the vertical green walls and building
facades marked by and iconic Campanile. This place provides a gathering space for all modes of
transportation or can be segmented off to all for farmer’s markets, food fairs, or art shows. This all
amidst integrated landscaping and stormwater treatment features. In place of predictable asphalt
and paint stripping, wayfinding and sense of place are created through a carefully applied family of
textures and materials, visual cues provided through creative use of paving, street furniture,
plantings, bollard/festival lighting, and vertical green walls.
THE ARCHITECTURE of PLACE… Functional, branded, experiential
The architectural basis is built on a holistic approach of integrating the contemporary buildings and
interior spaces, with the landscape through the placement of logical functions and integration of
greenery, natural material, colors, and palettes. The obtuse shape of the site provides an organizing
dynamic grid used to shape and position all buildings and site elements. The exterior designs come
from two basic ordering principles: active and articulated, balanced with serene and simple façade
forms. These two elements layered with features such as large windows, balconies, and canopies
each depart to have their own original patterns, creating a dynamic dialogue amongst the
buildings on the site. Color accents of rusted orange cor-ten steel, buff color stone / precast, and
natural charcoal gray siding animate the facades while the remaining areas provide visual relief.
The central feature of the Piazza integrates greenery with perforated wall panels for year-round
interest.
The plan embraces the City’s suggestions for the size, heights, functions, and placements of the
parking structure, retail, and housing. The parking integrates both the required SWLRT parking along
with the required parking for the retail. Housing integrates both underground and surface parking to
achieve desired market results. The mixed-use retail anchors the corner to establish the urban edge
character of the site. Large expanses of window wall provide for optimal daylighting, views, and
transparency at the ground floor.
For the resident, young professional or empty nester, the design delivers a new vision for hip urban
lifestyle rental living with boutique hotel-style amenities. The lobby adjacent common spaces, and
rooftop areas connect the interior to the exterior landscape through a collection of vibrant design
interventions and natural material palettes, encouraging daily social gathering and participation by
residents. Yoga, fitness, bike lounge, wi-fi lounge, and business center all cater to the new
generation of mobile urban inhabitants. Within each of the dwelling units there is an intentional
gesture to connect the openness of the interior living environment to the exterior surroundings using
sliding and translucent walls, partial-height walls to borrow daylight, continuous wood flooring and
unique exterior windows bays, and balconies. A variety of unit types are offered from the typical flat,
to street walk-ups or terrace units. The Beltline Boulevard Station seeks to create an integral
connection to the site while providing a chic and cozy new environment.
While the parking structure will integrate the required SWLRT parking with parking for the retail
building, a unique opportunity exists on site to include shared and/ or flex parking, a more efficient
solution that utilizes expensive structure parking around the clock rather than only during business
hours. A bike shop repair station and storage proposed at the southwest corner of the ramp as an
integrated feature that will enhance the perception of this area as a bicycling hub.
A key to the entire development site is the integration of sustainable features throughout the site
and within the buildings and material usages. Our development team has a long history of providing
forward thinking and implemented sustainable approaches to building and site design whether
through green accredited approaches such as LEED, Green Globes, or NAHB Green Buildings
program, or local programs such as the State’s B3 program or MHFA Green Communities.
gathering
converge
connected
woven
campos
hemmed
wayfinding
active
articulated
balanced
serene
anchor
vibrant
variety
sustainable
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Page 10
5
Beltline Community
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Page 11
6
Beltline Station Community
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Page 12
7
LILAC WAY – preference to restore
native trees or shrubbery, rows of lilacs
like D.C. cherry blossoms, three
reserved park/picnic areas
EXPERIMENTAL GRAIN ELEVATOR
– innovation in agriculture and first of its
kind.
RAILROAD – importance to city
development and vitality
PARKS – destinations along major
mobility corridors, support needs of the
community
Beltline Visioning
LOCAL HISTORY
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Page 13
8
Beltline Visioning
GREEN/SUSTAINABILITY
Saint Louis Park - 2017 Climate Action Plan
•Reduce energy consumption in large commercial
buildings by 30%
•Reduce energy consumption in small-mid size
commercial buildings
•Design and build all new construction to be net-
zero energy
•Reduction of energy consumption in residential
buildings by 30%
•Achieve 100% renewable energy
•Reduce vehicle emissions by 25%
•Reduce solid waste by 50%
Environmental Stewardship
•Residents value park systems and natural areas in
neighborhoods
The site is a hub for transportation; buses, rail, and
bikes will have great access. Use of green stormwater
management and renewable energy opportunities will
set a precedent for vital green initiative in the built
environment.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Page 14
9
Beltline Visioning
PLACEMAKING
DESTINATION/HABITAT –the
convergence of different mobility options
make this site a unique destination, a hub
for the community, it serves essential
needs as well with a corner grocery store.
It can become a gathering place for
people as well as providing green space
for animal biodiversity.
SIGNAGE –the presence of this project
as a greeting to Beltline station arrivals.
There is a unique identity created by
diversity of housing and transportation
meeting at this site.
PUBLIC ART –art can engage the
community and give a unique sense of
character to an area. It can tell a story,
bring awareness, or become abstract to
broaden our experiences. An expression
of culture is important to the fabric of a
neighborhood.
BRANDING –the story of public stops
along Lilac Way is interesting. How can
this be translated as a stop along the way
for travelers using all modes of
transportation. This hub becomes a
proponent for mobility throughout the
community.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Page 15
10
Beltline Visioning
CONCEPT – “SYMPHONY”
VIBRANT
HIP
FUN
COOL
FAMILY
BRIGHT
PLAYFUL
SPIRITED
REFINIED
SOPHISTICATED
SUBTLE
CREATIVE
ARTISTIC
EXPRESSIVE
IDENTIFIER
BRAND
ARTICULATION OF THE FACADE
RAMP
1
2
3
A DIVERSE COLLECTION OF
BUILDINGS CREATING A
COHESIVE WHOLE
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Page 16
11
Exterior Visioning
ARRIVAL/DEPOT
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Page 17
12
Exterior Visioning
CAMPOS/MERGE
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Page 18
13
Exterior Visioning
SHELL/CARAPACE
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Page 19
14
Exterior Visioning
SEAM/STITCH
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Page 20
15
Exterior Visioning
EXPRESSIVE/IDENTIFIER
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Page 21
16
Exterior Concept
SHELL/CARAPACE
OUTWARD / INWARD FACING FACADES
STREET FAÇADE
TOP (CARAPACE)
DURABLE, ALTERNATING
COURTYARD FAÇADE
BOTTOM (PLASTRON)
LIGHT, LINEAR
PROMINENT ELEMENTS
SHELL SPOTS
CONTRAST, UNIQUE
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Page 22
17
Exterior Concept
MATERIALS
BUILDING 1
VIBRANT / MIXED USE
BUILDING 2
ACTIVE / FAMILY
BUILDING 3
REFINED / MKT. RATE
-PREWEATHERED
PATINA ON COPPER
-ANODIZED ALUM.
-LIGHT GRAY BRICK
-PAINTED COR-TEN
PANEL
-ANODIZED ALUM.
-DARK BRICK
-STANDING SEAM
METAL PANEL
-ANODIZED ALUM.
- LIGHT GRAY BRICK
PARKING RAMP
EXPRESSIVE
-BRIGHT METAL
SCREEN
-VEGETATION
-LOCAL HISTORY
GRAPHIC
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment
Page 23
18
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Page 24
19
OVERALL EAST ELEVATION (ALONG BELTLINE BLVD.)
OVERALL SOUTH ELEVATION (ALONG BACKAGE ROAD)
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Page 25
20
OVERALL NORTH ELEVATION (ALONG HIGHWAY)
OVERALL WEST ELEVATION (ALONG MONTEREY AVE.)
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Page 26
21
VIEW ALONG BELTLINE VIEW AT SOUTHWEST CORNER
VIEW ALONG LIGHT RAIL VIEW FROM COURTYARD
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Page 27
22
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: Update on Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Page 28
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: November 8, 2021
Written report: 7
Executive summary
Title: Sustainability Division update for Q4 2021
Recommended action: No action is required at this time.
Policy consideration: None at this time. Please inform staff of any questions you might have.
Summary: A quarterly update to provide council with a high-level overview of the projects and
programs that the division has completed, is currently working on, and is planning.
•Solar Sundown
o Currently 125% toward 1 MW goal (42 residential and 5 commercial) assuming
all projects proceed
•Climate Champions for business
o Eighteen businesses registered for assessments, four applied for cost share
•Building Operations Champions
o Launched new cost share program to fund workforce training and certification in
efficient building operations for maintenance personnel
•Green Building Policy (in collaboration with Community Development)
o Completing draft of suggested amendment for council consideration
•Grant funding
o Submitted two applications to CERTs seed grant program
•Climate equity (in collaboration with Racial Equity, Information Resources)
o Developing new climate equity tool for mapping and overlaying census tract-
level climate and equity data
•Efficient Building Benchmarking ordinance
o Hosting “How to use benchmarking data to improve building efficiency” post-
data collection workshop with property owners
•Energy assistance for income-qualified customers
o Meeting with partners to discuss recommended changes to energy assistance
•Climate tracking
o Working with LHB, Inc. on greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis,
updating internal tracking tool
•Program development
o Researching and scoping potential climate action programs for 2022 launch
Financial or budget considerations: None
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental
stewardship.
Supporting documents: None
Prepared by: Emily Ziring, sustainability manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, director of building and energy
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: November 8, 2021
Written report: 8
Executive summary
Title: Parking ordinance update
Recommended action: None at this time. Send staff questions or provide input on the
proposed changes to parking requirements in the zoning ordinance.
Policy consideration: Does council support the proposed changes to parking requirements in
the zoning ordinance?
Summary: Section 36-361 regulates off-street parking, paved areas and loading spaces. The
purpose of the parking requirements, as stated in the code, is to prevent congestion on public
rights-of-way for the safety and welfare of the public. The regulations are created through
analysis of the associated land use intensity, duration, time and style and result in design
requirements and standards for such facilities.
The purpose of this set of amendments is to recalibrate the city’s minimum parking
requirements for certain uses. Essentially, we are reviewing areas where we can reduce parking
requirements to support efficient, sustainable, and affordable growth. Parking is expensive and
has many indirect costs. These regulations can help reduce costs for housing and business,
reduce environmental impacts and make better use of land. It is one component of
implementing the goals expressed in the St. Louis Park 2040 comprehensive plan, including
climate action, inclusionary housing, race equity, livability, health, and mobility.
Planning commissioners have reviewed the proposed changes at their study sessions and will
hold a public hearing on the ordinance on Nov. 3, 2021. City council is tentatively scheduled to
hold a first reading of the ordinance on Nov. 15, 2021.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Title: Parking ordinance update
Discussion
Present considerations: Staff drafted revisions to several sections of the zoning code:
1.Reducing parking minimums slightly for multi-family residential parking requirements.
2.Reducing parking requirements for all uses on properties near regular transit service.
3.Reducing parking requirements for outdoor seating.
4.Adding restaurant classifications to better define parking demand and requirements.
5.Amending electric vehicle supply equipment requirements to focus on level 2 charging.
6.Revising other miscellaneous provisions.
Multi-family residential parking. Several recent residential developments have sought parking
reductions through planned unit development (PUD) requests. Three- and four-bedroom units
typically rent to families, rather than adult roommates who may potentially each own a vehicle.
Staff and planning commission have recommended, and city council has approved, reductions
to the parking requirements for three- and four-bedroom units in several recent developments,
from three or four spaces down to two spaces.
Staff recommend the following changes to parking requirements for multi-family residential
uses throughout the city:
Zoning requirements Number of stalls per bedroom
Current zoning Revised minimum
Studio 1 1
One-bedroom 1 1
Two-bedroom 2 1.5
Three-bedroom 3 2
Four-bedroom 4 2
An additional 5% of the required parking shall be provided for guest parking.
Transit parking reductions. The code currently allows parking reductions based on proximity to
a transit stop with regular transit service; however, parking requirements have not yet been
updated for developments occurring within the influence area of light rail transit (LRT) stations
and high frequency bus service. The proximity of high frequency transit will result in lower
parking demands than in other areas of the city. This is true for good bus service and it is even
more impactful on fixed transit lines such as LRT. The city has granted parking reductions to
approved projects near future LRT stations through the PUD process.
Additionally, the city has several supporting goals and policies regarding LRT areas, parking and
vehicular use that further contribute to reduced parking and single occupancy vehicle use. The
city promotes walkability around the stations that allows for car-free living and access via
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. There are significant positive environmental impacts to
reducing the number of vehicles in our city. Reducing the number of required parking stalls,
both in LRT station areas and elsewhere in the city, will lower development costs for projects
and could result in lower rents. Also, limiting parking incentivizes other modes of mobility.
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Title: Parking ordinance update
Staff recommend the following parking minimums for areas served by transit:
Transit deductions
LRT station area
Within ¼ mile of station 30% parking reduction
Within ½ mile of station 20% parking reduction
High frequency bus service 15% parking reduction
Regular bus service 10% parking reduction*
*This parking reduction is unchanged.
Outdoor seating. Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages is permitted as an
accessory use in most zoning districts with certain conditions. This extra outdoor seating space
is excluded from parking requirements when the outdoor seating area does not exceed 500
square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the principal use, whichever is less. When
the outdoor seating exceeds those thresholds, the code requires parking for the expanded area
at the same rate as the principal use for that portion of outdoor seating area.
Loosening this restriction could allow restaurants and other uses more flexibility to provide or
expand outdoor seating areas. Staff’s observation has been that although the seating capacity
of a use technically increases when outdoor seating is added, the actual seating demand does
not change very much. Rather, the demand usually shifts between indoor and outdoor seating
based on the weather conditions. Therefore, staff recommends increasing the threshold of
additional parking for outdoor seating accessory uses to 25% of the gross floor area of the
principal use. In the case of food service, restaurants, taprooms, and cocktail rooms staff
propose allowing them to provide as many seats outdoors as they have indoors, or the same
area outdoors as they have indoors devoted to the use, whichever is less, without adding to the
required parking. (This change does not allow required parking or required landscaping to be
converted to outdoor seating. Those standards must still be met.)
Restaurant parking. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum of one space per 60 square feet
floor area for all restaurants in the city. This parking requirement assumes a sit-down, low-
turnover establishment even though it includes many other types of restaurants with different
parking demands. The current code does not differentiate between different types of
restaurants. Some types of casual food establishments have more turnover and lower parking
needs than more formal restaurants.
Based on analysis from the latest Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual
and an examination of restaurant parking requirements in other cities, staff recommend the
creation of subcategories of restaurants with the following parking minimums:
Parking minimums for restaurant uses
Restaurants, sit-down One space per each 60 square feet floor area
Restaurants, fast food One space per each 100 square feet floor area
Taproom or microdistillery
cocktail room
One space per each 100 square feet floor area
Coffee shop * One space per each 200 square feet floor area
Food service/bakery * One space per each 25 square feet customer floor area
*parking requirement unchanged
Study session meeting of November 8, 2021 (Item No. 8) Page 4
Title: Parking ordinance update
Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). The intent of Section 36-361(e) is to facilitate and
encourage the use of electric vehicles, to expedite the establishment of convenient, cost
effective electric vehicle infrastructure, and establish minimum requirements for such
infrastructure to serve both short and long-term parking needs.
City council approved a zoning ordinance amendment requiring EVSE in new and reconstructed
parking structures on January 22, 2019, and the ordinance went into effect on February 15,
2019. Since then, staff have sought feedback from property owners, developers, and electric
vehicle users to monitor implementation of the EVSE requirements and determine if revisions
are necessary. Staff have also researched industry best practices and EVSE requirements
adopted in other municipalities since council approved this ordinance. This research has led to
the following recommendations:
• Increase the number of Level 2 stations required, as Level 1 stations do not generally
provide rapid enough charging for practical use especially as electric vehicle battery
capacity has increased, and the cost for Level 2 stations has decreased.
• Increase the number of stations required for residential and non-residential land uses.
Charging station availability is a major factor for consumers in purchasing and using
electric vehicles.
• Increase the number of parking spaces that must be served by conduit for future EV
stations from 10% of required parking to 50%.
Miscellaneous revisions. Along with the larger revisions described above, staff would like to
take this opportunity to clean up some language inconsistencies and other minor revisions in
the zoning code.
• Clarify language regarding which staff position interprets and administers the zoning
code.
• Update elderly housing, coffee shop, and restaurant land use descriptions.
• Add language allowing revisions to parking requirements granted by city council as part
of applications for conditional use permits or planned unit developments.
• Clarify language regarding shared parking requirements.
Next steps: Planning commission held a public hearing on the zoning ordinance amendment on
November 3, 2021. A summary of that meeting and the commission’s recommendation will be
included in the staff report when city council holds a first reading of the ordinance amending
the zoning code on November 15, 2021.